Zacuto Revenge Shootout Part 3

GrahamH said:
"...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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some who do came a way with the 'wow GH2 bested them all...'... the same sort of crowd that applies shallow DoF to every shot to make it more 'cinematic'... or wyrd aspect ratio of screen size...

The explosion of the cheap digital still camera of the early 2000's did sort of cut away at a certain strata of photographic work. But I think the crappy economy has done more damage to 'pro/semipro' photographers than the happy shooter with a 'almost good enough' quality. The Wife and I use to see them alot... actually the 'better of them'... in the seminars we would present at... the attendees were the 'better than them' types because they did 'understand' that photography was more than point and shoot.

But then the Internet has changed the 'retail' landscape considerably in the last 10 years as well...
 
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."


I hate to disagree with Barry, because from long experience I know he's usually right even if I don't see it at the moment. But the above surprises me. I watched the tests, including the last segment. I cannot imagine anyone who watched this coming away with the idea that the GH2 is anything but competitive only in the ultra-low budget category where it only competes against the 7D and the iPhone. FWIW, I liked the GH2 the best of those three. But it is also equally clear - to anyone who isn't actually clinically blind - that the very next category, which happens to coincide with a higher price bracket, represented by the FS100 there is a HUGE - and I mean H U G E jump in quality of image. Why do I say "blind"? Because you can see something indisputable - not a question of subjective taste - to take just one single solitary example, toward the end where the black guy sits down, as he's sitting down the woman is looking up at him... and in the GH2, iPhone and 7D footage you actually can't see her face clearly (with GH2 being marginally better), but go to even the FS100, and you can clearly see her face, and of course the F65 and Alexa are worlds beyond that. It's nothing you can dispute - you either can see the face, or you can't. Same with a lot of other things, like what you see outside that big window - I mean, please, we are talking INDISPUTABLE FACTS, we are not talking "impressions". We can argue till the cows come home what is a "cinematic" image and which camera has what magic pixie dust fuzzy warm feeling. But not technical stuff that's as plain as the day is long. DR is observable. Detail is observable. Highlights are observable. You can't argue that.

So who exactly is coming away from that test thinking the GH2 is the best camera? At most, it is the best of the lowest three category. For pure image quality, I liked the Alexa the best, with the F65 a close second - and it is crystal clear that however we order the cameras in their category (for example, I was not impressed with the Epic), it is nonetheless quite clear that all of those are better - by leaps and bounds - than the GH2. Who is arguing otherwise? Strikes me as a straw man.

That said, every camera has its place. I am using the GH2 because a) I can't afford the Alexa and b) I need a very small form factor to shoot in tiny spaces (one person tent etc). Of cameras below $2K, I like the GH2 the best. But those are special circumstances.

So where is that huge danger that a deranged and blind person will be in a position to force a DP to use a GH2 where an Alexa is clearly indicated? Nowhere, that's where. I only even heard of cases where someone demands a DP use a 5D or a specific camera because "they heard it's the best", in small advertising shops doling out a job here or there. No serious producer or decision maker who is in charge of a budget big enough to afford an Alexa is stupid enough to force a DP to use a GH2 instead of an Alexa, based on him having seen a Zacuto test... which actually doesn't even show the GH2 as superior AT ALL. Maybe, maybe, maybe there is some 20 year old kid who wants to direct a short or whatever, saying to his buddy who plays at being a DP "don't worry, the GH2 came out on top of all sorts of tests!" - but that guy can't afford an Alexa anyway, so the point is moot.

Also a word about prep time and image. A big point was made about how it takes 10 times more time and effort and light and post work to get the images that the GH2 got in the test compared to Alexa (and again - the GH2 was clearly bested by even the FS100). Well, ahem, did you watch the last segment? Because that point is made by one of the DPs - where he says that he loves how he can get a great image out of the box with an Alexa. So it's not exactly a hidden point. In fact, in the very first post to this thread I mentioned how that's such a strong point in favor of Alexa (and all the higher end cams) - that you can get a usable image right out of the box, and don't have to go through hoops and tons of post work to get usable stuff they way you have no choice with a GH2.

This whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teacup. You are jumping at shadows. Nobody will a half a brain - strike that - nobody with a quarter brain is going to force a DP to use a GH2 when a higher class camera is required and requested by the DP. And the "manufacturers are in a conspiracy" nuts occur on internet forums - in a professional environment, nobody has the time for idiocy, and the best tools to get the job done are used, whether it's the GH2 or an Alexa.

We can argue about the merits of the Zacuto challenge and there are all sorts of legitimate concerns and different opinions, but saying they send a wrong message that's going to impact DPs negatively is a bit paranoid, IMHO.
 
OldCorpse said:
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."


I hate to disagree with Barry, because from long experience I know he's usually right even if I don't see it at the moment. But the above surprises me. I watched the tests, including the last segment. I cannot imagine anyone who watched this coming away with the idea that the GH2 is anything but competitive only in the ultra-low budget category where it only competes against the 7D and the iPhone. FWIW, I liked the GH2 the best of those three. But it is also equally clear - to anyone who isn't actually clinically blind - that the very next category, which happens to coincide with a higher price bracket, represented by the FS100 there is a HUGE - and I mean H U G E jump in quality of image. Why do I say "blind"? Because you can see something indisputable - not a question of subjective taste - to take just one single solitary example, toward the end where the black guy sits down, as he's sitting down the woman is looking up at him... and in the GH2, iPhone and 7D footage you actually can't see her face clearly (with GH2 being marginally better), but go to even the FS100, and you can clearly see her face, and of course the F65 and Alexa are worlds beyond that. It's nothing you can dispute - you either can see the face, or you can't. Same with a lot of other things, like what you see outside that big window - I mean, please, we are talking INDISPUTABLE FACTS, we are not talking "impressions". We can argue till the cows come home what is a "cinematic" image and which camera has what magic pixie dust fuzzy warm feeling. But not technical stuff that's as plain as the day is long. DR is observable. Detail is observable. Highlights are observable. You can't argue that.

So who exactly is coming away from that test thinking the GH2 is the best camera? At most, it is the best of the lowest three category. For pure image quality, I liked the Alexa the best, with the F65 a close second - and it is crystal clear that however we order the cameras in their category (for example, I was not impressed with the Epic), it is nonetheless quite clear that all of those are better - by leaps and bounds - than the GH2. Who is arguing otherwise? Strikes me as a straw man.

That said, every camera has its place. I am using the GH2 because a) I can't afford the Alexa and b) I need a very small form factor to shoot in tiny spaces (one person tent etc). Of cameras below $2K, I like the GH2 the best. But those are special circumstances.

So where is that huge danger that a deranged and blind person will be in a position to force a DP to use a GH2 where an Alexa is clearly indicated? Nowhere, that's where. I only even heard of cases where someone demands a DP use a 5D or a specific camera because "they heard it's the best", in small advertising shops doling out a job here or there. No serious producer or decision maker who is in charge of a budget big enough to afford an Alexa is stupid enough to force a DP to use a GH2 instead of an Alexa, based on him having seen a Zacuto test... which actually doesn't even show the GH2 as superior AT ALL. Maybe, maybe, maybe there is some 20 year old kid who wants to direct a short or whatever, saying to his buddy who plays at being a DP "don't worry, the GH2 came out on top of all sorts of tests!" - but that guy can't afford an Alexa anyway, so the point is moot.

Also a word about prep time and image. A big point was made about how it takes 10 times more time and effort and light and post work to get the images that the GH2 got in the test compared to Alexa (and again - the GH2 was clearly bested by even the FS100). Well, ahem, did you watch the last segment? Because that point is made by one of the DPs - where he says that he loves how he can get a great image out of the box with an Alexa. So it's not exactly a hidden point. In fact, in the very first post to this thread I mentioned how that's such a strong point in favor of Alexa (and all the higher end cams) - that you can get a usable image right out of the box, and don't have to go through hoops and tons of post work to get usable stuff they way you have no choice with a GH2.

This whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teacup. You are jumping at shadows. Nobody will a half a brain - strike that - nobody with a quarter brain is going to force a DP to use a GH2 when a higher class camera is required and requested by the DP. And the "manufacturers are in a conspiracy" nuts occur on internet forums - in a professional environment, nobody has the time for idiocy, and the best tools to get the job done are used, whether it's the GH2 or an Alexa.

We can argue about the merits of the Zacuto challenge and there are all sorts of legitimate concerns and different opinions, but saying they send a wrong message that's going to impact DPs negatively is a bit paranoid, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Thank you. People hear what they want to hear. Yes there is a small group of people who hear this GH2 BS but for the most part, they are creating this tumult. I actually thought the GH2 was way over lit and looked like a TV studio in the creative and didn't perform at all in the empirical all. Art did this no justice because he misquoted the Gizmodo article which actually said that the FS100 was the best bang for the buck, not the GH2 as he claimed. Plus you are right, I had dinner with Rodney Charters tonight and we had a a laugh about all of this. He agrees with me, you use the right camera for the right job. I've been on the set of Shameless recently and next week and his shooters are love the Alexa but are not thrilled with the weight and balance of the camera what so ever. It's extremely heavy, worse front heavy. They shoot hand held all day long and it's tough. Plus they never shoot raw, only pro-res, they have time for raw. Dallas too, pro-res. Many of my friends doing TV shoot Pro-res tossing a lot of the quality out of the window. No time, everything is moving too fast and shows need to be posted too fast. It's not necessary for TV, pro-res looks fine, per Rodney. Plus I've seen shots done on Shameless with 60D's and other cameras all depending on which is the right camera for each situation.

Everyone keeps asking me if I'd rather use a F65 over a GH2. It's funny Rodney asked me tonight what camera I use in my photo studio to do my fine art photo work and I actually don't know. It's the camera that our in-house photographer uses to shoot product shots and it's on a camera stand and I don't hand hold so I don't really touch it much. I know it's a nikon of some kind, an older one, have no idea what model. I shoot tethered to the computer so I see the images right away, works fine. I have a T2i when I go portable. I'm not camera agnostic when it comes to photo work. Video is a discussion between me and Jens (my DP) again, right camera for the right job. Probably not a GH2, although I have one at home and have made some nice little videos for our Buddhist Temple and Art Fair with it. It's nice and light and when I have no crew, I'm fine with it. I'm not into a heavy cameras if I'm all by myself. The 5D is way too heavy for me. If I was shooting a documentary I would definitely not use an F65 or an Alexa, I like to be much faster and more able to get moments. Maybe a C300, FS100, depending on if I want shallow DOF. Varicam with a servo zoom is a high possibility. If I were doing a drama piece I could definitely see myself choosing the Alexa if I had the budget it.

Never in any of our shootouts have we ever declared a winner. We have been very careful not to do that because we don't believe their is such a thing. Besides the fact that winning depends on ability. There is the fact that no camera is right for every use and so how would you declare a winner? Would it be like the academy awards. For best DR. For best balance. For best resolution. For best agility. For lightest. What is a winner?
 
GrahamH said:
"...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."
Click to expand...

Nobody with any real influence on production or the industry believes that, so what is the real-world problem? There isn't one.
 
People love to put cameras in boxes and say the Alexa is best and the F65 is even better, and so on. Like a universal truth. Or a neat little encyclopaedia of camera knowledge applicable for everyone in the world.

This approach needs to be balanced with subjectivity because the empirical on its own is not enough. Facts alone don't allow for any one person's view of the facts just universal truths. And there are no universal truths in art. At all.

Whatever works for you, is right. Whatever excites you, is exciting. If people agree with you then great. If they don't it doesn't mean you should change your mind. Trust your judgement. If your judgement is flawed, you're screwed anyway no matter how many facts you ingest about tools.

You can use the facts and empirical testing to determine a path through the options but in the end it all comes down to you.

A person's own needs or the needs of a job ALWAYS matters more than specs.

The Alexa being extremely heavy and not well balanced is far more relevant to a documentary shooter doing a project entirely handheld than how much dynamic range it has and what codec it uses.

To think 2 people with different needs and subjective tastes will settle for the same camera just because it performs the best on a chart is the problem. That is damaging. The shootout isn't, really.

Sometimes I want a scruffy aesthetic, something more grainy, contrasty and to do what Kubrick did and burn his windows out a lot. If my camera was constantly holding onto the windows it would be a real effort in post to achieve the burnt contrasty look scene by scene. It would probably cost me a fortune in time just making the F65 look like a GH2, that would be truly ironic.

If the 4K EOS DSLR turns out to be a fantastic camera in terms of the image but you can't focus it or it lacks 25p, or peaking or the codec doesn't grade well - then an alternative camera with a good 2.5K image like the Blackmagic would be the better choice. Yet if you put those two head to head in a chart test, or in a cinema side by side with 4K vs 2.5K all anyone would be talking about afterwards is RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION. Amazing 4K this and that. And in my view this is the real damage to the industry, not a bit of subjectivity mixed in with the empirical. In my view that was long over due.

It is now more important to mix the empirical evidence with how the camera fits in a very personal way to what you are trying to achieve. Just make sure both kinds of advice are clearly labeled as such.

I think Revenge could have shown less talking heads and more actual lighting being set up and moved around, then we would have seen the changes unfold, why the decisions were made, what the DPs were thinking - very valuable stuff. Apart from that I enjoyed it and took quite a lot away from it in the end despite the flaws.
 
Andrew Reid said:
...all anyone would be talking about afterwards is RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION. Amazing 4K this and that. And in my view this is the real damage to the industry, not a bit of subjectivity mixed in with the empirical. In my view that was long over due.
Click to expand...

But this has been going on since time began... well at least since my time in photography began... When I was young, for still photographic materials, there were constant 'Kodak Tri-X', vs. "Ilford HP-4", then there was develop with HC-110 vs Agfa Rodinal... and speaking of Agfa... Agfa print papers vs Kodak vs Ilford (the Wife always used Ilford multigrade... I never did use multigrade...)... then along came a company called Seagull...

In those days, Kodak papers had a really bad reputation among 'fine are printers'... and I'm pretty sure, unless you were 'there'... you'd be going 'huh??? What's the big deal?'...

There were some things that 'everyone' agreed on... Microdol X was s*%t... but beyond that... it was loud and vociferous partisanship...

Then there were the cameras... by that time Nikon had pretty much become the 'standard' for 35mm SLR's, and occasionally one would see a Praktica or Exakta... Lica always was a Maseratti of cameras... but for the lowly mortals, there were still 'wars' about manufacturers, lenses, etc...

For me the biggest loss with current 35mm cameras relative to the 'olden days'... when push came to shove, you could use some of those old cameras as a mace if need be... these days, one whack at an assailant would probably damage the camera beyond repair, and only make the assailant madder...
 
zacuto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bruce Logan is using a GH2? Well it is one thing for someone to choose it in a blind taste test, quite another for a member of Kubrick's camera department on 2001, who later made the death star explode to go out and use one. I am quite proud about this as you can imagine. Seems perseverance does pay off after all!
 
Andrew Reid said:
Nobody with any real influence on production or the industry believes that, so what is the real-world problem? There isn't one.
Click to expand...

gawd bless you, i see you've never been in a preliminary meeting with an EP who mentions a 7d and an alexa in the same breath. and have you seen that sushi movie...? i want it to look like that, what camera did they use? every DP i know (mostly in the doc and tv world) starts most projects trying to overcome whatever momentum that has already built towards a camera and workflow that is informed by snippets of information like that under discussion here.

real influence? it is perhaps the hallmark of this moment in the industry that everyone from the EP to the interns will have something to say about the choice of camera and workflow, and frequently they are just as well informed.

this real-world you mention... can you direct me there. :)
 
MPB said:


trying to overcome whatever momentum that has already built towards a camera and workflow
Click to expand...

And to add salt on that - you're seen as the negative Nelly for trying to offer the right tool for the job.
 
MPB said:
every DP i know (mostly in the doc and tv world) starts most projects trying to overcome whatever momentum that has already built towards a camera and workflow that is informed by snippets of information like that under discussion here.
Click to expand...
Further proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... :huh:
 
This was such a great thread, very passionate and great arguments from all side of the pool. It was classic DVXUSER.com. With people getting really passionate, moderators coming in, threatening to close it down. I love when that happens!

It also was fun getting to see Steve and Mitch's history - which led me to the two latest clips I believe Mitch DPed for some feature films according to IMDB (please pardon me if my journalistic skills are off).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_D-fjGipk - Charlie's Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9dHBlA4hHw - Staten Island

Watching these films, especially Staten Island, I thought several things:

One, I have no idea what it was shot on. No idea. Varicam, hvx200, super 16, super 35mm? At first I thought Charlie's Party was shot on film, but looking again at it, it has a Varicam since of colors, maybe with a P+S Technic adapter with some cine lenses?

The 2nd thing I noticed was the lighting, how did Mitch light the cafe scene, the bar scene.

Then I noticed the composition - how did he cover the Staten Island beach scene?

And then I noticed the story and the acting. How are the actors?

And I immediately was reminded of my own feature I've shot this summer. How did I handle the lighting, the composition, the shot ideas.

I agree with everyone - producers may think they can get the same result now from the Alexa with the GH2 but this is the oldest argument in the world as Steve said - the producers have always wanted to go cheaper. They will always want to go cheaper, long into the future.

And going cheaper isn't the result of Steve's video, which I enjoyed immensely.

This happened with the advent of the Canon 7D - when it came out it had 24p mode. Before it was only the Canon 5d Mark II that existed with 30p, but once 24p option came out, everything changed. This camera changed a lot. I filmed BTS on a national beauty commercial shot on the 7D in 2010! I couldn't believe it! The DSLR invasion changed everything. This is when people started to go really cheap on productions. Because these little cameras look "good enough" to producers. They don't know about moire, post nightmares with h.264, jello - all that. So it's our jobs as DPs and technical people to use our technical knowledge to talk with the production when working on something when they ask what we should get to do the job. If they tell you, no we're shooting on the GH2 because it looks the best out of all the cameras. You can either tell them no or not take the job.

If you are upset, don't take the job. I turn down about 3 jobs a year that want to shoot on DSLR after I try to persuade them to "upgrade".

And to the people "hating" on Zacuto: I will tell you my "story"
I came in the film world after college in 2003, who started shooting on the DVX100. I didn't start on film. I started with this camera. I didn't go to film school. I always wanted to. But I went to a liberal arts school.

And I sucked.

I was terrible.

I had no idea what I was doing.

I went on DVXUSER.com and saw some stuff MacGregor and others shot on the Cinemek, which was a static 35mm adapter. I got into shooting on a P+S Technic with my dvx100 which I believe we rented from Abel Cine in the city. I loved it and eventually got the Redrock M2 off of craigslist with 2 nikon AIS lenses. I returned it to the guys. Thought I could do fine with the stock lens. BUT then I took it back.

I shot some stuff with my friend Galen. And he taught me how to color correct in Avid Media Composer 3. He taught me about adding blue to the blacks and creating a S curve. He went to film school. Slowly I got better and better. I knew absolutely nothing about photography. Nothing. I didn't know what an f/stop was. But I read a lot. On DVXuser, on the web, I bought film books, watched dvds (reviewed on here by Barry Green).

And now I'm making my job as a DP. I just shot a national commercial spot for Under Amour. A big deal for me who was in 2004 learning how to use the DVX100, the first camera I owned. I'll post the link on my webpage soon.

I would be a hypocrit for attacking the Zacuto video for showing how you can make the best out of any situation. I owe everything that's happened to me to DVXUser and people like Steve and Mitch. Through the web I was given a chance to go into a career I should have not had access to.

And also, everyone's anger here should probably show some humbleness towards the Zacuto film. It cost tons of money to make. It is a beautiful series of interviews that reminds me of Masters of Light. Steve has put in so much to the filmmaking community with his knowledge and enthusiasm.

And so has Mitch and Andy at Abel with their blog and their products and their dedication to filmmaking. I love what Abel has done!

We are all now sharing knowledge so freely and I do the same, I reciprocate. Whenever anyone asked me any question, I answer it as good as I can.

And to bring it all back to Mitch Gross and the films I saw of his on youtube that he shot, the most important thing I noticed while watching them, the one thing that I really didn't like about them have nothing to do with him at all: it was the acting. The acting, not the technical filmmaking (which I really liked) is what made me decide, "I do not want to go my local blockbuster and rent those films."

Storytelling is king.

And I have started losing jobs in the past few years to younger people than me, and I don't get mad. Because I was that younger person a few years ago. It's tough but it forces me to learn my craft more.

I have so much to learn. So much about lighting, composition, color. As I do with every job, I try to learn the pluses and minuses of any camera and go from there just as I learn the pluses and minuses of any lens, any light, any rig.

This year I also shot a low-budget commercial on the Alexa in Vegas, and I was not happy with it. We sacrificed everything in the budget to be able to rent the Alexa and so we didn't have the tools we needed to get the job done properly as a result. If we had shot with a cheaper rental item like the Sony F3, we could have put in more money into getting a 4k HMI. and a 6500 watt generator We were underlit.

No camera is too good that you don't need the right lights for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top