markm

Mike Why'd you do that? I need to see people different places lighting conditions focal lengths NOT closeups on stained glass! Please try again! Have you got some 16mm lenses to test with a monitor plugged in or maybe even a prores recorder?

Bruno Black Magic have done a wonderful thing. They bought out an affordable camera that shoots raw. Maybe they should have thought more about the lens mount but when everyone moaned they soon bought out an MFT mount and allowed those that wanted to to make the switch. This is their first go in the camera market and I think its an outstanding one. You should be applauding them. As for the digital Bolex its still vapour ware from what I can see.

Has some very interesting developments. That is a camera I'd like to test as well.One thimg that adds to films overall resolution is the fact the grain is different every frame This tries to do the same by moving the sensor half a pixel on each frame as well as global shutter and CCD's

If the ikonoskop has three chips each recording colour information at 1920x1080 then you will get better colour reproduction and can make it more film like in post which is what I think you are seeing here. Maybe an Ikonoskop really is the best way to go. Just a shame about the price.

I think the manufacturers are going in the right direction. Maybe something in between what Sonys f65 CFA can do and say an Alexa. I definately dont like the washed out look you get from an Alexa. Be interesting to see what a hollywood film looks like shot on an F65 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-smith-after-earth-nab-311981 I have a good feeling about this. Just hope companies like Black Magic catch on to improving their CFA technology by pushing sensor manufacturers otherwise it could be back to high and low end again for us. I feel sorry for films like Skyfall though that I think are left in limbo land as far as the future is concerned. (Should have shot on film) Great move forward by Sony though Got to admire their development dept

Andy great post. Thats where future advancements lay ahead. The development of the CFA and why an Alexa doesn't match film. I think Roger Deakin was to quick to embrace digital with an Alexa. Hopefully now with Sony leading the way we will get something that actually does begin to match film. I'd love to get hold of a sony f55 and see what it can do.

galenb thats exactly what I want to know how well would it stack up against an Alexa Cameraboy Yes I want to know how high the quality is on the CFA Andrew I accept what your saying. Just some doubt thrown into the room by others and cameraboy probably had it right in an earlier post about the Sony F55 Looking for ways to justify its enormous price tag. So how much water does this argument hold? Thats why I'm asking about the CFA to find out whether Sony have any grounds to say the F55 will give a better picture than a BMC Personally I think not by any noticeable degree but the question is there.

All I would like to know was some information about the colour filter array on the BMC as we know the camera has been made super cheap We know they had problems with the sensor so whats wrong wrong with asking about the Colour filter array under the circumstances I think its quite a logical thing to enquire about. Oh and by the way I do know what I'm asking Why do you think I don't? Look fine if you dont know Doesnt mean you have to answer it by saying its not important OF COURSE its important its a very important step in creating the picture so how important is that?

http://blog.abelcine...5-defining-cfa/ Camera boy All I'd like to know is a bit more about the BMC colour filter array sticking up a pretty picture smacks of fanyboyism. Your guess that its a standard bayer pattern says nothing about its constuction and ability so why say anything at all.

She's wearing a lot of makeup and the RAW footage and lighting used helps make the makeup look good. A lot will always depend on lighting Having a good colour filter array will help get a wider gamut of colours and will capture them better. However we don't know anything about the colour filter array on the BMC.

[s][url="http://blog.abelcine.com/2012/11/01/sonys-pmw-f5-and-f55-defining-cfa/"]http://blog.abelcine.com/2012/11/01/sonys-pmw-f5-and-f55-defining-cfa/[/url][/s]

Footage has to be viewed under controlled situations in order to compare. The BMC footage does look very good from what I've seen but I cant test one myself without buying it. One of the most important considerations and something I have written a thread on here is the difference ways film captures images to how digital captures images. I would still prefer a 35mm movie camera image over an Alexa and thats probably down to the colour filter array and its shortcomings and thats on an Alexa. Obviously an Alexa will have a better array than the BMC you would think. But how much better and what does this mean in compromises to image quality. The colour filter array is an IMPORTANT part of how good the image is With the BMC RAW its like sticking a porsche engine into a mini cooper. It all needs to be good or the sum of its parts will be the lowest common denominator.

Andrew Debayering has to be done at capture and the quality of the colour filter array will affect the image.. More expensive cameras use higher quality so I'd like to know what we are losing with the BMC.

AKA as a bayer filter. Does anyone know how good this is? This is important for getting nice colours IE Skin tones.

Hey Andrew Thanks for doing all these tests for us :) Mark

That is good news!

tomekk Black Magic have their hands tied on this and they are getting some cameras out. This is not the same as promisng stuff that couldn't be done It was totally above board and in place. Their suppliers were tried and tested then switched companies on them. That is far from Black Magics fault. That aside even though time has passed it is still the camera that shoves all the pathetic consumer offerings into the stone age. Andrew has a baby Alexa literally. And soon it will be available to all. Truly a groundbreaking game changer that has shaken up the business of camera making. Either manufacturers will have to start giving consumers what they want or someone like Black Magic will. They have made tiny movements in the righ direction but really cameras like the GH3 need to be about £700 to stay in the game. Although many will prefer the easier workflow of a camera that has on board ND filters and high compression rates They wont pay X thousands of pounds premium for it when they can have prores and although more time spent rendering etc they get better quality. Manufacturers now face a dimemna on how to go forward. Of course the next step FOR PRO USE IS 4K Global shutters and better capture cards for bigger better storage as well as Moire issues. They could easily divide the Pro and consumer market again. Of course that doesn't take into account China or BM's next move. Seems to me Canon could have led the way with the C300 if they had priced it at about £5000 and then bought out The C500 at its current price. In my opinion they shot themselves in the foot through overpricing and left and opportunity that has left them far behind. They have a lot of catching up to do as well as regaining consumers trust. Its a do or die world Some are choosing to go down with the ship.

Andrew great review. The BMC is truly a game changer. Already the mighty are toppling. This must be on every film makers christmas list. Sanveer has put my thoughts on it exactly.

Seriously? As the Zacuto tests show you can get great images from any camera It doesn't matter if highlights blow out as long as they do it in a nice way. Quality will always end up as 8 bit 4.2.0 on TV are on the net. Of course you want to capture the best image you can but you have to weigh that against what it is your trying to do. As the Canon C300 using 8 bit 4.2.2 high compression shows. Of course if you need to colour correct in a big way and you want to make sure you risk nothing then the BMC is the way to go. But now we have options with our tools and the BMC really adds to the toolset. The BMC really is a baby Alexa but if I had an Alexa would I really be making web films on it? My advice is buy a BMC and get a GH3 to go with it. If the BMC could compress stuff at 50 35 25 mbps It would have the lot.

The camera is the first time non professionals have access to a pro camera. When we were denied access to large sensors we used and invented all kinds of contraceptions to get a dof effect and when we did went crazy. Of course the BMC is overkill for 98% who just want to make films for the net and maybe festivals. The problem is if you're making a feature you would STILL go with the high end stuff where the equipment is a fraction of the budget . If your a consumer It is unlikely you would be making films for the big screen for a start you wouldnt get distribution let alone a budget to pay cast and crew and all the rest of the equipment let alone decent actors. For most consumer uses correctly exposing isn't that big an issue and workarounds employed or even working in 8 bit and even prores will fill up hard drives make colour correction slow and cumbersome. This need for access to high end gear has been fostered by manufacturers with drip drip improvements. Whats so groundbreaking is you can now go out and make a feature with an affordable camera on an uber low budget and to that end this fulfills a creative need that many of us have been denied although ultimately for 99.99% doomed to failure although for a few whose budget is low and whose talent is high with a vast knowledge this icould help. Although you could look to rent an Alexa but would still be 10 times the price of buying a BMC . In practice once people realise the BMC has little value in making net films or even TV, a new understanding will settle in and the BMC will become a popular indie film makers tool. Personally for most uses I will use a GH3 even as a second camera hooked up to an atomos. But pride of place will go to my treasured BMC that will only come out when it can do its Magic.

Andrew could you delete this thread I din't realise this was old news. Best, Mark

Okay I can see its turned into the old "I'm a master so dont question what I say with putdowns and game playing. However I've said my bit up to others to do their own tests and reach their own conclusions. Nuff said

Basicly what your left with is just colour and that colour is decided by how light interacts with silver halides. The colour image its richness and degree are determind by a chemical process. Sensors do something similar electronically. There is a big difference in how the two processes get there. Film renders the image far more naturally and beautifully where digital renders it more electronically and rather bland. Now thats a conclusion I have reached NOT because I love film or digital I don't I'd much rather use a digital camera for all the obvious reasons but the truth the film process renders a more beautiful image and I'm all for digital improving and finding out why. If you want the film industry to suceed they should start looking at this without just accepting digital is the future and fooled by it. It annoys me the way some people look for posters weaknesses to win an argument. IE Because I mention I have knowledge of working with film Its easy to diss me off with being out of touch and out of date. That is an awful way to win an argument. I only go on facts The fact is digital is ruining the film industry unless it drastically raises its game in colour rendition. (Please dont start on about grading) Do I have to keep repeating this. Film renders each colour individually in a more realistic and beautiful way that cannot be matched by grading unless you mask off and grade every single item with colour in it. This would be so expensive as to be impracticable. And is so random I cant see technology figuring out a way to do it at least not in the forseeable future. If I was making a hollywood film on digital right now I'd be worried because when and if digital improves and I think it will and actually competes with film there will be a lot of digital films left substandard But those shooting in film right now will be able to transfer their film to the new digital technology. If your a DP making a high budget film be WARNED.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352409967' post='21353'] 22 minuite Skyfall making of..... Spoiler alert..... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U_Hl6EVk0w[/media] [/quote] Yep can clearly see the use of digital instead of film has made skyfall look less cinematic. I'm surprised others cant see it.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352408470' post='21351'] you do have to alter colour tempetature with film! you have to use filters you cant shoot tungsten stock outside without altering the colour temperature with a filter! I spent years shotting through filters to do this! The most common of these is the 85 filter, which corrects daylight to tungsten. This is the filter we use when we shoot a day exterior with tungsten balanced film. [/quote] Yes I know all about colour temperature and mired values and have a full set of filters. However I would realistically shoot either Daylight or tungsten balanced film and not bother with filters most of the time. Colour balancing after the film has been transferred to digital is just so easy as long as the temp isnt to out which really isn't often. The test film I linked to in two shots IE the dual carraigeway bridge and the two ladies I used a tungsten film and shot in daylight with no 85B and although grainy as hell the colour came back fine. If you want to shoot in daylight use a daylight film and if you want to shoot nights use tungsten and then colour balance later.