ABOUT THE SCREENING: Zacuto presents the London Special Screening Event of the Single Chip Camera Evaluation tests (SCCE) administered by Robert Primes ASC. The screening will showcase a comprehensive evaluation of the Arri Alexa, Sony F35, RED ONE MX, Sony PMW-F3, Panasonic AF-100, Weisscam HS2 Mk2, Phantom FLEX, Canon 5D MkII, Canon 1D MkIV, Canon 7D, Nikon D7000, Kodak 5219 and Kodak 5213. Commentary following the screenings will be filmed and become part of Zacuto’s upcoming web series “The Great Camera Shootout 2011: A documentary about the SCCE”. Go to http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011 for more information on the SCCE and the Great Camera Shootout 2011.
Date: Thursday May 12th 6:00-7:30pm.
Location: Framestore Screening Room, Soho, London
If you’re not sure what this is all about yet, make sure to check out the short trailer above for Zacuto’s documentary about the Single Chip Camera Evaluation tests! We were lucky enough to get seats at the packed out London screening of the SCCE film; likely to be the only screening this side of the Atlantic, as far as I understand. Many thanks to Philip Bloom and Susan Rapp at Zacuto for sorting that out!
Let’s not beat around the bush here. The info you’re likely to be waiting for/dreading (depending on your disposition to DSLR cameras as video cameras) is that (this time around) the DSLRs looked hideous. In every test, with the possible exceptions of the latitude and skintone/human face comparison, they were by far the worst cameras tested. If I didn’t have firsthand experience of making films with them, I wouldn’t give them a second look. Awful.
But we already knew that, right? Since day one, we’ve been aware of the failings of DSLRs as video cameras. Moire, aliasing, softness, horrible compression artefacts and the evilness of the rolling shutter. All things which, if we were to be spec’ing-out a brand new, leader of the pack, perfect video camera, based on decades of video camera development, we’d make sure were nowhere near our images.
If you’ve been involved in the ‘great’ DSLR debates of the twenteens (and you’ve seen any of our work in the past year or so), you’ll be expecting me to now tell you that it doesn’t matter what the tests say, and that I love them anyway, and we’ll be shooting our next project on Canon DSLRs exclusively. Well yeah, that’s all true. Except I’m writing this to explore something slightly different. My issue with the whole situation is that it’s confused. We’re struggling to marry our mushy, out of focus hearts with our scientific brains. And just maybe, it can’t be done. (I should also make it clear that my thoughts here are largely inspired by the way the discussion went after the screening, rather than the film itself*).
Since I started making films, both on DV cameras and in CGI, the goal has always been to make the end result look as filmic as possible. We’d zoom in with long lenses, always shoot wide open, block our characters or position our interviewees so that the background was far enough away from them to knock it out of focus. We’d spend hours and hours waiting for Magic Bullet Frames and Magic Bullet Looks to render to give our XL2 footage that tiniest bit of ‘film-like’ crushed, desaturated smeariness. It was all worth it, to be where we are now, but that’s another discussion. Imagine how our minds would have been blown by sub-£2000 DSLR video images then! Straight out of the camera! Luckily, the DOF adapter and HD cameras paved the way to this point, saving our fragile minds. ;)
But get this – in the discussion after the Evaluation screening, the format that took the worst beating was film. No shit. And that’s where things get confusing in this whole debate. When the Canon 5DmkII was released, we saw the problems with it, but immediately fell in love because it gave us the nearest thing we could get to looking like film, without the practical and financial problems that come along with recording on and processing film. So, clearly, we must love film. And all this time, we’ve been trying to make our video cameras look like film. However, under our noses, the playing field has changed. All of a sudden, we’re comparing digital cameras (hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of digital cameras) to film and film is looking worse.
There’s a whole bunch of issues at play here.
Science.
As 21st Century filmmakers, computers and technology are part of our every day lives (in almost every case, I’m sure). We’re well aware of technical specs, from the point-and-shoot megapixel race to the ever-increasing processor speeds in our laptops. We know that better numbers mean better technology. Better numbers for fewer pounds is the nirvana we strive to attain, taught to us throughout our culture. The SCCE is largely based on numbers, because that’s how we measure measurable factors. So, the best camera in each test is the one with the best numbers, really. Consequently, the most expensive cameras are the best on this scale as they have the best numbers, therefore the best technology. Frustratingly, we can’t measure our love for styles of shooting or oil paintings vs watercolours, so begins the curious, torturous battle of heart vs head at this strange time in filmmaking technology. Now between the DSLRs and the Epic and Alexa, we’re almost there, with brilliant numbers and beautiful images. But we split into different issues here too:
- Even if the next generation of digital cinema camera cracks that illusive convergence we’re looking for, it’s unlikely to be at prices 98% of us can afford.
- Beauty isn’t perfect. It can’t be measured, as it’s subjective, so perhaps the most beautiful camera is also one that is imperfect.
- Cameras are tools; they require craftsmen. As we all know, a single person can mean the difference between great art and a terrible mess. If we all had the same camera, the art would still be different. Beautiful images seemingly second-nature for some, whilst elusive for others.
And so on.
Nature.
Humans are so adaptable, we don’t even notice changes in light temperature, unless we’re looking through a camera. It’s entirely feasible that we’ve simply become used to looking at cinema, which originates on film, and so it is currently (widely perceived to be) our preference. It’s also likely that these images are accompanied by all sorts of good feelings from our past – films which have blown our minds, made us laugh, cry and see the world differently, beautiful actors, seat-shaking explosions – not to mention experiences that go along with visiting the cinema as an event – dates, friends, family, adolescence, sugar highs, birthday treats – and so on. There are so many things which influence us, sub-conciously and consciously, that the warm emotions we feel for cinematic (film-like) images can’t be solely put down to dancing film grain and massive latitude ranges. Maybe in the future, when all our TVs have been pumping 120,000MHz motion-smoothed, 96fps Peter Jackson re-runs at us for the past couple of decades, we’ll love our images ultra-sharp, ultra-saturated and HDR, and film will simply look retro and remind us of our youth, or even of our parents. Maybe right now we’re at the tipping point of digital cinema superseding film? It certainly felt like that today, if it weren’t for that niggling 5DmkII issue…
Another (similar) thought here, that was mentioned in the discussion, is that film is more flattering to human faces than video. Perhaps because it’s softer, less saturated and has a different emphasis on colour tones. As we mostly film human faces, this is surely a key factor in our fondness for film? When set up correctly, DSLRs also show this kindness towards faces. On that note, does anyone know if the DSLRs were set up to look their best (i.e. using optimised Picture Profiles, etc.) or just factory preset (i.e. set up as a stills camera in video mode)? I’m aware that in many of the tests it wouldn’t make too much difference either way, but it would be useful to know what we were looking at.
Art.
Filmmaking is art. There are sciences involved, as with any artistic practice. But at the end of the day, we’re making pictures that tell stories, in all the weird and wonderful ways we can imagine. As Robert Primes ASC (what an awesome name for a DOP) sums up the Evaluation, he says something along the lines of ‘…at the end of the day, you like what you like’. Which is to say that if you love the look of an iPhone camera recording a Super 8mm image from a poorly-tuned CRT screen, then that is your art and you should do that. In this case, debs had singled out the Sony F3 (which also faired very well in the feedback session), but I had almost totally ignored it (perhaps foolishly).
Personally, if budget wasn’t an issue I’d film most of our projects on an Alexa or an Epic (which wasn’t tested this time), but I’d always have a 5DmkII within arms reach, as it allows me to make beautiful videos and photos wherever I am. ‘The best camera is the one you have with you’, right? That’s why I always carry my 5DmkII! As far as I’m aware, you can’t carry an Alexa around in a satchel.
Money.
Another confusion to the whole situation is our growing need to ‘own’ everything we want. It’s been said time and time again by some very wise people – just because you own the most advanced or expensive camera doesn’t mean you’re making the best films. It’s nice to know how the camera we can afford compares to the camera we wish we could afford but, in reality, surely it is better to spend a planned budget on hiring the perfect camera for the job, rather than investing insane amounts in equipment that will be out of date in a year or two? To be honest, at this point, I really wouldn’t buy another camera, other than a DSLR. I think if more video/film rental houses can become as affordable and accessible as something like Hire-a-Camera or the very lovely Lenses For Hire, I see no reason to spend a filmmaker’s budget on buying cameras, beyond something handy and accessible like a DSLR or sub-£5K HD video camera. I can get the images I need (video and stills) from my DSLRs in 80% of cases. The other cases, if the budget allows, we hire what we need. If the budget won’t allow for the hire, then how can it allow you to own a camera that costs that much? If you think it does, you’re not charging enough and it’s likely you’re actually paying to shoot these projects.
Horses.
Lastly, for now, and very much related to the previous point, it’s just horses for courses, isn’t it? I think Mr Primes might also have said as much in the film. That kind of makes it quite dull as a discussion, so hopefully you can take the above ideas over this one. For example, I love creating visual effects, but the rolling shutters of DSLRs are a major obstacle to including effects in DSLR originated footage**. Sometimes we need to record longer than 12 minutes at a time in a single shot – again, DSLRs aren’t the right tool for that job. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe DSLRs are perfect for documentary-type shooting, where their form-factor and bang-for-buck lushness let us create gorgeous images in a whole range of environments, many of which we’ll have never seen until we get there to shoot. The video mode was originally included for photo-journalists, right?
Really though, the Evaluation’s greatest strength (and I’m assuming it’s main aim) is comparing like-for-like cameras to aid decision making as to which camera(s) to use for a project. By that I mean Alexa vs F35, or 5DmkII vs 7D, really not Alexa vs 5DmkII as there are so many other issues at play and they are whole worlds apart. It’s also somewhat of a ‘state of the union’, in that it’s an interesting insight into where we currently are with usable camera technologies. In these ways, there is no debate, just analysis. It’s an interesting, exciting, polarising ‘snapshot of snapshots’ for 2011. I’m very much enjoying being a part of it.
This isn’t intended to be a definitive discussion of the… uh… discussion, it’s really just thoughts that I didn’t share publicly on the night*. I’m sure the documentary will offer many more insights and I hope it paves the way for more thoughts on the subject. Let us know what you think in the comments below.
* You might see my mug (visage, not cup) in the documentary, as I was well placed between quite vocal debatees. However, I didn’t speak on the film as time was short and I felt that small production companies and independent filmmakers had already been ably represented. I was keen to hear from other industry professionals, who might be more likely to be shooting film or high-end digital cinema cameras. I don’t think we heard enough from them at the London screening, but hopefully they will be featured in the documentary.
** Rolling shutter can be compensated for when filming to make effects work easier, if you take enough care. Anyway, PFMatchit (or other post-fixing/skin-saving/miracle software you might use for this purpose) is a lot cheaper than an F35. ;)
