Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Zacuto Revenge Shootout 2012 Part 2 results revealed - Francis Ford Coppola and audience prefer the Panasonic GH2

Recommended Posts

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/coppola-zacuto-shootout.jpg[/img]

Francis Ford Coppola gives his answer in the new Zacuto Shootout, choosing in order of preference the Panasonic GH2, Alexa and Epic

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/gh2-guide-book"]Get the most from the GH2 - Read the EOSHD GH2 Shooter's Guide[/url]

The results are in from Zacuto's Revenge Of The Great Camera Shootout 2012  and it appears the majority of those at the cinema screenings - including Francis Ford Coppola preferred Colt Seaman's lighting and the capturing of it by the Panasonic GH2 above the stiffest possible competition including the Sony F65, Red Epic, Canon C300 and Arri Alexa.

There's a comment from Part 2 which really stands out for me and it sums up the reason EOSHD and my passion to write my GH2 book and the blog exists -

"The thing I was most impressed with is that some guys or gals with something to prove did better at lighting than the established cinematographers with a good camera" - Bruce Lundeen (33 min 13 seconds)


This is how you make a great film, a great shot, a great scene - Passion, hunger, creativity and a $700 camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
F was the standout for me because of it's dynamic range, color and overall quality. I chose B second best because I just loved the way the scene looked color wise and the way it was lit. A was my third choice. Not as impressive as F and B for me, especially the color, but still very pleasing. C was next and overall just super nice, but not a standout. H was next because it was so clean,.... the rest,... just didn't standout but were still totally useable. Only D and G were crap and I wouldn't want to be hamstrung with those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually hated how the GH2 was used. Reminded me of those Spanish soap operas. I also think that people chose it because it was lit to where you can see everything. When I first saw the shots, B stood out because I was able to see everything. After I watched it several times it became one of my least favorites. Just seemed very digital. I felt the established DPs were pretty lazy here. The younger DPs lit like they had something to prove and kudos to them.

Still it's proof that the GH2 can hang with the big boys. I was just not feeling the way it was used. The F65 and Alexa were my favs.

If anyone picks a camera based off of this test he or she is a fool. This was more of a test of the DPs than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B was my one of first choices and I must admit it surprised me that it was the GH2!! I thought it was the Arri. Very disappointed with the c300 and fs100.
And for the Canon 7d ... there was no doubt it was G! Worst resolution of them all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot stress it enough, we are in an age finally where only how you see something is what matters, and having the courage to go out there and make it happen, not what you use to see it on. The GH2 proves that, not just by being mentioned here, but for what I also, like Andrew, have fought long and hard to manifest in people who want to be filmmakers, it's your idea and nothing esle that must permeate everything you do. All these online forums and opinions, 99% of them only are intrested in specs and technical point scoring against each other, none of them are interested in using the toolset to define something else, the actual purpose of why they were made to begin with! If an audience can take a film shot on video to a $100m at the box-office, then that should be your wake up call, and if you hadn't woken up after that, then you never will. Keep pixel peeping. I'll just shoot :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231

How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don'tchu' guys think it's a bit premature and somewhat hyperbolic to claim that MOST of the guys preferred the GH2, that the 7D sucks and that the Panasonic camera can hang with the other cameras? Even though 5 power windows were needed in post and the DPs needed to blast every available light to them at FULL POWER (while flamboyantly gesturing how they needed to turn up the 5k's as fills)?

I think the GH2 is awesome for resolution, as do the rest of us. And the punchy colors did look great. But, as someone else said, the result looked very TV'ish for certain tastes and definitely not as filmic as the others (even compared to the "dreaded" 7D either).

So if you have the power and budget to blast full heavy lights to compensate for limited dynamic range, then by all means go for it. However, I think at that point, you mind as well invest in a better camera to cut down on the voltage needed. After all, not many of us would use 5K's to compensate as fills. That's just nuts, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a bit unfair that the AG-AF100 was not included. truly unfair. different spec architecture than the GH2. this really bothers me. the AF100 is a very underrated camera. 4:2:2 8-bit w/ BNC out. cmon. too bad I couldn't invite Copoola to my premiere. what a stupid workshop. just marketing for "Zacuto."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.

I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.

Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.

Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.

TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...

I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.

I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

http://vimeo.com/45596420

What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.

We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1342404290' post='13933']
a bit unfair that the AG-AF100 was not included. truly unfair. different spec architecture than the GH2. this really bothers me. the AF100 is a very underrated camera. 4:2:2 8-bit w/ BNC out. cmon. too bad I couldn't invite Copoola to my premiere. what a stupid workshop. just marketing for "Zacuto."
[/quote]

The AF100 is underrated you're right. And it is cheaper than the FS100. Unfortunately it has an older sensor than the GH2 and is outgunned for the price by the FS100 on image quality.

Various tests have proven that even though the AF100 can do a HD-SDI out in 4-2-2, the GH2 still gives a better image overall. So I don't really mourn its absence and it is time for Panasonic to get their AVC-Ultra stuff out - and quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I preferred the image from the Alexa myself. But if they switched up the DPs for round two, would I be saying the same thing?

The fact that the GH2 is even a [i]part[/i] of this conversation is remarkable. I sold off all of my Canon gear and bought the GH2 because I wanted to have a camera that could produce an image without any distracting visual shortcomings -- I wanted people (professionals, casual YouTube surfers, and everyone in between) to be engaged with the content instead of the pixels. For the most part, I feel like it has been a good decision.

There will always be bigger, better and newer cameras coming out but as far as I am concerned, this one sets the bar for consumer video cameras and will continue to as long as 1080P is still a part of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Andrew

I think what you're failing to understand is we're commenting on how the GH2 was used in the shootout. It did look like soap opera TV. Now is that saying that the GH2 isn't capable of a filmic image? no. However, the way it was used in the shootout was pretty bad to me. Yes the other cameras kept the room too dark and I would've loved for them to add a little more light. However, I think it had more of a drama feel than the GH2 footage in this test.

I like this site and respect what you do. I just feel sometimes you get too defensive sometimes like no one is allowed to dislike anything about the GH2. Also sometimes you don't simply state a fact about Canon products you resort to trashing it.

I admire your passion for gear that indie filmmakers can use that'll produce high quality stuff.

This isn't an attack on your or anything. I don't always agree with how you go about things but I respect it. Also to be clear I was simply commenting on the way the GH2 was used and not the camera itself. I think this was more of a DP test than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342397962' post='13930']
Speaking of pixel peeping there really is no light in Vitaliy's dark soul is there? http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/74231#Comment_74231

How can anyone fail to be happy when someone like Francis Ford Coppola appreciates their work?
[/quote]

(snicker..).. I'm sure old Francis got a private message reminding him the shootout was not a Gh2 fanboy contest.. ....sorry. I'm here all week... Lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342404704' post='13934']
KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.

I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.

Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.

Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.

TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...

I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.

I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

http://vimeo.com/45596420

What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.

We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!
[/quote]

You should hop on Vimeo and check out a guy named "Roman Legion". His little short gh2 test movies are very filmic. He uses a Sigma 30mm and a Flycam Nano. He was one of the main reasons I went the gh2 route in the end. Watch the little Seaquake Alley test he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Shawn_Lights' timestamp='1342407031' post='13939']
@Andrew

I think what you're failing to understand is we're commenting on how the GH2 was used in the shootout. It did look like soap opera TV. Now is that saying that the GH2 isn't capable of a filmic image? no. However, the way it was used in the shootout was pretty bad to me. Yes the other cameras kept the room too dark and I would've loved for them to add a little more light. However, I think it had more of a drama feel than the GH2 footage in this test.

I like this site and respect what you do. I just feel sometimes you get too defensive sometimes like no one is allowed to dislike anything about the GH2. Also sometimes you don't simply state a fact about Canon products you resort to trashing it.

I admire your passion for gear that indie filmmakers can use that'll produce high quality stuff.

This isn't an attack on your or anything. I don't always agree with how you go about things but I respect it. Also to be clear I was simply commenting on the way the GH2 was used and not the camera itself. I think this was more of a DP test than anything.
[/quote]

I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D

But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342408742' post='13943']
I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D

But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across.
[/quote]

I agree I think the core of the test should change. You can make nice images for cheap, We get it already. Let's show how certain tools work best for certain purposes. Also how to get the most out of them. Perhaps they should give the operators/teams of the cameras a short script to shoot consisting of like 3 scenes. One outdoors, one indoors, and one at night. Something like that and then show how certain decisions have to be made when using a certain tool. I don't know, that's just the first thing that came to me.

I understand totally. I don't understand the doubt with all the evidence out there. I actually don't own a GH2 yet. I plan on getting one because I think the image is lovely and it's a very powerful tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The GH2 has an amazing image. When I tested on tv, some GH2 videos are amazing, some not as amazing (even though they look good on a computer screen). The person shooting the footage and spending the time to get it right is important. DSLR's can be challenging. You need to know what you are doing or you can end up with crummy images. I have alot of practice at achieving the crummy. The price of the GH2 and the image it gives tells us that the other camera manufacturers could offer more. $700 camera...
As Shawn has stated, more testings under a variety of situations would be nice to include too.

PS. I'll still choose the Alexa over the GH2. I only need to find one for around $700. Cheers everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...