-
Sort of OT: Revenge of the great camera shoot out, 2012.
-
Amen to Gary A and Michael G.
Like most creative shops that have been around for a while, I’ve produced in a number of formats from 16mm and 35mm (always rented and always with DPs that understood film cameras) to Sony video cameras that cost more than the Alexa to Canon Xls with P&S mini35 setups that we’ve always shot ourselves.
We’ve always worked with the systems that budgets allowed for and always tried to use the systems that offered the fastest/best production and post production benefits.
We’e always owned a full production system but rented “better” when the project demanded.
Right now I’m in the middle of determining our new system and the big difference is whatever I decide will preclude ever renting anything, because the barrier has been lifted. Whether it’s a RED (which it isn’t going to be simply because I don’t like the workflow vs how we work now), A C300, or even an FS700 the new generation of cameras, at this level, offer virtually all the tools we need to cover web only, regional/national commercial work, or doc and fiction – basically we now have systems that can do everything for the smallest or biggest screens that are great professional investments.
If the C300 had 1080 60fps I’d have had one of the first available. Shame Canon didn’t allow for that because I really like everything else about the camera from image quality to operation to ease of workflow to using all my L glass.
Anyway, to G and M’s point – we just finished shooting a spot yesterday, all car interiors, regional budget, our 5Ds and LED panels were the perfect solution for the constraints and budget. But I paid for it in time on location (even though I’m really fast with the system) and now in post as we grade and finish the campaign and deal with the codec limitations.
Because I don’t produce national work all week, I still won’t invest in an F65 or Alexa right now, but the benefits of renting one when appropriate has nothing to do with psychology. If national work was all we did then I would most definitely find the Epic, F65, or Alexa real bargains.
The new evolutionary development is that whichever system I do go with, it will provide everything we need to produce at every level. RIght now those cameras exist in the $8k to $20k range and absolutely kill the systems we used to rent that cost $80k and shot in SD.
But a pro system isn’t just about being able to craft a test shoot to maximize IQ. It’s about the speed and variety it offers on set and how quickly it is to edit and finish and how it holds up to robust post creative.
I really wish the C300 had 60fps.
-
Despite higher resolution cameras, I think easier logarithmic workflows have really boosted the final quality of work, no matter what camera is used.
It has been the most useful for my work, technology wise, more so than 2k+ resolution.
We use the best camera we can afford on any given job, but if budgets would allow, the Alexa would be the absolute go to if we could swing it.
From production, through post, it truly seems to be a great camera.
The crew likes working with it, we like editing and color.
For spots, and episodic TV, it’s a steal.
We have shot our fair share of DSLR over the past few years, and with these newer more ergonomic and production oriented cameras, all the DPs I work with can’t wait to get on to the next system.
We all appreciate what DSLRs have done for affordable “big chip” production at an incredible value, but the form factor is beginning to wane at least for us.
Can’t wait to see the rest of this test. Next installment is July 15th, and the final
installment is August 15th. -
[Glen Hurd] ” 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). “
The only shortcoming of the GH2, compared with other DSLRs, is that clips the picture at 100% on recording.
If could keep the overhead lights would be great.
rafael -
All right. How did I step into this mess? Did I hit a nerve or did I really fail so terribly to communicate? I try for brevity, but that obviously wasn’t worth it. 🙁
For convenience, I’d like to use the term “underdog” to refer to those operating less expensive, less capable cameras and “topdog” to reference those using the more capable, more expensive cameras. My intent is not to offend, to make any political or socially-oriented statements or opinions about anyone who uses any type of gear – I wish to use those terms simply for purposes of brevity. And if I need to use more disclaimers in future posts, I will try to remember to do so.
Jeremy, one of the problems I had with the shootout was the fact that some of the topdogs did so little to try and improve the lighting in this “extreme” situation. I couldn’t imagine bringing an F65, an Alexa, an Epic to this situation, and not wanting to put some work into the lighting. Sure, it had lights already set up. But that was the “scenario.” Who walks into a scenario, adds a bounce card and says, “I’m done?” (I don’t think anyone actually added a bounce card and said, “I’m done.” I just wrote that as an example of someone arriving at a scene, and putting very little work into it.)
I ate a sandwich and thought about it, and came to the conclusion that the reason why the topdogs didn’t do much in the way of lighting was because, in their minds, they weren’t engaged in production but in a shootout. But why did the underdogs go through so much effort? Because they were the underdogs – they had nothing to lose by adding lights – they’re already the guys with inferior gear. So, after another sandwich, I surmised that this test wasn’t fair because it didn’t encourage everyone to approach this as real production but as a camera shootout! By the nature of competition, the underdogs will light to prove they can capture a scene, and the topdogs will underlight to prove their cameras are more powerful -it’s a shootout! In a real production environment, I think it’s safe to say, that each operator would have spent at least an hour setting up lights and checking the shot, so something strange had happened here. That’s the “psychology” part I was discussing. Shootout vs real production. Not – the – same – thing.
To sum up, I see 2 different sets of goals being pursued. One group, the underdogs, were pursing the goal of making the most beautiful scene they could capture. The other group, the topdogs, pursued a different goal: they wanted to demonstrate how awesome their camera was at capturing a scene under extreme lighting conditions.
That’s what I’m saying happened here.
Based on looking at the footage.
Based on seeing what kind of cameras I’m seeing, based on relative exposure values by constants in that scene.
As I said, Camera B had inferior exposure latitude to the other cameras, but came out with some of the prettiest footage. Why? Because of the split focus of the competitors, not because the topdogs couldn’t have easily beaten it.
I’ll bet I’m still not making any sense here to anyone, but do I get points for trying?So my comment on the psychology of this test was an effort to DEFEND the inherent value of using the more expensive cameras, and why this test failed to show that.
So Gary, (and those that followed Gary) you gotta back off a little. If I come across arrogant it’s because you completely, utterly misunderstand me. I don’t know how – I thought I was perfectly clear – but it doesn’t matter, I’m going to try again. I’ll use more words, at the risk of boring you to tears.
I was trying to show that after analyzing the footage and looking at the lighting setups, that the more expensive cameras weren’t really shot with the same focus on beauty as the lesser cameras. My explanation was that the operators had a different purpose. The F65 operator, for instance, was obviously not trying to improve the scene – but wanted, rather, to prove what his camera could handle. The same with some of the other topdogs, though to a lesser extent. As a result, in this test, did he do as well as he could have? I don’t think so. Why not? Why didn’t he try harder? Please, don’t accuse me now of suggesting that he was a bad operator. I’m not saying that. And if you still don’t understand, then I must simply give up trying.
But before you respond, read the rest of what I have to say. It might help.I had concluded that it’s not a great test because it didn’t encourage the topdogs to push beauty as hard as the underdogs would push. The topdogs were distracted by the nature of a shoot-out and didn’t think it would demonstrate their camera’s prowress if they spent the same time lighting and improving the scene for their cameras as they would have during a real production. I make that statement because I believe that bring an F65, an Alexa, an Epic would always be a better choice than bringing a GH2 to a shoot (unless space or danger were an issue), and yet you would still WANT to light your scene to improve produciton value, wouldn’t you? No-one brings an Alexa to a shoot because they see the camera simply as a shortcut to getting work done! That’s where I made the comparison to a rich guy (read “uncommitted”) who brought his toy (F65, Alexa, Epic, etc) to a shoot so he didn’t have to work (ie. can’t stay focused on the rigors of lighting, or suffering from ADD – as an example). That’s what I was trying to say, in 1,000 words or less.
So . . . newsflash . . . I’m not degrading the use of great equipment. I’m not degrading those who prefer to bring their best game to a shoot – even if it’s overkill.
I’m simply trying to illustrate an inherent weakness to their test. On the surface it looks fair and intriguing. With a little analysis, it has weaknesses that are borne out once the footage is evaluated.
Again, my problem was that this scenario showed someone coming in with a top-end camera, and doing nothing to improve their lighting -it’s as if they suffered ADD. I explain that as being the nature of the shoot – it was a shootout! Of course the topdogs are tempted not to do as much! Do you get it??!! Is it really that hard to see this?! But that’s not real life. In real life, you bring a camera – whether GH2 or F65, and you still work your butt off to get the best picture that fits your story – and that usually means lighting like a mad man. Who wouldn’t? What a waste if you didn’t. Right? Are you with me? We don’t go to work to save time but to preserve quality! Yet this test shows people saving time!! Why??!! ‘Cause it’s SHOOTOUT!! That, by it’s nature, ruined the test! It’s as if the guy with the GH2 is competing with an uncommitted cameraman with a top-of-the-line camera, who has ADD!!!! Not a real-world scenario! Not a good test!
This “test,” therefore, failed to show what the topdogs could really do.
I thought pointing this out would add some insight to the test, and help those studying the footage understand why the results were nothing like what was expected.
I liked the concept of the test, but in my opinion it backfired. The footage with the greyest table lamp shades are some of the prettiest – showing that hard work in lighting is a definite asset to production – but we already know that!
Showing up with an F65 and doing nothing isn’t realistic. Is it Gary? Is it Jeremy? Is it anyone else?
So why did they do it?
It’s as if a rich guy showed up with ADD – read that part again – it’s AS IF a rich guy (read, uncommitted – has access to gear because it’s easy, not because it’s a calculated decision/risk) showed up with his toy (F65) and shot without any focus on beauty (ADD).And let me carefully restate that I’m not saying the topdog operators were bad or uncommitted or suffering from ADD. I haven’t implied it. I haven’t thought it. I have nothing but respect for all of them. Rather, I’m trying to explain why they did what they did. They went out to prove what the worst-case scenario their cameras could handle – while competing with underdogs who were doing everything they could to flatten out the scene to make it easier for their cameras to handle. And according to quite a few reports, some of the underdogs did better than the topdogs. The previous post was intended to explain how this can happen.
So, I didn’t think the test was realistic, because not everyone was shooting as if they were on a production but in a shootout.
Do you get what I’m saying?
Obviously there’s been a failure to communicate.
I’ll bet I still failed.Come back to this post, once it’s revealed which cameras were which, and maybe you’ll see why I wrote what I wrote.
Or not.
-
I’m cool with your comments Glen. Certainly no offense. Gary was involved with the tests so perhaps he saw something in the critique that I didn’t. I agree with much of what you say.
As I said, if you bear in mind the work done, I think you can tease out the results of this test so I think like any sort of shootout, there are advantages and disadvantages that I think the organisers tried to minimise. By publishing the setups, time and grade complexity, they can allow us to make some further assessment of the merits and result generally.
I have my paper list and guesses, but I don’t know which camera is which without seeing the publish list which is to be revealed. Personally I think for us graders there could be a still frame (tif, png?) supplied of each of the raw shots pre grade so we can try it in our grade tools. That said, I find the luxury of trimming RED tab settings (ISO, Color temp etc) as part of the grade important but it would level the playing field a bit.
-
[Glen Hurd] ” Did I hit a nerve or did I really fail so terribly to communicate? I try for brevity, but that obviously wasn’t worth it. :(“
[Glen Hurd] “Again, my problem was that this scenario showed someone coming in with a top-end camera, and doing nothing to improve their lighting -it’s as if they suffered ADD. “[Glen Hurd] “And let me carefully restate that I’m not saying the topdog operators were bad or uncommitted or suffering from ADD. I haven’t implied it. I haven’t thought it.”
You have and you are- by re-using that comment over and over again in this post – why do you keep denigrating an actual mental illnesses to make a point about someone you perceive being to lazy to do what you expect?
You resopnd as if you minimal experience on a larger sets, for the record it is quite common for the Gaffer to have pre-lit sets for mood or to match an exisiting shots based on previous discussions.
Most lighting ratios have been established based on film stocks and until digital cameras can hold that “filmic” luminance range unless you are going for that flat “sitcom” lighting.
[Glen Hurd] “I’m simply trying to illustrate an inherent weakness to their test. On the surface it looks fair and intriguing. With a little analysis, it has weaknesses that are borne out once the footage is evaluated.”
I disagree. Possibly the difference is I viewed this material in a specific viewing environment where a group of us were all seeing the info at the same time- I have not watched the internet version, to me that would not be allow anything close to proper viewing conditions.
The test reaffirmed to me a few specific thougths having been involved in a couple of these tests.
a) the better the camera gear, the faster working environment. Cost aside.
b) a real pro can make art with Stone knives and Bearskins
c) No one will agree on the outcome.
d) the loudest complaints come from the people with the most to loose from the results.
[Glen Hurd] “Showing up with an F65 and doing nothing isn’t realistic. Is it Gary? Is it Jeremy? Is it anyone else?”
Actually the Alexa took the lest amount of time for lighting and post, and that fact mirrors why that camera has pretty much taken over a great deal of the Episodic and commercial market in the US with something over 80% of Episodic TV shot on that single camera.
Why? Why with all of these great tools do the pro’s go for one camera at better than 2-1?
There are RED’s everywhere? why are so many Alexa’s being used. WHAT happened to Sony and Panasonic’s former claims that they were top dog; 5 years ago the F900 was the dominate camera for Episodic tv, try and find one on a set now.Glen,
Everyone has thier own opinion and they are allowed to differ- however I think it best not to bash others on the way to making your point.gary adcock
Studio37Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock -
[Glen Hurd] “Showing up with an F65 and doing nothing isn’t realistic. Is it Gary? Is it Jeremy? Is it anyone else?
So why did they do it? “Glen, I hear what you’re saying, and, for the most part, I agree with your main points. But I think there’s a flip side to what you’re saying….
There are plenty of shooting situations that would greatly benefit from using a cinema camera (maybe not like the Alexa, but certainly something in the $8k-$20K range) that don’t have a lot of time to work on lighting. Specifically, in certain types of docu style interviews on location (think hospital patients, or doctors in their office), there is not a lot of leeway for time to set up a lot of “extra” lighting, if for no other reason than the interviewee does not have a lot of time to dedicate to the process in the first place.
[Glen Hurd] “The topdogs were distracted by the nature of a shoot-out and didn’t think it would demonstrate their camera’s prowress if they spent the same time lighting and improving the scene for their cameras as they would have during a real production. “
I think the fact that they WERE able to spend “less” time setting up/fiddling with lighting is one the main takeaways (for me at least) from this shootout.
[Glen Hurd] “I make that statement because I believe that bring an F65, an Alexa, an Epic would always be a better choice than bringing a GH2 to a shoot (unless space or danger were an issue), and yet you would still WANT to light your scene to improve produciton value, wouldn’t you?”
Yes, obviously the more time and effort spent in improving lighting will have an impact on production values….But I also think that there’s a bit of a threshold to that improvement, in that sometimes there are such drastic time constraints (especially when shooting on location) that SOMETIMES “good enough” actually has to BE good enough. For me, knowing that my camera selection could actually handle a “good enough” situation (and what that threshold of “good enough” qualifies as) would be a huge benefit. And I think that, if nothing else, the shootout proves that. So I certainly wouldn’t consider it a “weakness”.
-
Geesh, Gary. I really did hit a nerve!
My whole point was that this test encouraged topdogs to do less than they might normally do. It was not a situation where the F65 crew, for instance, walked in and lit for their camera and everyone else were then asked to make adjustments. Was it? And for the record, the F65 did have the shortest setup time IF I’m to go by the charts they released on their website. No time lighting. The Alexa took 33 minutes.
Therefore, I conclude, that the topdogs weren’t approaching this with the same mindset as the GH2 operators did, for instance, where they spent so much more time on lighting.
You’re being beligerent by completely ignoring what I’m trying to say, and instead reacting to what you imagined I said. Which, simply is not fair.If you were to disagree with my assessment of the camera operators’ mentality, you’d say, “No, I talked to all the operators, and all they could focus on was creating as much beauty as they could. When I asked the F65 operator why he made no adjustments to the lights, he told me that he tried, but that the currrent set up for the shootout was already perfect for his camera, and he could do absolutely NOTHING to improve the image for his camera!”
See, if you said that, I’d be illuminated by information I didn’t have access to anywhere else.
If you went on to say that you had similar conversations with the other topdogs, I’d be even more impressed with the underdogs. Because your comments would point out that an extra hour of lighting with a $700 camera will allow me to match or exceed the cameras that rent for over $1500/day because those cameras were just as focused on beauty as the underdogs were, yet failed to pull out in front by a significant margin – if at all!
So, Gary, while you go on about how offensive and arrogant I am, I am still sitting here in comparitive darkness because you won’t tell me that the topdogs were just as focused on beauty as the underdogs. And since you are silent on that, I’m left to conclude that the topdogs weren’t focused on beauty at all – but on proving their camera superiority by underlighting – by doing the least necessary – to get a good picture. Opposite motivations, which yield results that – if misunderstood – would give a false value for shooting with inferior gear.
You point to 4 conclusions.
a)The better the camera, the faster the work. – I think everyone would agree that was obvious, I would add that if the faster work yields inferior results to a slower effort with a significanlty cheaper camera, is that an advantage? If concensus is that the GH2 outperformed the Epic, for instance, was the time saved setting up for the Epic of any value? Would anyone running an Epic – in a real production – approach their lighting requirements the same as if they were in a shootout with a GH2, where they want to demonstrate the superiority of the Epic vs simply going for the prettiest shot they can wrangle? My guess/assertion is no. People don’t bring top gear to a shoot JUST so they can skimp on lighting. They may not have to work as hard as with inferior gear, that’s more than obvious, but they will still want to do what’s necessary – if they have the time. Yet these operators had time, but they were motivated, in my opinion, to underlight. And I think that needs to be acknowledged.
However, apparently you were there, so most will assume you should know. I will be the minority opinion that psychology plays a part in every competition, and this – at the end of the day – was a competition.b) A real pro can make art with Stone knives and bearskins – My response is no doubt. But this was a shootout, where the stone knives appeared to do as well or better than the scroll-saws, chainsaws, and sawzalls. So I wanted to figure out what may have contributed to this – other than the implied suggestion that the underdogs were simply more talented than the topdogs – which I don’t believe.
c) No one will agree on the outcome. – My response is that many will agree on their top 1 or 2 favorites, and if they misunderstand why they are seeing the results they are, they may never consider the better equipment for their own needs – thinking that an extra hour of lighting will allow them to exceed the quality of a $1800/day camera rental with their sub-$1000 purchased DSLR – which I think would be a mistake. Yet this test tends to imply that, not just on my observations, but also on the opinions of many others following the test.
d) The loudest complaints from the people with the most to loose from the results. – I don’t know what that’s in reference to, but if that helps you ignore me, then have at it. Whatever method you need to hide from my logic is OK with me.
If you found my ADD references offensive, they were intended to explain the only scenario I could imagine where someone shows up to a real production shoot, given at least 2 hours to do whatever they want to light the set to accomodate their camera, and do nothing, while someone with a veritable toy spends the time to enhance the lighting well enough to compete with that much superior camera. That scenario doesn’t make sense, so I made fun of that scenario to make a point. That’s called exaggeration. Look it up sometime.
And after all that, you still think I’m knocking the better cameras – which I am really supporting.
You may be reading my posts, but you certainly don’t understand them. At least you’ve made this personal, which is helping me get to know you a little better. And that is reason enough for me to look forward to your next response.
-
So, Glen, are you saying you know which camera is which? If so, how?
—
Occasionally, I get extremely lucky and get to work with higher end production tools.
No matter what camera is on set, the work ethic from our team doesn’t change.
When a higher end camera is on set, there’s usually much more at stake in terms of client, budget, insurance, and therefore our reputation.
It costs more, the client knows it, and wants to see that measurable difference in the end product. Then there’s the opposite, budgets are lower, client doesn’t care what camera as long as it hits a price…yet they still want a nice product.
No matter what budget or camera is selected, we still show up and work really hard at it, no matter how sensitive the chip is to light.
This test was setup, as far as I can tell, with a level playing field. The cameras we already know aren’t level, so you have to setup a control.
They could have setup charts, lines and graphs, they could have done it any other way, but instead they chose to start as even as possible, and then beyond that, provide as much insight as possible through the interviews.
For me, that’s a successful shootout in that you can forget the gear for a second and perhaps gain some experience from those that have been in the field, which is much much harder to do in today’s environment.
Just like what was said in the video, this might be the “last camera test” as they are all getting to be pretty good, some just happen to be excellent.
Also, just because the F65 guys didn’t use any more instruments doesn’t mean they didn’t adjust anything. There’s a difference.
-
[Glen Hurd] “Geesh, Gary. I really did hit a nerve! “
I have never agreed with an online poster using derogatory phrases insinuating people have mental disorders because you think it is somehow alright. It is not. Belittling others to make your point has never been acceptable.
Once again I reiterate that your comments seem, to me at least, to show a lack of experience on larger sets where gaffing is handled by a different crew.
Have you actually worked on everyone of these camera’s? with the exception of the GH2 I have. When the tools reach the level of Alexa, F65 and Epic, DP’s that were trained in film style lighting go back to thier roots, one of a simpler shooting style and a reliance on the professionals that come after them in the process.
What is so wrong about that?
What you seem to keep bypassing in your comments is not only the addtional time to light the shot for the prosumer cameras, but in some cases a huge increase in post time. Again this additional post handling something that has to be included in the associated costs attached to post.
This was not designed to be compared to a one man “preditor” style. This test simulates what happens in a great number of commercial, episodic and theatrical productions- One person shoots and another handles the post, very few of the DP’s I know acutually post the materials they produce on set.
On a large set like this one, adding an hour or 2 to relight every shot keeps 30+ people on the clock, while the DP compensates for a lower cost camera. That alone makes the higher end cameras more practical. I can assure you that have a couple of dozen people standing around burning your budget while everyone waits.
Do that for every other shot and all of a sudden your production schedule (AND BUDGET) out the window. Now let me here the complaints about the extra rental costs when the budget for personnel (often the largest part of a production budget) just tripled while everyone is waiting for your to Re-light.
[Glen Hurd] “d) The loudest complaints from the people with the most to loose from the results. – I don’t know what that’s in reference to, but if that helps you ignore me, then have at it.”
My guess is , once again, is that you have some vested interest in your exisitng camera choices and the test has made you question a previous decision, hence the animosity in your posts.
I do not own cameras any longer, I chose to purchace the glass that fits on the style of cameras I choose work with, that way I am not bound by technical limitations.
FYI- its not personal, I do not know you. It’s about being respectful to others in your posts.
Treat others as you would expect to be treated, there are enough trolls online already.gary adcock
Studio37Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, ILhttps://blogs.creativecow.net/24640
follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up