I saw the test in person and won't pretend to be any wiser or perceptive than I actually am, but note that there apparently wasn't a consensus among the teams, about what they were attempting to achieve in their custom lighting and grading.

One team -- Sony, I believe -- added no extra lights, apparently believing that their camera has such wide DR, that allowing the shadows and highlights to go where they were going, was the best advertisement they could ever offer for it. Very restrained lighting and grading appears to have been the approach with other high-end camera teams as well. But other teams clearly reduced DR and added strong grading, so that their cameras produced a more pleasing image-- otherwise, the shadows and highlights would reveal obvious shortcomings in performance.

So judging how pleasing an image is, or how close it looks to a normally lit scene, may give a false impression.

I think a lot of them looked fine, I personally like the look of B.

It's subjective of course, but I personally don't like general trend to take high DR image and compress it down, it makes the highlights look fake, and makes it all look drab. I say if a highlight blows, let it go! I'd go for local adjustment via windows over a overall adjustment.

I think the GH2 (from what I've heard on how they lit it) will look good because they choose to tweak the lighting to bring up ambient and make the best image out of camera. This will retain local contrast, highlights may blow in some cases, but it'll look nice and natural.

I wouldn't be surprised if B was the GH2, I liked the grading/lighting the best. I also like the sharp look but maybe that's just my generation :)

can't wait to see what the actual cameras were.

@disneytoy Your enthusiasm is great but there is nothing to prove or disprove that yet - remember, this part is the one where they can change dynamic range by re-lighting. Only the empircal one can help prove or disprove that.

I have to say, I didn't like the format of the 2012 Shootout. I would much rather prefer the pixel-peeping and technical nitty-gritty detailed examination that they did in 2010. Comparing footages to 35mm Kodak and Fuji film stock (and why not 100mm) is still important. If I was given a choice to make the film in 35mm film or the Red with 4K, and financial considerations were not an issue I would still choose 35mm film. Film still retains this incredible texture that is so essential for cinematic aesthetic. Therefore I would be more interested to see which one of these films provides the closest emulation to that celluloid texture. In 2010 I saw GH1 (unhacked) footage compared to Kodak and Fuji, and many other DSLRs, and I instantly made the choice to get a GH1. Another factor that reinforced my defision was the Dynamic Range (latitude) test that they did in 2010, and I quite liked GH1's performance. After applying the Powell max hack the images became even more beautiful and cinematic.

You see what I'm getting at? For me it's not the technical detail that is important, but the overall "feel" of the texture of the film.

In terms of the interviews, "Cinematographer Style" (watch it on YouTube) offers more value for your time.

@kronstadt

Think you totally missed the point of the shootout, and by extension the whole digital revolution. Firstly, if you are still so enamored of film, then just shoot film. There is no compulsion whatsoever to participate in this revolution if you think digital is an ersatz replacement for film, which it has never claimed to be. Film is film, and digital is digital, and never the twain shall meet. It would be ludicrous to even compare analog with digital, and try to squeeze a winner out of the equation.

With this present shootout, I think the people at Zacuto try to have an open dialogue with the industry after they realised among other things it was perhaps untenable to compare film with digital the last time out. I saw the 2010 shootout, and wondered what was the point of comparing digital with 35mm. You will never be able to simulate the latitude you can get with film, let alone reproduce its texture and for lack of a better term, "cosmos". If there should be any comparison at all, perhaps one should see how the old digital is measuring up to the new digital, which I think the present shootout attempts to make.

I dont see pp in the music industry having this problem when they record on digital, of constantly harking back to the days when it was grand to hear the cracking of a stylus doing its rounds on vinyl.

Dun see why pp like yourself are still comparing apples and oranges.

@kazuo You make a good point about there not usually being a compulsion to shoot with a different feel if you already have one you prefer, but that is not really in oppposition to what was said before.

Now I hear people say all the time that it is "wrong to compare" two things, and if we are talking about tools, I rarely find that is true. You can say what you like and dislike about one vs the other and why you use one instead of another for a specific applications vs another. And that is fine.

The analog vs digital example is flawed: some of the highest end soundtages and recording studios in the world use either an analog mixing path or recording path in order to maintain the analog aesthetic. Many listeners (young ones too) purchase vinyl and turntables today when they have access to digital gear. So the idea that things are somehow more cut and dried in the audio world is unsupported, and if you do not believe me take a look at searches in Google for sample libraries with "analog" in the title, like Albion by Spitfire Audio that was recorded at AIR Studios in England.

As far as my take, I usually use digital for recording and mixing, but not with a disdain for analog at all. And as far as lattitude, the 2011 shootout showed that the gap was narrowing and (in some areas) digital was winning, in very specific circumstances. The next generation of sensors could meet or exceed that (and if you talk to some cinematographers they feel the Alexa already did). But as mentioined at the start, that does not mean it will give you the film "feel" either.

So in short, I would say that the mistakes lie rarely in the comparisons we make but more often in the inferences we draw from the data within those comparisons. We should get to know what the differences and the similarities are, just like a studio artist knows the characteristics of and applications for their brushes.

@kazuo I think it comes down to, as you said, a question if which is right for each person or production. I think what has changed, as compared to the early DV days, is that digital has become a good option in recent years, for the very first time and I think that is a good thing.

To get back to the audio parallel, it is like digital is finally getting bit depths and sample rates that exceed CD quality during our production, while early DV was like working with 8-bit 22KHz audio - people often noticed the quality gap vs higher end recordings right off the bat.

I don't understand the resentment of the test when it has been clearly stated that it was in two part. One subjective with lots of variable and one much more precise/scientific with the same set of setting. It is as if these people cannot live outside the realm of pixel peeping/measuberators, forgetting that in the end it is the art that is the most important. More so that it is backed up by some of best Cinematographers in the Industry.

What this test shows is that it is the person behind the camera who is the more important nowadays. No more excuse on the equipment to justify lack of skill or vision. It is the driver in the car that is important now in the race, now it is skill that will be the judge. This put the pressure on lots of people now because it will be them who will be judge now and not their equipment.

Now, I am not saying that the scientific method is not important. I am eager to see the second test to see how those camera deal in terms mainly of DR. Because in terms of resolution apart from the iphone and the 7d the rest are good enough it seems. Because the last few years it has been just resolution and low light. Resolution being championed by a certain company for 4k, but I not see one person say that the image of these camera were soft or lacked detailed projected on the big screen. Or that they shoot only in not low light but what I call no light. I forgot if human beings lived only at night.

What is good with these test is that they put back the emphasis on dynamic range. I mean everything has a threshold, once you reach that, everything becomes just incremental. I think we are reaching it in terms of resolution and low light. What has been missing is DR, at least before the Alexa/f3/f65 cameras. Arri and Sony have been working a lot on it compared to resolution and it payed up. This test seems to be the perfect example. At least from what was said for the gh2. To get an image approaching the Alexa, you are going to need much more light for fill. In the end it could cost you as much as renting an Alexa versus light if you want the same result. I hope we will see better DR in the next gh3. I will at least wait for the second test to see the actual difference between the gh2 and the 12 stop Canon and 14 stop Alexa/Sony to get a better idea of the difference. I think I saw a test from @thepalalias with low contrast Filters. It could be an avenue it get better Dr from the gh2.

Now my only criticism is about the one month delay between each part. Come on, perhaps it is good for the marketing and buzz, but I would have liked to see the reaction of the different audiences if they had to wait one month for the result.

@kronstadt I disagree. Pixel peeping and numerical data can contribute to the "feel", but there are many other factors that also must be considered. Motion, color rendition etc. It's obvious that the $$$ monsters will pretty much always win out in the pure data side by sides, this actually has more to do with "feel" as in , the DP's adjusting the lighting / mood that works well with the camera's inherent parameters.

@danyyyel I don't disagree with your points about the "test", but adding a few kinos or bouncing a tweenie or two will not cancel out the rental charges for an alexa. Of course, it depends upon the scope of what you are shooting. If it's a room set up. You're normally not going to get an alexa package for less than $2k. And by that, I mean package: 4-5 Lenses/support/FF/ larger tripod/ extra cards... I can get two kino 4 banks for $150/day. By the way, I just used some low/ultra cons this week and they help tremendously with the DR. I couldn't use them indoors, as we had a prompter on the cam.

@danyyyel

What this test shows is that it is the person behind the camera who is the more important nowadays. No more excuse on the equipment to justify lack of skill or vision.

Yep. This is exactly where the resentment is coming from. Allot of people liked being able to "buy" an aesthetic and instantly have it in a league above students and low-budget work. This really isn't possible anymore. Lots of people don't like this... you know who they are. They're usually the same people who cry "professional this" and "professional that". Well the days of "professionalism" and a "industry work-flow" that everybody must abide by are fading away. Film how you want. Work how you want. Only the results matter now. :)

@rockroadpix Yes, see my tests in the Canis Majoris thread. Tiffen Ultra Contrast 1 and 3, Low Contrast 2 and Warm Black Promist 1 were all tested.

The softening can often be desirable, but it should not be ignored.

@danyyyel @rockroadpix Here, I went and got the link. I did other tests and the filters perform better in some situations than others, but I thought that particular set was a little easier for people to parse since I kept doing tests without the filters as the light was changing, too.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/62717#Comment_62717

Yeah, I had the same results with my ultra con 2. It was a slightly noticeable shift in DR or look, but it's helpful.

@thepalalias I regularly use Tiffen Ultracons too in a variety of strengths depending on shooting conditions. My experience is very similar to yours except for one thing. I would not say that they increase the dynamic range really. In fact, they probably slightly reduce the dynamic range if you plan to lift the blacks and then crush them back down in post. However, what you give up for this loss of, say half a stop, is that the blacks now occur in a higher part of the curve that is less susceptible to noise, banding, blocking, and the weaknesses of the GH2's recording and compression.