morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The GH2 is a very good camera (at its price/mass point) is there really a competing sub 2k camrera?
it fits his needs well
S
Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
The GH2 is a very good camera (at its price/mass point) is there really a competing sub 2k camrera?
it fits his needs well
S
Chris Adler
Veteran
Odd, I just went to EOSHD and scrolled through the entire first page. Not a single article about the GH2. Lots of other cameras were featured, however.
He is the author of the GH2 Shooter's Guide. Pretty sure he promotes that as much as he can. Gotta make a living.
Maybe we need to shoot more and gossip less...
He is the author of the GH2 Shooter's Guide. Pretty sure he promotes that as much as he can. Gotta make a living.
Maybe we need to shoot more and gossip less...
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Here's something I posted on this elsewhere, but I gess it bears repeating. Art & I are equally unhappy with the Zacuto Shootout.
Part Three is the only part that has any worthwhile information, yet it is still a highly flawed and in the end not useful presentation.
First off, this section begins by stating that it is for the "pixel peepers." I'm sorry, but I resent that. Zacuto is saying that those who want real technical data in some form are a bunch of eggheads, some kind of intellectual elitist nerds who are best kept holed up where their pocket protectors and horned rimmed glasses won't hurt any regular folk. You're presenting a shootout of a bunch of cameras -- who do you think is watching this, gentlemen farmers?
I also notice that this section has by far the least amount of commentary by the audience groups as compared to the other sections, as well as the least amount of explanation of the shooting and testing procedures compared to the outlining given in the earlier two sections. I'm going out on a limb here to say that I think this is because the makers of this test didn't really care about this part as much and/or didn't see its value as high as the others. I feel the opposite.
But okay, let's just pretend that parts one & two never happened and just look at this section. What's wrong & right with it?
"Objective" shooting with all cameras using the same lighting, and then the result is seen "uncorrected." But wait a second, cameras such as the RED EPIC and the Sony F65 shoot RAW. What does "uncorrected" mean? Does it mean that the RAW data was presented in a standard REC709 color space? Maybe, I don't know. Was the Alexa shooting in ProRes 4444 or was it capturing in ARRIRAW? Was it using LOG-C? What settings were used on the F3, or the 7D for that matter? None of this is presented, although I guess it might be buried in the .PDF files. Maybe I'll have to "peep" over there.
The test shots are presented one after another, ordered by dollar value of camera from lowest to highest. But they are never shown side-by-side. It is impossible to compare the iPhone to the F65 because there are so many cameras between them. The brain quickly is unable to distinguish the differences and subtleties. That why side-by-sides are so important, because they help eliminate false memory. If there are going to be side-by-side comparisons, why not do it like they did last year, with one camera chosen as a reference "control" and the others shown next to it for perspective?
But wait, there are side-by-sides (actually wipes & over/unders). The wipes show the "uncorrected" image (whatever that means) and then the "corrected", where the test runner does helpfully explain that he did his best to get the cameras to match (remember that). The over/unders compared the "corrected" one-light setups of Section Three to the re-lit and corrected setups from Sections One & Two. I honestly couldn't give a crap about the over/under comparisons. It's just telling me what the different DPs did to relight and it says absolutely nothing about the cameras themselves. I guess if one is really paying attention it could be noticed that the F65 is the identical shot because the DP for that camera did not feel the need to relight at all in order to capture the scene.
I barely give a crap about the wipes (Ew, what did I just say?) because that is showing me how much the cameras can handle correction before falling apart. Except it doesn't really because I'm looking at the whole thing as a compressed Vimeo file which introduces so much banding an other issues that it's near impossible to tell much. But the one thing it did show me oh-so-importantly is that the correction is a cheat. Because there is so much more information present in the higher level cameras that had to be thrown away in order to dumb them down to be similar to the lesser ones. It was as if the decision was made to try to make all the cameras look as much as possible like the Sony FS100, which was pretty much in the middle of the price range of the group. The lesser cameras with their fine detail resolving issues and limited dynamic range such as the iPhone and the 7D struggled to reach up. But the "uncorrected" images out of the Alexa, EPIC and F65 had vastly more i nforma tion available in highlights, shadows, gradations of color, fine texture resolution and other aspects that were clamped away in the grade. In the end some of what they could achieve could be perceived but it was highly truncated.
But the part that pissed me off the most about the whole shebang was at the end. Entitled "The Takeaway," I expect that a lot of non-technical producers and others will wake up from their slumbers to just listen to this, because IT IS GOING TO TELL THEM THE SIMPLE ANSWER. And what are they told?
DP: "A lot of these cameras are good enough."
Colorist: "We could make them match."
Photographer: "They're pretty similar."
DP: "Despite [big price differences] there was a great similarity of palette."
and the most dangerous one of all
"It really comes down to the operator and the crew."
I said all along that this "shootout" set out to prove that there really is no great difference between these cameras and the images they provide. All of the "tests" were skewed to prove this assumption. It may have been a completely subconscious act on their part, but the makers of this presentation started with a thesis and did everything they could to prove it.
That last quote is the most dangerous one to me (there are others like it that follow, but the implications are similar). If all these cameras are really about the same and it really just comes down to the DP's skills, then cinematographers never have the right to ask for better or more appropriate equipment. The producer can say that a good DP should be able to make this cheap camera sing, and if you cannot then you must be a hack and I'll find someone better.
Tools matter. Without the appropriate tool an artist or craftsperson cannot do as good a job. It is really that simple. This presentation continues to obfuscate technical realities and present a fallacy. Part Three is only slightly improved over Parts One & Two, but in the end they all cause more damage than provide useful information.
Part Three is the only part that has any worthwhile information, yet it is still a highly flawed and in the end not useful presentation.
First off, this section begins by stating that it is for the "pixel peepers." I'm sorry, but I resent that. Zacuto is saying that those who want real technical data in some form are a bunch of eggheads, some kind of intellectual elitist nerds who are best kept holed up where their pocket protectors and horned rimmed glasses won't hurt any regular folk. You're presenting a shootout of a bunch of cameras -- who do you think is watching this, gentlemen farmers?
I also notice that this section has by far the least amount of commentary by the audience groups as compared to the other sections, as well as the least amount of explanation of the shooting and testing procedures compared to the outlining given in the earlier two sections. I'm going out on a limb here to say that I think this is because the makers of this test didn't really care about this part as much and/or didn't see its value as high as the others. I feel the opposite.
But okay, let's just pretend that parts one & two never happened and just look at this section. What's wrong & right with it?
"Objective" shooting with all cameras using the same lighting, and then the result is seen "uncorrected." But wait a second, cameras such as the RED EPIC and the Sony F65 shoot RAW. What does "uncorrected" mean? Does it mean that the RAW data was presented in a standard REC709 color space? Maybe, I don't know. Was the Alexa shooting in ProRes 4444 or was it capturing in ARRIRAW? Was it using LOG-C? What settings were used on the F3, or the 7D for that matter? None of this is presented, although I guess it might be buried in the .PDF files. Maybe I'll have to "peep" over there.
The test shots are presented one after another, ordered by dollar value of camera from lowest to highest. But they are never shown side-by-side. It is impossible to compare the iPhone to the F65 because there are so many cameras between them. The brain quickly is unable to distinguish the differences and subtleties. That why side-by-sides are so important, because they help eliminate false memory. If there are going to be side-by-side comparisons, why not do it like they did last year, with one camera chosen as a reference "control" and the others shown next to it for perspective?
But wait, there are side-by-sides (actually wipes & over/unders). The wipes show the "uncorrected" image (whatever that means) and then the "corrected", where the test runner does helpfully explain that he did his best to get the cameras to match (remember that). The over/unders compared the "corrected" one-light setups of Section Three to the re-lit and corrected setups from Sections One & Two. I honestly couldn't give a crap about the over/under comparisons. It's just telling me what the different DPs did to relight and it says absolutely nothing about the cameras themselves. I guess if one is really paying attention it could be noticed that the F65 is the identical shot because the DP for that camera did not feel the need to relight at all in order to capture the scene.
I barely give a crap about the wipes (Ew, what did I just say?) because that is showing me how much the cameras can handle correction before falling apart. Except it doesn't really because I'm looking at the whole thing as a compressed Vimeo file which introduces so much banding an other issues that it's near impossible to tell much. But the one thing it did show me oh-so-importantly is that the correction is a cheat. Because there is so much more information present in the higher level cameras that had to be thrown away in order to dumb them down to be similar to the lesser ones. It was as if the decision was made to try to make all the cameras look as much as possible like the Sony FS100, which was pretty much in the middle of the price range of the group. The lesser cameras with their fine detail resolving issues and limited dynamic range such as the iPhone and the 7D struggled to reach up. But the "uncorrected" images out of the Alexa, EPIC and F65 had vastly more i nforma tion available in highlights, shadows, gradations of color, fine texture resolution and other aspects that were clamped away in the grade. In the end some of what they could achieve could be perceived but it was highly truncated.
But the part that pissed me off the most about the whole shebang was at the end. Entitled "The Takeaway," I expect that a lot of non-technical producers and others will wake up from their slumbers to just listen to this, because IT IS GOING TO TELL THEM THE SIMPLE ANSWER. And what are they told?
DP: "A lot of these cameras are good enough."
Colorist: "We could make them match."
Photographer: "They're pretty similar."
DP: "Despite [big price differences] there was a great similarity of palette."
and the most dangerous one of all
"It really comes down to the operator and the crew."
I said all along that this "shootout" set out to prove that there really is no great difference between these cameras and the images they provide. All of the "tests" were skewed to prove this assumption. It may have been a completely subconscious act on their part, but the makers of this presentation started with a thesis and did everything they could to prove it.
That last quote is the most dangerous one to me (there are others like it that follow, but the implications are similar). If all these cameras are really about the same and it really just comes down to the DP's skills, then cinematographers never have the right to ask for better or more appropriate equipment. The producer can say that a good DP should be able to make this cheap camera sing, and if you cannot then you must be a hack and I'll find someone better.
Tools matter. Without the appropriate tool an artist or craftsperson cannot do as good a job. It is really that simple. This presentation continues to obfuscate technical realities and present a fallacy. Part Three is only slightly improved over Parts One & Two, but in the end they all cause more damage than provide useful information.
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
As noted in the linked article. this was NOT a camera test, it was a DP (and post production) test. A good DP with unlimited resources can make almost any camera look good. It's the same old production triangle we always talk about (good/fast/cheap). You can make a cheap camera look good (at the cost of a lot more setup and post time expended). If you are poor (like many of us) and working with a small budget then you compensate for that with expending extra time. If every hour on set is costing you multi-thousands of dollars (in crew and talent costs) then it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use a higher end camera that will simplify the setups.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
You can call it Suzie if you want, but everyone who sees this sees it as a camera test. And it is actually called "Revenge Of The Great Camera Shootout" for F's sake! CAMERA shootout, not DP or Post. Camera.
As such, it is a poor excuse for a poor excuse.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Mitch I agree with all you say, but it might be the pot talking to the kettle
S
S
Chris Adler
Veteran
The only people I see with their panties in a knot over the whole shootout are people who seem to feel threatened financially. I guess I can understand that, but I'd also have to say get used to it. What was once a very contained, small, and exclusive market and skill set is expanding daily. You can't stop it with fear or flailing arms. Lots of people over on RedUser are freaking out because they can't charge as much for gear rentals anymore. Sorry, but that's just competition and evolution in action. It's healthy.
I welcome the opportunities all of the cameras in the shootout can bring to a production. I think at the end of the day if you can deliver something with a demand that people can afford, you will always have a viable business. But you better stay nimble.
I welcome the opportunities all of the cameras in the shootout can bring to a production. I think at the end of the day if you can deliver something with a demand that people can afford, you will always have a viable business. But you better stay nimble.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Which means they labeled it very poorly. A "Camera Test" would be the original shoot out.
Here's the very challenging lighting conditions, you aren't allowed to touch anything besides your camera, go.
Which is what Part 3 did, which should have been Part 1.
I'd also add it really is amazing the jump once you get past the 7D. Really two distinct groups 7D and below and FS100 and above.
Last edited:
Mitch from what I read in your post you are a pixel peeper because you completely disregard the man and crew in the equation and only refer to the equipment as being a component to the eventual image. Nothing derogatory about that, not sure if you have a pocket protector or not, but to only refer to equipment shows you are not in production, but rather support production and there is nothing wrong with that. From my experience in directing over 700 productions in 29 years I've worked on every format since U-matic and 1" backpack, I'd chose a great cinematographer who can do magic with light over any particular camera any day of the week. This presentation is not just for people at your level "engineers/pixel peepers/digerati/whatever I should be calling tech people these days" there are a lot of your customers who are novices and low budget indie filmmakers (who probably make up the majority of this audience) that are just trying to learn a bit about filmmaking from the DP's and see the differences with cameras. Yes, in a false 4K environment which is not here yet as a worldwide standard and considering that most of those theaters are still projecting in 2K, the higher end cameras will of course look infinitely better. Even in the 2K environment (the defacto standard in 2012) most pixel peepers preferred the higher end cameras in the non blind screenings, as well on the web--so did I. We--meaning myself or Zacuto--have never given our opinion on which camera we think is better or worse mainly because I think picture quality is based on ability. I've seen total brilliance and total crap from EPIC's, Alexa's and GH2's as well as every other camera. How do you account for that? Hmmm, people, talent! All of the comments in my film were from viewers watching Bruce's test footage from screenings around the world. Surprisingly, the same little issues I saw in the 2K projection I see on the web. We can spilt hairs all day long, obviously, the higher end cameras look the best and are going to be used by the pros, the mid range cameras are going to be used by the folks who can afford the higher end cameras and the lower end cameras are going to be used by those who can afford the mid range cameras. My opinion which means nothing of course is indie filmmakers should use the camera they have or can easily afford. That's all you need to learn the craft. You don't need to buy a new camera every three months, because it will not make you one bit a better filmmaker. Put your money into lights, mics and a good tripod.
The real question posed in Bruce's test is how do these cameras look out of the box with no lighting changes in a one light grade as best as Bruce could keep it fair. Remember Bruce is also a colorist himself. Then compare that to what someone with talent in using that particular camera can do playing to it's strengths and downplaying it's weaknesses. Yes, I said talent. An over riding theme in the documentary was about talent, experience and creativity. Some have it, some may be able to develop it and some are hacks as you mention. That's life, we don't all get Oscars or Emmy's for using more expensive cameras. Cameras are tools to help us show are creativity. I know that's a bad word but it's true. I'd rather have an excellent light kit and great mics over a more expensive camera if I had to choose based on budgetary purposes. At least my film would have the right mood and sound great which is way more important then picture quality. I didn't include one section in my documentary but when I asked all of the DP's if they could only choose one-great picture or great sound, almost all of them said great sound. They said you can tolerate or use to your advantage lower picture quality but poor sound is intolerable.
The reason there was less audience commentary in part three is because it had 15 minutes of camera test footage vs. 3 minutes in part one and two and we like to keep the episodes around 35 minutes. No conspiracy there. Of course we cared about part 3, it's just as important as parts one and two, even more so, to present the full and complete story. For the 700,000th time, I did not make the test, Bruce Logan ASC did, so you should direct your comments to him directly with regards to the test. No test will ever be perfect, none has. Sure we can split hairs all day long but this great divide that everyone is looking for from one high end camera to another high end camera is just not there and if it is, I feel it can be made up with knowing your camera and promoting it's strengths and down playing it's weaknesses. Oh, but that would again fall under the user and not the camera itself, kind of like parts one and two of my documentary. What you refuse to see is that this industry is all about about talent. Tools matter as you say, but not as much as people. If you don't believe me ask Haskell, Rodney, Stephen Goldblatt, Victor Kemper, Janusz they all said the same thing I'm saying in the program.
Another part that you don't seem to get, is that my presentation of Bruce's test is my film. It's not what you want, a sterile scientific presentation. I'm sorry you don't approve or like it but you are welcome to make a scientific presentation if you want. Just ask Pete for $80-100,000 and you are on your way. The ASC has tried to do it twice and most ASC members will tell you, they didn't get it right. You do it the best you possible can since every camera has different parameters in the end I think you come pretty close, but it's not perfect, it can't be. It's very hard to present all of that information you requested on screen, plus I didn't care for the way it looks so I opted to create a PDF file that has all of that information in it. Seems like no matter what we do it would be wrong in your eyes but you can study a document easier then watching it on screen. We are all responsible adults so go read the tech specs and ask the appropriate questions to Bruce or Scott instead of ranting which is very unprofessional of you. It's much more complete and you can study it that way. If you don't want to peep over there as you put and read it then you are just unwilling to find out our process. In the 2K theatrical screenings we tried putting it at the end of Bruce's screening presentation but it just took too long for anyone to be able to read it. They all asked us to make it a white paper and that is what we did.
Now referring to you problem with watching the whole thing on Vimeo. Again, I'd love to pipe it to your local 2K theater for you to see, wait, I did do that, both you and Andy were invited to come to three different 2K projected screenings in NY. I'm going to hope you didn't decline with a bias to not see it just so we could have this rant session on DVXuser. The rest of the world is thrilled to see it on Vimeo and we have had overwhelming positive support and thanks on the web. So many people have sent me messages that the film has given them motivation and inspired them to go out and shoot, learn and hone there talent which makes me feel great. To them, it really doesn't matter which camera they use to develop their skills as a budding cinematographer. And all of your EPIC, Alexa & F65 shooters could probably care less about my film because they would never use anything but those cameras, rightfully so for many reasons--ergonomic, dependability, speed, more data, creature comforts and more. But that doesn't mean that some kid with a T2i couldn't give them a run for their money and I hope that my film will inspire that kid to go ahead and do just that.
The takeaway. You and Art think we should keep the great secret but the cat is out of the bag. Many of these cameras can look similar in the right hands especially for TV. Should we pretend they don't. Are you telling Stephen Goldblatt ASC/BSC who made the comment "there is a great similarity of color palette" that he is seeing it all wrong. Wow, to say that it is really dangerous to say that "it really comes down to the operator and the crew" shows that you are not in production but truly are a pixel peeper. Do you feel if I gave Janusz a GH2 and told him to make a film with it that it wouldn't be amazing, you know it would because it does really come down to people. Sure you can get a better image with higher end cameras but how much? And is it perceived by the audience. Now would Janusz use a GH2, absolutely not, it's ridicules. He's going to use what he wants but the rest of the folks out there are going to use what they have or can afford.
Now this issue about sending a bad message to producers. As a DP or Director you need to fight for the gear you want to use. Stephen Poster has flamed me about this like it's some kind of new concept. This s*%t has been going on in all of my 29 years in the business. That's just the way it is. If you think we can just keep there heads in the sand by saying nothing, then we can't have one single conversation on the internet. We can't watch any of the videos on vimeo because some of those look amazing shot with iPhones or 5DMK3's. The part I don't get in that argument is that most DP's already own gear and in many cases when you hire them it's a guy and his gear deal. Don't blame me for that, blame the fact that these cameras are too affordable, even the high end ones compared to what we used to spend for Varicams just 3 years ago. It has always been this way, actually even worse, I was fighting in the mid 1980's with producers to shoot on film vs. video. 35mm as opposed to 16mm. Betacam over Hi-8. These were much greater differences then what we are talking about in Bruce's test. It's time to man up and fight for what gear you want to use, we did it and you need to do it.
Don't you find it interesting how all of the celeb DP's I interviewed never really talked about equipment much as a component of being a great cinematographer. They talked about talent, experience, watching film, art and photography to learn lighting, collaborate--opening yourself up to new varying ideas, story is everything, great cinematography cannot help a bad story, your shots should help the story--not detract, love what we do--it's fun to play and learn and that's what filmmaking means to many of the DP's interviewed, the importance of good people over gear but most importantly it's about light, framing and movement.
I encourage everyone listen carefully to the advice from the DP's we interviewed--they are opening the vault of knowledge to you--it was incredibly hard and expensive to get and do these interviews. I learned a ton conducting them and as Haskell said you never stop learning with each project you do. Learning!!!
your friend, Steve
The real question posed in Bruce's test is how do these cameras look out of the box with no lighting changes in a one light grade as best as Bruce could keep it fair. Remember Bruce is also a colorist himself. Then compare that to what someone with talent in using that particular camera can do playing to it's strengths and downplaying it's weaknesses. Yes, I said talent. An over riding theme in the documentary was about talent, experience and creativity. Some have it, some may be able to develop it and some are hacks as you mention. That's life, we don't all get Oscars or Emmy's for using more expensive cameras. Cameras are tools to help us show are creativity. I know that's a bad word but it's true. I'd rather have an excellent light kit and great mics over a more expensive camera if I had to choose based on budgetary purposes. At least my film would have the right mood and sound great which is way more important then picture quality. I didn't include one section in my documentary but when I asked all of the DP's if they could only choose one-great picture or great sound, almost all of them said great sound. They said you can tolerate or use to your advantage lower picture quality but poor sound is intolerable.
The reason there was less audience commentary in part three is because it had 15 minutes of camera test footage vs. 3 minutes in part one and two and we like to keep the episodes around 35 minutes. No conspiracy there. Of course we cared about part 3, it's just as important as parts one and two, even more so, to present the full and complete story. For the 700,000th time, I did not make the test, Bruce Logan ASC did, so you should direct your comments to him directly with regards to the test. No test will ever be perfect, none has. Sure we can split hairs all day long but this great divide that everyone is looking for from one high end camera to another high end camera is just not there and if it is, I feel it can be made up with knowing your camera and promoting it's strengths and down playing it's weaknesses. Oh, but that would again fall under the user and not the camera itself, kind of like parts one and two of my documentary. What you refuse to see is that this industry is all about about talent. Tools matter as you say, but not as much as people. If you don't believe me ask Haskell, Rodney, Stephen Goldblatt, Victor Kemper, Janusz they all said the same thing I'm saying in the program.
Another part that you don't seem to get, is that my presentation of Bruce's test is my film. It's not what you want, a sterile scientific presentation. I'm sorry you don't approve or like it but you are welcome to make a scientific presentation if you want. Just ask Pete for $80-100,000 and you are on your way. The ASC has tried to do it twice and most ASC members will tell you, they didn't get it right. You do it the best you possible can since every camera has different parameters in the end I think you come pretty close, but it's not perfect, it can't be. It's very hard to present all of that information you requested on screen, plus I didn't care for the way it looks so I opted to create a PDF file that has all of that information in it. Seems like no matter what we do it would be wrong in your eyes but you can study a document easier then watching it on screen. We are all responsible adults so go read the tech specs and ask the appropriate questions to Bruce or Scott instead of ranting which is very unprofessional of you. It's much more complete and you can study it that way. If you don't want to peep over there as you put and read it then you are just unwilling to find out our process. In the 2K theatrical screenings we tried putting it at the end of Bruce's screening presentation but it just took too long for anyone to be able to read it. They all asked us to make it a white paper and that is what we did.
Now referring to you problem with watching the whole thing on Vimeo. Again, I'd love to pipe it to your local 2K theater for you to see, wait, I did do that, both you and Andy were invited to come to three different 2K projected screenings in NY. I'm going to hope you didn't decline with a bias to not see it just so we could have this rant session on DVXuser. The rest of the world is thrilled to see it on Vimeo and we have had overwhelming positive support and thanks on the web. So many people have sent me messages that the film has given them motivation and inspired them to go out and shoot, learn and hone there talent which makes me feel great. To them, it really doesn't matter which camera they use to develop their skills as a budding cinematographer. And all of your EPIC, Alexa & F65 shooters could probably care less about my film because they would never use anything but those cameras, rightfully so for many reasons--ergonomic, dependability, speed, more data, creature comforts and more. But that doesn't mean that some kid with a T2i couldn't give them a run for their money and I hope that my film will inspire that kid to go ahead and do just that.
The takeaway. You and Art think we should keep the great secret but the cat is out of the bag. Many of these cameras can look similar in the right hands especially for TV. Should we pretend they don't. Are you telling Stephen Goldblatt ASC/BSC who made the comment "there is a great similarity of color palette" that he is seeing it all wrong. Wow, to say that it is really dangerous to say that "it really comes down to the operator and the crew" shows that you are not in production but truly are a pixel peeper. Do you feel if I gave Janusz a GH2 and told him to make a film with it that it wouldn't be amazing, you know it would because it does really come down to people. Sure you can get a better image with higher end cameras but how much? And is it perceived by the audience. Now would Janusz use a GH2, absolutely not, it's ridicules. He's going to use what he wants but the rest of the folks out there are going to use what they have or can afford.
Now this issue about sending a bad message to producers. As a DP or Director you need to fight for the gear you want to use. Stephen Poster has flamed me about this like it's some kind of new concept. This s*%t has been going on in all of my 29 years in the business. That's just the way it is. If you think we can just keep there heads in the sand by saying nothing, then we can't have one single conversation on the internet. We can't watch any of the videos on vimeo because some of those look amazing shot with iPhones or 5DMK3's. The part I don't get in that argument is that most DP's already own gear and in many cases when you hire them it's a guy and his gear deal. Don't blame me for that, blame the fact that these cameras are too affordable, even the high end ones compared to what we used to spend for Varicams just 3 years ago. It has always been this way, actually even worse, I was fighting in the mid 1980's with producers to shoot on film vs. video. 35mm as opposed to 16mm. Betacam over Hi-8. These were much greater differences then what we are talking about in Bruce's test. It's time to man up and fight for what gear you want to use, we did it and you need to do it.
Don't you find it interesting how all of the celeb DP's I interviewed never really talked about equipment much as a component of being a great cinematographer. They talked about talent, experience, watching film, art and photography to learn lighting, collaborate--opening yourself up to new varying ideas, story is everything, great cinematography cannot help a bad story, your shots should help the story--not detract, love what we do--it's fun to play and learn and that's what filmmaking means to many of the DP's interviewed, the importance of good people over gear but most importantly it's about light, framing and movement.
I encourage everyone listen carefully to the advice from the DP's we interviewed--they are opening the vault of knowledge to you--it was incredibly hard and expensive to get and do these interviews. I learned a ton conducting them and as Haskell said you never stop learning with each project you do. Learning!!!
your friend, Steve
Interesting how I am not allowed to reply to Art's article. I've registered but can't make comments. That's disappointing that we only get Art's point of view and not others. We allow all points of view on our website good or bad.
Chris Adler
Veteran
Steve, I hope the planets align and I see another series like this one down the road. The three episodes were phenomenal and inspiring. The format was well though-out and executed nicely. Job well done!
What does Revenge mean to you? Revenge is the operative word meaning it's not what you are expecting. It's more. It's challenging your ideas about what cinematography really is. I know this is a tech forum so I should probably go away because no matter what I say it's going to boil back down to cameras, cameras, cameras and that's cool. It's just not what I believe. I though the interviews in my documentary looked great shot with my 720p tape based Varicam that I bought from AbelCine 7 years ago. But to me it's all about how Jens lit it and not the fact that it was shot in glorious 720p.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Steve, Mitch, Can either of you link to projects you have shot with any of the cameras tested, has Bruce shot with any of them?
Have you shot any S35 digital projects?
Do you have any experience at RAW post?
Or doing post on any projects?
S
Have you shot any S35 digital projects?
Do you have any experience at RAW post?
Or doing post on any projects?
S
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Ill try and tell you why I think both of your testing methodologies are flawed..
Abel testing uses a stoufer wedge, showing distinct stops, Andy usually tunes a camera to maximise the DR, by flattening the image, such profiles used in the field generally with 4-2-0 camera induce banding to such an extent that the profile is unusable, wheras such a profile will work with a higher bit depth camera
More realistic profiles massively reduce DR of a 4-2-0 camera exposing the huge differences in DR between a 4-2-0 camera and a more expensive model
Zac test was accurate for studio conditions, but the exterior was (maybe by the audience rather than the test team) 'passed off' as having a similar light level to daylight, I just do not believe this to be the case and think that the test did not show a true contrast between EXT and INT and therefore failed to truly stress-test the cameras for DR
Using real sunlight would stress the cameras further in the DR department showing the weakness of the cheaper camera up more harshly
OK real sunlight changes, but its "simple" to just mount all the cameras on some speedrail and roll them side by side to negate that
Result both Zac and Abel tests fail to show a true representation of the DR of cameras used in the field, and the weakness of the the cheaper 4-2-0 cameras is not exposed.. by a large margin
Such widespread mis info does no-one many favours, especially those looking to persuade production to fund a proper camera!
BTW im not ASC, or IMDB but my day job I shoot a camera with a similar file to the RED or Alexa, the Nikon D3, it can produce a file like this with NO additional lighting which no Iphone, GH2 or other 4-2-0 could ever do, I also struggle along filming with a 4-2-0 cameras FS100 and 5d2 often shooting them side by side with the D3 where the differences are truly exposed
More no light images.. http://www.sammorganmoore.com/latest/jills-house-2
S
Abel testing uses a stoufer wedge, showing distinct stops, Andy usually tunes a camera to maximise the DR, by flattening the image, such profiles used in the field generally with 4-2-0 camera induce banding to such an extent that the profile is unusable, wheras such a profile will work with a higher bit depth camera
More realistic profiles massively reduce DR of a 4-2-0 camera exposing the huge differences in DR between a 4-2-0 camera and a more expensive model
Zac test was accurate for studio conditions, but the exterior was (maybe by the audience rather than the test team) 'passed off' as having a similar light level to daylight, I just do not believe this to be the case and think that the test did not show a true contrast between EXT and INT and therefore failed to truly stress-test the cameras for DR
Using real sunlight would stress the cameras further in the DR department showing the weakness of the cheaper camera up more harshly
OK real sunlight changes, but its "simple" to just mount all the cameras on some speedrail and roll them side by side to negate that
Result both Zac and Abel tests fail to show a true representation of the DR of cameras used in the field, and the weakness of the the cheaper 4-2-0 cameras is not exposed.. by a large margin
Such widespread mis info does no-one many favours, especially those looking to persuade production to fund a proper camera!
BTW im not ASC, or IMDB but my day job I shoot a camera with a similar file to the RED or Alexa, the Nikon D3, it can produce a file like this with NO additional lighting which no Iphone, GH2 or other 4-2-0 could ever do, I also struggle along filming with a 4-2-0 cameras FS100 and 5d2 often shooting them side by side with the D3 where the differences are truly exposed
More no light images.. http://www.sammorganmoore.com/latest/jills-house-2
S
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Wow, that's lame.
When someone expresses his opinion he should give people a chance to answer.
I never block or delete any comment on my blog, no mater how disrespectful it is (and I got a ton of these on my BlackMagic camera article).
While at it, here is my opinion.
I think Steve, Jens and the guys did their best, to make it right.
And yeah, there is always someone who thinks, he had a better idea how to do that
and than there is the next guy, saying that is also crap and only he knows, how to do it right.
There is no end and it leads to nowhere.
I learned a lot from those shootouts (all of them).
They are not always perfect, cause no matter how hard they try,
there are too much variables in the game.
I consider myself professional enough, that I can watch all of those shootouts and revenges
and drawing my conclusions and worthy information from them.
I was not excited about, how the interviews looked, but I enjoined what those DPs said.
The information was important for me, not a fancy looking light setup.
Hell, I would have been happy to listen to them in an audio stream.
Also some of the audience interviews where awful noisy - do I care?
The most interesting test IMHO was one with the same light for all cameras.
When someone can`t draw some valuable information from that, he is in the wrong business.
my ct.2
Frank
Chris Adler
Veteran
Not sure what your point is Morgan, but the 3 part series was about cinematography. Cinematography isn't about using unshaped naked lighting.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its about lighting budget, seeing lights in shots, depth of scene, speed of operation and of course lighting design and story
If you have a tool with a power of the alexa/d3/red you can make more choices in your cinematography .. a lot more choices
Incidentally, the fact that you may afford 10 GH2s, maybe blow a few up, for the price of a 'cine camera', rig them in the tiniest spaces also are cinematography choices not explored in the 'shootout'
I think this is well worth a listen, http://www.fstopacademy.com/listen-2/black-magic-camera-john-brawley-interview/ , a working DP talking about cutting 'machinery' (lights/grip) from his shoots and the positive affect that has on the talent and performance.. he also touches on the C300 'not being cuttable' with the Alexa, very modern, very interesting
(I think the good stuff starts at about 21 mins)
He says everything Im trying to say .. but using better language
S
Last edited:
Good question. I was in commercial corporate production from 1983 - 2000. From 2000 to 2008 I focused on my photography folio: http://weissfineart.com and then again from 2008 - 2012 where I focused on documentary and interview programming. In the early days I worked on Film and video, you can see some samples here: https://vimeo.com/channels/66031/6558753 In 2008 - 2012 I've done six web series: FilmFellas, Critics, BTS & three shootouts: 60 episodes total (which are mostly television style where shallow DOF is not desired for that). Personally for the work I do, I don't like super35. I'm not a fan of raw because i've been used to getting it right in the can coming from a film and chrome background and as a director I cannot look at raw on set unless it has a lut, nor do I want to give anyone the ability to change my vision in post. That being said I did this three part documentary that was shot with various different cameras, primarily 5D's and 7D's but also some HVX200's: http://www.zacuto.com/bts-webisode-1 When I'm doing my work I don't necessary use one camera platform, documentaries require different cameras for different situations. About your question on post I have have directed the edit of every single project I've made. I don't believe in doing the post myself (although early in my career I did) don't laugh: http://www.zacutoimages.com/p654053862/h33739df0#h33739df0 but as I have grown up I see that an editor left un-supervised can come up with some stuff that I have never conceived and then I can direct the editor after I see what they bring to the collaborative table. Four editors worked a month to create each episode of the Revenge program and I myself probably spent 25 hours watching rough cuts, giving notes and directing the final edit for each episode. That's how I do it.
The reason I don't like using S35 cameras on documentaries & interview programs (which is what I primarily do now) is that documentaries are all about getting moments and I would never want to miss a moment or have it be out of focus for the sake of shallow DOF. Plus I know this is going to sound weird but shallow DOF on a docu makes it feel more like a film (staged) and less live and real to me. For interviews I'm fine with it. Let's talk about the Revenge program, it was shot on a whole host of cameras from C300's to 5D's, 7D's, FS100's & Varicam's all color timed by my editors and myself. I was the director, co-producer & directed the edit. Once again I'd like to re-emphasizw that I made a documentary about Bruce Logan's camera test and in no way did I have anything to do with the test itself. I wanted to make something different then what has been done in the past, a film that was motivational, inspiring as well as educating people about Bruce's test. I also wanted to present the other side of the story that cameras are important but there is a human factor that can over ride that. I'm a director and never claimed to be a technician. I don't speak for S35 digital cameras (just the opposite) I discuss with my DP of 27 years Jens Bogehegn what the mood we are going after and then together we decide what is necessary to get us there.
I also don't want to speak for Bruce Logan but I will tell you he has a ton of S35 experience, he is a colorist, he has worked in RAW extensively and he does edit many of his projects, Bruce, Frederic Goodich and Robert Primes conducted the latest ASC producers guild S35 camera test with just 4 of the top end cameras http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2330689/ Bruce is on the Technical committee at the ASC, here is his website: http://bruceloganfilm.com/Director_of_Photography.html and IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0517521/ He has actually been involve in DI work long before anyone considering if you look at his credits he is a special effects DP who blew up the Death Star in Star Wars and DP'd the original Tron movie.
Jimmy the colorist on the Revenge program is a top colorist at Filmworkers Club Chicago & Nashville and obviously works on every single format, mainly the higher end cameras but also the lower end ones works on a lot of television, features and of course a ton of commercials.
Just so you know Frank the audience interviews I had nothing to do with. It was too expensive to send someone to these various locations around the world to shoot them so we just found someone local to shoot them. Many of these theaters are dark and even with all of the new ISO jazz it just goes to prove my point that if we could have lit them properly, they would have looked better but in each of these venues there was no time for lighting. I respect the fact that you didn't like my interview lighting. I personally loved it as well as the very off axis eye line but we all have different opinions. In reality, isn't that what this show is saying? Listen to the comments, people are all over the map about which cameras they liked. Everything is subjective and I think we did a good job of showing that.
Nobody is disagreeing with you Morgan. Having an Alexa/RED/F65 is great if the budget can afford it and it's right for the project. I'm not jumping out of a humvee in a war zone with an Alexa on my shoulder. But it's nice to have great gear if it's available for all the reasons you mentioned. That's not the point of the Revenge shootout. The point is if you are a kid who has very little money and a lot of talent has the extra time to put into both production and post production using his lower end camera, how might it look in comparison. You never know--if his story is compelling enough, directed, edited and told well. I don't think Hollywood would give a crap if it was shot on a GH2 or an Alexa. All they care about is selling tickets. That's why they call it the film BUSINESS.