Zacuto Shootout (GH1 specific)

What I'm most confused about is that the other cameras were at like ISO 160 and 200 and f 2.0-2.4 and the gh1 was at 320 and f 4.5

I'm sure there's a reason, but my brain doesn't compute, so maybe someone else can explain that to me.

I know someone will say they're more sensitive than the gh1, but I'm still not getting the drastic difference between the other cameras and the gh1 in terms of iso and f stop.
 
Haha now you've only added to my confusion then on why they used a higher ISO and slower aperture.
 
I thought the GH1 held up darn pretty well. I do deeply appreciate the canon fanboy-ness that hung so heavily in the air.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any yet, so I'm always keen to keep up. Although I'm really surprised about the hollywood gaga over the canon's as there is still no workable pl-mount solution, as there is for the gh1. Ultimately if these cameras find work on big sets, they will be C and D cameras for pick-ups or crash cams, and they will need to use the same lenses as the big camera. Real working cinematographers like their matching lenses after all. Shane Hurlebut seems to be able to sneak a pv mount out of Panavision, but that is the only way to mount a movie lens to a Canon. As a side note, shouldn't canon just buy off Phillip Bloom, and include his secret sauce as a preset.
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
At 14:58 in the shootout video, immediately following the colorist's "baked-in look" comment, Phillip Bloom says: "I think a lot of that gets down to the fact that we were really not able to tweak [the GH1's] profile to its optimum level, which is what we were doing with the other cameras".

This comment strikes me as really odd. My question is, given all the resources & manpower they had available before & during the shootout, "Why not?"
Click to expand...


What he means by that is that the GH1 cannot be tweaked as much as the Canons! Yes we can go -2,-2,-2,-2 but apparently it does get things as flat as on the Canons. I believe Bloom has really been through the settings on it...he's been using one since long before the 7D came out. That's his opinion, but anyways we know he did everything he could to get the best out of the cameras.

As far as how they're interpreting the results...I too thought the GH1 looked better than they seemed to give it credit for...but who knows on the net?
 
boulder said:
wow, some sour grapes here. The GH1 looked great. You guys need to lighten up.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it sour grapes. I've got a 7D & gh1 and simply know the camera can be set up better than how it looked.

It still looked good, but it still wasn't manipulated as much as it can be.
 
Rory_B said:
I wouldn't call it sour grapes. I've got a 7D & gh1 and simply know the camera can be set up better than how it looked.

It still looked good, but it still wasn't manipulated as much as it can be.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

It kind of reminded me of the dynamic mode...which is the least dynamic one :D
 
Does anyone know if Barry Green was approached about helping out on this test? I think it would of helped Panasonic more if he could of done the settings with the GH-1.
 
Last edited:
Let's not be unfair

Let's not be unfair

I would agree that the GH1 would have looked better if settings were tweaked a bit. But let's not be unfair - I found it fascinating to see a comparison of my GH1 to film!!! And it held up pretty well. I don't care which cam comes out as the winner - it was easy to see that the time of excuses is over - every cam in the right hands produces amazing results.

So for me the effort to compare these cams to film has to be honoured. It seems to be almost impossible to do a 100% scientific comparison - this is doomed to fail anyway.

best regards, Gunther
 
gmc said:
i would agree that the gh1 would have looked better if settings were tweaked a bit. But let's not be unfair - i found it fascinating to see a comparison of my gh1 to film!!! And it held up pretty well. I don't care which cam comes out as the winner - it was easy to see that the time of excuses is over - every cam in the right hands produces amazing results.

So for me the effort to compare these cams to film has to be honoured. It seems to be almost impossible to do a 100% scientific comparison - this is doomed to fail anyway.

Best regards, gunther
Click to expand...
+1
 
GMC said:
I would agree that the GH1 would have looked better if settings were tweaked a bit. But let's not be unfair - I found it fascinating to see a comparison of my GH1 to film!!! And it held up pretty well. I don't care which cam comes out as the winner - it was easy to see that the time of excuses is over - every cam in the right hands produces amazing results.

So for me the effort to compare these cams to film has to be honoured. It seems to be almost impossible to do a 100% scientific comparison - this is doomed to fail anyway.

best regards, Gunther
Click to expand...


Right on!!
 
Kellar42 said:
What he means by that is that the GH1 cannot be tweaked as much as the Canons! Yes we can go -2,-2,-2,-2 but apparently it does get things as flat as on the Canons. I believe Bloom has really been through the settings on it...he's been using one since long before the 7D came out. That's his opinion, but anyways we know he did everything he could to get the best out of the cameras.

As far as how they're interpreting the results...I too thought the GH1 looked better than they seemed to give it credit for...but who knows on the net?
Click to expand...

The truth is that Panasonic should have had a rep there. I don't own a GH1 but at the same time I would have love to see it perform at it's optimal level. I love the fact that you can affordably mount PLs on the thing. There are no loosers here other than Nikon, IMHO. Yes I said it. Anyway, really wish all of the big companies would have shown face.
 
Ben_B said:
Exactly!

It kind of reminded me of the dynamic mode...which is the least dynamic one :D
Click to expand...

pretty much my thoughts too haha.

I'll reiterate what I said and pappas too. Nostalgic will yield the brightest least contrasty image of all the settings. Smooth is nice too, but Nostalgic looks as though you gain 1/2 - 1+ stop of sensitivity depnding on which setting you compare it to. Between dynamic and nostalgic is night and day. And even between smooth you can see a gain in DR.

Either way I'd still like to know why it was used at higher ISOs and stopped down more than the others. I think that skews things a bit. Plus they made that candlelit thing make the gh1 look like my old hvx in terms of sensitivity haha. Since the gh1 has deeper DOF, smaller FOV and less sensitivity than the 5d2 wouldn't is stand to reason to open the lens up more to obtain similar characterisitics? Again I think the tests were fun an gives everyone something to jabber about when they're bored, but just a few nit picky things that confuse me. Obviously they had their reasons, but I'd like more of an explanation on their thought process for the settings. Granted they're trying to expose for the light bulb too.
 
Rory_B said:
I'll reiterate what I said and pappas too. Nostalgic will yield the brightest least contrasty image of all the settings. Smooth is nice too, but Nostalgic looks as though you gain 1/2 - 1+ stop of sensitivity depnding on which setting you compare it to. Between dynamic and nostalgic is night and day. And even between smooth you can see a gain in DR.
Click to expand...

I'm a smooth and standard shooter, would I set it the same way as I setup smooth? Also, how does nostalgic hold up in bright sunlight? I'm gonna shoot some this afternoon but I was kinda trying to get an upper hand on what I might run in to...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top