Just watched first part of zacuto shootout....

[Mitch Gross]

I posted this elsewhere but thought it bears repeating here. I'm not a fan of this Shootout and think it does more damage than good. It does not show the abilities of the EPIC or other cameras in any meaningful or even accurate way.


Part Three is the only part that has any worthwhile information, yet it is still
a highly flawed and in the end not useful presentation.

First off, this section begins by stating that it is for the "pixel peepers."
I'm sorry, but I resent that. Zacuto is saying that those who want real
technical data in some form are a bunch of eggheads, some kind of intellectual
elitist nerds who are best kept holed up where their pocket protectors and
horned rimmed glasses won't hurt any regular folk. You're presenting a shootout
of a bunch of cameras -- who do you think is watching this, gentlemen farmers?

I also notice that this section has by far the least amount of commentary by the
audience groups as compared to the other sections, as well as the least amount
of explanation of the shooting and testing procedures compared to the outlining
given in the earlier two sections. I'm going out on a limb here to say that I
think this is because the makers of this test didn't really care about this part
as much and/or didn't see its value as high as the others. I feel the opposite.

But okay, let's just pretend that parts one & two never happened and just look
at this section. What's wrong & right with it?

"Objective" shooting with all cameras using the same lighting, and then the
result is seen "uncorrected." But wait a second, cameras such as the RED EPIC
and the Sony F65 shoot RAW. What does "uncorrected" mean? Does it mean that
the RAW data was presented in a standard REC709 color space? Maybe, I don't
know. Was the Alexa shooting in ProRes 4444 or was it capturing in ARRIRAW?
Was it using LOG-C? What settings were used on the F3, or the 7D for that
matter? None of this is presented, although I guess it might be buried in the
.PDF files. Maybe I'll have to "peep" over there.

The test shots are presented one after another, ordered by dollar value of
camera from lowest to highest. But they are never shown side-by-side. It is
impossible to compare the iPhone to the F65 because there are so many cameras
between them. The brain quickly is unable to distinguish the differences and
subtleties. That why side-by-sides are so important, because they help
eliminate false memory. If there are going to be side-by-side comparisons, why
not do it like they did last year, with one camera chosen as a reference
"control" and the others shown next to it for perspective?

But wait, there are side-by-sides (actually wipes & over/unders). The wipes
show the "uncorrected" image (whatever that means) and then the "corrected",
where the test runner does helpfully explain that he did his best to get the
cameras to match (remember that). The over/unders compared the "corrected"
one-light setups of Section Three to the re-lit and corrected setups from
Sections One & Two. I honestly couldn't give a crap about the over/under
comparisons. It's just telling me what the different DPs did to relight and it
says absolutely nothing about the cameras themselves. I guess if one is really
paying attention it could be noticed that the F65 is the identical shot because
the DP for that camera did not feel the need to relight at all in order to
capture the scene.

I barely give a crap about the wipes (Ew, what did I just say?) because that is
showing me how much the cameras can handle correction before falling apart.
Except it doesn't really because I'm looking at the whole thing as a compressed
Vimeo file which introduces so much banding an other issues that it's near
impossible to tell much. But the one thing it did show me oh-so-importantly is
that the correction is a cheat. Because there is so much more information
present in the higher level cameras that had to be thrown away in order to dumb
them down to be similar to the lesser ones. It was as if the decision was made
to try to make all the cameras look as much as possible like the Sony FS100,
which was pretty much in the middle of the price range of the group. The lesser
cameras with their fine detail resolving issues and limited dynamic range such
as the iPhone and the 7D struggled to reach up. But the "uncorrected" images
out of the Alexa, EPIC and F65 had vastly more i
nforma
tion available in highlights, shadows, gradations of color, fine texture
resolution and other aspects that were clamped away in the grade. In the end
some of what they could achieve could be perceived but it was highly truncated.

But the part that pissed me off the most about the whole shebang was at the end.
Entitled "The Takeaway," I expect that a lot of non-technical producers and
others will wake up from their slumbers to just listen to this, because IT IS
GOING TO TELL THEM THE SIMPLE ANSWER. And what are they told?

DP: "A lot of these cameras are good enough."

Colorist: "We could make them match."

Photographer: "They're pretty similar."

DP: "Despite [big price differences] there was a great similarity of palette."

and the most dangerous one of all

"It really comes down to the operator and the crew."


I said all along that this "shootout" set out to prove that there really is no
great difference between these cameras and the images they provide. All of the
"tests" were skewed to prove this assumption. It may have been a completely
subconscious act on their part, but the makers of this presentation started with
a thesis and did everything they could to prove it.

That last quote is the most dangerous one to me (there are others like it that
follow, but the implications are similar). If all these cameras are really
about the same and it really just comes down to the DP's skills, then
cinematographers never have the right to ask for better or more appropriate
equipment. The producer can say that a good DP should be able to make this
cheap camera sing, and if you cannot then you must be a hack and I'll find
someone better.

Tools matter. Without the appropriate tool an artist or craftsperson cannot do
as good a job. It is really that simple. This presentation continues to
obfuscate technical realities and present a fallacy. Part Three is only
slightly improved over Parts One & Two, but in the end they all cause more
damage than provide useful information.

 

[steve weiss]

Me too, this was my reply to Mitch on DVXuser Part One:

Mitch from what I read in your post you are a pixel peeper because you completely disregard the man and crew in the equation and only refer to the equipment as being a component to the eventual image. Nothing derogatory about that, not sure if you have a pocket protector or not, but to only refer to equipment shows you are not in production, but rather support production and there is nothing wrong with that. From my experience in directing over 700 productions in 29 years I've worked on every format since U-matic and 1" backpack, I'd chose a great cinematographer who can do magic with light over any particular camera any day of the week. This presentation is not just for people at your level "engineers/pixel peepers/digerati/whatever I should be calling tech people these days" there are a lot of your customers who are novices and low budget indie filmmakers (who probably make up the majority of this audience) that are just trying to learn a bit about filmmaking from the DP's and see the differences with cameras. Yes, in a false 4K environment which is not here yet as a worldwide standard and considering that most of those theaters are still projecting in 2K, the higher end cameras will of course look infinitely better. Even in the 2K environment (the defacto standard in 2012) most pixel peepers preferred the higher end cameras in the non blind screenings, as well on the web--so did I. We--meaning myself or Zacuto--have never given our opinion on which camera we think is better or worse mainly because I think picture quality is based on ability. I've seen total brilliance and total crap from EPIC's, Alexa's and GH2's as well as every other camera. How do you account for that? Hmmm, people, talent! All of the comments in my film were from viewers watching Bruce's test footage from screenings around the world. Surprisingly, the same little issues I saw in the 2K projection I see on the web. We can spilt hairs all day long, obviously, the higher end cameras look the best and are going to be used by the pros, the mid range cameras are going to be used by the folks who can afford the higher end cameras and the lower end cameras are going to be used by those who can afford the mid range cameras. My opinion which means nothing of course is indie filmmakers should use the camera they have or can easily afford. That's all you need to learn the craft. You don't need to buy a new camera every three months, because it will not make you one bit a better filmmaker. Put your money into lights, mics and a good tripod.

The real question posed in Bruce's test is how do these cameras look out of the box with no lighting changes in a one light grade as best as Bruce could keep it fair. Remember Bruce is also a colorist himself. Then compare that to what someone with talent in using that particular camera can do playing to it's strengths and downplaying it's weaknesses. Yes, I said talent. An over riding theme in the documentary was about talent, experience and creativity. Some have it, some may be able to develop it and some are hacks as you mention. That's life, we don't all get Oscars or Emmy's for using more expensive cameras. Cameras are tools to help us show are creativity. I know that's a bad word but it's true. I'd rather have an excellent light kit and great mics over a more expensive camera if I had to choose based on budgetary purposes. At least my film would have the right mood and sound great which is way more important then picture quality. I didn't include one section in my documentary but when I asked all of the DP's if they could only choose one-great picture or great sound, almost all of them said great sound. They said you can tolerate or use to your advantage lower picture quality but poor sound is intolerable.

The reason there was less audience commentary in part three is because it had 15 minutes of camera test footage vs. 3 minutes in part one and two and we like to keep the episodes around 35 minutes. No conspiracy there. Of course we cared about part 3, it's just as important as parts one and two, even more so, to present the full and complete story. For the 700,000th time, I did not make the test, Bruce Logan ASC did, so you should direct your comments to him directly with regards to the test. No test will ever be perfect, none has. Sure we can split hairs all day long but this great divide that everyone is looking for from one high end camera to another high end camera is just not there and if it is, I feel it can be made up with knowing your camera and promoting it's strengths and down playing it's weaknesses. Oh, but that would again fall under the user and not the camera itself, kind of like parts one and two of my documentary. What you refuse to see is that this industry is all about about talent. Tools matter as you say, but not as much as people. If you don't believe me ask Haskell, Rodney, Stephen Goldblatt, Victor Kemper, Janusz they all said the same thing I'm saying in the program.

Another part that you don't seem to get, is that my presentation of Bruce's test is my film. It's not what you want, a sterile scientific presentation. I'm sorry you don't approve or like it but you are welcome to make a scientific presentation if you want. Just ask Pete for $80-100,000 and you are on your way. The ASC has tried to do it twice and most ASC members will tell you, they didn't get it right. You do it the best you possible can since every camera has different parameters in the end I think you come pretty close, but it's not perfect, it can't be. It's very hard to present all of that information you requested on screen, plus I didn't care for the way it looks so I opted to create a PDF file that has all of that information in it. Seems like no matter what we do it would be wrong in your eyes but you can study a document easier then watching it on screen. We are all responsible adults so go read the tech specs and ask the appropriate questions to Bruce or Scott instead of ranting which is very unprofessional of you. It's much more complete and you can study it that way. If you don't want to peep over there as you put and read it then you are just unwilling to find out our process. In the 2K theatrical screenings we tried putting it at the end of Bruce's screening presentation but it just took too long for anyone to be able to read it. They all asked us to make it a white paper and that is what we did.

Now referring to you problem with watching the whole thing on Vimeo. Again, I'd love to pipe it to your local 2K theater for you to see, wait, I did do that, both you and Andy were invited to come to three different 2K projected screenings in NY. I'm going to hope you didn't decline with a bias to not see it just so we could have this rant session on DVXuser. The rest of the world is thrilled to see it on Vimeo and we have had overwhelming positive support and thanks on the web. So many people have sent me messages that the film has given them motivation and inspired them to go out and shoot, learn and hone there talent which makes me feel great. To them, it really doesn't matter which camera they use to develop their skills as a budding cinematographer. And all of your EPIC, Alexa & F65 shooters could probably care less about my film because they would never use anything but those cameras, rightfully so for many reasons--ergonomic, dependability, speed, more data, creature comforts and more. But that doesn't mean that some kid with a T2i couldn't give them a run for their money and I hope that my film will inspire that kid to go ahead and do just that.

The takeaway. You and Art think we should keep the great secret but the cat is out of the bag. Many of these cameras can look similar in the right hands especially for TV. Should we pretend they don't. Are you telling Stephen Goldblatt ASC/BSC who made the comment "there is a great similarity of color palette" that he is seeing it all wrong. Wow, to say that it is really dangerous to say that "it really comes down to the operator and the crew" shows that you are not in production but truly are a pixel peeper. Do you feel if I gave Janusz a GH2 and told him to make a film with it that it wouldn't be amazing, you know it would because it does really come down to people. Sure you can get a better image with higher end cameras but how much? And is it perceived by the audience. Now would Janusz use a GH2, absolutely not, it's ridicules. He's going to use what he wants but the rest of the folks out there are going to use what they have or can afford.

 

[steve weiss]

part two:
Now this issue about sending a bad message to producers. As a DP or Director you need to fight for the gear you want to use. Stephen Poster has flamed me about this like it's some kind of new concept. This shit has been going on in all of my 29 years in the business. That's just the way it is. If you think we can just keep there heads in the sand by saying nothing, then we can't have one single conversation on the internet. We can't watch any of the videos on vimeo because some of those look amazing shot with iPhones or 5DMK3's. The part I don't get in that argument is that most DP's already own gear and in many cases when you hire them it's a guy and his gear deal. Don't blame me for that, blame the fact that these cameras are too affordable, even the high end ones compared to what we used to spend for Varicams just 3 years ago. It has always been this way, actually even worse, I was fighting in the mid 1980's with producers to shoot on film vs. video. 35mm as opposed to 16mm. Betacam over Hi-8. These were much greater differences then what we are talking about in Bruce's test. It's time to man up and fight for what gear you want to use, we did it and you need to do it.

Don't you find it interesting how all of the celeb DP's I interviewed never really talked about equipment much as a component of being a great cinematographer. They talked about talent, experience, watching film, art and photography to learn lighting, collaborate--opening yourself up to new varying ideas, story is everything, great cinematography cannot help a bad story, your shots should help the story--not detract, love what we do--it's fun to play and learn and that's what filmmaking means to many of the DP's interviewed, the importance of good people over gear but most importantly it's about light, framing and movement.

I encourage everyone listen carefully to the advice from the DP's we interviewed--they are opening the vault of knowledge to you--it was incredibly hard and expensive to get and do these interviews. I learned a ton conducting them and as Haskell said you never stop learning with each project you do. Learning!!!

 

[PatrickFaith]

...

First off, this section begins by stating that it is for the "pixel peepers."
I'm sorry, but I resent that. Zacuto is saying that those who want real
technical data in some form are a bunch of eggheads, some kind of intellectual
elitist nerds who are best kept holed up where their pocket protectors and
horned rimmed glasses won't hurt any regular folk. You're presenting a shootout
of a bunch of cameras -- who do you think is watching this, gentlemen farmers?

Given this was shown over the internet, I was hoping to actually see more "pixels" - blow ups of problem area's such as crushed blacks/etc. But really, there was hardly any blow up shots, and over the internet, it's impossible to look at the video and comment on quality. Aside from that, it's almost derogatory... like technical expertice is for the "nerds" or something ... in REALITY nerds do rule and this "test" drools". In some weird way this test is anti-technology ... some kind of ludite interlude.

----

Another bunch of "forum noise" I found is negativeness that management_guys push RAW (this was couched in all sorts of non-sense about who picks camera's, etc). Basically RAW is near term investment - 4k RAW allows more flexibility in cropping for various distribution formats, re-coloring for lower end distribution, integration with marketing for "stills" (you get great marketing "still" shots with 4k/5k - and most major movies spend more on marketing then most movies spend on the entire camera budget), integration with post 3d processing (i.e. makes tracking and vfx masking easier for many cases). A lot of things are also shot internationally, with multiple crews, with data collected centrally ... obviously you have to have full production spec's and the raw format goes into the bank for future re-use (so at minimum, a camera's data standards should be viewed as a critical rating factor).

But what I don't get about all these tests is that "lenses" don't matter. For me, a camera's ability to use Leica, cannon, or PL (Lomo/arri/cooke/hawk/panavision) is a primary feature. My first thing i'd think of when testing a camera is how well it worked with with sets of Cooke series (s4/s5) and Arri Series (UP, Master Primes) lenses - these being the current gold standard. What is a camera without lenses and what does a camera test mean when lenses don't matter?

 

[steve weiss]

Given this was shown over the internet, I was hoping to actually see more "pixels" - blow ups of problem area's such as crushed blacks/etc. But really, there was hardly any blow up shots, and over the internet, it's impossible to look at the video and comment on quality. Aside from that, it's almost derogatory... like technical expertice is for the "nerds" or something ... in REALITY nerds do rule and this "test" drools". In some weird way this test is anti-technology ... some kind of ludite interlude.

----

Another bunch of "forum noise" I found is negativeness that management_guys push RAW (this was couched in all sorts of non-sense about who picks camera's, etc). Basically RAW is near term investment - 4k RAW allows more flexibility in cropping for various distribution formats, re-coloring for lower end distribution, integration with marketing for "stills" (you get great marketing "still" shots with 4k/5k - and most major movies spend more on marketing then most movies spend on the entire camera budget), integration with post 3d processing (i.e. makes tracking and vfx masking easier for many cases). A lot of things are also shot internationally, with multiple crews, with data collected centrally ... obviously you have to have full production spec's and the raw format goes into the bank for future re-use (so at minimum, a camera's data standards should be viewed as a critical rating factor).

But what I don't get about all these tests is that "lenses" don't matter. For me, a camera's ability to use Leica, cannon, or PL (Lomo/arri/cooke/hawk/panavision) is a primary feature. My first thing i'd think of when testing a camera is how well it worked with with sets of Cooke series (s4/s5) and Arri Series (UP, Master Primes) lenses - these being the current gold standard. What is a camera without lenses and what does a camera test mean when lenses don't matter?

exactly you got the message, in some respects the Revenge part goes to what Bruce Logan said that many of these cameras are good enough to make a movie with. Pick one, master it, learn how to light and time for it, hopefully you have talent, luck, drive, passion, creativity, good ideas, collaborate and maybe with all of that you can succeed. Yep, latitude interlude works for me. If latitude is all we seek, then the RED, F65, Alexa & F3 win, no test needed. My film is about much more then that.

 

[Björn Benckert]

If latitude is all we seek, then the RED, F65, Alexa & F3 win, no test needed. My film is about much more then that.

How can 4 cameras win in latitude? I thought the idea was to find the winner....

 

[Nick Morrison]

I love the message that it's about the talent, not the tools. That optimism is that got me into production in the first place. Armed with a DSLR and a couple of lenses, the world was my oyster.

I've also been burned by the notion that it's all about the talent and not the tools. Only by falling on my face did I realize that tools mattered. Shooting on DSLR was not like shooting on RED or ALEXA. I would be more likely to make something great, if I use better tools.

The message still stands, however...that it is far better to create, than to sit idle. If all you have is a DSLR, then good God, embrace it, learn it, make the best pictures you can.

But as you grow and get access to better cameras, lenses and gear, you should embrace them. First off, as you move up the gear ladder and work with better tools, generally that means you're working with more experienced crews/DPS. That's a good thing. And second, these higher market tools make it easier to succeed, and make everything look better.

There's something to be said that when you shoot on RED or ALEXA, you are working with the same camera's that made Prometheus and Game of Thrones. At that point, the world truly is your oyster, and it does truly come down to talent. We live in an age where film-making has become democratized, and what were once million dollar cameras now can cost $15,000.

That to me is really the revolution that's taken place today. It's not the DSLR, or the iphone, it's that for $15 or $30k (you choose), you no longer have an excuses not to make "that movie". Whether you are buying or renting, the tools are there, waiting for you to begin.

 

[steve weiss]

How can 4 cameras win in latitude? I thought the idea was to find the winner....

Bjorn, winning is always based on ability. The differences are not that great as everyone wants them to be.

 

[steve weiss]

I love the message that it's about the talent, not the tools. That optimism is that got me into production in the first place. Armed with a DSLR and a couple of lenses, the world was my oyster.

I've also been burned by the notion that it's all about the talent and not the tools. Only by falling on my face did I realize that tools mattered. Shooting on DSLR was not like shooting on RED or ALEXA. I would be more likely to make something great, if I use better tools.

The message still stands, however...that it is far better to create, than to sit idle. If all you have is a DSLR, then good God, embrace it, learn it, make the best pictures you can.

But as you grow and get access to better cameras, lenses and gear, you should embrace them. First off, as you move up the gear ladder and work with better tools, generally that means you're working with more experienced crews/DPS. That's a good thing. And second, these higher market tools make it easier to succeed, and make everything look better.

There's something to be said that when you shoot on RED or ALEXA, you are working with the same camera's that made Prometheus and Game of Thrones. At that point, the world truly is your oyster, and it does truly come down to talent. We live in an age where film-making has become democratized, and what were once million dollar cameras now can cost $15,000.

That to me is really the revolution that's taken place today. It's not the DSLR, or the iphone, it's that for $15 or $30k (you choose), you no longer have an excuses not to make "that movie". Whether you are buying or renting, the tools are there, waiting for you to begin.

I don't mean to be picky but everyone says democratized and it freaks me out. If cameras were truly available to the masses wouldn't they be socialized? ;-) Anyways, you bring up a good point. I like your idea of young filmmakers starting off with something affordable to hone there craft. Too many of these kids are trying to start at the top and work there way down. I love when kids out of school call or email me and say they want to work in my production department, I ask them what do they want to do. They say they want to direct, I reply then what am I going to do. ;-) What happened to starting as a grip, moving to a best boy and all the way up the ladder?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I don't mean to be picky but everyone says democratized and it freaks me out. If cameras were truly available to the masses wouldn't they be socialized? ;-)

Well, actually I think democratized is more apt that socialized. Democratized implies that everyone has an equal opportunity to create content, but what they do with it is up to them: there is still an onus on the individual. While Socialized to me implies that everyone is given the exact same opportunity and that their choices don't matter.

But that's just me.

Anyways, you bring up a good point. I like your idea of young filmmakers starting off with something affordable to hone there craft. Too many of these kids are trying to start at the top and work there way down. I love when kids out of school call or email me and say they want to work in my production department, I ask them what do they want to do. They say they want to direct, I reply then what am I going to do. ;-) What happened to starting as a grip, moving to a best boy and all the way up the ladder?

Thanks, and I agree with you. To me, one of the downfall's of today's youth is their sincere belief that armed with a laptop and a dream they can accomplish anything. Hard work seems like something that can be skipped over if know the right apple shortcut. Time and time again, I've encountered young 20 year olds who want to "Direct" or "DP" and genuinely believe they are entitled to that responsibility now. Because they have passion. We are in the age of the innovator, where simply having an idea makes you an artist.

I still miss the days only 10 years ago when I started in TV and was told to shut the fuck up and collect tapes. I learned more from those ornery old dudes than I ever did from an overpriced laptop.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Mitch,

AMEN! I have nothing to add to what you have said. It is perfectly spot on.


Steve,

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but none of us need a camera shootout or three part documentary to understand that the DP, crew, actors and story matter a whole hell of a lot. And I challenge anyone to find a single post on Reduser, Cinematography.com, DVXUser, DVInfo, etc. that says a good camera is all you need to make a good film. Such a thought is so nonsensical, that I can't recall one instance of it being expressed.

What is nonsensical to say is that cameras spanning a range from the iPhone to the F65 are all reasonably similar.

What would have been very useful is to talk about the production and post production requirements of each camera. How do I work around not having timecode and HD-SDI for the iPhone, GH2 and 7D? How tightly can I get into spaces with the Red Epic vs the Alexa? How much storage and computer power do I need to post an F65 vs a C300? Those are the types of differences a production can use to make a decision. I have a friend who will be shooting a low budget feature in November. I also have a potential hookup w/ an F65. But the production and post requirements for that camera make Red's Scarlet a better choice.


Red,

Solely based on image, it's hard to argue that the F65 isn't the finest digital cinema camera in the world right now. Not saying the Reds aren't awesome, they certainly are! And there are a lot of reasons to choose a Red over any of its competitors. But Part 3 of the Zacuto Shootout only repeats what I've seen in other examples of F65 footage.

 

[Erich Roland]

Mitch,

AMEN! I have nothing to add to what you have said. It is perfectly spot on.


Steve,

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but none of us need a camera shootout or three part documentary to understand that the DP, crew, actors and story matter a whole hell of a lot. And I challenge anyone to find a single post on Reduser, Cinematography.com, DVXUser, DVInfo, etc. that says a good camera is all you need to make a good film. Such a thought is so nonsensical, that I can't recall one instance of it being expressed.

What is nonsensical to say is that cameras spanning a range from the iPhone to the F65 are all reasonably similar.

What would have been very useful is to talk about the production and post production requirements of each camera. How do I work around not having timecode and HD-SDI for the iPhone, GH2 and 7D? How tightly can I get into spaces with the Red Epic vs the Alexa? How much storage and computer power do I need to post an F65 vs a C300? Those are the types of differences a production can use to make a decision. I have a friend who will be shooting a low budget feature in November. I also have a potential hookup w/ an F65. But the production and post requirements for that camera make Red's Scarlet a better choice.

.

I agree Peter. To produce a "camera shoot-out" project and then skew the conversation (or take away) to the idea that different cameras can essentially all look the same is a silly result. A different documentary (and title) talking to great DP's about whats important to them is a very worth story to tell, but this should not be the result from a "camera shoot-out" film. Most who watch have come to learn what the differences in these cameras are and take away helpful knowledge about what situations would you want to choose one camera over the other.... this should have been this project's goal.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to say thanks I really enjoyed it. To be honest I didn't find it very educational or revealing tech wise. And if the point was it's the man behind the camera.... then seeing what I really wanted to see most, the DP's work there lighting set ups and some of the post/grading of each camera too, would have been ideal. But I guess I'm then asking for too big a series

However watching the light, joy and intelligence in the eyes of many of the greats you interviewed was very inspiring for me. Also the energy, effort and goodwill that's gone in was very apparent and should always be applauded I believe.

Best Wishes

Lliam

 

[Peter Moretti]

+1.

 

[steve weiss]

Well, actually I think democratized is more apt that socialized. Democratized implies that everyone has an equal opportunity to create content, but what they do with it is up to them: there is still an onus on the individual. While Socialized to me implies that everyone is given the exact same opportunity and that their choices don't matter.

But that's just me.



Thanks, and I agree with you. To me, one of the downfall's of today's youth is their sincere belief that armed with a laptop and a dream they can accomplish anything. Hard work seems like something that can be skipped over if know the right apple shortcut. Time and time again, I've encountered young 20 year olds who want to "Direct" or "DP" and genuinely believe they are entitled to that responsibility now. Because they have passion. We are in the age of the innovator, where simply having an idea makes you an artist.

I still miss the days only 10 years ago when I started in TV and was told to shut the fuck up and collect tapes. I learned more from those ornery old dudes than I ever did from an overpriced laptop.

I like you Nick, I haven't been in the best of health lately and you made me laugh with the shut the fuck up and collect the tapes LOL. I've have to admit in my 29 years in the biz I've been there on both sides of that comment. Now I'm the ornery old dude to my 25 year old staffers. What you say about democratizaton makes sense, I was just screwing with you because it's said so much and I'm not sure anyone knows WTF it means but what you say actually makes sense. You need to write an article with the title "simply having an idea does not make you an artist". Having an idea makes you a person. Executing an idea makes you a person with follow through. Executing it well makes you average. Executing it brilliantly make you an impressive. Executing it brilliantly consistently makes you an artist. Being an artist does not mean you will have the opportunity to become Stephen Spielberg. Luck, timing, determination and drive are just as important. I tried to stress this a lot in this Revenge program. So well put Nick Morrison of Brooklyn. If you would like to write that story, I'd like to have it as content on my website, I'd be thrilled to hire you to do it, if you are interested drop me a note steve@zacuto.com

 

[Sergio Perez]

In the beginning of this discussion I also called to what I think is not the most appropriate title for the series.

As for the cameras and their performances... Ive had a lot of experience with dslr cameras to shoot video. Comparing them to a Red Epic and say they are "similar" is ridiculous. I "had" to use Dslrs to shoot specific jobs, but i I had the Epic, media and batteries for those DSLR shoots, i wouldn' t hesitate. Right now Im grading a TV Commercial that is about 90% 1D mk Iv and 7d, 10 % Epic. Absolutely night and day. Im having tons of aliasing issues with some shots, for example. Color is much worse, specially the gradation.

As someone that has always shot with lower end cameras trying to make them shine , shooting Epic, or Alexa is a completely different result than shooting DSLR's. What dslr's brought to the table, however, is the creative freedom of using DOF and all the advantages of large sensor cameras. It allowed for the lower end to actually show their talent in controling the image and the perception of each shot through DOF. It also brought higher sensitivity low light shooting, allowing cheaper lighting equipment to be used. But if you put an Epic film shot by a great DP vs a shoot by the same dp on a 7D, you willl get similar framing and "painting" of the frame, but it will definitely look worse. And he would have to do workarounds and other time and money consuming tricks to make both shots look"similar". Its not apples to apples, here, Im sorry to say. But it was an entertaining series!

 

[Mariano T.]

I love epic, but i can see from a producers perspective why they take the alexa.

just a week ago a friend of mine told me something that made me decide against red, I almost ordered an epic X - he owns TWO red epics, one M and an X, he works with red cameras since the red one came out, and always with the aim to shoot his own first feature, and now, when he finally was ready, BOTH cameras broke down, forcing him to rent an epic. and the other project (commercial) I did postpro on two weeks ago had the same problem, again, a broken epic, the production now is battling with insurance.

sorry, but if reliability was taken into account, too, red would be on the last place, I fear.

 

[António Fagundes]

The truth of the matter is that Red not only sells cameras, but as their marketing strategy, they sell dreams as well. Convincing people that owning a Red will take them all the way up there, owing the best, most powerful and most technologically advanced camera in the world its all you need. Almost like if you want to be a 'serious' DP, buy a Red and 'just add water'...

Not quite so...

Not a Red, not a Sony, not a Arri, and certainly not a DSLR...

Red could (and in certain ways is) be such a leader of everything good about film making, but unfortunately, ever since their humble beginnings, they've chosen to infect their costumers, especially young people and older wannabe's, with what is basically a lie. And this 'lie' I suspect is going to cost their reputation dearly. Its so sad, that they ever thought that they had to use people's dreams to make more money. No camera is going to make anyone a better DP, their eyes are! Their knowledge, their experience, their constant failed attempts, their mistakes, their successes, and most of all their perseverance and constant hard work!

Before Jzanuz even shot his first amateur feature film, he had already shot more than 30 short films, all this before there was even the democratization of cameras!!!

What kind of word processor did Gore Vidal use, does anyone know?

Does it really freaking matter?

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Before Jzanuz even shot his first amateur feature film, he had already shot more than 30 short films, all this before there was even the democratization of cameras!!!

I don't really get your point. Helping make cameras affordable does not negate the need to learn your craft. Rather it allows more people the opportunity to learn. This is a good thing.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Antonio's right. All I read on RED user is people constantly saying that you don't need to practice or do anything at all to be a great film maker. Just own a RED camera.
Just search under "total bullshit" and see how many threads pop up with this statement, you'd be amazed.

I mean sure there's the odd 425 page thread by David Mullen, and a host of other threads about the importance of everything from lighting to sound and colour correction but it's just smoke and mirrors to disguise this empty dream factory, selling it's shady illicit imaging tools and false promises to snare the unwary and prey on the vulnerable.
Yeah I'm talking to you Ridley!

I can't seem to find the page anywhere, but I'm pretty damn sure I remember JIm saying my scarlet would not only light, but frame and even rehearse my actors.
I was admittedly skeptical at first, but then I saw the latest RED promo saying if I just put up the cash for a camera, success was assured, and I signed on.
But now I'm struggling to find the "light my set button" it's true. Though I'm sure it's hear in the menu somewhere... Right alongside the "make me a genius DP function" that RED keeps raving on about.

Talk about "Not quite so."