hmcindie

Shane isn't really a big name in the DSLR community. Where he is a big name is in the "Actually doing films"- community, which caters to a quite a different audience. Shane's articles about lighting have been really good. I don't see the problem with the images, they are tests, designed to shoot certain types of shots where these guys test the dynamic range and color science. Those tests were about 1000x better than anything done by the so-called "DSLR community". You can see the reasoning behind decisions (Alexa daytime and C500 nighttime). It really seems like people are jealous. They won't say it. But that's how it is. And the comments section of nofilmschool is hilarious. There's this Gene guy who brings up the GH2 in almost every single thing posted.

So have RAW- guys. So what's the problem? Blackmagic is here and they are offering stuff, why are people complaining? You can shoot both h.264 and raw now with the 5d hacked (and it's effing awesome!). What is this mythical camera that is missing? You guys want the C300 meshed with the FS700, 5dmarkIII AND the Blackmagic? For a grand? BTW is there a source for Pettys comments in the article? They seem like taken elsewhere, but can't be sure.

No it makes perfect sense. Going backwards (getting a great cam and sucking with everything else) is something that doesn't make sense.

"Olympus and Fujifilm have already signaled they’re moving away from budget cams and exploiting other areas with better returns. This shows there’s hope" So Fujifilm and Olympus are doing well because they are moving away from consumer cams? Ok... So Canon and Nikon should just sell all of their factories and start focusing on something else? Sometimes I just don't get it.

Difference is that the C100 actually does record 60 interlaced frames, the BMC doesn't. It only sends an interlaced signal but the frames are still progressive 30p inside it.

The A7R is basically a D800 in image quality so you're a couple of years a bit too late on the D800 love. Talking about the GH4 like it actually exists and with those features is a bit delusional. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Actually, in the real world, the Canons are very much in demand. GH series shits on the other hand? No one uses them. The BMC's might get some pro-attention at some point. We'll have to wait and see.

  Where is that based on? Canon releases new flagship cameras how often? After four-five years? That would make the next 5d come about 2016.   Where is this stalling apparent? On the low-end? Well low-end is low-end for a reason. It's for cheap-asses.   I find it funny that people are expecting Blackmagic to somehow dominate based on aliased and moired raw. They won't.

  Ehrm. I thought it looked very nice.

  It's funny how people who absolutely hate optical zooms don't mind doing them in post. (I don't mean that you do, but in general)

That test seems a bit flawed because every camera has different shadow/highlight retention. It's all about where the middlepoint is.   I also find it odd how the Epic is so pink and the F65 should have excellent highlight handling.

  Mmm, no it doesn't. It has excellent highlights. That is if you use the cinegammas properly (and don't clip the overbrights in your NLE).

Low budget indie filmmakers talk the most amount of shit of other peoples works.

I tested the FS700 vs the 5dmarkIII raw. 5dmarkIII BLEW the fs700 straight out of the water.   It was not even a contest. FS700 was muddy avchd with compression artifacts everywhere. 5dmarkIII raw was Alexa lite.   That said, I still have no problem shooting with the FS700.

  How about derailing it with actual camera tests? With a bit more scientific style? Instead of shooting a random scene, you could actually shoot a resolution chart and a dynamic range one. You could check out how much sharpening is doing to the image (now you compare a heavily sharpened 5d raw to the BMPCC, with god knows what software used).   Instead of getting some random information and "scores" we could actually get something usable? If you are doing scientific camera tests and discussions, I would agree, but these are quite far from them.

  To be fair, you can get 16-bit images to look like that easily too. 8-bit lcd monitors with low contrast just have quite a bit of limitations. 

  That's funny because every camera that shoots RAW has a sudden roll off. That's just how digital sensors work. Even Alexa, when you watch the raw material, not the prores ones. You can create a nice highlight rolloff afterwards. A lot of color science is done afterwards to get that roll-off going but everything after a certain point just clips in the sensor.   Now ACR does a bit of highlight magic when used with 5d files but that magic works even on jpegs (try it out in Photoshop, it's a filter). It uses all the channels to reconstruct the highlights.   Sometimes people are a bit confused. An iso 3200 file with the 5d will retain quite a lot more highlight information than an iso 100. Does it have more DR? No.

You expose for it just like you expose for stills. Set your aperture, iso  and shutter. Shoot away.   Exposing to right/left will always depends on the shot.

I wonder why everyone uses ISO values now? In the old days, every videocam had db values. It was easy. 0db was 0. Negative values were pulled so DR wasn't as good and positive values had gain applied so more noise. Easy. Now people are like "what's my native ISO?" and all the assorted gibberish. Atleast the FS700 let's me switch back to db from iso.

  It's plenty good for portraits.     35mm is excellent for street photography. The 10-18 is not fast but the OS is excellent.   Your just complaining "because".

  ? There's the 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 10-18mm f4 (all with IS, which is excellent for video)

I've shot four shorts with the 5dmarkIII raw. Each of them had a length of about 3-8 minutes with about 30 minutes of raw material per short. I'm starting to feel really comfortable with it and will probably shoot quite a lot of next ones with it. Besides, you guys never heard of taking a shot again? Or is your film so great that your silly actors can't do a line again?   Not one shot has been ruined.   It looks great and lowlight is awesome. But it isn't near epic sharpness (unless you really mess around).

Eh, with so shittily shot Epic footage, you guys could say ANY camera outresolves the Epic. Next time, try to focus?

You can actually even use ACR on 8-bit jpeg files. You'd be surprised by how well it can bring back highlights (it does an intelligent recovery using all channels). It also sharpens nicely.   A lot of people impressed by the "sharpness" of the 5dmarkIII raw files are actually impressed by ACR. 

It's not that big of a shortcoming. The little variations of green can be easily corrected in prores. They can be easily corrected in 8-bit jpegs too. How come little things like this are nowadays huge issues?