Shootout Part 2

[Häakon]

There is no pleasing everyone in doing a "shootout" like this; everyone has a different opinion of how it "should" be run and it's a lot easier to armchair quarterback than to be the one to actually pull all of the resources together and make it happen. I was at one of the screenings (actually, I was quoted briefly in the video) and I thought it was a very refreshing take on a standard camera test. Instead of just setting each camera to ISO 800 and pointing them at a chart, the idea was to make each one look as good as possible to shoot the particular scene they chose. Isn't that what you'd do with any given camera?

I'm not going to get into the politics or biases behind the test... every test has that and frankly, I don't really care. I do my own tests before I shoot something and pick the best tool for the job. Rarely do I have a chance to have 10+ different cameras in the same spot from which to view the differences, however, and I do see value in these sorts of things. Could some of the cameras been "tuned" better to get a little more out of the shot? Perhaps. But none of that will fix low resolution, visible artifacting, moire, banding, etc. This was a decent playing field and plenty of people I spoke with thought the Epic stood out for the right reasons.

I took a chance and put my hat in the ring and was willing to pick my favorite camera in public - while being taped - knowing full well the risks. I knew what I wanted to see on the screen (which may be different than what others wish to see), and I wanted to know what my choice was with no preconceived notions of which camera was which. My completely blind picks ended up being the Alexa and the Epic far ahead of the rest of the pack (including the Sony) with the dSLRs being the worst. At least it reaffirmed for me that I know what I like.

Having seen the projected footage in 2K, I don't think any of these cameras can be appropriately judged by this compressed web video (which kind of defeats the purpose, unfortunately). At the very least, they should make a Blu-ray or 1080p ProRes download available, though I realize at the length of this program it would probably prove to be financially prohibitive. It's a shame, because there was a much larger divide between the cameras on the big screen than I saw at home. Maybe something can be taken from that too, though... if your end deliverable is a 480p YouTube window (of which many people make a good chunk of change), then no... I don't think you need an Epic or an Alexa. But if you're asking me to pick what I thought was the cream of the crop, well... I did.

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not one who believes that the tool makes no difference and as long as you have talent, the camera is irrelevant. There's a reason the best filmmakers in the world choose the best cameras and the test clearly showed what you were getting for your dollar. Now I realize that this "test" was aimed at a wide audience and not everyone can afford the best cameras. But like I said in the video, in the context of a "camera shootout" - where you're comparing "A" to "B" and you want me to pick one - that's what I'll do. The bottom line for me was that many of the tools just didn't measure up. And in that, I found the production to be a valuable one.

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Steve,
A big thank you for this Epic shootout series. When there are pearls of wisdom to glean, who cares which one is A or B. There were a few ASCs who gave some really great insights. I am a wildlife guy, however, for me there is lot of learning and inspiration (from some key persons in the videos). It was interesting to see how the various DPs are going about their creative choices. For me that is important.

I think from your series, different people will have different take aways. I personally don't think I will make a camera buying decision based on this series. Will I try to get an EPIC for every job. No, I can't afford it. A DSLR is fine for some. A C300 or Scarlet will be fine for other work and EPIC for a large funded project. Different horses for different courses.

Waiting to see the 3rd part with straightforward tests as well. Personally I think the one month gap may be a bit too much. Two week gap should be good enough.

Sabyasachi

 

[Sergio Perez]

The whole point is that you are getting it all here. the title is REVENGE of the great camera shootout. The idea is that you will see what you want to see--empirical, and you will see what cinematographer can do with empirical and lastly you will see the comparison of the two with a wipe between them. It's entertainment first--I'm a director--sorry that's my job, education second--the rest of the world does not have the knowledge base that folks on this site do, and third it will give you your "shootout" out of box--no changes test. I thought the title worked and was clever as REVENGE. The problem is that people would like to see this all as one video and then all of the answers would be there. That's where the entertainment value of the cliff hanger comes in. Sorry, would you do no less?

Steve, completely understand your point of view. This approach definitely opens the series up to a broader audience with this approach. I do think this can be a very valuable series for film schools. One interesting aspect I would like to have added, if you guys are still on time prior to lock down episode 3, is How much more one is spending in lighting for the cameras with less dynamic range and with inferior codecs. Because right now we get a sense of how talent can overcome most struggles (it can, I agree), but its not showing the added difficulty using these cameras presented to the Cinematographers. I think that that info would be entertaining also and would also help prevent the "idiots approach" to budgeting and to producing a film, at least based on the images here, alone. Probably the project is wrapped, but maybe in the editing room this can be inserted?

Once again, good work, honestly thank you for providing this series for free, which I will most definitely suggest to some Universities around here as a must see. But do hear me out on part III, because its important for the new generation to know that, yes, camera technology has evolved, but the work that goes behind the footage that is captured is done by talented individuals that are there for a reason. And that those footages, depending on the quality of the gear they were used, demanded different approaches and challenges- financially and technically- in production and post production!

Cheers,

Sérgio

 

[Rob Ruffo]

There is no pleasing everyone in doing a "shootout" like this; everyone has a different opinion of how it "should" be run and it's a lot easier to armchair quarterback than to be the one to actually pull all of the resources together and make it happen. I was at one of the screenings (actually, I was quoted briefly in the video) and I thought it was a very refreshing take on a standard camera test. Instead of just setting each camera to ISO 800 and pointing them at a chart, the idea was to make each one look as good as possible to shoot the particular scene they chose. Isn't that what you'd do with any given camera?

I'm not going to get into the politics or biases behind the test... every test has that and frankly, I don't really care. I do my own tests before I shoot something and pick the best tool for the job. Rarely do I have a chance to have 10+ different cameras in the same spot from which to view the differences, however, and I do see value in these sorts of things. Could some of the cameras been "tuned" better to get a little more out of the shot? Perhaps. But none of that will fix low resolution, visible artifacting, moire, banding, etc. This was a decent playing field and plenty of people I spoke with thought the Epic stood out for the right reasons.

I took a chance and put my hat in the ring and was willing to pick my favorite camera in public - while being taped - knowing full well the risks. I knew what I wanted to see on the screen (which may be different than what others wish to see), and I wanted to know what my choice was with no preconceived notions of which camera was which. My completely blind picks ended up being the Alexa and the Epic far ahead of the rest of the pack (including the Sony) with the dSLRs being the worst. At least it reaffirmed for me that I know what I like.

Having seen the projected footage in 2K, I don't think any of these cameras can be appropriately judged by this compressed web video (which kind of defeats the purpose, unfortunately). At the very least, they should make a Blu-ray or 1080p ProRes download available, though I realize at the length of this program it would probably prove to be financially prohibitive. It's a shame, because there was a much larger divide between the cameras on the big screen than I saw at home. Maybe something can be taken from that too, though... if your end deliverable is a 480p YouTube window (of which many people make a good chunk of change), then no... I don't think you need an Epic or an Alexa. But if you're asking me to pick what I thought was the cream of the crop, well... I did.

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not one who believes that the tool makes no difference and as long as you have talent, the camera is irrelevant. There's a reason the best filmmakers in the world choose the best cameras and the test clearly showed what you were getting for your dollar. Now I realize that this "test" was aimed at a wide audience and not everyone can afford the best cameras. But like I said in the video, in the context of a "camera shootout" - where you're comparing "A" to "B" and you want me to pick one - that's what I'll do. The bottom line for me was that many of the tools just didn't measure up. And in that, I found the production to be a valuable one.

Clienta all ask for youtube/Vimeo to be 1080p or at least 720p. There is no more 480p web delivery in 2012. Other than that what you say makes a lot of sense. But the camera is not irrelevant. A bad camera can make a job hell and will waste you time and effort.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not one who believes that the tool makes no difference and as long as you have talent, the camera is irrelevant. There's a reason the best filmmakers in the world choose the best cameras and the test clearly showed what you were getting for your dollar.

Häakon, I totally agree on the "run your own tests" part. I skipped the shootout parts of the video for that reason, but I have to say I enjoyed the documentary part A LOT. Had some "Cinematographer Style" bits in it that I really liked. Hats off to all those involved, they knew it wasn't going to be easy and they pulled off something everyone can take something good out of.

I quoted that sentence of yours because it's hard, impossible to disagree with, at least to me. No one (I hope) will ever say that the choice of a camera (or lenses, or tools in generals) is irrelevant, it'd be crazy and IMHO it'd mean a lack of respect for the tools we use. Sure, if you're crazy talented, you can do amazing stuff with any camera, but if you have the chance to shoot with the best cameras, you're not going to choose the iphone, unless it's for a specific creative reason.

On the other hand though, when you consider cameras in the same "group" (namely Epic, Alexa, F65), and I hope not to be torn apart by Epic owners, IMHO we now (2012) find ourselves in a situation where no camera is clearly and undoubtedly "better", and I mean light-years ahead of its competition. To me, without seeing the shootout and based on what I've experienced first-hand on real sets, in real working conditions, the similarities between those cameras (I haven't had a chance to use f65, so i'm referring just to Epic and Alexa) are way more than the differences. One can pick this or that camera based on those small differences, which then become HUGE when used as selling points. Obviously on a RED forum everyone will say that the differences are such that Epic is clearly the winner, and I accept that, especially when it comes from people who 1) know how to get the best out of that system and 2) have invested lots of money in it. I guess the same would happen on the ARRI forum (or Sony).

For us non-owners, well, personally I really like the possibility and freedom to go to a rental house and choose the camera I feel it's better for a specific job. For some things I'd go with Epic. For others I'd pick Alexa. And if someone tells me I must use this or that camera, first of all I ask "why". If their answer makes no sense, I try do understand where that's coming from, and constructively I can try and make them consider other tools. If I feel I can do a good job with what they want to use, I go ahead and try to do it (case in point, a short I shot recently I really wanted to shoot on 16mm, but had to shoot on a C300).
I fight more about lenses than cameras, actually, and since a lot of people throw nonsense like "this is better because my cousin says so" when it comes to cameras, but don't know shit about lenses, it's a fight that it's more easily won.
And this comes from someone who would still shoot film for 99% of the things i'm involved in, if budget would allow that.
Just my 2c, hope it make some sense.