Leaderboard

The only thing that was truly "scary" about that clip is how good the ungraded footage looks. FUnkin Redonkulous.

I actually think Jim is spot on here, and Dragon looks amazing.   That part is such an important differentiating factor in a camera. If you want to see something stupid look at Sony. They gave their best sensor technology to Nikon (D800) and put a lousy moire riddled 24MP chip in their OWN camera (A99, VG900) which isn't as good on the stills side either. It is like they wanted to lose? Canon on the other hand will develop one truly good sensor every 3 years and try to shoehorn it into 10 different products to make as much money as possible. Incredibly boring. Jim is also correct in his reference to Canon's fabrication process - it is old by modern semiconductor standards. Panasonic and Olympus seem happy meanwhile to be also-rans and buy Sony sensors, this despite the fact Panasonic had a cutting edge CMOS program of their own. Baffling. How can they ever hope to overcome Canon, Nikon and Sony if they can't out perform them on image quality? Fuji innovate on the sensor side - but sadly not on the business side. They had the chance to replace their film stock with a digital equivalent and didn't. Happy to let their cinema business die along with Kodak. Again - baffling.   The Germans have it right. Leica with CMOSIS and Arri. The Japanese don't seem to have a clue at the moment, maybe it is the economy.

Hey guys, I've run a recording studio for about 15 years now, and find myself running into the same issues over and over again. I've also been giving the same speech for about as long, and thought I'd compile it into a short "how to" video for YouTube. Bring your sense of humor, as I don't pull any punches. Shot on a GH2, ISCO Ultra-Star, and 37mm Mir. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw25dOC7H9M&hd=1

This is beginning to have religious undertones... relax man, you are talking about and heavily promoting a sensor, not peace on earth :blink:

  You think the RED1-M was a better sensor than the F35?   Sony and Arri have been ahead of RED on sensor tech... RED just used resolution as the ultimate goal, whereas ARRI and Sony concentrated on DR, colour, skin tones....   Please note, i'm not discussing prices, fps, raw etc.... Just the sensor tech and Jim Jannard's claim that RED are the most invested.

Alot of interesting discussions here. Still think people should step back and realize this is a phenomenal camera for its price point delivering great footage. Alot are still looking for the "end-all-be-all" camera, which will never happen. You wont see the big guys like Canon or Sony delivering on what we want out of fear for cannibalizing their markets. This is Black Magic's first outing into the camera making business there have been some pit falls but they should still be commended for trying something new.

i like RED products, but....   "RED is more invested in sensor development than ARRI or Sony"?   Really, care to share the proof, as ARRI are kicking their ass with current sensors. Sony's F55 has 14 stops with a global shutter....

  These days, the marginal benefit per dollar spent on a lighting set up easily exceeds what you get from incrementally better camera tech.  I like to light things with a three light kit.   [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html[/url]   You can always find cheaper generic versions of these too.   Most on camera lights these days are LED, and while they give you a nice soft light, they still don't have the best color.   I like this for on-camera: [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html[/url]

Hi did shoot Black Swan's subway scenes with a Canon 7D and Canon lenses. :)   It's not uncommon at all to go wider than that on Super 35mm. Most of the Harry Potter films' main lens was a 21mm, and many other films use equally wide or even wider lens choices. It's a valid aesthetical choice and to me the argument "no one does/uses that anyway" is always a weak one. Films shouldn't all look the same, people shouldn't all use the exact same focal lengths, versatility is very important.   I don't think the BMCC's sensor size is a problem though, it's not that different from super 35, and between the EF and MFT mounts you should be able to use most of the available super 35 lenses, and maybe even some 16mm lenses too.   Having a pure super16 or super35 sensor size would work better with cine lenses, that's a fact, but few people amongst the target market of this camera own cine lenses anyway.

Correct, creative modes are point & shoot, no manual control. I don't see a place for them.

[EDIT: There was a typo before so this was directed at the wrong person.]   @endlos You want to know why those apps are not getting the attention the BMCC is? Because with the BMCC you are talking about expanding a segment of the pro philosophy, workflow, paradigm and quality into a much lower price range. It's about asking people to do more with their images, asking prosumers, amateurs and indie people to take advantage of a new opportunity to work like their higher budgeted peers would (or to adopt a variant of that approach) in regards to getting a bit more serious about color, detail and grading. It's about not saying "good enough" in terms of quality.   Key components: - Massive increase in quality available at a given price point. - Preservation of/refinement of a workflow designed for professionals (in regards to color grading) and emphasis on a tweak-able RAW acquisition format. - To be crystal clear: the camera is designed to encourage people to really focus on getting good quality.    There are tons of issues that go along with that camera that are more or less important to given people but let's compare that to the Apple Final Cut X Pro (I'll ignore Motion for the moment because I think a smaller community could contribute to the discussion at present).   - Final Cut X Pro was not an evolution of the industry standard editing approaches. It could not be seen as Final Cut Pro 8, etc. and it did not encourage a lower income subset of the existing market to think more like their higher paid counterparts had done. Instead it completely restructured the approach taken and asked everyone (professionals included) to adopt it. The fact that certain facets of the approach had been more clearly signaled in earlier consumer products than in the professional ones also left a bad taste in many peoples mouths.   - BMCC delivers a product that directly responds to what many indie filmmakers (and would-be filmmakers) had been asking for. The benefits were clearly visible and many parts of the online community felt listened to and respected by the design decisions. Some people wanted to wait for the next evolution (in terms of mount or sensor size) but few people said anything amounting to "this is the wrong direction".   - There was no obvious increase in image quality with FCP X. Let me be crystal clear about that: if you spend a similar amount of money on a new or used competing product vs Final Cut X Pro new, you will be able to buy something else that can get you similar quality. You are paying for the workflow approach you prefer. I am not saying that one is better or worse and I know several people that really enjoy FCP X and I'm not trying to bag on the app. But it is not (and never has been) a product that brought higher image quality to a massively lower price point - it just brought Apple's price point down.     - Final Cut X Pro launched at $300. That's a big cut from ca. $1,000 but less impressive compared to some of the competitors. Premiere Pro and Vegas already occupied a price-point between the two and Premiere Pro currently offers a rental program that the competitors do not. On top of that, the low end variants (such as Sony Vegas HD Movie Studio Platinum) have expanded to included more and more functionality at price points under $100 (not to mention less mainstream efforts such as Lightworks being even more aggressive).   - All this doesn't even take into account that Apple already had Final Cut Express available at $200. FCP X represents a price increase for that (discontinued) product.  - The BMCC represents the addition to the marketplace of a new product without the removal or discontinuation of another.  - To re-examine the respective differences, the gap in price between FCP 7 Studio (which included more in the way of bundled applications) and FPC X (which costs less but got rid of some of the bundled software) is $600. If we consider the excluded apps as having value of their own, that means we are looking at a proportional difference that is smaller than that. Apple had already reduce the pricing of FCP 7 by $300 compared to a previous edition - so they completely changed functionality but continued with their decreasing pricing strategy.   - By comparison, the BMCC arrived into a market that had no RAW movie options under $9,700 - yet it launched for just under $3K, with $1k professional color grading software bundled at no additional cost. While that may look like a similar percentage to the Apple pricing change, that's a price cut of more than $6,500 in the market with no competitors (then or now) available at the same price point for RAW recording (without factoring in the software). If we look at the overall price difference (as it relates to the funds available for the potential consumers) this is a very big deal.   And in regards to discussion of Redmatica and Logic: I remember when I was read to switch sequencers to Logic, right as Apple bought EMagic and discontinued the PC version. I remember all the headaches of AU and the discontinuation of VST support - not to mention the frequent Quicktime/AU incompatibility issues that cropped up with subsequent OS upgrades. I also remember that quality did not improve in the plug-ins compared to TDM, VST, MAS, Direct X (etc.) alternatives already in play at the time.    I remember their consolidation of the Logic range, the eventual price cuts and I compare to those to the price cuts by many competing companies on products they were about to discontinue. I do this not as evidence that Apple has any plans to discontinue their audio products, but to refute the argument that they could be used as evidence that Apple will not discontinue those product lines.   I remember how one of the first things Apple did after the bought EMagic was to port underlying technology from Logic to Garageband. I also remember that Garageband had very serious limitations in terms of sample rate and bit depth - limits that were exceeded by various freeware applications on the PC that adopted a different workflow. In fact, if you were just recording live players, you could have gotten better samplerates and bit depth with inexpensive shareware like Cool Edit 2000. In other words, Apple bought a company primarily making professional tools and one of the first things they dedicated their resources to was an inescapably consumer/amateur oriented product with some very hardwired limitations. While Apple may use Redmatica to leverage their professional line, they might just as easily emphasize the lower end here.   Apple has a history of creating new approaches, discontinuing old ones and forcing their entire customer base to either adopt the new approach or jump ship. Some markets are much more open to this than others. Microsoft, for all their faults, only recently discontinued support for Windows 3.11. Different companies take different approaches and people value one priority over another. I really like Apple's industrial design. I consider them to be market leaders in that area for good reason. I find their software design to be much more of a mixed bag and I disagree with many choices they've made in the software area. In other words, I feel both positive and negative things towards them and have no desire to see them put on a pedestal or unfairly critiqued. But I see very little to support your thesis that Apple is doing for video editing software what BMCC is doing for low-priced cinema cameras. To some people it may be just as important, but it is fundamentally different - and to people like myself, it is less helpful.

Zach,   It's marketing and perhaps the truth or partial truths or slightly stretched truths???  ...   I'm hoping the dragon lives up to what Jim is boasting. It could change the camera frontier in a big swoop.    16 STOPS!!! - it could be bullshit or it could be the truth. 

Cool,   I was flicking through the filmography and thinking to myself - this looks a lot like my DVD collection ;)