Shane Hurlbut ASC conducting “The Ultimate Camera Test”

[Thomas Smet]

I can predict the results already. All cameras are capable of telling a story and making a production work. In the right hands they are all good.

Nothing more to see here.



Honestly isn't this getting a little old? How many of these do we have to do until we realize it is kind of pointless. We will continue using the cameras we like and at the end of the day unless you are pixel peeping side by side nobody, and I mean nobody is going to give a darn about a sliver of microscopic difference between the cameras. We have long since passed the point of "oh my god that looks so much better"

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

We will continue using the cameras we like and at the end of the day unless you are pixel peeping side by side nobody, and I mean nobody is going to give a darn about a sliver of microscopic difference between the cameras.

Well, that SHOULD be the case, but my guess is that there are plenty of people who will continue to debate specs and formulas and theories on message boards forever because they are more adept at that than the actual art of shooting...

(not talking about Shane, who is a fantastic DP)

[Alister Chapman]

While many of the camera differences may well be very small, differences there are and this is no different to the way different types of lighting fixture or lenses give different looks. Sometimes it is the small differences that make the difference between a good film and a great film. Is it not part of the job of the DoP to choose the tools that will produce the best possible images? Not just OK images, but the very best that can be had. The time to worry is not when camera tests and evaluations are done but when people stop evaluating cameras and stop caring about those small things that can and do make a very real difference to the look and feel of a movie.

I think many of us were surprised by how good an iphone can be made to look in another famous shoot-out. But, how many of us are now seriously using iphones to make movies? Very few I suspect because we all know that there for most movies there are better tools than the iPhone.

Content is king, always has been and always will be. But as cinematographers our job is to make that content look as good as possible and a part of that is choosing the right tools for the job. There are very real differences in the materials used in the sensor filters and this has a marked effect on the way cameras respond to colour in particular. Some cameras will reproduce skin tones very differently to others. Sure some of this can be adjusted and altered in post, but that takes time and even then sometimes may not be completely satisfactory. So while there are different cameras to choose from, using different sensors, different recording processes etc. camera tests will continue just as film stocks would be evaluated prior to a major shoot. They were all good, but some suited certain styles or lighting better than others.

[Jim Giberti]

"Sometimes it is the small differences that make the difference between a good film and a great film."

I agree with what you say Alister except this point as it regards slight camera differences.
While yes, it's often a lot of subtleties that can make a good film great, I would consider them in technique, lighting, composition, acting and directing.

I still think the valid point is that the subtle differences that will be discussed in a comparison like this, would have nothing to do with the difference between a good or great film - not to the viewers they're made for.
To them, Brad Pitt's golden lit hair in Legends of the Fall would be just as mesmerizing whether it was shot on 35mm, 16mm, an Alexa or an F3

[Charles Papert]

I too agree that subtle differences in camera imaging is becoming less important as the technology improves and camera manufacturers adopt raw and log imaging that essentially strips out their signature "look". A few years ago, it was a very different animal in the digital world, where Sony cameras were quite different than Panasonic etc. I think many will agree that a Sony F3 is a very different beast in S-log mode vs picture profiles. How a camera performs in low light and how the resulting noise appears is still relevant, but it's safe to assume that in a few years most lighting situations will be handled with virtually no resulting noise anyway (if not already).

What is much more relevant right now is the suitability of form factor, resolution, recording codec, post workflow and above all reliability etc. of a given camera when selecting for a project. This has little to nothing to do with the look, but may have a lot to do with the smooth running of a shoot and that counts for a lot. I don't care how beautiful an image may be if there's a risk of losing it due to an outboard recorder going wonky, or the camera overheating, or it requires a bunch of wonky tinkertoy framing to outfit it with everything I need for a job.

[Karl Eklund]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

"Sometimes it is the small differences that make the difference between a good film and a great film."

I agree with what you say Alister except this point as it regards slight camera differences.
While yes, it's often a lot of subtleties that can make a good film great, I would consider them in technique, lighting, composition, acting and directing.

I still think the valid point is that the subtle differences that will be discussed in a comparison like this, would have nothing to do with the difference between a good or great film - not to the viewers they're made for.
To them, Brad Pitt's golden lit hair in Legends of the Fall would be just as mesmerizing whether it was shot on 35mm, 16mm, an Alexa or an F3

Yeah, if the sensor/film can hold the dynamic range and keep it golden instead of bright white...

[Jon Fairhurst]

All cameras can handle the well-lit scene with nominal processing to the footage. What I want to see on these tests is how they operate at the limits - and an analysis of how that performance coupled with size/weight/features makes the cameras appropriate or inappropriate for various applications.

It's ironic that big feature shoots are probably the most forgiving application around: the primary camera can be heavy and huge; you can use a bunch of outboard gear; you have time to do a proper setup; you can optimize your lighting; you can have a team handling the data; and you have time for processing and post. That said, the investment per minute is so high that the camera budget is lost in the details. So it makes sense to search for that last millimeter of performance.

But take that Hollywood camera on a solo shoot to the caves of a war zone and it might just be a huge fail. But so would the iPhone as it lacks the DR and low light performance needed to go in and out of caves.

Until we can get phone size, C300 low light performance, Dragon resolution/DR, and Alexa colors with week long battery and recording times in a single product, camera tests continue to be relevant.

[Bryce Comer]

"Until we can get phone size, C300 low light performance, Dragon resolution/DR, and Alexa colors with week long battery and recording times in a single product, camera tests continue to be relevant."

Of course! Why hasn't anyone thought of that. Oh, & i'll have mine for $500 please!! :)

[Jim Ross]

You forgot autofucus for all the amateur shooters that think it's all about cameras!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Originally Posted by Bryce Comer

"Until we can get phone size, C300 low light performance, Dragon resolution/DR, and Alexa colors with week long battery and recording times in a single product, camera tests continue to be relevant."

Of course! Why hasn't anyone thought of that. Oh, & i'll have mine for $500 please!! :)

If you are a smart guy, then you can patent it. Else, in 5-6 years, you will see one smart alec having patented it. :D :D

Ok. you can substitute the phone size for say 3 inches, 20,000 ISO, 16 stops reolution, 168 hours or more battery life..... and face recognition?

sorry. I am reading some patent papers and am just shaking my head.

[Ted Ramasola]

Shane posted his BMCC tests:

Turning the Black Magic Cinema Camera into a Movie Making Machine | Hurlbut Visuals


Please let's stay on topic, this guy is sharing his tests with us. He doesn't have to, but does, weather its biased, has an agenda, web traffic generator, it doesn't matter since we also read internet info with our own agendas and purposes. Lets just filter the useful information we can get from it for own purposes just like how we read news from any mass media and carry on. I started the same thread on "the other" forum and I complained to the mods how it has deviated so much to bashing others, so they locked it down.



:)