markm

I agree. It's vaporware. Like the digital Bolex. Almost like a look what we can do project.

Blanche whatever you're doing you're doing right! Footage looks great.

Nice test. As for recapturing blown detail probably the same as BMC RAW.   Regarding 16 bit It wont be much use unless it is a transfer to film and even then I doubt it will make any difference.   Regarding rolling shutter That's a lot of money to pay for somehting that 99% of the time you can work around.   Regarding the better CFA. It looks videoy. Still doesn't render beautiful colours like film. In fact what I have seen so far I would prefer the Arri camera. Although if the CFA can be adjusted someone may come up with a more filmic pattern that more matches film. Wouldn't hedge my bets on it though.   All in all I cant see a reason why you would buy this over the BMC except for a stop better bokeh and more bells and whistles.

Why does every mission have to involve a crew? Lots of unmanned future missions planned where a high def camera like this will pay dividends

I expect Nasa want a very high defination film camera for space missions.

questech   The GH2 doesn't have high levels of noise with the hacks? You will have to give more information about your tests like what ISO you used. The GH2 has higher noise levels over 500asa I personally try never to go above the lowest setting and use fast lenses instead. I've never had a problem with noise or the need to degrain as long as I stick to low ISO levels.

Merry Xmas film man and everyone. Have a great new year.   Mark

Yellow nope just watched the vimeo video which was very distracting to say the least. I was just looking at the highs and lows which looked fine to me and basicly just how her hair blows out. This is obviously an 8 bit image and not raw So the original look where the hair highlight may have been recoverable I don't know.As for the rest Probably compression or somthing else that isn't down to the BMC I would think.

Difficult to concentrate but Yes a very nice picture Although not sure what the point was blowing everything out colour correction was about. The girls hair highlight blows out in lovely way.

I think the clue is in the name Cinematographer or Cinematography. This is a name like Photographer. A cinematographer shoots movies destined for the Cinema.   A DoP would need a camera department to be able to direct a Camera crew that would need to have A Gaffer Grips and AC's and is an American term Not used professionally in this country.   Many on the internet now use the names loosely.   Poirot is made for TV and in any case they are neither DoP DP or Cinemtographers. The UK job description for a DoP is a lighting cameraman.   Many who have NOT worked hard through the ranks to be Lighting Cameraman have awarded themselves the title of DoP.   Fortunatly MOST can easily tell how good someone is with a Camera..

The Hackintosh sounds great for those who know about computers Unfortuneatly All I know is windows and very limited knowledge on that.   What recommendations (Preferably laptop) to edit Raw on windows? Can it even be done without proxies?

You're wrong. Not all Pro cameras have audio. As for recording sound to a camera through a mixer to the camera for recording.. Yes but not on a movie.

Why would you project Super 16mm ? It was developed for blow up to 35mm.   I shoot on Super 16mm and have the footage transferred to edit in digital I certainly wouldnt be showing it on a projector.

It has a consumer mount Not a professional one? Who cares when you can fit on what you want and make it what you want. As far as I can see it has plenty of mounting options without a REVO box IE stick on a baseplate and add a monitor and some batteries What else do you want on there? Why do you want decent sound? Arent you going to record your sound seperately? If you are gouing to make a film you really need a good sound recordist. I wouldnt even dream of using a cameras sound. BMC in order to compete with a sound recordist would have had to add on a 15' BOOM A 416 sENHEISSER MIC OR EQUIVELENT   dO YOU know where the camera department ends and the sound dept begins? Maybe it should have a couple of 5K lights that detach for night time?

QUOTE I never questioned the image quality, and say what you will, but this is a $3k camera and its features should be thought for the $3k market segment, independent shooters. If you had the budget to do Skyfall you wouldn't be choosing a BMCC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   You only divide the market up like that if you're a manufacturer wanting to maximise profits. BMC have broken that by giving us a chance to use RAW at the budget end. The fact BMC have not followed the tradittional rip the customer off £3000 market segment is to be applauded and from a consumers viewpoint not a weakness but a massive breakthrough.   If I had the budget to do Skyfall I would use 35mm film.

Super 16mm      12.52 x 07.41 mm Ikonoskop          10.6 X 6mm   It would make a difference and it isn't right to claim it as being Super 16mm sized.   That aside The guy was saying the Ikonoskop was better than a BMC because it had less resolution and was super 16mm sized. Both reasons are really an attempt at trying to jusify his purchase  as being better than a BMC an argument that is completely flawed..  

BMC is not a japanese manufacturer where they have years of experience putting in all the little comforts you like. If I were to give you a 35mm panavision camera and lenses you would have so many issues with ergonomics weight and lack of features. Yet most feature films are made with similar.   This is what seperates real cameramen from amatuers. For a DP and a director its about the best picture with light. Of course you can film stuff for news for other stuff but for film making you need a good tool. As far as that goes the BMC has a better form factor than most RAW cameras including an Alexa. The BMC is so simple compared to whats gone before for the same quality. Its so frustrating listening to people bash waht the BMC have clearly done so well and right.   Companies like Sony dont want the consumer to have access to this technology They could easily make something like the BMC but in an EX1 style body for about £5000 to £6000.   They wont.   The BMC might be one of a kind. and they certainly wont be getting Japanese style gimickry at this price for a long time. They may come out with a 35mm version.   Give me the BMC anyday and with a few lenses Mattebox and batterries etc I can go out and make movies to the standard of Skyfall. Anyone though with anything other than RAW wont.   If you dont want a Camera that can make film quality pay more for something that offers compression Preferably without a big sensor and an automatic overide on everything Should just say BUY a point and shoot camera and stop trying to get involved with the professionals. OR hire a DP that will do it for you. There is nothing worse than someone who doesnt understand what they are doing professing to the masses they are an expert.

Nope. Sounds wrong. I mean if you want to save space why go RAW in the first place. The Ikonskop claims to be Super 16mm size but actually it's smaller.

Heh heh Probably Andrew!

It really amazes me at how people gripe at this camera. It's form factor its lack of features It's weight.   I mean you can shoot RAW. The first RAW camera that one person could operate without a crew. Let alone its price. The weight is about the same as most video cameras and yet silly BMC made it heavier than an SLR. It doesn't have F stops in the viewfinder yet..... WHO cares Professionals will use manual anyway. It's battery only lasts two hours it just goes on and on.   Are people so spoiled they are incapable of using a camera nowadays. Maybe wait until the camera has legs and can go out and shoot the footage for you..   Just a few years ago I was struggling with a 16mm KRASNOGORSK to get a decent film look and then a Letus adapter and now we have a fully functioning BMC that does everything a PRO needs and the moaners doubters and real silliness creeps in and takes it down.   The BMC is KING and that is a fact.

Well the C500 Doesn't compete. The Arri looks like it has a nice gamma curve setting and the BMC seems to have captured the same information without one. I bet there isn't much difference in grading between the Arri and BMC At least none that would make a difference although the Arri is better in low light.

Any recommendations?

Looks like you made a real film there Andrew! :)

  You mean they are going to compare their camera with others and tell the truth   :lol:

I would get a Mattebox and get quality glass filters [url="http://www.formatt.co.uk/glass-filters/glass-filters.aspx"]http://www.formatt.co.uk/glass-filters/glass-filters.aspx[/url]   I would forget polariser ND filters unless for a backup where you have fast changing light and need speed.. I do have one but MOSTLY reach for my quality glass filters.