GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

[Gary Huff]

The cameras are good enough. So pick one and move on.

Agreed. The camera is the lowest sticking-point when it comes to a good looking film. There are a variety of fine choices available at an insane number of price points.

Here's the harsh, sad truth -- most people who want to make films, will never make anything worth watching. They either don't know what that stuff means, or they have nothing useful or valid to say (that anyone wants to hear). Or they have the drive, but they don't have the talent. Or they simply can't be bothered to take the years it takes to learn how to be a good storyteller. There are many reasons why the failure rate is so high. So you're asking a nebulous question. And I think you're unnecessarily complicating the matter by getting way too pedantic about it. Just like with the camera discussion.

But even in your example, you talk about failure due to having nothing useful or valid to say or not a good storyteller, ect. It's already been established that "failure" on a content level is purely subjective. I don't think Dan Brown tells a very good story, yet his books sold tremendously well. Someone might think Joss Whedon has nothing useful or valid to say, and yet he just helmed one of the most successful comic book movies ever. The Room and Birdemic are arguably terrible amateur films that, when taken critically, having nothing useful or valid to say, and are not presented by a good storyteller, and yet they have their audience. It's all completely contradictory and thus useless as a guide. All I can tell you is that I don't want any film I make that looks like The Room or Birdemic, regardless of whether or not I'd still get an audience. I am not personally fulfilled by that.

So here's what counts and here's what doesn't: make an experience that entertains people, and you've succeeded. Obsess about cameras or in any way think that shooting on one camera will give you some advantage over shooting on some other equally-capable camera, and you will have failed before you even started.

I do not disagree with this at all. But you can't just ignore the camera. In film, picking stocks was just as crucial to the pre-production process as anything else. In digital, we don't have stocks, we have cameras, and a careful selection of your tools to achieve the effect of your film is necessary.

And while this conversation goes around and around in circles, it just points out once again that if people quit wasting all their time pixel-peeping, they'd actually have more time and brainpower to devote to those thornier subjects such as "what would make for an interesting story and an entertaining experience?" Of course, maybe that's why people obsess about the pixels, so they don't HAVE to face those questions and those subjects...

But they can only answer that question for themselves. If this thread has shown anything, it's that taste varies wildly and "good" content is entirely subjective.

 

[Jester2138]

I'm not against good content. I just think "content is king" doesn't inherently tell us anything useful.

Well, I certainly think it does.

It's like this -- the ability to type does not make someone a writer. Typing is not writing...

I think Barry is using "content" too losely - it basically can mean anything and everything except the actual equipment. So I agree with Gary that "content is King" doesn't actually say anything useful. It's basically like saying "Being good is King."

It's a platitude that means nothing ultimately... What does "content is king" mean explicitly when whether the content itself is good or bad cannot be said with certainty?

Precisely!

Yes, and that is an integral part of success in the stock market. But if we had endless discussions about stocks, relative pricing, technical factors, intraday pricing, up-to-the-minute price comparisons, arguing about e*trade vs. ScotTrade, endless debate about whether Fidelity or Wellstrade had better customer service, and on and on and on and on...

... and NOBODY bought low or sold high, because they were too busy prattling on about whether the online interface of Merrill Lynch was not as good as the online interface of TD Ameritrade...

Then where would we be?

We would have become highly educated on the tools for stock trading, of course. Obviously stock trading is worthless unless you trade stock well, but defining how to trade stock well is so subjective and complicated it's essentially pointless to even try. However, discussing the tools is easy and gives immediate rewards. Being mature enough to recognize the difference between being a good stock trader and having the best tools is up to the individual.

So here's what counts and here's what doesn't: make an experience that entertains people, and you've succeeded.

No way!

And while this conversation goes around and around in circles, it just points out once again that if people quit wasting all their time pixel-peeping, they'd actually have more time and brainpower to devote to those thornier subjects such as "what would make for an interesting story and an entertaining experience?" Of course, maybe that's why people obsess about the pixels, so they don't HAVE to face those questions and those subjects...

We obsess about pixels and such on this site because pixels are not subjective. We can all agree on what camera has better dynamic range or higher resolution. It's straightforward.

But have a discussion on which is a better movie, "A" or "B," and we'll get nowhere. Some people will like some things and others will like other things. Fact of life.

That's why we pixel peep on internet boards where we don't know each other. It's the most useful thing we can do here.

 

[Jester2138]

But they can only answer that question for themselves. If this thread has shown anything, it's that taste varies wildly and "good" content is entirely subjective.

+100,000

 

[Barry_Green]

We obsess about pixels and such on this site because pixels are not subjective. We can all agree on what camera has better dynamic range or higher resolution. It's straightforward.

Ah, I wish it was, but sadly it is not so. Look at the frenzy that surrounded the 5D Mark III OLPF removal. As soon as someone posted charts I could tell immediately that it was complete bollocks, but even that didn't stop people from claiming that it was some miracle snake-oil improvement, even though the evidence was right there in front of our faces. I think it was only when Andrew actually PAID someone to RE-INSTALL the filter, that people finally let that one go.


People will see what they want to see, they'll read into something what they want to hear. It SHOULD be about the simple objective evaluation, but it rarely is.

In fact, this is kind of an amazingly delightful turn of events for me. Three years ago the entire world was on fire for DSLRs, and I said (paraphrased) "yeesh, that image looks awful, it's aliased to hell and it's low resolution and it has color fringing all over it." And I was hated and told I was crazy, people pointed out endless "shootouts" with a Red that showed a 5D or a 7D looking just as good as a Red, people came away from the first Zacuto shootout saying "all those cinematographers say that the DSLR looks just as good as 35mm film!!!"

And I still said it looked like hell. That sometimes it looked good, but all too often it fell apart. And I said I would never trust shooting a paid professional production to one.

Okay, now fast forward three years later -- how many people in this thread have said "well, they all look good, EXCEPT the 7D. You can spot it a mile away, look at all the aliasing all over it."

Would it be too cheeky to glaringly say "I told you so" at this point?

So, ideally, it would be all factual, but the fact of the matter is, people WANT to BELEIVE so bad, so hard, they are willing to suspend good judgement and throw decades of experience out the window because they hope hope hope there's a 200mpg carburetor, and they hope hope hope that a $699 DSLR can outperform a $100,000 professional cine camera. And so even when the facts are blatantly exposed, they'll still argue and fight -- until they've disconnected their emotional attachment. As soon as people moved over to an AF100 or FS100 or F3, all of a sudden everyone can now acknowledge what was painfully obvious three or four years ago -- the core image of the DSLRs just isn't very good. At least, the core image of those DSLRs (5D/7D) wasn't very good. And it's not like something's magically changed here four years later, it NEVER was all that good.

Near as I can tell, it's just that for many folks, they didn't want to believe that.

Emotion colors and distorts the reality field all the time. And then there's other things that confuse it -- such as the very basis of this thread! I absolutely guarantee you, without the slightest HINT of hesitation, that an Alexa will blow the doors off a GH2 in any comparison. Yet here, in the Zacuto "shootout", they tried to do the reverse, they tried to scale it such that the GH2 looks just as good as the Alexa.

So what conclusion do people come away with? Well, depends on which side of the fence you're on and what you wanted to hear. Those who bought a $699 stills camera are hearing "the GH2 is indistinguishable from the Alexa!!!" And the Alexa/Red/F65 guys are hearing that "this shootout is total #@^$#&^@*!"

That's why we pixel peep on internet boards where we don't know each other. It's the most useful thing we can do here.

That is quite an insight...

 

[Jester2138]

Ah, I wish it was, but sadly it is not so... It SHOULD be about the simple objective evaluation, but it rarely is.

Everything is relative. I still believe that we can agree on which camera is sharper much more easily and diplomatically than we can agree on the merits of any given film. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we can't really agree on resolution is just an indication that there's no way in H*ll that we could even begin to have a real discussion on artistic merits.

Besides, the discussion on a film would always come down to:

"Well I think this."
"But I think that."
"Oh well, we disagree then."

Whereas there's some hope that we can actually objectively show which camera is sharper.

 

[LbSand]

No sleep leads to rambling responses, apologies in advance.

Creating outputs that people like follows the law of - Simple, but not easy. It is a simple concept, identify a target, determine what interests them, make something that fits.

I think the first thing you would need to do is define the goal of the project and the second would be to keep the goal, the goal. So if you wanted to create a tour de force on cinematography through the subject of paint drying, that is a specific goal one could achieve. If your goal was to make low budget film that enough people would buy to make a profit, that is a specific goal one could achieve. Those goals probably don't jive.

If my goal was to write a book that 13 year old socially awkward girls would enjoy, I would write the first twlight book (I listened to the audio book while driving across the country. I wanted to know why my niece wouldn't shut up. The first book was mildly entertaining, the second caused short term deafness, to me.). It wasn't a literary masterpiece, it didn't revolutionize writing, it told a story the demographic found entertaining at an acceptable level of quality. There are readers who value the style of the writing as much or more than the story. The way one actually tells the story is another method - first person, third person, etc. All of these add up to equal the value of the content. Each one of those will matter in different amounts to different people. All a story has to do is cross an individuals minimum thresholds on the related categories or be so strong in one area that you forgive the others. See Avatar, which most people found so visually stimulating that they forgive the poor re-telling of Ferngully.

So saying content is king --- is saying that for a lot of people, a good story told well is worth more than the visuals in isolation or sound etc. Those have to get to an acceptable level, but that is lower the better the story, savvy? I think it is like figure skating - aren't some of the scoring categories worth more than others to get the final score? Your film just needs to cross the "were you not entertained?" barrier. Good story is easier to acquire (financially) than a 100k camera. Good enough in all areas should probably be the mantra or better is the enemy of done. Does using an Alexa drastically improve the entertainment quality of an experience over a GH2? For an action film or a sci-fi epic, probably. For a rom-com probably not. Pareto's law, Occam's razor, minimum effective dose, and all that.

Advertising in all its forms (traditional, word of mouth, name recognition of actors / directors etc.) is important for FINANCIAL success of any business venture. If you don't know about it, you won't buy it. All advertising has to do is reach the target audience and convince them that it surpasses their "were you not entertained barrier?" long enough for you to spend the cash. That barrier is quite low for general audiences and horror films, so negative word of mouth wont't hurt it very much. That barrier is quite high for sci-fi so negative word of mouth will hurt it. The audience pool for the former is larger than the latter as well.

Other tenant of advertising - I don't have to convince most people to like something, I just have to convince them that everyone else likes it.

 

[LbSand]

Oh and I think you could create an amazing film about paint drying. Just tell the story of a door that gets painted over and over again as generations pass. Like Forest Gump, but oakier. Put it in a war torn part of the world and show the passing of time in front of it. Or something. We could film the same door, with the same camera, and I think my movie will be better because I told a better story. I added enough points with my triple-axle of drama to pass the barrier.

 

[jideobi]

I agree 100% with Gary Huff

 

[John Caballero]

Is that not the most amazing waste of time you've ever seen?

The cameras are good enough. So pick one and move on.

Yes!!!! My thoughts exactly.

BTW: I think Gary should go ahead and do a 2 hour movie of paint drying! That way he would be able to shoot a very compelling story without having to pay any actors or crew. Giving him the chance to do a full length movie project without spending much money. It would be kind of that Yule Log footage on television in Christmas time. Exactly 2 hours also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule_Log_(TV_program)

 

[KyleProhaska]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but even if they told everyone which camera was which at the outset...there would still be lots of arguing going on about which is better. It would maybe help things a little to know ahead of time, but otherwise it doesn't remove the problem and the problem is people. It's the internet, it's about it being easy to read some comment from someone you don't know about whether it be age or skill level or experience, and respond to them with your own opinion, often misinformed since you're getting all your info from other posts or websites and not from getting down and dirty with each piece of equipment yourself. Everybody will argue until the end of time about gear or cameras and what is better then another. I like discussing it, but every time I catch myself doing it too much, I'm reminded some friends of mine were out shooting today, what the heck was I doing? That's not to say those arguing might not be busy either, just saying for me personally, these things get tiring quickly.

I like what the "test" is trying to convey this year so far and I can tell for some it's been helpful. That's probably good enough for Steve and the Zacuto team

 

[jdv]

I've been an indie film producer since the early 90's - and when I say film, I mean film. Mostly 16mm, some 35. As soon as I saw THE LAST BROADCAST (shot primarily on a Sony DCR-VX1000), and then the film inspired by it, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (high 8mm video, a bit of 16mm), I sold all my Arri's and bought a Canon XL1.

I did that because of three reasons - I hated the expense and pain in the ass aspects of shooting film, I liked the way those 2 aforementioned films looked, and I liked both those films. In fact, I think BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is not only one of the scariest films ever made, it's one of the most revolutionary.

In other words, the technical limitations of the cameras used (and no one today would dream of shooting something with a VX1000 or high 8 camera) didn't prevent the those films from being a success. Now BLAIR WITCH went on to make $240 million plus - money that wasn't all made on the first weekend (which is what ads can deliver, the first weekend). Meaning someone dug it.

But you know what? I don't care if it made 2 cents or if it's fashionable to hate it now - I loved it then and I still love it. Most importantly it convinced me that video cameras were good enough to make a "real" movie, particularly if the story fit the camera. 15 years ago people would literally laughed you out of the room if you said you were going to shoot a motion picture with a video camera. Now, film is all but dead - a revolution that Francis Coppola and his "Dream of a fat girl in Ohio" having the tools to make something wonderful probably appreciates.

Evey producer/director/DP want the best camera they can afford - that's human nature. What Zacuto has shown, to my mind any way, is that with a nudge (IE - a hack) and maybe a few more lights, a dedicated film maker can turn out something entirely professional with a camera you can buy at Sears. And given the rise of the internet along with the rise of cheap(ish) video cameras & computer editing systems, it's very nearly a perfect storm of tech.

Of course there is a downside to Coppola's dream - an avalanche of crap and kittens playing with yarn. So be it. The audience is always right. If "Chocolate Rain" or "Mega-shark vs Octopus" is what people want, that's what they want. The audience decides whether or not the content we provide is worth a download or not. What's so wonderful about this revolution is that there are some gems being made (like THE RAID) with cameras that cost a 1/100 less to operate then a film camera.

I love those tests, and love the fact that's there no total agreement as to which camera is which.

 

[Gary Huff]

The audience is always right. If "Chocolate Rain" or "Mega-shark vs Octopus" is what people want, that's what they want.

I'm not interested in chasing trends or appealing to the lowest common denominator.

You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.

Replace "customers" with "the audience", and I believe it still stands.

 

[skibovision]

If this has already been posted then I'm sorry but is anyone else thinking that the gh2 is camera D based entirely on the fact that it has the deepest focus of all the shots?

 

[Per Lichtman]

If this has already been posted then I'm sorry but is anyone else thinking that the gh2 is camera D based entirely on the fact that it has the deepest focus of all the shots?

If you are going by that, then D is the iPhone because the sensor is smaller. The sensor size for a compact is smaller than for M43 and the iPhone 4s is slightly smaller than a standard compact. Andrew quoted it as 1/3.2″ at EOSHD.

 

[skibovision]

oh right, sorry I forgot the iphone was in this shootout

 

[Per Lichtman]

@skibovision Don't worry - I doubt the iPhone got offended. It has been making a respectable showing, nonetheless.

 

[Per Lichtman]

What's so wonderful about this revolution is that there are some gems being made (like THE RAID) with cameras that cost a 1/100 less to operate then a film camera.

There is merit to the sentiment, but I think you meant to say "that cost less than 1/100th as much to operate as a film camera" because decreasing costs by 1/100th in this case is not a headliner feature.

 

[jdv]

I'm not interested in chasing trends or appealing to the lowest common denominator.

****, I am.

 

[whistler]

All of this discussion seems to ignore some of the handling and design of these cameras. As far as handling goes, the Alexa and the C300 are great. Easy peasy to figure out immediately, and the results are predictable. The GH2 is a huge pain in the ass to shoot with. It's got a terrible menu, tiny tiny buttons, a crappy mount, brutal rolling shutter, crappy dynamic range and has to be hacked. I love it still, don't get me wrong. But everyone I know that uses one, instantly loves the Alexa. And I really like the Epic with it's onboard 5k, and versatility. I picked up a C300 and was shooting confidently immediately. I guess I'm trying to say that there's more to these cameras than a single setup scene contest. Camera design, menu layout, and usability weigh heavily when camera choices are made. For me, the best camera is the one where you're not thinking about or dealing with the limitations of the camera, but you're getting on with the business of shooting. I've shot a ton with the GH2, and it's shortcomings are always an issue. For what it is, it's fantastic, but it is not a joy to shoot with like some of the other cameras that were tested here.

 

[Russiana007]

If I'm not happier with Alexa than Gh2 then I'm so stupid! More money!