Zacuto Revenge Shootout 2012 Part 2 results revealed - Francis Ford Coppola and audience prefer the Panasonic GH2

[mattbatt]

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.

[Germy1979]

They turned it into a drama almost.. I actual like the melodramatic music in its placement during the interviews. In 3 or 4 years, 4k will probably almost be an expected basic feature in any camera like HD is today. High dynamic range and so on. Features and price points will eventually not be such an issue. The Alexa will be trumped by something with a faster processor, for a hell of a lot less than $70,000.

Yeah, they wanted to prove the point that it doesn't matter what tool you use... - but manufacturers (BMCC) - are watching the demand for these features rise from the sidelines, and are stepping out into the field. Has anybody heard of Axiom? Whoever the hell the company is, they came out of nowhere with a 4k camera with a tag under 10k. Kineraw, etc. Just a start. We're all used to our name brands, and eventually you get into Oakley, Coach, Nike, territory. (Had to throw in the Oakley reference there, Cameras aren't the only thing Jannard overpriced...lol.).

Price probably won't be such an issue when the market floods the demand for these cameras. Then we'll all be back in the mindframe that got us here:)
We're attracted to a great story well told with a beautiful image.

......But what Ford Focus owner doesn't want a Ferrari..

[Germy1979]

[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342425901' post='13949']
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]

I watched Crazy, Stupid, Love the other night. It was shot on 35mm. There's a part where Ryan Gosling is in a liquor store talking to Steve Carrel on the phone. For the first time, (and probably because i'd seen the movie a few times before) - i notice the window in the background is "completely" blown out. No detail outside whatsoever, just a big white glowing mass. I'm reminded of my rant on how the GH2 lacks dynamic range on another thread a couple of days ago.

I agree it looked digital... I personally think the C300 is the most digital looking image on the market. It looks like a plug in. I have seen the Lumix come into its own with a 50mm and an Isco. If you paint it flat and warm it up a notch, it's gorgeous because of how well it mimics the motion. I set mine at 24p with a 1/40 shutter and voila.

[KahL]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']
KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.[/quote]

So what you're saying is that it isn't limited, but it's decent.
Well, which one is it? Either it's limited or it isn't. You can't claim both simultaneously.
The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons.
The major flaw with the GH2 are the highlights. It's been shown over and over that they aren't attractive, even with the most log-like profiles available. Does it mean you cannot get a great image? Of course not. However, that wasn't my point.

It's funny and ironic that you use the idea of getting it right in-camera. A mantra that was preached by nearly every Canon shooter.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']
I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.[/quote]

That's nice and good for your preference. But again, that wasn't my point.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.[/quote]

Of course and THIS was where I was touching on. What the DP did, not what the camera did.
Had this lighting scenario been used, it would have lit every end of every camera's sensor. However it wasn't the intention of every DP and if I recall, wasn't the intention of the 14-stop range test either when you think about it (it was stated so at the very beginning of the comparison).

The idea was in measuring each camera's latitude capabilities as well as the DP's method of lighting. However if you light everything for a "sweet spot" range for each camera, it will have a certain look, but simultaneously defeat the "dynamic range" test as well. Which is why many DP's left the darks to be dark and worked along the gray areas toward highlights.

Nearly any camera can look great if you blast light to fill in where the low light range suffers.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera.[/quote]

That wasn't my point.
Nearly every camera display on the web was done in natural light as well.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.[/quote]

This is nice and well, but again, wasn't the point. If anything, the test clearly proved that in order to show the GH2 can hang with the "big boys", it DID need to be over lit with studio megawatts. Completely contradicting your claims yet again. Wasn't this even shown by the twin-DPs on the GH2's end? And also displayed in so many other videos: the GH2 suffers in DR, whether you boost up the ISO or not.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...[/quote]

According to this test, they did use a flat profile. And it still suffered in comparison.
It may be flat for GH2 standards, but it wasn't for broader DR standards. Your points for old lenses is one that can be added for any camera (almost). And post-grain is irrelevant. We're talking about the camera's capabilities in-camera, for a 14stop DR test. Not how much post work and power windows are needed to make it compete.

The end result, due to their over-lit method was a very TV'ish feel. And, I wasn't even the first to note it on this thread.
Is it a bad image? Of course not. But if we're lighting to the tune of a filmic look, it doesn't look right to most eyes. If that's your preference, then fine.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.[/quote]
Whoa whoa WHOA. Wait now, which one is it?
Either we get it right in camera, or we don't? How are we getting more and more into post-work talk with you here? Yet several paragraphs ago you claimed that if you get it right in-camera, post work isn't even necessary.

Seems like some fanboy flip flopping ala the Reduser site more and more here.
Actually, other than resolution, most of your tests appear to be falling FAR into post production fixes for what the GH2 cannot produce (for examp: high ISO blasts that only look good if you turn the image black and white. Seriously?)

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

[media]http://vimeo.com/45596420[/media][/quote]

This is a final produced piece of work. NOT in-camera results.
When we're talking about the camera, we're talking about in-camera, on-set results.
Mind you, the comments about the GH2 having a baked in, video'ish look are stemming from on set results as well as the results from this shoot out test (just to clarify).

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.[/quote]

This flip flop, straw grasping can go both ways. For a GH2, F3 or T2i.
You do it ALL THE TIME, at every chance you get to shit on Canon cameras, even though there are plenty of results that show how sharp they can be modified in post, how rich the colors are in-camera, everything you bitch about in favor of the GH2. Only the GH2 isn't the broad favorite in most situations. You just tweak the argument to how you like to suit your bias.

Which is sad because I just referred a non-profit shooter at B&H a few months ago to purchae a GH2 over a 60D in favor of resolution and recording lengths.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!
[/quote]

No, no we are not and this is what brings up the points of your rampant faboyish behavior in favor of Panasonic's camera.

What we're talking about are two DP's who knew how to light strongly toward a camera's faults and could have done so with ANY camera on that roster. What we're showing is that a camera, with a ton of over-lighting to compensate for stunted dynamic range and major post work, can match up toward the other cameras that don't need nearly as much to accomplish the same thing. THAT is what Coppola saw. Not the in-camera results. One of the older cinematographers SAID THIS in the same episode.

Kudos to the awesome twin DP's (even if the lighting style wasn't my taste, personally).

It's sad really.
Several months ago on this very site, I was pro-GH2 over the Canon cameras when resolution was the subject matter. And frankly, I still am. However, the way you make it seem, you mind as well never use a Canon sensor as the GH2 is better in ALL aspects or equally so. Which is obviously bullshit.

Right camera for the right job and even more so, the Director of Photography is what brings the results.
The GH2, Canon, Alexa or any other camera is a smaller footnote.

However with how much more you scream pro GH2, anti Canon, one wouldn't know this.
Your fanboy behavior is astounding, dude. I swear I'm reading a Sega vs Nintendo thread half the time whenever you go on your rampages of skewed "facts".

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1342440252' post='13954']The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons.
[/quote]

What is your point again? Frustrating. None of them make any sense. You're claiming I'm flip flopping when I'm not. You're either not reading what I'm saying or choosing to twist it. You're using too much personal stuff in the post as well so cut it out or you will get a ban. I've sent you a warning, so calm down or lose access.

[Germy1979]

Sh-t just got real. From tha streets.

[KahL]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342445067' post='13955']
What is your point again? Frustrating. None of them make any sense. You're claiming I'm flip flopping when I'm not. You're either not reading what I'm saying or choosing to twist it. You're [b]using too much personal stuff [/b]in the post as well so cut it out or you will get a ban. I've sent you a warning, so calm down or lose access.
[/quote]

Next time you claim someone is two years behind, keep that in mind. No apologies for calling it like I see it. You are indeed a GH2 fanboy. It's hardly personal. It's what you express: hyperbole and zealot behavior.

Banning me won't change it (and actually, the majority perception of your behavior and site everywhere else either).

'nuff said.

[eosjames]

I looked at the clips at 2 different times.
First: B (GH2), H (F65), C (Red), I (FS100)
Second: H (F65), B (GH2), C (Red), A (F3)

I'll never buy the expensive cams and i'm glad with the results.
The Canons and Iphone ended up last. I love detail, resolution, colors of the GH2, F65.
This verifies I don't need to spend on the 'higher-end' as i thought. Not the best bang4buck proved again.
Really interested to see GH3/BM Cam next round.

[sandro]

When will the GH3 be released?

[Andrew Reid]

KahL - "Hyperbole". No, it is factual info actually, and my preferences as a filmmaker are based on real experience. Do you have anything solid at all to backup your highly personal argument with? So far, not seeing it, as you head closer and closer to the door.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='sandro' timestamp='1342449413' post='13961']
When will the GH3 be released?
[/quote]

Estimated time of arrival, Photokina in September. As with GH2 two years ago.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342425901' post='13949']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]

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 :)

[KahL]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342451451' post='13963']
KahL - "Hyperbole". No, it is factual info actually, and my preferences as a filmmaker are based on real experience. Do you have anything solid at all to backup your highly personal argument with? So far, not seeing it, as you head closer and closer to the door.
[/quote]

You seem to use the words "fact" a bit loosely here for some odd reason.

The only "fact" is that yes, you can get a strong image from the GH2 for its price. What is NOT a fact is that the GH2 can hang with the big boys [of this shootout] with its image. Only after huge lighting modifications are added and major post work has been done can it do so. Even the twin DPs admitted this BEFORE and DURING the shoot. Why can't you?

And you can save the "...to the door" comment. I'm sorry if you feel this is personal, but calling someone out for something they do PUBLICLY is not "personal".

On a more positive note, Musgo looks gorgeous to me.

[haarec]

I had a little different expression after watching the test footage from a[i][b] downloaded file[/b][/i]. E is no so bad while F is not so good as I thought initially. C is very natural and H stands out as seen for the first time.

B would be the (obvious) choice to buy but look what is going on on the bottom left - on the stand of the lamp. It is more evident now on a downloaded file. It's terrible! G has a similar disadvantage also very visible on a bottom of the glass table. G and D is out of the choice.

I like the idea of shooting with GH2 (or GH3) for it is compatible with the best cinema cameras for a convenient price. Should't be an another hack of GH2 yet? The color and moiré correction hack?

[nickname]

a sad affair.

this test is revealing mostly the visual education of the viewing public, which obviously are soap operas. that is exactly the plastic look with exaggerated colors (quote from andrews blind viewing!) the gh2 is capable of (and all the others as well!).

i´m sorry for the angry tone. but as a professional image maker i have been following the discussion over the last years and i am fed up with the hailing of this digital product over that. film or photography. we have to wake up! it still all looks like cr*p! they are just taking our money until they please to produce something that you can actually look at without thinking: damn that looks digital!

unfortunately i was educated visually in the pre-digital era. to my eyes all these cameras look like sh*t no matter how expensive or industry changing they are. i can´t forgive the industry that it´s letting film die for financial and marketing reasons. what do i need resolution for when i´m only getting cartoon colors? 8bit, 10bit, 12bit, it all will allways look like video, there are just not enough shades of color captured to give a realistic three-dimensional image.

if you compare the film shot hbo series rome (2005) and the alexa game of thrones you can see how big the loss of image quality is. compared to the differentiated tones and pleasant roll-off in the lights and shadows of rome, game of thrones looks like a computer game. an analogy that i don´t mean flattering.

none of these cameras can compete with film in color and contrast. not anyway near. it is so clear to me why they didn´t include kodak50D or 250D in the shootout. it would be totally obvious that the digital revolution is a very sad affair and a big step back in image quality. it´s only purpose is to transfer our money to zacuto, panasonic, canon, sony, whatever for a new technology that tries so hard to emulate film. a properly lit film set would have blown away all these cameras.



regards, h

[steve zacuto]

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

[andy lee]

[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]

I can't wait for part 3 Steve .. this is the real test !!

[andy lee]

[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]

The shootout is certainly inspiring alot of us on this forum who use GH2 - it also creating alot of debate too!
Part 3 will be very interesting - I think it will show the expensive Cinema cameras like the F65, ALEXA and EPIC will show much more advantages against the cheaper ones like the GH2

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1342460719' post='13979']
You seem to use the words "fact" a bit loosely here for some odd reason.

The only "fact" is that yes, you can get a strong image from the GH2 for its price. What is NOT a fact is that the GH2 can hang with the big boys [of this shootout] with its image. Only after huge lighting modifications are added and major post work has been done can it do so. Even the twin DPs admitted this BEFORE and DURING the shoot. Why can't you?[/quote]

I for a fact, have shot with the GH2 countless times and not needed to use $40,000 worth of lighting and post production to get it to look like cinema. I know for a fact the camera in the right hands is capable of 'hanging with the big boys' as you put it without spending tons of money. On the shootout, all the cameras had similar treatment - same set, they were all lit with expensive lights, all attached to the same god damn expensive lens. This is not what makes the GH2 sing, for me. You have to give the camera some credit.

Plus the fact Colt Seaman did a very creative take on the lighting.

Whether your light is studio rigged, or natural, or expensive, or free... It doesn't matter. Your job as a DP is to find the right light for the story, or the mood you are trying to create. That is what Malick does with the magic hour sun. And sun light is free.

There is a guy on the comments for my Shanghai piece where he mistakes it for Red Epic footage.

[media]http://vimeo.com/33047750[/media]

The reason for this is simple, that after both are graded for a punchy 1080p look, the GH2 looks like the Epic. There's a 2nd reason, and that is I didn't f*** up the look and made the most of the camera. But it really is down to the camera to deliver as much as it is down to me. It is a joint effort!! Both important!!

[Andrew Reid]

[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]

Thank you for coming on the board Steve. For sure the hack is not stable. The extremely high bitrate 'performance' versions are not designed to be the go-to patches for reliability on paid work. Please if anyone is thinking of taking an untested GH2 straight out of the box onto a paid shoot with Driftwood's hack, don't do it. Think about reliability. The 44Mbit image looks almost as good as the 176Mbit version. Driftwood himself gives a variety of patches, some are designed for performance and some for reliability.

Lighting is subjective, it is interesting that people reacted more to the lighting than to the cameras and this is a testament to the job those Japanese engineers did at Panasonic to put so MUCH into a consumer cam. It is crazy! But wonderful. Because it opens doors. Long may it continue.

I thought that with the huge window at the back, it was too much of a stretch of logic to accept a dark room. Colt seemed to be the only DP to question this. To prove this. But your explanation of Colt's lighting makes perfect sense - the audience reacted to that illusion of dynamic range. He did a great job, because cinema, after all... Is an illusion.

I can see why you guys wanted the darker room and brighter window - as a test of the cameras.