peederj

And external mics are apparently mandatory...   http://cheesycam.com/internal-noise-from-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/

With defenders like that who needs critics! Thanks Clark.  :wub:

  I think you'll find this backwards. Your render format should be at least as good and ideally identical to your export format. Because FCPX will use your rendered frames in export if the formats are equal. That's why "Export Master File" works quickly if the project is fully rendered. If you are going to only export once, you don't need to bother with rendering, but I like to render and then export master file because changes are inevitably requested and that makes things a lot faster avoiding re-rendering. The rendering done for export sadly does not get cached for future exports otherwise (though you could I suppose drag in the export and blade it up as a cache).   If you aren't going to do any renders, or trash your renders, then it doesn't matter FCPX will always go back to the original media to render from. The "optimized media" is never rendered from only used for previews in the editor. You are correct on a fast machine you can skip optimized media entirely as I tend to.   So if you want ProRes HQ output use it for the project render format as well as exporting to it and then on to Compressor etc. for grid-accelerated transcoding to H.264 or whatever. But ProRes HQ should really just be considered an archival format at the moment...the best YouTube/Vimeo do right now is a miserable 5Mbps (10Mbps peak) H.264, and even Blu-ray is only 40Mbps, wiping out all detail the HQ could conceivably give you.

I'm here Andrew because I think someone needs to put forward this point of view. Not because it's correct in all cases. But the opposite of isn't correct in all cases either. And I believe most cases.   I want to see something substantial from you Andrew. At least a 30 minute short or something, where you have primary responsibility as both director and DP. I haven't reviewed your history at all but I've read this site for over a year and I imagine you'd refer to something if you had done it. With that hindsight I do think you'd amplify rather than be allergic to my comments. I think you'd survive the experience. And your blog would be better off for it, as you'd see what your readership is really struggling with as opposed to helping them join you in constantly putting off judgment day for your art by focusing on preparing some arbitrarily interchangeable part.

The very best thing a beginning filmmaker needs to learn is to be independent in their resourcefulness, problem-solving, and opinion. They won't have a team of experts to help them until well after they demonstrate they don't need them.

  In the case of the 5D3 yes they cheaped out on the downsampling. But not as severely as the other DSLRs that still use line-skipping. Pixel-binning uses all the light falling on the sensor and avoids introducing worse moire than the bayer sensor does already. And that's not only a lot better than line-skipping it's a lot better than a small native res sensor like the current BMD attempts.   The Cx00 line has proper downsampling and the 1DC is a prototype example of a full-featured full-frame DSLR. I hope for a full-frame Cinema EOS camera line and I think we'll get one as it makes Canon's full frame glass something special for filmmaking. Note their Cine lenses cover full frame already. There's a new teleconverter that adapts old PL lenses to larger sensors out too, and the Dragon sensor is nearly full frame width, so Vista-vision sized sensor video is probably going to be a common thing soon even above the DSLR level.   Wouldn't it be nice to shoot your movies in the equivalent of 15 sprocket 70mm IMAX? At 70.41 mm × 52.63 mm that's bigger than even medium format 645. Ambitious filmmakers will demand that, to their credit, and they'll soon (by the end of the decade?) be able to afford it through the virtues of digital and Moore's Law.

Here's one:   http://bit.ly/1bBM58e

I find all of them I've read to be 90% good or vaguely useful and 10% mediocre or plain bad advice. Wolfcrow for instance...worth a bit more than you pay for it (zilch) but not much more. Most of these sites have guides of some kind for sale or free. Just keep in mind the limitations of the authors and square their advice with those of others and most importantly your own experimentation.

Emm runs into snags already, ends up recommending the Ninja 2 for Pocket shooters anyway:   http://cheesycam.com/blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-a-few-tips/

  And being able to work with the information of nine times as many of them will lead to...?

Then there's always the Samyang 35/1.4, full manual, long throw, hard stops. A bit big but fine enough quality and I enjoy mine... I'm surprised this crowd values sharpness, I would figure vintage blur would be your thing.   http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Bigger is better when everything else is equal. Super 35 is a decent compromise but if we had a full-frame of the same sensor quality and downsampler yes it would be better. The 5D3 RAW has a poor downsampler but a great sensor yet it's hobbled by its lack of a worthy codec and there's no way to pipe the signal out other than CF cards. But that's a better idea than the small-sensor BMD cinderblocks and that's why BMD had to slash their prices by a third.   As for the sample above, I think it shows how misleading subjective samples are. What people are responding to in samples isn't the camera so much as it is the people operating and posting it. This sample was posted by someone who apparently didn't know how to even hold a camera much less focus it or do post on the image. But if you pay a great cinematographer to make the iPhone look like masterful video you will wonder if you should be shooting it instead of Alexa on your next tentpole feature.   It's the wizard, not the wand, and as I will insist both privately (ahem) and publicly, it's better for people to learn how to get the absolute most out of a cheap camera like the Rebel rather than attempting to buy their way into skill. The cheap consumer camera is less forgiving than the fancy ones, it doesn't have a baked-in "cinema look" so you have to learn to do that yourself in post. And having gone through that challenge you will be better able to make the most of any camera presented to you, and you won't want cameras that bake in a specific look. You'll also come to really appreciate practical flexibility on set (e.g. low-light capability) vs. absolute image quality, because the impact of your content relies more on getting the right shot in high-pressure circumstances than on the finest gradations of blue in the sky.

  No but it makes it lower quality, because there are fewer photons countable per shutter cycle. Not to mention losing the DR and anti-aliasing benefits of downsampling if you have a native res sensor or crop. And again it makes the DoF deeper.   The whole "sex appeal" of the wide aperture lens is that it will make image quality better (vs. cranking ISO) and DoF shallower. This is brought most to fruition on larger sensors. The inherent tradeoffs on smaller sensors mean that while you can have cheap and light lenses with huge apertures like 0.95 the image quality you can get out of the system will not be comparable to what you can get on a same-generation larger sensor with an aperture of f/2.8 or even narrower. And I'm ignoring a lot of the problems presented by smaller lens design in terms of CA and distortion etc...note how MFT lenses, even quite expensive ones, perform pretty terribly without the in-camera correction tech. Most FF shooters don't use in-camera correction tech because their lenses don't need it.   And coming all the way back round to topic, is there any word yet whether the BMD Pocket camera supports the in-camera image correction (CA, distortion, vignetting) technology that the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras do? Because if it doesn't, then the lenses you have to choose from for the native mount are rather dismal performers. Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

Why the hell are they wasting time re-silvering mirrors or whatever this woman is doing and not finishing the g.d. cameras?  :P

The story I heard on Panasonic is that they were working on some revolutionary new codec and the whole effort fell to pieces moments before announcement. That was NAB2012 IIRC. I would figure they are betting everything on 4K right now and will probably have something by NAB2014.   I tried all the Crumplepop plugins btw and found no use for any of them. Better things readily available in every category. The free film noir thing may be their hit. I think they are a really cool company with mediocre products, the opposite of say, Coremelt who are a really crummily run company with useful products.