@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.

@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.

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.

@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 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.

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 read most of the posts here. Some people said (it may actually have been on Andrews site) they could not see it in 1080P from Vimeo, they could only view it live on Vimeos playback.

Its really much better to see it in 1080P, it may completely change your opinions...if you are just viewing it on Vimeo or somewhere else.

For those that havent seen it in 1080P all you have to do is setup Firefox as a browser (easy setup) and download NetVideoHunter as an add on https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/1489854/?src=api

or

http://netvideohunter.com/

After you have started the video on Vimeo and it will appear in the netvideohunter list, (click the blue icon with white arrow in FFox) you dont need to continue playing the video in Vimeo simply start it only, then download the video from the NetVideoHunter list.

In youtube once you have started any video, if you then open and right click on the videos title in that list...it will give you all the resolutions the clip it is available at, newer ones are often 480P, 720P, 1080P and you can choose which one you want to download.

@kronstadt I definitely respect both the aesthetic of neo-noir (and Nolan and Pfister are held in high regard in my family not just for their work but for being good dads) and I definitely respect the aesthetic you are going for. The main issue I had was not that the shadows were unsharp, but that there were unnatural characteristics to them that made them seem neither like film nor reality in G, and that it drew my attention (though maybe not others) to them in an undesirable fashion.

When the camera can record sufficient detail, an aesthetic like that can be more easily realized through the lighting and color correction, but when it does not, the process starts to involve creatively trying to fight or cover up the deficiencies of the camera in those areas. That is why I greatly preferred F to G - there was sufficient resolution in its rendering to not be distracted in those areas.

As I mentnioned in my blog, there are some parts of the image that fel over-sharpened in some of the shots. The table is one reference point, but for me the big giveaway was the yellow contents of the flower vase and the flowers. Like you I felt that having that too sharp drew the eye away from what was important. :)

Gh2 -----> I

Ok, i looked at these without trying to think too much. My eyes liked

H, B, C, A, I, F, E, G, D.

I would like to know more about HBCA cams when they are revealed.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I'm sorry, I did not quite understand that. What could we do using our members force or force of our members, or something? A similar type of comparison?

B,H,C,F,E,A,G,I,D

And B H and C to me are all kinda even with each other, there are things I like about them, and things I don't, but none of the cameras tested looked completely unwatchable. Also, B's cadence was a little too video-y at first.

And again I'm not spending a ton of time with this, because the test pretty much told me what I wanted to know - that's its the artist and the mind at work, not the camera that makes all the difference. If the GH2 didn't have jello issues, I'd just work around it's limitations and shoot damn near everything with it.

Like I said, I juts skipped through it quickly, didn't go full screen, was expecting to see wide differences, and was on my way out the door at the time, and am just going from memory...I'll post my analytical thoughts when I've had to do that....analyze