Just watched first part of zacuto shootout....

[Marc Wielage]

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!

Well said. :thumbsup:

But: I think the Zacuto tests would have been more fair if it had just been one lighting set up and one DP, shooting multiple cameras spread across different days. And one post house matching the color of every version so that they all were more or less in the same ballpark. Do that, then you can start really comparing the intangibles like white detail, motion artifacts, noise, aliasing, exposure range, and so on. To me, testing 9 cameras with 9 DPs winds up more a test of the DPs' work, not the differences between cameras.

Having said that, my own personal experience is that the difference between high-end cameras is not as vast as people think. And it is sobering that, even if the $10,000 cameras are not as good as the $40,000-$60,000 cameras, they're a lot closer than their price-tags would indicate. Great lighting and great color correction can make great pictures with a lot of different cameras, Red included.

 

[Peter Moretti]

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."

+1.

Oh well I guess all those people who think you don't have to know anything to make a feature film must be on the west coast of the US or something. You know, where all the flakes live. But wait, I'M in LA.

So where are all those people who think they don't have to know jack shit and can just spend $15K on Scarlet package and become the next great filmmaker? Huh, *I* can't find any?? Everyone I know who's making films is stressed out, feels like they don't have enough money and don't know enough. Guess I'm just hanging-out with the wrong crowd.

 

[Peter Moretti]

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. ...

Steve, I've been critical of the latest shootout. But I really want to say that I hope you keep any flak you've been getting in perspective. Producing anything is incredibly difficult to do. And you've been able to produce over and over and over and over again. WTG!

So what if you've pissed off Reduser, Jim Jannard or even peons like little ol' me? I hope you don't care (too much, LOL!). We'll *all* get over it! You have done so much for this industry, that I hope you are proud of everything you've accomplished. Even with this most recent shootout, you demonstrated that, in the right hands, consumer cams can look very good. That's certainly useful.

And I "*officially*" absolve you of any guilt every time a producer decides to shoot on an iPhone instead of an Arri Alexa.

Take care Steve!

 

[Nick Morrison]

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.

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more. Your breakdown of the artist reminds me of one of my favorite NPR stories that my wife and I heard a couple of years back. It was about luck, and it relates so much to creativity and the importance of perseverance.

As the story goes, these scientists did research on people who felt lucky and unlucky. It turns out, people who felt unlucky gave up way too soon. In metaphoric terms, they knocked on "the door of opportunity" a couple of times, and when not even a single door opened, the majority of people gave up, shrugged, and said "I guess I don't have any luck".

However, those (few) people that felt lucky, it turns out, were almost impervious the word NO. In metaphoric terms, they knocked on the "door of opportunity" 100's of times. For years. Decades. Every time the door slammed shut in their face. Except those two or three times where the door opened, they passed through, and their "dreams came true" and they felt incredibly lucky for it. What's amazing is they didn't realize that they had created their own luck. By knowing what they wanted, being persistent, and sticking to "their guns", they created a scenario where they were much more likely to succeed.

I think this is a great take on what it takes to succeed at being creative. Lets be honest, it's a brutal world out there, full of rejection, heartache and compromise. If you want to seriously make it, you need to have nerves of steel and be able to endure until the very end, to when finally those doors you'e been looking for slowly, and agonizingly, start to open up.

Which to me is proof that talent is only a part of the equation. I've seen so much squandered talent. The other equally important parts to the puzzle are work ethic and perseverance (see above)...and finally character. Sometimes assholes make it, there are no rules, but generally speaking executives like to take chances on people who are reliable, trustworthy, and help eliminate stress (not add to it).

If young people focused even a fraction of the time they spent texting or channel surfing on their character, they'd be amazed at how far they'd get.

And PS - thanks so much for the very kind words before!

 

[steve weiss]

Well said. :thumbsup:

But: I think the Zacuto tests would have been more fair if it had just been one lighting set up and one DP, shooting multiple cameras spread across different days. And one post house matching the color of every version so that they all were more or less in the same ballpark. Do that, then you can start really comparing the intangibles like white detail, motion artifacts, noise, aliasing, exposure range, and so on. To me, testing 9 cameras with 9 DPs winds up more a test of the DPs' work, not the differences between cameras.

Having said that, my own personal experience is that the difference between high-end cameras is not as vast as people think. And it is sobering that, even if the $10,000 cameras are not as good as the $40,000-$60,000 cameras, they're a lot closer than their price-tags would indicate. Great lighting and great color correction can make great pictures with a lot of different cameras, Red included.

Wait, wait, wait. That's exactly what we did in part 3 of Revenge. One DP, three different shots, all shot by Bruce Logan ASC and color timed by the same colorist at FilmWorkers Chicago. No lighting changes between cameras. The only caveat is the F65, they wanted to color time their camera in Hollywood. Of course you need a baseline test. The point of the creative was just to show possibilities. To open our eyes to the fact that some young kid with lot's of lighting skill could make something great if he had talent. Would it take longer, maybe in certain situations and less in others. It's subjective, so comments on the creative test are all over the map. The main point of the Revenge program is to inspire and motivate you to go out and learn how to light, see shadows, motivate light sources. Basically, do everything we did 80 years ago today, because nothing has changed. Lights are not for illumination, they are for crafting mood. Watch Bladerunner. Yes, you have more DR and yes you may be able to use practicles more but so what. You still need to know how to create the moods we are going for. Raw, repo, HDRX are great, indeed. But at a certain point you need to decide how to frame your shot, why not do it on set. Resolution is lovely but it's not going to improve your story. Is this camera incredible, without a doubt. But to say that it will solve all of your wows or is a magic bullet for talent is not true. But I'm saying you should get a cheap camera, NO. What I'm saying is get the camera you can afford and suits you, MASTER IT, learn how to light. The EPIC/SCARLET is a great camera and may be the right one for you. That was the message of my Revenge program. When you hear Haskell at 90 years old saying that he wants to live 5 more years so he can learn more. That's the message. I can tell you in my short career of 29 years compared to his at the end of every project, I sit down with my crew and say what can we have done better, what did we do good, what can we learn? I know someone is going to flame me with a kum bi ya statement, that's cool, I'm fine with that. This business is fun, it's in a way playing and makes us feel like kids, like building your tree fort but learning is the fun part and taking that knowledge to the next project is what's great. My recommendation is this. Surround yourself with great people. Seek out a great DP if you are a director, a great gaffer if you are a DP. We had over 120 people on set of the Revenge program and we all were so interested in learning from each other from film students to ASC DP's everyone was listening with no ego. To me their is much more to gain from watch the DP interviews then the test itself. Who really cares which camera is best, that's nice to know but it's not going make you film better to sell your film. Unfortunately your story and the marketability of that story is sadly the only thing that will make it sell. That's my message, call me a fool or a dreamer but that's what I wanted to impart with my little show.

 

[steve weiss]

Steve, I've been critical of the latest shootout. But I really want to say that I hope you keep any flak you've been getting in perspective. Producing anything is incredibly difficult to do. And you've been able to produce over and over and over and over again. WTG!

So what if you've pissed off Reduser, Jim Jannard or even peons like little ol' me? I hope you don't care (too much, LOL!). We'll *all* get over it! You have done so much for this industry, that I hope you are proud of everything you've accomplished. Even with this most recent shootout, you demonstrated that, in the right hands, consumer cams can look very good. That's certainly useful.

And I "*officially*" absolve you of any guilt every time a producer decides to shoot on an iPhone instead of an Arri Alexa.

Take care Steve!

Thank you Peter, I actually was laughing out loud. You are very kind, thank you, but unfortunately I think I'm hanging up my industry content for a while to work on my own documentary film non related to the film industry and see if I can stir up some trouble in the real world. That should make many in the film biz happy. I will still have my producer Scott Lynch and my in house production department working on industry content but I'm going to detach myself quite a bit.

 

[steve weiss]

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more. Your breakdown of the artist reminds me of one of my favorite NPR stories that my wife and I heard a couple of years back. It was about luck, and it relates so much to creativity and the importance of perseverance.

As the story goes, these scientists did research on people who felt lucky and unlucky. It turns out, people who felt unlucky gave up way too soon. In metaphoric terms, they knocked on "the door of opportunity" a couple of times, and when not even a single door opened, the majority of people gave up, shrugged, and said "I guess I don't have any luck".

However, those (few) people that felt lucky, it turns out, were almost impervious the word NO. In metaphoric terms, they knocked on the "door of opportunity" 100's of times. For years. Decades. Every time the door slammed shut in their face. Except those two or three times where the door opened, they passed through, and their "dreams came true" and they felt incredibly lucky for it. What's amazing is they didn't realize that they had created their own luck. By knowing what they wanted, being persistent, and sticking to "their guns", they created a scenario where they were much more likely to succeed.

I think this is a great take on what it takes to succeed at being creative. Lets be honest, it's a brutal world out there, full of rejection, heartache and compromise. If you want to seriously make it, you need to have nerves of steel and be able to endure until the very end, to when finally those doors you'e been looking for slowly, and agonizingly, start to open up.

Which to me is proof that talent is only a part of the equation. I've seen so much squandered talent. The other equally important parts to the puzzle are work ethic and perseverance (see above)...and finally character. Sometimes assholes make it, there are no rules, but generally speaking executives like to take chances on people who are reliable, trustworthy, and help eliminate stress (not add to it).

If young people focused even a fraction of the time they spent texting or channel surfing on their character, they'd be amazed at how far they'd get.

And PS - thanks so much for the very kind words before!

Wow, I'd love to do a documentary on that Luck concept. It's kind of like the butterfly effect. I believe in that. When people tell me they can't do something. My response is "of course you can't" and they say what do you mean. My response is "When you've already said you can't do it, you've convinced yourself you can't and therefore you will not try."

 

[Dr. Sassi]

My very personal perspective to that:

I wished the footage would have been extremely treated in a part four (Yes I know that part is missing). How far can one go with the material? Think of all the Feature film looks that great artists have created so far.
What was named "creative' was not really what I would love to see on the big screen for $15.

 

[steve weiss]

My very personal perspective to that:

I wished the footage would have been extremely treated in a part four (Yes I know that part is missing). How far can one go with the material? Think of all the Feature film looks that great artists have created so far.
What was named "creative' was not really what I would love to see on the big screen for $15.

I don't know what you mean by that, can you explain?

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Steve, take e.g., "Saving Private Ryan" for example. Certainly a look that needed some attention and was not just a presets ;o)

Since long movies have a specific look, you wrote that you are since 29 years in the business - so it feels weird to explain that at all to you, I certainly must have misunderstood you. (Sorry if that is initially based on my English)

Do you imply that was not needed to tweak the material heavily and to target several extreme aesthetics? "Not needed', because the material was good enough to get anything that a director would ever ask for - even changing his mind many times - will that be possible? So no concerns in that direction?

Let me put it that way, the scene was described as illuminated to be a 14 stop scene. So I think to have some lower end cameras there, might indicate that they can't capture 14 stops at all. Which might limit the flexibilty later on, like as well as in which bit depth the material is available. With some extreme grading, to achieve a certain "look" you might run into all kind of problems. Here would have been, at least for me, a great re-source of learning about these cameras. I hope that makes sense.

My guess is, that with such tests, the results would have been way more spread out. The Creative parts of the test were pretty smooth, nothing really - as I said - that I like to see in a prime feature film, but what I accept during an indie festival.

I'm happy to know your idea about. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Wait, wait, wait. That's exactly what we did in part 3 of Revenge. One DP, three different shots, all shot by Bruce Logan ASC and color timed by the same colorist at FilmWorkers Chicago. No lighting changes between cameras.

OK, that part I didn't understand. Still, I think there was some fudging that wasn't 100% fair across the board.

The guys at this link seem to feel the same way:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/cameras_the_zacuto_fallout_continues/

I'm just sayin'.... there is quite a bit of dissent on the net. I still believe one DP, one lighting setup, and one colorist that precisely matched every shot would have been a fairer competition. You can argue 2K or 4K either way, but that's another factor worth taking into consideration.

 

[peter roehsler]

I was afraid to watch the test - what IF I like camera x better than mine?
After having sat through endless blabla I was relieved to learn that my favorite camera was the one I use anyway.
So by Zacuto´s standards (?) I am safe with camera C

 

[Ned Wilson]

I actually kind of feel bad for Ryan Walters, because I got the sense he tried really hard, and did the best he could.

From what I remember...some of the other DP's at the shootout were ASC Guild members...ie Industry Heavy Weights...

How fair a fight was this, really?

I mean...because the shootout puts so much emphasis on the choices each DP brings to the table...what are we really seing?

How good the Epic or Alexa is? Or how good the DP lighting the scene was?

That's the main FLAW with this test.

If you read his blog, RYAN clearly did the best he could. But when you read his blog, you also get a sense that were other DP's there with vastly more experience than him. I think it was unfair position to put him in, and a silly way to compare the cameras. Zacuto should have waited till every camera had an ASC guild member at the helm, then it would be fair. Anything less is not acceptable.

Having an ASC member on every camera still doesn't confer quality let alone consistency. The test should've had one DP, same lighting for each camera. Done.

 

[António Fagundes]

OK, that part I didn't understand. Still, I think there was some fudging that wasn't 100% fair across the board.

The guys at this link seem to feel the same way:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/cameras_the_zacuto_fallout_continues/

I'm just sayin'.... there is quite a bit of dissent on the net. I still believe one DP, one lighting setup, and one colorist that precisely matched every shot would have been a fairer competition. You can argue 2K or 4K either way, but that's another factor worth taking into consideration.

He's right.

But now I do get why Zacuto did the let the DPs mess about with the light on each camera test. The camera itself, its almost an abstract tool, a DP will be able to use this tool to serve whatever purpose is needed of him/her. In this case, to control the high contrast ratio. And remember, that to achieve this, the GH2 had to use a lot more light, maybe that's why it also had a somewhat more pleasing look to some people's eyes.

But also, regarding the GH2, its like asking people if they prefer a Beef Bourguignon or a Big Mac. It would be a close one, and the Big Mac probably wins, because they both taste good (if you're a meat lover). But that doesn't even begin to explain the differences in quality between the two.

And what the f**** was Coppola doing in there anyway? When was his last good movie? Oh that's right, 30 years ago.... shot by someone called Storaro! Mr. Coppola is God, but also a complete ignorant in visual taste. He's the one who would choose the Big Mac instead of the 5 Michelin star dish, comparatively.

In the end of the day, cinematography, is really is about the DP. It has to be, and it always will be. That's why Mr. Spielberg has been shooting with for nearly 20 years with the same DP, he could get anyone he wanted, but he wants Janusz. He's not only technically a master, but also very fast on set. He's also extremely creative, always finding new visual ways to shoot each script. And these are only a few of the qualities that make up a 'good' DP. A camera to these folks is not really that important, as is the way it will affect their workflow and more importantly, the way it affects or aids their creativity.