Leaderboard

a bead of sweat trickles down big jim's face. god damn their aussie eyes. his attractive intern stacy holds his hand and says big jim it will be ok for sure. that sensor. the the little sensor it will burn up in no time. data through put will melt that plastic sucker,chill out iceman. now how about a back rub and a dip in the hot tub. thanks says jim. stacy. stacy do you really think the camera will melt.. and it will be ok.. i i mean first the sauerkrauts with alexa now this. what about my red flock my followers my people. i feel rudderless. get over hear in the tub jim. sure. stacy yes jim have you seen my rubber ducky

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343134939' post='14417'] Can you point me to an example of something you've done that is digitally shot and looks like film? Very curious because this all comes down to what 'film' looks like to you. [/quote] How would you compare it? Youtube? Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher. The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick lived, he would have been an early adopter of digital cameras. I liked the look of Jesse James, but I am not sure how much of it is purely analog and how much digital post. I like the films of Christopher Nolan, but I think his insistence of analog recording is a luxury that's still affordable. This will change. Film is dying. Wave goodbye.

The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing... Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;) My running list so far is: -Form factor [i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all. -Size [i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i] This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it. -Price "it's not expensive enought to be professional" Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering. -Too much dynamic range "detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks) These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors. -ISO [i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i] Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys. -RAW yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and confuses the "clients"" That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500f28edc4474_CONTINEO_BMC_11.jpg[/img] Form factor fixed :)

if this thing is rugged and survives a little crew abuse. methinks some companies will be cursing it. praying willing a sensor or system melt down. i hate the design but the guts are looking good. take the crap off the front put a M/43 mount on it and you have a real killer mr jannard's gonna have to buy these suckers and shut the company down before they start moving up the sensor sizes scale. at that point steam will start pumping out of big jims face.

KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade. I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others. Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting. Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example. TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless... I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon. I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. http://vimeo.com/45596420 What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied. We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!