Sort of OT: Revenge of the great camera shoot out, 2012.

[Rafael Amador]

This related article is very interesting too:
https://www.eoshd.com/content/8114/audience-reaction-to-revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-puts-gh2-in-3rd-place-behind-alexa-and-f65
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Rafael Amador]

Wop.
Here is the full “The revenge…” movie.
Down on your linked page, Jeremy, there is also an interesting link to the technical specs of the shooting.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Steve Connor]

I’ve spoken to a Cameraman who’s opinion I respect a lot who’s seen the film in a theatre and his opinions were very interesting, I’ll share them when he’s allowed to blog them!

Steve Connor
“The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel”
Adrenalin Television

[Glen Hurd]

I’ve been following it, too. I thought it would be fun to try and decipher which camera was which, based on the lighting changes that they reveal for each camera. The more I studied each shot – watching the shadows on the coffee-table legs, the brightness of the table lamp shade’s glow (a constant value in each scene), the amount of highlight detail in the “exterior” and the lighting ratio on the girl’s arm/face (at the end of the shot), it made me wonder if the results aren’t more about psychology than dynamic range.

Let me explain.

You have cameras ranging in price from $100 to $65,000.
So I ask you – if you have the $100 or $700 or $3,000 camera, are you going to want to add lights or do nothing?
Likely, you’ll want to add lights! Why? You’re the underdog trying to make your little POS compete with the big boys. (One cinematographer spent 1:24 hours setting up additional lights, and then used 27 layers in a BaseLight grade that lasted 1.5 hours on a 30 sec clip. That mentality is one of doing your best to catch up.)

Now, if you have the $65,000 camera (naked) what’s your motivation? Anyone can add lights – whoop-de-doo.
Likely, you’re there to prove how much this camera kicks a$$, so you add no lights (which is what happened with the Sony F65.) Confident that you will still capture every detail without lifting even your pinkie, you pass on the lighting changes. I mean, this is a “shootout,” and it’s time to stomp that iPhone into the dirt. So you log 0 hours on lights, use 4 layers of BaseLight correction – only 1/2 hour in session – and head out to celebrate the time you saved.

So, while all cinematographers are given creative freedom here, I think basic psychology intervenes and biases this test toward – the weaker cameras! Counterintuitive? Yes.

So take a look at the footage.
We can tell which cameras have the greatest dynamic range by studying the constants.
The background reads f/22, and the table lamp shade reads f/8. That’s 3 stops difference. If a camera had 3 stops dynamic range, the background would be white and the table lamp shade would be black. If a camera has 6 stops dynamic range, the lamp shade would be grey. You see where I’m going with this.

So I’m studying how much “glow” I see in the table lamp and how much highlight detail I’m maintaining in the “exterior.” The brighter the lamp glow – while retaining exterior details – the greater the range of the camera (regardless of other lighting changes).
This achievement goes to shots A and H.
These cameras are likely the ones with the greatest exposure latitude

Are they as pretty as B? In my opinion, no. B is a complete cheat. And it’s the prettiest.

In shot B, the table lamp is practically grey. This is one of the most heavily front-lit shots of them all (if I remember correctly) and probably one of the most pleasing to look at (from a Vimeo perspective, anyway). But what does that mean? If it was the GH2 – with its underdog status (compared to everything in there except the iPhone), I can see the cinematographer pumping light into the scene to make it competitive. (Interesting that the “exterior” is still barely holding highlight detail).

However, the cinematographers running the F65, the Alexa, the F3, and the FS100, apparently wanted to “prove” how much dynamic range their cameras can handle, and added no or few additional lighting changes to the scene at all, and may have ended up with something lacking the saturation and modeled contrast that the weaker cameras enjoyed because their operators were more driven to “catch up.”

So what can I learn from these tests? That if I spend hours massaging something with inferior characteristics, I can compete with wealthier operators who suffer from ADD? Not exactly a real-world scenario, is it?

Great entertainment, though.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Glen Hurd] “it made me wonder if the results aren’t more about psychology than dynamic range.”

I think that’s the overall take away from this test, right? Isn’t that what all the interviews are talking about?

[Gary Adcock]

Glen.

I believe that it is more than entertainment, As someone envolved with the workflows from the beginning, you seem to miss one of the more obvious results.

The higher end cameras required less time to re-work lighting and considerablly less time in Post, so that expensive camera rental really equated to greatly reduced costs for post.

[Glen Hurd] “That if I spend hours massaging something with inferior characteristics, I can compete with wealthier operators who suffer from ADD”

IMHO Thats a pretty arrogant way to look at it and by “wealthy operator” you mean someone that chooses an uses his tools like a professional? I am one of those people and I am offended that you assume that being a pro is somehow akin to having a mental disorder.

Why not use the information as an equalizer, that any tool in the hands of some that knows and understands it can be used to create art and real art takes time to create.

I on the other hand think this is a business and in business using the tools that allow faster turnaround between shots and less time processing in post, allow for greater financial contrstraint ( as well as greater risk) with a historically greater chance for success ( or financial gain)

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock

[Michael Griggs]

[gary adcock] “I on the other hand think this is a business and in business using the tools that allow faster turnaround between shots and less time processing in post, allow for greater financial contrstraint ( as well as greater risk) with a historically greater chance for success ( or financial gain)”

I think Gary really sums it up.

If using a “nicer” camera allows for significantly more latitude of time and options in both production and post, it would seem that the offset of the higher cost can certainly be regained.

[Gary Adcock]

Thanks Michael,

lets also point out that Alexa’s price today is actually less than what the going rate to purchace a top of the line Sony Digibeta, a Varicam or F900 when new.

This used to be an industry of a rarified few, but no longer. I humbly think that there are too many up and comming “filmmakers” that garner some unwarranted sense of entitlement just because they got 300 people to view a clip on youtube.

I judge my work by my critics, not my friends and followers and a 47′ TV is the smallest thing I work on, if it does not look good big, being smaller will not help it.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock

[Michael Griggs]

Though it could also be noted that those of us who are limited using “cheaper” cameras have No Excuse for poor material! 🙂

….I mean….. Can still produce quality work…. yeah… that’s what I meant.

😉

[Michael Gissing]

I think the test is fair as long as you take on board the lighting time and post times. I have just finished a job shot on the Sony F3 sLog to a PIX recorder, in DNxHD.

The show is 87 minutes and 85% drama. It was shot in three weeks single camera, small crew in a variety of locations. The end result looks stunning because the DP knew how to light and the sLog gave him confidence in the amount of detail captured. The grade was done in 20 hours and then six hours run through with the DP and director tweaking. I noticed a lot less ‘fixing’ with secondaries.

It is all about control and not having to work as hard to compensate for short comings in camera, codec and workflow. It paid in post to have the right camera & using the external PIX recorder to minimise data wrangling and codec conversions prior to edit. The same DP is currently shooting with Alexa and said it was better to use than the F3. As Gary says, the camera costs are small biscuits compared to speed a crew can move at confidently and also the time saved at all stages of post.

There is so much false economy about cameras. I have a 5D mk2 but I can tell you that RED, Alexa and the Sony F3 make life a lot simpler in post and for some shoots they are a cheaper better option.