I here you Morgan, but the point is learn about lighting, so many people whose work I watch on the internet have no clue how to do the most important part of filmmaking. This needs to be learned long before we start arguing about what camera to use. Even when shooting an exterior, I hear you with no HMI's but one might need just that little obie light, bounce board, flex fill, for a little kicker for the actors face, I consider bounce boards and flex fills as lights too. Or we rent lights when the need and budget arises.
I here you Morgan, but the point is learn about lighting, so many people whose work I watch on the internet have no clue how to do the most important part of filmmaking. This needs to be learned long before we start arguing about what camera to use. Even when shooting an exterior, I hear you with no HMI's but one might need just that little obie light, bounce board, flex fill, for a little kicker for the actors face, I consider bounce boards and flex fills as lights too. Or we rent lights when the need and budget arises.
God, thank you Samuel, that's what I hoped people would get out of the shootout. Pick a camera, the one you can most easily afford--and leaves you some money left for lights and a tripod, Master that camera, master lighting, gain experience, try things, creative things and work on your craft and your unique style because that is what is going to separate you from the rest. Go shoot--a lot. That's an order ;-)
Steve
Another wise man, you get it Gillvane, no one is ever going to say boy that movie looked amazing but the story sucked. They are going to say the whole damn movie sucked. That's the Revenge part--yes we did a camera test, but the point is, if you get it, that the camera test is unnecessary because if you have it, you can make it happen on any camera. What we need to be talking about is "having it" and what you need to do to "have it". that's why I included the iPhone, not because it's comparable, it's not. Because it is a tool to master "it". It's in your pocket and works just as good as any other device for teaching you story telling. I've seen amazing things done with it but that's not the point. Look up Luis Mieses Crespo His work with the iPhone is amazing, so is Michael Koerbel. Again not the point of the camera. It's a tool and it you are creative you are going to make any camera look great, but more importantly learn the structure of storytelling.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It should be remembered, IMO, that a light costs a lot more than the rental fee.
As soon as you are shooting through a window from a public area the light needs 'policing' and possibly a permit, insurance, again sighting genny far enough away for sound typically has huge implication on the size of set you must secure
One of the greatest modifiers I have is a 6X8 overhead scrim - being DIY it cost nothing, but on a windy day it takes two people to manage.. they need paying feeding, transporting, insuring, accomodating .. so its actually a very expensive tool
(BTW I always pay crew on a commercial shoot - I would not exploit a student as a matter of principal - every one around me is paid)
I have a theory, that I cant really test (but you can) that a camera with super wide DR, well treated in post can have significant impact on the whole 'movie' making process
In fact its not theory, its real, in my stills work we fully understand the balance of raw+post versus on location gear/crew, in the last 5 years my stills shoots have gained a far more natural look while having a far smaller footprint
I used to use a 25ISO hasselblad + 6 elinchroms, I now use a 5d2 and a couple of Q flashes and a bit of HDR - it has very real economic impact on shoots.. and enables me to concentrate on lighting not illumination
S
Sorry, I don't agree, it'a all about lighting. The camera is just a device to pickup lighting, pick one--anyone, master it and go about getting your 10,000 hours honing your craft. Show us what you have unique to bring to the table. That's a whole lot more important then a silly thing like a camera. I don't care if you tell me a story on a point and shoot, so long as the story works. Hollywood buys anything that is marketable, period. It doesn't matter if it was shot with a barbie camera. They don't give a crap, it's the film business and all they care about is making money like any other business. Now if you want to make projects and don't care about making a living at it, that's cool too, so long as you have some way to pay the bills. At that point, make whatever you want.
Who cares about technology, 29 years ago, when I started we had film and 3/4" video, we understood filmmaking and cinematography as a craft. We told corporate, documentary and fashion videos. We told stories but we never thought about equipment, it was always what story are we telling and how are we going to tell it. The capture device was a decision we made but it was in no way a critical decision to our process, talent or story telling capability. To me, It was about the process then and it's about the process now. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. My problem is that nobody is talking about the process and we are focusing on equipment. I think it's because of what you said, focusing on the process is the hard part and the equipment part is the easy part. As Den Lennie said, there is no magic button.
I've been around for a long time, I've shot about 700 ditties in my time, take my advice, get a light kit, play with it, learn how to light. then point something at it and capture it, could be a photo or a film camera. Pray you have talent, develop it and get better by doing. Work incessantly and focus all of your energy on that. This is really what all of the DP's in my documentary are saying, you can't get better advice from better people. LISTEN to them, I spent a ton of time and expense to get them to tell you the magic secrets--you don't hear them talking about gear-- and again we are talking about the gear! If you talk to someone who has the 10,000, they will tell you it's not about gear, that goes for Zacuto gear as well. That's how adamant I am about it. case in point--The other day I was on the Shameless set and Rodney was shooting me how they did this cool shot by using a 2x4 to drag a camera, no fancy slider but it worked awesome. He has a crew who each member has 10,000 hours and the collective collaboration is inspiring. Same thing in the shootout BTS, it's there if you want to learn it. Steve
keylight
Veteran
Of course he won't. Why on earth would he shoot on a GH2 when he (or his DP) can choose any camera in the world to shoot on? The GH2 was actually my favorite, but I'd shoot on a 4K over the GH2 any day. I think the thing that's most powerful about Coppela's pick of the GH2 is that he favored the result over all the others. To me that means the lighting, color, clarity....
Time is money after all. And having a crew waiting on a camera isn't a great plan, although most of the camera issues could, should, and I suspect would... be worked out before day one of shooting.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Steve - if you ignore the camera - why dont you stick just with your 3/4 video cam - I mean with the right light its as good as an Alexa anyway
To ignore ISO and DR is just to keep a head in the sand
This process of film making is obviously about camera AND lighting
To suggest that many people put too much weight on the former is a very valid point to make, but its not the whole story
S
To ignore ISO and DR is just to keep a head in the sand
This process of film making is obviously about camera AND lighting
To suggest that many people put too much weight on the former is a very valid point to make, but its not the whole story
S
keylight
Veteran
Here's a transcript of the last couple of minutes:
I get everything Renoir was saying, but I'm also mindful that this interview (conducted in 1966) took place AFTER Renoir made his last film (although he made one movie for television a few years later).
He was at the end of his career, and seemed to have little interest in embracing modern filmmaking. When he said that he regretted advances in film stock, he was basically saying he no longer wanted, or was uninterested in, developing his art any further.
The crux of the problem for Renoir, and the solution he rightly identified, is this: "Why is it that when technique is primitive, everything is beautiful, and when technique is perfected, almost everything is ugly except things created by an artist talented enough to overcome technique?"
The only answer I can come up with is that the primitive technique used in primitive times, wasn't actually primitive to those who were using it. People always look back at simpler times as somehow being better.
I think Morgan's right.
The shootout so far is asking what a DP can do with a lighting van and a particular camera. The conclusion is that with big budget lighting and big budget lenses, the camera is a relatively small part of the overall equation. It isn't a surprise but it is good see it explored. Part three will ask what the cameras can do in a more controlled test, I understand.
To me, a more interesting question is what can the cameras do with a level of support commensurate with their overall costs? Can you use them on a beach in direct sunlight? What level of equipment do they need to make that look good? Because if you need a 15K HMI and giant silks to make the iPhone look OK, but just some bounce reflectors to make a RED look good, that information is MUCH more relevant to real-world shooting.
Sounds like my budgets and Morgan's are similar. HMI's and generators are something I could consider hiring at a push although I haven't yet because I have other constraints. I can't afford to build luxury historical house sets: I have to hire actual old houses in which to shoot. Given that, I have space and power and heat limitations, crew limitations, insurance limitations- all the stuff that Morgan mentions.
That's where having more dynamic range or clean ISO 3200 really starts to matter. I just plain cannot pump enough light in to get exposure and narrow the dynamic range for some of the cheaper cameras: the logistics prohibit it on my budgets. (I know, I've shot with some of the cheaper cameras.) The scale of the project puts HIGHER demands on the camera than shooting on a Hollywood budget on a lit set would!
So I'll second Morgan's suggestion for next year's test.
Cheers, Hywel.
The shootout so far is asking what a DP can do with a lighting van and a particular camera. The conclusion is that with big budget lighting and big budget lenses, the camera is a relatively small part of the overall equation. It isn't a surprise but it is good see it explored. Part three will ask what the cameras can do in a more controlled test, I understand.
To me, a more interesting question is what can the cameras do with a level of support commensurate with their overall costs? Can you use them on a beach in direct sunlight? What level of equipment do they need to make that look good? Because if you need a 15K HMI and giant silks to make the iPhone look OK, but just some bounce reflectors to make a RED look good, that information is MUCH more relevant to real-world shooting.
Sounds like my budgets and Morgan's are similar. HMI's and generators are something I could consider hiring at a push although I haven't yet because I have other constraints. I can't afford to build luxury historical house sets: I have to hire actual old houses in which to shoot. Given that, I have space and power and heat limitations, crew limitations, insurance limitations- all the stuff that Morgan mentions.
That's where having more dynamic range or clean ISO 3200 really starts to matter. I just plain cannot pump enough light in to get exposure and narrow the dynamic range for some of the cheaper cameras: the logistics prohibit it on my budgets. (I know, I've shot with some of the cheaper cameras.) The scale of the project puts HIGHER demands on the camera than shooting on a Hollywood budget on a lit set would!
So I'll second Morgan's suggestion for next year's test.
Cheers, Hywel.
Last edited:
Technical discussions aside, the Shootout also reiterated how subjective lighting styles are from an artistic standpoint.
B in particular seemed to have a polarized view. Many thought it was overlit, fake, plastic and soap opera-like, not fitting with the mood of the scene at all. Plenty of others really liked it. I've also seen a lot of "At first I chose B, but after rewatching..." where people changed their view. So there's an initial 'wow' factor, followed by an unpleasant reaction upon further analysis.
These aren't amateurs either. Serious professionals can't reach anything close to a consensus on lighting style for this one scene.
I mean, that sort of subjectivity is another one of those things that are obvious... but it's still really interesting to see it in practice, with that many high level DPs and Directors sometimes having very opposite views on which lighting style looked the best for the scene.
B in particular seemed to have a polarized view. Many thought it was overlit, fake, plastic and soap opera-like, not fitting with the mood of the scene at all. Plenty of others really liked it. I've also seen a lot of "At first I chose B, but after rewatching..." where people changed their view. So there's an initial 'wow' factor, followed by an unpleasant reaction upon further analysis.
These aren't amateurs either. Serious professionals can't reach anything close to a consensus on lighting style for this one scene.
I mean, that sort of subjectivity is another one of those things that are obvious... but it's still really interesting to see it in practice, with that many high level DPs and Directors sometimes having very opposite views on which lighting style looked the best for the scene.
Last edited:
That's dumb! The 5d3 is here :beer:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I have no interest in the 5d3 - no XLR for A cam use - too big and heavy for Bcam use - my personal needs/specs of course..
S
It doesn't apparently matter if you have interest, if the client forces you to use the 5d2 does it now?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
That is a good point - as referenced before - clients who pick a cam without consulting the DOP are .. . Also some of the projects have been continuations of larger projects by the client, and on that basis I suppose they have fair reason..
S
S
The point of my statement was with regards to the technology we have today and all of the camera choices available. Of course there are differences but to me mostly in the nature of ease of use, ergonomics and such. I think you are corroborating my exact point. The only reason the GH2 could compete with the big boys was because of the lighting. Colt and Jonny over lit that scene as to make it feel like the GH2 had the most dynamic range as possible. They used a lot of lights to get the effect that the Alexa, RED or F65 could do with 1 or 2 lighting instruments.
Again, I'm not telling people there are not difference between cameras. Would I use a GH2 on a production, probably not, for the same reasons a major TV show wouldn't. My point is that as a young filmmaker, you shouldn't worry so much about sinking all of your money into an expensive camera when you have much bigger problems such as lighting. I'd rather you bought a light kit and good tripod and master those skill with the camera you have. 90 percent of the videos I see out there are exteriors and daylight interiors and they are trying to get by with using practical lights and that will only take you so far. You won't be able to tell real stories that way, you will always be limited.
The beautiful part of this new light sensitive tech. is that you need much smaller lighting instruments then what we used in the past. Again a small light kit can do a ton for interior shots or interviews. You can use sheets of ND gel to bring down windows or let them blow out or bring them down some and use your interior light kit to supplement key sources as we have always done in the past. It's what we did in the shootout. The only benefit is that the sources are so much smaller. A 1K may be replaced by a 250, which you would have in your light kit. You are never going to get away from lighting and no excuses or budgetary restraints should stop you. Excluding jennie's and HMI's (which I can understand), Jens and I got by for 27 years with our lowell or Arri portable light kit and remember the cameras we used were way less light sensitive. We had speed issues but we just made it happen. Lighting is the lifeblood of cinematography and everyone is going to need to know how to do it artfully. That is what we should be discussing. Is there on discussion thread on how to light on this entire website????
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Absolutely - a young filmmaker with a 550d or GH2 and sticks and some light is so much better off than one with a 5d and no kit.
We are not all young filmmakers here - or I guess your audience.. Personally to me - Im at a level where I might be considering a raw shooter, or a 10/12 Bit.. or maybe some HMI instead ?
Thats what I 'personally' am interested in - Scarlet? or stick with my FS100 and consider the jump to HMI from sub $1k fixtures
Lookin forward to the next ep..
Here is an embarrasing image, FS100 on a corporate with more than 2k of tungsten/CTB lift - yet not chance on the 'spectactular' view - that the reality of this cam without the lighting budget - how would an F3+Slog etc fare?
S
We are not all young filmmakers here - or I guess your audience.. Personally to me - Im at a level where I might be considering a raw shooter, or a 10/12 Bit.. or maybe some HMI instead ?
Thats what I 'personally' am interested in - Scarlet? or stick with my FS100 and consider the jump to HMI from sub $1k fixtures
Lookin forward to the next ep..
Here is an embarrasing image, FS100 on a corporate with more than 2k of tungsten/CTB lift - yet not chance on the 'spectactular' view - that the reality of this cam without the lighting budget - how would an F3+Slog etc fare?
S
Last edited:
Adam J McKay
Veteran
I thought this test was wonderful. Definitely shows how close all of these cameras come when you know how to use them. I can't agree more with what everyone is saying on here in that light is key...pun intended. I have said it before on the forums, but I have recently completed my first feature. We had the budget to be able to rent a red package but we would have been left with an extremely limited light kit, as such we decided to just shoot on the 5D's we owned and get the light gear I knew we needed. Cut to our first test screening. I was the DP/Director was left pooping my pants about the handful of shots that were absolutely ruined by the 5D's moire/banding/noise/rolling shutter...So on the test screening questionnaire we put down a section about the cinematography and asked people to pick out any of the problems they could notice etc...And wouldn't you know it. Not a single person in 3 days of test screenings ever once mentioned anything about rolling shutter, moire, aliasing, banding. Some people had comments about crossfades, or questions about how the fire looked so good. So as it happens, nobody outside of us pixel peeping lunatics can tell, or even cares. Hell most people are still watching 480i on their 120hz 60inch tv's and they still don't see a problem with that. (which is another problem in itself) But at the end of the day, the 5D hasn't stopped working now that the 3 is out, a dv100 can still be used to tell a story, and you and your creativity are the only thing holding you back. And anyone that says otherwise is a moron. But remember if your story is lacking and you can't afford a RED, show them boobs and if all else fails, make it 3D.
There are, especially the beautiful thread by RPO: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?220459-RPO-s-Why-We-Need-Light-Article-Series and of course Barry's DVD!
Dynamic range and light sensitivity are absolutely the killer feature of these newer cams. It is a pleasure to be able to use less power, and light for the look rather than for the exposure. Resolution is all well and good, but for low budget movies the impact of higher light sensitivity and higher dynamic range is dramatic.
How about a lighting shootout next year, using the same camera and scene but different lighting technologies? Tungsten, HMI, LED, LEP…
There's a lot of new lighting kit around, ranging from the barely-passable (cheap Chinese LED panels) to the really rather good (Gekko Kelvin Tiles).Cheers, Hywel.