Zacuto Camera Shootout 2018 : Panasonic EVA1 vs Canon C200

I'm just an amateur and I've never worked on a project that had an actual written budget, but regarding perception of on-set peers: when people seek me for a project based on what my stuff online looks like and I show up on set with an RX100 IV, there's some eyebrow-raising. But then when the result still looks just as good as that other stuff they saw beforehand and liked, it makes me look like a freaking superhero.
 
Samuel H said:
I'm just an amateur and I've never worked on a project that had an actual written budget, but regarding perception of on-set peers: when people seek me for a project based on what my stuff online looks like and I show up on set with an RX100 IV, there's some eyebrow-raising. But then when the result still looks just as good as that other stuff they saw beforehand and liked, it makes me look like a freaking superhero.
Click to expand...

This is clearly because you have your process in place and know how to control it's pipeline. That's what gives them confidence. The camera is an afterthought. Good for you !
 
yoclay said:
Blanket statements about what camera one would use or prefer to use really only reveal the process most related to the work one does regularly.
They do not reflect the reality of how major filmmaking happens. It is naive to think otherwise.

Lets talk about deliverables. Major productions do not choose cameras. They choose processes.
Testing often quite far in advance. Cameras are tested based on a variety of projected circumstances.
Codecs and formats are examined for their relevance to the subject and priorities in post-production.
Makeup tests are done with the same cameras. Motion is tested. Lens choices are compared with various cameras.
Images are shot, conformed and corrected. VFX may be tested. Choices are made and a PROCESS is put into place.
This chain of choices is specific and individualized. It is the chain, not the camera that matters and it confirmed and reconfirmed all along the way.
Click to expand...

Totally accurate. Amd sometimes they still end up with a bad process or the wrong (or less right) camera for a given project. I interviewed John Toll, ASC for his work on "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" and while he and Ang Lee did considerable testing, pre-production, etc. the decision to shoot the film in the way Lee did doomed it to commercial failure. Props to both for stepping outside the technological box but if you saw it projected, you realized it was all a big mistake as soon as the first scene rolled.
 
puredrifting said:
Totally accurate. Amd sometimes they still end up with a bad process or the wrong (or less right) camera for a given project. I interviewed John Toll, ASC for his work on "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" and while he and Ang Lee did considerable testing, pre-production, etc. the decision to shoot the film in the way Lee did doomed it to commercial failure. Props to both for stepping outside the technological box but if you saw it projected, you realized it was all a big mistake as soon as the first scene rolled.
Click to expand...

Or the first 10 seconds of commercials for it on TV... I don't want to watch a MOVIE that looks LIVE. It's one of the reasons that I do not like live theater. It just looks like bad overacting.
 
puredrifting said:
Totally accurate. Amd sometimes they still end up with a bad process or the wrong (or less right) camera for a given project. I interviewed John Toll, ASC for his work on "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" and while he and Ang Lee did considerable testing, pre-production, etc. the decision to shoot the film in the way Lee did doomed it to commercial failure. Props to both for stepping outside the technological box but if you saw it projected, you realized it was all a big mistake as soon as the first scene rolled.
Click to expand...

Interesting, decided to pull up a clip of that movie.

I find it incredibly jarring and offputting. Hate it. The comments though......they seem divided. Lots of people on board.

I've noticed that. The younger generation seem to be digging the HFR look.
 
DBP said:
Granted, I'm 34, but I feel like I was raised on video games. Loved higher frame rates and brought components specifically so that I could support them. It works for games.

Movies...not so much.
Click to expand...

Same here, I think it's a generational thing. The younger generation don't mind or don't care about HFR because they got used to watching/playing video games up to 60 FPS.

For those who grew up on non-HFR, it doesn't feel right. It's not the norm. Feels like soap TV or TV news.
 
Wasn't this debate settled definitively when "The Hobbit" came out?

In 24 frames, it looked like "The Lord of the Rings."

Exact same film, same lighting, same sets, same costume, same actors, -- heck, same actual recorded footage, for that matter, played at 48 fps, it looked like ass.

Horrible. Looked like a local community theater production of "The Lord of the Rings."

Oh, and while we're at it -- get off my lawn.
 
I'm sure as people keep setting their TVs wrong and get used to "auto motion plus" that deletes motion blur, the HFR look also isn't as jarring...
 
IronFilm said:
When did you buy the Arri Alexa, and may I ask for how much?

The Arri Alexa however occupies quite a different niche to the FS7, which is itself extremely popular as well (the FS7 is another one of those few cameras which producers will request by name), did you find yourself missing out on other jobs due to not owning a FS7?
Click to expand...


Back in 2016. The jobs I used to do with the FS7 I now use a FS700+7Q which I also bought when I sold my FS7.
 
Sttratos said:
Back in 2016. The jobs I used to do with the FS7 I now use a FS700+7Q which I also bought when I sold my FS7.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting approach!

Simultaneously went up market with the Arri Alexa but also at the same time took a step back with the FS700 (which can cover just fine the FS7 budget jobs which don't justify the Arri).

Do you use the 7Q to record from the Arri as well?
 
Barry_Green said:
Wasn't this debate settled definitively when "The Hobbit" came out?

In 24 frames, it looked like "The Lord of the Rings."

Exact same film, same lighting, same sets, same costume, same actors, -- heck, same actual recorded footage, for that matter, played at 48 fps, it looked like ass.

Horrible. Looked like a local community theater production of "The Lord of the Rings."

Oh, and while we're at it -- get off my lawn.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The hobbit did not look good at all.
Looked fake.
 
IronFilm said:
I'd have expected better support of the Panasonic GH2 from a Panasonic rep! ;-) This was a moment of shining glory for the Panasonic, something to be applauded for, what Panasonic was offering the indy filmmaker back then! :-)
(and still does! With the Panasonic GH5S etc).
Click to expand...

The GH2 and all the GH-series cameras are amazing little machines. I just don't like it when people lose sight of reality. Shot correctly you can get top notch performance from those cameras, but there are certainly considerations involved. Otherwise we'd all abandon the big expensive cameras for our Lumix.
 
Retrospective said:
Based on Panasonic's white paper both LongGOP 150 and All-I 400 are visually comparable. I think raw recording would be more of an upgrade than recording in All-I 400.

PRPBIUm.png


https://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/eva1/pdf/EVA1_WP_RecFormats.pdf
Click to expand...

Correct. The advantages of All-I codecs are workflow-related. It's easier on the computer's processor, so you might not need as powerful a machine. Some clients and facilities are established with intraframe-based systems that they want your material to fall into. And some clients want to see a number in that data rate for contractual reasons.
 
DBP said:
You're right. My work has all been lower end stuff, so I've never actually operated anything beyond a C100. Not insulted though, it's fair that you have those suspicions.

The day I use something better, I could very well realize that current me is being silly.

It's nothing against higher end cameras. I base it solely on watching camera tests, and watching movies or shorts that turn out really well, and doing my best to figure out why that is. The camera just increasingly seems like a *very* small piece of that puzzle, past a certain point.

I do understand that the operation and "getting there" process is important though, and probably something I'm underestimating.
Click to expand...

Think about a modestly budgeted professional production. One where there is a crew consisting of a DP, a single grip/electric, an AC/utility person, a hair/makeup person, a couple of production people, a PA and some actors. Before you even think about the cost of a van with equipment in it, you're likely between $5K-$10K per day. If using a camera like a VariCam will allow you to work faster to capture two or three more setups per day, in under a week it will have easily covered its higher rental cost. That's the most simplistic way of looking at it, but really time is money on a professional job. People are getting paid salaries, locations cost money, post costs money, and so on. The camera that saves you time or allows you to get more material in the same time wins. That's the real equation.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Think about a modestly budgeted professional production. One where there is a crew consisting of a DP, a single grip/electric, an AC/utility person, a hair/makeup person, a couple of production people, a PA and some actors. Before you even think about the cost of a van with equipment in it, you're likely between $5K-$10K per day. If using a camera like a VariCam will allow you to work faster to capture two or three more setups per day, in under a week it will have easily covered its higher rental cost. That's the most simplistic way of looking at it, but really time is money on a professional job. People are getting paid salaries, locations cost money, post costs money, and so on. The camera that saves you time or allows you to get more material in the same time wins. That's the real equation.
Click to expand...

That's a bigger crew than I'm used to.
 
James0b57 said:
That's a bigger crew than I'm used to.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but a technical crew of four and a production staff of three is pretty small. Productions that have little money are productions that have little money, so they have to make do in other ways. But one should not take that model and use it to paint a portrait for how all productions should be. Likewise one should not take a $50K per day production and paint that as how a microbudget production should be. However, no matter what your budget & time constraints are, no one should be fooling themselves as to the choices and compromises being made. These ALWAYS exist, and the more aware you are of them the better your decision-making process.

Shoot on the right camera for you and your work for the right reasons. There is no one "best" solution, otherwise every meal would be the same, we would all dress the same, and we'd all drive identical cars.
 
Mitch Gross said:
... no matter what your budget & time constraints are, no one should be fooling themselves as to the choices and compromises being made. These ALWAYS exist, and the more aware you are of them the better your decision-making process.
...
Click to expand...

Well said.

Please pardon my self deprecation earlier. Was just poking fun at myself.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Think about a modestly budgeted professional production. One where there is a crew consisting of a DP, a single grip/electric, an AC/utility person, a hair/makeup person, a couple of production people, a PA and some actors. Before you even think about the cost of a van with equipment in it, you're likely between $5K-$10K per day. If using a camera like a VariCam will allow you to work faster to capture two or three more setups per day, in under a week it will have easily covered its higher rental cost. That's the most simplistic way of looking at it, but really time is money on a professional job. People are getting paid salaries, locations cost money, post costs money, and so on. The camera that saves you time or allows you to get more material in the same time wins. That's the real equation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But..... forgot sound! :-( :-/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top