Personal View site logo
Zacuto 'Revenge of Great Camera Shootout,' featuring GH2
  • 261 Replies sorted by
  • Congrats on your patch making the test Nick! I'm a long time lurker here but just wanted to say, I make my living using a GH2, and your work (And VK's as well of course) has made my job much more enjoyable and worthwhile. Thanks for working so hard to come up with these amazing hacks! Loving the shootout, wish I could see it in a theatre

  • I didn't have a lot of time to spend watching it carefully, but what struck me is that, while all of them were subtly different, all of them looked pretty good. And the bottom line, is, if you know what you're doing, and can fit the scene into the cam's DR, you can make almost any camera look good.

    I'll post my picks when i have time to watch more closely. But just blowing through it I liked G and A the most, if i remember correctly.

  • @kronstadt @shian I am curious as to what you liked about G? I am doing this just as blind as everyone else (turned down 3 offers to find out so far :) but there several issues with the image quality in G and I would be curious as to what is offsetting them for you.

    • Muddiness in some of the shadows.
    • Second lowest resolution (next to D) in the fine detail patterns in the zebra garment, the latticework in the upper left and the tile pattern at the bottom.

    D and G are two of the only ones that produce image artifacts that I simply have not been able to create on a Driftwood setting with a GH2. If somebody managed to get that low a resolution out of Quantum 9b with that lens, then I am genuinely impressed. It would be like finding out the secret to hacking a GH2 to make it look worse than the Stock settings without applying new settings. :)

  • Well, I thought G had the worst overall look. Although it was just a very quick first pass and scribbled on a notepad.

    I marked out of a VERY subjective 10. Marks were put down for either softness, lack of detail/detail smearing, video look (edge sharpness, micro contrast, overall look). I think it was difficult to mark for for DR and noise as they were all pretty even in that respect, although I think some detail was smeared due to this. All highly subjective.

    I aslo didn't try to identify a single camera at all.

    8/10: A 7/10: C, F 6/10: E, H 5/10: D, B 4/10: I 3/10: G

    My 2p's worth anyway. Nice little test.

  • @itimjim Thanks for giving individual scores for each - I haven't seen anyone do that in the thread yet. :) I'm most curious about your scores for D, B and G. Would you mind elaborating more?

  • @thepalalias I agree with this totally D and then G were the two worst images in my books. I would be surprised if the GH2 was one of those, they both had edge artifacts and aliasing that looked like a lower resolution pushed up to 1080P. I personally have never seen an image like this come out of the GH2...I would have sold mine by now if this was the case. I did agree with Krostadt tho that B was a pretty digital looking image, the edge detail of the men in it did not look that good against the windows light, but apart from that it was quite clean. Cheers

  • Just for fun, I'll say that I'd be more than happy to shoot with any of: H, F, C, E, A, or B.

    In the end, a camera is like a hand grenade: close enough is good enough.

  • @JRD

    There's a bit of contradiction here, as always in the movie business. It's no secret that "powerful cinematography and storytelling" typically requires a lot of money, quite apart from the choice of camera, and anyone with a lot of money would be nuts to use any of the cheaper cameras featured in the test.

    Powerful cinematography does not require allot of money... not any more. It's all about your personal talent and eye now. That's the point of this test. But I do agree, some stories, on the whole, do take allot of money. But if you're indie, why would you be writing (or pick) a script like this?

    If you're shooting a Hollywood feature, yea, you'd probably just shoot Alexa or something just for the sake of reliability. But that's not the point of these cheaper small cameras. The point is, they're paving way for entirely new methods of productions and work-flows. I like to do all my cinematography myself (wouldn't have it any other way) while directing. This is difficult with the bigger cinema cameras, and nearly impossible with film. BUT... When I throw my GH2 on a little glidcam 1000, it's like it's not even there. It's like having a directors viewfinder that you actually film with. Amazing! And also, with the quicker set-up times, it feels like we're never shooting and always in rehearsal mode... which I believe leads to much more natural performances. I was almost about to pull the trigger on a Scarlet, but realized it would just slow down my workflow and not really offer that much more in perceived image quality. I'd also most likely have to get a dedicated operator, DP, and DIT... lame. Also, since I'm always shooting on my little glidecam I'd have to step up to the 3000 and get a vest/arm... but then I wouldn't be able to move as fast and have to get another dedicated operator for the vest. Now a little scene that looked like it cost $20k, would actually cost, well... $20k. I'm starting to see why everyone hates DSLRs and small cameras... they threaten ALLOT of jobs.

    But, if you're looking to do things differently, there are HUGE advantages to having viewfinder sized cameras that take nearly hollywood quality 2k video. Find them, and use them to your advantage. Don't try to make your movies "the hollywood way". Because without millions of dollars, you're going to fail. They designed the system to work that way... this is not a secret. :) To hell with it and "professionalism". Make your own system! Having an entire industry abiding to just one filmmaking production model is stupid... and just plain bad for innovation and experimentation.

  • The more I watch the videos and compare the lighting diagram, B seems like the most logical for the GH2. Simply compare the diagram for who lights the girl in the dark chair talking to the guy in the green shirt.. In the GH2 diagram they have a Kino lighting the back of her head. And there are only a few diagrams that light like this with the GH2 having the most power hitting the back of her head. The C300 is other camera with a similar light. So I am not sure, but that would be my guess. The practical light in the foreground also has poor-er dynamic range than some of the other more expensive cameras. I love the speculation tho.

    I originally thought/wanted the GH2 to be H, but there is no such light on that girl's head and the range is quite impressive. But if it turns out to be I would be impressed. Either way great test. F and H to me are my favorite.

  • I totally agree with @bwhitz. Today's world of filmmaking is totally PUNK ROCK all over again - its levelling the playing field if youve got something to say and people wanting to see it. Famous quote from a British punk band in '77 called The Desperate Bicycles, "It was easy, it was cheap, GO AND DO IT!"

    And rather like the Internet was in the early days - when the balloon began to heatup - we are now in the realm of great possibilities in the digital realm of filmmaking.

    Digital cinematography IS within reach of everyone who has a good story to tell and with the explosion of digital cinemas around the world (which I think is over 50% install base now) its a bit easier to get film distribution if you have a good movie to show. The graders rendered every cameras output out to tifs before creating 2k comped files for the theatrical showing. The reason being that a large proportion of the theatres around the world still only support 2k including many of the screening rooms they were showing 'Revenge' in. Also it levelled the playing field.

    In the early part of the last century no sound and poor b/w footage never stopped the masses showing up in droves at the theatre.

    Digital cinematography is DIGITAL cinematography - you can't call it film - all these cameras in this test ARE digital. What is Digital? The fact that the GH2 crew had to use extra lighting just shows you that you can make something look good without hiring in expensive cameras - this shouldn't be scorned - rather applauded. Learn the craft of lighting. Learn the craft of grading. Learn the essentials now with the tools youve got. But essentially, tell us a good story.

  • @bwhitz Very well said, and I agree on every point. Same goes for @driftwood.

    The GH2 does not outperform the best cameras in the world. It has its limitations. But what matters is that with a little bit of creatively working around those limitations, you can create an image that to most audiences looks nearly on par with the absolute highest end cameras available (Alexa, F65). This is a unique moment in film history, when anyone with a few thousand dollars and a good story to tell can compete with big budget productions in Hollywood.

  • Like I said, I juts skipped through it quickly, didn't go full screen, was expecting to see wide differences, and was on my way out the door at the time, and am just going from memory...I'll post my analytical thoughts when I've had to do that....analyze

  • @driftwood @bwhitz

    I'm a bit of an oldster, as the business goes, and have been hearing the same arguments -- that true democracy in filmmaking is just around the corner -- for at least 20 years. The only thing which changes is the equipment which is supposed to bring about the transformation.

    There are still far too many features than anyone could ever hope to market, and the quality, visual and literary, hasn't budged in the low budget realm in 20 or more years. What one does see, year by year, since the mini-DV "revolution" of the mid 90s, is more resolution and DR. By now, the prosumer equipment has nearly caught up with the 16mm I started with. But that's about it, for progress in the form.

  • B,H,C,F,E,A,G,I,D

    And B H and C to me are all kinda even with each other, there are things I like about them, and things I don't, but none of the cameras tested looked completely unwatchable. Also, B's cadence was a little too video-y at first.

    And again I'm not spending a ton of time with this, because the test pretty much told me what I wanted to know - that's its the artist and the mind at work, not the camera that makes all the difference. If the GH2 didn't have jello issues, I'd just work around it's limitations and shoot damn near everything with it.

  • I just ignored it, saved time.

    But now I think I know that we could do.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev I'm sorry, I did not quite understand that. What could we do using our members force or force of our members, or something? A similar type of comparison?

  • Does anyone know when will part 2 come out? I though it would be today.

    @jrd You say "and anyone with a lot of money would be nuts to use any of the cheaper cameras featured in the test", and I say remember Oliver Stone's films, especially "Natural Born Killers" (one of my all time favorites), probably half of that is shot with 8mm. And, yes, it is nuts - and therefore it's cinema. Of course, budget matters. But tallent, and I should have also added KNOWLEDGE, matter more. (I think knowledge of cinema history, art history, philosophy can be more important than knowing ISO, WB, shutter speed etc.) For one, I'd love to have a substantially higher budget to hire professional actors - not A list or B list, but at least some actors who have taken acting classes and maybe have read a bit of Stanislavski at least. I'd also love to afford at least 5 decent lenses and a decent matte box and lot more filters, and hire a professional soundman, instead of trolling review sites in search of cheap 4-channel field mixer that would not mess up the sound any more than it already is coming from an £11 Chinese mic. I'd also love to have the locations booked for long durations and sets constructed for each scene. But that's not the point that I'm trying to make in my comment. The point is, watch "Badlands" ($500,000), "The Rain People" ($750,000), "Who's That Knocking at My Door" ($75,000), "Mean Streets" ($500,000), "Easy Rider" ($350,000), "Stranger Than Paradise" ($100,000), "Pi" ($160,000). Hell watch "El Mariachi" ($7000) or Nolan's "Following" (reportedly £6000, but I strongly doubt that cause that's the cost of 16mm film stock alone) and many more such films that were made on a shoestring - I'll tell you if they were shot with GH13 they'd look a whole lot better and, importantly, they would cost a whole lot cheaper (no camera rental, no filmstock, no negative development, no editing room costs (just a powerful computer worth £1000), a whole lot less lighting equipment - the list of benefits can go on and on). And then, after watching all these films, watch "Koyaanisqatsi" or "Baraka" or "The Tree of Life" ($32mln) and tell me if it's impossible to shoot like that with GH13 or GH2...

    @driftwood thanks!

    @thepalalias you made me watch that Shootout again (and again and again...) ;D As I said, when I watched the footages for the first time yesterday, I was initially paying attention to all technical sides, then I decided to "switch off my guard" and just watch it as an ordinary viewer, and just looked for the imagery that I'd prefer to see in a cinema theater or on DVD. That bright green shirt that "B" gave, was an instant turn off for me. What was also a turn off for me on various cameras was the high definition of the edges of the glass table. If we think of this as a cinema scene, then viewers' attention should not be hijacked by excesive and unnecessary detail that is not important to the story that is being conveyed. That is also why I found that the light in the corner, though important in lighting the curves of the black girl, should not be too prominent. You know... people spend so much time fixating about Follow Focuses, but focus is one of the essential tools through which the director TELLS the viewer "Pay attention to this and not that", other tools are lighting, light control, camera choreography etc. Therefore... in this respect, I just felt that muddiness in some of the shadows played their role well in "containing/controlling" the unnecesary detail and thereby keeping the "focus" of the scene on its protagonist. As a result the scene unfolds around him, rather than the other way around. I'm also someone who likes neo-noir lighting style (even during brightly lit scenes) combined with warm (but not saturated) colours - I just wouldn't light this set in such a way, although I understand that the purpose of this excercise was precisely to create 14 stops. Granted! But then I would like to reverse the question and ask not which cameras managed to capture all of the detail (because almost all of them did an incredible job at that), but which camera managed to control and contain the unnecessary detail in a way that helps to tell the story? In that respect I felt that "G" was okey (although it's quite possible that the operator did some horrendous mistakes with it in terms of lighing and color correction). I woudn't necessarily say that it's my first choice (I actually liked "F" a lot, and I felt that the response to light in "I" and "C" felt also quite "natural". "A" was a bit to light/hazy for my taste). I guess a lot in this shootout also depended on colour correction and lighting styles - especially given that it was done by different teams.

    I want to end with an optimistic note:

    Just the fact that it is hard to discern which one of these 9 cameras is the GH2, is already great news for all of us! Wouldn't you say? ...;)

  • Ok, i looked at these without trying to think too much. My eyes liked

    H, B, C, A, I, F, E, G, D.

    I would like to know more about HBCA cams when they are revealed.

  • hello, in the very first part of the show Zacuto shootout they show us which is the GH2, when the guys with GH2 showed in the color correction room the shot in the monitor is visible and here is the comparison (sorry for my english)

    Zacuto001.jpg
    960 x 1080 - 227K
  • Gh2 -----> I

  • I think that particular shot was just b-roll from from one of the graders in baselight (they all used the same system, so that shot would have fit into any of the other camera segments as well). I is definitely not the GH2 : )

  • @kronstadt I definitely respect both the aesthetic of neo-noir (and Nolan and Pfister are held in high regard in my family not just for their work but for being good dads) and I definitely respect the aesthetic you are going for. The main issue I had was not that the shadows were unsharp, but that there were unnatural characteristics to them that made them seem neither like film nor reality in G, and that it drew my attention (though maybe not others) to them in an undesirable fashion.

    When the camera can record sufficient detail, an aesthetic like that can be more easily realized through the lighting and color correction, but when it does not, the process starts to involve creatively trying to fight or cover up the deficiencies of the camera in those areas. That is why I greatly preferred F to G - there was sufficient resolution in its rendering to not be distracted in those areas.

    As I mentnioned in my blog, there are some parts of the image that fel over-sharpened in some of the shots. The table is one reference point, but for me the big giveaway was the yellow contents of the flower vase and the flowers. Like you I felt that having that too sharp drew the eye away from what was important. :)

  • @thepalalias Yes, now that you've put it in such perspective, I do agree with you. "G" is moving down on my list. I guess my order of preference is now F, I, C, A, G, E, H

  • I read most of the posts here. Some people said (it may actually have been on Andrews site) they could not see it in 1080P from Vimeo, they could only view it live on Vimeos playback.

    Its really much better to see it in 1080P, it may completely change your opinions...if you are just viewing it on Vimeo or somewhere else.

    For those that havent seen it in 1080P all you have to do is setup Firefox as a browser (easy setup) and download NetVideoHunter as an add on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/1489854/?src=api

    or

    http://netvideohunter.com/

    After you have started the video on Vimeo and it will appear in the netvideohunter list, (click the blue icon with white arrow in FFox) you dont need to continue playing the video in Vimeo simply start it only, then download the video from the NetVideoHunter list.

    In youtube once you have started any video, if you then open and right click on the videos title in that list...it will give you all the resolutions the clip it is available at, newer ones are often 480P, 720P, 1080P and you can choose which one you want to download.

  • I watched this video a few times now in 1080P, its easy to pick the bad ones...D and then G.

    I found them to be unacceptable, I really hope the Gh2 is neither of those.

    Personally I liked H the best, (something about the image overall that was pleasing) but all the others were good too!!

    B may have been the GH2 as there was a definite GH2 type of outline when the males were in front of the outside window. However the room was lit differently and more evenly in C ..(and they did do that for the Gh2...and it has also been colored in Post.....note the colors in the outside window...they are quite affected and a bit whacky)

    All this work is possibly to avoid hi contrast in the overall image, that makes me think that this could also be the GH2.