Leaderboard

nothing but.. the scam mainly works and exists and perpetuated by people that do not have the lens. they rely 100% on other peoples fotos. they are usually ignorant of foto and lens talk type questions will say i am not at home for a few days so cannot get to the lens. nothing wrong with bank transfers nothing wrong with money transfers ebay and paypal are just as corrupt as any scumbag thief. they take 100s of millions of dollars from honest listings and fake ones they still charge the saint and the crook. check sellers past sales any foto stuff any history in that area what are the other sales. video confererance call skype whatever video on mobile or dealing with known people i suppose helps. the scam survives based on other peoples fotos. it relies on quick ebay listing giving out email address or hacking of dorment account for the listing. speed and natural greed of humans 2 iscoramas for the price of one for fuck sake come on folks. proofs of iscorama life fotos shot with it proof other than ad type stuff is all that is needed holding it up in front of a ipad already. or do what i do do trading.. i have an iscorama 42 ex nasa if anyone has a castle in estonia or hungary or the czech republic i will even throw in a tokina achromat and a lens cleaning cloth only used a couple of times the cloth that is top quality materials the cloth that is.

They're only low volume because they're being produced by a small company. Given that they can't make them faster than they can sell them it stands to reason the larger companies could beat BMD at their own game because scale is on their side. Your naysaying doesn't make any sense. Your argument also ignores the fact that all of the majors are selling cameras purposely retarded from doing what BMD cameras are doing. Every DSLR is a raw camera internally. It's more engineering, more complexity and more work added on top to arrive at shitty compressed footage, not less. For reasons ranging from apathy to protectionism they aren't doing what BMD is doing and they're doing more work and spending more per camera to NOT answer that segment of the market.

Has anyone shot a feature on a ML 5DmkIII? BMPCC is even newer. If this trailer just came out back up to six months ago as a conservative guess for when they rolled on first shot, but this is a film already in theaters so conservatively you're looking at maybe a year ago, and that would be really fast. Folks who haven't ever made a feature can offer all sorts of Monday Morning Quarterback suggestions. He might have just used the best camera he had access to. The MKIII makes some sense if you already own it, not really as a new purchase decision in light of renting other equipment (then or now) or getting a great result out of a camera you might already own, or might get free. $3-5K can pay for catering. Nobody here knows the circumstances. At a time when he could shoot on anything Soderberg chose to shoot a feature on an XL-1S when it wasn't even close to being the best or state-of-the-art for DV cameras at the time. He had his reasons. And even when he goes with an expensive, high-quality camera, on his own (The Girlfriend Experience) the result is quite raw and un-finished looking and that's his choice for that project. Odds are ML-RAW wasn't available in this case (if this is recent enough for that then it begs the question: why Sedna?) and, still, I come up with nothing but some shorts being done that way when I google. This could be a pre-final trailer also. I couldn't actually see much evidence it was graded at all. Even though it's on a site taking tickets it could very well be an early trailer, especially dealing with small sales companies. Smaller outfits in general simply aren't always that great about getting the best or most current materials out there, or going back to re-conform an earlier trailer with final materials. Looks fairly raw (in the totally un-cc'd sense) to me and as such the lesser looking individual shots could have been improved substantially in grading. But maybe this was just a purist, wham-bam, no post, warts and all "Dogme" style production where they weren't going to sweat the aesthetics. Maybe the DP actually was sub-par but try and reconcile the fact that Underwater Love was shot by the same man who does Wong Kar Wai's sublimely beautiful films.

No argument there. It would cost twice as much and come with a shitty codec. They'd fill it up with BS and create a half dozen models with meaningless, incremental differences between them and none containing all of the features most asked for. Something like what we have. Not that it matters to anyone but I don't want them in this market. All I've ever pointed out is how effortless it would be for them to have done it if they wanted to. The BMD cameras are far simpler devices than the $300 Rebel at BestBuy that's essentially designed to be crap so that someday you'll buy one that's maybe less crap...but still crap.

  1.5x crop APS-C or even full frame matters less now Speed Booster exists. Arguably the smaller 2x or 2.4x crop sensors even have an advantage, because they tend to have faster read out speeds, better pixel binning methods and more innovative optics attached.   That said, full frame stills looks magical, it's just a shame the A7R's video quality isn't that hot. The 5D Mark III raw on the other hand...   And where does the 70D fit into this picture? It doesn't. Unless you really need AF in video mode, which I wouldn't touch with a barge poll. Manual focus does exactly what you want it to do. Even the best AF racking isn't as reliable or controllable by comparison.

I hardly think a Resolve deck or Resolve 10 is an unpolished beta device!!   Be thankful Blackmagic are giving us interesting cutting edge products, because Canon just isn't. That's the crux of it!   I don't think producing an APS-C sensor version of the BMPCC has to necessarily be expensive like a typical Canon spec APS-C video camera - i.e. $15,000. Why do I think that? Well the Blackmagic Production Camera has an APS-C (Super 35mm) sized sensor, shoots 4K raw with a global shutter and costs $4000.   Canon's strengths are based on their legacy as a leader in optics and a leader in CMOS sensor development.   None of their current products have shown anything like the same amount of innovation or class leading attributes. They all seem to be cynical high margin money spinners or in the case of their DSLRs, barely any different to the old models.

anybody who makes a theatrically released film gets a salute from me; the more democratic the materials the more impressive the achievement so good for them

>  He was banned by Andrew for no reason other than Andrew himself fell for it. It was a good Pepsi challenge for us all and illuminated some good points. There was a nice discussion going but the guy was banned and his thread deleted.   Less Pepsi challenge actually, more con trick, and an attempt to bring the forum as a trusted knowledge base into disrepute. If you'd tried the same on a sports field you'd be charged with bring the sport into disrepute. My job on EOSHD is to protect the quality of the resource from outside interference. I'm simply doing my job. If someone is blatantly misleading people and speaking total crap and has everyone fooled, my job is to nuke that kind of bullshit in the butt. I don't care if you call it censorship or wielding an iron fist. It matters to me that this forum does not mislead people.   D.L Watson was attempting to justify his purchase at the expense of the creditability of the whole EOSHD forum. Every poster here who has contributed something useful to the forum, had their combined contribution which was years in their making and of mine, knocked for six by this guy simply because he wanted to prove that 8bit was as good as 10bit because he'd backed the 8bit horse and wanted to be right, and us, wrong.   I endured several pages of misleading bullshit in his thread... him mishandling the Blackmagic footage and claiming it was from the GH3, so we'd all point at the 8bit footage as looking weird, so he could come on several days and pages later to wag the finger at us saying how idiotic we were and that actually it was the GH3 which shot the best looking footage and that we had confirmation bias every time we heard the word "Blackmagic".   In short, a sick joke. You have to protect the truth and one way to do that is to simply delete the bullshit, and ban the bullshit generator so it doesn't keep coming down the pipe.   Thanks!

BMPCC and this GM1 makes a great pocket cinema package! The wireless video streaming/follow focus during recording to your tablet/phone is a great feature if you place the camera in tight/cornered place, don't think any other camera have this feature.

I'm going to have to take a contrarian view, here. I believe that Mr. Petty would be much better-off if he focused on his own cameras' quality control, firmware, and supply issues and less on bad-mouthing the big players in the camera and lens markets. It makes perfectly logical sense to me that those manufacturers turned-down his camera ideas precisely because they didn't think that they could make money manufacturing them. And I think that they were RIGHT. As passionate as a lot of us here may be with these high-dynamic range, raw workflow bodies that BM is making, the lion's share of professional cinematographers will gravitate towards RED, Alexa, and the EOS Cinema line of cameras. Those cameras are low-volume, high-margin products. The stills-centric, DSLR market is conversely high-volume and low-margin. BM (and similar) “bootstrap†digital cinema cameras are arguably low-margin and low-volume... which won't ever attract the major players. Meanwhile Mr. Petty can sit on his high horse and complain about these money-grubbing big boys that scoffed him and his ideas. But at the end of the day, he still needs to employ HIS tiny workforce of 350 people, by choosing at least SOME products that can make money... such as his excellent high-volume, low-margin post-production equipment that put BlackMagic on the map. While I admire altruism and passion, unless Mr. Petty has deep pockets like Jim Jannard, he needs to focus on business. And making that evil money... by giving people the products they want, at the price that they're willing to pay, and at the quantities that can support BM's bottom line. I'm sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but that's how I see it.

I have this with my wife, and wouldn't trade it for the world... but, still trying to have both. If I was pushed to have either or, I'd take what I have now over anything else. That, and the MOST important thing of all... good physical & mental health. :)

They removed it because they can't be seen to endorse anything that isn't arse licking when it comes to the big names in the DSLR community.

Nearly completely shot on the C100, I think that if someone cannot do nice film with the C100, then no matter what technology he uses won't make a difference.

I don't read the site so not sure what's going on there… I do however know we are coming to a point where 99% of the internet is recycled material re-posed and re-posted ad infinitum. My RSS feed this weekend read like the contents of a junk mail folder. One black friday deal after the other, with the occasional cut and pasted news article. Not a good sign for the future of the internet. Censorship? Just the tip of the iceberg my friend :)

It seems it's quite hard to coherently grade this camera across a feature. Shot to shot Upstream Colour was all over the place, even in the same location. But for that film it work, it added to the confusion.... for standard narrative maybe not so much TBH it's hard enough with raw, when there are so many factors and lighting is predominantly practical.