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.!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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:
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.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|