evilthought
Well-known member
I am sure G is 7D ... look at all the moire
Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout - blind test
- Thread starter Samuel H
- Start date
I am sure G is 7D ... look at all the moire
(well, not that soon: the release dates for the 3 episodes are 15th of june, july, august)evilthought
Well-known member
Another mystery solved .. I think F is F65 Or Alexa
Around 5:27 minutes into the video, we have this clip
This matches pretty close to camera F
(slight differences but there are other similarities if you watch 5:27 to 5:31 part and compare it to clip F)
I am sure camera F is F65 or Alexa
Around 5:27 minutes into the video, we have this clip
This matches pretty close to camera F
(slight differences but there are other similarities if you watch 5:27 to 5:31 part and compare it to clip F)
I am sure camera F is F65 or Alexa
Last edited:
I'd bet on F being the Alexa too. The reason being that if you analyse a screen shot the only areas with clipped channels are outside the window. Most of the others are clipped on the lights and woman's yellow trousers. The lighting is also very neutral: no added blue on the left arm of the sofa.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
So much of what is seen in this has nothing to do with the camera or there is no way of knowing. If the lighting itself can be changed and with the color correct in post, what you are seeing more often than not is the different tastes of te various cinematographers. One may choose to let the window highlight blow out more than another even if the camera in use is capable of capturing the detail. Same goes for chroma levels, white point, where was the iris set, etc.
Give 10 DPs the exact same gear in the exact same situation and you'll get 10 different solutions and 10 different looks. That's more the lesson here than anything else.
I thought the interviews with the various DPs was the most interesting part of it all. Don't feel much of the point of the rest, personally.
Give 10 DPs the exact same gear in the exact same situation and you'll get 10 different solutions and 10 different looks. That's more the lesson here than anything else.
I thought the interviews with the various DPs was the most interesting part of it all. Don't feel much of the point of the rest, personally.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Last year they just used film lighting ratios and some of the cameras looked crXp because they need a bit more fill - lighting for digital
So it has a point IMO but its still pretty random..
S
Bassman2003
Veteran
I think their point is to stop testing as the emphasis should be on the process not the equipment. Don't know why they are trying to show this but these tests show more equality than inequality.
evilthought
Well-known member
As someone else pointed out, the real shots were taken with crane. So take this one back
Another mystery solved .. I think F is F65 Or Alexa
Around 5:27 minutes into the video, we have this clip
This matches pretty close to camera F
(slight differences but there are other similarities if you watch 5:27 to 5:31 part and compare it to clip F)
I am sure camera F is F65 or Alexa
Adam J McKay
Veteran
To be honest they all looked decent to me other than D and G. The differences were subtle. At least viewing a compressed version on a macbook. I am sure in a theater it might be more pronounced. But overall an interesting shootout.
Seems a bit random to me, too. My first thought was all the shots looked muddy and the background looked almost cartoonishly fake. I thought all the cameras looked more similar than different.
When I first heard the concept I thought it was an interesting idea- to make the test somehow more realistic by allowing the crew to modify the lighting to suit the camera. Once I saw the footage I realised that as soon as you allow different people to do that, you end up judging the final result as much on the re-lighting they did as anything to do with the camera. Especially when you're viewing it crunched down to web video size, losing a lot of detail and subtlety in the process.
Personally, I liked B the best at first viewing. On closer inspection I think that's mainly because B has a lot more fill. You can see the girl in black on her phone casting a shadow out to the door which isn't there on most of the others. This makes the girl on her phone look nice, and the girl at the end looked nice too. I photograph pretty girls for a living. So with hindsight I judged the clips at first viewing purely on how nice I thought those two girls looked.
If I look more closely I can see plus points and minus points to a lot of the footage. I'd probably like other cameras better if they'd had more fill!
By making it more realistic in just one aspect, they've ended up pointing up just how unrealistic this set-up is.
It sounds like the GH2 guys added a TON of fill, and were shooting through the same high-end expensive lens as the other guys. But here's the thing- I'm willing to bet that most people who shoot with a GH2 as their A-cam do not have a lighting lorry with shed loads of 5K HMI's on hand and certainly don't have $50K lenses sitting around the studio. The guys shooting Epic, F65 and Alexa might well do. So giving everyone the same infrastructure bar the camera itself doesn't really make sense.
If you have the budget for lighting vans, why wouldn't you buy or hire a higher end camera too? It isn't that dSLRs and lower end camcorders aren't capable of good results. It is more that if you can afford a dedicated pro camera with all the right inputs and great ergonomics and low-compression raw codecs, why wouldn't you use one? Sure you might use dSLRs in hard to reach spots for new angles, so in that sense it is a fair test to show that these cheaper cams can be good B-cams. But I think we already knew that.
A more realistic test again would be to give the crew access to lighting and lenses which more accurately reflect the price points of the kit. Guys shooting with iPhones probably stretch to some practicals and a holder to mount the phone on. Guys with 7Ds and GH2's would likely have some redheads, a softbox or two, some CT gels, maybe stretch to a low powered HMI. If you can afford an Alexa, you can probably afford the lighting truck as well.
Ironically, you might not need anything like so much off that truck if you are shooting on an Alexa. But it will be there if you want to use it. If your budget stretches to a dSLR, your lighting budget won't include enough HMI power to overshadow the sun.
It still won't help if the main differences are in INTENT of the cinematographer rather than realisation. Which I think is the shortcoming of this test. I think there should have been a more rigorous brief, say from the same director looking for a very specific thing from the shots.
I'd be interested to see this go one step beyond. Give the crews, with proportional levels of equipment, the same five page script to shoot. Have the same director, with the same vision for it. Maybe the same cinematographer, too, for that matter- devolve the expertise on specific kit as far down the chain as you realistically can. Although even that will just tell you how well that crew and that lighting and that camera works to bring this particular film for this particular director to life.
Scratch that. Zacuto, or someone, please would you go make detailed technical documentaries behind the scenes of five different movies at radically different production budgets next year? With in depth discussion from director, cinematographer, camera operator, production designer, sound engineers and as many crew as you can? THAT's something I'd really like to watch. (Actually if I had the time that's something I'd be really interested in making!)
I think the fairly controlled tests of previous years were mildly interesting in showing the capabilities of digital cine cameras. This year mostly just reinforces what I already thought- that the only way to evaluate a camera is to hire one yourself and see how you get on with it doing the work you want to do with it.
Cheers, Hywel.
When I first heard the concept I thought it was an interesting idea- to make the test somehow more realistic by allowing the crew to modify the lighting to suit the camera. Once I saw the footage I realised that as soon as you allow different people to do that, you end up judging the final result as much on the re-lighting they did as anything to do with the camera. Especially when you're viewing it crunched down to web video size, losing a lot of detail and subtlety in the process.
Personally, I liked B the best at first viewing. On closer inspection I think that's mainly because B has a lot more fill. You can see the girl in black on her phone casting a shadow out to the door which isn't there on most of the others. This makes the girl on her phone look nice, and the girl at the end looked nice too. I photograph pretty girls for a living. So with hindsight I judged the clips at first viewing purely on how nice I thought those two girls looked.
If I look more closely I can see plus points and minus points to a lot of the footage. I'd probably like other cameras better if they'd had more fill!
By making it more realistic in just one aspect, they've ended up pointing up just how unrealistic this set-up is.
It sounds like the GH2 guys added a TON of fill, and were shooting through the same high-end expensive lens as the other guys. But here's the thing- I'm willing to bet that most people who shoot with a GH2 as their A-cam do not have a lighting lorry with shed loads of 5K HMI's on hand and certainly don't have $50K lenses sitting around the studio. The guys shooting Epic, F65 and Alexa might well do. So giving everyone the same infrastructure bar the camera itself doesn't really make sense.
If you have the budget for lighting vans, why wouldn't you buy or hire a higher end camera too? It isn't that dSLRs and lower end camcorders aren't capable of good results. It is more that if you can afford a dedicated pro camera with all the right inputs and great ergonomics and low-compression raw codecs, why wouldn't you use one? Sure you might use dSLRs in hard to reach spots for new angles, so in that sense it is a fair test to show that these cheaper cams can be good B-cams. But I think we already knew that.
A more realistic test again would be to give the crew access to lighting and lenses which more accurately reflect the price points of the kit. Guys shooting with iPhones probably stretch to some practicals and a holder to mount the phone on. Guys with 7Ds and GH2's would likely have some redheads, a softbox or two, some CT gels, maybe stretch to a low powered HMI. If you can afford an Alexa, you can probably afford the lighting truck as well.
Ironically, you might not need anything like so much off that truck if you are shooting on an Alexa. But it will be there if you want to use it. If your budget stretches to a dSLR, your lighting budget won't include enough HMI power to overshadow the sun.
It still won't help if the main differences are in INTENT of the cinematographer rather than realisation. Which I think is the shortcoming of this test. I think there should have been a more rigorous brief, say from the same director looking for a very specific thing from the shots.
I'd be interested to see this go one step beyond. Give the crews, with proportional levels of equipment, the same five page script to shoot. Have the same director, with the same vision for it. Maybe the same cinematographer, too, for that matter- devolve the expertise on specific kit as far down the chain as you realistically can. Although even that will just tell you how well that crew and that lighting and that camera works to bring this particular film for this particular director to life.
Scratch that. Zacuto, or someone, please would you go make detailed technical documentaries behind the scenes of five different movies at radically different production budgets next year? With in depth discussion from director, cinematographer, camera operator, production designer, sound engineers and as many crew as you can? THAT's something I'd really like to watch. (Actually if I had the time that's something I'd be really interested in making!)
I think the fairly controlled tests of previous years were mildly interesting in showing the capabilities of digital cine cameras. This year mostly just reinforces what I already thought- that the only way to evaluate a camera is to hire one yourself and see how you get on with it doing the work you want to do with it.
Cheers, Hywel.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Nice post - I wish I could said it so well
I suppose 'what does this mean' is what is really relevant to cameras
Like my FS100 seems to need some fill - probably more than with an alexa or even Slog F3
What does that mean? Well it means I need to spend more on lights and my setups are slower - which is another cost - but of course the capital outlay is lower - which means stuff too
Striking those balances is what the technical side of being a cinematographer is..
S
I suppose 'what does this mean' is what is really relevant to cameras
Like my FS100 seems to need some fill - probably more than with an alexa or even Slog F3
What does that mean? Well it means I need to spend more on lights and my setups are slower - which is another cost - but of course the capital outlay is lower - which means stuff too
Striking those balances is what the technical side of being a cinematographer is..
S
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I really wonder, how they mounted that PL lens to the iPhone.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
LOL :beer:
Actually I just found out, they didn't. They used the stock iPhone lens.
Actually I just found out, they didn't. They used the stock iPhone lens.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Huh, that is interesting. That footage is pretty easy to spot, but in all fairness, compared to where we have come from, so very fast, in the last couple of years; it looked pretty good. We can nit-pick on the differences between the cameras, but we really need to be thankful that there are such great cameras out there for us to work with.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Yeah, got me thinking if I really need glass, that is more expensive than my car.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Thnx! I'll keep an eye out for it
And to underscore what someone else said - great glass makes a big difference. At some point, the camera's will seem like freebies compared to the glass they need for 2k projection to shine.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Hey. no joke. that stuff's saved my bacon more than once!
Tom Wilkinson
New member
Please help me understand why B is bad. I thought it lookd the best, you could see every face, highlights seem good, shadows all had some detail. Why is the "video" look bad for film. I guess I shoot "video" and like the look. But I need to understand the "film" look so I can learn to appreciate it.
Grug
Veteran
Do it. :beer:
I recently got glass that's more expensive than my car and my motorbike combined, and it shows.
Perhaps that can become the new measure of glass quality? Call it the glass:automotive-cost ratio. Anything over a 1.74 ratio and you're golden :grin: