Zacuto Camera Comparison Test

[Zack Birlew]

Well, unless he does some more testing to change my mind, I would consider this more of a band-aid to the inherent video-ish look of the 5D Mark II. It's not bad but it's not quite what I'm looking for. It may be fine for others but not for me. Plus, there's always the question about what it looks like when converting to 24fps after the 25fps conversion.

 

[mattsand]

I've learned that a really good thing to do with the D90 is to film brighter and darken in post

or in camera. i'm experimenting with custom curves now and it looks promising. i think the best one so far is one that lifts the shadows quite a bit while maintaining and even bringing down the whites. this lets you shoot at the "correct" exposure and still get clean shadows to push down in post. overexposing just tends to clip highlights and flatten the midtones, plus in low light, where you need to watch those shadows, it tends to just add more gain.

/matt

 

[sean90291]

It has already been determined that the backfocus on the RED could have been off.

Back focus schmack focus. I'm irritated by how many things can go wrong shooting Red.

 

[Zack Birlew]

True, I haven't even begun to experiment with the custom curves in camera. Haven't had the time to be honest, I got the camera specifically for the final project and only had a day or so to learn it before I had to start filming! Yikes! But I still learned a lot about it while filming, especially once I started editing and finishing.

 

[DanHD]

Joseph you're freakin 18 years old how did you get this gig? What connections do you have man? I'm 19 and I wouldn't even think of working with Zacuto to produce a video

 

[Joseph Stunzi]

Joseph you're freakin 18 years old how did you get this gig? What connections do you have man? I'm 19 and I wouldn't even think of working with Zacuto to produce a video

HAHA. I have some unique connections to Zacuto through my non-profit science media effort IENCE. That's how I met everyone at Zacuto at least! Now I'm their self proclaimed biggest fan. I'm working on t-shirts!

As people get these DSLRs and learn how to use them better, please send that info my way. I want to collect as much information as possible before the next shootout down the road. BE ON THE LOOKOUT for my 35mm DOFA shootout that should be filming around late January if everything goes to plan.

 

[Mattykins]

Film stock used was Kodak Vision3 500T (5219 048 022 01912)

Nice - I was able to shoot this stock right when it came out. It's a beautiful stock. See what it does in low/no light. We shot an entire film outside at night using only sodium vapor lighting from intermittent street lights with it. Still came out beautifully.

I would love to see what an F23 and an F35 in the mix. Two of the high end digital cinema systems you can actually buy. Sadly, in this economy - it's not really feasible to buy one. Though they typically pay for themselves in a year or so.

As an aside I had everything drawn up to purchase an F23 or 35 until the market went haywire. Business plan out the window.

I am wondering why the RED was as soft as it was though. Despite the fact I don't like shooting RED. I actually hate the cameras - they produce a nice image, and so long as I am not operating, I can be around them.

 

[Joseph Stunzi]

Matty,

RED was soft in part due to backfocus issues. It's DOF differs from film because film was properly exposed using reflective light metering. Such exposure was f/4. However, with proper ND filters, it could have been adjusted to an equivalent f/1.4.

I believe we originally had a higher end camera or two in the mix but ran out of time with our instrumentalists.

Anyway... next time we'll shoot at f/2.8 or so. Properly expose everything. Set backfocus on all cameras and double-set it! As well as film a cool new subject. Perhaps gerbils! Or monkeys!

 

[CB_Radio]

Not only was the backfocus on the RED possibly off, but the lens that was on it was set to an f/1.4.

RED was soft in part due to backfocus issues. It's DOF differs from film because film was properly exposed using reflective light metering. Such exposure was f/4. However, with proper ND filters, it could have been adjusted to an equivalent f/1.4.

You guys were shooting 500ASA film at an f-4 but the equivalent exposure for the RED was an f-1.4? I don't understand this. The RED was rated at about 60ASA? That seems crazy, although not as crazy as NDing the film camera on an interior to bring it down to an f-1.4 Who made the decision to shoot the RED footage at a 1.4? Please tell me that you guys didn't ND the RED when you shot this.

The RED footage looks poor, but if you were shooting wide open at an f-1.4 with the RED and the Aaton was shooting at an f-4 then it's not surprising at all that the RED looks soft. And if there was a backfocus problem as well, the RED was most definitely at a disadvantage.

If this was the only footage I'd ever seen of these cameras and was thinking of spending some money, I doubt I'd think that buying a RED was a smart idea.

 

[Joseph Stunzi]

We didn't ND at all. We didn't try to equivalently expose the RED. Once again we didn't treat this as a scientific test. The goal is to get a conversation started about filmmaking. I'm pretty sure we've done just that. If you're going to buy a camera, like the RED, I'd rent it out a few times to see what it can do for myself. Especially for a $17k investment.

 

[mattsand]

I wouldn't ever base my decision off of someone else's work

and i wouldn't include test footage in a comparison that there was obviously something wrong with. i can assure everyone that the red one produces much sharper footage than 35mm even, and i've worked with both quite a bit. it has other problems, but when it comes to sharpness there's nothing like it. this clip is a joke.

/matt

 

[Joseph Stunzi]

if anyone is interested, there are several RED vs 35mm comparison tests on REDuser that I found the other night. Some really beautiful stuff there! Might be a big download though

 

[joe 1008]

and i wouldn't include test footage in a comparison that there was obviously something wrong with. i can assure everyone that the red one produces much sharper footage than 35mm even, and i've worked with both quite a bit. it has other problems, but when it comes to sharpness there's nothing like it. this clip is a joke.

/matt

There were posted resolution charts that showed a HV20 could come close to an Arri D20. I think sharpness and resolution is no problem anymore even at the lower end. The target has moved to other qualities.

 

[mattsand]

i'm referring to the test posted in this thread. the red footage isn't sharp which indicates that there's something wrong with it. i'm not making any judgment on the importance of sharpness.

(if you want to jump to conclusions can you at least make an educated jump in the right direction? i'm tired of having to defend all facts because of how somebody might interpret them)

/matt

 

[joe 1008]

It's of course totally clear that the sharpness problem of the RED footage is not because this camera couln't do it better.

Just as clear as that resolution was not the the topic of this shootout. Just forgive that backfocus flaw. That's all I wanted to point out. Sorry if you felt offended.

 

[CB_Radio]

resolution was not the the topic of this shootout. Just forgive that backfocus flaw.

The topic of this shootout was to compare these cameras. I don't see how you can compare these cameras when at least one of them was set up in such a way would absolutely ensure that it looks worse than others.

If one camera had a blop of vaseline smeared across the lens, should we forgive that as well? If one camera was operated at QVGA resolution and therefore looked bad, should we forgive that flaw as well? How do you compare these cameras when you have to forgive flaws that make it impossible to compare the images?

Everything was lit for the M2 as well... being that the M2 was the most light hungry adapter.

Unless the RED is as light hungry as the M2, I still don't understand why the RED was shot at a 1.4. Can somebody explain this. I can't see how that f-stop was forced by the situation, there should have been plenty of light to shoot at a smaller aperature.

 

[joe 1008]

If one camera had a blop of vaseline smeared across the lens, should we forgive that as well?

Hmm... Could be a way to avoid stair stepping and aliasing.

 

[CB_Radio]

hmm... Could be a way to avoid stair stepping and aliasing.

:cheesy:

 

[Mattykins]

I don't think anyone here took this as an end all be all test. If you did - I'd be worried for your critical judgement. It was sheerly interesting to see them put up to each other. Never would I make a decision based on a still frame with little movement and only one lighting scenario.

I mean - what's done is done. No one here is saying "RED sucks111!11!!". In fact most people like it. My comments about disliking RED has nothing to do with image.

Like Joseph said - this was something to spark a conversation about cameras and their usage. Which is exactly what happened.

To take this as a critical scientific analysis and a total critique on the cameras is not only a mistake - but stupid.

 

[CB_Radio]

It's a camera comparison. That's what it was billed as and that's what it's being viewed as.

If you were to run a comparison of a Sennheiser microphone to an Azden by having them record the same musician, it wouldn't be scientfic either. But if you then revealed that the Sennheiser was run over by a truck before the test, and used a faulty cable and had the element wrapped with gaffer's tape it would make the comparison a joke.

You don't compare two cups of coffee by putting vinegar in one and sugar in the other. And claiming after the fact that you just wanted to spark discussion about making coffee doesn't magically validate your comparison.

I don't think anyone here took this as an end all be all test. If you did - I'd be worried for your critical judgement.

Like Joseph said - this was something to spark a conversation about cameras and their usage. Which is exactly what happened.