The iPhone just looks bad generally. I took some video with it and was not that impressed. Great for a phone, mind you, but not anything compared to a dedicated camera (the photos through are a different story pitted against most P&S still cameras).
The iPhone just looks bad generally. I took some video with it and was not that impressed. Great for a phone, mind you, but not anything compared to a dedicated camera (the photos through are a different story pitted against most P&S still cameras).
rogar-Love(DBG):I worked as a film projectionist for a couple of years and trust me...they were all very soft. It seems digital has increased the standards. But when projecting 35mm film, even new anamorphically shot films were quite soft. A lot of the apparent detail was usually just grain.
Sorry Barry, you do not understand the point of the shootout. I've tried to explain that the shootout is much more then any shootout done before. In part 3 you will see an apples to apples test with no creative changes and that will show you what each camera can do out of the box. Basically, what everyone here wants to see. Parts 1 & 2 showed what you can do with that camera out of the box with talent and creativity. That's the full story of "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012" parts 1, 2, 3 with emphasis on the word REVENGE. The REVENGE part being the talent component. It's very important for people to listen to all of the legendary DP's and what they are saying. They are opening the vault and telling you the secrets of how they got to where they are and I'm worried that people are not listening because it's not about cameras or accessory gear like I make. Sure, that stuff is great if you can afford it but if you can't, that in no excludes you from making an extraordinary film. See "The Celebration". The wonderful exchange between Janusz and Alan Thatcher at the end of part 2 basically tells you how he got his first feature film and what he says is it came from looking at the world, doing tons and tons of work, trying new things but he never mentioned anything about cameras or support gear as a necessary element. Should I have put out part 3 first and then parts 1 and 2 after it, possibly, but I'm a filmmaker and I felt this created the most drama and forced the viewer to hear the messages of the DP's as well as seeing the comparison between out of box vs. talent! If I put part 3 first many people would have watched the out of the box and walked away and that's what every test in the past has done. I didn't want to do it. Truly, my goal in this immense project was to impart learning to the viewer. I've been in the biz for almost 30 years and I learned a ton interviewing and just listening to these legends and it's been my complete privilege to present this project to the indie film community. But if walk away from this all goggly that the GH2 or whatever camera is "the best", you are no filmmaker, you are what I call a hobbyist. Because real filmmakers focus on content and not gear. I shot my show with a Varicam in 720p, because a real zoom lens and it's a real ENG style camera and helps us to never miss a great moment. Moments are what make great films. One person in the comments stated it best: "To me this episode is far better than the first episode, nice work! I really like the concept of a shootout about cameras who give us the conclusion that cameras don't matter.
The tools are there, no excuses, just shoot" Geraud Truel · Paris, Francesteve
That's why we had a section that talked about lights, lenses and cameras. The sad part of the picture is that nobody talks about lights all we talk about is cameras. Lighting is everything, period. If I hear one more person say I have a 5D or other DSLR and I don't need lights, I'm going to scream. Cinematography is an art form and we use lights to create a mood, not illuminate a scene. That's what all of the DP's were telling you in both parts 1 & 2. They weren't BS'ing you as someone here mentioned, they were telling you the truth. As a director, I tell Jens (my DP of 27 years) the mood I'm going after and he makes it happen with lights. I don't see anyway around that. It doesn't matter what camera he is using. I can't get my mood with a camera. By the way, he'll use any camera you give him and make it look great, because he is a lighting master. That's what it's all about. Most of the lighting we've done throughout our career, we used a $2500 arri 5 light portable kit. It has a Chimera, scrims, barn doors and more. This is the first thing you need to buy. If that eats up all of your money then rent. Now naturally we also use lighting trucks on larger shoots but the budget of that shoot allows you to afford that. The second thing I would get is a good tripod. I mean good, one that you can start and stop a pan with no backlash, the cheapest is about 2-3K at the very low end. Again if you can afford it, get a super cheap one and then rent a good one for your shoot days, it's about $75/week. Then comes camera. Pick the right one for the job, that makes buying difficult unless you have lots of cash. If you buy one realize that it may work for most of your gigs but not for all at which point you rent, again that will be determined by the budget. Renting is cheaper then you think. Don't forget your people and food, that's a big expense as well. If you are doing a no budget shoot then work with what you have and get creative. If you get one thing out of this documentary it should not be which camera is best. It's what Victor Kemper ASC said at the end of part one, "nobody should be worried about what camera you have, if you have the talent, your creative and the drive is there, you can make a pretty damn good film"
Steve
While I really enjoyed the part II and the results I can't stop thinking about that this "camera test" has to many variables in order to say that one camera is better than the other one. Of course any camera will look good when you have a skilled team of people lightning and color correcting it, heck, even the Iphone 4 looked acceptable to me. But that's not because the camera is that good, it is because of the people behind it doing all the prep and color correction. So for each test I couldn't stop thinking "aww man why did they change the lightning I really wanted to see how B compared to C" and so on.
I am a happy and proud GH2 owner, and I am really glad to see that it performed well, but that is mostly because of the talents behind the camera. Almost any camera released today is a great tool if you know how to aim and shoot it right in order to compensate for its flaws.
This test just proves that any camera will do and that you should invest in a book about cinematography and lightning instead of the latest camera.
I am a happy and proud GH2 owner, and I am really glad to see that it performed well, but that is mostly because of the talents behind the camera. Almost any camera released today is a great tool if you know how to aim and shoot it right in order to compensate for its flaws.
This test just proves that any camera will do and that you should invest in a book about cinematography and lightning instead of the latest camera.
Who knows if he'll do that. But he was very impressed by it at the screening. And when he found out it was only $800, he was considering getting one for his wife to some of her own videos on.
OK. FF Coppela is not going to shoot his next film with a GH2. I particularly didn't care for the image but that is neither her or there. It took a lot more work to get it there on set and in the Timing room and that is not what film or TV is about. Speed and ease of use is what an ASC level DP is looking for. PLus, it was crashing a lot just doing just one shot, it wasn't meant to pull that much data. Lastly, films and TV of this nature need many devices and accessories and this camera is not real built to hold these (even with my gear--at that level) it's much easier to use an Alexa, film camera or other durable production grade camera. That's not to say it's not great for indie filmmaking but let's not kid ourself that someone is going to regularly use a DSLR on a TV show or movie. Yes, they shot an episode of House with it. Yes it can be done but when you have a budget, you just wouldn't make that your first choice. It's awesome for indie filmmaking.
Steven Poster was talking about how putting a show out like my documentary is dangerous because producers will see this and think that you can make major films, TV and commercials with an iPhone and that would really hamper the process at his level. And it got very heated in that primarily ASC screening. I did a lot of defending of my show with a mixed audience. Some found it very interesting and some hated what it might do. The issues of why producers are picking cameras when really DP's need to pick cameras is a sore subject and rightfully so. Steve is very vocal about this and I interviewed him as well and let me tell you, he gave it to me, but I don't disagree with what he is saying. I wish that Producers confer with DP's on what camera to use because this shootout shows that if they are an expert with a particular camera, they may get a better result.
Steve
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Steve. Thanks for chipping in. I think lighting or not is a balance of both illuminaiton and creating mood
The reality is that for a night ext a big feature may rebulb or suchlike all the streetlights on a street, but for 99% of shooters this is not possible so a camera that is clean at 3200 will sing for such a scene
Same in the desert/on the beach, a couple of stops of highlight retention can really pay if you can stay out of the 'I need a genny' zone
To me every bit of kit/crew/time that can be shed, while still allowing you to get your desired result, is a boon becasue that budget can go into other areas of the creative process, more takes, better art, more profit on a corporate, whatever..
Realistically I light to the edge of my budget.. no genny .. no HMI .. probably like a lot of others using the sub 10k cams
I would like to see you pay some attention to this in future episodes,
I certainly agree there is too much attention on cameras.. and also lenses.. there are three threads going on the board here where people are persuading themselves to buy 70-200 2.8 lenses where I think they would be better with a 70-200F4 and a light!
Looking forward to the final instalment..
S
I agree with this. I'm thankful that Zacuto puts these things together. In an effort to create an even playing field I feel they hamstrung our ability to evaluate what cameras did better/worse than other cameras. I think that was by design and as a result it is an exercise/education on how a DP can deal with a challenging set more than anything else.
Some people didn't care for Camera B - but it seems rather obvious that they were trying to fill the set with light so people could see - where other DP's focused on other aspects of a scene. But it was a scene without context, so no one really knew what to concentrate on as a viewer.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
As for non DP picking cameras - its nuts I agree
I shoot so much on my 5d2 (as requested) - I cant focus while rolling, the HDMI drops all the time, losing shots and the wide shots are full of rainbows, .. all while I have an FS100 and an EX1 in the van!
S
I shoot so much on my 5d2 (as requested) - I cant focus while rolling, the HDMI drops all the time, losing shots and the wide shots are full of rainbows, .. all while I have an FS100 and an EX1 in the van!
S
You are a very wise man. Like I said many times, do you think that if I gave anyone of these cameras to Janusz and he shot spielbergs next film that they would look amazing, you know it would. It's because Janusz is amazing, he has talent, experience and he knows how to light. It's not his camera that makes him great. Now that's not going to happen because it's much easier for Janusz to use a more production grade camera. But that's not to say that anyone here could get amazing results using any of the cameras on the market if they have talent like Janusz has. Janusz tells you exactly what he did to become where he is today at the end of part 2. Just listen and do it!!!
The iPhone was used as a reference. The main reason I wanted Bruce to include the iPhone was to show teenagers that they have a tool in their pocket to start mastering the ideas that the DP's were talking about: lighting, framing, screen direction, blocking, collaborating, failing, success & just getting out there getting experience in doing it. If you have no money and you want to learn the craft, it's an incredible device and I wished I would have had one when I was a kid because all of the super8 film was burning a hole in my pocket and required me to shoot a 1-1 ratio. It's pretty hard to experiment with those constraints. I personally think it's ridicules to give an expensive camera to a teenager. I have access to those cameras but wouldn't give it to my kid. If they really want to learn the craft, start with something that's hard to get a great image on and that way they really have to work at it and forces you to really be creative. That creativity will help you in later life. I worked with SD cameras for 20 years and we tried our best to make them look like film and we got some pretty beautiful images and those cameras weren't even 1/2 the resolution of an iPhone--granted we had much better lensing.
Steve
Read the statement above yours. You will get to see an apples to apples test with no variables changed in part 3. Why is that so important to see that. The whole point of this exercise is that yes, it is the people behind the camera that make a camera look great. That's just the way it is. You either have that talent or you don't (maybe you can develop it--that question was posed in part 1) and no camera in the world is going to give you talent, creativity or teach you how to light. I know it's harsh but nobody is listening to the DP's in the test. They are telling you if you want to be like them. Watch films, read books and screenplays to know what makes a good story, shoot everything you can, have an open mind, don't be afraid to fail, learn from your mistakes, collaborate to get other opinions, just look at the world, see how it's lit, try to reproduce that with lights, study old films, see when and why they made cuts, learn when to do a move. My good friend and mentor Stephen Goldblatt taught just recently, while watch Nights of Caberia to save your closeups for when you need them. So simple but it alluded me. Never stop learning, don't be arrogant, work in groups and learn from each other.
The set of the shootout was the craziest set I had ever been on. There were students, technicians and everyone in between all the way up to the ASC cinematographers and it was the most interesting ego free shot I've ever been on. Mainly because of Bruce Logan's managment style. But everyone was learning from everyone. It was an incredible experience and I learned so much. When you look at everything I just wrote do you see how insignificant the camera becomes? That's what the DP's are trying to tell you. It's up to you, if you want to listen.
Steve
This is a great interview ith Jean Renoir talking about the coming of sound and other technical innovations to film. You have to watch the whole thing, about 7 minutes, to get the entire concept:
Most forums like this one aren't about art, they are about pixel peeping. Which is fine, it's fun to discuss technology. But we do often forget that a good movie shot on a crappy camera is a 1,000 times better than a crappy movie shot on a great camera.
Most forums like this one aren't about art, they are about pixel peeping. Which is fine, it's fun to discuss technology. But we do often forget that a good movie shot on a crappy camera is a 1,000 times better than a crappy movie shot on a great camera.
High1ander
Well-known member
I guess that was referencing me, the thing is this, in episode 1 and 2, some of them say all this, larger then life kind of stuff, which to me for some just feels fake, or they talk about a way into the business, etc. I just think they are sending the wrong message, and that Haskell got it right. People that are watching this in hope of finding out an "easy way" to get into showbiz, are already lost. If you want an easy way, then film making isn't for you, nothing is easy about it. It's hard work even when you are at the top of the food chain, yeah, might be good money then, but you will still be doing some 12-14 hour shoot days, and all that comes with it. That's why I like Haskell's talk, because it's all "there is no magic way in", what works for one guy might not work for the next. However, the good thing though is the talk about Januzs, and how much he worked, etc. that is what people need to hear and take away, work work work, because that is closer to reality than anything else.
I love to hear what DPs thinks about this and that, but some of the statements just feels contrived (regarding "what a DP is" and how to get into the biz), which isn't weird since they are much more used of being behind cameras, and not answering questions in front of cameras, and I guess when you are there "competing with giants" you need to make your stuff sound even better...
Anyways, you guys are doing something great, and I am really glad you are doing it, and even though I am complaining about the DP's talk, that is still what I like the most to see and hear, them, how they approach a scene or a project, etc. all that is great to hear.
So thank you so much for making this series, and the ones before it!
Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
But if walk away from this all goggly that the GH2 or whatever camera is "the best", you are no filmmaker, you are what I call a hobbyist. Because real filmmakers focus on content and not gear. I shot my show with a Varicam in 720p, because a real zoom lens and it's a real ENG style camera and helps us to never miss a great moment. Moments are what make great films. One person in the comments stated it best: "To me this episode is far better than the first episode, nice work! I really like the concept of a shootout about cameras who give us the conclusion that cameras don't matter.
It is about access as well as talent. Practicalities. Money. Owning a digital cinema camera as good as the GH2 for $700 is a new thing. It is a revelation. What Steve has done here is largely a very good thing - drawing attention to the fact that it really is a level playing field between a $700 camera and a $70,000 camera, that there are indeed no excuses for not shooting or making the best of your god given talent for cinematography or filmmaking. 480p Mini DV was a pretty good excuse. It looked terrible. A cinematographer needs his tool to suit what he is shooting. Mini DV was fine on 28 Days Later. Danny Boyle's styled made great use of it for horror, documentary style. The cameras we have today are so much more flexible than that. They do matter. It so often matters when shooting a cinematic epic or a glossy commercial to have a large sensor, for instance.
I don't think that anyone who goes away inspired by the obvious magic of today's affordable technology is just a hobbyist. It is a necessary step in choosing the palette for your film. As soon as you go and shoot with it, you're an artist, a filmmaker. As soon as you have a message in your work, you are communicating as a filmmaker not just indulging an interest in the camera. It is great to be interested in gear because it gives you a reason to shoot, a reason to learn and to practice, before the good supporting materials come along, like ideas, scripts, actors, stories. Those things are damned hard and if we all waited for The Great Idea to come along before shooting anything we'd never reach that point at all - by experimenting and honing our craft as cinematographers. Getting paid for your work is not the only thing that makes you a professional. My interpretation is more free. Doing good work makes you a pro. Being passionate makes you a pro. Sacrificing comfort and taking risks makes you a pro. Spending all of your god given days on earth obsessing about filmmaking makes you a pro. There are many paths to filmmaking and Googling "GH2" is one of them.
Cheers
Andrew
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
All this whole test shows me is that one must UNDERSTAND lighting! That's it. You find a camera that YOU like and feel comfortable with, understand it's pro's and con's, and light to the camera. The episode three will show apples to apples. But for motion imagery, content is always and forever will be king, regardless of the camera. But if you understand light, any one of these cameras will do the job image wise. Although the Alexa in my mind still looked the best.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Bravo to you for putting this test together, if for no other reason than to have pissed off to many of the old establishment when they realized they can no longer tell the difference between the low end and high end when there are capable people setting the lights and lenses.
The emperor has no clothes.