GH2 Hacked GH2 Impressed in the new Zacuto shootout

zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you! finally somebody quoted me with something positive! lmao was getting lonely here, ha, ha. Honestly though. when I approach a project whether it be some silly slow mo of my cat of something more serious my main concerns are exposure and sound. I feel that after you have the idea, script, etc, that those two elements largely control a good or bad result. I'm always amazed at how we unconsciously are affected by good or bad sound. But how can we even make an argument about quality or whatever word you wanna use describing how we rate a film/video without first having something to shoot "content".

Since we used "act of valor", "like crazy", etc as examples.........With those two in particular i didn't really like them as movies, however i had moments where i got lost in the story and where the technology, camera, DR, etc, wasn't even a thought in my head. So if as a filmmaker i wasnt affected by the fact it was a 7d/5dii......just imagine the general public......which in the end are the best judge, because i bet they can't recall what movie was what in terms of picture quality. My fiance for example - who i dragged out to those films - loved those two films. We represent a small percentage of the general public and of course we want the best result possible, but all people want is to be entertained, moved, thrilled. The point is that if you are an aspiring filmmaker and you have 20,000 lying around just for a camera then go out and get yourself a c300, scarlet, f3, whatever. But if you have 700 then get a gh2, t2i....budget no longer cripples you from being able to tell your story and the average movie goer won't be able to tell the difference. They only know if you entertained them or not with your "CONTENT".

But as long as we are making all these debates on cameras, lets get some perspective! The reason it's hard to tell the difference in this shootout or previous shootouts is mainly the 50,000 cine lens being used. I am adamant that you can get comparable results using lower budget lenses like leica r, nikkor ais, contax, etc. But kit lenses have to go. In other words, before you go out and get an fs700 or c300 or whatever don't just budget your camera, budget your camera/lens package as a whole. I would start with a gh2 and see where you are at and if you have enough to bump up to you preferred camera...which leads me to my favorite quote ever!

"invest in lenses, not cameras"
 
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

well, I've said that about "300", "Watchmen" and "Sucker punch". Awful movies, but the visuals look awesome. :P
 
hempo22 said:
well, I've said that about "300", "Watchmen" and "Sucker punch". Awful movies, but the visuals look awesome. :P
Click to expand...

It's very seldom that I give a rats ass about what camera was used to shoot a movie, what camera angles were used for scene X, or if the visual FX took 12 months to render. When I watch a movie either I was entertained or I wasn't, and that's my bottom line!

Speaking of awful movies, there are a number films that I like to call deliciously bad, which I find very entertaining. For example... I have watched DUNE probably 60+ times.
 
'Get out of my mind!!!'

Dune (By Mr Lynch, of course). Love it :)

David - probably seen it as many times as you... I know a lot the dialogue. LOL!
 
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, this is pretty much what half the world is saying about Prometheus. It looks great but It is bad.

People say this all the time about movies.
 
David W. Jones said:
"using the voice" Not until you tell them who I really am... Really ammmm...
Click to expand...

I feel somehow compelled to say..."Alia, daughter of Duke Leto the Just and the Royal Lady Jessica. Sister...of ...Paul Muad'Dib..."

I think I've seen it more times than I read the book. And that's a lot.

And yes, it's bad -- but "...it is the legend"
 
Last edited:
blake2404 said:
Thank you! finally somebody quoted me with something positive! lmao was getting lonely here, ha, ha. Honestly though. when I approach a project whether it be some silly slow mo of my cat of something more serious my main concerns are exposure and sound. I feel that after you have the idea, script, etc, that those two elements largely control a good or bad result. I'm always amazed at how we unconsciously are affected by good or bad sound. But how can we even make an argument about quality or whatever word you wanna use describing how we rate a film/video without first having something to shoot "content".

Since we used "act of valor", "like crazy", etc as examples.........With those two in particular i didn't really like them as movies, however i had moments where i got lost in the story and where the technology, camera, DR, etc, wasn't even a thought in my head. So if as a filmmaker i wasnt affected by the fact it was a 7d/5dii......just imagine the general public......which in the end are the best judge, because i bet they can't recall what movie was what in terms of picture quality. My fiance for example - who i dragged out to those films - loved those two films. We represent a small percentage of the general public and of course we want the best result possible, but all people want is to be entertained, moved, thrilled. The point is that if you are an aspiring filmmaker and you have 20,000 lying around just for a camera then go out and get yourself a c300, scarlet, f3, whatever. But if you have 700 then get a gh2, t2i....budget no longer cripples you from being able to tell your story and the average movie goer won't be able to tell the difference. They only know if you entertained them or not with your "CONTENT".

But as long as we are making all these debates on cameras, lets get some perspective! The reason it's hard to tell the difference in this shootout or previous shootouts is mainly the 50,000 cine lens being used. I am adamant that you can get comparable results using lower budget lenses like leica r, nikkor ais, contax, etc. But kit lenses have to go. In other words, before you go out and get an fs700 or c300 or whatever don't just budget your camera, budget your camera/lens package as a whole. I would start with a gh2 and see where you are at and if you have enough to bump up to you preferred camera...which leads me to my favorite quote ever!

"invest in lenses, not cameras"
Click to expand...
There will be a section is ep.2/3 where we have a very interesting discussion with our DP's about lights, lenses and cameras and order of importance to them
 
Barry_Green said:
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?

Wouldn't it be painfully, pointedly obvious that IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you use WellsTrade or e*trade. It doesn't matter whether you have your account at ScotTrade or Schwab. And it doesn't matter at all whether you place your trade online, or in person, or over the phone. What matters is THAT YOU TRADED.

So this 271 page dissection of a Zacuto test that basically showed that, in the proper hands, ANY of these cameras could do well enough to serve the purpose, has basically been 271 wasted posts. Look at this thread. It's ridiculous -- at least, to me it kind of is, where people are actually extracting frame grabs out of a vimeo (fer cryin' out loud) so they can pixel-peep and compare cameras THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH IS WHICH!!!

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

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


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). 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.

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.

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...
Click to expand...

OMG, your last paragraph is exactly what I was trying to convey in a nice way with ep. 1. When all of the people are talking about talent-is it born or made, then they move to collaboration, which allows you to tap into others talent, then advice on what your next steps should be. Barry gets it. Listen. Just as Janusz, Haskell, Victor and Stephen Goldblatt were telling you in the shootout. Read books, find scriptwriters and stop trying to believe that you are a jack of all trades. I'm not. I couldn't write my way out of a bag and wouldn't try. I have a writer I work with. Do you know there is a writers forum with 30,000 members who would kill to find someone to make their short story for nothing. These are people who have the same passion you have for cinematography (hopefully not cameras) as they do. There are indie music forums who would kill to score a film for free so you don't have to steal music. Crediting the Cure at the end of your video does not give you the rights to use their music. Directors are also looking for great projects to get involved with. Production designers same. Before you know it you have passionate people who all are interested in one part of the production process. Crafts as Bruce Logan referred to them. Then you have a production meeting, break down your shots, pre-pro, shoot. Find an editor so you can actual get a real edit where you remove everything that doesn't pertain to your story. That's to hard to do when you are close to it. Plus, you don't get that other set of eyes as Rodney said in RGCSO. There it is. Just go do it as Mike Koerbel, the iPHone Camera Master said. Sadly, being on this forum is preventing you from doing it. But I must say where this conversation has gone is great. What is involved in creating great content. That should become the name of this forum. I'm not plugging my own website but I have a writing series going on for some time and I think so many of you could get so much out of, check it out and read these articles by Jill Remensnyder a writer I work with: http://www.zacuto.com/writing-series-jill-remensnyder
 
Steve,
Can you please list the names of each camera corresponding to the letter in the videos in episode 1? This will allow everyone to discuss the results before ep 2 and we can compare our reaction to the artists in ep2. This would be also less painful to all of us eagerly awaiting the results and end all the time wasted trying to guess which camera is which.

Thank you for all the beautiful shootouts you have done. I have written a 166 page screenplay and hope to shoot my film this year because this last shootout is encouraging me to finally shoot it.
 
Last edited:
rizibo said:
Steve,
Can you please list the names of each camera corresponding to the letter in the videos in episode 1? This will allow everyone to discuss the results before ep 2 and we can compare our reaction to the artists in ep2. This would be also less painful to all of us eagerly awaiting the results and end all the time wasted trying to guess which camera is which.

Thank you for all the beautiful shootouts you have done. I have written a 166 page screenplay and hope to shoot my film this year because this last shootout is encouraging me to finally shoot it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to do that. Why do you think I put the letters in there in the first place. I've made a program, tons of work has gone into it. A documentary web series is like any other program series. It's a script like you 166 page screenplay. Will you tell me the end of your screenplay before I read it. That would be like watching The Bachelor and asking them to reveal the final couple after you watched episode one, it takes all of the drama out of the program and then nobody needs to watch the show. I want people to go on record with the ones they like. Although, after 34 pages of dialogue in this thread about how the cameras are not the real point of the shootout and here we are right back to start. ALL OF THE CAMERAS LOOK GOOD, OR ARE GOOD ENOUGH IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM. If you are the director, find a DP who has mastered one, if you like his work, you are good to go. If you are trying to be the Director and the DP, I would highly recommend you not doing that, see our collaboration section. It's extremely hard to direct actors from behind a camera.

BTW, I'd have a script doctor take a look at that script of yours. Hollywood does it and you should too. You need to make sure that all of the characters are flushed out with another set of eyes besides yours and that you script arches at the right points, characters transform or have realizations when they should. I'm not putting your script down, I'm trying to help you before you enter an arduous process with potentially a script that is bad. Again, I'm not at all saying your script is bad. I would do it, everyone should do it or they are not collaborating as we all talked about in episode one. If you don't know of someone, Jill who I mentioned above would be great to give it a read.
 
I'm Changing the Channel....

I'm Changing the Channel....

I'm with rizibo.

"This would be also less painful..."

I'm a sheer novice.

But I'm no masochist.

There's no way in the world I could force myself to watch your whole video, Steve.

And can't understand your contention, Steve, that... "Although, after 34 pages of dialogue in this thread about how the cameras are not the real point of the shootout...."

What then, is the point of the shootout?

Other than to sell your gear?

Compare this to forum contributions from guys like Driftwood, say, and Vitaliy.

Or...

Please don't.

No need for you to be a masochist either.

Nope, Steve.

You're the one who needs a script doctor.

And a really ruthless editor.

rbd

N.B.

Let me say this again, Steve.

You've got a viewer who's more than motivated to watch your show.

And he's in pain.

Does this mean anything to you?
 
Steve,
I apologize for asking you to reveal the identities of the cameras. I whole heartedly understand that you are making a work of art and I respect that. The commentary from all the cinematographers in ep 1 is beautiful and thoughtful. I can wait a few weeks to see the rest of your work. I love your work and I was only trying to get the mystery solved quicker. Please forgive me.

You say that keeping the cameras a mystery will make people want to watch ep2 but I don't think that was necessary. You could have given the identity of the cameras like in the previous shootouts and tell the audience that in ep2 you will show how the lighting was done to make the camera videos similar. That is a much more complex and intriguing question that would hook the audience into seeing ep2.

I appreciate your advice.

I will definitely have someone check my script. I read that Woody Allen said that if you have a good script and you directed the film badly then you will still have a good film but if you have a bad script and direct it well then you will still have a bad movie. My screenplay has taken me many years for me to write and I am very happy that it has many three dimensional characters, each with a nice story arch and humor that a good romantic comedy should have. It has very nice physical comedy too, as I am silent comedy movie fan.

I would like to have a professional cinematographer but also a good sound guy. People can tolerate a poor image like in camera D if the story is good but the audience can't tolerate bad sound.

Good actors are also key to making a good film. Orson Welles said that if the acting is bad then there is nothing to see.

The challenge to an independent film maker is to be able to afford all these professionals. If you pay everyone minimum wage it will still cost a lot of money to shoot a 166 page screenplay.

I don't agree with making people work for free in order to make a film. Workers should be paid before the sweat on their forehead dries. I will not exploit anyone by making them work for free even if someone is willing to do it.

One can find a producer or studio to fund the film but the auteur may not be allowed to shoot the script as originally intended because of interference by the producer or studio. There are many examples of this with great directors like Welles, Von Stroheim and countless others.

So the problems with the independent film maker are bigger than just the camera, which is a very small part of the budget. The argument that cameras are good and cheap, so everyone should be making feature length films just doesn't seem realistic for a moral film maker due to the reasons sited above. Jean Renoir once said that when the cost of making a film is as cheap as a pencil and paper then we will have great art. I think the only solution is to work hard on the day job to generate enough money to afford all the professionals and equipment needed to make a good film.

Please don't get me wrong. I love the message of your film that the camera is not important and that all the factors listed above are more important. I am a fan of your shootouts because they are very educational, showing us the potential of the current technology. I am looking forward to seeing more. Take care.
 
Last edited:
rizibo - I like where you're coming from (and I like how derailed this topic is), and as someone who's really a writer first - and one who writes absurdly long drafts at that - I respect the work that goes into any screenplay, but I do have to say that 166 pages for a romantic comedy sounds like a little much. Do you write a lot of prose description in there? Some great writers do (Tarantino for an obvious example), but it's not really the meat and potatoes, and could scare some folks away. I think the minute per page maxim and, really, ANY rule is basically BS, so please take EVERYTHING I say with grains of salt, but the most beloved romantic comedies are, like, 90 minutes, especially no budget ones. You talk about finding a producer like you can just do it, and I don't know your connections, but I'm guessing you won't have to worry about your film going the way of Greed or Magnificent Ambersons. So, what DOES balloon the cost of movies, preventing them from reaching their full potential (and as usual, Renoir is right)? Well, you know what it is, and it's great that you have a moral center (it's really great, honestly) and maybe your day job rocks and you can pay to shoot a 166 page movie paying everyone full wages out of your pocket. But, guess what, a lot of talented people HATE their day job. They work hard at something they don't care about, whether it's an office job, washing dishes, or an acting gig or photography gig with no soul, get paid probably not enough, and THAT is where they're being exploited. Money and morality are not the same and there's NO equality. They get nothing from it and would really get off on helping you make your film, as long you're really collaborating with them, if they can express themselves and be a part of it. They WANT TO WORK HARD on a piece of art, not for money, but because at a certain point they can't not do it anymore. I'm not saying lie to them and say they'll get all this money on the back end when we've killed at Sundance. Be honest with them and yourself about why you want to do it. Some will say no thanks and go back to doing crappy work where they get a few bucks, and everyone needs to get that somewhere. I'm not a 'professional'. Can't do it. I have no interest in the movie business. Hate it. I work crappy jobs and save what I can so I can spend all that on gear and financing my own stuff so some day I can set aside the time to have a vacation where I work harder than ever before, with no delusions about monetary returns, but because I love cinema more than almost anything, and for no other reason. I'll do everything I can to get it out there. (slight aside, I will always always always trade money for more time. Kubrick knew what was up. Malick knows what's up. This test shows what's up. Have the time? You can make it look great. Have the time? Get those performances right. Have the time? You can re-shoot that scene that wasn't so well written after all (research what happened the first week on "There Will Be Blood" if you haven't). The MODEL needs to change) If I can finish my first feature, I'll show it for free for anyone that wants to give me a couple hours of their precious time when they have so many other options. I'll set up my own HD projector wherever they want it. Coffee shop willing to play it? Great. Regional festival? Great. Anything that isn't the crap internet. Would I do that for every film? No. But on this one, no question. Trying to make your film the WAY the people you cited made theirs is where the problems of the independent filmmaker come into play, and working around it all while maintaining quality and getting the results you want is nearly impossible, I have no answers and there's enough threads and coffee shop discussions on this already. But it's worth figuring out. It totally is. Think about Welles again. When the fit hit the shan and all was going wrong, did he throw in the towel? No, he threw out the model. Orson was MAKING MOVIES until his dying days, piecing them together, just working because it was in his blood and he loved it. He could never even afford to finish them, but that had become almost secondary. (and note the people with money saying what a genius he was and what a shame his film was taken away, they sure never bothered to help him out with a check that wouldn't affect them in the least - accept that you're pretty much alone in "that world", as nice as they look on Oscar night patting each other on the back) So basically I felt like typing....
 
rizibo said:
Steve,
I apologize for asking you to reveal the identities of the cameras. I whole heartedly understand that you are making a work of art and I respect that. The commentary from all the cinematographers in ep 1 is beautiful and thoughtful. I can wait a few weeks to see the rest of your work. I love your work and I was only trying to get the mystery solved quicker. Please forgive me.

You say that keeping the cameras a mystery will make people want to watch ep2 but I don't think that was necessary. You could have given the identity of the cameras like in the previous shootouts and tell the audience that in ep2 you will show how the lighting was done to make the camera videos similar. That is a much more complex and intriguing question that would hook the audience into seeing ep2.

I appreciate your advice.

I will definitely have someone check my script. I read that Woody Allen said that if you have a good script and you directed the film badly then you will still have a good film but if you have a bad script and direct it well then you will still have a bad movie. My screenplay has taken me many years for me to write and I am very happy that it has many three dimensional characters, each with a nice story arch and humor that a good romantic comedy should have. It has very nice physical comedy too, as I am silent comedy movie fan.

I would like to have a professional cinematographer but also a good sound guy. People can tolerate a poor image like in camera D if the story is good but the audience can't tolerate bad sound.

Good actors are also key to making a good film. Orson Welles said that if the acting is bad then there is nothing to see.

The challenge to an independent film maker is to be able to afford all these professionals. If you pay everyone minimum wage it will still cost a lot of money to shoot a 166 page screenplay.

I don't agree with making people work for free in order to make a film. Workers should be paid before the sweat on their forehead dries. I will not exploit anyone by making them work for free even if someone is willing to do it.

One can find a producer or studio to fund the film but the auteur may not be allowed to shoot the script as originally intended because of interference by the producer or studio. There are many examples of this with great directors like Welles, Von Stroheim and countless others.

So the problems with the independent film maker are bigger than just the camera, which is a very small part of the budget. The argument that cameras are good and cheap, so everyone should be making feature length films just doesn't seem realistic for a moral film maker due to the reasons sited above. Jean Renoir once said that when the cost of making a film is as cheap as a pencil and paper then we will have great art. I think the only solution is to work hard on the day job to generate enough money to afford all the professionals and equipment needed to make a good film.

Please don't get me wrong. I love the message of your film that the camera is not important and that all the factors listed above are more important. I am a fan of your shootouts because they are very educational, showing us the potential of the current technology. I am looking forward to seeing more. Take care.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you. Again don't take this the wrong way but it will be very hard to sell you finished film without stars in it. That's just a fact of life. Are there example of films doing well without stars, yes? But not many. A feature is such a huge endeavor, I would recommend a brilliant short that shows your prowess then use that to try to get a studio project, but again you need contacts and luck to do that. Making it in the Film biz is going to be hard. You are going to need that drive that everyone interviewed in my film is talking about. My problem is that everyone here is not listening to every single word that these interviewees is saying because it is carefully crafted to give you the story of how to become a success from those who have. Watch again and focus on the interviews and not the test. I can appreciate you not wanted to have to have people work for free but doing a 166 page project requires a huge amount of money--just for food alone. I see no problem as a first timer in finding other first timers who would like to help you. What I could recommend is if you have a great script, I might be able to convince an ASC cinematographer to do your film for fairly inexpensive fee if they like it and have an open window add . That would legitimacy to your film. I'd also prefer that you day job was in the film business, even if filming weddings and or corporate films. Every time you shoot you get better and that is critical. You don't wan't to be learning on your feature. I worked in the corporate world for 20 years, made over 600 projects. Now when I start a project, I have a confidence and knowledge base that is huge but still every time I do a project I learn new things, I make new mistakes and it's painful and hurts the piece. That's the process, but it's much better and you don't make the silly mistakes that come from basic experience. Shoot weddings, that's what I started with in the late 70's early 80's, it's like the bootcamp of production, if you can make it there, you can do anything. It's like war, it's a one take, one chance environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top