mattbatt

+1 to you Andrew. I agree with everything here. Funny thing is, indie filmmakers such as myself seem to be [i]less [/i]worried about new workflows - heck, technology - than the industry itself. Why is that? Because we are not tied down to a mindset of "this is how we have always done it." We know the world is growing, changing and the better, often harder, choices are more beneficial in the long run. We will look back in two years and see ProRes used mainly as a proxy or web quality - the real stuff will all be RAW in some form. Technology will help in compressing the math in the files - but RAW is here to stay.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342451674' post='13965'] I do agree with this. Natural light, or natural looking staged light is what I tend to go for when shooting with the GH2, or any of my other cameras be it 5D Mark III, FS100 or NEX 7. But I still think Colt did a nice job of making people think the GH2 was the Epic :) [/quote] My 5dmkII has helped me a lot in this area (in stills mode lol) by forcing me to not just use flash to get an exposure but rather expose for the natural light and fill in or barely use flash as a catch light. The mood is much more dramatic and unique and sculpted. That said, Colt and everyone on the test is way more experienced than me - I do not know much about setting up a lot of lights for cinema, but I would love to learn more. They did a great job - it wasn't my type - but the camera portrayed what they gave it very nicely.

[quote name='steve zacuto' timestamp='1342480997' post='13997'] Couple of things. Let's talk about the GH2, the hack they used was not stable and crashed a lot. I don't think it would be viable in a real production. One thing that seems to be misunderstood is that the scene was supposed to be very dark. The original lighting was supposed to be a room with a few practlcle lights on in the house and the extreme light coming in form the window. What Colt and Jonny did was to over light the scene and make it a bright room. I think people interpreted this as having the most DR as opposed to being the most pleasing and artfully done. I preferred Polly and Rodney's interpretation, it was more about retaining a moody scene. There are two tests. In part 3 you are going to see how the cameras look out of the box in an apples to apples test with no lighting changes. In part two you saw what talented DP's can do with these cameras. Together this shows you the comparison of what is-- and what is possible. Steve [/quote] Agree with every word Steve. Thanks for your documentary - it is awesome to see how you guys have evolved. I remember some tests with a lady in a bathtub and different cameras - wonder why I remember that test :rolleyes: Anyway, now you guys have gone from testing to artfully teaching and documenting the cinema magic that fimmaking needs. Hearing from the cinematographers has done more for me than any resolution test. Thank you! And here is to the final part - part 3! I'm looking forward to that. PS: I guessed all the cameras but "E" and "I" - mixing them (happy I was not correct because "I" was on my low list). I felt good knowing my eye is decently trained. I believe it will help me achieve the look I will need oneday on my future feature!

Andrew - I guessed A,B,C,D,F,G,H correctly in my write-ups. I feel proud of that, missing only E and I. I'm glad C300 was not I. I was second to last for me, even behind G. Just too sterile. My favorites guessed last month were: H, F, C and A. I agree with every word you said about camera H - the F65- and I am happy that we both saw and write the truth with how it handled NATURAL light and looked most like film in the skin. The reason why B was down on my list was that it is by far the most lit scene and upon one quick glance (which most of the voters did), looks most memorable. However, B is the most ‘digital’ looking scene to me and here is what I mean: B looked digital by looking like a soap scene or a staged lit scene. Like a greenscreen effect with shadows slightly off, B looked too pampered and ready and set. I started looking at all the lights and pretty faces and forgot the mood of the scene and that it was a room. Also B had some aliasing on the window frame, skin tone was yellowish and flatter and I saw some compression in the shadows. In other words, the “room” became a “set” because of the lighting. Could you ever see a scene from “24″ being lit like B? No, there is much more moody realism and grit in 24 with natural spill light. Now, H for me was sharpest, had the most latitude and best color fidelity (detail in the lamp and lights). Seeing it is the F65 and looks like that WITHOUT the relighting all the other scenes had is simply - Amazing! To add light and tons of post work is a detriment to a camera. A camera is supposed to make the MOST of natural light available in which the DP gets to sculpt with artificial light – in the hopes of creating a masterpiece. But it is all about the use of LIGHT. When obvious changes become so dramatic that the lighting looks staged, that speaks to a camera’s weakness far more than resolution or price alone.

[quote author=evil_thought2 link=topic=853.msg6336#msg6336 date=1340233874] See this comment from someone who watched the screening: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?78175-Zacuto-Great-Camera-Shootout-and-free-parking!/page5 [quote]SONY F65: Looked good, in fact was my number one choice. On further viewings I did see a slight magenta tinge to the post corrected version. This may have been a result of trying to fix the color balance on the skin tones.[/quote] That's the third person who mentioned the "magenta tinge" I think it's pretty certain H is F65 .. [/quote] Good find. Remember, the F65 was the only one where the company had another colorist do the post work, so that colorist would have a different style anyway. If it is the F65, then props to it, my eye just wants to see more of it - even though at first I was startled by the color shift difference. And finally, if that is the F65 - with no change to light - than my goodness, that camera has some power man  8) For certain, "G" is 7D, "D" is iphone and "B" is GH2. I stand behind that. My gut says "H" F65 and "F" Alexa.

[quote author=evil_thought2 link=topic=853.msg6331#msg6331 date=1340229645] So now we have this D: Iphone G: 7D B: GH2 H: F65 F: Alexa (very likely) It's highly  likely that the above list is correct. We just have to sort the remaining. Many people who watched the screening didn't like C300. That leaves I for C300 Epic is probably E (light reflection on the girl hair on Sofa) ? A and C then are F3 and FS100 -- not sure which is which [/quote] Ya, probably. If "I" is C300 - which it may be - than at least in this final composition, I'd choose B over it even knowing that B is GH2 with more lighting. After watching the clips through once really quick, I told myself that "I" was my least favorite - even seeing how soft D and G were. I can't say why, "I" was just the least. Upon in depth inspection, I put "D" last and "G" right there with it and then "I". I'm still surprised at how bad "G" is. Ok, look at it as a whole and it has a decent 'filmic' look if you glance quickly. But as soon as you stare at it, you see blown highlights, moire and a very soft image (softer than the iphone ???)

Thanks Andrew, ya I agree with your assessments. I waited three years for the 5dmkII, love it, use it a ton for photography and am very pleased. Video obviously created a spark and stir and got things rolling. I am disappointed with how Canon has raised the price and lowered sharpness on the 5dmkIII - so I pre-ordered a Black Magic! Again, this coming from a guy who said FF was the bomb and all you GH1-2 and small form-sensor people take a hike. Now I have bought a camera with a smaller sensor than GH2! Maybe what changed my mind was pulling focus for a 48 hour short on the 5dmkII  :D Sharpness on the GH2 holds up right along any cinema camera, hoping the Black Magic will too. Wish the Canon's were sharper, Act of Valor was awesome, looked great, but it was soft enough in some parts to make my eyes strained (no joke). Again, each tool for its purpose - with the Black Magic I'll have a B cam that can go super wide. Anyway, sorry to get off topic.

Hi guys, first post glad to be part of this forum even though I'm a Canon guy, I totally respect the GH2 for sharpness and price point. For me, I watched the comparisons twice, then did two screen shots per test (one when the door first opens, then of the close up couple when girl looks to the right). Then, I took a break, watched 5 more times, then took a day off. Came back to it. Let me just say that my original choices changed somewhat and I began to notice more subtly in the scene after viewing them so much. But then I tried to view them quickly as well. At first I did not like "A" at all; it looked harsh and almost metallic. "H" was so different, it looked to be color graded by a different person altogether and contains a lot of magenta, so I passed over it. But I kept coming back to it. "H" continues to draw me in, it is so sharp, contains so much color, DR and the flesh tones pop. H became top for me. I'm guessing F65. My screens are HP calibrated. People posting their screenshots - Andrew even yours of "H" - look darker online than when I view the short, but hopefully we are seeing the short in somewhat similar fashion (this shows that for web viewing and depending on monitor calibration, people may see things completely differently). Anyway, my conclusion is I like "H, F, C and A" in that order. I'll tell you why but a few things before to be discussed. First, "B" has been getting a lot of attention. By now, many people think it is the GH2 and over at nofilmschool on their poll, it comes in either #1 or #2 for best looking, which surprises me. For me, "B" stood out at first glance because no one was in shadow as much - in other words, "B" has a ton more lights than the other scenes. But, the more I looked, the more "set up" it felt - "B" looks like a soap set. Now, nothing is wrong per-se with that, but for me, I started to notice that the lighting was a dead give away for low dynamic range. The big tell is to look at that left front lamp stand. Look inside of it before the camera cranes down and look at the color of the shade from the middle to edges (top and sides). Only a few camera's truly rendered detail in the top and COLOR (pink, fleshy, gradation) from the center out on the shade. "B" was completely grey as was "D". "D" is definitely the iphone (just dark, soft, no DOF, artifacts in motion.) Now "G" has some color in the shade but it is over-saturated and pushed because "G" just fell apart. "G" is moire hell (background window far rt before door opens shimmers, legs on table, light stand) and is the 7D hands down. "G" is brighter inside than "D" but that background starts to glow by the time the couple sits down. "G" is truly sad, soft and frustrating. But, they did get that shade a little pinkish and Canon does do good skin tone. Which is almost why I think that "I" could be the C300, though it was on my 3 worst list. Just unflattering. "B, G and I" all contain some aliasing and/or moire - "B and I" alias on the window grids slightly. "H" is one of the sharpest - the sharpest - images and some think it must be the C300 because of that (4k internal down-sampled perfectly to 1080p). I'm guessing it is the F65 just because "H" is so different. It reminds me of film, technicolor process for sure, skin pops, there is contrast and DR. That wood paneling on the left in the back just looks so crisp and lively. I'm pretty sure "F" is Alexa with a great smooth ton, range and warm color all around. It looks natural and not set-up. Alexa is great, most TV shows are now done on it. But Alexa is not as good as film. Watch 'Criminal Minds' on film and then their newer shows on Alexa, the actors faces look flatter, more grey. Film pops skin tons a lot AND keeps DR. Alexa did not do that good on the TV show "V" as well, it was digital looking. Anyway, "H" was most filmic to me. If "H" is the GH2 or C300 I will be really, really surprised. I'm guessing "C" is RED as well but it suffered from yellows in the highlights and was a bit soft, 4 or 5k downresed not properly could do that. What I am really looking forward to is each camera filming the scene with the standard lighting set up. Again, which ever the F65 ends up being, we all will have to admire the fact that no more lights were used for it.