Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3

[morgan_moore]

Just in case everyone is not mad enough, check out these gorgeous images that my buddy Dan Chung did of the Olympics..

Dan produced some excellent work and culturally exploring the potential of a new tool is most interesting.

Personally I prefer his work with 'proper' cameras

I am sure he is also well aware of the limitations of the I-phone and would not have used it for a typical client brief on a sports assignment - his client did not give him a 'typical brief'

And that is key point, his client communication process, selected the 'right' tool for this unusual job with memorable results

And yep cameras will get cheaper in four years, wonderful!

S

 

[maarek]

NO, again, nobody is listening. This is exactly what you would do if you were walking on that set with one of the lesser cameras. No changing the sun, or window. These people who were brought was because they were a master of their particular camera.

Then how come no one just let that damn window burn? I guarantee you that those shots would've looked much better that way with lesser DR cameras.

In the large scale of 200,000 viewers so far I've got less then 100 of the same people bitching on various forums.

I just did a youtube video that got 250,000 viewers with about 200 comments. 200,000 and 100 people commenting is pretty regular. Besides - these comments here are actual criticisms - not lame messages like "I like it!" or "It sucks!". Also the commenting system on Zacuto site sucks so I wouldn't comment there anyway.

Overall I kinda liked this shootout but it was way overlong and tedious. But I am a youtuber so my attention span is much shorter.

 

[GrahamH]

That's the part that was missing from the presentation: some of these cameras almost always look great but cost a lot of money; some of these cameras can look great under controlled circumstances or if you're willing to accept certain abstractions.

Perhaps it was missing from the presentation, although I think that's debateable. But it's not missing from the information/explanation that Zacuto provided surrounding their web posts. And it sure as heck isn't missing from every subsequent discussion of the shootout. In fact I would suggest that's been the main "take home" message!

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

That is the real tragedy, clients not engaging with the person who they are hiring.

I dont get that, I dont go to my dentist and say "we are doing a filling today, using an Acme Drill, I heard they a really cheap and good"

I go to my dentist and say - "can you help me with the ache in my tooth"

I own three cameras, FS100, EX1 and 5d2, there are no cost implications to the client on their camera choice, because hiring me you get them all.

I have shot at least two jobs where the client specced the 5d but the FS100 would have been way better.
Certainly shot a job on the FS100 where the EX1 would have been better
And also a job on the FS100, where the 5d would be better

I mentioned in Pre, my ideal choice of camera (from the ones I own), was over ruled, and my subsequent operating/images were compromised by camera choice which reflects badly on me.

S

If you have the camera that is 'better' why use the less better? The Wife would shoot most of the wedding formals with the Hasselblad during the Film Film days. But once we convinced ourselves that the DSLRs we had were 'delivering'... the Hasselblad stayed in it's case... I think for the last 2 years we were active... and for any of her international wedding clients... it was not an option... DSLRs was the only camera used.(*)

Sometimes I wonder if this issue is one of 'sales management'... I realize there is the issue of 'get the job'... but if the job results in poor performance... it's never the case that it was due to customer insistence on doing things a certain way...

 

[Paul F]

I heard that Coppola mentioned the test to his friends Spielberg and Lucas. They agreed that they should do a movie together on the GH2. The working title is The Revenge of Indiana Jones and the Godfather of Star Wars.

 

[morgan_moore]

If you have the camera that is 'better' why use the less better?

I think its the difference between being an operator and being a production company. The operator suggests but does not tell their employer the best way to do stuff.

Prod Cos have a 5d obsession which is three years behind the time.

Its also not that unjustified because the 5d2 is a great lil camera, for image, just impossible to use under production (corporate) pressure.

S

 

[Art Adams]

It's kind of pointless mentioning anything to you because it all gets taken out of context, twisted in to untrue and slanderous statements, oh and you haven't watched the program either. But in part two and three there are three producers that comment on camera after they watched the test footage and said that it this has opened there eyes and said that in the future they realize that the camera decision needs to be made with the producer, director and DP together. I know you will find some interesting way to twist this around. These were producers in the audience that commented. Let's see how you can turn this around.

Actually I did sit down on Monday and watch every single minute of parts one, two and three, instead of skipping all the philosophical stuff. Once I got past the inane questions ("What is cinematography?" "What is light?") there was actually some good stuff in there. It's aimed entirely at film students, but still--some excellent quotes and advice.

As for "twisting this around" I'm simply relating what I'm hearing on sets and seeing on the Internet, and sharing my opinion that a poorly conceived test can send messages that none of us want out there because it'll make our lives more difficult--and, also in my opinion, this was a poorly conceived test.

Just the premise makes me cringe: let's bring in camera experts who know how to light for their cameras and let them make the best of them! It's a bit like implying that you have to hire a Kodak or Fuji expert in order to shoot either film stock. Any decent cinematographer can learn how work with either one, you don't need a dedicated expert who shoots only one or the other.

 

[Art Adams]

The working title is the The Revenge of Indiana Jones and the Godfather of Star Wars.

But they aren't sequels. The word "revenge" changes that.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Just the premise makes me cringe: let's bring in camera experts who know how to light for their cameras and let them make the best of them! It's a bit like implying that you have to hire a Kodak or Fuji expert in order to shoot either film stock. Any decent cinematographer can learn how work with either one, you don't need a dedicated expert who shoots only one or the other.

I think its important to show how each person who knows the cameras strengths and weaknesses can get the most out of it or at least work around the flaws. In my opinion the 3rd part should have been first so after showing where each camera fails on the test scene and then show how those who know what weaknesses to work around can make up for it some with more effort than others. The amount of effort it took I wish was a little more clear.

I love the blind test aspect though. It roots out the fanboys and those who have biases against a brand without visual reasons to back it up.

 

[Barry_Green]

Any decent cinematographer can learn how work with either one, you don't need a dedicated expert who shoots only one or the other.

Well, I've agreed with much of what you've said, almost all of it in fact, but I would pull back on this. There is a position on the film crew that is dedicated to this art, the D.I.T., and as cameras get more complex that position grows in importance. Having someone who knows how to run the camera is pretty darn important, unless you're talking about a blank-slate camera like the forthcoming BMC, where you really can't do anything with it at all even if you wanted to...

With how quickly cameras come in and go out of fashion now, you'd almost think that the D.I.T. role would be increasing rather than decreasing. That would leave cinematographers freer to focus on the art and beauty, and less slogging through the technicals and the gammas and the balancing of vertical crispening against horizontal and all that. But, sadly, it appears D.I.T.'s are largely disappearing, as everyone figures they know enough to do the job themselves, and every time a new camera comes out that information needs to be re-learned by everyone...

 

[Barry_Green]

The full story is that the tool is only half of the message or even less then that. And I know that every time I say that if makes everyone here madder and madder. Sorry. But it's the truth, the sooner you accept the quicker you can start focusing on what really matters, lighting & gaining experience.

Okay, please -- this is your turn to listen, hopefully.

Let me start out by saying -- do you think we don't all know that? You're not arguing with newbies. I've got an Emmy and 4 Emmy nominations too. You're talking to people who very much DO know what they're talking about.

Second -- Do you think ANYone of us is disagreeing with that basic premise? Of course we ALL agree with it. Obviously. Everyone on earth (who has half a brain) knows that the camera is certainly less than half of the equation. We all know that. We all know that WHAT YOU POINT THE CAMERA AT is more important than WHAT CAMERA YOU POINT AT IT.

That is not in dispute! So please, put that straw man away.

What is in dispute is -- the complete misrepresentation that is occurring because of the complete GAP between expectation and reality, in what was provided. THAT is what we are disappointed in. Mad? I'm not. Just -- disappointed, and now you've just gone and MUDDIED the waters rather than clarified them.

Let me ask you a question, Steve -- do you think the GH2 makes more pleasing images than the F65? If you were shooting a feature film, would you choose the GH2 over the F65? Budget notwithstanding, we're just talking about which camera you would choose. Because that's the message that people took away from your series. They didn't take away the message "wow, if I learn how to shoot better, I can make any camera look good." They took away the message "wow, the GH2 beat the F65, and the Epic, and the F3, that goes to prove that the manufacturers are evil lying bastards who are just ripping us all off."

Doesn't that message bother you?

You have more than enough experience to know that people who are taking away that message, are just wrong. You know that. So why doesn't it bother you?

I guess here's the major frustration -- we expected actual information, and instead it's like you tried to show us how dumb we all are, and that you knew "better" than us. It's insulting. It's rude. You tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. You had a very specific agenda, and you accomplished it. And now you're mad because we're not happy about you trying to play us for fools? Especially when there are real-world consequences?

Finally, let me put it this way -- what if I were to put out "Revenge of the Great Camera Gear Shootout", where I advertised that I was going to compare Zacuto rigging equipment against Redrock, Letus, Cinevate, and that Indian CineCity clone shop. And when you actually watched the doc, what I did was show four totally different scenes from totally different writers and directors, and the one that used the Zacuto gear just plain sucked, and everyone absolutely loved the scene that used the CineCity gear. And then I said "AHA! I got you! See, what I'm really showing is that it is the WRITING and DIRECTING skill that matters, and the gear doesn't matter at all! It's the person behind the gear that matters!!!"

How happy would you be? Because I've used some of your gear, and it's a hell of a lot better than some of that ripoff stuff, and if I was going into a professional shooting situation I'd much rather have Zacuto stuff on my side than CineCity. But how pleased would you be if the message that got out was "don't use Zacuto stuff, man, the CineCity film was so much better!"

All I'm asking you to do is think clearly about the message you send. Because you sent a message (whether it's the one you intended or not.)

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

How happy would you be? Because I've used some of your gear, and it's a hell of a lot better than some of that ripoff stuff, and if I was going into a professional shooting situation I'd much rather have Zacuto stuff on my side than CineCity. But how pleased would you be if the message that got out was "don't use Zacuto stuff, man, the CineCity film was so much better!"

All I'm asking you to do is think clearly about the message you send. Because you sent a message (whether it's the one you intended or not.)

Hey, I have some of that SinCity stuff... and while I can't speak for everyone who bought there... at this point in my 'moving pictures' activities, that is all I can afford, other than very DIY efforts. I purchased with no allusions that I was somehow getting 'better' equipment than the higher priced stuff.

In regard to the GH-2... well I still am using my GH-1... unhacked... again do I expect to achieve the 'same results' as the Alexa... or similar high end camera... no...

But even when I was 19 and buying a 4x5, I knew that a Calumet 4x5 was not a Sinar... I bought and used what I could afford. At the time, I had to use a communal darkroom, and some of the members would come in with a full line up of Hasselblad equipment... and many would produce the most extraordinarily banal prints... the Wife got a deal on a Hasselblad package from one such 'hobbyist'...

For the longest time I did feel a bit inadequate due to my Calumet... but I eventually realized that while I personally may not become a 'great photographer'... it wasn't because of the Calumet...

As for the Zacuto... for me, just from the description of the first 'test', that is 'fixed lighting', DP could 'add' but not 'subtract' light for their camera capabilities, to me was a 'clear' indication it was not the 'camera' that was being tested, but the DP being tested for what they could get out of the camera, somehow, someway.

As I recall, last year's Zacuto program did not include the GH-2, so it didn't hold the same interest level for me...

 

[morgan_moore]

ive been bending the file of the BMD, I guess the cine cameras are better, you can do nothing like this with an 8 bit camera..

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/the-file-that-can-go-a-mile

s

 

[Barry_Green]

The FILE can. The camera can't. The camera doesn't do anything, but lay a raw image down. It's up to you to then take that file and process it from here.

In the more advanced video cameras they have all sorts of image controls that let you accomplish that during production, not postponing it to post. And it's those controls that the D.I.T. would presumably be expert in, and would save the production from having to do all that work in post...

 

[zacuto]

Actually I did sit down on Monday and watch every single minute of parts one, two and three, instead of skipping all the philosophical stuff. Once I got past the inane questions ("What is cinematography?" "What is light?") there was actually some good stuff in there. It's aimed entirely at film students, but still--some excellent quotes and advice.

As for "twisting this around" I'm simply relating what I'm hearing on sets and seeing on the Internet, and sharing my opinion that a poorly conceived test can send messages that none of us want out there because it'll make our lives more difficult--and, also in my opinion, this was a poorly conceived test.

Just the premise makes me cringe: let's bring in camera experts who know how to light for their cameras and let them make the best of them! It's a bit like implying that you have to hire a Kodak or Fuji expert in order to shoot either film stock. Any decent cinematographer can learn how work with either one, you don't need a dedicated expert who shoots only one or the other.

Again wrong, and you don't listen, boy I need to get that wax out of your ears. As I said in the last post we had many issues last year about people not really knowing how to create the proper profiles and knowing the nuances of how to create a profile and how it related to the timing session for that profile. Last year we moved cameras around from station to station with seasoned operators and AC's but not necessarily on these lesser cameras. The DP's this year made that very clear in this show. After all the nonsense we are yakking about here. The conversation really needs to be about three things: 1. how to light the scene for your specific camera. I think the empirical taught us that if you have the same lighting that every camera will look completely different and the creative showed us that knowing how to light for a particular camera can make for some spectacular results. 2. how to set your color profile and know how it--along with your lighting will react when you time your footage. 3. Know how to time for your specific camera. That's not something that anyone can do. You need experience to do that. That's why we brought in experts for each camera. That's why we did the creative test to show that. I certainly wouldn't want to try a shoot on an iPhone or a GH2 because I have no experience with those cameras and I would get a good result. That wouldn't have been fair to have one DP do that. And before you say it, the manufacturers haven't a clue how to do it. They make cameras and have no idea how to use them. Believe me I have them in my office all of the time. So once again I would say you are wrong. Do me a favor just let this post sit, and let people hear it without having you chime in, everyone gets you hate the test. Yes the test is primarily for young indie filmmakers on the web, Bob Prime and Haskell Wexler say it, everyone who has ever watched any of my tests knows it. Many of you are working professionals and that's awesome. But the What is a cinematographer and what is light "you're constant focus" is not what most viewers garnered inspiration from. Things like why it's important to collaborate--which we know many young indie filmmaker don't. The section where Janusz tells us how he went from film school to Hollywood I thought was very insightful. What you can learn from failure, in my career that is the greatest bit of knowledge I could ever hear. How to frame, what we can learn from paintings, photographs, how to watch sequences with the sound off. Read--something you could improve on Art, considering the very basis of the test are the first words on the page and you have consistently claimed that it was never said, another one of your un-true statements. How to open your eyes and look at life, watch, take the ear buds off, watch shadows, watch film, see how light falls in real life. That's what we are doing, trying to recreate, not for style sake as Stephen Goldblatt says. What is talent is important and really the theme of the program. So many young folks out there calling themselves DP's and that's really not true. Talent is something you could be born with or something you could develop but I wanted to make sure that they understood that experience is key. You don't start at the top and work your way down. Obviously I had the discussion of what is more important people or equipment, we've been through all of that. The emphasis on story, really the only thing that matters. But all we hear from Art is "What is cinematography and light" and how silly hat is. And how art is so focused on sound bites and how they can hurt us. Hmmm, sounds you are the king of them. Again I think many of us who are not as seasoned a cinematographer as some of these legends might sit and listen, I know I learned a lot from what they had to say. All of this--is a lot more then what you say as "What is a cinematographer and what is light" a superficial sound bit. I know that hearing from these cinematographers is not what you wanted, you wanted just test results. Bully, bully go make it Art, I know you have the knowledge and you can present it in the proper 3-4 minute web video that is the right and only proper length as you have taught me. I wanted to try to something different. I stated it in text, in the video and in the production logs, pretty hard to miss it. Art please god just let this comment stand on it's own without commenting. We all know you hate it, and I'm totally cool with that!!!! Rather then wasting all of your time on this site, go make us the test you want, you may find it harder then you think.

 

[morgan_moore]

Nailing extreme looks on set is just dumb and also hard, a well set up raw flow you can jus apply a look to a whole sequence, get bored of it, apply another one, etc, only non 8bit cams can do this, by definition because they carry the extra data..

S

 

[Fohdeesha]

ive been bending the file of the BMD, I guess the cine cameras are better, you can do nothing like this with an 8 bit camera..

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/backlot/the-file-that-can-go-a-mile

s

A bit off topic, but man oh man every time I see BMD screengrabs I'm reminded how 2.5k and below bayer origination is not so hot for 1080p delivery....

 

[zacuto]

Well, I've agreed with much of what you've said, almost all of it in fact, but I would pull back on this. There is a position on the film crew that is dedicated to this art, the D.I.T., and as cameras get more complex that position grows in importance. Having someone who knows how to run the camera is pretty darn important, unless you're talking about a blank-slate camera like the forthcoming BMC, where you really can't do anything with it at all even if you wanted to...

With how quickly cameras come in and go out of fashion now, you'd almost think that the D.I.T. role would be increasing rather than decreasing. That would leave cinematographers freer to focus on the art and beauty, and less slogging through the technicals and the gammas and the balancing of vertical crispening against horizontal and all that. But, sadly, it appears D.I.T.'s are largely disappearing, as everyone figures they know enough to do the job themselves, and every time a new camera comes out that information needs to be re-learned by everyone...

Couldn't agree more, like when we used to have an engineer on set. I'm on a shoot now and not DIT or data wrangler. I'm more freaked about no data wrangler and catastrophic loss of data. Frankly, I hate not having tapes, I know that sounds crazy but I don't dig having stuff on hard drives, it's too hard to find and I'm too scared I can somehow lose all of my data. I think that folks over 40 or 50 are scared of data in air. Kids under 30 grew up with data and don't know what a tape is. When shooting all of the DP's like Haskell, Janusz and others that happened after the production was finished many of the questions I asked were not used and may be used in a separate more broader film about cinematography could have a lot of meaning one day and I'm scared of somehow losing it. I know I'm a dinosaur but it just scares me. Plus I love that fact that when you only have 30 minutes on a tape the about of data that can be lost is less catastrophic.

 

[GrahamH]

"...They didn't take away the message "wow, if I learn how to shoot better, I can make any camera look good." They took away the message "wow, the GH2 beat the F65, and the Epic, and the F3, that goes to prove that the manufacturers are evil lying bastards who are just ripping us all off."

I really doubt that many people came away literally believing that. At least not the ones with half a brain.

 

[zacuto]

Okay, please -- this is your turn to listen, hopefully.

Let me start out by saying -- do you think we don't all know that? You're not arguing with newbies. I've got an Emmy and 4 Emmy nominations too. You're talking to people who very much DO know what they're talking about.

Second -- Do you think ANYone of us is disagreeing with that basic premise? Of course we ALL agree with it. Obviously. Everyone on earth (who has half a brain) knows that the camera is certainly less than half of the equation. We all know that. We all know that WHAT YOU POINT THE CAMERA AT is more important than WHAT CAMERA YOU POINT AT IT.

That is not in dispute! So please, put that straw man away.

What is in dispute is -- the complete misrepresentation that is occurring because of the complete GAP between expectation and reality, in what was provided. THAT is what we are disappointed in. Mad? I'm not. Just -- disappointed, and now you've just gone and MUDDIED the waters rather than clarified them.

Let me ask you a question, Steve -- do you think the GH2 makes more pleasing images than the F65? If you were shooting a feature film, would you choose the GH2 over the F65? Budget notwithstanding, we're just talking about which camera you would choose. Because that's the message that people took away from your series. They didn't take away the message "wow, if I learn how to shoot better, I can make any camera look good." They took away the message "wow, the GH2 beat the F65, and the Epic, and the F3, that goes to prove that the manufacturers are evil lying bastards who are just ripping us all off."

Doesn't that message bother you?

You have more than enough experience to know that people who are taking away that message, are just wrong. You know that. So why doesn't it bother you?

I guess here's the major frustration -- we expected actual information, and instead it's like you tried to show us how dumb we all are, and that you knew "better" than us. It's insulting. It's rude. You tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. You had a very specific agenda, and you accomplished it. And now you're mad because we're not happy about you trying to play us for fools? Especially when there are real-world consequences?

Finally, let me put it this way -- what if I were to put out "Revenge of the Great Camera Gear Shootout", where I advertised that I was going to compare Zacuto rigging equipment against Redrock, Letus, Cinevate, and that Indian CineCity clone shop. And when you actually watched the doc, what I did was show four totally different scenes from totally different writers and directors, and the one that used the Zacuto gear just plain sucked, and everyone absolutely loved the scene that used the CineCity gear. And then I said "AHA! I got you! See, what I'm really showing is that it is the WRITING and DIRECTING skill that matters, and the gear doesn't matter at all! It's the person behind the gear that matters!!!"

How happy would you be? Because I've used some of your gear, and it's a hell of a lot better than some of that ripoff stuff, and if I was going into a professional shooting situation I'd much rather have Zacuto stuff on my side than CineCity. But how pleased would you be if the message that got out was "don't use Zacuto stuff, man, the CineCity film was so much better!"

All I'm asking you to do is think clearly about the message you send. Because you sent a message (whether it's the one you intended or not.)

Better is a funny word, Technically yes the F65 is better then the GH2, I showed that in the empirical. Don't know why nobody wants to watch it. I showed it, in several different ways. I never pulled any wool over anyones eyes. And I would not use an F65 or Alexa for every job. I would use it for some jobs. I pick the right camera for the right job and sometimes the GH2 is the right camera and sometimes the Alexa is the right camera and sometimes the Varicam is the right camera. Wow, I stunned at how "Better" is something you believe in. I was talking to a famous DP about a popular TV show he does the other day and decided to move away from a super high-end cameras (don't want to mention which) in exchange for the C300, he doesn't feel the difference is noticeable to him on TV and in his words it's lighter, can get into tighter spaces since he shoots mostly on location. He also uses DSLR's for certain shots like when he wanted to put a camera in a clothes dryer. He uses the right camera for the right job. So do I. Better is a funny word. I showed which cameras had the most DR and resolution. Better according to you. Sorry but I really need to be done with this it's getting far to redundant and I'm a creative not a techie. Really you should bring Bruce Logan into this because it was his test, not mine. I know he is shooting this week and posting next week but then you could contact him and I'm sure he'd love to explain his thinking. And I hate to admit this but he is using the evil camera you refer to on the job he is shooting this week. Swear to god.