Leaderboard

https://vimeo.com/87551084 Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-s on both cameras (G6 with Speed Booster). All shots graded. This is a personal test, it is not intended to be an objective comparison. Please Download the original .MOV file on Vimeo.

I've been out in Dubai for commercial work, and in my spare time I used the 5dmkIII + raw to shoot a travelogue. Tried to capture some of the lesser-known parts of Dubai and the surrounding region. Enjoy!

Here's my video to share. Had some trouble nailing focus shooting T2.8 on some crap BMPC LCD screen, but here you go! EXPERIENCE I enjoyed using this. This is a final production prototype that I am testing. What makes it great is that the setup was really light, pretty well-built, and the learning curve is pretty easy. It can resolve sharp images, especially with the achromats. On the small LCD of the pocket camera though, getting focus can be a crapshoot. Focus peaking does not always work and I had to guess a lot. I did have to tell Ying to slow down a couple times because there was no way I could pull focus, especially on a fairly fast aperture of T2.8 and pretty much 100mm equivalent lens. Really should have a large monitor. But then it's not really a run and gun lens like I was using here though. I don't feel like anamorphic in general is normally for documentary style work. Neither is the pocket camera. Hope this helps you. Erik

Of course they do. The point I'm making is that the camera is not doing the heavy lifting to make this film what it is. The imaging tools are now within reach of all of us for not much cash. Handling all the other stuff? Especially the artistic capabilities? Well... That's why I'm here typing about stuff rather than doing it, I suppose.

A large majority of consumers are happy to play and watch poor quality streamed films/movies/TV, and still be thoroughly entertained, regardless.

Exactly. You're doing work before doing your work, I'm assuming pretty often. Ideally you should never have to look at flat, log footage and begin (it's not meant for human consumption, not at all) or, on your own, push it around until it's a correct representation of what you shot for your display. The notion some folks have that when you shoot raw the image is totally up to you and arbitrary and it's in there and you just have to find it is nonsense. They've been sold a bill of goods and cameras before software was really ready to handle the footage properly. The process that's been standard up to now is incomplete and not fully realized. That will change though. It takes getting all the camera manufacturers on board and the software companies moving towards a standard though. And, unfortunately, a lot of re-education of some working professionals and enthusiasts. Until then we have to make the best with the tools we have and ride out the one-step-forward-two-steps-back reality that comes with certain advancements where software is often left behind by hardware. What's going on now reminds me of the early days of scanning film. You'd get your 10bit log .CIN files that needed to be linearized so that it was actually useful and looked like a real image. You'd get a match clip from surrounding footage and then someone would have to painstakingly, going back and forth from monitor to loupe and light table, re-create something meaningful out of the scan. In a facility of a hundred or more artists you might have one, or two or maybe three people who could adequately perform this task. Flash-forward ten years and the process had only gotten a little better but you still had a similar process happening that created a "show LUT" that might vary even if show-to-show scans were being made of the same film stock. It was terrible. Labs don't have to re-learn how to process the same film over and over again but the process would be changed project to project with digital files because it was never truly right or ideal. Thankfully those days are coming to a close and when you load a CinemaDNG or R3D or .CIN your software will already know how to display it properly and you can concentrate then on how you want it different from how it was shot.

At first the narration bothered me a bit and then slowly it just worked out. It had a very woody Allen feel to it and could have been a little nicer with more related imagery, but was still very nice.

In this model, this function is not available. But it will be implemented in the finished device.

Looking good Skip! The grade has made a big difference. I'm amazed at how stable your handheld footage looks too. Awesome.

This is the way to go. It's what you learn in every CC tutorial, you need to enhance the image step by step, in logic order, be it through a line of stacked corrections (FCP X), rooms and multiple secondary CCs (Color) or a node tree (Resolve). Enhancing means knowing what you want to achieve before and get there by successively 'destroying' (in the sense a sculptor takes away material, not as degrading) and /or adding and changing values. And why not take a neutralized (optimized for exposure and color fidelity) primary CC and apply an FC stock emulation? This could add a very subtle look. The most prestigious task is not finding a pleasing look (it may be for a music video), it is getting the style right. No haphazard experiments with flavours one has no idea from which elements they are composed. For a feature film, the director and the production designer often start with moodboards. Those are collages of photographs, sketches and bits of fabrics that help define how the film should feel. This predetermines a lot of all the things (including costumes, sets and lighting) contributing to the look, let's rather say style, desired for the final film. Ideally, imo, I am aware what I want before I start grading. Obviously I was wrong when I accused FC of muddying the water. But it can, if you are not aware of what it's all about.

A great film. Agreed. The technology is there, and it's accessible. We have already have a slew of affordable ninety-percent imaging solutions out there but so many of us are focusing all of our attention on each new 0.25% improvement rather than putting in the time and effort to master the craft, assemble the crew, recruit the talent, and bridge the gap that imaging technology never will.

Here's the thing about that short film. I could imagine this particular crew shooting it on a 5dIII and achieving the pretty close to the same end results. This particular film doesn't live or die by the imaging tech. Perhaps it's boosted by it, but it's film making that transcends the camera technology. You're watching people that know how to use their tools, so any tools they have would get utilized appropriately to tell their story.

Nikkor S 55mm 1.2 and Iscorama short test.

If its only 9 stops of DR, then that sure is a big & robust 9 stops! I've used RAW & ProRes Film/Video modes - they are all a dream (well RAW is an extra hassle I can live without). Even if it turns out that it really is only 9, the pocket just shits all over the majority of DSLRs or anything else close to its price range for that matter when it comes to image. The way you can push the footage in any direction is simply amazing - i've been doing some test CC/Grades all day for a doc i've nearly finished shooting & whatever i want to do, i can do. You just can't get hung up on this type of nit picking stuff! Its a damn nice Cinema Camera in a ridiculously small package, which produces some of the best images i've seen in a long while. Everytime i use it i just chuckle to myself about the nonsense spewed by all the detractors. Can't use it, won't use - who gives a fuck!

The mir is a kiev mount lens. You just need to get the kiev 16u - mft adapter off ebay.

Great editing choices too, btw.

I'd really like to see a comparison of the BMPC to BMCC.