Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Álex Montoya said:
AL, someone said that the C300 was less than stellar. Is that true?
Click to expand...

For the most part the cameras looked very similar. There were quite a few cameras to keep straight, so only very unique or very poor cameras tended to stand out.

Here were my thoughts on each, as well as some of the blind test results:

The iPhone 4s didn't look as bad as most thought it would. There was a chuckle when it was announced that it was a member of the test. But in the end the iPhone is a $200 device with 1/3" sensor and very small 5 element lens, going up against $80,000 cameras with $50,000 cinema lenses. So given that, it was too bad. In fact I had it as second to worst. The 7d came in last on my list. I thought the iPhone4 was the 7d and the 7d was the iPhone 4s. Go figure.

SONY F65: Looked good, in fact was my number one choice. On further viewings I did see a slight magenta tinge to the post corrected version. This may have been a result of trying to fix the color balance on the skin tones.

RED Epic, Sony F3, Sony FS100, Canon C300 all were in the same neighborhood. Good resolution, decent color. Generally pleasing pictures.

ARRI Alexa: Looked great (My second choice for picture and 1st overall choice, given the fact that it produced the best picture with the least amount of relighting and the least amount of post production tweaking). In the end, the camera that allows you to get a great picture with the least amount of work (and the least amount of expensive color suite rental time!) is the winner for me. Great pictures at the right price point.

GH2 was the real surprise to most everyone there. This $800 camera held it's own with the $80,000 cameras in the area of overall picture quality. Which really opened a few eyes. It was a hacked camera. Didn't catch which hack it was though. That being said, the Raw vs relit and post tweaked images revealed the fact that the GH2 image was really lacking in terms of dynamic range when compared to the other high end cameras. The team that shot the GH2 also bumped the contrast a bit and bumped up the saturation too. Think CSI: Miami. No doubt this was to cover up the stretching of the dynamic range and coverup a bit of noise that was creeping in under the lowered black levels. That being said, it held in there very well. The picture was better than 1/2 as good as the high end at about 1/100th of the price point. $80,000 vs $800. If you controlled the lighting so as not to challenge the dynamic range of the GH2, it would probably be good enough to inter cut with the other cameras. Yes, it was not that far off.

It's not that the C300, F3, Epic, or FS100 looked bad. They didn't. They look very similar to each other. And in fairness the test would have been a different animal if viewed projected at 4k. But then 4k theaters are still a ways away from being standard...

Alan
 
I'm going to sign off tonight by saying this. Steve: I'm looking forward to seeing your documentary, I've always personally loved the shootouts, there is something geekily competitive about them, while still being very earnest and serious. I appreciate that, you are clearly trying to make the best film you can, your passion and concern are evident in every post. You are brave to try and defend yourself in a forum that clearly is a little leery about your intentions.

That being said, if what you are saying is true, that all the high end camera's are in a league of their own, then I would like to salute RED for one minute. I've been at war on Facebook with a friend of mine all week about the Alexa vs RED, and I'm going to repeat here what I already hashed out on fbook. The Alexa is a $60k camera that is out of the range of almost all "owner/operators". Its a camera you rent.

The Scarlet however, fully equipped at $15,000, is 1/4 the price and can go toe to toe with the Alexa. Think about that. That's AMAZING.

For me, what RED has done, it break the oligarchical monopoly of cinematic production. Until RED, you had to have a ton of money to buy a truly credible cinema camera. The Alexa perpetuates that old world mentality, and is an expensive "studio" camera.

The Scarlet though, I think, breaks new territory. For the first time, there is an affordable indie camera that gives you unprecedented resolution and data rates. RAW and 4K, its also a camera that will evolve with the "owner/operator" over time.

At Astronaut, our indie production company we've just founded, buying two Scarlets was a no brainer. We've launched an entire company with two Hollywood cameras that combined are still 1/2 the price of an Alexa. If Alexa was the only choice in town, we'd still be shooting on DSLR or turning to an F3.

But instead, we get 4K and RAW, and we can walk into the future knowing that what we shoot and what we make is technologically at the forefront of the industry...and at a price we can afford.

So. I just want to thank RED big time for that. They never get credit for changing the economics of digital Hollywood production, and time and time again I keep hearing people compare the Scarlet to the Alexa as if that alone wasn't an insane accomplishment.

In car terms, it would be like comparing a Porsche 911 to a Golf GTI, except the GTI is not falling behind...its actually keeping up, and proving extremely dangerous...

I'm extremely proud of RED. Proud of the ground they've broken, and the opportunities they've created.

I'm looking forward to seeing your doc, but in my mind I'm already happy in the choice we've made, regardless of what the shootout eventually ends up saying.

And the beauty of it? In a year we'll get to upgrade to Dragon and get a whole new camera.

Pretty hard to beat.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I'm going to sign off tonight by saying this. Steve: I'm looking forward to seeing your documentary, I've always personally loved the shootouts, there is something geekily competitive about them, while still being very earnest and serious. I appreciate that, you are clearly trying to make the best film you can, your passion and concern are evident in every post. You are brave to try and defend yourself in a forum that clearly is a little leery about your intentions.

That being said, if what you are saying is true, that all the high end camera's are in a league of their own, then I would like to salute RED for one minute. I've been at war on Facebook with a friend of mine all week about the Alexa vs RED, and I'm going to repeat here what I already hashed out on fbook. The Alexa is a $60k camera that is out of the range of almost all "owner/operators". Its a camera you rent.

The Scarlet however, fully equipped at $15,000, is 1/4 the price and can go toe to toe with the Alexa. Think about that. That's AMAZING.

For me, what RED has done, it break the oligarchical monopoly of cinematic production. Until RED, you had to have a ton of money to buy a truly credible cinema camera. The Alexa perpetuates that old world mentality, and is an expensive "studio" camera.

The Scarlet though, I think, breaks new territory. For the first time, there is an affordable indie camera that gives you unprecedented resolution and data rates. RAW and 4K, its also a camera that will evolve with the "owner/operator" over time.

At Astronaut, our indie production company we've just founded, buying two Scarlets was a no brainer. We've launched an entire company with two Hollywood cameras that combined are still 1/2 the price of an Alexa. If Alexa was the only choice in town, we'd still be shooting on DSLR or turning to an F3.

But instead, we get 4K and RAW, and we can walk into the future knowing that what we shoot and what we make is technologically at the forefront of the industry...and at a price we can afford.

So. I just want to thank RED big time for that. They never get credit for changing the economics of digital Hollywood production, and time and time again I keep hearing people compare the Scarlet to the Alexa as if that alone wasn't an insane accomplishment.

In car terms, it would be like comparing a Porsche 911 to a Golf GTI, except the GTI is not falling behind...its actually keeping up, and proving extremely dangerous...

I'm extremely proud of RED. Proud of the ground they've broken, and the opportunities they've created.

I'm looking forward to seeing your doc, but in my mind I'm already happy in the choice we've made, regardless of what the shootout eventually ends up saying.

And the beauty of it? In a year we'll get to upgrade to Dragon and get a whole new camera.

Pretty hard to beat.
Click to expand...

Nick,
So far after all of my comments, you are about the closest to getting my message in Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout. I am NOT, nor have I EVER been trying to declare a camera winner. The bottom line is that great DP's can make any of these cameras look very similar and we've shown that. If you want to split hairs, go for it, I'm not trying to do that and frankly the public is not going to notice that. And you can beat those hairs if you know your gear, how to light for it, how to set it up, how to grade for it.

The one issue that I will debate with you is the idea of renting a camera. Everyone in this day seems to think they need to buy a camera--and that's cool. I'm old school, 30 years ago when I was a young piker of a director, nobody bought cameras, we always rented because cameras were 60 - 250K and there was a different mentality about ownership. Eventually, we did buy a 16mm SR package and a 3/4" recorder and JVC KY1900 in 1983 and we were off and running for small jobs and rented 35mm for larger jobs.

I think that you make a good case that for your production company that if you like the form factor, picture quality, dynamic range, color, workflow AND CAN AFFORD IT, then go for it, buy your camera of choice. That Scarlet decision for you sounds like you've done your research and made a good decision. Again an ass for every saddle depending on how much cake you have to blow. The Epic and Scarlet cameras are affordable and great choices for many. Keep in mind not every camera is perfect for every situation and you still may have to rent from time to time to get the right form factor, frame rate, whatever, for a specific job but for the most part you are good to go. Well done you!!

Now I will couch that with making sure that you have enough money in that decision to buy at least 3-6K of good sound gear. An Arri or Lowell light kit with 5 instruments, maybe a panel light and or a Kino style if that's what you like (I personally hate the look of panel and Kinos) but that's me. A nice set of sticks like a Sachtler Video 18, in the 8K range or Cartoni gamma in the 4-5K range. Some grip gear, bounce boards, C-Stands, flags, nets 2-3K. And lenses of course. Almost every one of the DP's interviewed in Revenge--another spoiler alert--placed the order of importance on Lights, Lenses, Camera in that order. Some further submit-- it's great people, lighting, mics, lenses, tripods then cameras--to which most of the ASC/CSC/BSC/ACS folks agreed and you will hear them voice this in the documentary. They all felt that without good people you have nothing. With bad lights you mine as well have a crap camera. Bad sound is intolerable. Bad camera movement, again doesn't matter how great your picture is. All of these things are important and I'm not trying to put the camera last or down but we need to be real and all of our focus cannot be on camera and picture. Now obviously, some of you will hire a gaffer with his truck, have a soundman and most of this will become irrelevant. I'm only speaking to smaller productions.

In general to all of you RED users. You have a fabulous camera that can compete with any camera if competition is something that's important and it's not. You don't need to compete on a technical level. You need to compete on a creative level, master camera, learn how to light for it, learn how to set it up, learn how to color time for it, but the most important part is talent and the jury is still out on if it's born or made. That's why I call my show Revenge because previous shootouts were shootouts and this documentary shows that shootouts at this point, are pointless, because it's about you, the DP!!! Watch the three part documentary. Industry legends are going to talk about these very issues and I can tell you from interviewing them that you are going to want to hear this, the important stuff.

all the best,
Steve
 
Steve, I like the message you are preaching, and I kinda agree. The framing, the lighting, and the story are much more important than the camera. I've seen pieces shot on 7D that blew away other projects on Phantom/Alexa/Red, etc. Simply because the concept and technique was so good that that was all that came through. A boring frame that's poorly lit will look as terrible at 6K as it does at 720p. Actually, it may look even worse at 6K! :)

That being said, I do love how RED has saved me a couple of times, both by being 4K and RAW. On Astronaut's largest job, a huge studio shoot with a major comedy talent, we needed an "extra" CU shot (ie a third camera). We didn't have it. But....we did. We reframed 80% on our WIDE master shot and guess what...got a 1080p CU that worked PERFECTLY. Especially because our broadcast client still airs in 720p. Even blown up 80%, that CU looked better than any of our DSLR footage. And it saved the edit.

And...we've been shooting a lot of pilots on DSLR. I've had them all graded. But, DSLR can only be pushed so far. The thought of shooting all our future multi-cam projects in RAW so we can really grade them in post and make them look beautiful is extremely exciting to us. As is being able to rent an EPIC and seamlessly integrate it into the SCARLET is also a great luxury.

And...I agree with you about lighting. I've been very lucky to work with great DP's, and I'm always in awe of how well they can light. We have a small ARRI kit, but now that we've finished collecting lenses, lights and sound ARE our next investment (as well as a Davinci grading station). But your words are well taken, and I completely agree. I took a lighting class last year and the teacher would show us demonstrations while monitoring on a crappy SD handycam. And truth is, even on that terrible camera, what he was lighting looked AMAZING. Proof that lighting is so important.

But I'm a bit of a lens nerd myself, and i think a great lens can save you too. An interview on an 85 1.4 is just breath-taking, even in natural light if the framing and setting is right.

Looking forward to REVENGE. It's going to be fun, I'm sure.
 
steve weiss said:
Nick,

....

Now I will couch that with making sure that you have enough money in that decision to buy at least 3-6K of good sound gear. An Arri or Lowell light kit with 5 instruments, maybe a panel light and or a Kino style if that's what you like (I personally hate the look of panel and Kinos) but that's me.

[ Thank you for publicly standing up to the panel lighting trends. Kinos are horrible. They make talent look like cardboard cutouts. LED panels that shot a recent White House interview made all of the VIPs look terrible! If I were White House press secretary I would rip out the LEDs and put the tungsten back in. And then buy an air conditioning that could keep up. ]

60 minutes seems to be leaning in the panel lighting direction and it looks terrible. And their talent needs all the lighting help they can get.

Somewhere along the way the PC crowd has demonized Tungsten light. 100w bulbs are now fodder for the black market. It isn't nostalgia. With more sensitive cameras nowadays I'm lighting interviews with less than 2k of power, and sometimes less than 1K of power. Comments like "Wow, I was expecting it to be brighter" are heard a lot now.

We prelit for a major television star recently. 4 lights in a small room. His reaction upon entering the room was, "Wow, you guys are really going all out!"

Well, yes. Dude you're a major TV star and it's our job to make you look good. You do want to look good, don't you?

....
A nice set of sticks like a Sachtler Video 18, in the 8K range or Cartoni gamma in the 4-5K range. Some grip gear, bounce boards, C-Stands, flags, nets 2-3K. And lenses of course. Almost every one of the DP's interviewed in Revenge--another spoiler alert--placed the order of importance on Lights, Lenses, Camera in that order. Some further submit-- it's great people, lighting, mics, lenses, tripods then cameras--to which most of the ASC/CSC/BSC/ACS folks agreed and you will hear them voice this in the documentary. They all felt that without good people you have nothing. With bad lights you mine as well have a crap camera. Bad sound is intolerable. Bad camera movement, again doesn't matter how great your picture is. All of these things are important and I'm not trying to put the camera last or down but we need to be real and all of our focus cannot be on camera and picture. Now obviously, some of you will hire a gaffer with his truck, have a soundman and most of this will become irrelevant. I'm only speaking to smaller productions.

I guess my point in mentioning how decently the iPhone 4s looked and especially the GH2 looked, was to point out that these tools were well under $1000. [ Although the iPhone is more like $2400 with contract... ] They clearly produced lesser quality images. BUT not that far below. They were the 16mm to the others 35mm. But then again the iPhone has a tiny little lens in it, and the other cameras had a $50K Fujinon lens. Hardly the same league.


In general to all of you RED users. You have a fabulous camera that can compete with any camera if competition is something that's important and it's not. You don't need to compete on a technical level. You need to compete on a creative level, master camera, learn how to light for it, learn how to set it up, learn how to color time for it, but the most important part is talent and the jury is still out on if it's born or made. That's why I call my show Revenge because previous shootouts were shootouts and this documentary shows that shootouts at this point, are pointless, because it's about you, the DP!!! Watch the three part documentary. Industry legends are going to talk about these very issues and I can tell you from interviewing them that you are going to want to hear this, the important stuff.

For me, Steve the most revealing part of the Doc was the ending sequence when we saw the initial "Raw" capture of the original scene vs the relit and post corrected images. All looked good on the backside (after relight and post work), but there was one camera that had very little need for any relighting or much post work. And that camera was the ARRI Alexa. The Producer in me (a very small part) looked at that sequence and saw a camera (Alexa) that needed very little in the way of (expensive time) relighting or (expensive time) post production suite rental. And that's why the Alexa won my vote.

How much extra color correction suite time would make up for the difference in camera rental cost? As Cameramen and Camerawomen we need to know these work flows and bring this knowledge to the table in context. We should be discussing the nature of the shoot with producers and directors and recommending cameras and formats. Not the other way around. I.e. Producers calling up Cinematographers and telling them what camera they are going to be using...

In the "Old days" only the Cinematographer knew how the image would look after it emerged from the lab. At the Zacuto screening Thursday a wireless video company (who shall remain nameless...) was demoing a system that would feed the camera's picture to 20 ipads and iphones and laptops! Really? How could that ever be a good thing for filmmaking?

all the best,
Steve
Click to expand...


Steve, a REALLY BIG THANK YOU should go out to you and everyone involved in these great tests. I think this last test may have revealed a few things that weren't imagined going in. And that's great. God knows this transition is an ugly one. More complex than both the Sound on film and Color film transitions combined. And to have it going on at the same time as 3D is in vogue, well that just puts it over the top, nuts!

Here's hoping 4k kills off 3D. I've seen SONY's F65 4k footage projected at 4k and at that resolution there really is no need for 3D. Besides, I don't go to the movies to wear sunglasses and watch pirates poke swords at me ad nausea.

THANKS FOR ALL THE HARD WORK!!!
 
Les Dittert said:
In three years or so, when Costco is selling a 4K TV set, people will be scrambling to resurrect the footage of many films to reconform at 4k.
Click to expand...
I got news for you, Les: there are a thousand visual-effects-heavy movies from the last 10 years where nobody is going to go in and redo all the 2K visual effects at 4K. Not gonna happen. If you look at the top 50 money-making films of all time -- including Avengers, which I think is now in there -- the vast majority of them have hundreds or even over a thousand VFX shots done in 2K. Very, very few films have been 100% 4K all the way through.

Somehow, I don't think Avatar, the Lord of the Rings movies, the earlier Spiderman movies, the Pixar movies, the Dreamworks animated movies, the Transformers movies, the earlier Pirates movies, and all those other billion-dollar productions will become worthless overnight simply because they're stuck in 2K (or have segments that are stuck in 2K). I've argued before that the transition from standard-def 525 to HD was an enormous leap in resolution (6X the bandwidth), aspect ratio (16x9 vs. 4x3), and frame rate (24fps vs. 30fps). Going from 2K to 4K is much more subtle. It's real, but it's not gigantic and unsubtle.

Note also that there are numerous companies that can and do uprez post projects from 2K to 4K in the final stage, especially for film-outs. All things being equal, yes, I would prefer a "pure" 4K end-to-end workflow, but it's not appropriate for all budgets and types of films and TV shows. And nobody is gonna spend the money to redo effects in 4K for a completely reconformed project ten years later, with few exceptions.

I'm reminded of the struggles Paramount is going through right now, just trying to piece together the 1980s/early-1990s Star Trek: Next Generation show in HD. Lots of pieces are missing, edit lists are incompatible with modern equipment, film pieces are scattered... it's very, very hard to redo editorial work done this long ago. I worked on a reconstruction of a director's cut of a mid-1990s film not long ago, and it was a nightmare to combine camera negative, interpositive, even workprint with mixed tracks, production tracks, and other material. We did it, but it was exhaustively expensive and time-consuming, and this was a $60 million movie that never made a profit -- an artistic success the studio wanted to extend by 20 minutes for Blu-ray.

I do hope that everybody shooting on 4K and finishing in HD for release will make a long and hard decision as to keeping all the original data, edit lists, change lists, color correction files, notes, and other material so as to make it as easy as possible for somebody to follow a "road map" in the future to put it all together in 4K if somebody wants to someday. But will the data survive? Will the backups stay intact for 5 years, 7 years, even 10 years? Will the distributors, networks, studios, and cable channels be willing to spend the money to reconform projects for 4K? I don't have the answers, but I agree with Jim that at least making these projects "4K ready" is a good idea.
 
Several of my ASC friends recently screened the recent Zacuto Test. We had very serious issues with the test. I think once camera manufactures are included in the shooting and processing of these tests they can then actually be called "Tests". Until that happens it's more of a point of view.

Francis Kenny, ASC
Chairman ASC Membership Committee
ASC Board of Governors
AMPAS Cinematographers Executive Committee
2012 President's Award Winner
Director of Photography on Justified
Single Dad
I love the Epic Camera because it doesn't require a forklift
 
steve weiss said:
Nick,

....

maybe a panel light and or a Kino style if that's what you like (I personally hate the look of panel and Kinos) but that's me.

....


I see someone found a use for Kinos:

7182716286_f89eb5bdcb.jpg


Thanks again for the Revenge 2012 Shootout.

all the best,
Steve
Click to expand...

is this longer than 3 characters?
 
Last edited:
Francis Kenny said:
Several of my ASC friends recently screened the recent Zacuto Test. We had very serious issues with the test. I think once camera manufactures are included in the shooting and processing of these tests they can then actually be called "Tests". Until that happens it's more of a point of view.

Francis Kenny, ASC
Chairman ASC Membership Committee
ASC Board of Governors
AMPAS Cinematographers Executive Committee
2012 President's Award Winner
Director of Photography on Justified
Single Dad
I love the Epic Camera because it doesn't require a forklift
Click to expand...

Francis,
Just to clarify, it's Bruce Logan's test, I'm just making a documentary about his test. I'm probably out of the test business at this point because I think this test showed that for the most part without splitting hairs, the picture is there in most of the cameras over the 10K price point and it's now in the hands of the DP's to create. What I learned from the test is that form factors, light sensitivity and color grading seem to be the battle ground for speed in the production process as well as personal preferences and taste. We will be releasing on the Zacuto website soon a white paper that shows how much time it took to light for each camera, how many additional lighting instruments it took, time in the grading suite and how many first and secondary windows were used in grading, total lighting diagram, amount of amps used as well as every setting on every camera used. Every single factor was documented and it could take you an hour to study the detail of information between the cameras. This was displayed at the end of the every screening but it's a lot to take in on screen and everyone in every screening asked to see this in PDF form.

After 3 major shootouts, I can tell you that manufacturers will never get involved. I've asked every single manufacturer including this one for the last two years to get involved and to date only Canon has taken me up on it. I was told by one manufacturer--this year-- that we can't get involved because of plausible deniability. If they are not involved they can always say "they fuc#ked it up". I've heard only great things from both SkyWalker and LA screenings, Bruce covered his bases, was completely non biased and did the best job he could to create an apples to apples test. Most of the ASC members in all of the screenings told me how much they enjoyed it and found it enlightening. The tech is here, lets stop the arguing about which is best--that was never the purpose of this test-- and see the talent emerge from these amazing tools. Francis, you heard Stephen Goldblatt say, "it's too hard to pick which you like best excluding the low end cameras because they all look so similar." That's the message I have gotten from all the interviews I've done from over 2 dozen ASC/BSC/CSC/ACS members I've interviewed.

On another not, Bruce Logan has been trying to sign up to be on this REDuser forum and he keeps getting an email that he needs to be approved. He would like to comment but cannot because he cannot become an approved member of this forum, can someone look into this.

Steve
 
Just watched this last night in Boston. Definitely some interesting things learned. First they compared each camera's shots of the same lighting setup, with a one-light. Then they let the DPs get creative and gave each 90 min. to add their own lights (but they couldn't change the existing ones). Then, almost as an afterthought, they showed ungraded straight-from-camera shots from the first group.

In the first group, which they showed in order of low-to-high price, the iPhone and the 7D looked horrible, the gh2 not-so-hot (better resolution and worse dynamic range than the 7D), the mid-range cams okay, and when they got to the f3 things started looked decent. Everything above that looked good too, though nothing stood out as head-and-shoulders better.

The scene itself was (purposely) not well-lit. It was something you might find in real life. Harsh brights, lots of dark shadows.

The creative shots were where things started to get interesting. In the blind test (now granted, they only go through them once, so it's tough to gauge them), I picked the gh2. What did that tell me? First, resolution is important (duh). The 7D looked worse than the iPhone IMO. But more important than that is having a capable DP. The gh2 guys (a pair of DPs) really went all out to change up the lighting scheme. The DPs on the Alexa or f65 barely changed it at all. One guy in the audience mentioned that this was a kind of "arrogance." Like they felt like their camera was so great, it could handle the lighting setup as given, but with the gh2, those guys knew they needed to make some serious changes to get a good-looking image. They changed the setup way more than anyone else, and it showed. So what does that tell me? A couple kids who are driven and willing to go the extra mile to get a good image can make a better picture than an ASC member!

Perhaps the most useful shots though, in terms of objective camera shootouts, were the ungraded empirical (same lighting setup) shots. Those basically matched cost of camera, with the 7D, iPhone and gh2 looking like complete ass, the mid-range cams looking okay, and the Alexa, Epic, and f65 looking good. What was confusing here though is, Red footage straight from camera, being RAW, can look all kinds of different. Were we looking at Redcolor with Redgamma, or Redfilmlog, or what?

The Epic, I feel like it wasn't served well. In the first round of shots, the DP made the decision to let some of the highlights in the daylight scene blow out in favor of the interior shadows, which is perfectly reasonable, but most of the other DPs kept it in the goalposts, which made it look like the Epic had worse DR than the 7D. And I really would've liked to see HDRx! If there was ever a scene that needed it, it was that one!!!

All in all, it confirmed what I already knew: The 7D is not-so-hot (well, relatively); you can get a great-looking image out of the gh2, but you need to light it well and take care to account for its limited DR (and test the crap out of your hack to make sure you don't get dropped frames); the mid-range and expensive cams all look great, and the Alexa really does look gorgeous right out-of-camera.

But that's all in a harsh lighting setup. How do the cameras compare in a well-lit interview, for instance? Or noonday sun?

Of course, the Epic is what, half the cost of an Alexa or f65? And you get 5k. AND you get 150 fps (@4k). AND you get Raw. AND you get HDRx. AND you get Redcine-X with Alchemy, etc. So Epic still wins it for me.
 
This "test" was a crime... as expected.

Jim
 
So the moral of the test, as I read you is: Learn to light.
Close to what I try to teach geeks who think the cameras will make their images better than they currently are at photography.

Not really a techy cam-test moral (which I actually think is good) and not really communicated too well through calling this a cam-test. But an interesting one, nevertheless...
And too often ignored:

Photo graphy = light painting

Just not communicated very well...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
So the moral of the test, as I read you is: Learn to light.
Click to expand...

Yup. The lighting differences were the biggest. Which has always been true. But the other moral of the test is, straight out of the camera, you get what you pay for. That was where Epic, Alexa, and f65 really stood out over the rest. So if you're gonna use a cheaper camera, make sure you know it well, cause they're much less forgiving.

It's funny, looking at footage on my home computer, gh2 footage looks night-and-day better than 7D footage, and Red footage looks night-and-day better than gh2 footage. But on their big screen, the differences were much less pronounced, and everything but the iPhone and 7D looked equally sharp. The cynic in me wonders if maybe they were projecting in 720p, but that's just crazy.

Man, I would love to see them compared in a 4k screening though.
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
I saw an interesting test on the EPIC just last week.. It was called "Prometheus"

Told me everthing I needed to know.

Jay
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you chose Prometheus as your test. I saw it opening night and loved the picture quality.

However, I believe Prometheus was output at 2K (I was a bit disappointed about that - though fascinating how they produced so many different outputs setup for the different light levels of the projectors).

I ?think? I remember that one of Mr. Jannard's objections was the lack of 4K output for the Zacuto test?

I would love to see RED participate in the 'test' next year with Toia running the RED test.

Whether it's 2K or 4K or 6K, if one of our top players orchestrates the RED shots, I'd learn a lot from the 'making of'!!
 
Les C. said:
I would love to see RED participate in the 'test' next year with Toia running the RED test.

Whether it's 2K or 4K or 6K, if one of our top players orchestrates the RED shots, I'd learn a lot from the 'making of'!!
Click to expand...

Well, Ryan Walters ran it this time, and I feel like he's one of our top players. They said in the intro, a number of people from the Reduser forum were suggested, and Ryan was available. I don't think it was user error (EBCAC - Error Between Camera And Chair?), I just think Epic/Scarlet's strengths lie in its resolution, flexibility in post, and low price point, and at $10k+ at 2k res with controlled lighting, stuffs gonna look the same across the board. Which I guess means the test is flawed. But what test isn't? Really the only way to see is shoot some stuff yourself, the more the better.
 
I'm thinking if you *need* 4k projection to make a $40-50k camera be "definitively" better than a $600 one, than there are some serious problems (with the operator, the cinematographer, or the camera... can't be a problem with the scene, since all cams were shooting the same one). The whole "project in 4k" argument is definitely true, but understandably undermined a little because the cameras that are 4k-supersampled @ 2k should look vastly better, hands down, than a sub-1080p @ 2k camera like the hacked GH2 (not picking on RED here, as C300/F3/F65 all have 4k/8k sensors). Conversely, have the Alexa, C300, and F65 forums been detesting this "documentary/shootout" thing as much as reduser has? It seems like bitter-salty-tears in here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top