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

[Glen Hurd]

Hi, Gary.
I didn’t think my comments were derogatory – I was simply describing a scenario wherein an imaginary photographer shows up to shoot something, and somehow finds he can’t commit to studying the scene long enough to do anything before shooting. Yet, because that had happened in this test, I felt that there was a flaw in the setup, and then drew some observations that I thought would explain how this could happen.
But before you try and convince me that Charters gaffer had set up the scene for him before he arrived to shoot, could you do me a favor? It feels like you’ve been trying to read my mind more than my words, and I was wondering if you could actually quote something I’ve written that fits the description of the “derogatory phrases insinuating people have mental disorders” and “belittling others.”
You’re now accusing me of actually insulting someone, and I would like to clear that up. But I need a quote. No mind reading, OK? And I’d ask you not to respond to my post until you have that quote – I’m going to need it.

And while I’m on the “bullying” aspect of my post, maybe a different context may help you see how some people – outside your collection of friends and family – actually communicate.
On Master Chef recently, (yes, this is national TV) I heard one of the judging chefs, while looking at a messed up meal that was presented to him, say, “This looks like it was assembled by a chef suffering from ADD!”
Now, from your perspective, was he insinuating the chef in question actually had ADD? No.
Was he insinuating that all people who have ADD are idiots? No.
Could he have simply been drawing a parallel between a non-serious, easily managed disorder – that exhibits itself with a lack of focus – to the result he was holding in his hand?
See, in some parts of the Americas, people with ADD don’t consider themselves “victims” or in need of special consideration. I have a friend who works as an aircraft mechanic for a very large airline. He’s convinced that his ADD is an asset. I know what he’d say about your comments on this post. See, he sees this sort of speech as hyperbole and is accepted as humor. Perhaps we haven’t submitted to the righteous ascension of the sensitivity crusaders yet – perhaps we value expression and debate and spontaneity over “correctness” – allowing for friction to be a part of every relationship instead of insisting that it all be made of teflon (and usually to someone else’s definition of what that teflon standard should be).
And the reason why I won’t let this go is because many times, in debates particularly, when the weak-minded find themselves fumbling for a defense, they suddenly assign themselves savior-status and attack their opponents for various deeds of insensitive improprieties, while completely ignoring the thread of logic in their opponents presentation. Not because they care about those whom they suddenly represent, but because a smoke screen of accusations makes for a wonderful distraction while they try and gather a more successful defense. I must confess, for a moment or two, I thought you might be doing that.
But now I believe you are a truly compassionate being, who would feel remorse if anyone were to be hurt in a discussion. Unless you judged them to be a bully of sorts. Then you’d let them have it – right between the eyes – but just to save the innocent.
I’m right there with you.

Now, back to the real topic, if you have the time.

I want to start by asking basic questions (anyone can answer – this is a forum after all).

Do you think the operators of the higher end cameras were as devoted to getting a great picture as the GH2 operators were? Yes or no?
Do you think it was possible that the higher end camera operators took the word “shootout” to mean “demonstrate maximum exposure latitude” instead of “Get the best damn picture you can”? Yes or No?
Do you really believe that a camera limited to 9 stops and a 4:2:0 signal should be capable of competing with the Alexa and F65 if all operators were truly focused on getting the best possible picture from a scene over which they have the same lighting controls – and assuming the operators are relatively equal in skill? Yes or No?
Do you think it was possible the higher end camera operators took the word “shootout” to mean “demonstrate how fast you can work to get an acceptable image”? Yes or No?
Do you think the operators in this shootout could possibly have had different goals in this shootout, thus making the visual assessment of the graded images an erroneous response to the camera operators’ goals? Yes or No?

I’m trying to contact some of them privately, because I’m intensely curious. But in the mean time, I’ve read many comments on the web, from some in Holland, some in Australia, many in the US, that the GH2 did very well compared to the other cameras. It’s been reported that a famous “yet-to-be-named” cinematographer actually preferred the GH2 to the Alexa and F65 at the Skywalker Ranch showing.

So I wasn’t just shooting in the dark when I made my observations about what I thought had happened. I’ve screen-captured the footage, exported stills, measured brightness values, watched shadows under the coffee table appear and disappear, watch the lighting ratios on the faces in the foreground change from clip to clip, all as indicators that help me evaluate which cameras I’m looking at, while studying the lighting charts. None of my observations relied on resolution, but on contrast, shadow placement, and relative brightness values for light sources that are constants in the scene – that sort of thing.

And from those observations, I realized that a couple of the cheaper cameras had performed so well that the more expensive cameras, despite their price tags, could hardly claim to offer better picture performance (ignoring time for setup and all that – which is another point I’ll get to).

Yes, I understand that reaching the same look as the cheap camera in 1/3 the time, has production value. But it better offer more than that! I can’t imagine Rodney Charters saying “With a normal subject, this Alexa can barely exceed the quality of a 9-stop DSLR camera, that shoots 4:2:0 color on a 150mb/sec stream, but I can do it in 1/3 the lighting time and 1/2 the grading time, which is pretty damn exciting.”
OK. That just made me laugh. Ridiculous.

Yet I read a quote where Illya Friedman said the total quality difference between cameras, excluding iPhones, was 15%.
I would expect that kind of difference if they were shooting grey cards where no camera has to really perform – but not on this set.

Apparently, you were quite satisfied with the results, which I find amazing.

Now, you’ve pointed out that gaffers set up lights in advance of the camera operators – in my experience the final decisions are only made once the camera’s in position and the DP is making final decisions, but regardless, I thought this scene was set up without regard for any particular camera – from what I understand anyway. Perhaps you could address that if you have insider knowledge. Did they light specifically for the F65 or the Alexa? If so, I understand why you’re confused by my comments. I thought it was a testing ground, not a starting point for Sony.

However, if I’m correct in understanding that it was set up simply as a test scenario, then I still wonder why they didn’t do more tweaking – just out of pure control. As you accurately pointed out, many prefer to get as close to the needed picture in camera – instead of relying on another person to control the “look” so with the film community, especially, there is a tendency to get as close to the final look as possible. Here, I don’t see that behavior. If you saw this behavior on a production set – no gaffers, no crew, just an operator who simply shows up to shoot, you’d think that operator had been burning too many nights on Modalert! (Phew) Another way to put it is, if they were told they were competing with a $300,000 wondercam with 20 stops latitude, do you think they would have still been happy with doing nothing to the set? Yes or No?
This is strictly a question of psychology. We have a test. We have certain motivations. If I can change the conditions of the test, do the motivations change?

What I have learned is that you are satisfied by how closely all these cameras performed, despite their price tag.

You know what’s funny? I own 2 of the cameras featured here, and according to this shoot-out, they both did wonderfully. Now all I need is to design a faster method of setting and adjusting lights.

How’s that for irony.

‘nite all.

[Gary Adcock]

[Glen Hurd] “On Master Chef recently, (yes, this is national TV) I heard one of the judging chefs, while looking at a messed up meal that was presented to him, say, “This looks like it was assembled by a chef suffering from ADD!””

I assume that most of us have been taught “Just becasue someone else does something wrong, it does not make it the right thing to do”

gary adcock
Studio37

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

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock

[Timothy Auld]

Indeed. Unless I missed some groundbreaking study in the last few years how people see things is psychology. Does Alexa @ 1080p ” look better than 5K from whomever? Who knows?

Tim

[Gary Adcock]

Do you realize that those are some incredibly well known and gifted shooters you are accusing of intentionally being lazy, stupid or malicious in their actions? Do you really think that someone would put their name on any project if they had done that?

I certainly did not, and my name is proudly listed on the Revenge of the Shootout.

I can tell you from my perspective that not one of the DP’s went into this project with any intention other than making the best images possible with the tools they were assigned. This was my task as the designer of the workflows. Some of the Camera MFG’s wanted their specific workflows shown, others supplied personnel and technical support to show their products in the best light.

This is the same fundimental principle that the DP’s I work with. The job is ALWAYS to handle each and every project they work on with courtesy and professionalism.

To assume there are ulterior motives to shoot faster, show more latitude or somehow submarine the project just because, shows a fair bit of naivety of how people actually work in a professional enviroment. No one I know or would work with would allow that to happen and if seen they would have been called out by anyone of the dozens of people that worked on this project. The BTS cameras were running continously so there would a record if that was the case.

Part 1 of the test was to see how the imager and workflows compared in one instance with out bias to any camera, that is the base test and the higher end cameras clearly showed higher image quality.

The Lighting was designed to be difficult, it encompassed what would be difficult even for film, that was part of the test. Most cameras of the cameras faired poorly on this test, even some of the highest end cameras did not respond as well as the MFG’s claimed it should.

There is nothing wrong with making the Lighting extreme, working in extreme lighting conditions is a very real problem, to ignore that issue is as egregious as an error can be. On a real episodic production, the DP would not be re-lighting every shot, there is just not time in the budget when shooting 10+ pages of dialog in one day

Again I am going to reiterate that the time envolved in re-lighting multiple shots with a larger crew standing around is bad business. I do not care which camera you are working with, to waste your crew time is both foolish and expensive.

Allowing the re-lightingin this test to show that given time (and the associated monies) that virtually any modern imaging camera can be used in a professional manner.

I personally choose to spend the money on hardware to save physical time, my perspective is people are the most expensive part of the equation and wasting peoples time is the worst thing I can do. I hate it when people waste my time, so why would I choose to waste anyone elses time.

gary adcock
Studio37

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

https://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

follow me on Twitter
@garyadcock

[Glen Hurd]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner – went through a busy spell.

Again, for the record, I’d like you to show me where I’ve accused anyone of being anything negative – “lazy stupid or malicious.”
I’ve stated, repeatedly, that there is no indication that everyone approached this alleged “test” with the same goals, therefore it is not a real test.
I’ll state it again, very simply, and then stop beating this horribly disfigured dead horse.

Each operator was told they could approach this first test “creatively.” That sends up red flags for me because when I evaluate the footage, I have no idea what the intent of each operator was. I simply don’t know.

If an operator spends 1 1/2 hours on lighting, is it because he’s trying to get skin tones in the foreground to match those of someone outside? Is it to bring out more detail in a coffee table he’s fallen in love with? I don’t know.
If an operator spends no time in lighting is it because he’s more interested in just capturing the 10 stops inside the “room,” and is happy to have blown highlights for exteriors – ’cause he feels they’re more natural that way – and because he feels lights that are losing detail are less distracting, and don’t contribute enough to a scene to make their inclusion important?
I don’t know.

And, unless each operator states what their goals are, neither do you.
To assume they all had the same goals appears naive to me.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand where you keep coming up with these negative assertions about me, however. Anyone else reading what I’ve said, perhaps they could confirm what you are saying (if anyone has the grit to still be reading this thread). I certainly have felt nothing but respect for the operators. In fact – again, here’s the irony – it’s that respect that had me questioning the whole test to start with. With such luminaries operating this gear, there had to be a reason why the results weren’t as clear cut as they could be. I still don’t buy the “better cameras are for faster lighting” argument. Yes, that’s a clear advantage, but it’s certainly not the only one. Nor do I think it’s the most important one. You might save on your budget, but if no-one’s impressed with the photography, you’re not making money with it either. It’s not as cut and dried as you’re trying to make it out to be.

To be honest, I’ve been researching this off site, and am relieved to have confirmation regarding my misgivings. Here’s a hint. What does an artist want to do more than anything else – once given the freedom to do it? And each of these operators is not only an individual but a very experienced artist. With only one mandate – be ‘creative.’
Different goals for different roles – I say.

If anyone is still interested in how I analyzed the footage, I’ll be happy to explain – it’s a long process, however, and will require me to upload a bunch of photoshopped stuff – so I don’t really want to do it.

And at this point, this thread feels pretty parched to me – parched and buried.

Adieu, ol’ boy . . . adieu.