Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: zacuto 2011 test #1  (Read 13632 times)
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 06, 2011, 02:41:37 PM »
ReplyReply

48fps is going to be interesting for sure. For one thing you should be able to extract a "normal looking" 24fps straight out of it, and it could very well make the stereo look a lot better - at least that's the goal and that's what I've seen from some 48fps tests.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 06, 2011, 02:46:12 PM »
ReplyReply

That's an esthetic decision. I would certainly blow that.

Of course I would blow it too for both aesthetic and practical reasons

It was an example of how mesuring the performance of cameras using the approach of 'never clip' is a flawed one compared to asking 'how do they clip'

Edit

Not pointing at Graeme but we see a lot of testers sticking a camera in front of a bunch of flowers a a teddy bear in a studio by a gold coin and a gregtag card

They get results that are just not relevant to the real world

S
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 02:52:12 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #62 on: August 06, 2011, 03:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, that's the all dilema. This industry needs engineering, and it's normal that engineers think with a, well, measurements and mathematics minds. But in the end the ones destined to use the other side of the brain are making the final goal and there are in fact very little agreement between what a world projects, measure and develop and what the other actually does.

If I understand you well, you are saying that some cameras blows better than others in the sense that the blowned highlights are plastic-look free. I sort of concur with this, but at the same time isn't it our part (image makers) to really get into a specific equipment and try to contour the downsides, finding ways to make them work according to our aims?
I'm thinking about the lightning here and also shooting on set with post-prod in mind. But that's not an easy dilema.

My point is: the more time we stay with a specific gear, the more output we can extract from it, but it's just the opposite camera makers want us to do. They want us to buy each time faster and putting into our minds preocupations that the next model solved. They want us to think tech and never been stable so we are all the time tempted with new features, improvements and gadgeteries.






 
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #63 on: August 06, 2011, 04:08:22 PM »
ReplyReply

To be boring and serious

I think the roll off is mathematically testable easily, just these old guys are using the same old tests they used to use for film

Which did not really need testing in that manner because all film performed so well

In fact it casually tried here.. http://dslr4real.tv/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=77&Itemid=1 - simple braketing through the iris

As for the tools - sure - talent can do better than me with a holga or Iphone probably

And I have learned a sweet spot for using my digicams.. in the shade Smiley

Im still not getting my Sony to look as cool as the 5d

S



Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #64 on: August 06, 2011, 05:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

But remember film age. Photographers had one or 2 predilected films that they ended to know strengh and wickneses. It takes time to establish a reliable workflow linked to aesthetic for a type of medium as you are experiencing with the Sony.

I think basically that if you stick with one or 2 gear for some time you'll get pretty much the look you want, even with a basic gear. After awhile you'll get as comfortable with the the Sony as with the 5D and choose this or that camera, this or that lightning intuitively.

But then, they don't let us do that easily because what we bought is already obsolete and the time we get used to the workflow we'll be tempted to upgrade again, and it can be, if lucky, within the continuity, or if not lucky, a complete re-learning.

And they managed that magic (to put us in bondage and make us buy all the time) with testings and trying to focus the attention on tech specs, sensors, sharpness, dr needs real or created, spreading ideas of "image quality" or more exactly, the lack of image quality and lots of people bite. It's never enough. It bloody works...

« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 05:46:08 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2011, 11:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe - but I tend to get a conclusion with 5 mins of it coming out of the box and it tends to be right !

On the upgrade path - I dont really feel those pressures, I have a 2005(?) H1/22mp in the studio/interiors on a tripod, and a 2008(?) D3 for the street - they both do the job for me

There was an expensive road getting to them.. kodak pro back, nikon D1, etc that I did not like out the box but when the good enough thing came along I stuck with it, Im also happy with my 5d for filming stuff that doesnt need sound

Of course Id like to put it all together some time into one tidy little Epic shaped box, but IMO S35 is a little small for stills unless we see some new faster lenses

S



Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2011, 11:18:56 AM »
ReplyReply

What about 16mm film? Is it still a viable option? I'm thinking about picking up a Bolex,
When i see work this beautiful :http://vimeo.com/23881980
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #67 on: August 09, 2011, 06:19:41 PM »
ReplyReply

What about 16mm film? Is it still a viable option? I'm thinking about picking up a Bolex,
When i see work this beautiful :http://vimeo.com/23881980
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net

Motion imagery, like stills that preceded it is now going through it's change from digital to film.

There is still viability in film, but the older 16mm cameras likes the Beaulieu and the Bolex have small viewfinders, somewhat hard to focus and if your running from a generator require crystal sync.

16mm film is cheap, processing not bad either, scanning is lower than before, but it is a longer slower workflow and of course you don't have instant view, instant zoom focus and the capability to work in a commercial environment that is required today.

16, even super 16 is a small frame and pulls a lot of focus, unless your running 1.2 lenses and then focus is an issue on movement.   

Kodak 16mm stock is grainy though can have a pretty look, fuji 16 (if you can find it) is much prettier and has less grain.   Fuji film is thicker and is harder to spool and burns batteries faster, though most of the looks you will get out of any film will come from telecine and coloring.

I own a beautiful Beaulieu and though it is lovely to hold I doubt seriously if I will ever use it again commercially.

If you really have a hankering to shoot 16, look at an Aaeton A minima as it uses quick kodak loads and saves time in changing film, (see the movie Hurt Locker), though you are limited to Kodak stock.

Every now and then some Hollywood director will get a bug about shooting a movie in super 8 or 16mm, usually do a dozen tests, then wind up shooting 35mm film and do post tricks to emulate 16mm.

Though honestly a 7d will do the same and more and with plug ins, coloring suites you can emulate almost any look from film in digital capture.

Film guys dread the introduction of digital video, just like film photographers we're mostly slow to adopt digital capture, but like stills the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter which medium is better digital will win out.

IMO

BC
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 05, 2011, 01:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

 third episode is out now with some surprising results. Take a look !

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-three

of course the digital evolution is going on and on and nobody will know what will happen to Kodak in the future.
But sometimes itīs time to take a break and take a look.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2011, 02:27:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't read all the posts in this topic yet...

But, as a general rule, when we shoot digital capture for movies, we record a "flat" (or sometimes RAW) image, but we view it on set with correction to make it look kind of like it will look after post production. 

So, we are not waiting for post color correction to get the contrast and lighting that we want.  It's all done live on set.

I'm not talking about DSLR, but real Pro cameras here Smiley
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2011, 07:28:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't read all the posts in this topic yet...

But, as a general rule, when we shoot digital capture for movies, we record a "flat" (or sometimes RAW) image, but we view it on set with correction to make it look kind of like it will look after post production.  

So, we are not waiting for post color correction to get the contrast and lighting that we want.  It's all done live on set.

I'm not talking about DSLR, but real Pro cameras here Smiley

It's not even bearable to show a flat recording to a client/AD on set, it has to look "similar" to the final look or at least visually understandable.

I personaly found the Zacuto testing apparently informative and at the same time completly useless. There where good comments on it, very little to learn in the end. Zacuto is a commercial house and they do those testings to keep the buzz and sell stuff. But this is not really aimed to the working pros of this industry, it's aimed to their business audience, greedy of testings and datas that they will never have to deal with.

You know, I thought in the past that a guy like Ken Rockwell was crazy, but now I thing is probably telling a lot of truth behind his provocative mask about how the audience is nowdays desperatly looking for "proofs", comparatives and stuff like that, specially with very expensive equipment (you know like those car review magazines that test Ferraris and Lamborghinis for an audience that only can afford Skoda) and beleive that those "informations" are usefull to make them better when the real usefull infos to make people really improve is not disposable on the internet actually (at least not in those content). But it's not about improving but about catching the audience with some entertaining stuff asociated to a brand (Zacuto did it). Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can beleive that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past...

What I don't like is that any filmaker would work within its level-budget, and with all the material involved that corresponds. I saw that Jean Luc Godard works (worked recently) with very cheap cameras mixed with heavy cine gear and when the team is pro they almost do what they want to and get the look they want because they know how to. Only the people who do not know how to or don't have the prod behind (in short you and me) might be interested in those testings, even if they are brillantly done, it smells drastically the DxO garbage. And the irony is that those videos will not teach their audience the way to get the look they want with whatever device. I call that emptyness. Those testings are very much in the same line than what we are desperatly eating for decades in still photography and it leads nowhere. One has got a gear X and has to deal with it, that's exactly what we do with people.

Show me a live filmaking from set to the post-prod with softwares highlights tasks in real time etc...and not those useless comparatives.

So we have a testing in wich some of the cameras and optics aren't touchable for most of the audience and the people who actually use them daily aren't interested in those kind of things because they work and they know how to work. But from a commercial point of view, Zacuto is really clever and did it spot-on to entertain the gallery and the big way, wich is remarkable in itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGEVS_KT5Sk

For the one who don't speak french, the lady is asking Godard: "do you think that the new digital small cameras will save the cine ?"
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 02:36:01 PM by fredjeang » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2011, 03:05:47 AM »
ReplyReply

"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "

LOVE that quote, Fred.

And I agree with a lot of what you say about how gullible we are. I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford. But as you say, it's how you use it, more than what it can do. Sure, most camcorders blow highlights as soon as look at them, but we learn how to live with that. Same as we lived with Velvia, then grew to love it. All gear through the ages has had massive limitations - street photog with 10x8 anyone? - but people always find a way round whatever.

Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2011, 08:24:31 AM »
ReplyReply

"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "

LOVE that quote, Fred.

And I agree with a lot of what you say about how gullible we are. I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford. But as you say, it's how you use it, more than what it can do. Sure, most camcorders blow highlights as soon as look at them, but we learn how to live with that. Same as we lived with Velvia, then grew to love it. All gear through the ages has had massive limitations - street photog with 10x8 anyone? - but people always find a way round whatever.

Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.

More or less Stewart, but with some nuance.

I try to explain myself a little better, english not being my native lenguage. Re-reading my post, I think it can be misjudged.

I'm not someone who can pretend that all tech content is useless, trash out other's interests and mystify the artistic content over any other consideration, and the reason is very simple: where is my work? I don't have a personal website to show, there is very little produced except assistance stuff I show from TTT. If I where making claims about content, I had to show really serious and high level book under my name to be credible, if not, it would just stays in empty words.

I do not have a personal website simply because I'm not proud enough of my own productions, I think and feel I still have a path to recover before getting a public imagery and I prefer staying in the shade if I'm not 100% satisfy and keep improving until I know "I got it". I know you didn't said that but I find important to underline it because if someone's read my previous post he-she might interpretate that I'm giving advices about artistic content when the only thing I'm doing is working mainly for others who yes have their carreer done, learning from them, being the most pro I can, and working hard and seriously in learning how to film and post-produce motion, tell stories etc... at a level I put my goal, surrownd myself as much as I can by real pros and I'm just in the middle of that process in motion and very aware that I won't be ready tomorrow or even next year. I'm learning while doing small unrisky assignements most of wich are in areas that do not light my fire but clients are happy so far but I keep feet on earth and don't fool myself about where I really am at the moment.

So, being reasonably honest with myself and others, I won't have any lessons to give to anybody in terms of creative content. My point was slightly different:

I mean that internet is potencialy a great source of info, but miserably in a lot of the cases it is a great source of desinformation and tons of useless infos. When I saw all the Zacuto's testings, all I saw is exactly what you described, I copy-paste your words: I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford,
in other words, there is nothing in those testings that I learned I didn't know and nothing really expendable to improve in any area I'm working.

It's a pitty. If instead of that, they would have produced a mini movie from A to Z and with actors, with descriptions of difficult situations that came across, some parts with the PP pipeline in real time etc...that would have been completly different and really usefull. I learned much more just watching the making-off of Vincent Laforet with the 7D. ( Is there Chris Sanderson there to produce an educative mini movie? Do you dare? If you need an actor send me a mail, after all I'm about as tall as Tom Cruise. just kidding). Real high-end workflow video has been asked also for decades in still photography but nobody is taking the risk to show this real workflow from A to Z so we always end with those sort of comparatives that are  irrelevant for the active pros of this industry but yes are catching a lot of attention from boys and girls like you and me, being at the same time completly uselesss practicaly IMO.

It just depends on wich plate of the balance one wants to put himself. There is a productive one, and there is an unproductive one.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 03:02:10 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2011, 12:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "

LOVE that quote, Fred.

.......snip...........

Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.

I agree.

What is interesting about this last Zacuto test session is the response of the different DP's.

All of them have this mindset of ______ was not perfect, _______didn't look like film, etc. etc., but what these tests never account for is real world work.

Not real world in the way a camera produces detail, or a color or film look, or rolling shutter issues, but real world in the way the paying client, creative brief,  budget or time effects what we do.

We constantly shoot our REDs as a and b cameras and I know they have a superior look to the 5d2 or the fs100 we use, but so many times, we'll suction cup a 5d2 on a car, or hand hold the fs100 for some quick lifestyle to insert and because of the cameras size, weight and form factor, clients will rave about images from the smaller cameras because they are real, quick, more natural and intuitive.

They love the movement and reality where with our RED's just being larger and heavier seem to get a little more flat footed.

So as a screenwriter will say it's all about the story, a client will say it's all about believability, and/or excitement.

Just like in still photography, when an image capture is exciting, or moves the viewer, nobody ever talks about technique, though when an image is locked down, predictable (maybe even boring) then you hear comments about technique.



IMO

BC


Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2011, 02:32:26 PM »
ReplyReply

A very interesting test which I was about to post here then discovered it was old news Wink I was really impressed with the Alexa. About to watch the next two episodes. Latitude is certainly important but it's one of those things that you can often control, and even when you can't it's often a benign issue (except for those awful yellow highlights). I'm more curious to see how the cameras cope with compression artefacts and motion.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 02:39:38 PM by Graham Mitchell » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2011, 03:16:58 PM »
ReplyReply

A very interesting test which I was about to post here then discovered it was old news Wink I was really impressed with the Alexa. About to watch the next two episodes. Latitude is certainly important but it's one of those things that you can often control, and even when you can't it's often a benign issue (except for those awful yellow highlights). I'm more curious to see how the cameras cope with compression artefacts and motion.

The Alexa is a very impressive camera. I had a chance to "play" with one for an unfortunatly too short time, and it's incredibly simple. Any gran-ma who has never touched a camera would learn it in 20minutes. We are far from the complexity of a GH2 for ex.

And as I talk about that, on sunday I had a session with the GH2, wich is a little camera I really like a lot, but I barked more than once (and actually lost some takes) because there is nothing worse than an unintuitive menu on set, when we have to react quick and not thinking "where the hell was located this or that function". That would not happen with the Alexa.

Camera designers should pay a little more attention with their messy menus. I know that the GH2 despite capable of delivering stunning footage, is not aimed to the pro market and therefore full of useless gadgetery (not the case in the gh2) and unlogical menu implementation that impress the gallery, but...The Alexa, no. Everything smells pro, simple efficient and reliable. Unfortunatly, those are not the qualities that like the mass-market so I'm prety sure we'll never have a cheap well implemented camera.



Then, the film look...the famous film look. I know it sounds old like the birth of the solar system, but it's probably the camera that has the closest "film look" with very little post. The DR is simply amazing, build quality bla bla...and the brand factor. Arri is cine and cine is Arri.

But, I think that the Alexa (as it is) will loose the battle with Red. Despite all its goodies, if I had the possibility today to choose, I'd go Red without hesitation. Film look? Is there something we can't really acheive in post today? But at the price-performances, Red is unbeatable.

The Arri is conservative, it is an old, expensive, (perfectly mastered) design, and I trust more Red One to be inovative and ground-breaking in future camera design and power. The Alexa is the tradition coming to digital, Red is born with digital and a little different animal. They don't have the weight of being Arri, they are free to break patterns.



Then, the post. Who shoots ArriRaw? Almost nobody. I will never stop pointing the post complexity, but Red One is one of the friendliest and straighforward post processing I've experienced. And that's important.
Even in the cheapest configuration, I've edited Red with an Edius 6 and there is zero hassle. Beleive it or not, but it's even less problematic editing 4k than editing 2k AVCHD native like I know many are doing.
(precision: with Edius, the Redworkflow is image sequence up to 4K wich is hassle-free).


To be fair with Arri, the Alexa workflow has some great advantages that are important for some: you almost have the delivery product without transcoding...(hem hem...have I said something stupid? I'm afraid I did) in 444  So indeed it depends on each necesity. In my case I've edited Red in both Avid (so native via AMA) ane Edius (DPX generated from RCX). In both it is hassle-free, but not time free, because the image sequences have to be created and it takes time. but once it's done, it's 100% easy and more importantly, it does not consumes CPU and is ready to be sent to a Nuke or After Effect unit wich gives access to work in linear colorspace even if the viewers are in rgb for proper display. Then it's easy to downconvert to Quicktime.



My Arri workflow is still a little in its first steps so I'd be cautious because what I think works fine today might change tomorrow with more experience.

I'll keep watching this silly testing series anyway despite I found it useless, like I've followed sometimes silly tv series. It's entertaining.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 05:34:43 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad