Andrew Reid

[quote name='nickname' timestamp='1346174725' post='16737'] i hope with the bmcc we don´t need the gh3/7d/60d/5d/d700/d800/a77/a99 anymore for video. [/quote] You will still need the GH3/A99 by my reckoning. And D800 takes great stills too.

I have nothing against Shane. Nice guy. Not sure if he really thinks the 5D2 beats film, not seen the context. He is a Canon Explorer of Light, and as I said before (controversially) I prefer not to see DPs involve themselves so closely with manufacturers if they are reviewing and blogging. Manufacturer links are incredibly important, and there's no way in hell any reviewer will speak as negatively as I do about poor products if they were trying to maintain a cordial atmosphere with a sponsor. This is why Shane's blog is so positive, and occasionally I can have a huge rant. I am free to do that, to him, it wouldn't be considered professional.

No that is correct, intra stores every frame 'as is' and inter makes up a sequence of B and P frames in-between real I frames.

Did he really say that? In what context? If true - Oh dear.

Of course you can sharpen 600 lines to look like 890, but I have never known for a chart test to include post work before. You shouldn't muddy the water (no pun intended!) with a sharpening filter in post. A resolution line count doesn't tell you how clean that detail is, or if it is jagged and haloed. It would be interesting to see the affect on a line count that various levels of sharpening in Premiere has - by seeing before and after tests on all cameras not just the 5D3. I.e. which cameras stand to gain most from a bit of work in post. Certainly the 5D3 does more so than say a T2i. Maybe you can do that, I for one would be interesting in publishing the results. Cheers

No it doesn't all come down to just frame compression, it is how the compression is allocated within a frame, how motion in between i-frames in a long GOP codec is predicted with B and P frames, the quality of those 'synthetic' frames and a lot more very technical stuff. If you look at the ALL-I frame compression, the 5D Mark III has less compression per frame than the FS100, but still the lows are gone. See what I mean? [img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5d3-vs-fs100-lows-660x312.jpg[/img]

Your reasons are entirely valid. My aim is not to shove a project out of the door with maximum efficiency and I am very lucky to have time on my side, without clients demanding to gimp at the footage or set unrealistic deadlines. I'm self funded and an artist, so the Blackmagic is perfect for me.

As I said before these are demo units, I am not sure what the stipulation is about putting footage out or full reviews from the pre-prod models. Also, a bit more patience would help. Philip Bloom isn't even home yet. Seb's shoot looks nice, just be patient and let them do it justice. A new camera always takes longer to get to grips with.

OK next person to mention the GH3 wins a prize.

Mirrorkisser, disagree with me on cameras please, not over my administration of my own god damn site.

Yes indeed not all intra-frame high bitrate codecs are created equally, especially encoder chips. A lot of the mosquito noise on the 5D Mark III come from low contrast areas where the codec hasn't allocated enough data, or allocated it in the correct way. Sony NEX is already better in that regard, with cleaner shadows too and the FS100 especially so. They are not even ALL-I 80Mbit but the engine and sophistication on display is vastly higher.

[quote name='cpc' timestamp='1346156462' post='16704'] There are some tests on BMCuser that indicate (at least some) s16 lenses may actually work pretty well in terms of coverage. Problems with wide mount side lens diameter may prevent mounting though. [/quote] Yes this is indeed the main issue. I have an OCT19 mount adapter for Canon, this is also a positive lock mount, basically a Russian copy of PL. The rear of the lens hits the mount because it is too shallow and not wide enough. Out of 10 lenses I only have 2 that physically fit, and one of those doesn't focus to infinity because the rear of the lens moves back further the closer you get to infinity. The register distance of PL is actually very long but the rear element of the lens sits at a very variable distance depending on the lens, zero standardisation in the Soviet days.

Photodiode enlargement sounds like a fancy name for gapless micro lenses. It will be intriguing to see what new technology there is under the hood since Sony seem to be pushing so hard on CMOS at the moment, patent after new patent. What is 'light concentration' technology? I thought the lens did that ;) True very little info about the video specs, bitrates, frame rates, etc. Hopefully it will have uncompressed HDMI too.

Most PL mount S16 lenses won't fit the Canon mount anyway. Perhaps Illya at Hot Rod Cameras can provide an extensive mount mod in future though. Then, some S16 lenses will likely cover the sensor but some will vignette because like as John correctly says above the sensor is larger. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blackmagic-cinema-camera-sensor-size-660x462.jpg[/img] I have tried a lot of S16 lenses on the GH2 (which is larger again). The primes like 25,50,75mm don't vignette. The wide angle stuff (10,12,20mm, etc.) vignette wildly as do the zooms. This is a shame as there is a beautiful Zeiss Distagon S16 lens on eBay right now for £500 which is 8mm T2.1. I think on the next BMD camera the sensor should run in three modes: Standard 16:9 as now Anamorphic 4:3 Super 16mm crop mode And the mount should be interchangeable. A custom bayonet with 18mm flange to get that EF tube out of the equation then official adapters provided by Blackmagic for EF, Nikon F, PL, c-mount and Micro Four Thirds. rather than relying only on Hong Kong ones. Alternatively if the M43rd's mount can be licensed from Panasonic even better. To have electrical contacts to use lenses like the 12-35mm F2.8, Olympus 12mm F2 would be ideal. Non-electrical and you can still adapter every other mount and use Micro Four Thirds lenses such as the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 and 17.5mm F0.95. I also want to use Leica M mount lenses, but until then you can use Leica R lenses with the EF mount no problem. I know Blackmagic got some flack for their use of the EOS mount but it certainly makes a good starting point. There are a LOT of people out there with big investments in L glass for instance, and they will be happy to be able to use them with full aperture support on the Blackmagic. One question I have until I get my camera - does IS work too?

Yeah I am all for strong opinions and different ones to mine and when I counter the argument with a tough one of my own, that is often my style. It does definitely mean we can shake hands afterwards and an opinion should not count against someone. Fair play, respect, judge someone by their work not their opinions or political views I say. When it gets personal, people doing these character assassinations like it is gang warfare it really sucks.

I don't jump on everything, far from it. Anyway, back on topic now please. Otherwise this thread too will be going round the U-bend.

I don't know why giving them good news, makes them so upset. Maybe they need to take their medication.

Also 240fps is absolutely beautiful. It isn't a gimmick. Just don't overuse it.

Sure the C300 is nice but I don't agree with your assessment of the FS700, it isn't a gimmick camera or a bitch. And I know a lot of bitches and gimmicks :) The FS700 is one of the most future proof cameras out there not to mention the fact it is a full $6000 cheaper than the C300. Again the codec issue is sorted out by a $200 external box the size of a 2.5" USB hard drive, and again I just don't agree that it falls a long way short of the C300. The F3's image is actually superior to the C300, because it is 10bit and LOG. That makes a difference, more so than the fancy sub-sampling on the C300's sensor. But again we are talking very small differences here, they are ALL great cams. Some better priced than others (cough).

I have no problem with your personal preferences. But I feel you could do with using your eyes a bit more and brain a bit less. There's no way the 5D3 comes close to the Blackmagic in terms of resolution. I don't need to see a chart to see that. Slashcam based in Berlin are one of the most reputable professional review sites in Europe and if they say it has 600 lines then why would I doubt them? I'm planning to do a chart test with Falk Lumo of the 5D3 and GH2, but due to being so busy have not yet printed the charts. Charts do act as proof. In the meantime, your eyes and ears are just as accurate.

Yes get the Icy E-SATA dock for $30 and stick the drive into that. Lots of external drive readers are available.

Well that is true of many a DSLR, not just the 5D Mark III. So what is the unique selling point? Full frame sensor, yes. But look to the future and what Sony are bringing out. Also arguably the D800 is superior in a lot of ways. More detail in the shadows in raw stills, more resolution in both modes, and far nicer build, more tactile and better HDMI output. I don't hate the 5D Mark III but it just isn't good enough for video. Really, trust me, 1280x720 which is the REAL resolution of 1080p on the 5D Mark III is no match for 2400x1350 on the Blackmagic camera. Those larger files size give you a better image, who doesn't want that? Also it only takes 30 minutes to transcode a bunch of raw files to H.264 if you need the reduced files sizes and native editing workflow. I am sure in most projects you can find an extra 30 minutes.

Good conversation in this thread. Much better than how it went down at DVX

Great work as always by the time. Bare in mind that bitrate isn't the main problem with Canon DSLRs though. So it is unlikely to have any impact on image quality compared to the default 40Mbit or so. When Magic Lantern comes to the 5D Mark III however, then things will get interesting... :)

What are people's thoughts on this? Apple deserve to be rewarded for their innovation, on which they have done a lot more than most. But patenting basic physics in a user interface, what is that about? I have a feeling the patents system needs overhauling when it comes to software design. When you scroll a page on your phone it bounces back when it hits the bottom or the top. Basic physics in user interface design. Well you won't be seeing that in any cameras any time soon because Apple now OWN basic physics in user interface design. It is a big joke that they are allowed to patent this stuff and charge license fees for such basic things. When our camera touch screen UIs glow blue if you hit the bottom of a list, or do something else freaky like a fireworks display or flashing lights - you know who is to blame. I am no patent expert but I believe you're not allowed to patent universal concepts like physics, mathematics, colours and shapes. It seems the US patents system has forgot that when it comes to the virtual world. Here's Google's reaction to the Apple vs Samsung battle, and restricting customer access to Android devices http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19389732 I have a hard time believing any of this is good for the user. It limits consumer choice so much.