Shootout Part 2

[steve weiss]

Steve, great series, and a very interesting watch. A big, big thank you for making this, because its something that, ultimately, interests mainly the audience that is relatively interested in our field of work. Its target audience is too small for the production value and effort you guys put into it. So, again, a big thank you and am looking forward to next year's project :)

i think the problem with this, Steve, is that you added the name "great camera shootout", which, in the end, its more like "great cinematographers masterclass/challenge". Nothing wrong with this, but your target audience was looking for a new shootout with the said cameras and not this sort of entertainment, or edutainment. This series is a must see in film schools or for those getting into the craft, or even those in the "suits" side of the pond, but for the working professional/cinematographer, this probably is not what they wanted to see. I have to say i'm waiting for part 3 because I'm curious at the cameras core performance and not the talent of the cinematographers, but, still, it was an entertaining watch.

The whole point is that you are getting it all here. the title is REVENGE of the great camera shootout. The idea is that you will see what you want to see--empirical, and you will see what cinematographer can do with empirical and lastly you will see the comparison of the two with a wipe between them. It's entertainment first--I'm a director--sorry that's my job, education second--the rest of the world does not have the knowledge base that folks on this site do, and third it will give you your "shootout" out of box--no changes test. I thought the title worked and was clever as REVENGE. The problem is that people would like to see this all as one video and then all of the answers would be there. That's where the entertainment value of the cliff hanger comes in. Sorry, would you do no less?

[steve weiss]

To me, it looked like the EPIC was badly graded in the highlights. Whites turned into yellow, and actual yellows (woman's pants in the dark corner) were under-saturated.

Strangely, the iPhone 4s had the best browns - the parquet floor and the entrance door looked nice and browny, as they should.

What amazed me the most that no one tried to light the people's faces in a proper manner. All lighting setups had mostly dark faces.

Overall, the EPIC, Alexa and F65 had the sharpest pictures, from what I can tell on this heavily compressed video (yes, I know the resolution was brought down on the EPIC to 1080p).

I was surprised the F3 didn't look better - as I know this camera can have a really stunning output.

And yes, I agree there were too many variables to really appreciate each camera's capabilities - makes it so hard to say anything concrete.

I hope part 3 would pit the cameras against each other in a manner that lets each camera show its true colors (pun intended) in full resolution.

Bruce explains in part one that the scene is supposed to look dark. He said it's a house you walk into with just a few practices on and a ton of light streaming in from a window. Most people should be silhouette with dark faces. This scene was taylor made for the HDRX. That's what makes the scene have a 14 stop range from brightest brights to darkest blacks.

[Joel Kaye]

Testing all cameras with one really lame controlled sterile shot and showing them at the lowest resolution is not a good test. And also for the web this compressed video is at 720! People will watch this video online and actually come to judgements based on it! "The iPhone is not too far behind the Epic"

Well, Steve said part III would be same lighting for all cameras. The basic scene was specifically set up to challenge the cameras. There's the blown out window, no light near the door, saturated and pastel colors, soft light on the talent's faces when they sit down. For one shot, I'm not sure how much better the setup gets.

Now would you shoot a movie shot like that? With that focal length and composition. Doubt it. But that's not the point here.

Nearly every camera had a first place vote. I think Epic, Alexa and GH2 basically tied with the F3 just behind. The C300 was lit more dramatically on purpose and that may have hurt it in a camera test, but it was a pretty shot. The F-65 didn't relight because they thought the scene was easily capturable in camera.

My guess is the test with no lighting changes will yield more consistent reactions from the audience. We'll see.

I think the Zacuto guys keep doing something that's near impossible - put together a helpful camera test that opens eyes and starts discussions. The next installment will be very interesting! Thanks Steve and Co.!

[Paul Schneider]

To me, it looked like the EPIC was badly graded in the highlights. Whites turned into yellow, and actual yellows (woman's pants in the dark corner) were under-saturated.

Strangely, the iPhone 4s had the best browns - the parquet floor and the entrance door looked nice and browny, as they should.

What amazed me the most that no one tried to light the people's faces in a proper manner. All lighting setups had mostly dark faces.

Overall, the EPIC, Alexa and F65 had the sharpest pictures, from what I can tell on this heavily compressed video (yes, I know the resolution was brought down on the EPIC to 1080p).

I was surprised the F3 didn't look better - as I know this camera can have a really stunning output.

And yes, I agree there were too many variables to really appreciate each camera's capabilities - makes it so hard to say anything concrete.

I hope part 3 would pit the cameras against each other in a manner that lets each camera show its true colors (pun intended) in full resolution.

Seeing it projected, I thought the Epic looked great! It was graded generally like a good creative shot should look.

If there was a "flaw" to the test it was only that all the DP's seemed to be a bit hesitant to grade creatively and hence ended up going for what the camera could do technically...this made most of the scenes look bright and over lit as they tried to bring up the interiors to handle the windows. In the real world we wouldn't to this...as hardcore anyway.

I think the third part of the series will be entertaining for most having seen this one. You'll get to see what each cam does out of the box and then get to look back at what each person was ultimately able to do with the stuff.

This particular thread has been much more diplomatic than previous commentary on this topic...and its very refreshing. Steve's comments on the methodology are welcome and insightful.

[Stephen Matthews]

I would love the raw files from the test in part one as well as the files from the next test. Now it may not be possible and that is understandable but it would go a long way to alleviating worries with how things are handled in post. Not saying anything is wrong but looking at the epic footage I feel like I can get more range out of it and make it more pleasing... most likely I'm wrong, actually most defiantly, it would just be interesting to try.

because even if everything is handled the same in part three, due to the differences in codecs and workflows no matter what there will still be issues with how they are dealt with in post, and without giving the general audience full res still to mess with themselves it will be hard to take the results as conclusive or as a scientific comparison of cameras. Now once again I am most likely wrong so I will wait until part three comes out but just throwing out there that providing us with the raw files even if it's just stills would be amazing.

Once again thanks for doing this and being so patient with all the backlash you have had to deal with as a result.

[Brandon H]

Also the idea of testing cameras all completely based on one shot is ridiculous. It's like taking a national poll but your entire sample is people from the same neighborhood. They are treating this as a very methodic type of test, but it's all void because there's only ONE shot... Shoot an entire short film, with motion, variety of shots, colors and extreme real world scenarios. I think this test provides little insight into the capabilities of any of these cameras. And by downscaling to 2k for the 4K cameras aren't you throwing 80% of the pixels away? Why? Is it because they don't have a 4K projector? Is it because the lowest resolution camera is 1080P?

Shooting in the real world is messy, with tons of variables, and scenarios, this test covers hardly anything. Coming to any conclusions about any camera based on one shot (which is biased towards lower resolution cameras) is ridiculous.

I don't see any actual conclusions based on anything they've done so far, maybe part 3 will show some dynamic range capabilities (based on that same ONE shot of course), but that's it?

[Thomas Koch]

No matter what camera we like, or the shot, this is a great video series. It's engaging, dynamic, and it gets us all talking about cinematography. Thanks Steve! I love that we can use all of these tools and create content that will wow audiences.

[Paul Schneider]

Also the idea of testing cameras all completely based on one shot is ridiculous. It's like taking a national poll but your entire sample is people from the same neighborhood. They are treating this as a very methodic type of test, but it's all void because there's only ONE shot... Shoot an entire short film, with motion, variety of shots, colors and extreme real world scenarios. I think this test provides little insight into the capabilities of any of these cameras. And by downscaling to 2k for the 4K cameras aren't you throwing 80% of the pixels away? Why? Is it because they don't have a 4K projector? Is it because the lowest resolution camera is 1080P?

Shooting in the real world is messy, with tons of variables, and scenarios, this test covers hardly anything. Coming to any conclusions about any camera based on one shot (which is biased towards lower resolution cameras) is ridiculous.

I don't see any actual conclusions based on anything they've done so far, maybe part 3 will show some dynamic range capabilities (based on that same ONE shot of course), but that's it?

So what are you saying here? Should no tests, comparisons or creative reviews ever be done? It's Steve's right to make the doco he wants to make the way he chooses to make it...and it is certainly your right to comment. There are many, many folks in the world who will find this documentary useful. High-end shooters many have already be set in their ways and have done their personal tests already, but if this kind of thing gets people (and especially new shooters or younger folks) to realize that they don't need 30-40K+ worth of equipment to make their vision and to focus on what really matters creatively then I'd say its a success.

I was very impressed with what folks could pull from an iPhone and GH2. In a million years I wouldn't shoot with them now, but a few years ago I would've killed for this kind of information. The ASC interviews are lovely as well. Some free film school right there. Most of those guys have forgotten more about making films than most of us know.

I'm curious Brandon. Did you find any interest in the lighting and creative commentary of the piece?

[Liam Hall]

Personally, I feel that all of these “shootout” type test scenarios by their nature do not work.

I'd say this particular shootout film worked exactly as designed, that is, as a marketing film. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. In fact, as a marketing exercise I think it's genius. I agree with all your other points completely.

[Brandon H]

So what are you saying here? Should no tests, comparisons or creative reviews ever be done? It's Steve's right to make the doco he wants to make the way he chooses to make it...and it is certainly your right to comment. There are many, many folks in the world who will find this documentary useful. High-end shooters many have already be set in their ways and have done their personal tests already, but if this kind of thing gets people (and especially new shooters or younger folks) to realize that they don't need 30-40K+ worth of equipment to make their vision and to focus on what really matters creatively then I'd say its a success.

I was very impressed with what folks could pull from an iPhone and GH2. In a million years I wouldn't shoot with them now, but a few years ago I would've killed for this kind of information. The ASC interviews are lovely as well. Some free film school right there. Most of those guys have forgotten more about making films than most of us know.

I'm curious Brandon. Did you find any interest in the lighting and creative commentary of the piece?

No, I have no problem with camera tests. I just have a problem with this one. It claims to be "the great camera shootout" it's a bold thing to put up side by sides, people are going to expect conclusions and results. If you're going to make it a scientific test, stick to charts and graphs and test the cameras scientifically, but this is selling itself as a test of the cameras in a cinematography world. And they are hardly covering anything that occurs in the real world... And they are only taking ONE sample.

My two biggest issues with this test: it's ONE shot. And everything was scaled to 2K.... WHY?

So really part 2 of this test was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCn6G7cp5I

The way in which they've done everything so far, no real comparisons or conclusions can actually be made. The video and interviews of the cinematographers are interesting, but everything about this test is what I have a problem with.