The Great Camera Shootout 2010

If you need a "film look":

1. Use your favorite Kodak/Fuji color profile, and tweak in post to match it even better if you feel it needs it.

2. Keep everything within the 14.25 stops of DR (2k finish) as opposed to about 15 for the better stocks of film.

3. Add grain in post at 5k.

But above all:

A. Take responsibility.

B. Stop blaming/relying on the camera.

:) Nothing but <3


Looking forward to the new episode on Wednesday!
 
John Brawley said:
So the 150 odd other ASC dp's who choose not to shoot with HDSLR's don't count.

You're obviously hearing what you want to hear.




Your best alternative after slagging off cinema / exhibition is to stay at home. Check.



Well Id' suggest that getting a loan for $600 odd million points to the real reason cinemas STILL haven't gone digital. No one wants to pay the plant costs. And why should cinema owners pay for new projectors every 5 years so distributors can save money ?

The only reason that digital projection is FINALLY taking off is because of 3D. It means they can charge MORE for each ticket and all of a sudden there's a financial driver from the customers who want to watch a film in 3D and are prepared to pay a premium to do so....yeah, all those people out there that don't just stay home to watch movies...

There was no reason for a cinema owner to spend more on projectors that have a 5 year operating life to give distributors a saving on print costs.

And of course, your complaints about screens being out of focus and bad popcorn don't get fixed by a digital projector. You'll still get bad projection if the sparkling new digital cinema isn't on-game.




Although it hasn't been smooth sailing for them of late, you seem ignorant of Kodak's business and history in digital imaging. Kodak have lead the charge to digital projection, make some of the worlds best digital photo sensors (Pentax 645, hasselbald, leica's), as well as supplying sensors in the Spirit Film datacines, not to mention inventing the cineon file format and literally have thousands of digital imaging patents. Oh yeah, they built the first megapixel camaera sensor and made the first commercial digital camera. (a modified Nikon F3)

Suffice to say Kodak (and fuji) are in the digital imaging business as well and have been for a long time.

Let's move on from this debate which has a long and boring history. It is so tedious. Let's not talk of film being dead anymore and talk instead about the what the current cameras can actually do and how to get the most of them.

Film is dead 1982 (read the first para under new gear at NAB...nearly 30 years before the F35..there was the little known ikegami / CP EC 35 !!)

1982 was a big year for Panavision too with their forerunner to the Genesis...the Panacam (see page 5)


Film is dead 2009

Film is dead 2007

Film is dead 2005

Film is dead 2002

Film is dead 2001


Film is dead 2000

Of course, the first reference to film being dead was from about 1956 when Daily Variety apparently had a banner that screamed "Film is dead!" in response to ampex inventing videotape. (yeah the 2" quad version)

jb
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]I have been excited over the dramatic advances in digital imaging over the past several years and that the prices of that equipment has become more affordable at the same time. For the past 20 years or so, film and digital technology have coexisted and complemented each other in the movie industry. It is true that the trend has been for greater growth in digital over film and it offers many advantages compared to film. But, despite the numerous pronouncements of the “death of film,” as they said in the Zacuto shootout, film remains the “gold standard.”[/FONT]
 
yoclay said:
There is one other place where DSLR's beat 35mm film, and that is high ISO's. Anything over 500 ISO in film is going to be far grainier and not hold the same kind of detail and latitude as the DSLR's. This is not a small thing in the sense that this also means less lights and and logistical considerations in some situations. Combine this with the speed of many DSLR lenses (especially some of the older manual focus ones) and you have the possibility of a much lighter more spontaneous form of narrative.
Click to expand...

Pretty much confirmed by the new 2nd part of this series.
 
I don´t get it. Who want´s to shoot above 500 ISO?
For some very special situations in documentaries maybe, but on a normal set?

Yeah, that Nikon was pretty impressive at a half foot candle but how often do you have a situation like that on set?

My lights are an important tool to shape my pictures not only to make a scene bright enough for the camera. They are an artistic decision not a technical.

My ct2 Frank
 
I agree Frank.

Also, I'm not suprised by the greenish noisier 5Dll footgage vs the 7D at ISO 5000. I remember someone many months back posted a noise profile of the 5Dll vs 7D and it showed that same greenish noise in the upper range.

I expected the Nikon to kick but in the low light category also.
 
"Perfectly acceptable image." If your not being paid to shoot a movie.

"What grain?" The grain in the darkness....

These are the most biased comparisons I have ever seen. These "judges" are total fan boys of DSLR's! They glorify DSLR's and put down film. I actually get a good laugh out of watching these people talk about DSLR's. This whole thing is to promote them. The fact that they show a DSLR video after each episode proves this.

At the end of the episode they were talking about how the next one would have a resolution test. Jens also, quickly said "2K". Bull sh*t! 35mm is 4K, what is this 2K crap? So pretty much they are going to cut films resolution in half and compare it to the DSLR's at there full potential? This is bull.
 
But what's wrong with promoting the DSLRs? They are not putting film down at all. Matter of fact they are using it as the standard. The idea is to show you how far you can push them compared to film. Not that they are better. I think most of us are smart in knowing that film...especially when pushed...will kick but. We know 35mm is 4k.....but that is not what we see in theaters...it is traditionally "cut right in half." Just like we know that these DSLRs capture much more than that....but still delivers a lot less. But even with "a lot less" they can be stunning in practical use...hence the showing of the movie at the end.
 
Ian-T said:
But what's wrong with promoting the DSLRs? They are not putting film down at all. Matter of fact they are using it as the standard. The idea is to show you how far you can push them compared to film. Not that they are better. I think most of us are smart in knowing that film...especially when pushed...will kick but. We know 35mm is 4k.....but that is not what we see in theaters...it is traditionally "cut right in half." Just like we know that these DSLRs capture much more than that....but still delivers a lot less. But even with "a lot less" they can be stunning in practical use...hence the showing of the movie at the end.
Click to expand...

What we see in theaters doesn't matter. That's not what 35mm film really is. If they wanted to do a fair and accurate test, they would scan 35mm at 4k, and keep the DSLR footage at 1080p. It's not an accurate resolution test if they are not displaying both formats at there highest resolution. It's just not.

Nothing is wrong with promoting DSLRs. I love them. But it is wrong to feed us a bunch of crap about how they don't care who wins, the judges don't care, when the fact is that all the judges are digital/DSLR users/lovers. They all have promoted DSLRs in the past, which makes them inappropriate if fair tests want to be done.
 
Last edited:
Keegan O'Brien said:
What we see in theaters doesn't matter. That's not what 35mm film really is. If they want to do a fair and accurate test, they would scan 35mm at 4k, and keep the DSLR footage at 1080p. It's not an accurate resolution test if they are not displaying both formats at there highest resolution. It's just not.
Click to expand...
But why? Someone else could argue "who watches 35mm at 4k?" My thought is if 35mm is the standard and viewing 35mm@ 2k is the standard then that's the level at where it should be tested.
 
I think when they were talking about the resolution tests they mean between each DSLR. Film's resolution is well documented and its non-linear nature makes it hard to easily compare. I suspect we'll mainly be seeing resolution comparisions on the SLRs.
 
Ian-T said:
But why? Someone else could argue "who watches 35mm at 4k?" My thought is if 35mm is the standard and viewing 35mm@ 2k is the standard then that's the level at where it should be tested.
Click to expand...

Well, since the majority of DSLR work is viewed on Vimeo and YouTube, I think they should use the compressed files online to use in the comparison. Since that is the "viewing standard" for DSLR footage.
 
Ian-T said:
But why? Someone else could argue "who watches 35mm at 4k?" My thought is if 35mm is the standard and viewing 35mm@ 2k is the standard then that's the level at where it should be tested.
Click to expand...

Hey, who would have been watching those old movies and TV shows at greater than 360 lines of resolution (VHS and SD TV)?

It's called future proofing.
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
What we see in theaters doesn't matter. That's not what 35mm film really is. If they wanted to do a fair and accurate test, they would scan 35mm at 4k, and keep the DSLR footage at 1080p. It's not an accurate resolution test if they are not displaying both formats at there highest resolution. It's just not.

Nothing is wrong with promoting DSLRs. I love them. But it is wrong to feed us a bunch of crap about how they don't care who wins, the judges don't care, when the fact is that all the judges are digital/DSLR users/lovers. They all have promoted DSLRs in the past, which makes them inappropriate if fair tests want to be done.
Click to expand...


The Webisode is Called DSLR shootout, Not DSLR VS FILM.. they are just using the Film as the BEST standard and then Grading the DSLRs against each other. the outcome that will most likely be, is that Compared to FILM a (dslr) i say canon, will be chosen as the Winner, not that a dslr will beat FILM.. the FILM is in this case a RULER or tool.

i have to say the GH1 is holding up in color test. pay attention to the Girl in the light, her nightgoun or dress red color looks nicer on the gh1
 
They clearly said that it was because everything but the 1D and the Nikon simply goes terribly awry at those high ISOs.
 
Postmaster said:
I don´t get it. Who want´s to shoot above 500 ISO?
For some very special situations in documentaries maybe, but on a normal set?

Yeah, that Nikon was pretty impressive at a half foot candle but how often do you have a situation like that on set?

My lights are an important tool to shape my pictures not only to make a scene bright enough for the camera. They are an artistic decision not a technical.

My ct2 Frank
Click to expand...

People want to shoot above 500 ISO all the time. The only reason why most people don't in film is because they pretty much can't. It looks like crap most of the time.
Witness how much street stuff is now out there, shot at night on every neon lit strip in America and the rest of the world. High ISO's and DSLR's are changing the way people work. For neo-realist directors this is huge for instance. Yes, sculpting light is important for artistic reasons, but the point is it can now be done with available practical lights and reflectors and a few lightweight LED panels as opposed to huge KW's and HMI's in many interior scenes. That is a huge saving for many Indie filmmakers. What this means in terms of logistics, budget constraints and set-up/breakdown time is phenomenal. We are now bringing the talent to the light (the available light of a situation) rather than the light to the talent. There is no question that film has great latitude, but it falls apart pretty quickly above 400ISO, and for the majority of interiors (and let's face it that is the majority of most films) your gonna have to bring in a lot more light and the generator truck to keep it from doing that. So many folks out there can sneer all they want (and I am not referring to you Postmaster, though I am sure I am about to receive a lot of snide comments from others) five years from now we'll see who's laughing and where the working methodology has gone to. Every time the cinema industry has reduced it's lighting needs there has been a evolution in terms of the spontaneity of performances and the kind of narratives being produced.
 
Last edited:
Well stated!

Just to add a few words I believe the task is still going to be getting a scene lit properly. But the focus will shift from totally creating a proper scene from scratch in most cases to manipulating the available scene into a properly lit scene with minimum effort. As an independent film maker this is huge.

Keegan O'Brien said:
Well, since the majority of DSLR work is viewed on Vimeo and YouTube, I think they should use the compressed files online to use in the comparison. Since that is the "viewing standard" for DSLR footage.
Click to expand...

I believe your looking through the wrong end of the telescope:)

This test was set to push the boundaries of this technology. That is why they tested along side film. The comparisons are what we are after here. We want to know how DSLR stacks up in a theater next to the big boys film cameras. This is what makes these test so amazing. They are stacking with pretty amazing results.
 
Last edited:
subtleinspiration said:
They clearly said that it was because everything but the 1D and the Nikon simply goes terribly awry at those high ISOs.
Click to expand...

This is quite interesting as in the still world, massive ISOs really show their worts. It is a demonstration of how comparatively low resolution 1080p video is for these sensors. Basically a lot of the noise is washed away in the cracks.

If somebody could take the 5D sized sensor and fill it up with the correct number of (larger) pixels for 1080p the thing would be even more of a light gathering monster. But I suspect the film community wants 4k if they are going to make anything. Which that sensor would be about equal to the Nikon in the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top