the last episode of the shootout!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many people here may have forgotton that initially the Canon 5D could only record 30 Fr/sec. Philip Bloom went out of his way to teach people how to convert the footage into a 24 fr/sec film format. When Canon finally released the firmawe which allowed for 24 Fr/sec on the 5D it was welcomed like the holly grail. Anybody who says the film look is a subjective cultural thing may want to refer to that episode. Film is often defined by specific standards which are not necessarily the "technical best".

Actually it's not even about film but about the "standard film look". If you change one component of film then even film will cease to look like "standard film".

Now, there have been many attempts made in the past to "improve" the film look by raising the technical standards. SHOWSCAN is a good example. In this format they projected film in 70mm at 60 frames per second. I saw it being demonstrated in Los Angeles back in the 90's. It was totally impressive. No grain. No strobbing. I have never seen such a perfect image in my life. But guess what. TO ME AND MOST PEOPLE I SPOKE TO IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO. Beautiful video but video nonetheless. There is something about the limitations of the "standard film look" which is irrational and play on the subconscious.

In some cases less is more.

I think that the reason I mentioned film school is because many of the teachers in film school come from artistic and not only technical backgrounds. I had a teacher who always mentionned the GRAINY LOOK. His theory was that the grainy look gave you a certain mood which I won't get into now. He was like a Norman Mailer of film and felt the grain allowed the emmulsion of film to be part of the organic experience. Those kinds of easthetic considerations are completely wiped out by Zacuto type tests which do not even attempt to look at the texture of adaptors as compared to DSLR. Red would have been a great reference also.

Now they're not idiots. They know it. However I don't think they sell Red accessories. I don't thing the adaptor client base is what they're aiming for. I think they went for a DSLR promotional campaign. That's what this is. There's nothing wrong with that BUT it is not objective.

The theme to me was digital vs film. It was not about DSLR. Jen mentions it in the end. of episode 3. The reason DSLR cameras were picked was because there were too many cameras out there (his own words). I do not believe that the reason given is credible. Just one adaptor rig could have really opened up the debate. I also believe the tests were not about DSLR because if they had wanted to discuss DSLR they should have compared all the DSLR rigs on their shortcommings (such as movements, aliasing etc.)

That is why I believe the test was not pertinent. It was more of a marketing campaign than an "objective" attempt to compare film to digital.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how all the various artifacts from a spinning or vibrating ground glass are any more organic or similar to the grain in film.
Like it or not adapters are going the way of dinosaurs.
Zacuto has chosen to address the near future, not the past. This is what most people want to know. We already know about adapters. Certainly these DSLR's will join the same graveyard soon enough.

And then of course there is always the question of which adapter, and which camera behind? The possibilties are endless and open to a whole other debate.
I personally think comparing the DSLR's to film and to the RED, even the older REDONE, would be more valuable than an adapter, because the question of RAW-like output is more pertinent to where things are going.

I am fairly certain that Zacuto decided not to open that can of worms becomes of all the criticism that would be leveled at the RED vs. DSLR testing and because a new version of that camera will be out in not such a long time.

Undoubtedly,Zacuto have a variety of reasons for showing only DSLR's against film. Some of them driven by self-interest, others perhaps less disingenuous than you might imagine.
If you want to adopt a single limited, purely cynical viewpoint towards it that is your perogative.
But isn't it just possible that besides their commercial interests, they were just as curious as we all are?

So, you think that adapters are better for your needs? Great. Enjoy your adapter then.
Personally, I am happy I am not dragging around a Tyranossaurus Rex like I used to.
 
Last edited:
Well if you think that a painting is ultimately about the final image, but also that the brush strokes, and the frame, the the way it's hung, and the lighting in the room and all those things all additionally contribute to the way you feel about the painting.

Therefore, same with this footage, maybe the 5d shoots lovely footage, but then we can choose to trick it up a little in order to emphasise the emotional impact of the content.

For example, I apply some filters/overlays that give my footage a more filmic look. Yes this 'degrades' the image quality in the sense that I'm adding stuff to it. However, it also gives it a better look visually, in essence I'm just presenting the content in a way that creates a greater visual impact.
 
wasn't zacuto selling accessories before dslrs came to picture, don't they sell the same accessories for adapter rigs, or any sub 10k cameras, and broadcast cameras, won't they sell rigs for scarlet and epic the same week they are released, if anything they might sell more accessories for heavier or longer camera rigs than smaller ones.

i don't think you will pay for more accessories for a sub 1k or 3k camera, than you would have for a sub 10k or 20-30k camera.

they provide accessories to any camera you buy.

it's probably not possible to use an adapter without a rig, where you could sometimes use a dslr without one. not to mention that you actually have to buy an adapter and sometimes a relay.
 
kodjo said:
That is why I believe the test was not pertinent. It was more of a marketing campaign than an "objective" attempt to compare film to digital.
Click to expand...

Kodjo, adapters do not look like film and neither do DSLRs. Adapter footage looks like adapter footage and DSLR footage looks like DSLR footage. Heck….I don’t think Red One footage looks like film either. Regardless…all of them can be made to emulate many characteristics of traditional film. Why can’t we just accept their strengths and weaknesses for what they are? Like Michael Mann…he doesn’t go for the “film-look” that most folks here try to achieve. He uses video for its strengths OVER film (yes I said over)…for example…using slow shutter speeds for night time shots so as to gather in more light (something film cameras can’t do). We all know how much of a non-filmic (video-like) streak that could leave in an image…but guess what…it works for him.

Instead of trying to use terms like “film-like” we should probably say “cinematic.” Now, for me, that is something different. Adapter footage can look cinematic…and so can DSLR footage as well as Red and on and on. As you’ve pointed out (which we’ve all discussed here many times over) Showscan looked like video….even though it was film. It could have been beautiful looking cinematic footage…but because of the high frame rates it lost some of the aesthetics of what we all are used to seeing in traditional film. It’s all about suspending reality which I believe frame rate has a lot to do with and in this case it just made everything look too close to reality. But one thing is for sure…to me none of these DSLR footage looks like video which is what Rodney Charters said about the Canon cameras (which is what most of us wants to get away from in the first place). If you still want to use the term filmic looking I think the GH-1 has the most filmic looking footage “out of the box.” But still…all these mediums (adapter, DSLRs etc.) have their own look.

So, with that said, why would it have been necessary for the folks at Zacuto to compare adapters with DSLRs and Red etc.? They were addressing the DSLR craze that’s going on and using film as the standard. Yes…as someone mentioned…this craze will eventually die down but for now these tests are a good way for folks to see how close technology has come (and how much more we have to go) to meet the standard. And so what if Zacuto had something to gain out of all of this. They are a business. Surely you didn’t except them to spend this kind of money just out of the kindness of their hearts? I’m sure they are good people…but…business is business. And I applaud their efforts in trying to keep it as objective as possible by inviting other professionals in this. As Barry Green always reminds me…everything is not always a conspiracy theory.
 
kodjo said:
Now they're not idiots. They know it. However I don't think they sell Red accessories. I don't thing the adaptor client base is what they're aiming for. I think they went for a DSLR promotional campaign. That's what this is. There's nothing wrong with that BUT it is not objective.
Click to expand...

Not only do they sell a very large amount of accessories for the Red Camera they are also a Rental House, a Rental house that rents... Red Cameras. They also sell, and have done for several years, many accessories for the adapter market. In Fact Letus Adapters are among one of the many things they sell. You can think what you want but it doesn't change the FACT you clearly have an anti Zacuto and Anti DSLR bent and are just here either Trolling or grinding an axe.

THIS WAS A DSLR TEST, this was not a be all end all test, not a digital versus film test not a all inclusive digital camera test. Film was used as the gold standard and a point of reference. If you think the test was unfair or biased then run your own freaking test. Its not that hard, rent some cameras and shoot some charts. Just be sure and use every single camera on the market and every single adapter available. Oh and don't forget to use every film stock and every lens ever made... Cause otherwise you will clearly have a bias.
 
Haha this thread looks like one man vs army,kodjo youve got it all wrong and that is your problem.This was DSLR test,not RED or other cams test.They did it and its cool because i personally dont have the money and tools to do these tests and they did it and published freely on internet,i appreciate that.You want to do film and adapters tests,go ahead and do it.
Some peoples attitude in this thread to make fun of adapters or saying that what youre writing is sad is not needed IMO ,it only adds to the fire and can make you angry,as you see people are overexcited about DSLR's here,you wont win ,mabe because there is no battle ? Guys dont go to adapters forum and post that their 5d eats adapters for breakfast ,they dont ,but you came to DSLR forum and you did similar thing praising adapters,well... you asked for it ,what you expected ? Its like going to canon or sony screaming that you love your nikon stuff.Nobody needs that.They can coexist together you know ?
 
What is it with some people wanting things to look like something they're not?
OK, that was a bit clumsy but I'm reminded of the arguments that raged in the early days of photography, with people complaining that it didn't look "painterly" and trying to fuzz it up, and make it mushy so that photos would look like watercolours or other daubs.
That was what the immortal Group f/64 fought against.
Let it be what it is, celebrate it, and don't try to force it into being what it's not.
Dave
 
kodjo said:
Many people here may have forgotton that initially the Canon 5D could only record 30 Fr/sec. Philip Bloom went out of his way to teach people how to convert the footage into a 24 fr/sec film format. When Canon finally released the firmawe which allowed for 24 Fr/sec on the 5D it was welcomed like the holly grail. Anybody who says the film look is a subjective cultural thing may want to refer to that episode. Film is often defined by specific standards which are not necessarily the "technical best".

Actually it's not even about film but about the "standard film look". If you change one component of film then even film will cease to look like "standard film".

Now, there have been many attempts made in the past to "improve" the film look by raising the technical standards. SHOWSCAN is a good example. In this format they projected film in 70mm at 60 frames per second. I saw it being demonstrated in Los Angeles back in the 90's. It was totally impressive. No grain. No strobbing. I have never seen such a perfect image in my life. But guess what. TO ME AND MOST PEOPLE I SPOKE TO IT LOOKED LIKE VIDEO. Beautiful video but video nonetheless. There is something about the limitations of the "standard film look" which is irrational and play on the subconscious.

In some cases less is more.

I think that the reason I mentioned film school is because many of the teachers in film school come from artistic and not only technical backgrounds. I had a teacher who always mentionned the GRAINY LOOK. His theory was that the grainy look gave you a certain mood which I won't get into now. He was like a Norman Mailer of film and felt the grain allowed the emmulsion of film to be part of the organic experience. Those kinds of easthetic considerations are completely wiped out by Zacuto type tests which do not even attempt to look at the texture of adaptors as compared to DSLR. Red would have been a great reference also.

Now they're not idiots. They know it. However I don't think they sell Red accessories. I don't thing the adaptor client base is what they're aiming for. I think they went for a DSLR promotional campaign. That's what this is. There's nothing wrong with that BUT it is not objective.

The theme to me was digital vs film. It was not about DSLR. Jen mentions it in the end. of episode 3. The reason DSLR cameras were picked was because there were too many cameras out there (his own words). I do not believe that the reason given is credible. Just one adaptor rig could have really opened up the debate. I also believe the tests were not about DSLR because if they had wanted to discuss DSLR they should have compared all the DSLR rigs on their shortcommings (such as movements, aliasing etc.)

That is why I believe the test was not pertinent. It was more of a marketing campaign than an "objective" attempt to compare film to digital.
Click to expand...



Would love to see some of your work, demo reel, actual movies, footage, etc?

If someone claims to know so much please make myself and others believers, we will be waiting for "YOUR" footage.


ps. Many famous film directors never went to film school..........
 
Cieloent said:
Would love to see some of your work, demo reel, actual movies, footage, etc?

If someone claims to know so much please make myself and others believers, we will be waiting for "YOUR" footage.
Click to expand...

Ditto... I said this earlier... post work. It speaks much louder.
 
This image was filmed using an adaptor. Please note how the image has texture and is not harsh and how the walls are not overexposed. If this had been a DSLR shot, it would have been harsher, with a higher contrast (in the whites) and no texture (grain).

lala.jpg




With a DSLR it would probably have been closer to this. Now this is a simulated DSLR look to suggest which way the differences would go. You would would probably get a more overexposed background, no texture, a very sharp look, and less details in dark areas. The dress would certainly have presented a danger of aliasing.

dslr.jpg
 
Last edited:
kodjo said:
This image was filmed using an adaptor. Please note how the image has texture and is not harsh and how the walls are not overexposed. If this had been a DSLR shot, it would have been harsher, with a higher contrast (in the whites) and no texture (grain).

lala.jpg




Now here is a simulated DSLR look to suggest which way the differences would go.

dslr.jpg
Click to expand...


That really has nothing to do with the DSLR. It has everything to do with DP/Production.

I've logged hundreds of hours of Adapter Footage on Various Cameras starting with REDROCK and ending with Letus Ultimate, owned and operated.

There is a different look, sometimes it can be appealing and sometimes, very UNAPPEALING. Both situations have to do with operator and DP.

Strictly from a technical standpoint, I can't say that either is superior and only different "stocks" per say. You certainly cannot deny the fact that an adapter combo requires a LOT of light to make the image shine.

Let's put the adapter thing to rest.. lots of different opinions and it seems like everyone's has been heard. Nobody needs to sell anyone else on any other tool.
 
that's an assinine assumption, since you didn't shoot it with a dslr. nice original image though, i'll give you that.
 
kodjo said:
Kholi, how would you define that "different look"?
Click to expand...
i won't speak for Kholi, but i'll reiterate my point. You photoshopped what you THOUGHT a dslr might do to the screen grab you posted. in my opinion, that was completely without merit, as you did not shoot it with a dslr. it is a radical assumtion, and because different dslrs would have certainly made for different results(better or worse doesnt matter), you chose to generalize an overall "look" to the dslr as a whole. that assumption is foolish. i dare you to replicate that shot with a dslr, ANY dslr, then we might see your point. you're reaching here, man, and i don't think it's working.

please, at your earliest convenience, link us to some of your film work and tests, so we can evaluate your claims.:undecided
 
Forums are for sharing information and opinions. Feel free to disagree with me but don't patronize me. I have 20 years experience and I have eyes like you. So if my take on DSLR is this one, feel free top post your take on DSLR. I'm not interested in convincing anybody of anything. I'm just trying to share and confront points of views so that we may all learn something from the debate.

Ergonomics notwithstanding, everything I have seen comming from DSLR has been high contrast with the whites often overexposed. I also want to draw attention to the fact adaptors (or specifically vibrating adaptors) will produce grain. That grain is actually a good thing if you want to emmulate standard film because it breaks up the harsh video look. Finally, adaptors are softer than DSLR because of the GG diffusion.

Have you compared adaptors and DSLR? Instead of criticising my views perhaps you should expose your own experiences.
 
kodjo said:
Have you compared adaptors and DSLR? Instead of criticising my views perhaps you should expose your own experiences.
Click to expand...

I have, and regardless of whether they've been posted or not I think I've got a right and reputation to deliberate on the matter. THe fact is: neither are film. Film is Film.

Adapters have their own inherent and unique look. Ground Glasses can produce certain results that may look more film like to others. I consider it an old school film look. Circa Mid to late nineties.

DSLRs have a newschool film look, circa Now. Film stocks these days are ultra clean, grain is a thing of the past and wasn't very welcomed to begin with. It was a flaw, a drawback, and something we try to mimic because we think it helps.

So how would I define that different look? It looks like a digital camera trying to emulate film.

DSLRs look like Digital Still Cameras with large sensors. Moving photographs.

Isn't it plenty enough to say that they are different tools that can accomplish similar jobs, and what really matters is who's behind and in front of the camera? Certainly, we've all seen blown out footage with adapters. Isn't that the operators fault?

They all can look just as good, or not if that's your opinion.
 
kodjo said:
Forums are for sharing information and opinions.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if the opinions were backed up by examples, not assumptions.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but have watched all of the shootout footage and have some DSLRs. Kodjo, you lost any credibility by degrading your nice image and calling it a DSLR shot. What are you trying to accomplish? Use adapters and be finished with the pursuit.
 
Kodjo, a 550D is cheap as chips, esp to someone who can afford to go through film-school.
So buy yourself one, shoot some footage, real footage and compare the results yourself, for yourself, then you'll know, of your own results what the footage looks like, and you won't be dependent on what others say or what you see on the web.
This is called the "scientific method" something that those of us who've studied the sciences to degree level will understand.
Then you can either keep it as B cam, use it for stills or sell it on, this is assuming you still don't rate the image quality.
Myself, I'd rather record "clean" and add any grain etc in post, it keeps my options open. Oh yes, and I don't rate my own footage yet as worth posting on these forums, but when I can produce good enough stuff, I'll try to post some.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top