Sean Cunningham

You still don't understand either what you're seeing or what you're commenting on.

You're watching that screen at likely less than 2' from the display. Please take the time to understand what's being discussed. You're adding nothing to the discussion here.

Dude, it's blown by 200%.

And again, these other "real world" examples are fabricated based on what someone sees in a typical edited down fashion. I can see it now, besides with actors in any form, not just long form, all those moments lost because you either weren't rolling or just had the camera cut out on you, you will have even more lost moments when trying to capture wildlife, or anything live and unpredictable. This rationalization over 40sec being useful will all likely be moot when ML applies the trivial fix for spanning but it does reveal much.

Why do vendors keep picking these stupid, old file systems in the first place? NTFS isn't new or exotic.

But my point is still, main room or side rooms, that venue maintains every aspect of the experience. If it wasn't mind blowing there it wasn't going to be anywhere. I've had as many disappointing experiences at both the Fox in Westwood and the Chinese in Hollywood as I have good. I've never had a bad experience at the Dome which was (and I'm betting still is) the go-to place for cinefiles.

Arclight Hollywood, aka The Cinerama Dome, is a premiere theater amongst premiere theaters. There isn't a theater chain in existence, in the US, that maintains this venue's quality. Most theaters are filled with employees who don't care, no projectionists and managers that might as well be working at Burger King...hence why I only see movies at The Alamo Drafthouse since I no longer live in LA. If it's "meh" at the Cinerama Dome...that's saying something. Roll-out to the AMCs and Tinseltowns of the world was likely very premature. edit: PS, that film, Samsara, is a compelling example of why film is still important for a variety of types of films today. They took an amazing hit to their image quality deciding to go with the best DI offered. A 4K DI is proxy resolution compared to their o-neg. 4K is a proxy to what's on the neg of anything "Filmed in Panavision" even.

It was obvious at 100% magnification on my screen. I blew it up for the grabs from the 32bit CS6-AE viewport for illustrative purposes on a web page such as this. I even said that if you had no basis for comparison there's nothing lacking in the 5D version. Hyperbolic claims of this thing being a BMD killer, of any model, provoked me into having a look...putting aside a host of deal-breaker caveats that may or may not be overcome by the ML folks that currently prevent this achievement from transcending its current reality as no threat to any cinema camera.

Yes. I like things that are real. I like to make intelligent choices. I am a dangerous person.

Movement does not equal progress. And here you have refuted none of my responses to what you've said. If I didn't know any better I'd assume you didn't really understand what you were selling.

They posted one frame of DNG, dude, for both cameras. Let the punters who wanted to declare the G6 a horribly, horribly soft camera compared to the GH2 based on compressed video uploads of no providence argue over detail and image clarity via streaming sources.

Lots of people outside the US were smart enough to say "no" to GMO foods and all kinds of other stuff sold to Americans as good and necessary and useful. American consumers are wholly ignorant beasts, by and large. I credit the internet (along with financially hard times) for GM and Ford's move in just the last couple years to start selling cars to Americans that are near as good as what they've been selling to Europeans for more than a decade.

LOL, they "forsee". They were sold. Please. They were convinced that audiences were going to come to expect to see that stupid logo, even though they were rarely going to see a film actually finished at 4K. It's sales, nothing more.

I'm sorry, just, no. You either haven't worked on enough stuff, or been around production enough, or you haven't worked on something where you and your camera and your camera's problems aren't the center of the universe.

Well, I think Andrew is right about the file-spanning issue being at least as fixable as it was on the GH2. That sorta begs the question why they didn't just implement a trivial fix already, given the nature of the hack itself and the size of the data being written. Worse than the limit is folks thinking that, if the limit isn't lifted, it's a perfectly workable caveat. That's just absurd.

No, definitely not. It is incredibly, incredibly naive to base any assumption on shooting lengths based on final edit lengths. People are not robots. They do not instantly come to ready at the same time. They do not get their head into the game at the same time. The more people involved the more ramp-up time is needed. 40sec isn't enough time to slate in some cases. If you're doing something difficult or emotionally charged, you may have been rolling a minute or more before a take actually begins. If ML does nothing more than where current development is at today, they have to get true continuous recording or this thing is a big toy.

Until this thing can record until the card fills up with a single press of the button it's got no place on a legitimate set. I'm pretty confident they'll get it there though. If they don't that answers for all time whether this development is any sort of threat to anything.

Dude, 4K projection does not equal 4K. They're not projecting 4K DCPs exclusively or even as a majority. It's not the size of the screen it's the size of the screen relative to viewing distance that determines optimal spatial resolution. You're argument is invalid without taking into account viewer distance from the set. A 50" set is on the threshold of making 1080P worthwhile at a viewing distance of 10' (but not decidedly better than 720P in this case)...you know, like on the wall, with a coffeetable in front of you, sitting on a couch. 10' is a luxury for some (certainly in Los Angeles or Tokyo) but at 10' a set would have to be way over 100" for 4K to be beneficial. And this doesn't take into account we don't even have good 1080 transmission yet, because it's compressed all to hell. edit: here's an interesting aside, since this guy mentions 4K projection. 4K Sony projection makes, if you're not careful, Alexa and F65 footage look like absolute garbage. I was totally convinced that Killer Joe was shot on some ENG camera after seeing it in 4K projection not too long ago. I was so immediately distracted by how video it looked and I came to the conclusion, before just watching the film, that times were tough for William Friedkin and he just made the movie as best he could (good movie, looked horrible in the theater). I got home only to find out it was an Alexa shoot. Wow. Similarly, and I still don't know where the producers spent $17M on the latest Evil Dead movie, but that thing was shot on the F65 and it looked like digital video, ironically projected by a 4K Sony projector. Just terrible. I bet it will look better on BD though. Same for Killer Joe. My point is, we haven't got the current stuff figured out and playing nice together or maintaining quality at all points. We don't have anything close to unadulterated quality in the home at current standards or even in the theater at current standards.

Well then, smart guy, remind me when the breakthru in human evolution occurred that, not in a millennia, not in a century and not even in a generation but within the span of a product cycle uplifted the resolving power of our eyes so that the resolution in a 4K display of average television size isn't completely wasted as a result of physics and biomechanics. PS> they had HD in the labs since the 1950s, before we went to the moon, before a majority of TV owners were "enjoying" color sets. Technology improved in all that time but our eyes are the same.

Roger Avery (Tarantino's writing partner and basis for scripts up to and including Pulp Fiction) did his rough edit for Rules of Attraction in iMovie on his jellybean iMac, if memory serves.

4K in the home is rather stupid.

And here's an example with the 5D footage enhanced as well...5D on top, BMCC below, 1:1 @ 200% ...even enhanced, there are far more areas that do not resolve out to see blades but remain clumps. Because the structure and detail has to be there to be enhanced.

This isn't "perceived detail", or false detail. This is blades of grass: ...that's unaltered 5D on top, BMCC on the bottom, 1:1 to each other @ 200% ...if it were "false" detail then further enhancing wouldn't further resolve maintained blade structure, here still at 1:1 to each other, 5D on top and enhanced BMCC on the bottom (mild de-moire + my LCE scheme). ...and here we have 5D on top and BMCC on the bottom scaled down to 1080. The comparison would be even worse for the 5D if you were to go the other direction.

  People are worried about this but the fact is, at least the software I use, has been going down in price since original introduction, not up.  When first introduced, the bread-n-butter application that I use the most, After Effects, was something like $1400 and change in top configuration.  It's gone down since but I likely spent at least $600+ on upgrades since then.  I forget what I originally paid for Premiere back in the mid '90s, though it wasn't as expensive as AE.  Photoshop was also quite expensive, if you didn't absolutely live in it and depend on it heavily.   So, since I've been an Adobe customer for fifteen years or more and have seen the price go down while the value go up I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and not freak out until they actually do anything that could actually be considered a "wrong" to me.  They're in full-on tinfoil hat mode over at P-V over this. 

Comparing both DNG files I can confirm there is substantially more detail in the BMCC image. Opening up the stills on their page masks the difference, being a scaled down file. Viewed 1:1 the 5D image isn't comparable at all looking at the grass. It's like looking at a stock GH2 compared to something like IV2 or Moon footage. The blades are green blobs and the detail in the back bushes is entirely impressionistic. That's looking at the 5D footage as a 1920x1080 image on top of the 2400x1350 BMCC image. The detail comparison is made worse if you scale down the BMCC footage to 1080P and A:B those two images. You can still see individual blades of grass where the 5D is sorta blobby. The image from the 5D isn't bad though. I only make it sound harsh because I'm looking at one as a partial overlay on the other. If you were to see the 5D footage without any comparison I'm sure you wouldn't be missing the extra detail because it's still a pleasing image. They likely picked the single worst scenario for moire that one could, however. That road. I can get it reduced with a non-aggressive setting, which likewise eliminates it from all the leaf highlights in the trees, etc., but if that shot were for a film an extra level of attention would be given to it through a mask.