They did do control shots... But those are the shots that we needed to see side by side, and first up. I only saw them compared to themselves: each camera's control and then the relit take in split screen. That shows the power of lighting but not what the camera does in comparison to others.
Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
You have an excellent point in that we need to see the cameras in motion as that's how they'll be used. I guess my point is that you see less detail, and have less opportunity to make fine comparisons, if the camera and the actors are in motion, but there's still valuable information there. If motion hides artifacts, all the better!
It's common to do deep post on stills, but much less common in motion. If you read Steve Hullfish's "The Art and Craft of Digital Color Correction" you'll see that colorists doing episodic series often get about 20 seconds per shot! That's not a lot of time. I get more time shooting spots, but not a ton more. And a lot of my spots are going to air or the web without color correction these days, so I have to get it right the first time.
You need to know the limits of what the camera can do, because it's going to be your call whether it happens now or later and you need to make the decision that offers the most bang for the buck. That's what gets you hired again more than anything else.
I shot a spot recently where I made a 120 degree pan from open shade to sunlit skyline, and I opted to expose for the skyline and let the person at the beginning of the shot go dark and a bit blue. I was shooting with an Alexa rated at EI 400 so I was pretty sure we could do a ramp later and change the exposure in the grade on the pan better than trying to do a stop pull. It worked, but there are a lot of cameras that would have dictated doing a stop pull or breaking the shot in two.
I'd say we spent 5-10 minutes on that shot, tops.
Look up markholthusen.com. He does 200-400 layer images. He also gets weeks and lots of money to do it. I get paid by volume.
You need to know the limits of what the camera can do, because it's going to be your call whether it happens now or later and you need to make the decision that offers the most bang for the buck. That's what gets you hired again more than anything else.
I shot a spot recently where I made a 120 degree pan from open shade to sunlit skyline, and I opted to expose for the skyline and let the person at the beginning of the shot go dark and a bit blue. I was shooting with an Alexa rated at EI 400 so I was pretty sure we could do a ramp later and change the exposure in the grade on the pan better than trying to do a stop pull. It worked, but there are a lot of cameras that would have dictated doing a stop pull or breaking the shot in two.
I'd say we spent 5-10 minutes on that shot, tops.
Look up markholthusen.com. He does 200-400 layer images. He also gets weeks and lots of money to do it. I get paid by volume.
Ouch! That's a frightening reality to have to live with. ( pretty much everything looks better with a proper color grade )
True, but you can get pretty good with some of these cameras and it's nice to be able to pull off the occasional miracle for a client. They like you a lot more after that.
I've done a lot of shoots with an Alexa where we've recorded Rec 709 WYSIWYG to ProRes4444 and it looks really good--and I can offset the cost of a cheaper camera by skipping color correction. The dynamic range makes it worthwhile--I don't have to worry nearly as much about highlights.
I did a shoot once with a silver Toyota truck in open sunlight and the director wanted to go with an F3, and not in log mode. (I don't think they even offered log at that point.) I talked him into an Alexa. The highlights on the rear view mirrors alone would have killed the F3. On the Alexa they were beautiful, even without the grade.
It's a brave new world out there, and budgets have gone way down. If you can do a lot with a little you've got a good chance of getting hired.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Thanks for correction re control shots- I was thinking of pt 2.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I decided to delete this response, because it adds nothing to the conversation.
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
One big problem that I had conceptually with the Shootout i that they set out to compare too many things at once. Honestly, each one on its own definitely has great value and I could see a fascinating comparison done on each individual parameter, but then the only way to judge that parameter is to only make that one change and then do comparisons. How many parameters did they have here?
- Cameras
- Lighting
- Grading
- Cinematographers
Keeping three of these locked and changing just the fourth would be interesting. Then compare the variants. Simple (relatively). I could see this being done on any of these four variables, and each would make for an interesting comparison. But if they are all done together or in any combination then it becomes a mish-mash of competing variations.
- Cameras
- Lighting
- Grading
- Cinematographers
Keeping three of these locked and changing just the fourth would be interesting. Then compare the variants. Simple (relatively). I could see this being done on any of these four variables, and each would make for an interesting comparison. But if they are all done together or in any combination then it becomes a mish-mash of competing variations.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Everyone has had a client like that before. The question is why do you keep working with them? If the gig is completely unreasonable and unachievable why take it only to be left looking like a fool?
I'm fully expecting a condescending response seeing how you replied to the other poster so I will point out I make my living as a producer and post work and dable in shooting as a hobby so I honestly asking not trying to be a smart ass here.
In my relatively minor 11 years in production I usually don't take jobs I can not achieve as it never serves my interest and often would give a bad reputation leading to the loss of more work. The smartest career moves have been the jobs I didn't put my name to rather than the ones I did.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I wouldn't say that I came off looking like a fool on those shows, but everyone involved had to put in an enormous amount of energy and extra hours to make it work in the end. No one enjoys working 90 hour weeks to make up for the mistakes of others. Especially when they could have been avoided in the first place. And yes, I try to avoid working with clients who are problematic, but sometimes that is not a decision made by me.
Unfortunately these situations are becoming more common, especially in post production, as everyone tries to cut corners. As an example, the FX business in Los Angeles is under enormous pressure to compete with the tax breaks being offered by Vancouver and points beyond. So, when someone claims that they can produce work at a much lower cost, by using consumer grade equipment and still delivering top notch results, the powers that be listen and sometimes go along with an idea that really is not viable.
I have turned down several jobs, some of them quite high profile, because the necessary resources were not going to be provided. But sometimes you are part of a bigger machine and you don't have much of a choice.
I think my response was proportional to the post by maranfilms.
I have taken my name off several projects, where I was not happy with the results. But over the years I have seen several people get stuck with the blame for a decision they had no control over or had warned against. And with the shrinking pool of work, sometimes saying 'no' to a job is not an option to avoid such a situation.
And I would like to clarify, that I do mean to paint all producers in a bad light. The majority of them are highly competent, but unfortunately, as is the case in all disciplines there are a few lose canons out there.
In any case, we're off topic.
cheers
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
That is most likely true. It doesnt meant that it is right, or intelligent.. not you the DP - you are shooting to the 'minimal time in post' brief from your client - doing your job intelligent and right, it is your client who is not being intelligent.
The right and intelligent producer would give you a different brief and get more from their budget, post hours are so much cheaper than set hours.
Fantastic. A fine example of 'shooting for post' I am sure this was the cheapest way to do it and also the most believable visually.
Not to mention that in post you could keyframe that ramp in multiple different ways and decide which you found most aesthetic.. with the on set ramp you would have been stuck with what you got
(my point about NDgrad earlier - you are stuck with the choice you make, possibly in a hurry, maybe on a bad monitor)
And how do you ramp colour temp on set - to compensate for the colder shadow colour ?
Indeed there are cameras that cannot do this ramping, and a well configured 'shootout' would make very clear which ones these are .
Shooting for post is difficult concept for clients to grab. They seem to feel that they got something for their money when they see a lot of heavy metal being carted about on set.
They are less pleased to pay for 'magic' that mainly does not happen in front of them and is perceived as a new way to empty their pockets - rather than embracing, and being excited by, the fact that carting about less metal can be both cheaper, and make for better performance (which is the end game?)
There is a shot knocking about of an Epic shooting HDRX mounted on a car traveling through a dark tunnel, and emerging in to bright exterior, in post the exposure is ramped during the exit to sustain exposure over the whole shot. I'd love to cost lighting that one on a GH2. That is a shot that shows me the true 'power' of the more expensive cameras.
Such shots were not explored in the shootout - I consider that to be a major fail.
BTW - nice photography - I didnt need to check it, Ive been lucky to assist www.johnwrightphoto.com and seen the 'magic' process from shoot to delivery - he is a man who knows how to get the most from a camera, the absolute most, alexa movies could look like his work, if the client wanted, a gh2 never could.
S
Last edited:
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Fair enough. I fully understand your point of view.
I personally liked the Zacuto shootout because it was different than a typical chart test. The only thing I wish they had done (maybe should have done as the responsible thing) is clearly demonstrate that each camera was able to look similar but it cost X time and X money for each to achieve that. As a producer I think that goes more to giving me options on how I would like to spend the budget. If money was no object then F65/Alexa all the way. But when it comes to that fine balance of the look I need for that particular delivery format or audience and how I want to spend. Sometimes I'm just looking for 'good enough' and the intended audience won't be able to tell the difference in a highly compressed web format or the shot locations don't have challenging DR.
These camera trends come and go. I remember when people were screaming that everything had to be shot on a RED cam because only good things come from RED. People would have to sacrifice talent, Lighting etc just to make the Producer/Director happy not to mention the added cost on post workflow that no one wanted to pay for. The 5D is another example of a trend where everything had to be shot 5D due to the shallow DOF etc. I had one executive producer suggest we use the 5D for run gun interviews (mic'd) with no audio crew and tight turn around. Sure it was doable but not the right choice of cam by a mile. I was able to talk her out of most of these choices through educating and demonstrating that I had the knowledge she should trust. Not always a possibility I understand.
I think we in the industry should always try and educate others (without talking down) as the more people know the more educated decisions get made.
I wouldn't get mad over the Zacuto shoot out making a GH2 look good just as I wouldn't be upset that the Raid Redemption made the AF100 look amazing or any of the numbers of vimeo GH2 or 5D movies which look phenominal. Ignorant producers will always pick up on trends or videos that they were sent that look awesome. Trying to educate people on the amount of work it takes to achieve that look and letting them choose if they want it to be 2 of 'good/fast/cheap'.
I guess the problem with any 'documentry' and that is what this shoot out was is that unless its all uncut the director/editor always puts a spin on things. Maybe a score card of what some of the big shots thought would have balanced it out a bit more. Sure some liked the GH2 but a lot liked many of the top cameras also. A discussion of the time and effort it took and how that would effect their decisions would have made a nice balance I guess.
Anyway I like that they broke the format and am looking forward to see others run with non traditional camera talk. Seeing things in full motion on blind tests like our audiences is very valuable to me as a producer.
cheers
Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
Yes I'm really disappointed my $700 camera doesn't have the same dynamic range as the Alexa. After part 2 I claimed the GH2 had a better image than the F65, thanks to the new 8K hack by Somebody13. It really made my day but shall have to upgrade my SD card to cope. However, it does seem now after 2 years of me labouring under this myth of my consumer snapper being better than Arri's industry standard, that Steve Weiss has proved me wrong. I want to thank Steve for finally opening my eyes and correcting the error of my ways. Guess I was reading the specs sheet upside down? I'll just have to be satisfied with an image for $700 that approaches the $15,000 C300, hard though it is to stomach that. To be honest, I feel really ripped off by Panasonic now. How dare they make a $700 camera which is only as good as a $15,000 offering, not a $70,000 one? I don't feel I can make a feature with this kind of rubbish. I shot a chart on the Alexa the other day and, man did it look great. Kubrick would have been proud. Then I went out and shot a feature the next day on the GH2 starring Scarlett Johansson and it looked like Up Pompeii. This camera really has a lot to answer for in the way it sets up the light and writes the script. My GH2 can't even hold a pen without having to buy a rig. So impractical as a writing tool. Well I've decided after Part 3 to throw it in the bin. Next camera I buy for $700 will not just have to write a better script for Scarlett, it will almost certainly have to be 10bit as well.
Chris Adler
Veteran
I hope Zacuto stops reading these threads because there are a lot of embarrassingly ignorant posts being made. Look at what's coming out of the woodwork!
Knock it off with the hyperbole...you're just adding to the noise with posts like this.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I posted a rather cynical parody 'news brief' in the GH1/2 forum, that indicated due to the overwhelming greatness of the GH-2 over the AF100, that Panasonic has decided to discontinue GH-2 production, and recall all GH-1 and GH-2 models, in favor of the AF100...
I wouldn't be surprised if the GH-3 is 'dumbdown/hobbled' from the GH-2, including closing any 'hack' loophole...
That's my cynical view of the Zacuto results...
Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
I'm pretty sure had the Epic and F65 been projected in 4K, there wouldn't have been 3 or 4 favourites on anybody's list, but 2.
But it is a great headline, inspiring for the right reasons. The truth is you CAN make a feature that looks superbly cinematic with a $700 camera if you have the creativity, imagination and skill to go with it. What Zacuto did well here was to create a level playing field for the cinematographers and cameras, so that the differences in part 2 came down to the cinematographer's choices not something arcane like the finer point of the camera codec. This was their objective. Objective completed. In part 3 the aim was to simply observe the output of the camera, and learn the technical strong points and weak points of each. Again, objective completed.
What I get out of this shootout is a pretty nice message despite the flaws. The message is that the F65, Alexa and Epic can be thrown in at the deep end and still come out singing and that the GH2 punches well above its weight as a pure picture making box that opens doors for talented people to make something incredible with. This is the message I've been basing my whole blog around for ages now, to inspire aspiring filmmakers to get using this stuff, and spending the money they have left over on the content instead of worrying about how to afford an Epic.
Art said it well above, that objects are quantifiable, people not so much. It is true that on a filmmaking tech blog like mine the articles about quantifiable objects are more popular than the ones about creative technique or my own filmmaking projects. But it really is time we stopped treating each other as objects as well, and looked beyond the opinions. If we all had the same opinion it would be boring. I can disagree with people every day in my real life and it never causes the kind of divisions and flaming we see on camera forums. The person is not the opinion, if you hate the opinion that doesn't give one a mandate to hate the person. This isn't the race for the presidency, it is DPs figuring out what makes a good image. So chill out.
Andrew Reid
Carbonite Member
From what I hear the GH3 isn't dumbed down, quite the opposite, it is moving up the ladder. You won't need to hack it either if what I hear about the codec is correct.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
That would be good and relieving news... but could I ask about it at NAB in the Panasonic booth???
I tuned in to moving picture making with the DVX100 and have stayed with Panasonic with the GH-1 so it would be nice to continue.