Leaderboard

Great comeback Mark. People need to realise there is such a thing as the internet. You don't have to physically put a card into an C300 and physically copy the files onto your laptop to make an informed judgement on the image quality.

FWIW, I played around with some of the J. Brawley footage & my jaw hit the floor. In terms of grading, it doesn't take a lot of effort to get great results. All that dynamic range makes this a "killer app" IMO. Not really looking forward to the workflow, however... and all that proxy conversion. It will be a pain in the ass. However, my primary work is Music Video, so for that application, the BMC makes sense. For live concerts, however, I'll be sticking with my pair of hacked GH2's.

If you client cares about raw, then they probably arn't looking to hire someone who is just starting out. They'd probably be more scared if you tell them you are using a Black Magic Camera (they''ll think you are into Vodoo). :D I'm talking return on investment. For all the advantages raw offers in post, it also comes at the cost of workflow drag. Plus, being able to do stills really broadens your market. All that being said, if all I cared about was doing video, and getting work wasn't a problem, I'd get a BMC.

Check out another raw DNG sample from Seb https://www.facebook.com/wiegaertnerfilms/posts/455784874461739 I'd have under exposed this a little but it is good like this since it is nice to see how much of the highlights in the grass can be recovered. Great shot too.

Maybe you know more than me at this point, but don't you think you should at least wait for BM camera tests? Sony could still fuck things up too. And please Andrew, change the name of your website so these trolls can stfu about the name of your site. I swear simco must be that guy on nofilmschool crying bout EOSHD.

While I appreciate the content Andrew, this comparison doesn't address a lot of the questions I have about the BMC. For all of its faults, my Mark III is predictable, easy to work with (especially compared to my hacked GH2 with some of the more space and SD card intense Driftwood patches) and I know how to make it sing. My clients still 'ooh' and 'ahh' as much as they ever did when they see my footage. Here's what I still want to know: What does a raw workflow really entail on a project by project basis? I can guess that I'm definitely going to need to increase the amount of media storage space. Does raw necessitate that I edit from an SSD to get any kind of usable speed? What about Resolve and rendering speeds associated with that? Am I going to have to upgrade my systems to handle it? I'll bear the burden for my shorts and music videos but is it worth working a corporate video in raw? I know the answer to those questions should be the ability to shoot in Pro Res and DNxHD but how does that performance compare to a MK3 or FS100? What about audio? Are the preamps quiet enough to work on their own or do they need a juicedlink beachtek type solution like MK3? Lastly - as amazing and exciting as a solution like the BMC is, I can't help but feel like this is only the beginning of the affordable raw revolution. I'm excited for the technology and what its going to do to our footage but does it make sense from a business standpoint to wait and see how the early adopters fare? And as fast as things are changing, will we see a sub-$5000 camera feature not only raw but maybe built-in ND and high speed capabilities in the next year?