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

zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you say in L.A., do you mean in Hollywood specifically? Because I've been to at least six theaters in L.A. county that have 4K projectors - or at least have advertised having them - and Sony lists a lot more.

I have no issue with the decision to screen at 2K and I am glad you did the test. I think the way to get around something like that is exactly how you handled the issue in 2010 - by screening enlarged sections so that people can see the resolution difference. I am glad that you came up with that solution already 3 years ago and I think it would have been better for everyone involved in RED had agreed to participate in the shootout, contingent upon a similar section. But I am very confused by the difference between the # of 4K screens you are referencing, the # that Sony is listing and the # of screens I have seen advertising it.

I am not saying that you are wrong or misrepresenting the situation, I just am trying to understand the disparity because at the moment it does not make sense to me.
 
Per, I think Steve was just making a point and not necessarily trying to be accurate about the number of 4k theaters (IMO).
 
Ah, ok. :)

It's just that's one of the things I love about being here in L.A. - the variety of 4K and IMAX theaters. Sony's 4K list includes over 80 of them within a 90 minute drive from my house (when there is no traffic). If some of them were being misleading and claiming they offered 4K projectors but did not, then I would want to know. Watching the C500 in 4K on Sunset was great but I have not had the claims that I was in a 4K theater verified on the other occasions.
 
zacuto said:
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"
Click to expand...

What I remember, and what was so intriguing and exciting, was that in some tests the 5D image looked so good even some industry professionals had a hard time distinguishing it from film at times (or that the differences were essentially too marginal to matter much). The fact that it's even possible with a $2500 consumer camera being projected on film's home turf is what was so remarkable.

Anyway, just watched part 1 of the new one and it was the best yet. A beautiful mini-doc on the art and artists of cinematography, as well as being a fantastic intro and tease for the actual camera tests. Cannot wait for the rest!
 
Last year the lit for the ratios of film - something no digital shooter would ever do - and that really shredded some of the (cheaper) cameras

This year they allowed a gigawatt of fill - if requred - making any camera look great - a gigwatt of fill something most crews dont have access to!

Ive noticed that the 'wood tend to rave about certain cameras - like the 5d thing - while us foot soldiers found them a struggle - without the access to grip, fill wattage and deep post

Im none the wiser.. as ever .. to my shooting needs which involve no more than a couple of k at any time..

S
 
Per Lichtman said:
Ah, ok. :)

It's just that's one of the things I love about being here in L.A. - the variety of 4K and IMAX theaters. Sony's 4K list includes over 80 of them within a 90 minute drive from my house (when there is no traffic). If some of them were being misleading and claiming they offered 4K projectors but did not, then I would want to know. Watching the C500 in 4K on Sunset was great but I have not had the claims that I was in a 4K theater verified on the other occasions.
Click to expand...

The problem is while there may be several theaters for projecting high res images, (I'll accept that some were in LA there's more than one 4K...), getting access for them for a special presentation, may not be possible, or costly...

I work about 1/2 mile from the corporate headquarters of a theater chain that has a small number of theaters in the area and elsewhere in the south west US... but I'm pretty sure if I walked in an asked... "Can I project a bunch of test clips for a bunch of film buffs'... they'd hand me a price list that would be out of my price range... and that's for 2K Christies. On the other hand the same theater chain hosts some local film fests, for example the local 48 Hour Film fest will be shown at a chain theater... so perhaps at that sort of venue the organizers of the 48 Hour Fest could include a 'tech session'...

But I don't think it would be in their IMAX theater... I submitted and was shown at another local fest, in a theater from the chain... and my film along with about 30 others was shown in side offices, and only about 20 films shown on the big screen, again 2K Christies.
 
Postmaster said:
Looks like we are back to the point, where craft in front of the camera is more important again that the sheer camera specs.
Click to expand...

I was impressed with the 'lack' of significant differences when the photographers were allowed to light the scenes to match the camera... While some 'quibble' on this point... that it some how didn't match some 'real world' expectation... I think it does show that the digital sensor technology, with a mind for the limitations of the particular camera, is 'here'...

Now I can go back to making s*%tty avantgarde 16mm-esque films, and not have to justify it because 'its the camera that the limitation'... its because I chose to make crummy films... or alternatively... don't know how to make a good one...

For me this first 'subjective' test was the best... all others will just be specsmanship... and almost meaningless for 'real world applications'...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
While some 'quibble' on this point...
Click to expand...

We dont know what the installments reveal so the full test cannot be judged yet.

But sometimes you cannot match the scene using lights - for example sunsets -Ive see horrid halations on FS100, C300 and DSLRs, there was an early F3 video by a pool in australia that had this nailed..
 
@Postmaster Agreed about the iPhone, but I disagree about the 7D. The 7D is the only camera more expensive than an iPhone in this round-up that uses line-skipping and the implementation results in a lower resolution.

By examing the lattice work, tiles or zebra pattern, it easy to ascertain that the lowest resolution is provided by G and D. If D is the iPhone, then it stands to reason that G is the 7D. The resolution disparity can be seen in countless other tests, including (but not limited to) Philip Bloom's earlier testing.
 
@morgan_moore Although it should be mentioned that halation is also enhanced or exacerbated by the lens and some lenses are just a lot better at handling it than others. Still, I definitely agree with the importance of the sensor in the equation.
 
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about LA, but I live in a medium sized city in South Carolina and every screen in the major chain multiplexes converted to 4k projectors between Thanksgiving and Christmas last year. 36 screens in all. The picture quality took a major jump, even for 2k releases.
I wouldn't call Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a minor release either. Shot finished and released in 4k. It is coming on like a freight train. By next year more than half of all major chain screens will be 4k.
4k isn't just about finer resolved detail. In the 1.6k resolution range that is the practical upper limit of 2k the MTF of a 4k image is much higher, there is more richness and depth to the detail and yes you can see it from the back of the theater. Cameras like most DSLR's with low resolving power just look soft and fuzzy, not like film at all. Film is high resolution and smooth, not soft and fuzzy. 4k has a smooth organic high resolution look where 2k still has a crunchy hard edge video quality if it isn't soft and fuzzy.
 
Very impressive. I am not going to speculate on which camera shot what.What is very helpful is the the downloadable Technical Camera Documentation that is below the video window. I noted that the FS100 shooters chose to work at ISO 1600, which is a full stop faster then where the higher end cameras were set at (ISO 800) and over 2 full stops faster than where the lower end cameras were mostly set (ISO 320). Now I am a FS100 user, so maybe I am biased, but I like the idea of being able to work at that higher sensitivity setting and getting comparable image quality to higher end cameras set a lower sensitivity settings. I think that is very applicable to real world situations for low budget filmmakers. Of course, we have to wait and see which camera shot what...
 
@morgan_moore Sorry, your first post was so succinct that I wasn't clear whether you meant you didn't mean halation or meant that you didn't think I was using the term the way you intended. :)

I only looked at that moment in the video in passing on a fairly low-res (1600x1200) CRT I plopped down on to do some audio work, but as far as I can tell, it might be the banding that is bothering you. The way that not only does the light extend beyond the sun, but it seems to maintain a single tone for several pixels before shifting to another shade? If so, I am not sure whether that is the camera or the encoding that caused it, because it is a very easy artifact to create in a web encode, even when it is not present in the original footage.
 
Yep its banding clipped channels rough roll off whatever - of course we dont know the settings etc..

My point is that not all is curable by a good DP and a bit more fill..

S
 
Let's not forget, that Youtube is clipping the levels pretty harsh (16-235), while re-compressing.
Depending on the output workflow and compression settings this can bring in some nasty effects, that was not in the original material.
Don't know if Vimeo applies the same "Magic" though.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top