Zacuto "revenge of the great camera shootout, 2012" announced!

David G. Smith said:
Looks like Zacuto is at it again, with the "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout, 2012". It will be posted on June 15, 2012. I look forward to it.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012

Here is an article for it.

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/zacuto/zacuto-announces-release-revenge-great-camera-shootout/59140
Click to expand...

Well, finally, they've included the GH again... well the GH-2... and better a hack version... this will be interesting...

I'll see how being on the low end of the totempole looks... and maybe Panasonic will take note... maybe I'll visit the Panasonic booth at NAB and say Zacuto is showing a GH-2... do you have one here in the booth...
 
Has anyone been reading the responses over at RedUser? Sheesh.
Red didn't accept an invite to send their own team to the Shootout.
RED Leader told Zacuto they should include 4K delivery, and uprez all the other cameras to match RED.
Zacuto declined, saying 2K is still the standard format for most content, including films shot on Red (case in point The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).
RED has now launched their own Camera Shootout Tests, taking place in June. All manufacturers invited.
 
simonpwood said:
Has anyone been reading the responses over at RedUser? Sheesh.
Red didn't accept an invite to send their own team to the Shootout.
RED Leader told Zacuto they should include 4K delivery, and uprez all the other cameras to match RED.
Zacuto declined, saying 2K is still the standard format for most content, including films shot on Red (case in point The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).
RED has now launched their own Camera Shootout Tests, taking place in June. All manufacturers invited.
Click to expand...


I agree with RED. When do you ever lower the top end to accommodate the bottom. It's absurd to do that. I find it funny that Zacuto had no problem shooting on film, and comparing that to all the other cameras in the last test, of which film is superior at almost all points. However RED needs to play crippled so it can accommodate the others that are retarded compared to what RED can achieve if allowed to run full throttle. It's not logical to this. Could you imagine them restricting a race engine that is superior to accommodate those lesser engines. Or adding a two hundred pound body suit so to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to restrict his speed and performance so some lesser talent has a chance. Dumb Dumb Dumb I don't understand- Why does Zacuto care who wins or is the ultimate top performer?

May the best man ( camera ) win! That's what competition/shootout is about.



Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
simonpwood said:
Has anyone been reading the responses over at RedUser? Sheesh.
Red didn't accept an invite to send their own team to the Shootout.
RED Leader told Zacuto they should include 4K delivery, and uprez all the other cameras to match RED.
Zacuto declined, saying 2K is still the standard format for most content, including films shot on Red (case in point The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).
RED has now launched their own Camera Shootout Tests, taking place in June. All manufacturers invited.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read.

The interesting thing is the Red-Epic will be tested despite whether Red officially supervises the Epic tests or not. From my understanding the manufactueres were invited but should anyone decline the test will go on as planned. On the other hand, I am quite certain that Alexa, F65, Aaton Delta, and others won't be showing up to Red Studios for the Red test... thus, Red will likely have their own staff or volunteer crew handle the cameras.

It's so silly in my opinion.

I think Red has done some great things and their camera is quite nice... but you'd be out of your mind to think any competitor would walk their camera into Red Studios for a shootout and think the effort would garner any end positive results. I do not say this because I think the Epic will beat every other camera in every category (although it will be top in many.) I'm saying that because RED is a public relations propaganda-pumping prideful organization filled with ambitious individuals who take their work very personally and have an almost scary hoard of followers who's zealousness is often concerning. I do think Red's intentions will be honesty and fairness, however I don't think anyone who isn't Red is going to find themselves emerging from Red studios any better off than when they entered, even with a decent performance.

Camera tests will reveal some things, technically, but 99% of the time, it's just a brawl and everybody gets bloody and bruised with no definitive winner. All cameras have advantages, disadvantages, and many of those are subjectively due to personal preference. Point being, camera tests typically get two/three/four top performing candidates with no objective winner, just an audience choice award, which again is opinion.

Hell, Red was unhappy about the PGA/ASC tests, Shane Hurlbut said master primes were sh*t, the first Zacuto shootout claimed the 5D was on par with Kodak film, and the list goes on and on. You can't keep bias out and even then, as we have seen here a million times... everyone will never be happy with any one camera test. Ever.

Hence, there is no reason for any manufacturer to officially take part. The Red base will be energized and the event held at Red would simply garner attention toward Red among a Red home crowd. Red won't be merely a participant, but will rather be the event. I slept through my PR-101 class in college, but I'd say it would be a wise choice for any camera manufacturer, despite camera performance, to not attend.

In other news... has anyone heard about the Coke vs. Pepsi taste challege being held at Coke headquarters?
 
Last edited:
wait, i'm getting a premonition...

red fan-boys will say something about the raw files not handled correctly and how they did not use the upcoming not yet released firmware upgrade that makes the image 100x better.


i think it's childish for them to make their own test, and it's a sign of extreme insecurity. they are preparing for the inevitable bad results to blame the handling of the camera.
 
Whatever happens elsewhere is in context not my concern. On this forum however as a moderator it's my task to remind members, we don't accept company bashing, bashing members of another forum and general inflammatory statements.

It would be a shame if we couldn't discuss this in a cordial manner.
 
David G. Smith said:
Looks like Zacuto is at it again, with the "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout, 2012". It will be posted on June 15, 2012. I look forward to it.

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012

Here is an article for it.

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/zacuto/zacuto-announces-release-revenge-great-camera-shootout/59140
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the day I was at NAB, their projection system was not in operation, so I was not able to see what they were showing on a 'real(tm)' screen... well bigger and better than what I have...

One of these days I'll get to go to one of these screenings...
 
PappasArts said:
I agree with RED. When do you ever lower the top end to accommodate the bottom. It's absurd to do that. I find it funny that Zacuto had no problem shooting on film, and comparing that to all the other cameras in the last test, of which film is superior at almost all points. However RED needs to play crippled so it can accommodate the others that are retarded compared to what RED can achieve if allowed to run full throttle. It's not logical to this. Could you imagine them restricting a race engine that is superior to accommodate those lesser engines. Or adding a two hundred pound body suit so to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to restrict his speed and performance so some lesser talent has a chance. Dumb Dumb Dumb I don't understand- Why does Zacuto care who wins or is the ultimate top performer?

May the best man ( camera ) win! That's what competition/shootout is about.



Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[SIZE=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/SIZE] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
Click to expand...

I made my position very clear on REDuser. There has only been one movie in the history of cinema that has ever been released on 4k and that was a very small release. 2K is the defacto worldwide standard in 2012 and I don't see that changing because most theaters have already made their investment in 2K projectors. They are not running out and buying 4K when they have a good working projector. We are still trying to get movie theaters to dial up the bulbs on film projectors and brightness on 2K projectors; whereas they are keeping them dim to last longer. Theater owners are having a hard time and it's a rough business. So why should I show a bunch of folks in LA where their are only 3 4K projectors the show in 4K so they can get their jollies. My test is never about a winner. It's much more. It's about how to light a scene for your camera. How to know the camera you own and how to master it. It's about having talent and becoming better at what you do by listening to the incredible talent we have interviewed in this 3 part documentary. How to look into the blacks and work the latitude. Added resolution is not going to improve lighting. It's a sharpness test, who cares, everyone at that point is using filters and dialing the sharpness down so it doesn't look video'ish. When you watch the show you will see that camera technology is here--and the differences are so slight between cameras--message, pick a camera, learn how to light for it, set profiles for it, color time for it and with talent you should succeed. My story is really a story about cinematography. I'm not making a propaganda film for RED. 4K is not here theatrically in 2012 and I'm not going to lie to my viewers and say it is. Yes, there are 4K cameras and yes it has many benefits, agreed but it's not here theatrically yet.
 
PappasArts said:
I agree with RED.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the higher resolution on film... because that is the standard... At the moment 2K is the de facto standard for projection for digital, and as such it is close to 1080x1920. While a 4K presentation be more impressive, no doubt...

But, given that Zacuto has a range of cameras, from my 'volkswagen' GH-2 (well I have the GH-1...), to the higher end... what is the point in comparing a 4K Red to a HD 4:2:0 camera of the GH...

That's sort of a 'duh'... I can't figure out which one will be perceived as 'better'... right...

Why not just eliminate the 'ordinary man/woman's cameras' altogether and have a shootout between the Lamborghinis and the Ferraris... (the high end sports versions not the cheap ass for looks ones...).

Depending on the viewing distance, 4k vs. 2K is not really noticeable anyway... what becomes more important is bit depth, and tone representation.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I don't mind the higher resolution on film... because that is the standard... At the moment 2K is the de facto standard for projection for digital, and as such it is close to 1080x1920. While a 4K presentation be more impressive, no doubt...

But, given that Zacuto has a range of cameras, from my 'volkswagen' GH-2 (well I have the GH-1...), to the higher end... what is the point in comparing a 4K Red to a HD 4:2:0 camera of the GH...

That's sort of a 'duh'... I can't figure out which one will be perceived as 'better'... right...

Why not just eliminate the 'ordinary man/woman's cameras' altogether and have a shootout between the Lamborghinis and the Ferraris... (the high end sports versions not the cheap ass for looks ones...).

Depending on the viewing distance, 4k vs. 2K is not really noticeable anyway... what becomes more important is bit depth, and tone representation.
Click to expand...

It's not all about what is better. It's discovering strengths and weaknesses. Of course the Alexa will be better than a GH2... but the only way you know how and by how much, is to compare them.

Thus the next time you use a GH2 because the Alexa was out of budget, you'll know what strengths to utilize and weaknesses to cater to. Knowing the outcome doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned from the process.
 
As Steve has already pointed out, quality differences in modern cameras is so slight now, that I fully agree... Pick a camera and start shooting. Seriously! We did our own tests back when we owned a Red One and was unhappy with the workflow to TV. So we shot the same scenes with 4 different cameras as a client test. None of our clients could tell which camera was which!
 
David W. Jones said:
None of our clients could tell which camera was which!
Click to expand...
I think you nailed it right there. Look at Act of Valor. The average joe won't know that it was shot entirely on DSLR and will look at it the exact same as another movie, won't be sitting there picking out the details on how the blacks compare to other films shot on different cameras...

Back when it was a choice of prosumer digital, broadcast(ish - Varicam?) digital or film there was a major difference in the looks. Now the lines have blurred and there are options at both the expensive and cheap end for people to shoot with. It is useful to do these tests and to see the strengths and weaknesses of each camera and format, but at the end of the day the most important part of it is to pick a camera and shoot with it and use that knowledge to work your footage to look as amazing as it can.
 
jax_rox said:
I think you nailed it right there. Look at Act of Valor. The average joe won't know that it was shot entirely on DSLR and will look at it the exact same as another movie, won't be sitting there picking out the details on how the blacks compare to other films shot on different cameras...

Back when it was a choice of prosumer digital, broadcast(ish - Varicam?) digital or film there was a major difference in the looks. Now the lines have blurred and there are options at both the expensive and cheap end for people to shoot with. It is useful to do these tests and to see the strengths and weaknesses of each camera and format, but at the end of the day the most important part of it is to pick a camera and shoot with it and use that knowledge to work your footage to look as amazing as it can.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree.

I agree in the sense that we should all pick the best camera we can afford and use that to the best of our advantage. 'The best' doesn't mean anything but simply the camera that performs the best for the aesthetics and function we best desire for any given film. That 'best' camera could change from film to film, depending on the needs of the production.

I completely agree with your second paragraph, however the first one troubles me.

I find the mentality of simply appeasing the average Joe and not concerning yourself with the finer details is nothing more as pure cinematographic failure. It is our job to be the custodians of the image, and despite whether someone can tell the difference consciously or not, it is our job to deliver the image that tells the story the best. I do not expect the average joe, or even my parents, to be able to pick out chromatic aberation of a lens, noise patterns in the blacks, or rolling shutter effects. But that doesn't mean those things do not effect the look of the film and subconsciously effects the audience.

Imagine if Shakespeare wrote to simply appease the average theater goer. I think we'd find his work much less enthralling. I guess it depends how you work. I am a perfectionist, even when perfection means imperfection. I think all major cinematographers have strived for that level of masterful control, and it has served them well. I worry about people who easily abandon this attitude because of laziness. A thread at RedUser.net had someone suggest color-matched lenses as not being important when you are working with RAW data. I felt my blood pressure instantly rise. At the end of the day, I have to remember that this is an art. Some of us spend countless efforts painting a 'Utrecht Caravaggism' master piece while others just Jackson Pollack all over the place with DSLR's.

99.9% of the world does not have the trained eye to analyze an image like we do. But that doesn't mean they don't have eyes.





What I am saying is I agree with you, but be careful dismissing the fine details. You know who lives there. ;)
 
jax_rox said:
I think you nailed it right there. Look at Act of Valor. The average joe won't know that it was shot entirely on DSLR and will look at it the exact same as another movie, won't be sitting there picking out the details on how the blacks compare to other films shot on different cameras...
Click to expand...

Outside of the technical cinematography type fora, such as this one, the biggest criticism about "Act of Valor"(2012), is the acting... some of the situations... etc... I don't think I've read a critique outside of say this group, that even hinted at the camera techniques as a 'lack'... the film looked like the standard Hollywood product...

I've been pretty enthusiastic about the film because of the significant use of DSLR's. And, how the film got 'started', I think is an object less for those of us who don't have active Hollywood things going on...

The 'concept' began as a recruiting/training film for the Navy. It was kicked off locally and the people who did that project, took the concept and footage, and 'pitched' the film to get financial backing to get it made.

I saw some of the early clips at a local Final Cut Pro group I use to attend in San Diego... so I've been following this one for a while...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I find the mentality of simply appeasing the average Joe and not concerning yourself with the finer details is nothing more as pure cinematographic failure. It is our job to be the custodians of the image, and despite whether someone can tell the difference consciously or not, it is our job to deliver the image that tells the story the best. I do not expect the average joe, or even my parents, to be able to pick out chromatic aberation of a lens, noise patterns in the blacks, or rolling shutter effects. But that doesn't mean those things do not effect the look of the film and subconsciously effects the audience.
Click to expand...

There is an issue of over 'engineering' for a given task. The Wife has this problem... she will spend hours getting every single unfortunate 'featurette' retouched, now that it is so easy to do 'digitally'... and the customer will never see it because the resolution of the output is below the 'seeing the problem' threshold.

If she were blowing the image up to 20'x30' wall size, in a gallery where people could walk up to a few feet of the work... well obviously such attention to detail is required... and maybe a higher res camera too...

So, yes I agree that these shootouts, if they are to have meaning, should allow the viewer to understand differences, and get an idea of 'what one gets, for what one pays'...

I don't mind the 2K 'leveling' on the current shootout. That seems to allow quite a few cameras to be compared some what relative to 'all have the same spatial resolution', how does such things as 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 (do any of the high end cameras do that???), and dynamic range, realistically affect technically knowledgeable viewer perception.

In that regard I'm somewhat ambivalent about the 'hacked' GH-2... but because the various hacks have gotten so much 'buzz' here, I would like to see if it is 'worth' the effort when compared in a more controlled test, than 'gee I went out shot a bunch of footage and its 'beautiful''...

In the case of the RED @ 4K, given the presentation is 2K... I don't really see using 2K as a major limitation... there could be a slight advantage of being able to digitally 'filter' for moire effects... for example. So, at 2K, one can see how the Alexa and the RED play off each other without the question... well was there something that was done with the 4K image, for better or worse... that figures in to the evaluation.

On the other hand... perhaps one could come away with 'well one has to shoot RED at 4K just to get up to what other cameras can do at 2K'... I don't think that would happen... but in the infinite possibilities... it is one...
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I find the mentality of simply appeasing the average Joe and not concerning yourself with the finer details is nothing more as pure cinematographic failure. It is our job to be the custodians of the image, and despite whether someone can tell the difference consciously or not, it is our job to deliver the image that tells the story the best. I do not expect the average joe, or even my parents, to be able to pick out chromatic aberation of a lens, noise patterns in the blacks, or rolling shutter effects. But that doesn't mean those things do not effect the look of the film and subconsciously effects the audience.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree too. Never saw the film but based on the title the film WAS aimed at average Joe thus the "art" of cinematography doesn't really apply here as the target audience won't care. Moreover i disagree that "aberation of a lens, noise patterns in the blacks, or rolling shutter effects" are part of the "art" - if anything they are part of "engineering" that this profession has behind it.


Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Some of us spend countless efforts painting a 'Utrecht Caravaggism' master piece while others just Jackson Pollack all over the place with DSLR's.
Click to expand...

But Pollock is way more accomplished artist than Caravaggio! Let's not use simplified assumption about another art (painting) to prove ours.

(Commented with love)
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I agree and disagree too. Never saw the film but based on the title the film WAS aimed at average Joe thus the "art" of cinematography doesn't really apply here as the target audience won't care. Moreover i disagree that "aberation of a lens, noise patterns in the blacks, or rolling shutter effects" are part of the "art" - if anything they are part of "engineering" that this profession has behind it.




But Pollock is way more accomplished artist than Caravaggio! Let's not use simplified assumption about another art (painting) to prove ours.

(Commented with love)
Click to expand...

Yes, how we accomplish the image is the technical part of the job... You could call it engineering to a degree, and is certainly part of the professionalism... but I do think anything that is part of the visual image is part of the aesthetic and thus is artistic. If you see it, you feel it. The only difference is we are talking about very subtle image characteristics. Despite if the average person consciously notices, or even knows what it is.... it is there, and the image would be different without it. Will it ruin the movie if not executed properly? No. But if it will add to the feeling/mood/atmosphere of the story by enhancing the visual, even just 5% more... It's worth doing. My fear is that people will forsake the little things... little things that are part of the image and support the visual context. Despite being small and technical, they show up on screen, thus I believe they must be addressed.

Also, I did not mean to insult fans of Pollock. Apologies if it sounded that way. My point was art is art, and we can go about it in many different ways, so I must remember to be forgiving of people who go about cinematography in a very different way. I wasn't trying to say that impressionism or realism was better than abstract or expressionism. Point was that both are painters but both are completely different in approach and style.

:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top