Leaderboard

I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude. RAW seems like a good idea (well its amazing really), but how many people will just use it to avoid learning to film a scene properly? With film you had to get it right - no excuses. Why should digital be any different. What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film. If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!" The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls! Of course i want a better cheaper camera - i'd kill for one. The future could & most probably will be bright for low budget filmmakers, but first you need the idea & the know how. In the meantime there's no point getting hung up on codecs, formats, resolution etc... At the moment i'm as happy as larry & love my shitty 60D, with its moire, aliasing, softish picture & the rest of the crap that it throws in my face just to spite me.

I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows: 'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside. Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.'

Andrew great review on the camera, but your OS review is extremely poor!!!! Windows PCs are far better then people give them credit for. There is a reason many enterprises use Windows OS, and not OSX!

The filmmaker arrives at the set with a large case. He opens it to reveal four or five camera pods that look something like this: [center][img]http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dacascas/dacascas1207/dacascas120700101/14636114-illustration-of-white-round-web-camera.jpg[/img][/center] Except there are three "balls" underneath allowing for autonomous, multi-axis movement. He sets these camera pods down on assorted flat surfaces: the kitchen table, the floor, a high stool, and the highest bookshelf. With a handheld device, he activates the pods, which quickly scan the surfaces they are sitting on and instantly create CAD models for reference -- the pods now "know" how far they can move without crashing to the floor. No lighting is necessary. Sixty stops of dynamic range make it a thing of the past. The filmmaker uses his handheld device to drag and drop his favorite classic DP, editor and colorist into the app, or perhaps just the titles of a few movies that he saw over the weekend into the interface. The device quickly scans each filmography or film and comes up with an algorithm of common camera settings and movements, framing choices, focusing styles, etc. As the scene begins, the operator hits a button and the pods will move about on their respective surfaces, executing these shooting styles and transmitting 80K video signals back to the handheld device where an algorithm makes real-time multicam edits and color grades for a 16K final video. After the shoot/edit/grading session, the operator is now able to scrub back through the video and make any changes to the sub-final timeline before slapping his name on it and then hitting a button and almost instantly having it posted to the web.

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352983149' post='21677'] I am guessing, that, there are many opportunities, for start-ups, on sites like Kickstarter, to create a camera, that will bring to the consumers, something, that they really want. Rather than force feeding them, on bullshit. [/quote] Is that what [i]consumers [/i]really want? We, a bunch of enthusiasts on a very specific video oriented forum, aren't very representative of the market. It's easier to market a list of new features (like wifi) to the big public than a better codec. A bunch of new features doesn't cannibalize your own products. An amazing video optimized canon dslr is kinda out of the question now with their cinema line. 'We' shouldn't expect much from such companies. The big ones play it safe, aim at the mass market, the big numbers, thats where the money is, not in the niche of us filmmakers. Nikon with their consumer oriented mirrorless system, small sensor so it doesn't cut into their dslr market too much. Canon goes kind of the same way, don't expect a high end mirrorless camera anytime soon from them. The only big company that doesn't care much about cannibalisation is Sony. And they are smart not to care, because if they don't cannibalize their own stuff, someone else will. But that might be mainly because Sony is relatively new in the dslr/photography market. People who've been with Canon or Nikon for many years are stubborn and not very likely to switch. [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352984452' post='21683'] Wow. That would have been amazing. [/quote] Yes. It would have been. And all the photographers who don't care about video would have been complaining about the premium price for all this video stuff they don't need. Even if the extra's come in a grip there would have been R&D costs, the processor has to be more powerfull etc...

thats hilarious. Some ppl on this forum propagating looking for the best product at a given price. Constantly bashing companies for overprjced products but then completely blind to their when they overpay :D. check the hisotry of mac. because it was so bad almost bankrupt they had too stop using their ’better and faster’ hardware. I still remember their marketing crap and bullshit of their d cpus being 2 times faster than reg you lar PC cpus. Their OS being superior to overything else. what happened? its all gone. theyre using PCs hardware. Operating system is UNIX under the hood. Only name left.. and prices.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1352976595' post='21673'] Andrew great review. The BMC is truly a game changer. Already the mighty are toppling. This must be on every film makers christmas list. Sanveer has put my thoughts on it exactly. [/quote] I love the BMCC. Its such an amazing camera. I Know, I'm being greedy, but, I wish, they make version 2.0, with a 30% reduction in bodysize. That would be phenomenal.

Andrew great review. The BMC is truly a game changer. Already the mighty are toppling. This must be on every film makers christmas list. Sanveer has put my thoughts on it exactly.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1352923463' post='21648'] Haven't people been editing 4K Redcode Raw for years on Mac? The top of the line iMac has only a 2GB (mobile) card. Even the outdated pro has only 1GB (deskop) cards. [/quote] Different software uses different hardware acceleration. DaVinci Resolve supports (pretty modern) CUDA hardware. Maybe it can be used without it (using CPU power instead.. but not sure..), but overall that support looks like big positive rather than negative thing. It's like DirectX for 3D in the past: - First there were 3D games using mainly CPU - Than showed up 3D games which needed GPU with Direct3D support and moved load from CPU to GPU. The improvement was amazing. Today DaVinci moves load from CPU to GPU in video editing - thay do whole rendering calculations in GPU instead of CPU. The modern hardware (CUDA) allows to build cheap powerfull workstations and go futher only by adding more graphic cards (which is widely supported today) rather than using whole CPU power (not to mention pricy multi CPU systems). (ATI alternative to CUDA is unfortunately weaker.) So please stop blaming DaVinci programmers that Mac's can't be customized and outdate so quickly. If you have old PC, you could just swap your graphic card (for 300$) and enjoy smooth real-time 4K raw editing. Now you know that you get iMacs stability and look(design) not for free.. You sacrifice customizability. I'm happy to see computer hardware progressing so fast. It wouldn't be so fast without customizability of PCs (which make progress easier). If 20 years ago there were only iMacs on the world (no PCs), you would be still playing 3D games using only CPU :). Because everybody would say: "That stupid NeedForSpeed Direct3D doesn't work on my almost new iMac with fastest CPU! Do they think I'll buy a new one just for 3D card? F...k them, let's play Saper!" PS: I do have MacBook and I like it. But for workstation/server I would prefer PC.

The BMCC is a phenomenal camera, especially considering the price, no matter what anyone says. Also, despite being the first one to come out of the Blackmagic stables, it is still a seriously good camera. IMO, though, I a not sure it is a DSLR killer. Well, for many reasons. 1. It weights a LOT more than the GH2, and even other DSLRs. Whereas the 5D Mark iii vs BMCC's dimensions and weight: Dimensions: 152.0 x 116.4 x 76.4 mm vs 166.2 x 113.51 x 126.49mm Weight: 950g (including battery and SD card) vs 1.7kgs (the battery is internal, non-removable).Thats almost Twice the weight of the Mark iii. And almost 4 times the weight of the GH2 (it weighs 444gms, with the battery and SD card). The SSD Drives, I am guessing, with add a noticeable amount of weight, to the BMCC. 2. Most people who shot with the 5D and the GH2, would obviously be aware, of the inherent imitations in (actual) Dynamic range and score in coloring and grading. They don't care too much about it. 3. The 12 Bit Raw and 4-4-4 is more of an Alexa and RED killer. The DSLRs aren't even close to that pedigree. I believe, that even though RED pretended to be targeting Canon, it was actually more seriously, attempting to wean away customers, from the BMCC. 4. DSLRs video is more out of the box. And, if you use a certain kind of profile, which is reasonably flat, you could tweak the video, in post, a LITTLE. 5. Good quality Sound recording is as much a headache on DSLRs, as it is on DSLRs. You need good quality mics, for both, though, due to terrible on-board sound, and lack of monitoring in most DSLRs (except the the D800, Mark ii, GH3 etc), sound recorders like the Zoom H4n or pre-amps (if you don't wanna sync) JuicedLink, are a necessity. A lot of Guerilla shooter even use recordes like teh H1, and sync later. Probably even dub, later. 6. I feel, a lot of amateur shooters and semi-professional cameras are not interested in using Rails and Mat Boxes, and even Follow Focuses. Especially people (like me) who like the whole charm of gorilla shooting. I am guessing, that most BMCC users will add all these, to make the BMCC, shooting, as professional as possible. 7. There are DSLR shooters, who use crews of 20-50, with matt boxes, follow focuses, serious lighting (HMIs, Tungstens, Fresnels etc). The word, for describing this pedigree of idiots, hasn't been coined, yet. Especially, since the FS100, AF100, FS700, C300 have come into the scene. 8. The BMCC cannot be used as a crash cam/ action cam. The new Hero 3 seems to be pretty decent, though, it cannot really replace the GH2 or even the 5D. For multi-cam action sequences, DSLRs don't seem to have a replacement. Yet. 9. The D800 and 5D Mark ii hover around the BMCC price. If you can afford 3k, for a video camera, add another 3k to that, for the SSD cards, and the upgrade, to your edit set-up, and Voila !!! 10. The GH2 costs $700, and the 7D costs $1500. The T4i costs $800. If DSLR, is something, that one is looking, for, then, there are cheaper options, at a fraction of the cost of the BMCC (and the 5D Mark iii), for video. As videos have shown, saying that the 5D Mark iii or Mark ii some low light kings, is all bullshit, especially, if you cannot use that quality, for professional video. And, if it crushes details, at the cost of low light. 11. Since the Data Rate is reasonable, you don't need many TBs of storage. On the BMCC you need about 7GB of space, per minute of video, shot at 2.5k RAW. For other formats, there is a huge amount of compression, so, that should not be an issue. But, I am guessing, you wont be picking up the BMCC, if you wanna shoot 4-2-2 or 8 bit 12. Most DSLRs aren't too taxing on your system. You don't have to upgrade to 16GB RAMs (or more) and use Graphic Cards that cost as much as you entire computer, for editing DSLR video. The 5D Mark iii and the D800 are as lousy, for video, as their 4 year old cousin, the Mark ii. All the extra features are just publicity gimmicks. It hasn't added much to the video quality. They haven't added more than 50-100 lines of resolution and the 4-2-0 codec is the same. DSLRs and the BMCC were never in the same race, to begin with. The BMCC is a purebred greyhound, and the DSLR is a pekingese. There is no competition, between them. There never was.

[quote name='noa' timestamp='1352939523' post='21661'] Another thing Andrew, it's ok to have an opinion about something but I think you should be careful about saying windows has always been shit because you actually are starting a windows/mac trash debate with such generalizing remarks. I don't care what system I work with as long as it does the job. All I can say that since I started using windows 7 pro I never had a system crash and never had to "fiddle" with anything so I don't share the same experience you seem to have had, my editing system runs 16 hours a day, 6 days a week and combined with Edius I never had that go down either. So for me at least it works very well and very stable and that at a fraction of the cost I would have paid for a Mac pro. With that said, will be looking forward to any new info/tests you can share, I only have to convince my wife why I need the camera, that will be the biggest challenge :D [/quote] I agree. Windows 7 has been virtually flawless for me.

Nice review Andrew, well written and informative. I have been an event and wedding shooter for years now. Since those are fast paced, with often just one chance to get it right my equipment has been a mixture of regular videocamera's and dslr's. It's a combination that works well for me and my clients seem to be happy to. :) The BMC camera would actually be useless for the kind of work I do, the workflow is just be too cumbersome and yet, I really want one, not for events or weddings but just for my own personal projects. Where I can do the opposite of what I"m making a living from, going back to basics, take my time to plan my shots and think about what I will be shooting without the time pressure I have when doing my event work. I just want to capture beautiful images with as less sacrifices as possible and without having to break the bank. From what I have seen so far the BMC camera can deliver that for me. I will be reading up some more months on this camera before I buy it, especially about workflow on a windows pc since the BMC seems to be designed with a Mac in mind so that might be a challenge. Another thing Andrew, it's ok to have an opinion about something but I think you should be careful about saying windows has always been shit because you actually are starting a windows/mac trash debate with such generalizing remarks. I don't care what system I work with as long as it does the job. All I can say that since I started using windows 7 pro I never had a system crash and never had to "fiddle" with anything so I don't share the same experience you seem to have had, my editing system runs 16 hours a day, 6 days a week and combined with Edius I never had that go down either. So for me at least it works very well and very stable and that at a fraction of the cost I would have paid for a Mac pro. With that said, will be looking forward to any new info/tests you can share, I only have to convince my wife why I need the camera, that will be the biggest challenge :D

Sharpness -5 looks a bit too unsharp for my taste, so I leave it at -2. But the difference is very subtle. Color at -5 takes out a lot of color, so I'm not sure if it's the best to always have it at -5. Maybe also better to leave it around -3 or -2, so you don't loose to much color information. I have to admit.. I just bought a GH2 second hand. If the GH3 would be actually available right now I might have considered it. I really like it. Going on holidays soon and planning to use it, so I didn't want to wait for the GH3. Also the price difference is big.. Bought the GH2 body for a bit more than 1/3 of the GH3 body price.