Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

[Rob Ruffo]

That doesn't matter. Here is an example: There is no need for p&S still cameras for over 4 MP. People who buy these cameras use them to post photos on facebook and email friends, but yet, given MP sell, $100 cameras are now approaching 20 MP. How many people who buy these cameras really need 20 MP? No one does, but yet marketing department kept pushing for more MP because they knew it will sell on BestBuy shelves. I believe Red has been using the same marketing trick for the past 6 years with 4K. How many movies were released as 4K in the past 6 years? How many people own 4K monitors/TVs? But "4K" was still a very nice marketing theme for Red. The same marketing forces would come at consumer level. Someone mentioned youtube allows uploading 2K/4K videos. If Sony/Panasonic think "4K" sticker on a consumer camera would allow them to sell a million of them (to youtube uploaders), they will definitely do that.

And I really do think in the next 2 to 3 years, you are going to see several dozen "4K" consumer cameras. With fast memory cards, large disks, and very fast sensor, this shouldn't be that hard to implement on the next generation of consumer cameras.

Computer tech has slowed to a crawl. Consumers are not buying new computers, and viewing 4K video, editing it, and so on, would not be a plus for them. Stills are a completely other matter - if it takes 4 seconds to load a still, it doesn't matter, but video running at 0.25 fps is a problem - plus people print, crop, etc. stills - video not really, not a mass-market scenario. Basically no one has the ability to view 4K at home, and in this economy, they won't for many years to come.

 

[Ash Worth]

If you had millions of your own dollars at risk in a company and you felt their product was being mis-treated in a very public fashion that may have a negative impact on sales your perspective would be very different. I don't know Mr. Jannard, but from what I have observed he is anything but silly when it comes to business.

Scott, this reads as RED is insecure about competing the EPIC at 2k. So is the EPIC no good at 2k? That's a problem.

Most here have missed the point of the Zacuto film. They are basically saying that we have reached a level where the imagery from most cameras are indistinguishable from one another, this is why its hard to pick out your beloved EPIC, so it doesn't matter what you camera you use but the DP and crew that operate it.

So congratulations you have one of the best cameras, but it isn't so good that we overlook the arrogance of the RED community so we chose ALEXA instead because we don't want to deal with that attitude though out production.

I wouldn't be concerned about how great RED is at this point but the perceived attitude of the people that use them. Kinda ironic really.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Scott, this reads as RED is insecure about competing the EPIC at 2k. So is the EPIC no good at 2k? That's a problem.

I obviously don't speak for Red or it's people, so please don't read it as if I do. I don't read it that way at all and that is what I was stating when I wrote it. Jim called the test a "crime." I don't know just what he meant by that, but if I thought someone was slandering my products and services I might call that action criminal.

The 2k method employed in the prior "test" was faulty. Many of us acknowledge that and it is with that in mind that Red seems justified to be leery of how their product would be handled and ultimately portrayed... particularly at 2k. Yes, methods this time would be different, etc. etc., but that does not resolve the potential conflict of interest, or negate history. Do read my post that followed regarding conflict of interest, won't you?

Do you say the same about Arri, Canon, Panasonic or any of the others? They didn't participate. Did they? It was only Sony that did, right? Did Arri not participate because they were afraid the Alexa wouldn't hold up? I wouldn't say so, but by your own logic you seem to be.

As to Red being any good at 2k... Prometheus was finished at 2k, did that not look good? How 'bout ...Dragon Tattoo?

Most here have missed the point of the Zacuto film. They are basically saying that we have reached a level where the imagery from most cameras are indistinguishable from one another, this is why its hard to pick out your beloved EPIC, so it doesn't matter what you camera you use but the DP and crew that operate it.

So congratulations you have one of the best cameras, but it isn't so good that we overlook the arrogance of the RED community so we chose ALEXA instead because we don't want to deal with that attitude though out production.

I wouldn't be concerned about how great RED is at this point but the perceived attitude of the people that use them. Kinda ironic really.

I'm inclined to agree that some seem to have missed that point in the film and it may well be true.

Is Red full of bravado? Indeed. Have they earned some of that reputation? Possibly, but it is not so reasonable to charactarize an entire company and the thousands of DP's and AC's that use and enjoy Red cameras based upon the web forum ramblings of a few. You seem to be referencing the behavior of some specific people when you talk about your particular choices. If that is the case it may be best to acknowledge it as such and leave it there, rather than taking a piss all over everybody, eh?

 

[António Fagundes]

Scott, this reads as RED is insecure about competing the EPIC at 2k. So is the EPIC no good at 2k? That's a problem.

Most here have missed the point of the Zacuto film. They are basically saying that we have reached a level where the imagery from most cameras are indistinguishable from one another, this is why its hard to pick out your beloved EPIC, so it doesn't matter what you camera you use but the DP and crew that operate it.

So congratulations you have one of the best cameras, but it isn't so good that we overlook the arrogance of the RED community so we chose ALEXA instead because we don't want to deal with that attitude though out production.

I wouldn't be concerned about how great RED is at this point but the perceived attitude of the people that use them. Kinda ironic really.

Well put Ash, this is exactly my point.

In the business, this attitude from Red has became almost a joke. Now, Red has managed to step up to the plate and be able to compete in a field that they very much created, but that were unable to produce a significant confidence pattern from the industry, other brands came along and produced (in their own terms and designs) serious competition to Red. Never again will Red be the 'only' Motion Picture Digital Camera. Now it's only up to Red to keep on delievering and not loose the 'race' that they started.

If anything is hurting Red right now, is not their cameras anymore, its their untitled arrogance and confrontational attitude, both of wich don't gel very well at all with the film crowd...

And the reaction from this documentary says it all. All the negativity and confrontational responses only show that these people indeed fear more than anybody else of being proved wrong. And by doing this, they are not showing a slight bit of confidence in the company they so dearly fight for.

What does this tell everyone else in the industry? Red people are unbalanced bunch of wannabe's, fueled by hatred and antagonism, none of which are welcomed under any circustances on the set!

Just sayin'

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Not being able to tell which camera is stupid. I hear this all the time in vfx.

"You can't tell what's rendered in Maya or Max so why does it matter!?"

Because it ignores how easy it was to achieve that result--and what creative choices were limited by the tool selected. You could get RED and Film to look quite a bit a like. But it's going to take a LOT more work to get Red to look like film than to just film. Conversely if you want to review dailies, it's going to be a LOT more difficult to get the film processed and telecined by the end of the day. Process is as important as output since a good process can limit the time you have to spend on output. With enough time someone could build a house with a spoon but having saws, nails and such let you work fast enough to take on more ambitious projects. Similarly I get really bad green screen footage all the time but I bust my ass and make it look good--that doesn't mean it was shot well, that's a testament to the compositor's talent not the quality of the shoot. Conversely someone can get great footage and screw it up in post. But it's a lot harder to screw up good footage than bad footage so it's always good to capture a good image.

The same can be argued for or against RED. I'm not taking a side on whether that's a pro-red statement or an anti-red statement.

As to this Zacuto shootout... I think all the cameras look like shit. So I don't really care if they look "Similar". Yeah they all look about the same--like a badly shot 90s porno for cinemax. But there are a number of cameras in there that do look shittier.

 

[Nick Morrison]

What does this tell everyone else in the industry? Red people are unbalanced bunch of wannabe's, fueled by hatred and antagonism, none of which are welcomed under any circustances on the set!

Just sayin'

Seriously dude? Are you condemning an ENTIRE community of users?

You sound VERY full of hatred and anger yourself.

You are clearly have a VERY HOSTILE agenda.


What is so clear is that people also LOVE TO HATE RED. You included.

 

[António Fagundes]

Nick, I don't hate Red, life is short you know...

Ever asked yourself why is it that people love to hate Red? And why doesn't this happen with other manufacturers? And no, I'm not condemning an entire 'community', only people that give Red a bad rep, Jim included.

Get one thing straight, the film industry doesn't need Red to survive, doesn't even need a Red 'community', why would they ever need the attitude? Red has made a wonderful camera, a wonderful sensor, wonderful software, why don't just leave at that? What do you want? A prize??

I'm not being hostile, I'm just telling you what you look like behaving as you do. I could shoot everything for the rest of my life on a Red camera, I would be a happy man, but every time I came here and have to read some of the hostilities, it baffles me. And it leaves me very irritated when this atitude comes from the guy who payed for this. It really is sad.

And please, don't call me dude.

 

[Álex Montoya]

Not being able to tell which camera is stupid. I hear this all the time in vfx.

"You can't tell what's rendered in Maya or Max so why does it matter!?"

Because it ignores how easy it was to achieve that result--and what creative choices were limited by the tool selected. You could get RED and Film to look quite a bit a like. But it's going to take a LOT more work to get Red to look like film than to just film. Conversely if you want to review dailies, it's going to be a LOT more difficult to get the film processed and telecined by the end of the day. Process is as important as output since a good process can limit the time you have to spend on output. With enough time someone could build a house with a spoon but having saws, nails and such let you work fast enough to take on more ambitious projects. Similarly I get really bad green screen footage all the time but I bust my ass and make it look good--that doesn't mean it was shot well, that's a testament to the compositor's talent not the quality of the shoot. Conversely someone can get great footage and screw it up in post. But it's a lot harder to screw up good footage than bad footage so it's always good to capture a good image.

The same can be argued for or against RED. I'm not taking a side on whether that's a pro-red statement or an anti-red statement.

As to this Zacuto shootout... I think all the cameras look like shit. So I don't really care if they look "Similar". Yeah they all look about the same--like a badly shot 90s porno for cinemax. But there are a number of cameras in there that do look shittier.

Totally.

 

[Mike Halper]

In my opinion, if you want to really see the differences between the cameras they should be exhibited at the highest possible standards, and that means 4K not 2K. Otherwise you diminish the advantages that some cameras have over others and so people won't be able to make a judgement with the advantages. And Alexa should be shot at 3K to show it's advantages over the lower resolutions as well, so this is not just about trying to make only the Red look better. Also, don't forget that there's 4K TV's/monitors right around the corner and 4K projectors already in a lot of theaters. I can imagine it won't be very long before those theaters begin receiving 4K DCP's and projecting 4K (some already do) and people begin watching 4K in their homes.

 

[Taj Jackson]

They should have had an over 2k camera section and highlight that as well. Let Arri Sony and Red compete there. To me, dynamic range is really important but I also equally prefer more resolution. I like the idea of having my "wiggle room" to post-compose my framing and punch in at times when needed. Displaying 2k or HD only to "even the playing field" is not a fair camera shootout for all. It's a 2k or HD shootout, that is all. It's like having a vocal competition with 2 singers and a rapper, and making the singers rap because the rapper can't sing. Why not just force everyone to transfer to SD then? As for the documentary, I really enjoyed it and thought it was great.

 

[steve weiss]

Seriously dude? Are you condemning an ENTIRE community of users?

You sound VERY full of hatred and anger yourself.

You are clearly have a VERY HOSTILE agenda.


What is so clear is that people also LOVE TO HATE RED. You included.

I debated whether or not I should do this post, I'll probably regret it but I thought I should tell you how I feel. I'm very disturbed and hurt by many of the messages I've read.

Someone posted earlier that he was going to post which camera is which saying essentially, heck we are on the RED forum and we can do whatever we want. I asked nicely for you not to release which camera is which. Many have not been to screenings and this will spoil the series for them to know the outcome prior to seeing episode 2. Why would you do that? Does this forum give you the right to be rude or arrogant? I think you all need to really take a look at yourselves and read these forum posts out loud, to your friends or spouses. The level of anger and rudeness in these posts is energy that could be so much better used in trying to become better filmmakers (which WE ALL could stand to do). Me and so many of my friends (many Epic/Scarlet owners) would love to come here and gab with you but we can't stand the tone. Maybe you are fine with this, then so be it, but if you are trying to get new folks to come and talk with you, you're going about it the wrong way. Why can't this be a friendly environment where we talk about the art and craft of filmmaking/cinematography. I thought everyone here was a cinematographer and not an engineer. Has anyone actually watched part one of the documentary and tried to figure out what the message really is? Because it's not really about cameras. http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-great-camera-shootout-part-one If you watch it, you'll see, the test is only aspect of it--hence--"Revenge" of the Great Camera Shootout. I find it interesting that we had many lengthy threads before the shootout was ever released and now that it's out no one has actually tried to make sense of it and what we are trying to say.

Let's talk about the test since that's all you seem to care about. There are two parts. The subjective and the empirical. In episode one you will see the subjective and in episode three you will see the empirical. Let's talk about episode one, It's a subjective test for god sakes, it's just to show you what skilled individuals decided to do with Bruce's incredibly hard 14 stop range scene. Yes as Francis points out, the scene doesn't look brilliant when screened in a theater, how many 14 stop range scenes do? That's the point of a difficult test. If Bruce made a 8 stop range scene all the cameras would have an easy time with it. Mainly, the lower end cameras which I know would bother you even more. So by creating a scene that was very very difficult it would show starker differences between the cameras. In part three you will get your empirical test where we ran all of the cameras through the same lighting without changing a thing except the cameras preferred ISO and you will see that your camera is right up at the top if that means something to you. The empirical test shows you what you have out of the box, the creative test shows you what you can do with it if you have talent. There are no winners because winning is a matter of ability, and I'm sorry to say, IT ALWAYS WILL BE.

OMG, when I hear words like conspiracy so many times as I do on these forum pages I get truly scared. Do you really think there is a conspirisy against your camera? It's a camera. A tool. If you have talent you can make it look gorgeous and if not, then no. I think we need to ratchet this conversation down a bit. Bruce Logan ASC made a test and I made a documentary about his test. So far all I've shown in episode one is three minutes of the footage that Bruce has given me of his subjective test. How could I have edited something as some have mentioned that is biased one way or another. Here are the elements I have for episode one: 1. Bruce's 3 minutes of footage delivered to me. 2. A bunch of veteran DP's talking about issues not related to the test, but much more important then the test. Apparently, no one here seems to understand that. 3. Bruce talking about his process and test parameters. 4. Ryan, Rodney & Michael talking about their process for dealing with the Alexa, RED and iPhone. No assumptions were made. I have just delivered it as it was given. Do you not like what Ryan was saying in his 1:30 section about how he handled the RED. With those elements, there is really not a whole lot of ways you can go with this. It was very light on cameras and much more heavy on DP's talking about cinematography and filmmaking. Seriously, we need to stop this. Words like conspiracy, mis-treated, come one, anyone who knows me knows I'm just a filmmaker trying to make an award winning documentary. I have no horse in this or any other race. I'm just showing what happened in Bruce's test. I'm not spinning it. I didn't have anything to do with Bruce's test. I wasn't even there for most of his test, I was conducting interviews while he was conducting his test. Do you really think that Bruce would not conduct the most accurate test he could? Nobody is listening to the interviewees, maybe their credentials are not good enough for you but I never heard them talk about cameras at all (except Victor's final statement) all I hear about are the qualities to be a cinematographer, the importance of collaboration, and advice for young people on how to get where they are. Just silly shit like that, apparently not worth even being brought up once in this forum. LOL.. Steve

 

[steve weiss]

I agree, I don't think market placement is at issue here. Zacuto's products are extremely targeted by nature and in terms of company size, perceived value and perceived quality they occupy an extremely sparsely populated space. However I think I can point out without contributing to the conspiracy theories that there is a difference between market placement and deliberately appealing to your customer base. Marketing is about more than mere placement and I think it fair to view the documentary in terms of it's marketing value to Zacuto. They may or may not be pandering, and they may not have their own horse in this race but I don't believe for a second that the Zacuto company and it's representatives are without bias on the subject matter.

As I mentioned elsewhere, a skilled author of a documentary has complete control over how the subject is perceived. What kind of an idiot would voluntarily place their product's entire reputation in the hands of anyone else, let alone a documentary film maker with competing interests? Certainly it must have come as no suprise to anyone that manufacturer participation was low, so I find it absurd that some still seem to imply that Red's refusal to participate was indicative of some sort of weakness.

Now about these attacks on Zacuto. Most of you think I'm an equipment maker, yes, I've done that for the past 7 years, but for the past 30 years I've been a corporate, commercial, fashion and documentary filmmaker. That's my life and my passion. I have been in so many interviews where I tell people not to buy equipment that they cannon afford. It won't make you a better filmmaker and I make no exception with Zacuto as well. I consistently tell people that Zacuto equipment is nice if you can afford it but will not make you a better filmmaker or your films look any better. If you can not afford and you need support equipment then go buy from incredibly good friends at Jag35 or Cinevate. Dennis Wood and the Garcia's are wonderful people and make fine products at varying price points. I'm a straight shooter and I don't bullshit. I give people the best advice I can, at that point they are own there own as to what they do. I make equipment for every single camera on the market excluding the F65 & the Alexa. But we sell plenty of equipment to the RED market, mid range camera market and DSLR market. The whole world seems to be getting the message of my documentary that talent and not cameras is what makes a great cinematographer/filmmaker. Now if you can afford a great camera then even more power too you. I can't tell you the volume of good will emails and comments on message boards and forums I've received for my program. Messages like "Thank you", "inspiring", "makes me want to go out and shoot". All but this forum. Sadly, I probably won't do another shootout because of all the grief I get from this community. I think I'll do a documentary completely outside the film educational space. Plus, I'm going to do a narrative film with one of the guest DPs interviewed.

Sadly, I'm starting to feel that you are your own worst enemy and poor PR machine. This is sad because what I learned from Jim and his marketing savvy when he came out of the gate 4 or 5 NAB's ago has changed the way I feel about marketing. I have no college degree, but I learned from the master, thank you JJ. I just hope all of this anger doesn't undue all of incredible buzz he created for your magnificent company. Sure to the readers of this forum, you have a fabulous camera, nobody is doubting that-- BUT YOU. 90% of these posts are viamently defending your camera when nobody deny's that it has a great picture. But again who cares!!! In the right hands it looks great and in the wrong hands it looks awful, just like any camera. Do you really feel so limited that you can't pickup another camera up and make it look great. I don't believe that and that's the only point in the subjective test. Do you think if I gave Janusz a GH2 or Sony F3 with an experience DIT for that camera, that he wouldn't come up with something that blows your socks off, of course he would but it has nothing to do with the camera he is using and you ALL know it. It has to do with all of the other dialogue by the interviewees in my film that none of you are listening to. "Talent", that horrible word that none of us wants to face, so we endlessly talk about specs, conspiracies and ill will. Is your camera technically at the top of the heap, of course it is and you will see that in ep. 3 when we show the empirical test. But are we so intolerant that you are not interested to see what two kids can do with a GH2 or C300? I'm proud of the job they did. Would I want to work with a GH2, probably not because I'm use production grade cameras, but depending on the job I may do. Jens, my DP of 27 years, picks the right camera for the right job as it should be. No camera is perfect for every job. So many people have commented on other forums how great our single light source interviews in the program looked. They were shot with a Varicam (10 year old technology) in glorious 720p. Jens and I love the look of the Varicam and Jens knows how to light for it. We didn't want shallow DOF for fear of losing a moment out of focus, WE LIT IT EXACTLY HOW WE WANTED IT, SO ONLY MINUSCULE COLOR CHANGES WERE NEEDED IN POST. The baked in look was fine for us and we wanted a real servo zoom lens for beautiful slow creeping zooms. Is an Epic/Scarlet "better", yes in picture quality but not right for what I was looking for in filming my interviews. Would I want an EPIC for shooting a feature, depending on the subject, probably. For our documentary, would our viewer on the web notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, probably not, but so many other variables are so much more important to me LIKE THE CONTENT and making sure I get those magic moments.

Try watching it before you knock it, you might just learn something, be inspired to go out and shoot, improve your skills or open your mind. Because if you watched it, that's what it's really about. It's not really a shootout; hence, "REVENGE" of the Great Camera Shootout, think about it. It's about what it takes to be great cinematographer or filmmaker AND WE ALL KNOW IT'S MORE THEN A CAMERA, and if you don't know that you wasting your time.

You have a great camera, lovely, now let's see what you can do with it... and let's talk about that. nicely.

 

[Adam Palmer]

"tell people not to buy equipment that they cannon afford."


​Clear subliminal marketing! The plot thickens...

 

[Paul Schneider]

Plot? Is Steve suggesting you buy medieval weaponry?

 

[Mike Halper]

Steve, though I still stand by my opinion that I think a 4K projection would have been the best way to present the test footage (note I said opinion), I do want to say I thought part 1 was very well-made. I really likeed watching all the different cinematographers. I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3 and hope they arrive sooner rather than later. Maybe that will help with some of the negativity when everyone watches the empirical test your describe.

The fact that at 1080p (or 2K projection) some of these looked as close as they did is a testament to the capabilities of even the lowest quality/priced cameras in the group (especially the GH2) when a DP takes the time and care to light in a way that compensates for the camera's limitations. It just shows that it's always more about the person than the equipment they're using. The equipment (including the camera) is just a tool and really takes a talented craftsman to create something extraordinary. This documentary does help show that the Epic (and Alexa for that matter) makes the craftsman's work easier than with the other cameras, with which the craftsman has to work a lot harder and longer to get similar results.

Btw, when will we see parts 2 and 3?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Now about these attacks on Zacuto.

The level of hostility on this forum is intense and I agree it can be troubling, but I find it no different that most others. It's a fascinating phenomenon. No one is immune to it and I don't think anyone likes to be the victim of it. For that you have my sympathy.

I'm confused as to why you quoted my post to make your defense. While there have been many who have wantonly impugned your integrity, I thought mine to be pretty objective. I do not accuse you of any deliberate misdeeds, I merely pointed out why there may be conflicts of interests that come into play. Surely we can acknowledge that possibility without making or taking offense, no?

We all have our biases and I see nothing at all wrong with that. However, a documentary film maker who denies or obscures his bias is one to view with skepticism and critical thinking is required when viewing any documentary. That is all I am encouraging; to keep an objective mind about where people's interests lie, and I did that without animosity or accusation. I think.

 

[Mark Warren]

The whole world seems to be getting the message of my documentary that talent and not cameras is what makes a great cinematographer/filmmaker... I can't tell you the volume of good will emails and comments on message boards and forums I've received for my program. Messages like "Thank you", "inspiring", "makes me want to go out and shoot". All but this forum. Sadly, I probably won't do another shootout because of all the grief I get from this community.

That's like an entertainer who has had a standing ovation from 98% of the packed stadium, but has a tantrum and retires because not EVERYONE stood up! Steve, if it'll make you feel any better, I sent the link around to many, many people, who all enjoyed Part 1, like I did, mainly for the nice observational bits about life and filmmaking from the gentle souls you interviewed. I would encourage you not to feel as though everyone has to validate you on your creative efforts, because if you do, you'll end up never (ever) being creative ever again. Somewhere, sometime, someone came up with a saying along the lines of, "You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try." Usually these sayings just go in one ear and out the other until you actually experience them in real life (like you just have) then they make sense. Just like the time I fell for a card trick in New York City involving three cards! When I walked away, I thought, "HANG ON! I think I just fell for the..." (They really fleeced me too! I was 19yo.)

In defence of the Reduser forum, this place is very entertaining (and educational) once you accept and embrace that it is a lunatic asylum run by a self-professed lunatic. If you're around here long enough you'll see that the RED leader is actually very self-effacing and is not averse to poking fun at himself. I am fortunate to live in a time-zone whereby I can conveniently see his more bizarre threads that run for a short time before being pulled. Someone should save all these and publish them in a book one day, they are enormously entertaining. Now, he is also a lunatic who can mobilise and motivate a great many people, make a vision a reality, and you have to be a highly intelligent or street-smart lunatic to do most things worthwhile. He is patriotic and aggressive in his marketing, no doubt about that, but he is a businessman, and has proven to be a successful businessman. In difficult financial times he is running a business against some pretty big players and his passion, particularly in his marketing, is often misconstrued. It is true that one of the spin-offs of his marketing approach is it creates a vast array of zombie-like fans who make strange whistling noises and robotic whoots in support of the firm. Apple, with their marketing (and there's some cult-like similarities) can also do this. In here, the zombie-bots can and do attack strangers, but more often than not their radar becomes scrambled and they end up attacking one another, so that's in-house entertainment. So for instance, standard procedure is a stranger comes in here and attacks the zombie-bots, which is a mistake (to engage the drones) -- but if you wait awhile the bots attack each other and you can just walk past them and onto the more interesting theologians and philosophers and artisans who are in the distance. It's a kind of simple test, although a test which so many fail. (For instance I can hear the buzzing drones whirring towards me now, but I will just ignore them and they will disperse.)

There are so many hidden gems in here past the bots. For example, Ketch Rossi's thread in the EPIC-M section is without any possible competition THE most bizarre, diverse and unusual thread in the history of the web. (That's a big statement but I stand by it.) Words fail me when even thinking about it, and if you haven't read it in its entirety and had the experience of your jaw bouncing off the ground in as many different ways as you can imagine, (including awe, incredulity, lust and disgust), then you haven't cyber-lived. There should be a feature film TRILOGY made about that thread. Something like 'Dune' meets 'Shutter Island' meets 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. It's utter brilliance would be if it were a parody of some of RED's marketing, but the astonishing thing is it could all be real... or not. No-one really knows, except him. And even then I'm not sure.

And finally, there are outstanding professionals on this site, (including the aforementioned), wise (or even mad) like the souls you interviewed, who give of their time and share their insights, without rancour and self-aggrandisement, making it all a very compelling, bizarre, weird and wonderful slice of the web. Check in without any form of personal agenda (very hard to do) leave any ego at the door (even harder), don't look to be 100% validated... and enjoy the deep knowledge, entertainment, and theatre. I'm sure there are many lurkers here who do exactly that every day.

 

[Les C.]

I debated whether or not I should do this post, I'll probably regret it but I thought I should tell you how I feel. I'm very disturbed and hurt by many of the messages I've read.

Someone posted earlier that he was going to post which camera is which saying essentially, heck we are on the RED forum and we can do whatever we want. I asked nicely for you not to release which camera is which. Many have not been to screenings and this will spoil the series for them to know the outcome prior to seeing episode 2. Why would you do that? Does this forum give you the right to be rude or arrogant? I think you all need to really take a look at yourselves and read these forum posts out loud, to your friends or spouses. The level of anger and rudeness in these posts is energy that could be so much better used in trying to become better filmmakers (which WE ALL could stand to do). Me and so many of my friends (many Epic/Scarlet owners) would love to come here and gab with you but we can't stand the tone. Maybe you are fine with this, then so be it, but if you are trying to get new folks to come and talk with you, you're going about it the wrong way. Why can't this be a friendly environment where we talk about the art and craft of filmmaking/cinematography. I thought everyone here was a cinematographer and not an engineer. Has anyone actually watched part one of the documentary and tried to figure out what the message really is? Because it's not really about cameras. http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-great-camera-shootout-part-one If you watch it, you'll see, the test is only aspect of it--hence--"Revenge" of the Great Camera Shootout. I find it interesting that we had many lengthy threads before the shootout was ever released and now that it's out no one has actually tried to make sense of it and what we are trying to say.

Let's talk about the test since that's all you seem to care about. There are two parts. The subjective and the empirical. In episode one you will see the subjective and in episode three you will see the empirical. Let's talk about episode one, It's a subjective test for god sakes, it's just to show you what skilled individuals decided to do with Bruce's incredibly hard 14 stop range scene. Yes as Francis points out, the scene doesn't look brilliant when screened in a theater, how many 14 stop range scenes do? That's the point of a difficult test. If Bruce made a 8 stop range scene all the cameras would have an easy time with it. Mainly, the lower end cameras which I know would bother you even more. So by creating a scene that was very very difficult it would show starker differences between the cameras. In part three you will get your empirical test where we ran all of the cameras through the same lighting without changing a thing except the cameras preferred ISO and you will see that your camera is right up at the top if that means something to you. The empirical test shows you what you have out of the box, the creative test shows you what you can do with it if you have talent. There are no winners because winning is a matter of ability, and I'm sorry to say, IT ALWAYS WILL BE.

OMG, when I hear words like conspiracy so many times as I do on these forum pages I get truly scared. Do you really think there is a conspirisy against your camera? It's a camera. A tool. If you have talent you can make it look gorgeous and if not, then no. I think we need to ratchet this conversation down a bit. Bruce Logan ASC made a test and I made a documentary about his test. So far all I've shown in episode one is three minutes of the footage that Bruce has given me of his subjective test. How could I have edited something as some have mentioned that is biased one way or another. Here are the elements I have for episode one: 1. Bruce's 3 minutes of footage delivered to me. 2. A bunch of veteran DP's talking about issues not related to the test, but much more important then the test. Apparently, no one here seems to understand that. 3. Bruce talking about his process and test parameters. 4. Ryan, Rodney & Michael talking about their process for dealing with the Alexa, RED and iPhone. No assumptions were made. I have just delivered it as it was given. Do you not like what Ryan was saying in his 1:30 section about how he handled the RED. With those elements, there is really not a whole lot of ways you can go with this. It was very light on cameras and much more heavy on DP's talking about cinematography and filmmaking. Seriously, we need to stop this. Words like conspiracy, mis-treated, come one, anyone who knows me knows I'm just a filmmaker trying to make an award winning documentary. I have no horse in this or any other race. I'm just showing what happened in Bruce's test. I'm not spinning it. I didn't have anything to do with Bruce's test. I wasn't even there for most of his test, I was conducting interviews while he was conducting his test. Do you really think that Bruce would not conduct the most accurate test he could? Nobody is listening to the interviewees, maybe their credentials are not good enough for you but I never heard them talk about cameras at all (except Victor's final statement) all I hear about are the qualities to be a cinematographer, the importance of collaboration, and advice for young people on how to get where they are. Just silly shit like that, apparently not worth even being brought up once in this forum. LOL.. Steve

Steve - I own a RED camera, and recently bought some rig gear for it from Zacuto.

I really appreciate the shootouts and think there's a lot of value in what I can learn from them, just by seeing the direction part 1 has taken. The production logs were also great.

In the post above, and your post afterwards, you really have some valid points.

As I mentioned, I'm a RED owner (and thus biased toward RED).

The very hostile posts toward your shootout and your company really turn me off.

I can only imagine what a potential RED user must think when reading them?

When someone trashes another person or another company (especially if they are a competing company), it makes them look weak. That's just the psychology of it. That's not behavior people generally admire.

Thanks for taking the time to make your posts - mostly quite logical, although you must have a lot of emotion generated from the attacks.

Sadly (and I've said this recently in another thread), you can't use logic to argue someone out of a position that they did not arrive at through logic to begin with.

Just realize that although there are a lot of negative posts, there are a lot of people on this forum who don't agree with them who may be silent as they really don't want to stand up for an unpopular position for political reasons.

 

[Martin Weiss]

One of the great things about the internet is people's willingness to share their ideas.

One of the worst things about the internet is people's willingness to share their feelings.

 

[steve weiss]

The level of hostility on this forum is intense and I agree it can be troubling, but I find it no different that most others. It's a fascinating phenomenon. No one is immune to it and I don't think anyone likes to be the victim of it. For that you have my sympathy.

I'm confused as to why you quoted my post to make your defense. While there have been many who have wantonly impugned your integrity, I thought mine to be pretty objective. I do not accuse you of any deliberate misdeeds, I merely pointed out why there may be conflicts of interests that come into play. Surely we can acknowledge that possibility without making or taking offense, no?

We all have our biases and I see nothing at all wrong with that. However, a documentary film maker who denies or obscures his bias is one to view with skepticism and critical thinking is required when viewing any documentary. That is all I am encouraging; to keep an objective mind about where people's interests lie, and I did that without animosity or accusation. I think.

I agree with you that biases can creep in but I'm not making a propaganda film, like Michael Moore does and I think that is obvious. I told you that Bruce Logan made the test and I documented his making of the test. The reason that we brought in all of the individual camera specialists is to avoid having any bias. They ran there camera. You even hear Bruce say to Ryan, "it's all yours". We wanted to avoid having any bias. We wrote Jim and Ted begging them for an DP for the EPIC because I knew this might become a problem especially with your camera. Then we went on this forum several times with Ryan's name being mentioned more then once as a potential operator. Now about the team at Zacuto. My production company Zacuto films which includes six people have nothing to do with Zacuto USA, they are running their own division and are in a separate space from Zacuto USA. They don't even know or care about anything going on in Zacuto USA. They are producers and editors and work directly for me the Producer/Director and sole dedication is creating the most unbiased documentary programing as possible. We (my team and I) all sit in the post and are very attuned to the idea of propaganda films when making editorial decisions. I made a "FilmFellas" http://www.zacuto.com/filmfellas-cast-7 (scroll down and watch episode 30--What is Truth) specifically about documentary filmmaking vs. propaganda filmmaking and I'm a passionate believer in the separation of the two. But even with all of that I understand that a film is told through the directors POV and that can have ramifications. My team is constantly questioning me and I them as should be the process for unbiased documentary programming. If their is any slant in this film (which I hope their is not) it is not directed to any camera, just the opposite, it's that Talent is the determining factor to filmmaking. Is it born or made as posed in the film to the DP's "that's up for debate", myself, when it comes to greatness, I think its born. I'm not talking about being good, I'm talking about the greats when I refer to it being born, but that's my opinion and neither here or there. I do believe that the wonderful ideas presented in the film about topics like that would be infinitely more productive then talking about cameras from an engineering POV. Myself, I consider myself a documentary filmmaker and my sole focus is getting moments via interviews, objective shot, and B-roll and would love to see a thread about that because interviewing it's an art form that we could endlessly discuss and I'm sure everyone who has ever interviewed someone would bring input and we all could learn from the process. Wouldn't that be of more value then this, frankly, I'd like to learn and would be very interested in that.