part 3 of Zacuto camera shootout now up.

[galenb]

The final installment, part three, is up now.

[url="http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three"][img]http://philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-15-at-13.36.29.png[/img][/url]

[url="http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three"]revenge of the great camera shootout part three[/url]

[Andrew Reid]

And your point is?

PS - Haven't yet watched part 3.

[HurtinMinorKey]

The F65 is so awesome, it doesn't even need to be on set to get the shot!

Total garbage, from beginning to end. Zacuto....

[kirk]

Still a happy GH2 owner. Just shows you have to know and work around the limitations of your camera. Since the set had a greater DR than the camera can handle there had to be adjustments made to the interior lighting to cope... Noone would ever suggest the GH2 camera could fairly compete with a F65... But handled by a creative crew it did very well, as the comments and round one votes also mirror. And as far as economics go, the fictive rental scheme is fairly uninteresting. If you were producing a real movie you'd probably not rent a GH2 or an I-phone... The luxury of the GH2 is that for the first time a poor bastard like me can afford to own an impressively good camera and use it every day without breaking the bank.

Has anyone mentioned what profile was used on the GH2? Didn't look like Nostalgic to me... and was the Mac gamma shift/clipping issue part of the problem for the GH2?

[nahua]

Cost in this case is relative. Because are you going to rent an Alexa or F65 for an interview? How about a short film for two to three weeks? I don't have an infinite budget, and if I'm creative with my lighting then my GH2 sure is a great bang for the buck. Besides, if you can afford to rent an Alexa, you wouldn't even care about this shootout, would you?

[moebius22]

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345086922' post='15787']
The point being GH2 is no where even close to higher end cameras.

It's not cheap either. According to Ryan E. Walters (Epic operator), based on the published info in the PDF provided by Zacuto, it turns out, F65 in this shootout would have cost less than even IPhone 4


[url="http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blog.php?id=4955533891225329768"]http://www.ryanewalt...533891225329768[/url]


Apple iPhone - TOTAL COST: $5,212.56
Camera: - $350. (16GB iPhone $200 w/contract - $550 lens rental)
Time On Set: $3,200
Grip & Electric: $855
Storage Space: 33GB (Roughly 11GB / hour, or 180MB / Min)
Storage Cost: $7.56
Post Production: $1,500

Panasonic GH2 - TOTAL COST: $7.167.06
Camera: $40 (Rate taken from Cleveland Camera Rentals)
Time On Set: $5,220
Grip & Electric: $360
Storage Space: 205.5GB (Roughly 68.5GB / hour or 1,140MB / Min @ 150 Mbps)
Storage Cost: $47.06
Post Production: $1,500

Canon 7D - TOTAL COST: $5,290.74
Camera: $160
Time On Set: $3,500
Grip & Electric: $117
Storage Space: 60GB (Roughly 20GB / hour, or 330MB / Min)
Storage Cost: $13.74
Post Production: $1,500

Sony FS-100 - TOTAL COST: $5,089.27 [$4,792.58 internal recording]
Camera: $550 ($300 for camera + $250 for AJA KiPro)
Time On Set: $2,723
Grip & Electric: $262
Storage Space: 237GB (Roughly 79GB / hour , or 1,320MB / Min @ 176 Mbps for ProRes 422 (HQ))
[Internal Recording: 33GB (Roughly 11GB / hour, or 180MB / Min @ 24 Mbps)]
Storage Cost: $54.27
[Internal Recording: $7.58]
Post Production: $1,500

Canon C300 - TOTAL COST: $10,550.80
Camera: $450
Time On Set: $8,400
Grip & Electric: $185
Storage Space: 69GB (Roughly 23GB / hour , or 375MB / Min @ 50 Mbps)
Storage Cost: $15.80
Post Production: $1,500

Sony F3 - TOTAL COST: $6,100.75 [$5,529.99 internal recording]
Camera: $950 ($450 for camera + $500 for Gemini 444)
Time On Set: $3,630
Grip & Electric: $189
Storage Space: 357GB (Roughly 119GB / hour , or 1980MB / Min @ 264 Mbps for ProRes 4444)
[Internal Recording: 48GB (Roughly 16GB / hour, or 263MB / Min @ 35 Mbps)]
Storage Cost: $81.75
[Internal Recording: $10.99]
Post Production: $1,250

Red Epic - TOTAL COST: $8,037.14
Camera: $1,000
Time On Set: $5,046
Grip & Electric: $171
Storage Space: 1,398GB (Roughly 466GB / hour , or 7.76GB / Min @ 129 MB/s for 5k FF, RC 7:1, w/HDRx)
(Red can record in a wide range of compression ratios, with and without HDRx. All effect the total file size.)
Storage Cost: $320.14
Post Production: $1,500

Arri Alexa - TOTAL COST: $5,993.75 [$7,099 for ArriRAW]
Camera: $1,500 (+ $500 to record Arri RAW via Gemini 444)
Time On Set: $3,368
Grip & Electric: $44
Storage Space: 357GB (Roughly 119GB / hour , or 1980MB / Min @ 264 Mbps for ProRes 4444)
[Arri RAW: 3TB (Roughly 1TB / hour , or 18GB / Min @ 300 MB/s)]
Storage Cost: $81.75
[Arri RAW: $687]
Post Production: $1,000

F65 - TOTAL COST: $3,687
Camera: $2,500
Time On Set: $0
Grip & Electric: $0
Storage Space: 3TB (Roughly 1TB / hour , for 4k RAW)
Storage Cost: $687
Post Production: $500
[/quote]


Data devoid of common sense.

[Andrew Reid]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Agree the data is very flawed. The time difference in operating one camera over another is minimal compared to the time spent on the rest of the film, yes including cinematography. Also all those totals are less than 1 days catering on the kind of shoots which would use a F65. So they are ALL cheap in my view, as presented in that data.[/font][/color]

[Andrew Reid]

Having now watched part 3, I'm a little disappointed with it to be honest.

I don't think the empirical test shots were handled very well at all.

The window on the GH2 shot is blown out. So what? You wouldn't shoot like this. So the empirical is less important. But it is also flawed. Because the window on the 7D is underexposed dramatically compared to the FS100 and GH2, and I know for a fact the 7D has similar latitude to these cameras if not actually a bit less.

Also regarding the ungraded shots - the GH2 and iPhone are the only cameras in the test that lack a dedicated flat picture profile for grading. So to try and push the lows into the mids on the GH2 shot to create a flat image goes counter to logic completely. It is no wonder it fell apart!

There is a difference between an empirical test and simply mishandling the camera.

The only thing it shows us that you shouldn't treat every camera the same. You wouldn't drink wine out of both a mug and a wine glass so why do the same with cameras?

I much preferred parts 1 and 2. They told us far more information and more useful information with less holes in it.

[galenb]

So, I think I understand the concept of what they were trying to do. I have a feeling that the last few shootouts were criticized for not having people who knew how to get the best out of each camera involved. This newest one was an attempt to be as even handed as they could (evenhandedness seems to be the theme of this whole shootout). But, the problem in my eyes is that each DP had a slightly different take on the lighting and camera setup. I feel like this puts to much of the DP's talents or lack there of, into the footage. So now, as you look at the footage, your opinion of how it looks is influenced by how good or bad a DP is. I understand that some of the cameras needed to have the right lighting conditions to really succeed but I think they went over board. Plus, it looks to me from looking at the ungraded footage, that it was exposed for the shadows instead of the highlights. I've seen the GH2 pull deatails out of dark shadows in post but not blown out highlights. All of this had a pretty big effect on how I perceived each camera's results. As I watched, I kept thinking, "Oh yeah, this shot looks way better then the other ones" but as I watched it over and over again, I realized that in some cases what I didn't like about a particular camera had more to do with weather the shot was to dark or to bright or washed out. I feel like this had very little to do with the camera at hand. I don't know if anyone else feels this way though.

another big one for me was, It seemed like the DP's using the Higher end cameras where just more experienced. So I think that affected the results as well.

The three things I got from this is:
1.) the 7D footage looked terrible.
2.) The GH2 footage look pretty bad too. I question the DP's tactics. Maybe the same is true for the 7D but I doubt it since I've used this camera and can attest to it's ugliness. But I can't believe anyone would pick this as their favorite.
3.) Leaving out "Film" as a comparison this time took away an important water mark that I felt was essential in properly evaluating these cameras. Are they trying to say that film is now no longer important?
4.) The Vimeo compression this time around was totally out of control. It actually got in the way and made it really hard to tell what was really going on.

And finally... Alright alright alright already!! I get it! Please stop bashing me over the head with, "The camera is just a tool, it's all up to you to make it look good." Alright I get it.

I already know this. But really, if you guys really believe this, then why do a shootout at all. I mean, if it doesn't matter what camera you use, why do you care enough to make a 3 part movie about it? Why not make a movie about how to make better movies?!

Ultimately, I feel the film asks the question: What is the answer? The answer is, there is no answer.

[galenb]

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1345095861' post='15789']
Has anyone mentioned what profile was used on the GH2? Didn't look like Nostalgic to me... and was the Mac gamma shift/clipping issue part of the problem for the GH2?
[/quote]
Indeed! I was thinking the same thing! I know I've seen GH2 footage look better then this.

[Andrew Reid]

I like the GH2 performance and handling. I don't like the methodology used in part 3, it is flawed. The GH2 shot is over exposed relative to the 7D because they used the same ISO on both. This is flat out the wrong approach as no camera has the same sensitivity at any given ISO in the menus, they are all different.

Evil_thought2 - when are you going to leave this forum?

[richg101]

to me the F3 was the best in terms of price/performance. To me it looked almost as good as the alexa and f65. nothing elese came close imo

[richg101]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345151189' post='15836']

Evil_thought2 - when are you going to leave this forum?
[/quote]

I laughed. Why go out shooting stuff when instead you can be like evil thought and set your alarm for the date and time the next shootout is uploaded, preparing a list of draft devils advocate attempts while you wait?

[HurtinMinorKey]

^bro, I'm neutral in this fight. But I have to say, Zacuto totally jumped the shark in the final episode. watching it was a waste of time, so I approve of the editorial decision.

[kirk]

I'd still like to know what film mode setting was used... the choice has a lot of influence on the gradeability of the shot. I don't think the GH2 was treated right (and evil_thought2, I don't care what you think about that either, just wish you bought the camera you deserve and went somewhere else to annoy people ;-)

[kirk]

I know how to read ;) Just wonder why you bother... AND I insist that the "objective" shot wasn't done well. You should always shoot to get the most information possible inside the histogram edges, and since you cant shoot raw, the film mode choice is of vital importance. And if the Mac clipping issue was present, the DR limitations would have been narrowed further.

I have nothing against Canons and that people have their inclinations towards different brands, and would never begin bashing Canons or Canon enthusiats at their fora... what would be the point?

[jgharding]

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345182347' post='15863']
Actually, the final episode was the most objective and best camera test. Part 2 was just about subjective interpretation of the scene by the DPs. Most people picked B in part 2 because it was most over-lit. A few didn't like B because they thought it was too bright. Part 2 said nothing about camera performance. It was about DPs interpretation of the scene.

Part 3 is real test of each camera's ability. Every camera was using identical lighting ..
[/quote]

Then as far as i can see part 1 and 2 are the useful parts, because the only thing I'll ever actually be doing with each camera is creating subjective interpretation of a scene with a DP (either someone else or myself). If I have a 5D MKii or a bridge camera I'm not going to shoot with it and light for it like it's an Alexa, so all part 3 does is prove that, yes, a $60,000 camera is much more forgiving and a better piece of kit, which we all already know! I know if I had unlimited budget I'd hire an Alexa for every shoot. I learn nothing from that being confirmed.

The only lesson to come from this shootout [i]is [/i]that some very experienced people picked a cheap camera out of the lineup on aesthetic alone. The reason that's a good lesson is because that's your actual audience reaction, and what happens in the real world.

Lighting everything the same -- in effect purposefully mis-using a less-forgiving piece of equipment -- then saying "look, cheap cameras aren't as good" is a bit of pointless academia IMHO. The spec sheet already tells me that information.

[dbp]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345202214' post='15880']
Then as far as i can see part 1 and 2 are the useful parts, because the only thing I'll ever actually be doing with each camera is creating subjective interpretation of a scene with a DP (either someone else or myself). If I have a 5D MKii or a bridge camera I'm not going to shoot with it and light for it like it's an Alexa, so all part 3 does is prove that, yes, a $60,000 camera is much more forgiving and a better piece of kit, which we all already know! I know if I had unlimited budget I'd hire an Alexa for every shoot. I learn nothing from that being confirmed.

The only lesson to come from this shootout [i]is [/i]that some very experienced people picked a cheap camera out of the lineup on aesthetic alone. The reason that's a good lesson is because that's your actual audience reaction, and what happens in the real world.

Lighting everything the same -- in effect purposefully mis-using a less-forgiving piece of equipment -- then saying "look, cheap cameras aren't as good" is a bit of pointless academia IMHO. The spec sheet already tells me that information.
[/quote]

That's all true, but if we're talking about real world results....any shoot with the GH2 probably isn't getting that calibre of lens and lighting set up, nor the amount of time to tweak it to mask the camera's short comings. If they did have that, they'd almost certainly be using a higher end camera.

It's kind of a double edged sword. The lower end cameras need more time and equipment to truly compete, yet in scenarios where that budget and equipment is available, those cameras would be passed over for something further up the chain.

So the GH2 scenario is hardly real world either. The positive message here is that cameras are becoming like pizza... even the worst are still really, really damn good, and enough to satisfy most average viewer. I still love my GH2 for what at can do, at the price that my broke self brought it for.

[jgharding]

Yeah that's a good point, no-one is likely to hire a load of Panavision Primos to stick on a GH2 :) If i had the budget to hire that kind of glass for a day, chucking in another 600 quid for the Alexa kit would be peanuts.

I'm still amazed by what the cheap stuff can do full stop! It's so easy to take it for granted already...

[sanveer]

Well, after Publishing (web-casting, actually), the 1st 2 Parts of the Zacuto shootout, Zacuto was issued stern warnings, that all the big camera makes (Arri, Sony, Canon etc), would boycott them, and prevent them from manufacturing accessories for their (high end) products. To save face (and profits), Zacuto does a volte face, and comes up with a Ridiculous Balance Sheet for each camera, and also, similar condition shooting.

Whereas the 1st Two Parts should to be viewed as Empirical Studies conducted, and the 3rd part should be viewed as jokes, to lighten up the mood.

P.S. I am guessing Francis Ford Capolla will be retiring from Hollywood and Filmmaking. Very Soon.