Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3

So...
- Expensive cameras are generally easier to use and of better resulting quality than less expensive cameras
- Story is more important than the tech used
- Experienced, master cinematographers like what they do and don't sloggingly work under extreme duress

Very enlightening.

Facetiousness aside, it was edifying to see what sort of side-by-side results were possible from these cameras, considering I'll probably ever only shoot with 2-3 of them before the whole lot reach obsolescence.
 
Postmaster said:
Here are some thoughts of Art Adams on "Why Zacuto’s Latest Camera Test May Have Screwed Us All"
Click to expand...

Art Adams comes across like the cranky old man of cinematography. :-)

I know that he is well qualified to perform technical tests on cameras, but he seems to have a problem when you start looking at the whole DOP production environment, where the camera is only one element of the solution.

Maybe Zacuto shouldn't have called it a "camera shootout" when it was a lot more than just a camera test.
 
Yes, because GH2 fanboys, after part 2, were proclaiming GH2 is the greatest thing ever made since slice bread, even better than Alexxa and F65
Click to expand...

Really, I haven't seen that. I have read posts where people have been very pleased with what the gh2 can do. But can you show me one post where anyone said the gh2 was better than the alexa or f65? I'm curious where you read this.
 
Postmaster said:
Here are some thoughts of Art Adams on "Why Zacuto’s Latest Camera Test May Have Screwed Us All"

http://provideocoalition.com/index....s_latest_camera_test_may_have_screwed_us_all/
Click to expand...

This was a fantastic article. It was great for two reasons. First, it better explained what was going on in the Zacuto shootout. Second, and not really intended, is that it confirmed in a way the results of the shootout in that if you are willing to put ungodly amounts of time and effort into a shot, you can get great results from even a cheaper camera. I'm an amateur and I'm going to shoot on whatever I can afford to shoot on. If I put enough effort into overcoming the shortcomings of my camera, I should be able to get great looking pictures. This is good news. As long as I don't delude myself that my FS100 is an Alexa, I think I'll be fine. For professionals, the potential misunderstanding of the results may result in being stuck in a situation where they are expected to pull of Alexa results in an Alexa time frame with a less than full-featured camera. Thankfully, preventing that problem is not my problem. So, without that kind of responsibility wearing me down, I am free to focus on the glass half full aspect of the test, which is with good control, you can get great shots out of your less expensive cameras. As an amateur, the price of increased time is not as big a deal as it is for the pros. The downside of course is that unlike the pros, I don't have a sound stage and have (much) less idea of how to light and grade etc, to overcome the shortcomings. From the amateur perspective, as long as the upside is more fun than the downside, I'm happy. So, pro or rookie, great article.
 
Vieuxcarre1303 said:
T If I put enough effort into overcoming the shortcomings of my camera, I should be able to get great looking pictures.
Click to expand...

But if that 'effort' includes hiring a HMI lighting, a generator, and the crew who can handle 12X12 diffusion, and the genny, and keep the set safe you may well save money by renting a more expensive camera

Be realistic that the FS100 was filled with this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/146939-REG/K5600_S0400JB_Joker_Bug_400W_HMI_Par.html

And FS100 plus that is around the price of an F3 or close

S
 
Vieuxcarre1303 said:
Second, and not really intended, is that it confirmed in a way the results of the shootout in that if you are willing to put ungodly amounts of time and effort into a shot, you can get great results from even a cheaper camera. I'm an amateur and I'm going to shoot on whatever I can afford to shoot on.
Click to expand...
Agreed, all these cameras are good enough. But when people say "the END IMAGE is the ONLY thing that matters", I've been saying for years -- no it isn't. What goes into getting that end image matters an awful lot too. If it takes more effort, more work, more fiddling, more tweaking, that all takes time, which costs money, and slows things down, etc...

Some shooters have no money, but lots of time. For them, tweaking and fiddling to extract the maximum from a lesser (and less expensive) camera is not only a viable choice, but sometimes it's the only choice. But other shooters don't have the time or the inclination to work around shortcomings, and in context of a larger production, they may not necessarily be able to afford to use the less expensive camera and lenses. I know that's a tough one for some folks to grasp, but a blown shot due to using a DSLR lens instead of a cine lens can be a lot more expensive than just renting the cine lens in the first place.

If I put enough effort into overcoming the shortcomings of my camera, I should be able to get great looking pictures. This is good news. As long as I don't delude myself that my FS100 is an Alexa, I think I'll be fine.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying for years. For some reason people want to cling to a fantasy that a lesser camera is "better" than a better camera, and that just isn't so, and if we could just view it rationally we could see that there's room for and tools for everyone.

As an amateur, the price of increased time is not as big a deal as it is for the pros. The downside of course is that unlike the pros, I don't have a sound stage and have (much) less idea of how to light and grade etc, to overcome the shortcomings. From the amateur perspective, as long as the upside is more fun than the downside, I'm happy. So, pro or rookie, great article.
Click to expand...
Excellent perspective. Fantastic first post. Welcome to DVXUser!
 
maranfilms said:
Really, I haven't seen that. I have read posts where people have been very pleased with what the gh2 can do. But can you show me one post where anyone said the gh2 was better than the alexa or f65? I'm curious where you read this.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I think he was just trying to start trouble. :)

I have not seen it as yet but I do believe GH and Nom-GH owners expected the camera to fall short (when compared to the more expensive cameras) in this category. Maybe he feels vindicated since the cheap camera looked good in a number of eyes from the first test. I hate fanboism mentality also but....no need for eny of us to add fuel to the fire.
 
Obviously part of working with a tool is controlling your locations. If you're shooting something on a GH2 you aren't going to light it like the stress test scene in the shootout. That would be silly. You pick locations you can work with and then adjust.

I think the criticism over the shootout is pretty much a non-issue. Nothing was hidden. People are freaking out when there's no reason to.
 
morgan_moore said:
But if that 'effort' includes hiring a HMI lighting, a generator, and the crew who can handle 12X12 diffusion, and the genny, and keep the set safe you may well save money by renting a more expensive camera
Click to expand...
This is a lesson in filmmaking economics that a lot of folks have trouble grasping, but it's just simply the truth...

These products on the market have the features that they do for good and valid reasons. There are reasons why the appearance of the Red didn't immediately result in the vaporization of all other camera companies, as was frequently and repeatedly predicted here during the early days of Red mania. For any given shooting scenario, one of these cameras will be a better choice than another. And yes, there are scenarios where the GH2 is the better choice over the Alexa. In raw pure imagemaking potential, none of the smaller cameras is going to be able to compete with the F65 or Alexa, but again, that's not the only consideration. Usability, budget, mobility, post considerations -- all factor into making the right choice FOR A PARTICULAR SHOOTING SCENARIO. There is no one, single, universal "better". There just isn't.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Obviously part of working with a tool is controlling your locations. If you're shooting something on a GH2 you aren't going to light it like the stress test scene in the shootout. That would be silly. You pick locations you can work with and then adjust.

I think the criticism over the shootout is pretty much a non-issue. Nothing was hidden. People are freaking out when there's no reason to.
Click to expand...

AMEN...and...AMEN!!!
 
Did anyone notice there is no coverage of part 3 on the front page of EOSHD? He had no problem blasting Canon cameras in part 2, but now that he doesn't like GH2 performance in part 3, he is claiming the test is flawed :) He refused to even link to part 3 on the front page.

EOSHD is officially the biggest clown on the internet, and a pathettic GH2 fanboy ..
 
Nah, you're just trying to start a fight. The GH2 did exactly as realistic owners knew it would. Don't try to shoot 15 stop scenes with a $700 camera.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Nah, you're just trying to start a fight. The GH2 did exactly as realistic owners knew it would. Don't try to shoot 15 stop scenes with a $700 camera.
Click to expand...

I am not starting a fight. I am just noticing that EOSH owner is a clown. EOSHD is Ken Rockell of video world. Really opinionated but dishonest and biased... and an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top