Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout Pt2 - Beyond the Alphabet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
morgan_moore said:
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?
Click to expand...

Probably not a whole heck of a lot better. You might see some detail out the window, but I can't imagine not much more. That's the sun, it's really bright. Best bet, regardless of camera, would be to put some ND filter on the outside of that window.
 
Actual film cameras would have had a hard time with that shot. IMO

Gradual ND covering the top right corner maybe?
 
Gary Huff said:
Probably ...
Click to expand...

Ian-T said:
Actual film cameras would have had a hard time with that shot. IMO
Click to expand...

Exactly. 'probably' You are in the dark and so am I.

Yet Zacuto had all the gear in one place to try out such a situation.. which they basically did .. I just like to see a few more examples and comment on the power of light required

"The desert. This is what it looks like on a GH2, now if we pop in a $4k HMI .. bingo - it nearly matches the Alexa!"

..(or doesnt), or maybe "the Alexa needs the $4k HMI too, but hey whats an HMI in an Alexa budget .. "

This is what I would like to see!

S
 
Hywel said:
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).
Click to expand...

This! Now that I know lighting is more important than camera, I need to know which lighting kit will allow me to brag effectively on the forums. :P
 
refocusedmedia said:
This! Now that I know lighting is more important than camera, I need to know which lighting kit will allow me to brag effectively on the forums. :P
Click to expand...


Something like this would be a great START....

griptruck.jpg


of course some of use have to use something like this...

grip truck hyphygreek .jpg


(Thanks to hyphygreek for originally posting that last pic).
 
Gary Huff said:
Probably not a whole heck of a lot better. You might see some detail out the window, but I can't imagine not much more. That's the sun, it's really bright. Best bet, regardless of camera, would be to put some ND filter on the outside of that window.
Click to expand...

Or, at the very least, drop the window dressing. I note that their appears to be some type of curtains on the windows that fold up. I understand the point that is being made about wanting to include the view out the window, camera performance and the need for lighting control, like ND on the window or bigger lights on the interior, but if those are not available use what you got and close the curtains. It would probably still be an exposure mess around the window dressing, but it might be better than the straight window. Of course I was not on the shoot and do not know all of the considerations there, but sometimes low budget filmmaking is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Like Ian-T says, even color negative film would have a hard time making that shot look good. The blown highlights would probably look better, IMHO, but it would still be blown (Or the interior would be very underexposed, if you exposed for the window).

Edit: For S&Gs...another low budget trick on a LOCKED DOWN STATIC SHOT... you can shoot a plate exposed for the window then a plate exposed for the interior and matte them together in post. This is a very limited technique , of course.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this is sort of drifting off topic, but to me its not its seeking the limits of camera lighting combinations the lmits Id hope to find in a shootout..

I shoot a lot of hotels, the proprietors want the view, I like to shoot towards the windows, even if blown, to keep the room 'open'. Now with stills we can pull back an amazing amount in post, I guess you might be able to do the same with raw or log (but I dont have the cameras to test)

Of course the other solution is more light (or Nd - hard on the 3rd floor or with big windows) - HMI levels of light - as I said I used 2k of CTB tungsten here - but plainly that was pXssing in the wind in this scene, with this camera (the FS100)

These wide deep spaces are the super challenge becuase a lasto or a litepanel doesnt do anything (unlike with a closeup)

This is where the expensive cameras shine.. or not (the shootout Id like to see)

A still with minimal (but some) extra light, I go for the airy blown window look acheived with subtle post (from one frame)

I think the alexa and the others can do this too .. maybe?

still.jpg
S
 
Last edited:
Sorry for my post... I see you to have some very specific considerations and that is tough. I would like to see a test for that also. If you are up for buying new gear, doesn't the Red cameras, even the Scarlett, have HDR that might help your kind of shoots?
 
I dont think the considerations are that specific - yep Im showing some really dull industry specific images because the illustrate the issues - but the balance of DR, Light Costs, post costs and camera is relevant to all (I hope)

Absolutely, maybe Scarlet, maybe F3/Slog, maybe more light and stick with a cheap cam .. Ill have to do my own shootout but Ill never get the resources available to Steve and the gang

(which I would do anyway before plonking the wedge)

Overall I dont really want to talk about my needs but influence a future 'shootout' maybe

S
 
zacuto said:
Sorry, I don't agree, it'a all about lighting. The camera is just a device to pickup lighting
Click to expand...

But obviously the camera you're using will affect how you light. How you light affects how you tell the story. The camera is definitely not just a device to pickup lighting - if that were so, we would never have bothered innovating beyond the first digital cameras.

Hywel said:
The conclusion [of the shootout] is that with big budget lighting and big budget lenses, the camera is a relatively small part of the overall equation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know why any of the results so far are a surprise to anybody. Obviously if you have great DP's and extremely extensive lighting options you can make pretty much any camera look good. Why people are trying to make this into a huge "revelation" about cinematography is beyond me.

zacuto said:
I'm not telling people there are not difference between cameras.
Click to expand...

But you are basically telling them to stop thinking about those differences. I'm sure you don't mean to sound as extreme as you do, but keep in mind that giving blanket instructions to the entire cinematography community that are really only meant for the small percentage who only think about cameras and not lighting is a bit of an overreaction.

Hywel said:
To me, a more interesting question is what can the cameras do with a level of support commensurate with their overall costs... 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.
Click to expand...

YES THIS!

This shootout is uninteresting to me so far. Nobody should have been surprised by any of the results. Part 3 might be useful, though.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
I do hope people can behave respectfully. Especially when the results are revealed, and they may or may not coincide with someone's wishes or beliefs.


And this is exactly the kind of thing that we fear may bring the flame wars. This statement can be taken two ways -- it could be taken to say "of course there's a difference, but you (individual person) are claiming there's a difference when you're not even skilled enough to see it." OR, it could be saying "nobody can tell the difference between the two, DSLRs are just as good."

And both sides of the argument will try to use this same "test" and this same footage to "advance their cause."

And that, right there, is the problem. You shouldn't HAVE "a cause." You shouldn't really care what anyone else uses, or how they spend their money. Just buy and use what you like and be done with it.

The problem with what Zacuto's done here, in my opinion, is that they've created a "camera test" where it's basically impossible to evaluate the actual camera itself. Their footage isn't showing what the cameras can do, it's showing what a team of people can do. And I can almost guarantee you that if you prefer "B" and hate "H", that if the team that used "B" had used "H" instead, that you "B"-lovers would probably love "H" better.

And because of that, I think that we can't actually learn anything of value from the "results" of this "test", other than "it's the person behind the camera that matters more than the camera itself." Which is something we've been saying for years and years. Macgregor with an iPhone 4 will produce better images than I could with an F65 -- that should be obvious... even though an F65 is an infinitely superior camera over an iPhone 4, which should be equally obvious.
Click to expand...

Postmaster said:
Sport, politics, religion, cars, consumer electronics andwhatnot - it all is the same effect.
Defend your decision of fanboyissm till you drop - it's more a psychological problem than a technical one.

A whole industry makes a living on that and only a few of us are brand agnostic.
Why? Don't know the answer to that. Maybe evolution at work.

Frank
Click to expand...

Adam J McKay said:
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.
Click to expand...

Adam you are a genius. You make total sense. I agree with your workflow. If budget doesn't allow you to have the kit of a lifetime, then lesser camera but having money for a lighting kit and real tripod. Definitely the right way to go. You bring up an excellent point. What does an audience see or notice and what is just DP masterbation. I originally though about doing a screening of ordinary theater goers to see what they would pick in the shootout. But kind of forgot about it. Audiences don't see any of this stuff. I know when I go to the movie I'm going to see a story. The visuals need to support the story, help tell the story but in no way detract become more noticeable then the story. I've interviewed so many people in the industry and I can't remember who said it but "the image should not distract you from the story"
 
Barry_Green said:
I do hope people can behave respectfully. Especially when the results are revealed, and they may or may not coincide with someone's wishes or beliefs.


And this is exactly the kind of thing that we fear may bring the flame wars. This statement can be taken two ways -- it could be taken to say "of course there's a difference, but you (individual person) are claiming there's a difference when you're not even skilled enough to see it." OR, it could be saying "nobody can tell the difference between the two, DSLRs are just as good."

And both sides of the argument will try to use this same "test" and this same footage to "advance their cause."

And that, right there, is the problem. You shouldn't HAVE "a cause." You shouldn't really care what anyone else uses, or how they spend their money. Just buy and use what you like and be done with it.

The problem with what Zacuto's done here, in my opinion, is that they've created a "camera test" where it's basically impossible to evaluate the actual camera itself. Their footage isn't showing what the cameras can do, it's showing what a team of people can do. And I can almost guarantee you that if you prefer "B" and hate "H", that if the team that used "B" had used "H" instead, that you "B"-lovers would probably love "H" better.

And because of that, I think that we can't actually learn anything of value from the "results" of this "test", other than "it's the person behind the camera that matters more than the camera itself." Which is something we've been saying for years and years. Macgregor with an iPhone 4 will produce better images than I could with an F65 -- that should be obvious... even though an F65 is an infinitely superior camera over an iPhone 4, which should be equally obvious.
Click to expand...

Postmaster said:
Sport, politics, religion, cars, consumer electronics andwhatnot - it all is the same effect.
Defend your decision of fanboyissm till you drop - it's more a psychological problem than a technical one.

A whole industry makes a living on that and only a few of us are brand agnostic.
Why? Don't know the answer to that. Maybe evolution at work.

Frank
Click to expand...

Hywel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hywel,
Funny you should say that, I have though about doing a lighting program. The issue with lighting is not the brand of instruments you use, it's more of an issue of knowing what kind and quality of light to use. We really need to start from scratch and teach lighting. What is a hard light vs. a soft light, bounce light. Key, fill, back, edge lighting. 3 point, single source. It's not really a factor of manufacturer because really all that tells you is durability of the instrument. There are type issues, like LED, LCD, Plasma, fresnel, open face, scoop, kino and others. Controlling light with flags, cutters, scrims, cookie's, fingers and dots. It's unfortunately the type of thing that would have to be a 10 part series and I have to believe it exists somewhere. I will tell you that Bruce Logan is doing a workshop in August at EVS, where he is going to be going into a lot of this. I would recommend it to anyone.
 
Barry_Green said:
I do hope people can behave respectfully. Especially when the results are revealed, and they may or may not coincide with someone's wishes or beliefs.


And this is exactly the kind of thing that we fear may bring the flame wars. This statement can be taken two ways -- it could be taken to say "of course there's a difference, but you (individual person) are claiming there's a difference when you're not even skilled enough to see it." OR, it could be saying "nobody can tell the difference between the two, DSLRs are just as good."

And both sides of the argument will try to use this same "test" and this same footage to "advance their cause."

And that, right there, is the problem. You shouldn't HAVE "a cause." You shouldn't really care what anyone else uses, or how they spend their money. Just buy and use what you like and be done with it.

The problem with what Zacuto's done here, in my opinion, is that they've created a "camera test" where it's basically impossible to evaluate the actual camera itself. Their footage isn't showing what the cameras can do, it's showing what a team of people can do. And I can almost guarantee you that if you prefer "B" and hate "H", that if the team that used "B" had used "H" instead, that you "B"-lovers would probably love "H" better.

And because of that, I think that we can't actually learn anything of value from the "results" of this "test", other than "it's the person behind the camera that matters more than the camera itself." Which is something we've been saying for years and years. Macgregor with an iPhone 4 will produce better images than I could with an F65 -- that should be obvious... even though an F65 is an infinitely superior camera over an iPhone 4, which should be equally obvious.
Click to expand...

Postmaster said:
Sport, politics, religion, cars, consumer electronics andwhatnot - it all is the same effect.
Defend your decision of fanboyissm till you drop - it's more a psychological problem than a technical one.

A whole industry makes a living on that and only a few of us are brand agnostic.
Why? Don't know the answer to that. Maybe evolution at work.

Frank
Click to expand...

David G. Smith said:
Or, at the very least, drop the window dressing. I note that their appears to be some type of curtains on the windows that fold up. I understand the point that is being made about wanting to include the view out the window, camera performance and the need for lighting control, like ND on the window or bigger lights on the interior, but if those are not available use what you got and close the curtains. It would probably still be an exposure mess around the window dressing, but it might be better than the straight window. Of course I was not on the shoot and do not know all of the considerations there, but sometimes low budget filmmaking is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Like Ian-T says, even color negative film would have a hard time making that shot look good. The blown highlights would probably look better, IMHO, but it would still be blown (Or the interior would be very underexposed, if you exposed for the window).

Edit: For S&Gs...another low budget trick on a LOCKED DOWN STATIC SHOT... you can shoot a plate exposed for the window then a plate exposed for the interior and matte them together in post. This is a very limited technique , of course.
Click to expand...

You are correct, you work with what you have. My only statement is don't blow you total wad on a camera without a nice little light kit. To me this is the most awesome light kit, comes in a case with a Chimera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/752202-REG/Arri_571991P_Softbank_III_Plus_5.html I could light 90% or more of a feature film with this kit. Maybe have to rent or buy a small led or two for inside cars and tight corners but you can light just about anything with this kit.
 
For those who haven't seen "Visions of Light", I highly recommend it--just a great doc about DP's and their cinematic inspiration and love of imagery.
Ditto "Cinematographer Style".

I have the Blu Ray of the PGA Camera Assessment series, which showed multiple scenes lit by top DP's. At the time, I was struck by how subtle the differences between cameras were, much like the Zacuto test, but look forward to the upcoming ungraded test.

We have Canon, Sony and Panasonic cameras and I'm asked constantly about the minutia of each, because I'm in the rental business. At a certain point I start wondering if similar attention has been given to talent, art direction and lighting.
 
zacuto said:
You are correct, you work with what you have. My only statement is don't blow you total wad on a camera without a nice little light kit. To me this is the most awesome light kit, comes in a case with a Chimera: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/752202-REG/Arri_571991P_Softbank_III_Plus_5.html I could light 90% or more of a feature film with this kit. Maybe have to rent or buy a small led or two for inside cars and tight corners but you can light just about anything with this kit.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. That is a great kit. After making some mistakes in getting light gear, I think that the approach I would recommend for a low budget fictional narrative light kit is to first get a "Bread and Butter Kit" of the best quality lights AND basic grip gear that you can afford, Then put together some lights, that could be less expensive than your "Bread and Butter Kit", just for pure light output. I went with several 1K PAR 64s and a bunch of inexpensive open faced fixtures. After that I recommend looking around and putting together a couple of bins of "Out Of The Box" lights. Anything goes really on that so I have been putting together all sorts of different lights; christmas and fairy lights, inexpensive battery powered LED lights, high output tungsten and LED accent lights and of course a large collection of E-26 Medium base ("Normal" household socket in the US) fixtures, including clamp work lights scoops from Home Depot, and a pile of different bulbs. I know a lot of folks poo-poo these kinds of lights but sooner or latter you will probably need a little ceiling or wall wash, or just a little "Sumptin'" out that door at the back of the hall way or a million other situations where a 40 watt, or a 100 watt or a frosted 250 watt bulb or what ever, in a clamp scoop light or other unconventional light, would work great...
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
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?
View attachment 56715

S
Click to expand...

Tape this to the windows on the outside:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/166436-REG/Gam_GCA1517_GCA1517_Cine_Neutral_Density.html
 
How can you attach CTB to the tota without melting it (or at least it dicolouring after a bit) - thats my reason for not having a few lights like that ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top