Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

[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/showthr...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/showthr...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.