Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Steve I find it curious that you attack Reduser members but praise Jim Jannard when it was Jim that posted the most absurd attack on your film of anyone:

This "test" was a crime... as expected.

Jim

Your film though proclaims to do one thing while doing another. If the goal was to see how different DPs light a scene then why did you include dumb 'rules' to make it into some sort of game-show challenge? Give the DPs a blank canvas and a repeatable scene if that's your goal. By forcing the DPs to keep certain lights in the scene we aren't seeing a "Creative" test, we're just seeing a badly administered empirical test--but with a cop-out excuse that it's not the real 'test'. It's close enough to being a test that it's camera test. But it's divergent enough that its results are meaningless.

Mostly I'm disappointed though that you've sunk to the same level of whininess as those you accuse of being whiners.

 

[Ash Worth]

Gavin, your post is just more evidence that you can't win against the RED army.
Thankfully 'winning' doesn't necessarily equate to beautiful imagery from todays cameras.

Take off the RED blinkers and you will see that the best part of Steve's doc was the interviews...
Shot with a 10 year old Varicam at 720P. WTF. If only they had shot Wexler at 5k. Idiots.

You just don't get it. And this thread mirrors somewhat the message of the film.
No one cares about your camera. What's left is you. And do you want to be like Steve and all the folks behind that film who all work together towards a common goal or do you want to be the guy standing on the sidelines muttering 'well this is just line skipping bulls**t'?

I know who I would rather work with.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gavin, your post is just more evidence that you can't win against the RED army.
Thankfully 'winning' doesn't necessarily equate to beautiful imagery from todays cameras.

Take off the RED blinkers and you will see that the best part of Steve's doc was the interviews...
Shot with a 10 year old Varicam at 720P. WTF. If only they had shot Wexler at 5k. Idiots.

You just don't get it. And this thread mirrors somewhat the message of the film.
No one cares about your camera. What's left is you. And do you want to be like Steve and all the folks behind that film who all work together towards a common goal or do you want to be the guy standing on the sidelines muttering 'well this is just line skipping bulls**t'?

I know who I would rather work with.

Lol I'm not even defending Red, in fact I attack Red and you're attacking me for being a RED drone. Talk about blinders. It's possible that there can be people who think *both* RED is being overly defensive *and* the part 1 test is stupid. People don't have to necessarily be for one or the other.

 

[Rehan K]

Mostly I'm disappointed though that you've sunk to the same level of whininess as those you accuse of being whiners.

Steve posts have been balanced and rational, while red fans have been hostile, whiny, with tons of conspiracy theories thrown it. I do hope that in part 2 and part 3 we get to see some empirical tests with the same lighting for all cameras. That will just confirm that even cheaper cameras (like F3 and C300) can make just as good images as more expensive cameras (epic, F65 and Alexa). When red fans encounter this fact, they resort to "4K" party line, even though almost nothing is released in 4K and almost no one owns a 4K monitor and TV. In any case, the "4K" argument is going away soon anyway, as the market will be flooded with cheap 4K cameras within the next 2 years. As I said with faster memory cards and sensors, the only thing that the manufacturer would have to do is some software changes, and there the 20 MP still DSLRs now does "4K" videos too.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Steve,

You coming by here and standing in the "fire" shows a lot of class.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Steve posts have been balanced and rational, while red fans have been hostile, whiny, with tons of conspiracy theories thrown it.

No Steve has lumped in every single person in this forum under one umbrella. Which isn't warranted or appreciated. Yes there are some red trolls here. And yes they are giving him undue grief. But to imply that they represent the totality of REDuser or even the majority is wrong. Instead of elevating the discussion it's just ratcheted up the personal attacks.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Gavin, I think you may be confusing Steve with a couple of others, but it would be great if we could all back off of the rhetoric and personal confrontations.

 

[António Fagundes]

Martin Weiss, a moderator in this forum, has just made a ridiculous unfair and passive agressive comment regarding Steve's posts here. How's that for intelligence and welcoming manners?

Shame that with so many smart and polite people here, others keep deconstructing what could well be the finest cinematography forum on the web. When moderators themselves heat up to confrontations, well, it's hard you know, and it's sad.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Gavin, your post is just more evidence that you can't win against the RED army.
Thankfully 'winning' doesn't necessarily equate to beautiful imagery from todays cameras.

Take off the RED blinkers and you will see that the best part of Steve's doc was the interviews...
Shot with a 10 year old Varicam at 720P. WTF. If only they had shot Wexler at 5k. Idiots.

You just don't get it. And this thread mirrors somewhat the message of the film.
No one cares about your camera. What's left is you. And do you want to be like Steve and all the folks behind that film who all work together towards a common goal or do you want to be the guy standing on the sidelines muttering 'well this is just line skipping bulls**t'?

I know who I would rather work with.

So do I. Someone who has mastered the art and craft, and ALSO makes intelligent tool choices that will not potentially jeopardize the project. This whole "it's all about the art" nonesense irritates me to no end - it's about the art, the tech, all of it, together. If you suck at one or the other, you may as well suck at both.

Cinematography is not some hippie spoken word contest.

Bad tech choices can waste time and money and throw a whole show under a bus.

Line skipping, skew, all that takes away form the visual impact of any given work. Maybe you think these things are not important - I disagree and so do audiences, if you actually look up market research about them.

And then there are simple practical considerations -Like maybe you think the weight of a camera is not important - well as someone who uses Steadicam ops a lot, I disagree with that too. A heavy camera can mean you don't get that third take that would have had the best acting. Maybe you think Raw is not important - again, there are times when having to futz with gammas and so on will make you miss a shot. How is missing a shot not important, even if you are the mythical master craftman who does not need good technology to create beautiful work, who can create something better looking than Avatar with just a pair of VHS cameras, that you allude to.

Besides... THIS IS A TECH FORUM FOR LEARNING ABOUT TECH. That's why we talk about tech here. Should it never be discussed, anywhere?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

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.

Very well put, very good points.

 

[Les C.]

.... And then there are simple practical considerations -Like maybe you think the weight of a camera is not important - well as someone who uses Steadicam ops a lot, I disagree with that too. A heavy camera can mean you don't get that third take that would have had the best acting. .....

I totally agree with you on this!!!

I bet a lot of Steadicam operators are silently praying for a light RED camera for their next job.

But, a top Steadicam operator can make the magic happen, even with a much larger and heavier camera - so in the end, it may be all about the 'art' and 'talent' after all?

You might enjoy the 'making of Hugo' Steadicam video in this thread, it's incredible:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ible-Steadicam-shot-Behind-the-Scenes-of-Hugo

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I totally agree with you on this!!!

I bet a lot of Steadicam operators are silently praying for a light RED camera for their next job.

But, a top Steadicam operator can make the magic happen, even with a much larger and heavier camera - so in the end, it may be all about the 'art' and 'talent' after all?

You might enjoy the 'making of Hugo' Steadicam video in this thread, it's incredible:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ible-Steadicam-shot-Behind-the-Scenes-of-Hugo

Thanks for sharing that, fascinating - but no matter the op, they all have limits on how long they can carry , so no matter who - the less the weight, the longer you shoot, the more takes you get.

 

[Mike Halper]

Line skipping, skew, all that takes away form the visual impact of any given work. Maybe you think these things are not important - I disagree and so do audiences, if you actually look up market research about them.

Please show us the market research, because my experience is that audiences don't care as much and can't tell the difference nearly all the time. Audiences care most about story and acting. Sure, it needs to look good, but actually they'll forgive poor lighting and a not-so-great image before they forgive bad sound. Why do you think the found footage movies are so successful? Because audiences don't care as much about the image as they do certain other things.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Please show us the market research, because my experience is that audiences don't care and can't tell the difference nearly all the time. Audiences care most about story and acting. Sure, it needs to look good, but actually they'll forgive poor lighting and a not-so-great image before they forgive bad sound. Why do you think the found footage movies are so successful? Because audiences don't care as much about the image as they do certain other things.

Found footage movies are generally popular on Youtube, which is free.

For the big screen, where you have to pay admission, these tech errors are much less forgiven by audiences.

Yes, content ALWAYS trumps tech. But GOOD TECH can also make storytelling EASIER. Whether it be a camera, or something as simple as a follow focus.

 

[Paul Toth]

It has been said that after the first 20 minutes of a movie, if the content is done well enough, that the audience forgets the technical aspects (if they ever knew them to begin with) and gets involved in the story. Story and content is king.

Things like the Zacuto tests/shootouts are interesting as they can spur on debate and hopefully in thE long run make the products we use even better. For me these tests are about approaching my art in a different way perhaps. Yes it's nice to see how well camera A does vs camera B or C but here's the thing: all good DOP's can make beautiful images whether they are using A, B or C. Hopefully instead of bashing the cameras or the tests we can, as cinematographers, make beautiful images instead of trolling the Internet and creating havoc.

I know that I come less and less to these forums and read less and less posts because of the fact that some users feel they have to comment negatively or poorly about the topic du jour. in fact some people just post to post. With nothing of value to add to the discussion. I use some Zacuto gear with my Scarlet and it works very well. In fact I use a host of different manufacturers stuff and am constantly adapting and changing to create what works for me because of me. I am certainly influenced by others valid opinions of things but when the bashing or negativity comes out I lose any respect I had to begin with.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is constructive then people like Steve Weiss will validate that and react appropriately. Otherwise it becomes a waste of time. Whether or not you liked it or found the Zacuto doc interesting and helpful or not is fine and you can debate the merits of it.

So here's a challenge. Go out with your camera and create good images. Then post your work for all of us to admire. And then do it again. And again. And again. Keep doing it until you have perfected it.

 

[Mike Halper]

Found footage movies are generally popular on Youtube, which is free.

Really? Then please explain the popularity and success of movies like Blair Witch, Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, Chronicle, REC/Quarantine, etc, all of which had theatrical, VOD, & DVD/BR releases.

 

[Will Keir]

RED army.

It's not an army yet, just the rebellion.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Please show us the market research, because my experience is that audiences don't care and can't tell the difference nearly all the time. Audiences care most about story and acting. Sure, it needs to look good, but actually they'll forgive poor lighting and a not-so-great image before they forgive bad sound. Why do you think the found footage movies are so successful? Because audiences don't care as much about the image as they do certain other things.

Many networks and studios have done research about this - if this were not the case they would not be willing to pay for grip trucks. Audiences say they care about story and acting, but in fact will chose scenes that look attractively lit and framed every time. BTW - Cloverfield was less successful than most JJ projects - and "found footage films" are still using a visual style to re-enforce the particular story. If you shot a romantic comedy with shoulder-mounted cameras and no lights (what many indies try to do) you end up with something pretty hard to watch. I don't think the Die Hard series would have been much fun shot that way either. Also, audiences burn out on that vomit-cam stuff pretty quickly.

What does "your experience" mean? Your or my personal experience with our personal friends are 100% irrelevant to what the general audience wants. I'll bet in your "personal experience" people prefer European films to summer blockbusters too.

Besides, if you think all that matters is the story, as I've said before, why are you on this forum? Just get yourself a used Betacam on ebay for $150, or a rebel T2ii with a kit lens, and be done with it.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Really? Then please explain the popularity and success of movies like Blair Witch, Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, Chronicle, REC/Quarantine, etc, all of which had theatrical, VOD, & DVD/BR releases.

Their visual style, again, fit the very PARTICULAR stories they told. A James Bond movie shot that way, or for that matter Shindler's List, would be ludicrous and would make about $15 at the box office (director's mom would buy one ticket). In the same way The Artist made sense as black and white, but most films would not. There are only avery narrow range of stories that fit the "found footage" style well. Those who try to jam that low-fi style into other subject matter fail miserably and get no distribution at all. There are THOUSANDS of low-fi features around like this, seen only by the director's friends.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

It has been said that after the first 20 minutes of a movie, if the content is done well enough, that the audience forgets the technical aspects (if they ever knew them to begin with) and gets involved in the story. Story and content is king.

Things like the Zacuto tests/shootouts are interesting as they can spur on debate and hopefully in thE long run make the products we use even better. For me these tests are about approaching my art in a different way perhaps. Yes it's nice to see how well camera A does vs camera B or C but here's the thing: all good DOP's can make beautiful images whether they are using A, B or C. Hopefully instead of bashing the cameras or the tests we can, as cinematographers, make beautiful images instead of trolling the Internet and creating havoc.

I know that I come less and less to these forums and read less and less posts because of the fact that some users feel they have to comment negatively or poorly about the topic du jour. in fact some people just post to post. With nothing of value to add to the discussion. I use some Zacuto gear with my Scarlet and it works very well. In fact I use a host of different manufacturers stuff and am constantly adapting and changing to create what works for me because of me. I am certainly influenced by others valid opinions of things but when the bashing or negativity comes out I lose any respect I had to begin with.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if it is constructive then people like Steve Weiss will validate that and react appropriately. Otherwise it becomes a waste of time. Whether or not you liked it or found the Zacuto doc interesting and helpful or not is fine and you can debate the merits of it.

So here's a challenge. Go out with your camera and create good images. Then post your work for all of us to admire. And then do it again. And again. And again. Keep doing it until you have perfected it.

Any DP, no matter how skilled can be limited by the tools he or she uses. No DP wants to waste time on set fighting with the limitations of a crappy camera, crappy lights, or crappy anything - even if that crappiness is subtle. On a real pro set (not a situation where people go out and shoot old people at bus stops like Mr. Bloom then post it for free) lost time and muffed set-ups can bankrupt companies and destroy careers.