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

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Wife and I watched "Game of Thrones" on Bluray recently. We then watched "The Borgias". For us the "Borgias" had 'something missing'... the costumes, while seemingly correct, felt like they had just come of the 15th century department store rack... the streets/houses did not feel 'lived in', etc... In many BTS segments there are shots of set details or costume details that just flash on the screen, if they are really in the focus plane, or even in the frame at all.

So, yes, I agree that there are items in a shot, which 'add up' to a viewer's perceptions, even if they are not really looking for these things... on the other hand, the goofs listed in IMDB often go unnoticed until they are pointed out there, by the pixel peepers...

As for art figures... Pollocks good for backgrounds of slasher horror films...
 
Ryan, i'm definitely with on on the fact that if we forsake the craft then we end up the red-button pushers and even though being the REC pusher if often fine enough it does make us culturally poorer.
 
I certainly agree that we shouldn't be forsaking the art of cinematography simply to appease the average movie-goer or because they don't necessarily see the technical details that we see. I simply meant that getting too bogged down in this camera over that cameras is pointless because at the end of the day Mr Moviegoer doesn't know and doesn't care. I talk mainly of the zealousy that you can sometimes see from all sorts of camps about hos Camera X is better than Camera D because Y. At the end of the day, whether or not that is the case, we should be focussing more on the storytelling and the art of the visual medium rather than the technical aspect of 'this camera has 13 stops of latitude, and that camera only has 12.5'.
Understanding the formats and the pitfalls of certain cameras is important, but at the end of the day people will shoot on Epic even though there are issues with this and that, people will shoot on DSLR even though there are issues with the compression and colour space etc. Whilst we should strive for the best possible quality for our audience, when a cinematographer reaches the point of technical skill level where he is able to shoot on whatever camera he chooses and still get great images out of it, the underlying story is (generally) not neccessarily diminshed simply by the camera body chosen to shoot it. The shooting format and camera can certainly be used to enhance that story, but at the end of the day not all movies shot on 35mm get picked up, and conversely, not all movies shot on DSLR get thrown to the bin. Obviously in such films there is more in play than just the camera and that is my exact point. The camera body is simply one factor in an overall movie-making process. Some seem to put much more importance on that one factor and forget or at least diminish the other factors.
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The Wife and I watched "Game of Thrones" on Bluray recently. We then watched "The Borgias". For us the "Borgias" had 'something missing'... the costumes, while seemingly correct, felt like they had just come of the 15th century department store rack... the streets/houses did not feel 'lived in', etc......
Click to expand...

+1 ....and here I thought it was just me.
 
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...

That is not my understanding at all, parts of Act of Valor were screened with the 2010 shootout and much of the film is film and the car chases and that were shot with 5D. It was not all shot on DSLR. Also someone made a statement that in 2010 that our shootout made some kind of conclusion that a 5D was as good as film. That's completely wrong. We said just the opposite, nothing could come close to film. What we did say is "is it good enough for what you need to do with it"
 
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...

Yesterday we screened the Test Footage at SkyWalker Ranch and recorded comments of the viewers that will go into the 2012 Shootout. the audience viewed it blind not knowing which camera was which and Let me just say that many people picked the GH2 as their favorite including a special guest that I will not name--not George Lucas--but will blow you away when you see it in episode two on July 15th. It was all over the map, their were some consensus but when viewed side by side, it's hard to tell what's what, very subtle differences. To me I could tell the differences in the lower end cameras but others did not.
 
Thanks for the update. I'm finally glad the GH2 got to be tested. With all the BMC madness, I forgot how good that camera actually was.
 
zacuto said:
That is not my understanding at all, parts of Act of Valor were screened with the 2010 shootout and much of the film is film and the car chases and that were shot with 5D. It was not all shot on DSLR.
Click to expand...
It seems you are right. I had heard that it was shot completely on DSLR, but apparently not. In either case, watching films that have parts shot on DSLR, I personally find it very noticeable - and in fact found myself confirming via IMDb that parts of Captain America had in fact been shot on DSLR as was my suspicion watching it. I was correct, and to my eye was very noticeable. That said, I was with three other non-film types and they didn't notice a single difference. If people are taken enough by the story, then the choice of camera becomes more of a preferential choice than a choice of what necessarily looks better, or more like film - unlike when it was either a choice of broadcast (and a very video look) or film (and obviously a very film look). Obviously we need to be across changes and the differences in cameras, and each cameras strengths and weaknesses for making the camera decisions for our films, but the bottom line is if you have to shoot on DSLR, it doesn't mean that your film is going to be unwatchable. Of course certain cameras are going to be 'better' than others, but that doesn't mean we can't use them to make a film.

Also, cheers for the update, I'm interested to see how they come out, and what people have to say.
 
jax_rox said:
and in fact found myself confirming via IMDb that parts of Captain America had in fact been shot on DSLR as was my suspicion watching it.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to confirm that Melancholia was mostly shot on a DSLR, because it seemed there was quite a quality jump between the beauty shots and the more typical reality-style filming of that movie.
 
zacuto said:
Yesterday we screened the Test Footage at SkyWalker Ranch and recorded comments of the viewers that will go into the 2012 Shootout. the audience viewed it blind not knowing which camera was which and Let me just say that many people picked the GH2 as their favorite including a special guest that I will not name--not George Lucas--but will blow you away when you see it in episode two on July 15th. It was all over the map, their were some consensus but when viewed side by side, it's hard to tell what's what, very subtle differences. To me I could tell the differences in the lower end cameras but others did not.
Click to expand...

Here, here for die Volkskamera...

When will the shoot out be available for viewing online?
 
Last edited:
IMDB was the first thing I looked up, it's it not exactly the final word on this sort of thing. All I can say is that there was a stark contrast between the "beauty" shots of the film and then the reality TV shooting style that was quite apparent from the Blu-ray. It looked a lot softer and had that WB problem that so many DSLR shooters seem to incorporate (and exacerbated by the awful color correction of those segments) which made me think of the 5D2.
 
Could it possibly be the shift between the Alexa and the Phantom? I'll have to rent it on Blu-Ray and have a look.
 
Gary Huff said:
IMDB was the first thing I looked up, it's it not exactly the final word on this sort of thing. All I can say is that there was a stark contrast between the "beauty" shots of the film and then the reality TV shooting style that was quite apparent from the Blu-ray. It looked a lot softer and had that WB problem that so many DSLR shooters seem to incorporate (and exacerbated by the awful color correction of those segments) which made me think of the 5D2.
Click to expand...

Just because it looked reality like doens't mean it was shot on DSLR... we have to get over this craze with hybrid cams.

Go back and look at Von Triers old work... like "Riget" and the dogme series of movies. All have that run and gun feel to it, but that's just how he chose to do it. That was way before the 5D etc.
 
legrevedotcom said:
Just because it looked reality like doens't mean it was shot on DSLR... we have to get over this craze with hybrid cams.

Go back and look at Von Triers old work... like "Riget" and the dogme series of movies. All have that run and gun feel to it, but that's just how he chose to do it. That was way before the 5D etc.
Click to expand...

I think that many of the Dogme 95 films should be revisited by contemporary filmmakers. I don't think that the mandated "Rules" were such a hot idea, but, within those strict parameters, some good flicks were made. My favorite is "Mifune" (or "Mifune's Last Song") directed by Søren Kragh-Jacobsen and photographed by Anthony Dod Mantle (Recipient of the Academy Award for Best Achievement in Cinematography for "Slum Dog Millionaire"). The film was awarded "Dogme #3" distinction for having been produced under the "Code of Chasity" of the Dogme 95 manifesto.* It is a gorgeous film. Considering that it was made under the Dogme 95 rules dictating no supplemental lighting, ON 35MM FILM*2, I think that contemporary filmmakers, with access to high quality cameras with very usable ISO settings of 1000 or more, could learn a lot about the possibilities they have in their hands with the cameras they have by watching this and other Dogme 95 films.

* The director "Confessed" to some transgressions of the Dogme 95 "Vow of Chastity", see the link below.

*2 IMDB says that "Mifune" was shot on 16mm film. The Dogme 95 "Rules" say that the films need to be shot on Academy Aperture 35mm film (1:37 to 1 aspect ratio, which I think is ridiculous). Also, I saw the film first run in a very good theatre and it was pristine, with no indications that it was a blow up. I may be wrong on this, but I think the film was shot on 35mm film.

Here are the pertinent links:

Dogme 95:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95

"Mifune":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifune%27s_Last_Song

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164756/fullcredits#cast

Anthony Dod Mantle:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0230045/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top