Challenge to Zacuto...

[Bill Anderson]

Phil, it's admiral that you appreciate beauty, and that Ketch loves movies: but these things are not objective in nature... Whether one loves Minnie more than Mickey is not that relevant to the topic at hand. Love. Beauty. Roll camera. Which camera for X's idea of love, and which camera for Y's idea of beauty? Nerd is nerd. Who cares.

[Steve Sherrick]

Phil, it's admiral that you appreciate beauty, and that Ketch loves movies: but these things are not objective in nature... Whether one loves Minnie more than Mickey is not that relevant to the topic at hand. Love. Beauty. Roll camera. Which camera for X's idea of love, and which camera for Y's idea of beauty? Nerd is nerd. Who cares.

I would argue that it's very hard to be objective when it comes to camera IQ. Everyone sees the world differently. Charts and such are as close as we can come to measurable objective data, and yet I see people argue about those too. It's inevitable. I've been enamored with some of the photographs on the Library of Congress website, color photos from the war era. They look stunning. I wonder if at the time, these kind of conversations were taking place amongst photographers. Have camera nerds always existed? :-)

[Josh Beadle]

. . . I often find that there should be a little more focus on what's in the frame and not what's in the camera. It's okay to get excited about technology. It's even okay to prefer a brand. I'm a camera nerd too. But I'm only a camera nerd to serve the purpose of the captured frame.

Unless your expensive gear and your ability to buy the latest gadget and camp out on forums arguing how what you posess is the shit is what defines you as a person - instead of your commercial and posted work. I am embarrassed that I own an Epic with all the trim and you Phil do not. You are 10X the artist of most on this forum. Your talent, dedication to craft and humility is an example for us all.

[Phil Holland]

Wow! Thanks Josh. I'm not one to blush, but that's a fantastic compliment. (runs away shyly)

[steve weiss]

It's so funny to me why so many here are so interested in seeing the empirical as if to prove that the EPIC is the best camera period on paper. We don't watch paper, nor does the viewer care. What everyone is missing and you need to see the challenge before you comment is that it doesn't really matter. If you want to learn from industry leaders, see how they went about lighting "LIGHTING" lighting you notice I can't say lighting enough then watch the Shootout. We need to stop talking about cameras, trust me the differences between the cameras was far less important then how each camera master lit for their camera and understood how to light for it. Again resolution is nice, but it won't make anyone buy your movie, TV commercial, corporate film, web series. If you are a director content is king, if you are a DP being able to light with the EPIC to bring your directors vision to life is what you need to worry about, not resolution, their is tons there in 2k or 5k. The EPIC is an amazing camera, no question about it and I hope that you can learn something from this shootout that will help you become better at using it.

All of the other comments I agree with for archival purposes, 5K is nice, for repo 5K is nice (although if you are doing a lot of that, something is not right with you skill). 5K is not for everything, for example my documentary, I'm only playing it on the web or TV, I don't want to have to manage all of the media, I need to be light, fast and agile. I have 100's of hours of footage and need to be able to go into edit quick and fast. As a documentary director I'm way more worried about missing a moment then I am having a little noise in the scene.

Someone mentioned that 4K will be everywhere in 2015, and I'm not sure that will be true. 2K looks great and the projectors are cheaper and most theaters have already invested in 2K. India is like all 2K, do you really think they are buying new projectors when they have working ones now. I'm not positive that every theater is going to shell out the extra cash to get a 4K projector, that remains to be seen. It would be nice but movie theaters are not doing that great in general. That business has suffered for generations.

Just to reiterate, the shootout is not a contest, it's about you, your skill, your mastery of any camera you have, your ability to light for your camera & color time for it. Trust me the best part of "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012" is going to be what you can learn from these incredible camera masters and guest DP's that I've interviewed, some are legends in the industry. I feel honored to be able to have talked and interviewed them with my Varicam and the 720p clips I have are gold. And before anyone asks, Jens, my DP likes using the Varicam so he can do slow zooms while the interview is rolling. He is a master of it and has been using ENG lenses for 25 years and that is what makes him comfortable. Plus I'm not crazy about to shallow DOF when I'm interviewing and I don't like stopping down because you need more light. I want my actors as cool and less distracted as possible. Again, ass for every saddle.

[Bill Anderson]

You have no argument here Steve. I thought that might be apparent.

Phil, congratulations: that's what counts.

[Alec Morris]

How is it fair to red (or Sony or arri) to have a test that is so subjectively centered around lighting? That sounds like a cinematography competition, not a camera shootout.

Having different DPs shoot different cameras takes this into unfair territory. You're just adding fuel to the fire. Now I'll have to listen to some DP argue against renting my epic because he saw your 'test' and the arri or Sony footage 'just looked more filmic' when it's completely based on what the DP did.

It's also a little silly to have a camera competition that doesn't really push the boundaries of technology. Who is this supposed to be for? Thousands of regular people have already shelled out to see the dark knight rises on opening night in an IMAX theater. Yet you're doing a shootout to showcase the worlds best digital cameras to camera peope and you dpmt even go for 4k? I would imagine a 4k di would be pretty damn important for any film that wants to go
IMAX. Yet no one will have any clue because 2k is somehow good enough for people that actualy CARE about the cameras used? Insane.

Also the theaters damn well better all upgrade to 4k because the home video market will be there shortly. Remember when 3D TVs were like $6000? I just bought a passive glasses vizio for $800. If u don't think 4K is going to
Go down the same path very quickly you are sadly mistaken.

[Scott Crawley]

It's so funny to me why so many here are so interested in seeing the empirical as if to prove that the EPIC is the best camera period on paper. We don't watch paper, nor does the viewer care.

You assume too much, and in doing so you may be underestimating some or all of us whom you are passing judgement on. My interest isn't to see it proven that Epic or any other particular camera is best on paper or otherwise, but that the methods of comparing them are more sound than they were in the last round. If so, then the chips can fall where they may and be of great interest to me.

What everyone is missing and you need to see the challenge before you comment is that it doesn't really matter. If you want to learn from industry leaders, see how they went about lighting "LIGHTING" lighting you notice I can't say lighting enough then watch the Shootout. We need to stop talking about cameras, trust me the differences between the cameras was far less important then how each camera master lit for their camera and understood how to light for it.

That sounds great, I hope you deliver on that. If you think we only talk about resolution and camera specs without context, or that we are somehow less interested in the craft of cinematography here at RedUser, then you need to read from our cinematography section more often. ;-)

Even newcomers here are making an effort to understand the nuances of lighting and exposing for this system. It isn't just a dick waving party over here you know.

As a side note, if the focus is on craft and not on the camera the "Camera Shootout" is a bit of a misnomer, no? Rightly or wrongly the name and the event's history may be leading people to focus on the cameras. Is it proper to call it that and then chide folks for paying too much attention to the cameras?

[Robert L. Mickles]

This sounds excellent.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I see both sides of this. On the one hand I do like my variables limited when comparing solutions. And I think even badly designed tests are informative. I really like to see really strickly symetrical tests because A/B ing images lets you see what's really going on in the image. "What might lead someone to think that Alexa has a more filmic image? What's different?"

But I also think that in order to do that you should allow for the normal accommodations any half-way competent DP would make to adjust the scene for the camera he's shooting. I see a lot of camera tests people go "Oh look at that XYZ camera sucks because their forehead was slightly blown out." to which I usually think, yeah but they could have moved back that light 2' and it would have been properly exposed within the limitations of the device. I would rather see charts for technical stats like how many stops of dynamic range each camera has for the scientific basis. But I do on principle agree with adjusting the scene for the more subjective image tests. But then when it comes to grading I think you should just say 10 minutes of grading just to see where the defaults are for each camera. I'm interested to see these tests but 90 minutes for lighting and grading seem excessive to simply tweak a scene. I would prefer the time limitations to be very short and more empirical than talent driven. If you are doing just a DP shootout then it should be called a DP shootout not a camera shootout. I guess what I'm saying is that what I as a viewer want to see is somewhere in between last years and this year's tests. :)