Xiong

  Yeah this makes it easier for me haha

  Haha its a freaking damn amazing start comparing to getting a an expensive ass glass. Not to mention the adding a stop of light, if possible though ;)   Hurry Andrew! Haha cant wait for the test footage.

HOLY SHIT! What a great way to start the New Year! If its true, I am very excited! Like goosebumps, this mean I wont have to get an extremely expensive lens to get a closer shot If I need it, this is the perfect combo with "soon to me in my hands" GH3. Another stop of light, improved crop factor, this is a really big deal.   Yeah Andrew, it has become a an overused word, but this does qualify the use of it:   Game changer.

This is interesting, there was alot of people wanting a 35mm sized sensor so here you go I suppose. I like to know more info, more competition is always welcomed.

  Public perception, I to was in the Canon boat until I herd about the GH1, then the GH2.     Yeah, I'm all good with whats possible already. More people need to focus on their craft then anything else, but that doesnt mean a little advancement isnt bad either ;)

Yeah this is really telling, well.. If we have someone who can hack the 1D X for 4K, then we'd have a $6,800 4K dslr. This is just kinda sad really...

If it floats your boat, then good. As for pricing... yeah that's Canon alright...

  Your comment hurt my brain... Please, use at least decent grammar or sentence structure, and do stay on topic. Last we need in a forum about cameras is political views trolling people into dimwitted heated arguments.   Thank you.

This is pretty awesome, of course we wont be able to afford it but its still hitting that tech boner of mine. More competition the better, lets see what trickles down to us.

  My thoughts exactly :D

Here's an experiment I want everyone to go try:   Take your DSLR, turn it to 60fps heck even 30ps, shoot an average exterior scene with people walking on the street. Then try that with 24fps in the same scenario. You start seeing the jarring effects something so simple can have on an overall quality of the look. The reason why I mention to try it yourself is because then you'd noticed how much an improvement a "drawback" like 24fps can have on your image. Your eyes see faster then 24fps, not to mention its the standard for cinema, unless its used to portray a sense of realism or to have an "effect."   Here's a good example, you can sense it feels "realistic" and not filmic, but having that really impacts the effect of the scene. Cant tell, but seems to be shot at 30fps and post convert to 24fps, but the point is still valid on the feel of "realism/videoy"  [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgDd6dLn6ZU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgDd6dLn6ZU[/url]   With that sense of "realism" it has more of an impact on the overall story.   Much of the drawback that film has introduced is what made film so damn magical, perfect isn't always the best solution and sometime you just need the bare bone essentials. Remember im referring to the image quality, NOT THE STORY TELLING! (Alot of people are too daft to know the difference or the importance on both). Then again maybe that was Peter Jackson's intent on having it look like that. For me its an issue when props look like props, and when I'm looking at Ian McKellens contacts lenses rather then actually listening to what his characters is saying or his performance. Thats not to say I wont enjoy the movie but having things stick out like that can take me out of the movie, I think even having a good prop artist or makeup artist wont help in some of these cases.   Im all for pushing technology, but you need to use that technology correctly, I do give Peter Jackson alot of respect for daring this style of film making, but then to have Warner Bro. take note at the feedback and cutting the list of theaters actually showing it in 48fps, in my town its only showing it in one theater! Bad or good the 48fps is, Im still going to see it because I respect Peter Jackson as a film maker myself still starting out.   Now this is just speculation that depends on variable viewers tastes, Im going to find out at the midnight showing in my town, but I'm sure the complaints are real complaints though. Actually Andrew, It would be awesome to have a "People who've seen it" forum post their feedback, because I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

Wow, things got awkward while I was gone...

Alot of interesting discussions here. Still think people should step back and realize this is a phenomenal camera for its price point delivering great footage. Alot are still looking for the "end-all-be-all" camera, which will never happen. You wont see the big guys like Canon or Sony delivering on what we want out of fear for cannibalizing their markets. This is Black Magic's first outing into the camera making business there have been some pit falls but they should still be commended for trying something new.

Well, alot of people have become spoiled with how technology has made things so easy. Top quality images for the price of 3K, that still boggles my mind! Its incredible! Yet people still complain, of course pointing out one flaw that needs improvement is fine, but then to say its no C300/Alexa/RED Epic? That doesnt make any sense... I didnt know the C300/Alexa/Epic was only 3000 dollars. Thats when I throw their statements out the window, because they clearly dont realize these are in totally different market prices. The BMC isnt the end all be all camera, it has flaws, but for 3K? I can live with that. SSD are to expensive? Remember when people had to buy film? Digital can be rewritten over. Buy a few SSD's, you have infinite film real equivalent. RAW to hard in post, well you also have 10-bit proress, now your just being stubborn.   Crop factor, yes it is important, but not a deal breaker. Like what Andrew mentioned before, use wider lense. Not wide enough? Mount it outside the car, if you need the shot, you will find a way to make it happen. Spending upwards 8K plus for a camera on one shot alone? Doesnt seem plausible sacrificing image quality of the entirety of your film for one single shot if your on a budget, but thats just my opinion, do what works for you.   Sports shooting, weddings, If this is your goal then look else where. Black Magic "Cinema Camera" is aimed more towards the narrative aspect. Its aimed at the lower level price market of up-and-coming indie film makers, doesnt mean you cant use it to shoot a wedding but it wasnt designed for that type of shooting scenario, you'd want an FS100/700.   One again, these are only my opinion :) What you shoot on is your decision, we are all creative in our own way and thats whats so great. Some scenarios are best with a small GoPro then an Arri Alexa. ;)

  I will quote David Lynch... No, I'll do one better then that...   [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0[/url]

Really loving the frequent content Andrew, great article as well. You make some really fantastic points that I agree completely on about the F55 and the C500. What I think is great and probably one of Sony's best move is the compressed 4K. Sure its not RAW but its a hell of alot nicer for workflow. Just seems smarter and might sway alot of people who might be planning on shooting with the C500.

I've seen too many films to have it burned into my head, I also found it a bit distracting. Like above comments, its less noticeable until you see a breathing living subject. Just giving my feedback, there are still some interesting shots in this that I like. Keep it coming.

Real world wise, it doesnt really matter. Because every theater is different, there is no "one way" to have the proper experience at a theater. Heck it even differs room to room in a theater. I think we shouldnt be pushing 2k or 4k, we need to push theaters to calibrate their theaters correctly, its no point having 4K if you cant see anything... Seriously, awhile back I watched The Raid and the projection was absolutely garbage. Just to be curious I snuck in to another showing, and it was significantly better. It turned into a luck of the draw to me now when ever I go see a flick, crossing my fingers and hoping I get a good room with good calibration.... Someone needs to make it the standard, similar to what Lucas did with THX.

Yeah, the CameraStore guys are pretty good, great content. Just wish they gave more content.

See, I wouldnt care if the 5DMK3 was more for film makers and this was for photos, but the 5DMK3 isnt a good improvement for video from the MK2 in my opinion. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1354058227' post='22485'] Gawddamn Canon. There's moire in the damn brownies. DONE. [/quote] Yeah that quote made me laugh. :D

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392'] Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense? I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time. [/quote] Yeah, I agree. For simple medium to close up shots moire is less of an issue because you'll most likely be shooting at a wider aperture, the 5D is fine for this. But things get messy when you need landscape, having to lose that shallow depth of field can show the bigger issues of the 5D. Thats where the GH2 seems to shine, incredible amount of detail. http://vimeo.com/29549553

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353995882' post='22400'] Oh I would pay for a more polite humanity too. Where can we get one!? [/quote] When we have to get mandatory chips installed in our necks...

48fps wont be the new standard, 24fps has always been the staple and I dont see that changing. On the other hand, if cinema's wanted me to pay a premium, it'll be for watching a screen thats not horribly projected(bulb turned down for cost reasons) and being seated with actual polite audience who dont bring their kids/baby's to a Rated-R movie, and having people use their phones during a movie. So I'd rather pay for a more polite humanity haha :D

Damn... its set to private. I cant see it :(

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353988559' post='22387'] I wish GH3 was FF. [/quote] Dont we all. But im good with improved low light and better ergonomic and weather sealing, I like shooting outside alot in not perfect weather, it adds more tone to some shots that need it. Good to know a bit of rain or sand wont mess up the camera.