Revenge of the shootout FS100 - my gripe!

S

Showman Media

Member
Anyone else see the revenge of the shootout over at Zacuto?
http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-the-great-camera-shootout-part-two
Could not get over how poor the fs100 looked on that test, yet I love my fs100, I think it's a fantastic camera for the money, but had this test been around 6 months ago I wonder if I'd have bought it! I'm actually worried that my more camera wary clients (young budget music vid directors) are going to see this video and, regardless of my ability, be put off hiring me and my package over a 7D/GH2 operator simply because of this! heck someone in the vid said it was worse than the I phone!
I think this is all down to seeing it directly after the Sony f65, that camera is insane, the detail, colour, latitude, it makes the fs100 look weaker of course, and this has obviously registered with the audience as it did me, compared to seeing the GH2 after the F3 it's a big shift, yet skip back to most of the other cameras and Sony looks great. I'm pretty angry at the makers of this programme as it's taken as law by some over-enthusiastic folk, I think it's irresponsible as was mentioned at the start of the video, they need to be careful because they're messing with our livelyhood!
 
Well, you've definitely missed the whole concept of that whole documentary, let's just hope these directors of yours don't as well.

IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE.

Even when the DP's where setting up lighting, etc.. it's there opinion. Most of them state that they where setting up the camera to get the feel across more than camera mumble-jumble techno blable.

Once again this is just your opinion on how the FS100 actually looked, to someone else out there in the e-world, they could of thought the FS100 looked best.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
 
If you look deeper into Part 2 - I think they make it pretty clear that a number of cameras - iphone comes to mind, where a great deal of work was required in the back end to make it look good.

I think Zacuto did a fair job of presenting this information enough so people could see that not all things were equal. This component was entirely subjective based on DOP / BACKEND choices. And what one man / woman sees, rarely does another see it exactly the same. I wouldnt sweat it at all.

I want to point out as well - who has the backend workflow they used handy and at their fingertips? Im talking about interfaces / systems / viewing hardware etc etc. Plus the professional expertise of the person who was operating it?
 
I liked it! It makes a good point, it's not the camera but how well you and your team can extract the best image possible with whatever x camera u have, also as said above it's all "subjective" and makes a good point that there is no magic wand camera, it's all about you and how well you can do with the camera you have. Phillip Bloom stated in one of his blogs "use the best camera you have at you disposal" be it iphone, T4i, 5D,FS100,Etc... Ppl should hire ppl based of there talents not what camera they use Just IMO. =)
 
This is exactly why I didn't like this "shootout". The FS100 is a quite capable camera, but those who handled it certainly didn't get the best from it. On the other side, a less capable camera like the GH2 was handled very skillfully and came out a "winner". So what do we really learn from this? That a $799 stills camera is better at making video than a $5000 dedicated video camera? I hope not, because that's just not true. All we learned is that Colt Seaman can get more out of a GH2 than Den Lennie can get out of an FS100.

Sigh.

Shootouts are nigh unto meaningless unless absolutely every aspect is controlled (like in the SCCE, a great shootout). When you're changing teams and lighting and everything else, then the shootout becomes a lot more about the person than it does about the camera, and so of what value is it? I mean, if you're looking to choose a camera, it's certainly not helpful. I guess if you were shopping for a cinematographer then there'd be some value to it...
 
Ruben/Sheri said:
Phillip Bloom stated in one of his blogs "use the best camera you have at you disposal"
Click to expand...
100% agreed. Use the best you can get.

Ppl should hire ppl based of there talents not what camera they use Just IMO. =)
Click to expand...
Not just your opinion, mine too. Cameras will come and go, look at the Canon DSLR -- two years ago it was being hailed as great, now people are mocking it. Fashions change. If someone's hiring you based on what camera you have, then you're not a cinematographer, you're a rental house -- and you'll stay relevant only so long as that camera stays in fashion. People should hire you based on your skills, not your equipment -- because if they're hiring equipment, they can get that anywhere...
 
Camera shoot outs are like battle of the bands, and those make me sick...... and both are totaly useless.....
 
The only point this test proves is that if a GH2 is well lit and an Alexa is lit like S#!+, the GH2 will look better. Does that mean the GH2 is a better camera than the Alexa or the FS100? Absolutely not. It just shows how important the artistry is.

Of course GH2 fanboys will trump the GH2 as the $700 camera that defeated the Alexa, but we all non GH2 fanboys that's not true. Put all the cameras in the same torture test, and the results would be drastically different.

But it is nice to know that a GH2 can actually serve as a very capable B-Cam to the more expensive cameras under the right circumstances.
 
You know, this whole thing is interesting to me. See, I hold on to my gear forever before upgrading,
and only upgrade when clients start asking for something that makes me upgrade. Otherwise, I'm throwing
away money on 'toys' and while I LOVE toys, I need to be a businessman first. So, I say that, to tell
you that last year I upgraded from a 1.5 mhz G4 running Final Cut Pro 4 and a PD 150.
You see, before last year, every one of my clients wanted a old 4x3 DVD. I ran surveys asking how
many considered HD production, tried to upsell to Blu Ray, and got not a SINGLE taker. Most told me
they not only didn't want it, they wouldn't even consider it. Then last year, I was able to get a couple
clients to agree to pay for HD production when they hired me. The jobs paid enough for me to
upgrade my computer and my camera to an FS100, so I used all the 'deposit' money to buy the gear
and that's how I paid for my upgrade to HD, WAY after most people here had done upgraded.

So all this is to say, that to me, the FS100 looks freaking amazing. The AF100 looks amazing. Even
the HDSLR's look pretty decent. When I shoot, I don't even NOTICE things that the FS100 is picking
up....then later clients talk about what an amazing job I did to get certain details in the shot,
and I couldn't even SEE them....the dynamic range, resolution, it's just awesome! (of course I take
credit for it like I TOTALLY set up the shot to get those details :-) I don't care, C300, AF100,
FS100, F3, FS700, I'll take any one of them any day of the week. They are all better cameras than I
am a shooter. I have the FS100, so I'll use it the best I can, but c'mon, if you can't make good
pictures with one of these I don't know what to say. I mean 5 or 6 years ago I shot something for
PBS with their shiny new Sony HDCam (I think it was a HDW 730). They had just bought it for about 65
grand. I now have the FS100 and pretty much everyone over there agrees that my stuff just looks more
'high end' than their camera...that's how fast things are moving. Have fun with what you have,
try not to envy your neighbor his shiny new Epic, and don't worry about 'keeping up with
the Jones'. Unless you are Philip Bloom, you can't own every camera known to mankind :-)
Us mere mortals need to just be thankful for what WE have. If you have an FS100, you can
make stunning stuff.
 
Showman Media said:
Anyone else see the revenge of the shootout over at Zacuto?
http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-the-great-camera-shootout-part-two
Could not get over how poor the fs100 looked on that test, yet I love my fs100, I think it's a fantastic camera for the money, but had this test been around 6 months ago I wonder if I'd have bought it! I'm actually worried that my more camera wary clients (young budget music vid directors) are going to see this video and, regardless of my ability, be put off hiring me and my package over a 7D/GH2 operator simply because of this! heck someone in the vid said it was worse than the I phone!!
Click to expand...

LOL ... Zacuto make a lot of money on they expencive gear... so , they want more students/ beginers to belive in "Magic way to Big Cinematography with GH2/7D" ... this is what's hidden behind "whole concept of that whole documentary" :)

I do not care what someone think about my FS-100 in past and about my FS-700 today or tomorrow :) ... and I'm sure - I'll get as much project to shoot as I'm good or bad shooter.... so?... Just relax and be happy ! :)
 
The test made me laugh. It seems that in most cases the aim for the DPs was to maximise the range of the cameras, in all cases there was this massive effort to keep the view out of the window. By doing that they reduce the intensity of the light on the floor. Have any of them seen direct sunlight on the floor of a darkened room? Where's the contrast, the feeling of sunlight? The best to me seemed to be the 7D and the F65, not because of the image but simply because the light on the floor seemed more realistic, but even so...

So it did seem to want to be a dynamic range test and if that was the case then shoot charts in a controlled environment.

It turned out to be a test on how some DPs light. But then i doubt they had free reign because the shots would have to have some kind of similarity, i presume they were told to protect highlights.

I don't understand why the room couldn't have been lit once and then all the cameras shoot that with a grade afterwards. Or have one single DP and then operators for each of the cameras, so the DP can do their best each time to achieve the same look.

The 100 didn't look too good, that's for sure, but more because of the lack of any lighting contrast in the room (the 7D was lit much better), it was murky. In the interview afterwards they talk about retaining the spokes of the lamp but no substance on the rest of the scene. I would have liked to see or read the DPs comments about what they felt about each test - not a edited documentary which could be taken out of context.

Kind of half way house which didn't serve a good purpose except to point out that everything is subjective... breaking news...!

cheers
paul
 
I think the shootout is another example of what we already know: the FS100 is a fickle camera. It can look much better than a Canon DSLR, but it takes a lot more work. Denny has done some great things with the FS100, but that test wasn't the strongest. This certainly happens to me too. Sometimes I shoot something and think there is little a RED could do to make the shot better. Other times, I'm confident I've created the ugliest bit of cinematic plastic since 2002.
 
Postmaster said:
Only when you are willing to re-light every scene for the b-camera. :beer:
Click to expand...

Except you don't. Shooting extremely flat on a compressed codec is a bad idea whether it is a $15,000 C300 or a $700 GH2. Just shoot the scene with the look pre-baked on the cameras and then make minor adjustments in post. We're not talking raw. Every time you desaturate or boost the lows on a H.264 or MPEG cam you are baking less colour and more noise into your footage.
 
Well, I should say I was not impressed by the test, but really liked the documentary itself, especially different views form directors. I mean, it all depends how you will lit the scene and how you will grade it in post. For sure, cameras like Alexa and F65 were the winners, because they have a tremendous amount of details and latitude. Scenes with 7D and FS100 were poorly lit in my opinion, but anyway they looked like cinema anyways. The main idea of this test is to show that cameras are just tools, and crew is the most important thing. "Don't invest in cameras, invest in talents" - that what it all was about for me :)
 
Last edited:
Did they mention how long each DP had to light the scene? Might have to watch Part 1 again...
I think for the next shootout it should be outdoors, probably in dim situations - no lights, reflectors, stage... Try and maximise the capabilities of both the cams and DPs with minimum resources and time. I just think that'd be more interesting for me personally...
 
Quote of the day. sticky this and be done with it. jeeeezzz

alaskacameradude said:
You know, this whole thing is interesting to me. See, I hold on to my gear forever before upgrading,
and only upgrade when clients start asking for something that makes me upgrade. Otherwise, I'm throwing
away money on 'toys' and while I LOVE toys, I need to be a businessman first. So, I say that, to tell
you that last year I upgraded from a 1.5 mhz G4 running Final Cut Pro 4 and a PD 150.
You see, before last year, every one of my clients wanted a old 4x3 DVD. I ran surveys asking how
many considered HD production, tried to upsell to Blu Ray, and got not a SINGLE taker. Most told me
they not only didn't want it, they wouldn't even consider it. Then last year, I was able to get a couple
clients to agree to pay for HD production when they hired me. The jobs paid enough for me to
upgrade my computer and my camera to an FS100, so I used all the 'deposit' money to buy the gear
and that's how I paid for my upgrade to HD, WAY after most people here had done upgraded.

So all this is to say, that to me, the FS100 looks freaking amazing. The AF100 looks amazing. Even
the HDSLR's look pretty decent. When I shoot, I don't even NOTICE things that the FS100 is picking
up....then later clients talk about what an amazing job I did to get certain details in the shot,
and I couldn't even SEE them....the dynamic range, resolution, it's just awesome! (of course I take
credit for it like I TOTALLY set up the shot to get those details :-) I don't care, C300, AF100,
FS100, F3, FS700, I'll take any one of them any day of the week. They are all better cameras than I
am a shooter. I have the FS100, so I'll use it the best I can, but c'mon, if you can't make good
pictures with one of these I don't know what to say. I mean 5 or 6 years ago I shot something for
PBS with their shiny new Sony HDCam (I think it was a HDW 730). They had just bought it for about 65
grand. I now have the FS100 and pretty much everyone over there agrees that my stuff just looks more
'high end' than their camera...that's how fast things are moving. Have fun with what you have,
try not to envy your neighbor his shiny new Epic, and don't worry about 'keeping up with
the Jones'. Unless you are Philip Bloom, you can't own every camera known to mankind :-)
Us mere mortals need to just be thankful for what WE have. If you have an FS100, you can
make stunning stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Amazing what an enormous difference lighting makes. I'm as guilty as anyone for getting all geeked out over cameras and lenses, but tests like this make me want to spend more and more time improving my lighting skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top