incredible

[fredjeang]

Francis Ford Coppola and many more choosed the hacked GH2 output in the Zacuto's blind test on first place in front of the Red and Alexa...!
No need to say that this has been commented on the Red (and others) forum.

I don't know if it's serious or a joke but here are the facts:

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-the-great-camera-shootout-part-two
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?287156-Did-Francis-Ford-Coppola-really-prefer-the-Gh2-at-the-Zacuto-shootout

It's incredible.

[Morgan_Moore]

I don't see the big deal

The DOP could change the lights
This enabled the cameras with bad DR to shine, and the GH2 kid happened to make a pleasant image
Den talking about the Fs100 used a joker 400w to lift the FS100
That is a $4k light
Which is so unlikely to be available to a FS100 user

To me an expensive camera is about flexibility in post, ability to crop, keeping lights budget down and also booting up, not overheating - having onboard sound, timecode, whatever features you need to keep your production cost effective from concept to edit

It has never been to me in question that a GH2 can look good when used in optimal conditions

Some other guy did a great blog about the shootout where he took the post budget and extra lighting rental into account

The F65 and Alexa were cheapest to create the image followed by the FS100

S

[fredjeang]

It has never been to me in question that a GH2 can look good when used in optimal conditions

Of course.

But what I find amazing is that all the guys involved were experienced and also could lit according to each cam specs. The fact that many experienced eyes like Coppola put the hacked GH2 in first place when viewed on theater is still amazing me, because all the other cams had also the optimized lightning etc...

I think it tells a little more than just "in good conditions, with the right crew etc..." because the others were also in good conditions and with the right crew too.

Now, completly agree with you about what matters, and not just the output.  

ps: the dr of the GH2 (no DxO reference of course...) is generaly vastly underestimate. This is a known fact among GH2 users. It's far from being the best of course, but not as restricted as people think.

[Morgan_Moore]

I think that the DP input really made it a crapshoot and FFC just liked what the GH boys did

I mean that scene - weird - I can imagine I would have let the windows blow on purpose and lit it up about 5 stops

Or kept the windows and had the rest silhouette

Basically practical lamps reading aginst daylight just looks terrible  to me anyway

S

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Actually I was secretly rooting for the GH2 - but never expected it to win. I remember writing a blog entry on this last year, not many people liked that I picked the GH2 and 600D over bigger cameras.

I picked the Red Epic, Alexa and F3 - in that order. What did you guys pick?

[paul_jones]

i can't handle watching those long test videos...

i don't know a thing about the GH2, but I came across this recently-



I'm very impressed with its look.

paul

[gazwas]

Sorry for the late reply to this thread but I'm just getting into motion and furiously researching, absorbing and watching as much as I can. Great post and makes you realise how very talented people can have such differing views on what is the most import tool, camera, lens or lighting and how closely all these different cameras perform. Not having the A-B comparison between cameras would make spotting the big boys even harder and any camera (maybe not iPhone as it looked terrible) could be used to great effect.

My biggest shock however was considering all that talent rolling around the set and the quantity and quality of the lighting available, that all teams illuminated the scene in pretty much the same way and to my eye from my photographic background shooting interiors was totally unnatural. There is no way on such a bright day, in a room of that size with large windows would the internal lighting look so contrasty with such deep strong shadows.... impossible. The interior was more like a moody night scene than (judging by the exterior lighting colour temperature) shot midday on a bright sunny day.

[Morgan_Moore]

..photographic background shooting interiors was totally unnatural.

You cant say that, anyone with ASC after their name is a god and you, even if you have been lighting interiors for two or three decades, know nothing

Actually I totally agree

S

[ChristopherBarrett]

Well, to really push the capabilities of the cameras, they needed to create scenes that had greater contrast ranges than what a "natural" interior might feel like.  What's funny is this thought that's been kicking around my head lately...

I've been lighting interiors for twenty years... and I would advise anyone who wanted to follow in my footsteps to go to Film School.  Some of the kids I've been working with on our short films (who are fresh out of school) know more about the tools and the mechanics of shaping light than many of the seasoned still photographers I know.

I'm beginning to feel as though I've barely begun to learn to light.

At least I'm having fun along the way

[Morgan_Moore]

One thing I have never had with stills is a fresnel or sharp focusable light (beyond an Elly with a snoot) .. does open up some thought processes for kind of sneaking light around or onto stuff

Ive got some little dedos for iflming and they are interesting .. Im certainly a bit lost with such hard sources

They also work over a long range which is interesting and new to me

S

[Peter McLennan]

One thing I have never had with stills is a fresnel or sharp focusable light

Hard light rules.  Soft light is for pussies.  : )  KIDDING!

I just can't get my head around lighting with flash.  I can't understand how you can light creatively with light you can't see.  So-called "modelling lights" are a poor approximation, IMHO.  Shoot-and-chimp the same.  No real feedback.  A three-light strobe setup seems to be about as many as you can visualize.  With continuous light, with three we're just getting started.

Morgan, go buy or rent a couple of instruments and see how you like it. A Mole 1K fresnel is found on virtually every film set and is a great place to start.  They can do pretty much anything. Used, they're an excellent investment.

The LTM Pepper is another great little tool in the 200W range.  Cheap, durable and flexible.

[Peter McLennan]

Having watched both parts it's pretty apparent what the lesson is:  "Good lighting can make any camera look good enough."  The fact that an iPhone was included in the "test" demonstrates this quite clearly.

A proper test of the cameras would have restricted all cameras to the same lighting setup.  This was really a lighting demo, not a camera demo.  The producer (the person actually paying for the camera) really needs to know how long these re-lights took.

The interviews with the various cameramen were worth the time spent viewing.  Very enjoyable and enlightening.  Especially germane are the points related to photographic risk-taking: "If you're not taking risks, you're not growing.  If you're not growing, you're dying."

[ChristopherBarrett]

I just can't get my head around lighting with flash.  

It's just a matter of experience.  We're so comfortable with strobes that we'll light a chair with a dozen of 'em and have a damn good idea what each is gonna do before we pull a "polaroid."  Once you've got the Zen Vibe going they can be tuned so much finer than hot-lights can.  I use Profoto D1's and they can be varied in 1/10th stop increments.  Try getting that kind of adjustment from a fresnel!

Mind you, I came from about 10 years of shooting hot lights before I bought a single strobe.

These days we mix it up quite a bit.  A lot of the interiors spaces I shoot happen to balance out around 4200k.  We have to gel everything we bring, so I have no issues mixing my sources.  On a typical interior, I'll probably have a couple Joker 800 HMI's through silks, strobes bounced here and there (sometimes in a soft box), my Kino Diva in tight spots that need fill and will use my DedoLights for accents.

It's kinda fun bouncing back and forth through sources, feeling them all out.  Right now my favorite is an ETC Source 4 can, converted for use with the Joker.  We call 'em Jo-Leko and he is a CANON!





CB

[Hywel]

I just can't get my head around lighting with flash.  I can't understand how you can light creatively with light you can't see.  So-called "modelling lights" are a poor approximation, IMHO.  Shoot-and-chimp the same.  No real feedback.  A three-light strobe setup seems to be about as many as you can visualize.  With continuous light, with three we're just getting started.

It ought to be true, but after a while you get a sixth sense for how it is going to look. Modern strobe units are extremely bright. They fire at intensity controllable AND REPRODUCIBLE SHOT TO SHOT better than 1/10th of a stop over a 6+ stop range just by twiddling a dial. You can read each light separately with a flash meter, which soon helps educate you what each light is doing, and you just get to learn what each of your light shapers does. The flash meter is your friend :-) but after a while you stop even needing that as anything more than a double check.

The killer feature though is that the light is very bright and fires SO quickly. With a leaf shutter lens on my 'blad and a Hensel portable battery flash kit, I can literally carry enough light in one hand that I can stand in a desert and overpower the noon day sun by four stops for 200 shots, or freeze action with flash durations sub 1/1000th, and make sure I can always shoot at f/8 or f/11 for optimum sharpness of the lens if I so desire. Try doing that with a continuous light. You'd need fixtures the size of a truck, and another truck to carry the generator to power it, and another truck to carry the petrol to fuel it :-)

And the cost would be astronomical compared with the price of a decent strobe setup. There simply isn't a continuous light technology that delivers light that bright from fixtures that small, cheap, robust and cool.

In principle, what you see is what you get is a very powerful way to work. But you don't actually get what you see with your eyes on camera even for motion- you get what the lighting looks like once it has been through the camera's gamma curve, colour response and so on. I need to chimp at the monitor to fine tune my light with continuous lighting too because it doesn't always register the same as it looks to my eye. Admittedly I have a lot more practice with strobes, but when you know what you are doing, lighting with strobes is pure pleasure.

Cheers, Hywel.

[Peter McLennan]

I can stand in a desert and overpower the noon day sun by four stops ... Try doing that with a continuous light. You'd need fixtures the size of a truck, and another truck to carry the generator to power it, and another truck to carry the petrol to fuel it :-)

I hope this doesn't degrade into a pissing match, but... 

Sure you can overpower the noon day sun by four stops.  But at what distance?  And over what area?  The "fixtures the size of a truck" you refer to can easily overpower the sun at short distances.  They can also light an entire city block for hours at a time with a single unit.

"Horses for courses", as Rob C would say.

[Hywel]

I hope this doesn't degrade into a pissing match, but... 

Sure you can overpower the noon day sun by four stops.  But at what distance?  And over what area?  The "fixtures the size of a truck" you refer to can easily overpower the sun at short distances.  They can also light an entire city block for hours at a time with a single unit.

"Horses for courses", as Rob C would say.

Absolutely, horses for courses. If you have the budget and need to light up an entire city block for video shooting, of course continuous lights are a great way to go.

If you don't have the budget, and you are looking to light one or two models and a space around them that's no bigger than a large hall, or you need to be able to do it out of reach of power because you don't have the budget or the logistics for a generator truck… flash is your man.

Stills photographers tend to work in smaller units than film or TV crews. I think that's partially because the portability of stills gear, including flash lighting, allows it. Sadly, my moviemaking has to be done on a budget in line with a typical stills shoot (a few thousand pounds for several days on location) rather than a typical movie shoot (a few million pounds :-)

Which is why I'm quite attached to the possibilities flash lighting opens up. On my budgets, I can go places and shoot things which would otherwise be out of my reach. I have to tone down my aspirations when shooting moving pictures, especially when it comes to the degree of control and the degree of portability. I've got a nice set of high-end multi-colour LED panels, some redheads and fresnel tungstens and a whole bunch of bounce and fill reflectors… it does a good job indoors, but outdoors is tricky. It does leave me wishing for the same power and control I have in the little Hensel porty flash bags! So maybe that explains why those of us coming from a stills background are very comfortable with (and attached to) our flash lighting kit! :-)

  Cheers, Hywel.