Leaderboard

can this thread go more childish... my camera that i dont own is better than your camera that u dont own .... people need a lot of talent and craft to use full potential of both cameras ...

"The truth is the Alexa / F55 / BMC footage all looks the same and your not going to notice any difference when you grade it."   So, 1-1.5 stops of extra DR are unnoticable? So, skin tone rendition is unnoticable? So, the unique qualities of an S35 sensor* are unnoticable? So, 16 bit is unnoticable? So, zero jello is unnoticable?   * Please don't come to me with the line that with the right lens combos, you can get the same look. Go find me an equivilent lens to this: [url="http://www.arri.com/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/ultra_prime_8r.html"]http://www.arri.com/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/ultra_prime_8r.html[/url] You would need a 3mm-4mm T1.5 lens that matches the quality of an Arri Ultra prime. Their 16mm lenses go to 6mm, but would vignette on BMCC.   I think everyone on these boards are supporting BMCC, but blind fanboyism will do them no favours.

Well that escalated quickly...

  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!   Is this forum becoming the equivalent of reduser for the BMCC or what?   You totally lost it. The BMCC is an amazing camera, and as I said before, an independent filmmaker would be crazy to get an F55 instead of a BMCC, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about when you state that the Alexa market would be equally well off with a BMCC.

You're beyond even speaking to.   No one notices jello..... :lol:   "There is not a rational argument to choose anything other than a BMC."   There is no rational reason to carry on this conversation. You clearly know very, very little about real world shooting.

  I don't know what makes you say 35mm film cameras didn't have video assist. They didn't in the first few decades of filmmaking, that's for sure, but any 35mm camera these days or the past few decades has full video assist support.   Well you were comparing these two cameras in the first place, it's no wonder my post seems disingenuous to you! :)

What Lynch says is always springing to mind. How about this from the Hollywood Reporter... It's another gem...           This is so true. As soon as your heart is not in what you do and you are more concerned with what people will think of the outcome, and the more you try and focus on controlling the outcome rather than focus on the film itself, you are done for.   In today's Hollywood a paycheck without inspiration is all too easy.   Unfortunately the 2nd page of his interview is behind a paywall :)   [url="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/david-lynch-feature-films-have-395849"]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/david-lynch-feature-films-have-395849[/url]   A couple of examples from my own experience really relate to what he's saying. If suddenly a format that I didn't like became incredibly popular with readers of EOSHD, would I start using it and blogging about it? I would not. It has to come from your passion, your interests. Another example... The reason EOSHD carries no advertising despite 500,000 visits per month is because I'm dispassionate about it. To do something well you have to believe in it. I believe in the books and my own filmmaking. Everything else is not concerned with the "action" as David puts it, or the love of it, but for the fruit of the action. I believe if the emphasis is placed in the action that the fruit of the action follows naturally. This is my advice for all filmmakers. Just focus on the action and only do something if you're passionately in love with it. You can make a quick buck with no passion or inspiration, but you'd have to be insane to put so much energy and effort and time into something you're not interested in.

  I will quote David Lynch... No, I'll do one better then that...   [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0[/url]

  Image quality is obviously very important, but the BMCC is not a camera that a DP would use on a big production. You'll definitely see many being used on big productions though, as B and C cams, or for specific scenes where they need a stealth camera, etc. but it doesn't have what it takes to be an A cam on a big production, and I'm not talking about image quality. They need it to be able to plug into the video village, record into external media, and so many other specific things, and the BMCC wan't made for that, it was made for us.   On top of it all, no matter how much a vimeo video looks like the BMCC to you, the F55 is a different beast in all aspects, and a much superior one I'm sure, which doesn't mean the BMCC wouldn't still be preferable for some situations or aesthetic choices.   It's apples and oranges really.

You can't compare the 'ludicrousness' of 11 stops of dynamic range recorded in 8-bit at 50Mbps to 13 stops of dynamic range recorded in 12-bit raw at 1.1Gbps.  Sorry, you just can't.

Gene there are specialist uses of a large sensor (confined spaces) as you rightly point out, and slow mo. But unless your whole film is going to be shot inside a car at 240fps, the Blackmagic is the better choice. I mean look at the history of cinema. How much super slow-mo do you see? Is it really that critical? Don't forget Sigma 8mm will be wide enough for the car shot you're trying. Equivalent to around 18mm on full frame.