Camera shootout 2011

[Jared Caldwell]

I have to laugh at this thread being about people dis crediting tests done by true professionals with input from working professionals and creatives with names that mean something to just come on here and have a load of no names try and dis credit their efforts if they don't praise this particular brands camera. Cameras are horses for courses listen to any of the pros in this video and it's pretty obvious thats their shared opinion there will never be one that's heads and shoulders above all others in all aspects.

I guess it's pretty easy to hop on this thread and just drop a comment like that instead of participating in the discussion. I'm not anxious to see the white paper because I am skeptical of the entire process, I just want to read them because if this is a truly objective test, the results should be repeatable. If the findings can be replicated, then we have some new knowledge to refer to.

My feelings are that there are some things that are spot on, and some that are not. Before blindly stating to clients and industry professionals the results of this test are fact, I want to have a certain level of confidence in what I am saying. And anyone serious about a truly objective test should welcome this level of interest and healthy amount of skepticism. Only the white papers can truly illuminate the results of this test.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Tom, sure, a lot of hard work went into doing the videos - all the more reason to do it right rather than to present strange graphs with strange numbers that nobody understands and that don't make sense.

Tony, any involvement routes back to the issue I mentioned previously - you have absolutely zero clout if the tests are not conducted to your preference, and if an issue arrises, all you can do is leave and let them get on with it anyhow - at which point the end result is the same as if you'd not been involved, but perhaps if you didn't get involved you will have fewer grey hairs.

Graeme

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I guess it's pretty easy to hop on this thread and just drop a comment like that instead of participating in the discussion. I'm not anxious to see the white paper because I am skeptical of the entire process, I just want to read them because if this is a truly objective test, the results should be repeatable. If the findings can be replicated, then we have some new knowledge to refer to.

My feelings are that there are some things that are spot on, and some that are not. Before blindly stating to clients and industry professionals the results of this test are fact, I want to have a certain level of confidence in what I am saying. And anyone serious about a truly objective test should welcome this level of interest and healthy amount of skepticism. Only the white papers can truly illuminate the results of this test.

The thing is, the great camera shootout isn't just the numbers that are being complained about here on the forum, they show you the footage they shot one by one then a comparison shot followed by reactions from an audience of professionals who just watched them screened in a theater.
This isn't ment to be a white paper that you show to someone and say "Thats the best camera, it's Alexa let's not shoot on that red camera because no one said anything in that video" it's an exploration of what the cameras can do under stress and you take away from it what you will.

 

[Jared Caldwell]

The thing is, the great camera shootout isn't just the numbers that are being complained about here on the forum, they show you the footage they shot one by one then a comparison shot followed by reactions from an audience of professionals who just watched them screened in a theater.
This isn't ment to be a white paper that you show to someone and say "Thats the best camera, it's Alexa let's not shoot on that red camera because no one said anything in that video" it's an exploration of what the cameras can do under stress and you take away from it what you will.

Well, I'm not suggesting that a white paper will reveal a "winner", but the numbers they are presenting carry some weight with them, and that definitely warrants further research. This is exactly what a white paper is to be used for.

I guess I don't understand what point your trying to make. Are you against reading the white papers?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Hm...

I have seen this.
And discussed it with two of those involved.
They are good.

That said... The test isn't neccesarily so...

Odd stuff happend that I have not been able to recreate.

Tests are all about creating recreateable parameters. Give away the original files and info.

If people doubt the results then... They can reshoot.

There's nothing really objective about these tests. One can atempt, but all cameras have their strengths and weeknesses. Kind of hard to be fair to all, without ending with an unreadable text...

Just my 2 testing cents...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Odd stuff happend that I have not been able to recreate.

Could you elaborate on this a little?

 

[Peter Moretti]

Tony, may I refer you to the answer I gave earlier: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59507-Camera-shootout-2011&p=779599&viewfull=1#post779599

Graeme

This makes perfect sense. You know there would be a sub plot around Red pulling out. The Shootout is promoted as a documentary, so you looking concerned, speaking in hushed tones w/ so and so and then abruptly but quietly leaving would make the cut.

As would the unanswered calls to Jim asking for a comment and imploring for you to come back. Red leaving would have become a story, and that would not have been a such a good thing.

... Although you may have missed out on a great opportunity to become a reality TV star.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Zacuto Shootout had already failed at the first episode with adjusted DR numbers for some of the cameras.

The second episode went even more in a way of pure propaganda and all in that sort of intentionally monotone

and a bit quasi depressive documentary style (funny short interviews, different sort of "Masters Voice" comments, fake techno music, so boring editing, agitprop kind of directing,...).

It turns to a farce where the main protagonists are not those shootout choice of cameras (digital or film) but it's just an opposite.

The farce main subject actually are the test masters themselves together with their intentionally made choice of faces, comments and voices from their test screening "sophisticated" audience.

Must say that they really fooled themselves with all those funny tests.

Also I was asking myself: What the hell film is doing there that was presented with a sort of (unfinished without push processing) bad grainy look?

Are they really try to make fun of film stock or what...???

To easy illustrate that sort of farcical comedy please have a look below at the samples of deliberate absurdity or nonsense:

At the end I'm glad that my favorite two cameras Epic and GH2 were not part of this test comedy.

Why?

At the high end Epic could easily beat all those digital cameras at the test.

And from low end cameras GH2 could easily beat all of dslrs involved, than several middle range digital cameras and even at some points Zacuto's Shootout 2011 favorite Arri Alexa.

BTW, Japan has a centuries-old tradition of farce plays called Kyōgen. These plays are performed as comic relief during the long, serious Noh plays.

LINK>>>

 

[Eric Z]

Sanjin,
Looking at these crops, it looks like the Alexa was probably just too dark at ISO 500, so they had to up the ISO to 1280 to bring in some more light.
I guess they weren't allowed to change the shutter or aperture settings, and ISO was the only remaining option.
Or am I missing something?

Regarding the Film camera - at such low light, it is known that film does not perform very well, so they couldn't use anything higher than ASA/ISO 500 rolls.
As you mentioned, it's already showing its weakness with substantial noise in the dark regions.

 

[Mike P.]

Judging by the footage -- compressed for online and scaled to 1080p -- all the cameras look quite similar. All except film, which somehow looks the worst to me. That alone makes this test highly questionable. Conversely, if they push/pulled the film and/or used noise reduction, they could use similar techniques on any of the digital formats as well.

One thing is for sure; the ultra-high resolution and sharpness of digital images has grown on me to the point where I like it more than the non-highres stuff (e.g. film or 1080p native)... And I'm also digging how much digital sensors dig into the shadows; I feel like blown highlights can be masked fairly easily (bloom/glows, mattes, sky replacements, etc), whereas shadows crushed into oblivion can not be faked in any reasonable way.

 

[Jannard]

You get a sense of a test's validity by how the results fare compared to other tests done by trained professionals... ones that do tests to select a system to shoot with. This tests seems to run cross-grain to the others we have witnessed.

No matter. You either like this test and methodology and make a decision based on it... or not. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what information they choose to believe. However, if we feel that tests do not accurately represent what we find to be repeatable, we are likely to speak up. In this case... I'd recommend getting a second opinion.

Jim

 

[Solomon Nero]

You get a sense of a test's validity by how the results fare compared to other tests done by trained professionals... ones that do tests to select a system to shoot with. This tests seems to run cross-grain to the others we have witnessed.

No matter. You either like this test and methodology and make a decision based on it... or not. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what information they choose to believe. However, if we feel that tests do not accurately represent what we find to be repeatable, we are likely to speak up. In this case... I'd recommend getting a second opinion.

Jim

Well I was confused when they said DR of the RED ONE was 11 stops(in the first video)...Biiiiig red flag. If they messed that up right off the bat...what else have they messed up?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I'd recommend getting a second opinion.

Jim

Yes but, everyone else's opinions aren't nearly as entertaining.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Judging by the footage -- compressed for online and scaled to 1080p -- all the cameras look quite similar. All except film, which somehow looks the worst to me. That alone makes this test highly questionable. Conversely, if they push/pulled the film and/or used noise reduction...

I found that confusing as well. I would have thought that it would be standard practice to push the film in such low light. But I'm not an expert and am definitely a no name.

 

[Jannard]

I'm quite over this topic.

Jim