the last episode of the shootout!!
- Thread starter ramdop
- Start date
- Status
kodjo
Active member
Comparing this stuff to film is silly since nobody who shoots DSLR ever shoots film. I think it would have been more pertinent to compare adaptors to DSLR. In other words, comparing the full range of affordable film emulation digital solutions. After watching this test we still don't know what to buy. It's more of a "feel good" movie for DSLR owners.
if the test included a red camera and showed a much smaller color space, and worse color reproduction, you would have said the footage was not processed right or the footage did not use the latest firmware or that the next camera from red that is not yet released is much better than dslrs.
you can't judge something if your blind to it.
the tests did show or add to our information about color shifts and dynamic range relative to film and dslrs. it doesn't have to be your customized test, and it does show that in not so extreme conditions you could cut film with some dslrs, or use dslrs in some of your shots, and leave a few shots to film and get the same results or better results than film.
you can't judge something if your blind to it.
the tests did show or add to our information about color shifts and dynamic range relative to film and dslrs. it doesn't have to be your customized test, and it does show that in not so extreme conditions you could cut film with some dslrs, or use dslrs in some of your shots, and leave a few shots to film and get the same results or better results than film.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Considering how good film is, better than any video camera, it's very fair to compare the DSLRs to film. Is there a better source to have as a reference than film?
Ian-T
Veteran
Nonsense. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim. There are a number of folks here who shoot on many platforms.
PastePotPete
Member
They didn't compare it to RED because RED isn't the standard. Film is the standard. If the point of the shootout was trying to compare film vs RED then DSLRs being involved wouldn't make sense either. The point of the this Zacuto shootout wasn't to promote DSLRs over RED, it was to see how DSLRs rank against the standard, which is film.
The competition between RED and DSLRs is a fiction of message board arguments.
The competition between RED and DSLRs is a fiction of message board arguments.
Ian-T
Veteran
Exactly. Maybe that's why we have folks like George Lucas using them in his upcoming film.
kodjo
Active member
When you spend millions in Union money to make a movie, the last thing you do is play with prosumer DSLR cameras. Has anybody here thought about the fact Philip Bloom has 10 Millions visits on his website, and having him play around with a DSLR on a movie set creates gret free publicity for the movie? I don't buy for a minute that George Lucas cares one bit about DSLR or any prosumer solution. It's a promotional thing. This is especially true as the upcomming SONY and PANASONIC 35mm solutions will make all DSLR cameras obsolete.
By the way the pseudo Raw they talk about its the setting on the camera. Set to Neutral, zero contrast and a couple of notches down on saturation. With zero sharpness and zero contrast the camera is able to get two full stops more of dynamic range.
Kodjo is all about those freaking adaptors:cheesy: Kodjo, did you spend a fortune on one and are you now feeling miserable because of how great these dslr's look? Get over it.
Kodjo is all about those freaking adaptors:cheesy: Kodjo, did you spend a fortune on one and are you now feeling miserable because of how great these dslr's look? Get over it.
You know this ain't true, come on, make an effort to make a better statement. If dslrs were that bad, why on earth is everybody so excited about them. Why did House shot a full episode on one, why is Shane Hurlbut so happy with them? Have you seen the Last three minutes? Does that look bad to you? Compared to what?
kodjo
Active member
DSLR rolling shutter artifacts, skew and partially exposed frames, chroma and luma aliasing, unusable audio, no electronic assistance aids - no histograms, no accurate exposure meter, no false color, no zebras, and no edge recognition call for separate fixes.
Every fix comes at additional cost. You must consider the real cost of owning these DSLR cameras. Once you add all the extras, such as an audio solution, a monitor, and the support gear, the price is just about the same.
If you call a high contrast, sharp aliasing, shutter problem, and limited resolution image great then you should try adaptors for comparison.
Every fix comes at additional cost. You must consider the real cost of owning these DSLR cameras. Once you add all the extras, such as an audio solution, a monitor, and the support gear, the price is just about the same.
If you call a high contrast, sharp aliasing, shutter problem, and limited resolution image great then you should try adaptors for comparison.
Last edited:
Ian-T
Veteran
....Yeah......but all that extra light you get and much cleaner looking footage just makes you salivate for one doesn't it?Once you add all the extras, such as an audio solution, a monitor, and the support gear, the price is just about the same. Beyond that, If you call a high contrast, sharp aliasing, shutter problem, and limited resolution image great then you should try adaptors for comparison.
Obsolete for whom? Some professionals maybe...but not for many folks who are comfortably sitting in this price bracket thinking it's "good enough." Sure, the new Panasonic and Sony will just pick up from where we left off but..you forget why many people like to use these things. Small form factor.
Ian-T
Veteran
SO...you think the many folks who've already been there and done that don't know what they are doing? There's plenty of reasons they abandoned their adapters... but you seem bitter.If you call a high contrast, sharp aliasing, shutter problem, and limited resolution image great then you should try adaptors for comparison.
There's not one good looking DSLR footage anywhere on the net because these cameras are not capable of making anything worthwhile.....especially iin comparison to a handycam and an adapter. There...feel better.:cheesy:
Depends on the application. I shoot a lot handheld, I used to carry my ex1+letus like a gatling gun. It gave me lovely images but was very unwieldy.
My 5d shoots 95% the way there, is tiny and light, can fit easily in a bag and has enabled me to get shots I never could've got before, both from a practical basis i.e. because I couldn't really handhold the ex1 in that manner, but also b/c it looks like a stills camera - shot a video w/o permit recently and the guys were convinced I was just a joker taking pics b/c of the 5dmk2.
These days I try to trick my footage up to look more filmic, yes partly the colours, but I get the grain and misfire and so forth going and it really does make a difference. So I wouldn't say the 5d footage isn't filmic or organic, maybe it needs a bit more to get it there and it's worth it for all the benefits in the specific usages I put it up for.
My 5d shoots 95% the way there, is tiny and light, can fit easily in a bag and has enabled me to get shots I never could've got before, both from a practical basis i.e. because I couldn't really handhold the ex1 in that manner, but also b/c it looks like a stills camera - shot a video w/o permit recently and the guys were convinced I was just a joker taking pics b/c of the 5dmk2.
These days I try to trick my footage up to look more filmic, yes partly the colours, but I get the grain and misfire and so forth going and it really does make a difference. So I wouldn't say the 5d footage isn't filmic or organic, maybe it needs a bit more to get it there and it's worth it for all the benefits in the specific usages I put it up for.
handsome pete
Well-known member
I'll disagree a bit there. Rolling shutter issues are more pronounced in DSLRs than in cameras like the Ex1/Ex3 for example. I've owned a 7D and Ex1.
But I will agree with you and others in this thread that Kodjo's claims are mostly unfounded or exaggerated.
I disagree. I definitely think you get an additional more analogue look using a lens adapter.
Don't get me wrong, I love the sharp look of the dslr's, but there are definitely jobs I'd still choose to use an adapter rather than dslr purely for this more 'organic' look that's being referred to above.
kodjo
Active member
If you look at the original Philip Bloom video demonstrating the Adaptor system, he compares the bare bone EX1 to the EX1 with an adaptor. The adaptor adds not only a shallow depth of field but also an organic, filmic texture. It's not just about DOF.
Other problems notwithstanding, DSLR will give you the shallow depth of field but not the filmic texture. That is the reason I believe many filmakers will definately continue to use adaptors way beyond their theoretical obsolescence.
The adaptor texture look was never meant to be a major sales argument for the adaptor manufacturers, but now it has become their major strong point.
I can tell DSLR footage from a mile away. It just looks like video with a shallow DOF, not like film.
http://philipbloom.net/tutorials-1/t...-35mm-adaptor/
When Zacuto conducts these tests, they are testing the stuff like hackers. You can't measure texture and image feel by looking at DSLR color charts. At some point you have to think in terms of aesthetics. That is why they should have gotten a DOF adaptor into the test for comparison sake. I would have been interesting to get these professional DP's to give their opinions on that as well. My feeling is Zacuto was trying to promote their DSLR Gear by making a DSLR ONLY test. The last thing Zacuto wants is for people to spend the extra money on an adaptor when they could be spending their spare money on a Gorilla Kit or Z-Cage or Target Shooter or whatever Zacuto sells for thousands of dollars.
When Steve Weiss talks to Jens Bogehegn about objective tests, don't believe a word of it. They are objective only insofar as they use color charts and "outside" opinions. The choices of the type of tests and the type of Gear is Zacuto's. It is as if I tested only South American countries to find out which way the world is evolving. I could make a Donkey look like the fastest land animal if I limited the test range to Donkeys only. Nice try Zacuto.
Other problems notwithstanding, DSLR will give you the shallow depth of field but not the filmic texture. That is the reason I believe many filmakers will definately continue to use adaptors way beyond their theoretical obsolescence.
The adaptor texture look was never meant to be a major sales argument for the adaptor manufacturers, but now it has become their major strong point.
I can tell DSLR footage from a mile away. It just looks like video with a shallow DOF, not like film.
http://philipbloom.net/tutorials-1/t...-35mm-adaptor/
When Zacuto conducts these tests, they are testing the stuff like hackers. You can't measure texture and image feel by looking at DSLR color charts. At some point you have to think in terms of aesthetics. That is why they should have gotten a DOF adaptor into the test for comparison sake. I would have been interesting to get these professional DP's to give their opinions on that as well. My feeling is Zacuto was trying to promote their DSLR Gear by making a DSLR ONLY test. The last thing Zacuto wants is for people to spend the extra money on an adaptor when they could be spending their spare money on a Gorilla Kit or Z-Cage or Target Shooter or whatever Zacuto sells for thousands of dollars.
When Steve Weiss talks to Jens Bogehegn about objective tests, don't believe a word of it. They are objective only insofar as they use color charts and "outside" opinions. The choices of the type of tests and the type of Gear is Zacuto's. It is as if I tested only South American countries to find out which way the world is evolving. I could make a Donkey look like the fastest land animal if I limited the test range to Donkeys only. Nice try Zacuto.
Last edited:
- Status