Zacuto Great Camera Shootout - and free parking!

[Rob Ruffo]

I couldn't agree with you more Mike. I don't think audience members give a crap about picture quality so long as it's good. I don't even care. I go to a movie to get lost in the story and leave my life for 90 minutes. To really burst everyones bubble. And this is going to really hurt the indie filmmakers here who are making pictures without stars. People go to movies primarily to see stars they like. Yes, it's possible to make a movie without stars and have it be a hit, but for the most part Hollywood is not going to risk a release with no stars. The second factor people go to movies is story, if it's a romance, love story, war film, period piece something they are interested in. Third and fourth, is toss up, some people go to movies because it was from the producer or director of... i.e. a Steven Spielberg film, etc. or maybe the picture is in Imax or 3D.

But apparently none of this matters because I didn't realize this was a tech forum as stated above.

Well Steve, I can't talk too much about proprietary research I got to peruse and discuss over the years, but I can tell you that you are missing a fundamental issue: there is a huge difference between what people say they care about and what they actually care about. What they say they care about is what they talk about - and what they talk about is what they feel they can competently dissect and discuss (story) - other things may matter as much, but they have only a subconscious effect to the untrained eye (i.e. cinematography) and without tech knowledge to afford words to describe cinematography, it's not very easily discussable for the average person.

Also, intellectual types tend to be more story oriented and certainly cafe society types want to have us believe they are "above fluff" and only care about content (whether actually true or not). People talk about "their experience" but that is always, inevitably, just the people they know, who are not representative of the general audience. I could just a fallaciously say that in my experience the average person crosses the Atlantic by plane 3-4 times a year - even though that's nonsense even in a rich country - because that's what I see amongst most of the people I know.

Again, proof of everything I state here is in the $$$ studios spend on extraordinary visual quality. You think they threw in all those minutes of Imax in Dark Knight because they are passionate about art, even if their research shows audiences dont care? If you say that you have never actually met a studio executive (my guess is you have, and need only think about this for a second).

There is also the matter of making stars look good. I have many times saved a shoot by being ruined by DSLR usage, back when that was "the in thing", by showing what the line-skipping did to accentuate women's pores and thicken their eyebrows - in side by side tests. The actress/model/singer would then invariably refuse to be shot on that "garbage". All this to say it's not just the audience, it's the talent too.

That said, I look forward to testing your new plasma lights. They seem to be great new tech which meet our extremely stringent standards of visual perfectionism.

[Rob Ruffo]

The arguments are getting rather circular...

This isn't an either or situation, either the technical quality matters or it doesn't. It matters more for some projects than others. It mattered for "Lawrence of Arabia" more than it did for "Clerks", in fact, grainy 16mm was fine for a movie like "Clerks" and IMAX or 5K would have been a bit of a waste, there's a point where two guys talking at the counter of a convenience store isn't going to be more compelling or funnier just because it's being shot in IMAX. Saying that super high levels of detail always matter is like saying that a landscape painting by Albert Bierstadt or Frederic Edwin Church is always going to be better than one by Monet, Pissaro, JMW Turner because it's sharper.

Your tools matter but that doesn't mean an artist must always reach for the highest-quality tools to achieve an artistic vision, it depends on the vision. And there are other factors that come into play in the real world of filmmaking, few people get to work without making compromises. What if compromising on one element bought you some other element? And you have to be a master of your tools if only to know what you can live without, where you can compromise and get away with it.

I don't agree with the premise that it doesn't matter what tools you use if you are talented, but I also don't agree with the premise that there is one tool for every job, or that the ultimate worth of a work of art will mainly be determined by the tools used.

As I said before, the arguments about what an audience cares about are somewhat misleading, they don't have to care about the finer details of filmmaking, they just want to enjoy the final product -- and sometimes part of that enjoyment is visceral and visual, sometimes it comes from the images, the setting and the costumes, the locations, but sometimes what draws you in is a well-lit face of an attractive actor delivering great dialogue against a blank background. Sometimes all of those things appear in the same movie, sometimes a movie is more one than the other.

What's nice about the newer technologies getting technically better but at an affordable price is that a grungy, gritty, low-tech image becomes a matter of choice rather than the result of a budgetary compromise. It levels the playing field somewhat, but on that more level field, it becomes even more important to now deliver something artistically better or something more entertaining. In one sense, the better the tools get, the less they matter in the grand scheme of things, but you still need that base to work from, just like a great work of architecture isn't usually enjoyed or appreciated for the foundation that the building was constructed on, but that doesn't diminish the importance of that element.

WOW that is well thought and said. I hope you don't mind if I use some of these ideas in future arguments with producers.

[Rob Ruffo]

Bullshit. Try Roger Deakins for crappy footage. Pixel peep is easy, art is hard. Anyone can pixel peep.

Roger Deakins pixel peeps A LOT. And sorry but who the F--- are you to say his work is crappy!? It may be to your personal taste, but Roger is one of the great talents working today, and has given much pleasure to audiences all over the world with his work. Yes anyone can pixel peep - anyone can shower too - does that mean it's not necessary?

Besides, few people really take the time to understand and keep up with cine tech at a deep level - so it's not "just anyone" like you say. It takes effort, time management, and self-discipline.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Bullshit. Try Roger Deakins for crappy footage. Pixel peep is easy, art is hard. Anyone can pixel peep.

Good pixel peeping is not a simple skill. I have met very few great pixel peepers. Pixel peeping is the critical ability to not only identify that there is something wrong with an image (a relatively simple skill indeed)--but to take it a step further and correctly determine *what* is wrong with an image. If you can't tell what's wrong with an image then you will never fix it. Randomly banging around in the dark hoping to improve your images is inefficient and rarely produces quality results.

If you look at an image and it's underexposed but you can't correctly identify that--then you will produce substandard work.

Musical analogies are good because most people in the film industry seem to have a musical background for some reason. Yes Jimi Hendrix could probably play a Wal-Mart guitar and make it sound pretty good, but he would sound better on a professional instrument. Similarly while you could rely on someone to tune your guitar--if you can't identify an out of tune guitar by ear (and therefore know to take corrective action) then you will consistently produce substandard work.

Both music and film require high degrees of technical sophistication in order to enable your creativity. Drawing is pretty simple technically, photography with current technology still requires a person who understands their tool to consistently produce high quality results.

[Nick Morrison]

Good pixel peeping is not a simple skill. I have met very few great pixel peepers. Pixel peeping is the critical ability to not only identify that there is something wrong with an image (a relatively simple skill indeed)--but to take it a step further and correctly determine *what* is wrong with an image. If you can't tell what's wrong with an image then you will never fix it. Randomly banging around in the dark hoping to improve your images is inefficient and rarely produces quality results.

If you look at an image and it's underexposed but you can't correctly identify that--then you will produce substandard work.

Musical analogies are good because most people in the film industry seem to have a musical background for some reason. Yes Jimi Hendrix could probably play a Wal-Mart guitar and make it sound pretty good, but he would sound better on a professional instrument. Similarly while you could rely on someone to tune your guitar--if you can't identify an out of tune guitar by ear (and therefore know to take corrective action) then you will consistently produce substandard work.

Both music and film require high degrees of technical sophistication in order to enable your creativity. Drawing is pretty simple technically, photography with current technology still requires a person who understands their tool to consistently produce high quality results.

Gavin I love this post. We can stretch your analogy to painting, too:

People remember Picasso and Rembrand as creative masters, but often forget that they were peerless TECHNICAL MASTERS, as well. Picasso's father was a COLLEGE LEVER DRAWING TEACHER, and yet Picasso could already draw better than him by the time he was 14. By the time he was 16, he was making perfect replica's of Velazquez masterpieces at the Prado.

So, when Picasso CHOOSE to break all the rules, it was because he not only knew them all, he'd MASTERED them, and therefore was freed to abandon them in new, and ground-breaking ways.

[António Fagundes]

Roger Deakins pixel peeps A LOT. And sorry but who the F--- are you to say his work is crappy!? It may be to your personal taste, but Roger is one of the great talents working today, and has given much pleasure to audiences all over the world with his work. Yes anyone can pixel peep - anyone can shower too - does that mean it's not necessary?

Besides, few people really take the time to understand and keep up with cine tech at a deep level - so it's not "just anyone" like you say. It takes effort, time management, and self-discipline.

You completely missed the point of my post!

Deakins is probably the best there is today, and no, he doesn't pixel peep. He hates that part of the process, even when he worked on film, he didn't really 'master' lab technology, but only to te extent of what he needed to achieve for a particular project, and then he was done with it. As I understand it, pixel mania its the least interesting part of the job for him, and even then, he relies on people he trusts to elaborate on that part for him.

He despises this new wave of pixel peepers, as he says himself, its all just a big technical exercise that brings nothing substancial to the 'art' of cinematography. He and David have had some very interesting discussions about this on Roger's forum. Roger, operates by the standard of what his 'eyes see', not what a tech sheet or a computer tell him!

But in here, most people have masters degrees on peeping pixels, its like a guitarist obsessing on the strings he uses convincing himself that the right strings will give him the ultimate melody!

There are two types of cinematographers, there's David, who clearly enjoys the technical aspects of cinematography, and then there's Deakins, who doesn't really spend any more time on it then he needs to, in order to get what he wants. But one thing is certain, both are successeful for their creative abilities, not for their flair on peeping pixels!

David is a Red supporter, but has anyone seen his late work on Smash? It looks stunning, and its not because he shooting on an Alexa, its because he can lense and light the damn thing to such taste that it elevates the show to a higher standard, along with the wonderful set design, wardrobe and of course, the wonderful faces and personalities he's shooting . Same with Deakins, Wolski, etc... none of them are half into peeping pixels or supporting whatever damn manufacturer there is, they just adapt to a specific camera and work their magic.

Pixel peep all you want, but until you get on set and have to do your thing, only then you'll realize that that's not what is going to save the day. Ultimately, its your eye, your creativity.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've had this discussion with other cinematographers -- technical knowledge is a bit like the layers of an onion, you reach a point where you go beyond practical knowledge to levels that only engineers and scientists need to dwell, which is fine (you do it because you love learning, or science, or you are just a tech geek, or you need to teach it to others) as long as you recognize that the deeper levels don't necessarily make you a better cinematographer.

It was true in the heyday of photochemical photography too.

Now how deep into that onion one needs to go even for practical purposes just depends on the cinematographer, but ultimately if they surround themselves with technical support, they can concentrate on the main reason they were hired, which is to create art using light and composition, to make the actors look good, to tell a story, and to do it all on schedule and within the budget. Not to mention the political and personal skills involved in dealing with a lot of egos on a movie set.

Also, a lot of cinematographers are loathe to either talk up their artistic side (sounds too pretentious) and thus give the false impression that they are too technical, while others are loathe to talk up their technical skills (because they feel it misses the point) and thus give the false impression that they don't know that stuff.

Ultimately what matters are results, and being able to deliver them consistently, and however a cinematographer gets to that level is their own business -- as long as it works, they can hold their light meter in whatever screwy manner they want, they can misdefine all the technical terms they want (unless they start writing text books...)

BTW, this thread is the first time I've heard the term "pixel peep". I assume it means to be obsessed with tech specs or something.

[Álex Montoya]

It means watching the image at a 100% magnification (or sometimes more :D ), analizing every pixel.

[Ash Worth]

WOW that is well thought and said. I hope you don't mind if I use some of these ideas in future arguments with producers.

This just about says it all... RED users arguing with the producer :-) Let us know how that goes.

[Peter Moretti]

...

BTW, this thread is the first time I've heard the term "pixel peep". I assume it means to be obsessed with tech specs or something.

Well you're clearly hanging out with the RIGHT people, LOL!

"Pixel Peep" means to obsess over the image down to the pixel level. Examples would be an 800% blow-up of overhead power lines to look for signs of image aliasing/stairstepping. Or examining the blue gradient in the sky or yellow gradient around a lightbulb for signs of color banding. Common pixel peeping discussions center around chroma sampling, bit depth, codecs, compression ratios, Bayer masks, image resolution, color matching of lenses, RAW, etc..

It tends to have a pejorative connotation.