Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Shootout Part 2

Usually a "shootout" would suggest analyzing the differences (and similarities) between the competitors.

So far, this particular documentary, and even the underlying shootout to a great extent, aims for quite the opposite.

The cinematographers have fair room to re-light, and colorist to grade, the sequences to the cameras strengths and away from the weaknesses. Everything is graded to match, to an extent, scaled down and projected at 2K. Web delivery subsequently in 1280. (I understand some of these are practical considerations) All of these count to greatly minimize contrast between the weakest camera and the strongest, bringing home the not-at-all-subtle 'message' - people and craft matter more than choice of tools. I don't think anyone would argue against that particular idea, but it is missing the essence of a comparative camera shootout. Perhaps "Cinematographer & crew shootout where they incidentally happen to use different cameras" would be a more accurate title?

The documentary itself is entertaining and very well done, but not much to do with being a "camera shootout". I don't mean that as criticism - indeed, much of my post is purely based on my expectations of a "camera shootout" and I do hope for more objective analysis and insight in future episodes.
 
I was pretty much expecting all results, and guessed them quite right. except for the hacked GH2.

damn... impressive.

and yet... movies are never one, perfectly lit shot. they are hundreds of cuts.
i'm currently grading a 7D feature, extremely well shot, by a talented DP
however... in every sequence, on every look i pick, it only gets as good as the most problematic shot, not the opposite.
if one cut in a scene is a little too DSLR-ish and suffers from common low quality format issues, all other better looking cuts have to go down to match it.

the great camera test is fun, interesting and surprising. but real life is more than setting up one perfect shot.
and i'll always prefer a superior codec/camera, with as much data, and color information that i can get.


hector
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Usually a "shootout" would suggest analyzing the differences (and similarities) between the competitors.

So far, this particular documentary, and even the underlying shootout to a great extent, aims for quite the opposite.

The cinematographers have fair room to re-light, and colorist to grade, the sequences to the cameras strengths and away from the weaknesses. Everything is graded to match, to an extent, scaled down and projected at 2K. Web delivery subsequently in 1280. (I understand some of these are practical considerations) All of these count to greatly minimize contrast between the weakest camera and the strongest, bringing home the not-at-all-subtle 'message' - people and craft matter more than choice of tools. I don't think anyone would argue against that particular idea, but it is missing the essence of a comparative camera shootout. Perhaps "Cinematographer & crew shootout where they incidentally happen to use different cameras" would be a more accurate title?

The documentary itself is entertaining and very well done, but not much to do with being a "camera shootout". I don't mean that as criticism - indeed, much of my post is purely based on my expectations of a "camera shootout" and I do hope for more objective analysis and insight in future episodes.
Click to expand...

Thank you and I'm glad you enjoyed part two. I've tried to explain that the shootout is much more then any shootout done before. In part 3 you will see an apples to apples test with no creative changes and that will show you what each camera can do out of the box. Basically, what everyone here wants to see. Parts 1 & 2 showed what you can do with that camera out of the box with talent and creativity. That's the full story of "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012" parts 1, 2, 3 with emphasis on the word REVENGE. The REVENGE part being the talent component. It's very important for people to listen to all of the legendary DP's and what they are saying. They are opening the vault and telling you the secrets of how they got to where they are and I'm worried that people are not listening because it's not about cameras or accessory gear like I make. Sure, that stuff is great if you can afford it but if you can't, that in no excludes you from making an extraordinary film. See "The Celebration". The wonderful exchange between Janusz and Alan Thatcher at the end of part 2 basically tells you how he got his first feature film and what he says is it came from looking at the world, doing tons and tons of work, trying new things but he never mentioned anything about cameras or support gear as a necessary element. Should I have put out part 3 first and then parts 1 and 2 after it, possibly, but I'm a filmmaker and I felt this created the most drama and forced the viewer to hear the messages of the DP's as well as seeing the comparison between out of box vs. talent! If I put part 3 first many people would have watched the out of the box and walked away and that's what every test in the past has done. I didn't want to do it. Truly, my goal in this immense project was to impart learning to the viewer. I've been in the biz for almost 30 years and I learned a ton interviewing and just listening to these legends and it's been my complete privilege to present this project to the indie film community.

Now obviously, many of you have real budgets to do real films and commercials and of course at that point the only choice is an EPIC, Alexa, F65 or possibly the F3 or C300. We need ergonomics, reliability, creature comforts, speed, etc. Maybe you could get a lower end camera to look like a higher end camera with a lot of work and if that's all you can afford, go for it, more power to you. You need to understand that not everyone can afford an EPIC and my film appeals to the whole market sector. So keep that in mind. I've have a lot of viewership on this program from ASC, BSC, CSC, ACS and other societies all the way down to teenagers. Many interesting emails from folks from all aspects of the business. Personally, I felt that the GH2 was way over lit. The iPHone wasn't even in the category, but I included it for a reference and also I think it's an amazing tool for a teenager to learn the craft. I believe it's pointless to give a teenager a great camera, let them learn the craft when it's hard and work his way into something better when he/she can appreciate it. I would have killed for an iPHone when I was a kid, I shot super 8, it was expensive and could only shoot a 1-1 shooting ratio, which led to very little experimentation. But on the flip side you really had to plan what you were doing and that forced creativity.

Wait for part 3 before you hold judgement on Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012.
Steve
 
steve weiss said:
Now obviously, many of you have real budgets to do real films and commercials and of course at that point the only choice is an EPIC, Alexa, F65 or possibly the F3 or C300. We need ergonomics, reliability, creature comforts, speed, etc. Maybe you could get a lower end camera to look like a higher end camera with a lot of work and if that's all you can afford, go for it, more power to you. You need to understand that not everyone can afford an EPIC and my film appeals to the whole market sector. So keep that in mind. I've have a lot of viewership on this program from ASC, BSC, CSC, ACS and other societies all the way down to teenagers. Many interesting emails from folks from all aspects of the business. Personally, I felt that the GH2 was way over lit. The iPHone wasn't even in the category, but I included it for a reference and also I think it's an amazing tool for a teenager to learn the craft. I believe it's pointless to give a teenager a great camera, let them learn the craft when it's hard and work his way into something better when he/she can appreciate it. I would have killed for an iPHone when I was a kid, I shot super 8, it was expensive and could only shoot a 1-1 shooting ratio, which led to very little experimentation. But on the flip side you really had to plan what you were doing and that forced creativity.

Wait for part 3 before you hold judgement on Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012.
Steve
Click to expand...

Steve.

first i would like to say thank you. it is an "immense project".

i think the weak point, and maybe what may bother professionals, is the one shot - perfect conditions, set up (unlike last year's shootout).
I guess its a question of time, organization, budget etc'... the ultimate, dream camera shootout is probably impossible, or at least very hard to pull out.

it's still the best show in camera test town for a third year in a row.

I added "participating in a Zacuto camera shootout" to my to-do list :)


hector
 
A camera is not great because it can sometimes look nice, even a mini DV-cam from Best Buy circa 2001 could maybe have very specific circumstances found for it where it would look great and hold up to an Epic or Alexa.

A camera is great because of how infrequently it lets you down, and how infrequently it makes you cry when you review your footage in post, realizing that footage is unusable or can't be graded to create a well-matched cut.

By that standard, in my experience, any DSLR is a horrible camera, and an Epic and Alexa, especially with a raw recorder - are leagues better - in fact both are excellent. Likely the F65 is too - but I've never shot with it, although it's so big and heavy, I would imagine that would create limitations about how you could move it and with what.

A good camera test would let the viewer know how often a particular camera will let them down - would allow them to gage just how narrow the range of uses and circumstances that work well for that camera are. Any camera camera look good under conditions tailor made to play only its strengths.

I also don't understand how a DSLR is cheaper. It's very expensive because of how much time it wastes on set as everyone tries to jump through its hoops. It's only cheaper if you price your time and the time of everyone else on set at $0. If you don't better systems quickly pay for themselves, and look much better to begin with.
 
Last edited:
In this shootout, I thought C was horrible. The highlights turned yellow and blew out. I don't know if that was the grade, or the compression, or if it was just over exposed. I didn't like it at all. The F65 had a real funky blue color to it. Again, might have been the grade. I want to shoot something on the Alexa. Looks gorgeous.

Anyone know what ISO the Epic was rated at?
 
This test bothers me, because every camera in this test looks crappy. Why? because the shot is lame, and looks bad to begin with.

By limiting everything to a 1080P finish and a really lame sterile shot you might as well compare all the cameras at 320x180. Or why not smear butter all over the lenses of every camera to level the playing field? When all the cameras are filtered through the lowest common denominator, technically and creatively, It's not actually fair. It's like having a race between a Toyota Prius and Lamborghini but both cars have a limiter of 20mph, and the race is in a shopping mall parking lot.

The iPhone in this test looks like it's actually not too horrible compared to the big boy cameras, However take that iPhone on a real shoot with indoor and outdoor scenes, with wide vistas, high motion and real cinematic lighting, project it at 2k and compare that footage to the same film but shot on Epic, projected in 4k and you'll CLEARLY see the difference between a pocket camera and a cinema tool.

Testing all cameras with one really lame controlled sterile shot and showing them at the lowest resolution is not a good test. And also for the web this compressed video is at 720! People will watch this video online and actually come to judgements based on it! "The iPhone is not too far behind the Epic"
 
I'm glad they're doing a straight test in part 3, that's exactly what I thought after watching part 2, that they should have done another one side by side with all else equal.
Seems like a pretty good scene to me, testing most of the variables.
I thought the Epic looked terrific, the Alexa and F65 much less good, and like almost everyone I was amazed by the GH2!
As someone else pointed out it's actually a good watch just as a documentary even without the camera testing interest - well done guys!
Steve
 
What bothered me is that in this test there was no consistency in lighting or grading... Every DP changed lighting/colors/brightness etc... so who really know what the hell the shot looked like right out of the camera...
 
Steve, great series, and a very interesting watch. A big, big thank you for making this, because its something that, ultimately, interests mainly the audience that is relatively interested in our field of work. Its target audience is too small for the production value and effort you guys put into it. So, again, a big thank you and am looking forward to next year's project :)

i think the problem with this, Steve, is that you added the name "great camera shootout", which, in the end, its more like "great cinematographers masterclass/challenge". Nothing wrong with this, but your target audience was looking for a new shootout with the said cameras and not this sort of entertainment, or edutainment. This series is a must see in film schools or for those getting into the craft, or even those in the "suits" side of the pond, but for the working professional/cinematographer, this probably is not what they wanted to see. I have to say i'm waiting for part 3 because I'm curious at the cameras core performance and not the talent of the cinematographers, but, still, it was an entertaining watch.
 
Considering the amount of hard work that went into the making of this doco's 4 parts, plus heavyweight views, including other thought-provoking observations, (and the fact that it is so convenient and free to watch) -- who could possibly grumble really? Er, okay, well, not me. Entertaining, educational, also inspirational... thanks Steve and team.
 
To me, it looked like the EPIC was badly graded in the highlights. Whites turned into yellow, and actual yellows (woman's pants in the dark corner) were under-saturated.

Strangely, the iPhone 4s had the best browns - the parquet floor and the entrance door looked nice and browny, as they should.

What amazed me the most that no one tried to light the people's faces in a proper manner. All lighting setups had mostly dark faces.

Overall, the EPIC, Alexa and F65 had the sharpest pictures, from what I can tell on this heavily compressed video (yes, I know the resolution was brought down on the EPIC to 1080p).

I was surprised the F3 didn't look better - as I know this camera can have a really stunning output.

And yes, I agree there were too many variables to really appreciate each camera's capabilities - makes it so hard to say anything concrete.

I hope part 3 would pit the cameras against each other in a manner that lets each camera show its true colors (pun intended) in full resolution.
 
Hector Berrebi said:
Steve.

first i would like to say thank you. it is an "immense project".

i think the weak point, and maybe what may bother professionals, is the one shot - perfect conditions, set up (unlike last year's shootout).
I guess its a question of time, organization, budget etc'... the ultimate, dream camera shootout is probably impossible, or at least very hard to pull out.

it's still the best show in camera test town for a third year in a row.

I added "participating in a Zacuto camera shootout" to my to-do list :)


hector
Click to expand...
Thanks Hector, in part 3 you will see a close shot and a completely different shot, all with no lighting changes between cameras. You will definitely see how these cameras perform one against the other with no lighting changes. The only changes that were allowed was that each camera was shot at it optimal ASA.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
A camera is not great because it can sometimes look nice, even a mini DV-cam from Best Buy circa 2001 could maybe have very specific circumstances found for it where it would look great and hold up to an Epic or Alexa.

A camera is great because of how infrequently it lets you down, and how infrequently it makes you cry when you review your footage in post, realizing that footage is unusable or can't be graded to create a well-matched cut.

By that standard, in my experience, any DSLR is a horrible camera, and an Epic and Alexa, especially with a raw recorder - are leagues better - in fact both are excellent. Likely the F65 is too - but I've never shot with it, although it's so big and heavy, I would imagine that would create limitations about how you could move it and with what.

A good camera test would let the viewer know how often a particular camera will let them down - would allow them to gage just how narrow the range of uses and circumstances that work well for that camera are. Any camera camera look good under conditions tailor made to play only its strengths.

I also don't understand how a DSLR is cheaper. It's very expensive because of how much time it wastes on set as everyone tries to jump through its hoops. It's only cheaper if you price your time and the time of everyone else on set at $0. If you don't better systems quickly pay for themselves, and look much better to begin with.
Click to expand...

Rob, you are so correct. Obviously anyone doing professional work would opt for a pro camera (assuming producers don't force them into using cheaper cameras). DP's have to fight for that. But there are a whole host of younger filmmakers out there "telling their story" , I hate saying that, it's so cheesy, and are just getting stared and if an iPhone or a DSLR is all they can afford. Go for it. It's probably not getting sold, but in that one in a million shot, congrats. It's a learning exercise and an EPIC is not needed for that. An EPIC or similar is needed for doing high end pro work.
 
Brandon H said:
This test bothers me, because every camera in this test looks crappy. Why? because the shot is lame, and looks bad to begin with.

By limiting everything to a 1080P finish and a really lame sterile shot you might as well compare all the cameras at 320x180. Or why not smear butter all over the lenses of every camera to level the playing field? When all the cameras are filtered through the lowest common denominator, technically and creatively, It's not actually fair. It's like having a race between a Toyota Prius and Lamborghini but both cars have a limiter of 20mph, and the race is in a shopping mall parking lot.

The iPhone in this test looks like it's actually not too horrible compared to the big boy cameras, However take that iPhone on a real shoot with indoor and outdoor scenes, with wide vistas, high motion and real cinematic lighting, project it at 2k and compare that footage to the same film but shot on Epic, projected in 4k and you'll CLEARLY see the difference between a pocket camera and a cinema tool.

Testing all cameras with one really lame controlled sterile shot and showing them at the lowest resolution is not a good test. And also for the web this compressed video is at 720! People will watch this video online and actually come to judgements based on it! "The iPhone is not too far behind the Epic"
Click to expand...

Let me add a few fact here: first the scene was designed as an incredibly difficult scene to shoot. How many 14 stop range scenes do you want into to. So every camera is fighting to deal with deep black and extreme highlights and that is one of the reason that none of the cameras are looking stellar. In grading something had to give. The show was not screen in 1080p, it was screened in 2K. The iPhone did look terrible but it was just there as a reference and to show teenagers that what they had in there pocket was a device that can teach them how to frame, light and edit, easier then the super8 I had as a kid.

I've seen this show screened in 2K a dozen times and I can tell you that the same things I see in the 2K screening I see here. Yes, the whole thing looked better in 2K but the differences between them are surprising similar on the web. You will be able to download a high res version of the show. I believe Part one is already available for high res download. contact scott@zacuto.com
 
Daniel Soderberg said:
What bothered me is that in this test there was no consistency in lighting or grading... Every DP changed lighting/colors/brightness etc... so who really know what the hell the shot looked like right out of the camera...
Click to expand...

you will see that in part three
 
Personally, I feel that all of these “shootout” type test scenarios by their nature do not work. Similarly, I usually detest new camera demo films the camera manufacturers make as well. SURE you can take this new camera out into the downtown city, shoot wide-open can get an exposure… that doesn’t mean it looks GOOD with that available city lighting. That’s why I HAVE A JOB! We control/augment the lighting to enhance the look for a given set of parameters dictated by the needs of the story/product/intent.

The Zacuto camera shootout cannot really be useful to compare cameras against one another because every parameter between the cameras was changed. The F65’s lighting wasn’t changed from the reported 14 stops pre-set by Bruce Logan, meanwhile the iPhone’s lighting was supposedly brought within 4 stops????!!!! That there was a serviceable image from the iPhone compared to an Alexa doesn’t mean squat when Herculean steps are taken to get it there.

Recently, I also attended the PGA/ASC’s 2012 Image Control Assessment Series… This TITLE alone should be considered…. It’s no longer called the Camera Assessment Series. So the first point they make with this title is that you really shouldn’t be comparing the cameras via the results. In actuality, what the test demonstrated was that there is a new workflow they are trying to establish (ACES) that is KIND-OF starting to work with SOME of the cameras… THAT’S IT! That people in the audience are saying, “Well, I liked the look of the Alexa, the F3, the F65, ect (insert camera of choice here)” is rubbish when the test parameters are designed to force a camera’s workflow through a series of manipulations that aren’t necessarily ready yet, and in some cases, admittedly still in development, for a given camera. So then WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE LOOKING AT?

In about 1998 my friend Jay Holben and I performed an exhaustive series of tests for American Cinematographer of all of the modern motion picture negative stocks available at that time; which was basically Kodak and Fuji… The tests weren’t designed to pit Kodak against Fuji, but rather show EACH stock from both manufacturers and how they performed in a rigorously controlled test environment. Every parameter was precisely dialed in, measured, documented, analyzed and published. That way from the given scenario, you could see, quantify and evaluate each stock’s performance and make your own decision on which results applied to your given needs.

NONE of that scenario is present in ANY of these camera shootout series anymore. (ASC, PGA, Zacuto, nor the product demos from Arri, Sony, whoever…) Instead, we have wildly changing test scene scenarios with no published documentation of the conditions they are being recorded at. And therefore, we have no way to really know what was manipulated on set, in camera, or in post. Wouldn’t it be useful to know that one camera was subjected to 17 stops of dynamic range lighting while another was subjected to 5 stops? THAT IS FUCKING IMPORTANT, DUH! Otherwise, HOW ARE WE TO FUCKING COMPARE ANYTHING?

My other pet peeve on these test scenarios is that all of the scenes are usually pretty cheesy and not really indicative of what an actual, production-designed, artistically lit, properly applied makeup on real performers with interesting blocking and some narrative context would be in the real world. Instead we get a too small translight (bringing it too close to the window) that we are now desperately trying to NOT BLOW OUT (making it look supremely FAKE) on a generic soundstage set, shot at what looks like a T5.6 (with no atmosphere) and every nook and cranny filled in like a bad 1989 Movie of the Week. Why? Because we JUST HAVE TO SHOW how much the camera can read in the shadows…. Bruce Logan set up 14 stops of dynamic range that was then subsequently FILLED IN by the given cinematographers handling each camera… With no documentation presented with spot readings of every portion of the frame, color temperature readings, camera settings, NOT TO MENTION, all of the power windowing, primary and secondary color correction manipulation going on, JUST WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE LOOKING AT?

ALL of these tests are just a proof of concept that with a give number of cameras and a given amount of post production effort, we can produce AN IMAGE. Yay. Congrats!

I do not blame any of the individuals involved with somehow making a mistake with their efforts. In and of itself, these tests are still interesting to look at and to try to derive meaning from. But to try and compare an iPhone with an Epic is just silly. But if you were to just look at the results of this test, Prometheus would have looked almost the same had it been shot with two iPhones on a stereo rig!

I’m going to end rant now, hear some rebuttals and then continue this discussion if need be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top