That would be an interesting camera test. Same scenes, same crew - but just document what they have to do different to get the same result.
GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout
- Thread starter DBP
- Start date
That would be an interesting camera test. Same scenes, same crew - but just document what they have to do different to get the same result.
Wolfenbarg
Member
I like most of your post, but I don't think this is quite accurate. This is the idea that we started getting into our heads when we saw that digital large sensor cameras could compete with film combined with their great low light ability. However, because most of their detail is crammed into a much smaller range, they tend to be harder to light and much more intense with the post work. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say, and you're going to have to make up for that cost somewhere until these low cost cameras get a little better. That's another major point behind this test, in fact. The Alexa crew talked about how they barely had to relight despite this being a very high dynamic range scene, while the GH2 guys wanted to boost the fill up far beyond what anyone else was to essentially lower the dynamic range and keep their image intact.
These cheaper cameras are awesome (I'm still using a GH1), but you have to put in a ton of work if you want an image that looks just as good as a professional cinema camera.
Trucci
Well-known member
Actually I prefer the small form factor of the GH2 over the bigger cameras. You can always add weight and size to a camera, but you can't reduce it. Usability can be helped with a cleverly built rig. I do wish the dynamic range and rolling shutter were a little better, but it's pretty good as it is.
It's also nice that it costs 100 times less than some of the other cameras. The GH2 + kit lens costs as much as it cost to repair the LCD of my DVX back in the old days. Since it's so cheap, you can spend the money you save on what's really important - what goes in front of the camera. You can also easily buy a backup in case your primary one fails on set.
Tests like the one in this topic is usually determined by the number of parameters given, by just adding or removing a parameter would change the outcome completely. Had Zaccuto added the parameter ("after the shootout take the camera you like most home with you") to the operaters, may be there would be a no contest at all.
...Every camera has it's own set of issues. Shoot enough with the GH2 and you get to know how it functions, and how to get the best out of it. I'm very happy with the results I get from it, but moving up to a better camera is a huge financial jump. ( from under $1,000 to over $10,000 to see a big difference )
I felt like this when I first started shooting with it, but now with over a year of hacked GH2 experience behind me, I am pretty comfortable with it.
Yes, I would prefer to shoot with a Sony F3 or Canon C-300 if I could afford one, but I don't feel the GH2 is holding me back.
Plenty of truth there.
Owning both a GH2 and AF100, the AF100 typically gets the call as A-cam, simply because it's easier to deal with (even though the GH2 can produce a somewhat better 24p image). On the other hand, that GH2 comes out first for lots of crash cam, rigged shots, and "incognito" shooting for which its small size is preferrable.
I somewhat agree that the FS100 can have a marginally better picture than the AF100, but after working with FS100 I just hated almost every ergonomic decision in its design.
EPIC footage is grand, but the logistical trail necessary to operate one is a complete turn-off. Same for Scarlet.
While for my shooting a C300 would be ideal, I'm not going to go broke to satisfy that ideal. Apparently nobody "has" to any more, it seems we're mostly paying for convenience more than features and quality.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed 1,000%.
The GH2's size and stealth definitely come in handy at times. Plus, if I wanna just capture a few clips, it's to carry such a small thing around. The image quality to size ratio can't be beat.
Definitely not a replacement for a proper video camera though. I've learned that much. Still dig out the ol' HMC150 all the time.
I suspect I'll be using a combo of ENG style camera + small DSLR for a long time to come.
Definitely not a replacement for a proper video camera though. I've learned that much. Still dig out the ol' HMC150 all the time.
I suspect I'll be using a combo of ENG style camera + small DSLR for a long time to come.
stefancolson
Well-known member
I keep hearing this repeated, that the cheaper cams need more light to compete. This is patently false. The GH2 crew had to bring in tons of lights because they were locked into the initial setup. They could add lights, but not take them away, thus requiring tons of fill to deal with the high output fixtures already in place. You don't need more light for the GH2, you just need less contrast. Work smarter, not harder! Start thinking about lower power keys and a lower volume of light in general and things get dramatically easier. Exteriors can be problematic, but that's what silks and bounce are for. These are new tools that require a new way of thinking and working. The principles are the same as they've always been, but the specifics of the way we go about it is rapidly changing.
...And speaking as a GH2 shooter, I think the GH2 crew did a terrible job with the re-light and produced a horrible over-lit image. This is why I absolutely hated the GH2 footage, especially when you see the image the GH2 produces BEFORE the re-light. ( you will see this in August when Part 3 of the shootout hits the web )
Yes, controlling subject contrast through lighting, lens filtration, and post production grading enables the GH2 to produce an extremely good image.
I must be the only person on earth who actually prefers to shoot with a DSLR. I can't even count how many times I would have missed something cool trying to setup a regular camera properly. Like yesterday, I went for a hike and shot every single little thing that caught my eye going on really steep uphill climb. I brought my tripod with me, and had my whole setup slung over my shoulder ready to go at a moments notice.
From tripod folded up over shoulder, to filming in focus with proper ND level, takes me about 7 seconds. I'm extremely fast with the GH2 and wouldn't go for a regular camera like the AF100 or FS100 even if it were cheaper than a GH2. Call me crazy...
From tripod folded up over shoulder, to filming in focus with proper ND level, takes me about 7 seconds. I'm extremely fast with the GH2 and wouldn't go for a regular camera like the AF100 or FS100 even if it were cheaper than a GH2. Call me crazy...
John Caballero
Veteran
You are not alone my friend, you are not alone... I love shooting with the GH2, it is an amazing tiny pro camera. The image is just superb and to me that is the only thing that counts. If you put your heart into it, it will love you back!
Thank you Barry, so true. Everything boils to content. I know some will argue but they are wrong. If the story blows, it doesn't matter how good it looks, how good it sounds. The movie blows. How much more clear can that be. A particular camera is not going to make that movie blow less. Now if the movie is good and a great team is behind the camera it will look good. As in my previous example: if we gave Janusz a MK111, T2i or GH2, and as a collaborator as he is, he finds an amazing DIT who knows the cameras strengths and weaknesses and a gaffer who can help him light for it. We all know it's going to be amazing. That's what I hope the takeaway from the shootout is. Not that one camera looks better then another but that they can all look good if treated properly. You need to wait till ep. 3 so that you can see how the cameras really look when we made no adjustments and ran them all through the same lighting and then you will get a comparison to creative and then you will get the full picture of how it's easier to get there with the high end cameras but if the you can't afford them, work with what you have and become creative. I will give you a piece of advice from my 30 year carrier: You tend to be more creative when your gear is weaker and you are short on time.
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 is quite an insight...
Wait a minute. You got a few things wrong. The first shootout never said DSLR's look as good as film. Just the opposite. I always said that film looked better we just used it as a benchmark for comparison. People on the web have made the conclusion that DSLR's looked as good as film. Now about this business, that I'm trying to prove that a GH2 looks as good as an Alexa. I'm not trying to prove that or anything. I'm making a documentary about Bruce's test. Plus intermixing it with the counterpoint from great cinematographers to hear what's important to them. None of them really ever talked about cameras or tech. Almost all of the dialogue and I have a hundred hours of interview footage was about ideas, not tech. They know that's not what makes them great cinematographer.
I brought in 9 cinematographers who were masters of their cameras and had them do what they had to to make this difficult scene look the best they could. Then Bruce did empirical tests himself that we will see in ep. 3 which totally show that the higher end cameras have better latitude and resolution. But that has nothing to do with the outcome of the creative test. Of course Alexa/RED/F65 are all claiming the creative challenge is crap because they are not seeing huge differences between their cameras in a 2K screening. I can't help that. In 2012, that is the defacto standards and our post workflow was perfect. All done in one pass, no digital generations. We opted to cancel 25 screenings at NAB because we felt we were not ready and made some mistakes with not trying to color correct and scale in one pass.
Why don't you go on record with your 4 favorites in the creative test? You may be surprised?
He's right content will and always will be king. No one is going to watch a movie and say the movie sucked but boy it looked great. The overall takeaway is the movie sucks.
The name of the program is REVENGE of the great camera shootout. The Revenge part being that maybe the shootout is not the most critical part of the story. We are finally on topic!!! Talking about what matters most story and talent. My film is about what is said in the first line. A cinematographer is... the counterpoint is does the tool he uses really make a difference in the right hands. Sure there may be differences but are they SO great that it will supersede great story, talent, direction, acting... Got to watch ep. 2/3, I don't want to have to spoil it but their is a method to my madness and all will be answered if we watch all three parts. It will make more and more sense if you see it in it's entirety.
There are so many factors that relate to a movies success
1. story
2. timing - are there other films that are taking audience away
3. marketing - was it marketed to the right audience
4. advertising - how much money was put into advertising
5. stars - if Natalie Portman and Mr. Gosling were in Like Crazy the picture it would have been a huge hit. People go to movies to see stars. sometimes they'll go based on the director. I know it pains us all to hear but stars are necessary to have a film succeed. Is it possible without stars, on rare occasions yes, but for the most part no.
6. genre
7. how it's reviewed
8. so many more factors to list here. It's not so simple, if it were, every movie would be a hit.
There's a lot of discussion of story and content, and in regards to the Zacuto shootout, I think that's missing the point. As a cinematographer, my interest in the The zacuto shootout is to see how cameras fare in a certain setup. If you wanna discuss scripts, acting etcetera, I'm sure there's other areas in the forum for that. For me, the shootout is about cameras.
As a cinematographer, I had no control over the story and content. In the my last shoot (a short) my job was to light the set, frame and focus the camera, and do that well.
I had no idea whether story was any good or not, as I was only privy to the script on the day of the shoot. I suspect they are stinkers... but hopefully the images will be beyond crititism.
There's nothing like working with great gear that delivers... just seeing good resolution images on the screen is so satisfying to me. Sure we can work with crappy equipment and make the images look good.... but why?
My Canon t2i was ok.... but my Gh2 was so much better.
Thank you for the shootout, Mr. Zacuto.
As a cinematographer, I had no control over the story and content. In the my last shoot (a short) my job was to light the set, frame and focus the camera, and do that well.
I had no idea whether story was any good or not, as I was only privy to the script on the day of the shoot. I suspect they are stinkers... but hopefully the images will be beyond crititism.
There's nothing like working with great gear that delivers... just seeing good resolution images on the screen is so satisfying to me. Sure we can work with crappy equipment and make the images look good.... but why?
My Canon t2i was ok.... but my Gh2 was so much better.
Thank you for the shootout, Mr. Zacuto.