Leaderboard

where that fascination with color filter array come from ? its probably classic Bayer pattern as in arri alexa , red epic or 99% other cmos cameras ... just look at the image and if u like colors great if u dont buy another camera ....

@markm nobody even talked about camera color filter array before sony start to use it as a marketing tool... i dont remember that anybody ask that question when arri alexa , red epic or any other camera announced... why? because its not important ...when u make raw camera u use wide gamut dye (not that for rec 709) ... and more bits camera have, color gamut is wider ... so u basically ask do i get four wheels when i buy a car ... :) so dont ask question if dont know what are your asking .. its ignorant... ps:and when sony state that they going to use f65 camera color filter on f55 what they really say is that they decide to cripple f5 with wrong one ....

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1353527556' post='22076'] Alexa like? This video looks way worse than what we have seen previously. Was it supposed to be that flat? [/quote] Some of the shots do look kind of flat yes. I have a prediction: Now that we are getting cameras with all this dynamic range shot in flat profiles, I bet we will be seeing a lot more flat looking footage. I think there will be a tendency to avoid crushing and burning so much because people will want to show all that latitude that people will leave it more flat then anything else. In some ways I see this as a good thing. Frankly, I'm totally sick to death of the current "Film" look with the over bearing crushed blacks and desaturated orange and blue cast. I'm sure this more subtle grading will eventually even out though and turn into something interesting. We'll have to see what happens though.

@markm basically u want to know quality of dye used in color filter of BMC.... i dont think that there is a way to know ... maybe i someone would send his camera to lab so they can took sensor and test it .... but if BMC use CIS 2051 (and i m sure that it is ) then its top quality ... because that sensor is used in medical imaging and diagnostics and color quality for that applications is essential ...

I think it's seem pretty obvious to me now that the BMCC soundly trounces the DSLRs. But, what I want to see now is how it stacks up against the higher end cameras like the C300, Scarlet, Alexa, etc. I keep hearing that it's a baby Alexa but then everyone seems to keeps referring to it as a "B" camera or that it's not meant for Pro filmmakers. I'd like to see someone back those points up with some footage. So far everything I've seen suggests that it's every bit as good as the higher end cameras. Maybe the rolling shutter is a bit worse but other than that, I can't visually see anything that makes the footage look unprofessional. Quite the contrary to my eyes. And yeah, I totally agree about how good the GH2 look in these test. It's clearly the best DSLR for video out of the bunch. Just under the BMCC (in ProRes) in quality. Such an amazing bargain!

I'm letting the camera off the hook here. The fault is with the shooter. He was using ridiculous shutter speeds like 1/250 or 1/1400 with no regard to ND filters. 180 degrees should be 1/48 for 24p. That is going to heavily reduce the cinematic look unless his shots are locked down - but he was shooting tons of motion so you really notice. The guy also needs a proper handheld rig. It felt like the camera was given to a monkey on several cups of coffee who had been accidentally let lose inside a car and on a race track. So much jittery framing going on. The gradation and tonal range was lumpy and his contrast was poor, mainly due to LOG and not grading it properly... But I have to say that is partly down to the camera as well, not giving that smooth transition between tones and again it all looks very 8 bit now I am use to 12bit raw for my $3000 :) 4K and a large full frame sensor are a kind of magic. The rest of the camera is your standard Canon DSLR fare. It has moire too.

Outstanding time and effort into this Andrew, but I still can't help but be floored by the GH2 in all the shots. The GH3, given it's a pre-model, looks whack next to it and even the BMCC didn't really stand out, your own cinemascope films shot even on the GH1 were far more gorgeous in their presentation, and that always has to be what this shooting game is only about... about how it makes you feel rather than what's under the hood. At the end of the day that is what only matters, what you craft, how you shape and ultimately, how you you see something, being the image maker, not what makes you the image, although to some extent that does matter :)

massive tin 3 dollar vamp clamp for the baby moller is an outrage kind of like putting fat pig ugly hilary clinton in your aston martin yes no : ) moller is treasure don't treat it like shit.. but what do i know hundreds of buyers and happy customers love vamping even some iscorama owners just love dat vamp and it's iron bolt action.

In my opinion the MFT version is a massive reason to cancel an order. The Canon mount made no sense when the camera was announced, makes even less sense now that an MFT version is coming. You'd have to rent it straight away, because once the MFT version is out no one will touch the canon mount one and I'm guessing they'll be worth much less used than the MFT version, even though they cost the same. Also with all these delays it starts making a lot of sense to see what the digital bolex can do before deciding on either camera.

[quote name='Francisco Ríos' timestamp='1353602925' post='22126'] Yellow, thanks for the info. And what do you think about grading? What will better to work on grading? prores or nativ avchd with your workflow?[/quote] Grading in Premiere CS6 or AE, you're not working with native avchd or prores it's imaterial, the frame is decompressed into memory and converted to RGB for display including interpolating the sub sampled chroma in some way and with color processing / grading most of the tools work in RGB and if a choice done at 32bit precision preferably. [quote]I though that the imac will handle better prores to work with grading, twixtor, etc.[/quote] As we're all more than aware if our machine is not upto editing the source then there's two options. We buy a faster machine or transcode to something we can work with to get the job done. But that is to solve performance issues, there's no increase in 'quality' transcoding.

I agree with Andrew. $6000 seems excessive. Let's say the BMC sells 20000 cameras. It is a niche market that Canon had but is losing market share. If Canon gave better specs, do you think people would have been embracing BMC as they have? The Big Boys will not rock the market too much as it takes money off the table. Gopro has a 4K camera (although not 24 frames/s) however it is 2K (24 frames/s) for $400. They are making money at that price. It includes a lens. Surely, a giant company can offer those specs with an interchangeable lens for a reasonable price? Surely Gopro had to spend on research and development. Canon came out with the 5D2 years ago. Their upgrade path years later was the 5D3. People wanted better color space such as 8 bit/10 bit, 422. Nope. How about true 1080p without the shrinking then upscaling? Nope. Look how detailed the GH2 video is. Surely Canon could have offered. Sony is coming out with alot of cameras, but are the specs truly earth shattering? They seem to be towing the same line with respect to specs. If you are willing to pay $20K then the specs are excellent. Why can a new camera as the BMC offer a $3K camera with such good specs? Why can't an established entity do the same? An establish company has most of their R and D paid. Initially pricing only came down due to RED. In the past, you'd be paying a quarter of a million for top specs. RED upset the food chain. You'd think after the dslr revolution, Canon would have wanted to secure the market. They could have offered a better spec DSLR for $4500, and people would have bought - such as 422, 8 or 10 bit, better compression, real 1080p, etc. Instead they off not so much. They did develop the C300 but for $16000. I think mass appeal can be more profitable in the long term than making these niche markets. Sell more batteries, lenses, etc. You don't want the competition to gain market share either. Once you lose a customer then it could be years to gain them back. Or you may never get them back. Just ranting, and don't want to debate.

[quote name='Francisco Ríos' timestamp='1353602925' post='22126']What will better to work on grading? prores or nativ avchd with your workflow? I though that the imac will handle better prores to work with grading, twixtor, etc.[/quote] That's quite another cup of tea. Once you process your footage in a way that you change every pixel completely, it's hue, saturation, luma, it's position, you were crazy to render in any highly compressed codec (such as mpeg4, though you don't gain anything by transcoding [i]before[/i] the editing/grading). If you further change the timing, add multiple keyframes, animated masks, composite shots (all the heavy After Effects stuff), you were absolutely insane not to prepare the video for that by transcoding to an intraframe-codec in advance. Can you tell the difference in quality then? This depends on your hardware. If your [i]preview[/i] (this is the wysiwyg-side of it) stays full quality then with AVCHD, maybe it will look the same (I'd like to see a machine capable of that). But even then, it makes no sense to wait a day and a half for the results (ProRes renders faster), only to have to throw away the whole if you detect some minor errors. A friend of mine, who builds really complex animations in AAE that take many hours and sometimes days, always renders as tiff sequences for this reason alone.

I agree with the above comments, im not saying you should never use shallower DOF, heck it helps when your on a budget. But there are these weird techniques I see sometimes where even the subjects face is barely in focus... then again these are just my personal tastes, I do also enjoy shallow DOF, but sometimes I dont see the point of it, its ok to let the viewer's eye wonder in my opinion. To me closeups are perfectly fine for this technique because you're suppose to see the subject and focus on him/her only, Whats weird is when its a shot that doesnt need it at all or when used with run and gun, then there are some that are crazy like shooting 1.4 during a chase sequence. Im not saying you should never use it, heck i know I will, but its good to know when it has an actual effect to the scene, then being saturated with constant shallow DOF, which can be exhausting at times and can lose its effect when you purposely 'do want to' use it. To me the the main things that are on my mind when Im shooting is composition, lighting, and what is necessarily to the narrative. To me lighting is so important, its something that I always strive to improve on (probably because im terrible at it haha) because thats usually what gives away the illusion to the audience, in my opinion. It sometimes makes a location feel more like a set then it is a location.