markm

The BMC has a hard drive caddy You simply take the hard drive out plug into your computer and you're ready to edit. How hard is that. Production workflows heh heh RAW is still RAW whether its sony or BMC .   Arri was a camera of its time but its been superceded all over the place especially if you like bells and whistles. An Alexa needs a lot of setup and support while a BMC is much more straightforward. If your talking about production workflows the BMC makes it an awful lot easier.   The BMC cannot be compared to a performance car because it is a performance camera on par with the very best high end mean machine. It is also very cheap. Of course if you want to film in pitch black with no lights and a larger sensor because T1.2 isnt enough bokeh and you want 16 bit and you have a home made 16 bit monitor and your from krypton then get the bells and whistles camera as for me I'd be happy with 10 bit. 12 BIT IS the icing on the cake.

They wouldn't notice a lot of difference if any apart from the sensor size. Look you really rate the Alexa That's great. I believe though 12 bit raw vs 16 bit raw shot with a global shutter is not going to be much different. Try as you might to put me down you cannot escape reality. Tell me how you think the picture would be improved to any noticeable effect. Show me tests that prove your case. You cant and there wont be any tests because there is a whopping difference between 4.2.0 and RAW but between RAW and global shutters there aint.

Sony are much more than just film cameras. Personally I think its likely Red are not making much out of this and more likely Jim Jannard will have enough of the hard reality and fierce competition that has become camera making and sell up cheaply to a company like Arriflex or maybe even BMD now that would be interesting.   Do you have 12 hats because you have 12 heads?

ScreensPro You know what I mean. The jello effect on the BMC for most of the time will not be noticeable. Look you know what I'm saying here dont try to make yourself look an expert and me a wannabe or a fanboy your the one losing the argument and your putdowns prove it..

Who defines the market makes the rules. Manufacturers? I DONT THINK  and to be honest who cares  who is supposed to do what or have what Smacks of I'm better than you I have more money. . If it works it works. I don't care if my clothes are ironed on a £30 iron from littlewoods or ironed on a £10,000 wonder machine as long as their ironed and I dont think a cinema audience gives a fig whether a film is shot on an Alexa or on a BMC. They aint gonna notice the difference.   As for Jello and global shutter. Come on No one really notices this stuff anyway. 16bit? Makes no difference No one can see any imporvements. 35mm sensor? Get some fast lenses. Skin tone? Yes well that is a problem for the CFA that I have already gone into.   There is not a rational argument to choose anything other than a BMC.

Face it . Selling cameras at inflated prices are over for now. Just some don't know it yet.

The Alexa and BMC both give RAW The only real differences will be the CFA In my opinion. I dont think it works well in the Alexa and after seeing F55 footage nor that either.   The truth is the Alexa / F55 / BMC footage all looks the same and your not going to notice any difference when you grade it.   Unless of course you believe in the emperors new clothes and have money to burn.   BMD levelled the playing field Sony will either price accordingly IE £6000 for their new offering or sell to a few who like the emperors new clothes and end up in a year or so with a very expensive camera they make a huge loss on as other manufacturers bring the technology in at BMC  prices.   Seriously who would invest such a large amount of money when they have seen what happened to the C300 and now the F3 and REDs repricing etc.   BMC all the way folks.

Oh come on. They use 35mm cameras on big productions and in years gone by without monitors or video assist. Just a Light meter and tape measure. The BMC has outputs for monitors and can be built up to look sexy if you'd rather have a sexy camera and an empty wallet. What extras do you think you need to make a feature? I mean surely the art of the DP and Gaffer have to play some role. Give me a good DP with a light meter and a BMC over a bells and whistles two hour setup and a mediocre DP who doesnt need a light meter any day.   Actually I don't really understand your post as it seems a little disingenuos.

TJB Yes why not use a Letus and I may very well do that for extreme bokeh. I have had thoughts about doing this before. Thanks for reminding me.

Yes because I would have to buy the £4000 recorder plus over priced batteries and media.   I have four T1.2 Arri zeiss lenses that will fit the BMC perfectly The alternative is to buy a set of Zeiss primes and rack up another £12000 if I want their new f1.5 primes.   However if you want to give me an F55 with the Zeiss lenses and recorder batteries and media then I would go with the F55 because of its bells and whistles.

A wider sensor?

You can see the same full plumped richness that comes from RAW in both. I watched both the F55 films that showed a huge and varied locations and lighting conditions and I think enough to asess that whatever the CFA is supposed to be doing isn't doing anything noticeably different to what the BMC does and certainly is not comparable to Vision 3 film at all.   Admittedly the BMC is limited in functions but who cares if you can go out and get the same or similar picture to the F55. I think onboard 2.5K is better than offboard recorder at 4K Because of all sorts of reasons to do with where we are with technology at the moment.   For me the BMC is a better camera that happens to be a fraction of the price.

The films been taken down now and yes it has lots of bells and whistles but still looked like BMC footage to me!

I'd also like to point out that by saying you can't fit people in is a ludicrous statement You should be using lenses designed for the format your shooting on and scale your thinking and lenses down accordingly. As for sensor and out of focus background what are we talking about here the difference between ONE stop?

Here is a link to a film shot in Wales on a Sony F55   [url="https://vimeo.com/54571154"]https://vimeo.com/54571154[/url]   Of course the Sony has a larger sensor can record smaller files and can shoot 4K with optional recorder as opposed to the BMC 2.5K On board recording and Sony records to 16bits   BUT   Looks like BMC footage to me. Only difference seems to be the price Sony F55 £22,794 PLUS a recorder for 4K      

How long ago were we told sensors were now okay? Two weeks? I would suggest giving them a chance to get the cameras put together and out for distribution?

Andrew,   I can already use my 25mm and 16mm zeiss lenses on a GH2 which is a larger sensor.   I'm not sure how this works on the BMC  but I believe most 16mm lenses will work if you crop the image from 2.5k to 2k or downscale to 2048x1152 and crop to 1920x1080 thereby resizing the frame to more of a 16mm size.

Yeah thanks for finding that Filmy. Does look Alexa like.

Andrew Nice film! [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? [/quote] Good post galenb I was having second thoughts about the GH3 and was starting to side with Andrews take on the BMC and canon mark3. However I really liked this film

Yes be interesting to know how much money they have collected. It may be the two people fronting it would really like it to happen but the question is will it. I'm glad not to have invested anything from what I'm hearing and seeing.

That does look a useful tool definately something to put on my future shopping list! 8 lenses for the price of four. Thanks Andy great little tip.

Bruno not everyone has your faith Some actually think it's a scam [url="http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2568/digital-bolex-raw-camera-for-2500/p3"]http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2568/digital-bolex-raw-camera-for-2500/p3[/url]

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1353938239' post='22318'] are you sure these will cover the BMC sensor? have a read of this test ....I think you will struggle [url="http://danielgrey.com/"]http://danielgrey.com/[/url] Andrew Reed says in his BMC lens review posting [i][b]What is out?[/b] The Canon EF mount rather restricts this choice to lenses designed for photography. Most Super 16mm PL mount lenses are out (as well as being extremely expensive) as the diameter of the mount isn’t wide enough to accommodate their fat rear ends. Several lovely primes which can be had for around $800 are out – the Zeiss Distagon 8mm T2.1 S16 PL, Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 and Olympus 12mm F2 would have been lovely lenses on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. C-mount (the Computer 12mm F1.3 would have been puuurrfect on this camera)[/i] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/8854/the-best-wide-angle-lenses-for-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera"][i]http://www.eoshd.com/content/8854/the-best-wide-angle-lenses-for-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera[/i][/url] [/quote] Thanks for that Andy! I've done my own tests and I'm certain the 25mm and 16mm will cover. I'm sure the 12mm will cover when I crop to 2.35 and possibly even the 9.5mm But if I have to zoom in a little on the 9.5mm I'm not complaining! Will also get extra bokeh from these already splendid lenses and with T1.2 This is going to better than an F3 with their standard or new zeiss lenses. I will have a true baby alexa setup.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1353884728' post='22279'] What you're saying sounds like if you put raw in a cheap camera you can ignore everything else, and that's not true. Everyone complained about the audio capabilities on the DSLRs and the BMDCC is not any better in that regard. I'd definitely rent one if I need it, but as an indie filmmaker I can't be buying cameras incrementally, when so many little things clearly need to be addressed even before the camera comes out. [/quote] If your making a proper a film you'd be recording audio seperately and the camera sound used as a marker. As for the rest the only problem I may have is with the the CFA and that's probably pretty standard up to £15000 anyway. The BMC has a fine sensor and tests have gleaned nothing but praise over the picture quality. Prores is a brilliant addition. The only thing missing is the ability to compress footage to a smaller file or create a proxy in camera at the same time. BUT what do you expect for this price??? The fact you can make professional images at a nothing price is amazing. As for making small improvements year on year at this price WHO CARES. You will probably get 3 BMC's for the price of a digital bolex anyway. Of course if the bolex should come out before the BMC MFT version I will look at it. Waiting for the bolex to implement every bell and whistle for so long means time wasted.

Well I have a set of 16mm mark one arri zeiss superspeeds which I think will be a perfect combo for the BMC.