The test was a HUGE #FAIL last year.
When there is no control standard there is no "test" being done. It becomes a mere Subjective Exploration.
I have hope that maybe this year "SCIENCE" actually makes an appearance in the "Test"
|
|
The test was a HUGE #FAIL last year.
When there is no control standard there is no "test" being done. It becomes a mere Subjective Exploration.
I have hope that maybe this year "SCIENCE" actually makes an appearance in the "Test"
Two problems I detect:
1> Each camera gets 90 min to mess with the lights to perfect the scene for the given camera. Well, that's not a good test, because even an 8 bit camera can have the light optimized for it's crappy limitations. I'd rather see a more stressful test, to see how easy it is to rescue/recover a scene if the lighting was not perfect, and was rushed a bit like on a low budget production.
2> Viewing the results in 2K is so 1990. Like running an F1 race with a 65 mph speed limit and training wheels. 'Most of the world has a 65 mph speed limit, so we decided to run the race at 65 mph'
Viewing the results in 2K/1080p is perfect since it's the standard viewing resolution. There's no point to look what camera performs best at 4K because the audience sees 2K/1080p anyways.
You are aware there are hundreds (probably over 1000 at this point) Sony 4K projectors out there, right?
I think Zacuto bent over backwards to be as fair as possible, and judging by the list, the DPs doing the segments are all fairly heavyweight people who do very good work.
What if the Epic comes out the overall winner? Will everybody still hate the tests then? I'm particularly keen to see how the audiences do on the blind tests, where nobody knows what specific camera they're looking at until after they vote. And I'm also amused to see how a $2500 camera will compare to a $65,000 camera.
Having worked on projects that used three or four different cameras (forcing us to match them all in post), I can tell you that at the high end, the picture differences become very subtle. So much depends on the lighting and exposure, I'm still not convinced the camera alone is the most important factor. As an old pal of mine likes to say, "it's the archer... not the arrows."
I've done a good deal of this type of test already here in sunny LA, but I'd like to see what they did and how.
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.
We are doing that for SD to HD right now at work for multiple shows that were shot years ago and finished on tape. They count there blessings that the shows were shot on 35mm film. The details are there!
We retransfered every single take of all film shot during the season(s) and reconformed to HD. That's a tractor trailer full of film.
But I understand. It would look plain silly to an audience if only two cameras looked full sharp. Upsets the tea party. Disruptive.
4K camera should always look way better ans sharper when downslaced to 2K than 2K camera. If it doens't, well then you have a problem.
We just don't understand why the test doesn't also have a 4K finish. The future is 4K delivery... and the future is now.
Do the test with a 4K finish also and we'll be happy to show up and service the EPIC. Otherwise... this should be on DVXuser.
Also... if the RED footage isn't finished R3D to the end... it doesn't count in our eyes.
Jim
What, no iPhone in this test?
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |