I don't get it. No one posts about other random stuff Shane puts on his blog (there are GREAT lighting tips and the like there) but when it's a cameratest, everyone comes out of the woodwork with all sorts of opinions. Apparently cameratests are more important than lighting tips or other anecdotes?
Shane Hurlbut ASC conducting “The Ultimate Camera Test”
- Thread starter Ted Ramasola
- Start date
- Status
None of that other stuff matters. Lighting? Pffffft! The important thing is the megapixels and the bit rate of your digital camera, the insane ISO it can shoot at, and how cheaply you can get those things.
With enough ISO, megapixels (hopefully 8k at least), and a super high bit rate you can just grab a couple of homeless people, put them under a street light and have them yell at each other, and bang! you have a hit movie on your hands. Don't forget to shoot handheld and move the camera around a LOT! for no particular reason, and you should have at least a few extremely shallow depth of field shots. Like the nose is in focus but the ear is out of focus, or vice a versa depending on the mood of your movie. If it's a romantic comedy go for the nose in focus, but in a drama it usually works best if the ear is in focus.
I am stealing this idea!
EIREHotspur
Well-known member
They are Camera Techies Lists......everybody loves lists.
The next step should be The Top Ten of Cameras....Lists work even better with countdowns.
The next step should be The Top Ten of Cameras....Lists work even better with countdowns.
legrevedotcom
Veteran
Omg why would you do that to us?! xD
simonpwood
Well-known member
Thread about it here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-Shot-on-RED&highlight=time+machine+yardsale
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-Shot-on-RED&highlight=time+machine+yardsale
BrianMurphy
Veteran
You are right! Wonder if there will be a Shane Hurlbut custom GoPro Hero rig complete with autograph for sale. Too many critics and too many reviews that get reviewed for my taste.
Yak
Well-known member
Having not viewed this "shootout" I can not say if it will be helpful or not, what I can say is that a fair & well done "shootout" can be very helpful in knowing the upside and pitfalls of todays cameras and how they preform so when one is using one of the cameras one can have better information as to how they will preform. Of corse one should not base their camera choice on just a "Camera Test" or one review one needs to check out the camera for themselves and see if it will fit their needs and budget. I for one greatly appreciate the work the BBC does in their camera evaluations I have found that the BBC suggested camera settings have been very helpful in giving a good starting point when I set up a new Camera. Whether or not this is the “The Ultimate Camera Test” is another matter but I will watch it.
Last edited:
Will Turner
Well-known member
I don't want any more shoot outs. Please. Stop making me lust for things I can not afford. Stuff you capitalism Im sticking with my GH2 + 550D!
Billy Barber
Member
With all due respect Barry (and that's a lot of respect) one could argue that these shoot outs support your usual argument better than anything else. Because if there's one thing they prove it's that the differences are.....wait for it......negligable. Big word. Coppola chose the GH2, end of story. That there would be much bigger differences in lenses, sets or even make up artists, especially make up artists come to think of it. And that's what gives one the confidence to buy the camera that he feels the most comfortable with, the one he loves using and can stand carrying around all day. And won't resent buying because it was more of an investment than he should have made, or wasn't the latest fad.
Besides, the shoot outs are fun.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, see, but -- there, I agree and disagree. The takeaway you got from that farcical shootout was "the difference between a GH2 and an F65 is negligible." That's complete misinformation! The F65 is vastly better than the GH2 in every possible way. But, because of the way the "shootout" was conducted, it lent itself to being manipulated by the decisions each cinematographer made. So in the end, Coppola didn't choose the GH2. Coppola said that Colt Seaman with a GH2 made a more pleasing picture than the Sony guy did with the F65.
That's not a camera shootout, and that's not a valid conclusion. Colt Seaman with an F65 would be able to make vastly better images than Colt Seaman with a GH2. Den Lennie with the FS100 created images that many people ranked at the bottom, even though the FS100 is capable of excellent imagery.
Where I do agree is that we're at a stage where the cameras are good enough, so people should quit obsessing over them and just go put them to work. Plenty satisfactory images can be made on as inexpensive a camera as a GH2, *if* you're up to the task. And if you're not up to the task? Then even an F65 won't save you, since a talented shooter with a GH2 can make images that some people find even more appealing than someone else might get from an F65.
That's not a camera shootout, and that's not a valid conclusion. Colt Seaman with an F65 would be able to make vastly better images than Colt Seaman with a GH2. Den Lennie with the FS100 created images that many people ranked at the bottom, even though the FS100 is capable of excellent imagery.
Where I do agree is that we're at a stage where the cameras are good enough, so people should quit obsessing over them and just go put them to work. Plenty satisfactory images can be made on as inexpensive a camera as a GH2, *if* you're up to the task. And if you're not up to the task? Then even an F65 won't save you, since a talented shooter with a GH2 can make images that some people find even more appealing than someone else might get from an F65.
Oller Visuals
Well-known member
Either way, I think Shane does this with a "pro" approach, ie there's no hacked GH2's in there... I think the test will be interesting for the sole reason that Shane always talks about NOT being obsessed with gear, cameras etc. Probably a bit different from the Zacuto ones.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
For transparency, he's rather openly invested in Canon, as his company deals almost exclusively in renting their lenses and cameras. He is chosen by Canon to showcase their new cameras, and also co-speaks with Canon employee's at open filmmaker educational courses. Not saying he will be bias, but just saying he's already formed an opinion on the matter and has gone down the DSLR/Canon road pretty far. Again, something to think about going forward. Backstory.
He's been known to blast out very summarized nonesense in the past (such as saying that Master Primes were "sh*t",) however saying stuff like that casually, out of context, or off the record is probably something most of us are guilty of, however he is a public figure in the (DSLR) video equipment opinion world, so some people have to really watch what they say. I'm sure Barry Green knows this! So yes, his opinions may be different, and he does sometimes say absolutely ridiculous things in my opinion... but the point is, the ASC is a wonderful organization with many people who believe in very different methodologies. Some of the members swear by film, some swear by alexa, some swear by red, and Mr. Hurlbut has professionally aligned with Canon/DSLR's. He and his wife started Hurlbut Visuals, a website more or less devoted to the DSLR crowd/ Canon cameras. I believe his wife is the acting president of the company and runs the business(?). They specialize exclusively in DSLR video rigs, DSLR cameras, and now Canon video cameras like C300. It's something he really believes in, and has used very frequently. It's no secret and if the test is nothing but honest, I expect the pro's of the Canon's to be discussed at greater length than the con's. Why wouldn't he? I do the same when speaking about the importance of cinema lenses on cinema applications. It's called making a point or being persuasive to your beliefs. Debate club 101.
He's a talented cinematographer on his bigger studio works. I'm sure many could make a DSLR look pretty good with professional actors, top lighting crew, amazing locations, professional art direction, and amazing VFX/post processing companies behind me. Goes to show a talented cameraman (which we must acknowledge he is) can do great things with any camera when he's given all the other tools needed for a good film. (see above) That said, I am very staunch opponent to DSLR's for the most part. I suppose that will change, because it is inevitable that technology will march on and someday soon, the DSLR will have a very good image in resolution, range and movement (no rolling shutter) and when that day comes, I'll re-evaluate my opinion.
I think everyone should do their own tests. I have, and I stick to my opinion above. I will check out his results regardless. Again, his video content is usually aimed at beginners and not advanced shooters, thus I'm wondering how indepth the test will truly be and how poignant the data he collects will result.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, yes, more can help, but -- I've seen Macgregor do utterly amazing things with a handheld HVX in available light. Having the "eye" is a huge part of it... the camera is the last bit.
This focus (hah!) on the hardware is kind of akin to when Nike/Adidas/Reebok first started hypermarketing $200 basketball shoes. Meaning, kids thinking that buying expensive shoes will make them better basketball players...
So let's continue with this -- will buying fancy shoes make you play like Michael Jordan? Of course not, we all know that. But did MJ play in five-dollar Keds? Of course not. And so it is with cameras -- buying a Red will not guarantee your footage will look good; just watch the Time Machine. And using a $600 T2i will not guarantee your footage will look bad.
Summation: buy the best and most usable camera you can possibly afford. Your goal should be that the camera doesn't GET IN THE WAY of you making great footage. Many cameras are capable of producing fine footage. To me, it's now more about usability and functionality than it is about pixels and highlights.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Just wanted to take a quick moment and laugh at the line in the video where Shane says "We're there for you on the weekend, when sh*t goes down"....
Sounds like a DSLR shoot to me.
hehehe.
Sounds like a DSLR shoot to me.
hehehe.
starcentral
Veteran
Has the person behind The Time Machine come forward at all on these forums? I doubt they ever will with the amount of abuse this undertook.
But I was curious to know.
I think many people that want to be directors concentrate on cameras and gear because it is quantifiable and it can be learned.
You can teach most people how to use equipment to create a Hollywood look. You can't teach them to be Robert Richardson, but you can teach them enough to create a consistent quality look.
You can read blogs and learn fstops, lenses, standard lighting set ups, megabytes per second, post production techniques like using Resolve, the rule of thirds, etc., etc.
But try learning how to be a Hitchcock, a Tarantino, or a Scorsese (which is not about camera gear). That's a lot less quantifiable, a lot less concrete, and a lot more difficult.
- Status