Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
Does that mean this person has no right for opinion?
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Hannover Hands On comparisons of RED F35 & D21
- Thread starter geoffboyle
- Start date
- Status
Does that mean this person has no right for opinion?
David Doko
Well-known member
If you're going to call someone a "hack" please don't do so in anonymity, it's disgraceful in its hypocrisy.
A lot of great DPs, whose works are greatly admired, aren't nearly at the technical level of Geoff Boyle. Many just leave it to their ACs and DITs and just form their opinions by the results that they see and by what pleases their productions. Deriding their experience or professionalism on the basis of a test is just mean spirited and I wonder where people are coming from.
A lot of these veterans have done years and years of gorgeous and lucrative commercial work, most of which is uncredited.
A lot of great DPs, whose works are greatly admired, aren't nearly at the technical level of Geoff Boyle. Many just leave it to their ACs and DITs and just form their opinions by the results that they see and by what pleases their productions. Deriding their experience or professionalism on the basis of a test is just mean spirited and I wonder where people are coming from.
A lot of these veterans have done years and years of gorgeous and lucrative commercial work, most of which is uncredited.
Dylan Macleod CSC
Well-known member
If Geoff Boyle had posted his test and signed his name something like "IMASHOOTER" his test probably would have been ignored.
Real names give credibility.
Opinions yes, credibility, no.
Jeff Coatney
Well-known member
I'm sorry but bias does exist against the Red. However, anyone who conducts a test will find I'm a willing and rapt audience member, because I may learn a thing or two.
But Geoff didn't do himself any favors by not paying attention to the details. I understand that Geoff is a seasoned professional and an expert, but to publish test results that were rife with discrepancies and then to claim the entire exercise was not a comparison even though it was labeled a comparison, begs the question: "What is the real purpose of this test?"
I'm certainly willing to believe the veracity of a properly conducted test. But, tests that are not conducted with the care they deserve are not worth considering, regardless of who is conducting them, in my opinion. In fact, I find the shoot-out style test to be an utter waste of time, because the lighting is often biased against the strengths of at least some of the cameras some of the time. It's a kangaroo court, at best.
When a DP chooses a camera, regardless of the manufacturer, the DP tries to get the best images possible from the camera in most cases. Therefore, in any given scenario, the DP may choose different approaches to lighting, exposure, etc., to achieve the look they desire. Some cameras may perform better with less light, others more, some may require more fill, etc. But all of the cameras tested are certainly capable of providing the competent DP with a successful result.
To set up a scene and light it without regard to the individual cameras methodology for exposure, or even recognizing that each camera is its own system and its own characteristics makes no sense to me. Of course you get a failure, that's no surprise. It's not the camera's fault. That's the entire reason the DP has a job. Its what makes the DP's experience of value to the equation.
Forcing failure is a critical part of the product development process, but the camera is only a part of the system. The DP is half of the solution. Congratulations, you just showed that the camera has a finite operating range. We know that already, now master that limitation and overcome it, you idiot!
For all the criticism of the camera, the fact that is always absent is the technical abilities and proficiency of the DP. This must be eliminated from consideration by having future tests conducted by more than one DP. I think a half-dozen of them ought to do. Six to ten professionals, not force-failing the camera, but concocting the most difficult lighting situations imaginable and each of them successfully capturing useable images from them using the candidate cameras, without limitation on what lights and equipment they can use to do so. That would be a helpful test.
But Geoff didn't do himself any favors by not paying attention to the details. I understand that Geoff is a seasoned professional and an expert, but to publish test results that were rife with discrepancies and then to claim the entire exercise was not a comparison even though it was labeled a comparison, begs the question: "What is the real purpose of this test?"
I'm certainly willing to believe the veracity of a properly conducted test. But, tests that are not conducted with the care they deserve are not worth considering, regardless of who is conducting them, in my opinion. In fact, I find the shoot-out style test to be an utter waste of time, because the lighting is often biased against the strengths of at least some of the cameras some of the time. It's a kangaroo court, at best.
When a DP chooses a camera, regardless of the manufacturer, the DP tries to get the best images possible from the camera in most cases. Therefore, in any given scenario, the DP may choose different approaches to lighting, exposure, etc., to achieve the look they desire. Some cameras may perform better with less light, others more, some may require more fill, etc. But all of the cameras tested are certainly capable of providing the competent DP with a successful result.
To set up a scene and light it without regard to the individual cameras methodology for exposure, or even recognizing that each camera is its own system and its own characteristics makes no sense to me. Of course you get a failure, that's no surprise. It's not the camera's fault. That's the entire reason the DP has a job. Its what makes the DP's experience of value to the equation.
Forcing failure is a critical part of the product development process, but the camera is only a part of the system. The DP is half of the solution. Congratulations, you just showed that the camera has a finite operating range. We know that already, now master that limitation and overcome it, you idiot!
For all the criticism of the camera, the fact that is always absent is the technical abilities and proficiency of the DP. This must be eliminated from consideration by having future tests conducted by more than one DP. I think a half-dozen of them ought to do. Six to ten professionals, not force-failing the camera, but concocting the most difficult lighting situations imaginable and each of them successfully capturing useable images from them using the candidate cameras, without limitation on what lights and equipment they can use to do so. That would be a helpful test.
R. Gonzales
Well-known member
Dylan Macleod CSC
Well-known member
PM me RION - no problem. Not here though!
D Fuller
Well-known member
Then if that's what you think, you should conduct such a test. Good luck. I'd be interested in seeing the results.
R. Gonzales
Well-known member
Carsten Fenstermacher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Oh and I'm not a poor wimp who'll be broken by criticism, bring it on
I'm happy for people to be as offensive as they like, it tells us more about them than anything else.
Tell me where I went wrong and what I can do better and I will.
Was the criticism too hard on Geoff?
The only tests that seem to make difference is ones that you do yourself for yourself. Publishing tests seems like a bad idea unless you know your test methodology is solid. Publishing cowboy tests is risky.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
The more tests I see, the better it is for me, whether or not some tests are more scientific than others... I sort of take them all with a grain of salt and look for commonalities, either in results or in getting results. Even making mistakes in testing are part of the value of tests -- if several people make similar mistakes, it sends out warning flags to me, that there are "gotcha" areas to be concerned about.
So the more information out there, the better. If you guys just scare away people from posting tests by tearing them apart for various reasons, the result may be more accurate testing... but by such a few people that you won't be able to see any averaging of results among several testers. Instead, one or two single testers end up seeming like authorities, but also will be accused of having biases or agendas by those who feel the results should have been different. At least when several people get similar results, it gets harder to make accusations of bias.
I'll watch all sorts of tests, anytime someone somewhere records something, there may be something interesting that results. But I never assume that any test -- even my own -- are the final word. I don't even find many tests to be all that repeatable, there always seem to be variations.
Which shows the other fact of life, that the best test results don't always ensure the same results in real world shooting when you can't be in control of every element.
All of this just means to me that life is full of variables, and so are complex technologies. And anything built and used by human beings will be bound to have flaws in it. And mistakes will be made. To err is human.
I don't think any of this nonsensical uproar would have occurred here if Geoff's tests had proven the RED camera to be superior in all respects to its competition. He'd be praised to high heaven here and quoted as an authority. But since his results were mixed, some here feel the need to now tear him down. Which is sad.
Some of us test like engineers and some of us test like cinematographers. Geoff is a cinematographer, not an engineer. Maybe that doesn't lead to the most scientifically precise measurements being made, but these real-world subject tests mean something to someone who has to shoot for a living -- they mean something to me, they mean something to Geoff, and for that reason, I'll be keeping an eye on whatever tests he feels generous enough to share with others.
So the more information out there, the better. If you guys just scare away people from posting tests by tearing them apart for various reasons, the result may be more accurate testing... but by such a few people that you won't be able to see any averaging of results among several testers. Instead, one or two single testers end up seeming like authorities, but also will be accused of having biases or agendas by those who feel the results should have been different. At least when several people get similar results, it gets harder to make accusations of bias.
I'll watch all sorts of tests, anytime someone somewhere records something, there may be something interesting that results. But I never assume that any test -- even my own -- are the final word. I don't even find many tests to be all that repeatable, there always seem to be variations.
Which shows the other fact of life, that the best test results don't always ensure the same results in real world shooting when you can't be in control of every element.
All of this just means to me that life is full of variables, and so are complex technologies. And anything built and used by human beings will be bound to have flaws in it. And mistakes will be made. To err is human.
I don't think any of this nonsensical uproar would have occurred here if Geoff's tests had proven the RED camera to be superior in all respects to its competition. He'd be praised to high heaven here and quoted as an authority. But since his results were mixed, some here feel the need to now tear him down. Which is sad.
Some of us test like engineers and some of us test like cinematographers. Geoff is a cinematographer, not an engineer. Maybe that doesn't lead to the most scientifically precise measurements being made, but these real-world subject tests mean something to someone who has to shoot for a living -- they mean something to me, they mean something to Geoff, and for that reason, I'll be keeping an eye on whatever tests he feels generous enough to share with others.
Jeff Coatney
Well-known member
This reminds me of the old skateboard analogy. Digital cameras are in a state of potential, just like a skateboard.
A skateboard is a perfectly designed product that is only fully realized when it is used by someone that has taken the time and suffered the pain of mastering it. It can be dangerous in the hands of a novice.
Its this point of view that informs my prejudice against comparative testing of these cameras. In the hands of someone truly gifted, a virtuoso, any one of these cameras produces magic.
There is something utterly sublime in seeing someone's mastery of a machine of potential. So I try to keep the relevance of these tests in perspective.
A skateboard is a perfectly designed product that is only fully realized when it is used by someone that has taken the time and suffered the pain of mastering it. It can be dangerous in the hands of a novice.
Its this point of view that informs my prejudice against comparative testing of these cameras. In the hands of someone truly gifted, a virtuoso, any one of these cameras produces magic.
There is something utterly sublime in seeing someone's mastery of a machine of potential. So I try to keep the relevance of these tests in perspective.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
The point of most tests is to not "produce magic", it's to find weakness and limitations. A demo reel, a commercial, a promotional effort, yes, magic is wonderful, but the reason most people test is to discover failure points. At least, that's the main reason I shoot a test. I know how to get a nice image out of most cameras out there, that's not really relevant.
To me, most interesting cinematography pushes technical and artistic boundaries, or sometimes fails in the attempt. Often the most interesting lighting happens when the brightest highlights are burning out and the deepest shadows are plunging into blackness, hence why it's important to know not only when things burn out or go to black, but how they look when they actually burn out or go to black. Because sometimes you deliberately let that happen, and different cameras handle that moment of excessive or insufficient exposure differently. So it's not uncommon for a test to involve pushing an image to the breaking point to see how it behaves.
Secondly, unless you are a super genius or conversely, incredibly conservative in how you shoot, you are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes are natural and human. Virtuosity is nice, but it doesn't have a lot to do with my daily existence as a cinematographer. I just completed a very tough shooting day, a five-page scene shot outdoors in a backyard that was supposed to be set at sunset but would be shot from sunrise to sunset. We spent the money to rent three condors with 20x20 silks on them that could be extended from the main street over the roof of the house and reach the backyard. I also had a grip cloud, an inflatable floating silk basically. I managed to silk the whole backyard and then backlight it with 12-light HPL tungstens for a lovely setting sun look. The moment our actors stepped in for the first take of the first set up, high winds came in, the grip cloud was swept against a tree, punctured, and deflated, all the condors and silks came down for safety reasons, I couldn't even fly a 12x12 silk over an actor's head due to the high winds. We ended up shooting in raw sunlight, and by 11AM, it was looking very harsh and not at all like sunset light. Then we turned around and did the reverse angle, and clouds rolled in and it became heavily overcast, so I had to use HMI's to match the harsh sun I had on half the shots. And then the sun set and I was recreating daylight in the backyard and had a grip holding on to every piece of equipment in the high wind.
Anyway, I survived the day, shot the scene, got it in the can... and no, it's not a work of virtuosity. Some shots don't match and the ones shot in raw sunlight at 11AM to Noon certainly won't look like sunset, even though this scene takes place after a scene that we already shot near sunset. So I will do what I can in post to make that work. In the end, the scene will work and look fine.
My point is that this is as much the reality of filmmaking as is making "magic" and creating virtuosity. It's the unsexy meat-and-potatoes world of moviemaking. And we need to know how are tools hold up to abuse and even incorrect usage. We need to make mistakes so we can learn from them. So honestly, whoever is faultless as a filmmaker or cinematographer, cast the first stone. Otherwise, cut people some slack.
To me, most interesting cinematography pushes technical and artistic boundaries, or sometimes fails in the attempt. Often the most interesting lighting happens when the brightest highlights are burning out and the deepest shadows are plunging into blackness, hence why it's important to know not only when things burn out or go to black, but how they look when they actually burn out or go to black. Because sometimes you deliberately let that happen, and different cameras handle that moment of excessive or insufficient exposure differently. So it's not uncommon for a test to involve pushing an image to the breaking point to see how it behaves.
Secondly, unless you are a super genius or conversely, incredibly conservative in how you shoot, you are bound to make mistakes. Mistakes are natural and human. Virtuosity is nice, but it doesn't have a lot to do with my daily existence as a cinematographer. I just completed a very tough shooting day, a five-page scene shot outdoors in a backyard that was supposed to be set at sunset but would be shot from sunrise to sunset. We spent the money to rent three condors with 20x20 silks on them that could be extended from the main street over the roof of the house and reach the backyard. I also had a grip cloud, an inflatable floating silk basically. I managed to silk the whole backyard and then backlight it with 12-light HPL tungstens for a lovely setting sun look. The moment our actors stepped in for the first take of the first set up, high winds came in, the grip cloud was swept against a tree, punctured, and deflated, all the condors and silks came down for safety reasons, I couldn't even fly a 12x12 silk over an actor's head due to the high winds. We ended up shooting in raw sunlight, and by 11AM, it was looking very harsh and not at all like sunset light. Then we turned around and did the reverse angle, and clouds rolled in and it became heavily overcast, so I had to use HMI's to match the harsh sun I had on half the shots. And then the sun set and I was recreating daylight in the backyard and had a grip holding on to every piece of equipment in the high wind.
Anyway, I survived the day, shot the scene, got it in the can... and no, it's not a work of virtuosity. Some shots don't match and the ones shot in raw sunlight at 11AM to Noon certainly won't look like sunset, even though this scene takes place after a scene that we already shot near sunset. So I will do what I can in post to make that work. In the end, the scene will work and look fine.
My point is that this is as much the reality of filmmaking as is making "magic" and creating virtuosity. It's the unsexy meat-and-potatoes world of moviemaking. And we need to know how are tools hold up to abuse and even incorrect usage. We need to make mistakes so we can learn from them. So honestly, whoever is faultless as a filmmaker or cinematographer, cast the first stone. Otherwise, cut people some slack.
Last edited:
Niko Pueringer
Well-known member
David Mullen is the always eloquent voice of reason.
- Thread starter
- #194
geoffboyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 76
- Location
- It varies daily
- Website
- www.gboyle.co.uk
I can't stay away
Rife with discrepancies??
I screwed up converting some DPX's, re-scaling them actually, once I realised I corrected the problem and we had properly rendered original, not re-scaled, files within 24 hours.
What else did I do wrong?
Yet we have people tearing me apart because, although they admit that they have never used the other cameras, they "know" ie they read the manual, that the F35 can be adjusted. Yes it can, it has 2 modes of operation, a technical one where everything can be adjusted and a cine one where there are no adjustments. Oh and if you had got a D21 manual you'd have seen that there are almost no adjustments there either. Of course reading the manual is exactly the same as practical experience with the kit.
As far as objective/subjective tests go, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I prefer subjective because I want to see how the highlights compress and clip, do they do it smoothly? do they change colour? are they harsh or smooth? these are very subjective decisions and they apply equally to contrast handling and shadow response.
I'm always amazed how people feel the need to make themselves feel more important by attacking people and talking about things they know nothing about.
I'll try and hang in here because there are people who want to know.
For those who don't want to know or who just want to abuse me because it makes them feel big....sex and travel.
- Thread starter
- #195
geoffboyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 76
- Location
- It varies daily
- Website
- www.gboyle.co.uk
My apologies, I was getting to exploding point and did!
You just happened to be in the way, think of it as collateral damage.
I respect the way that you test, you know that I do.
We just approach things from a different perspective.
- Thread starter
- #196
geoffboyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 76
- Location
- It varies daily
- Website
- www.gboyle.co.uk
This is a typical example of what really pisses me off here.
What cowboy tests!
The tests were reasoned and controlled, each was done for a specific reason, records were fully kept.
I then made DPX files available to everyone so that they could do their own comparisons.
All cameras were set up in as neutral a way as possible, the same lenses were used.
WTF is cowboy about that you expletive deleted
- Thread starter
- #197
geoffboyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 76
- Location
- It varies daily
- Website
- www.gboyle.co.uk
The major problem is that it wasn't reasoned criticism.
It was mostly ill informed prejudice.
Where people have made points that can be answered I have.
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=498214&postcount=44
This was reasoned criticism IMHO.
Patrick Tresch
- Thread starter
- #199
geoffboyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 76
- Location
- It varies daily
- Website
- www.gboyle.co.uk
And I replied to it and added the files that I had omitted.
I still think that the lack of detail in the shadows make those shots worthless but if people want them.
This was of course a test of what happened in the shadows and not what I could get away with in a general shot.
Jeff Coatney
Well-known member
Geoff,
I mean no disrespect to you. I hold your skill and professionalism in very high regard. I am not attacking you, simply making note of the issues that you have already addressed. I apologise for the use of the word "rife", it was an uncharacteristically broad brush in this instance, unfairly applied by me towards your hard work in light of the fact that you corrected the oversight.
BTW, I don't feel like anyone was particularly insulted in this thread, maybe they were omitted before I read them, but the last time I looked this was an open forum for anyone to add to the discussion. The topic is a very sensitive one, and care must be taken with testing to ensure that it is done fairly and openly.
I will call out anything that I feel is a discrepancy when I see it, regardless of who benefits from it. There has been a tide of FUD against Red since its birth and if I detect any unfairness in testing I must speak up, as you can imagine.
This camera must live or die on its own merits, so I'm no "fanboy" as people have insinuated. But I am a jealous protector of a fair shake for this camera or for any other that is currently in development.
So unless I am banned, I will continue to add my two cents and will take the credit or the blame for doing so.
I'd be happy to buy any of you a Guinness if there are ruffled feathers, but I think we could all benefit from a little thicker skin around here.
I mean no disrespect to you. I hold your skill and professionalism in very high regard. I am not attacking you, simply making note of the issues that you have already addressed. I apologise for the use of the word "rife", it was an uncharacteristically broad brush in this instance, unfairly applied by me towards your hard work in light of the fact that you corrected the oversight.
BTW, I don't feel like anyone was particularly insulted in this thread, maybe they were omitted before I read them, but the last time I looked this was an open forum for anyone to add to the discussion. The topic is a very sensitive one, and care must be taken with testing to ensure that it is done fairly and openly.
I will call out anything that I feel is a discrepancy when I see it, regardless of who benefits from it. There has been a tide of FUD against Red since its birth and if I detect any unfairness in testing I must speak up, as you can imagine.
This camera must live or die on its own merits, so I'm no "fanboy" as people have insinuated. But I am a jealous protector of a fair shake for this camera or for any other that is currently in development.
So unless I am banned, I will continue to add my two cents and will take the credit or the blame for doing so.
I'd be happy to buy any of you a Guinness if there are ruffled feathers, but I think we could all benefit from a little thicker skin around here.
- Status