markm

Of course lens manufacturers may make new lenses for the BMC especially if the demand is there. Also if the camera gives an image as good as an Alexa albiet with a smaller sensor then someone will work out a way to hack of the mount and put on a more user friendly one. Already many are looking into this.

This was a good debate for Andrew where other forums have accused him of bias and a chance to show why he rates certain products in the way he does. (A way I like too.) The criticism of being biased could fit like an anchor on other forums. The GH2 is a landmark camera albeit accidently through hacking and the BMC shows up all the other manufacturers. A troll is someone who in the face of something so obvious denies the truth to try to sway others to a lie or to dislike undermine and often just for twisted enjoyment. I thought Ruben was beginning to understand and perhaps question what perhaps other forums have been critical about. That's real trolling and they dont get thrown off the sites in question. Why? Because it's in the sites interest. Again this is biased behaviour by other site mods. Although you could say it's just an uininformed opinion. Ruben should have a right to bring an argument or opinion and Andrew gave good answers that will show people his reality. Ruben's view in my opinion was actually helpful in promoting EOSHD. Anyway just another opinion.

So Canon derives 12 stops by using a gamma curve Surely that means compressing other stuff like maybe skin tones on higher exposures? Think somehow I'd be happier with 14 stops of raw.

Ruben I think most people understand you have to cost in ND filters lenses and the truth is iif you want to make a professional film you need cast crew actors script lighting sound and budget. In fact if you get all that the cost of the camera is neglible and would probably go for something like an Alexa anyway. I guess if you want to say the true cost of a BMC if you dont have the neccesary stuff then look to budget £30000 to £5000 pounds. If you want to use a C100 Okay you dont need ND filters but you will need a recorder and lenses too. Do you really need to spoon feed people what they should know anyway if paying out this sort of money?

In 2011 I wanted to upgrade to a large sensor camera when Canon announced something amazing was going to happen on Nov 5th 2011 that would change everything. So I waited as I knew they were going to transplant a DSLR camera into a video body and would be affordable. After all I large sensor from a DSLR into a video cam WITHOUT a lens couldn't be that hard for Canon.. However up pops a clever marketing strategydisguised as not being a marketing strategy emerges and getting four directors to make cinema like films with the camera they advertised a 4.2.2 8 bit camera for initially what was going to be $20,000. Lots of people were annoyed as they thought they would be owning one and the realisation that this was only for pro's and out of reach for most of us especially the DSLR community who had pushed for this. My heart sank as I realised they promised all and delivered nothing. Yes the camera has good resolution and operates in low light Although in my opinion with low light you get to a point where the night sky looks too bright and would be unusable for real film making. If they had made a camera with 10 bit out 4.2.2 for £5000 ALL perfectly doable then I would respect them. It seems they are doing the same again. It's a shame as I always liked Canon cameras in the past. The BMC shows what can be done. Sony could always have put a large sensor into a camera like the EX1 and sold it for the same price and it would have sold by the bucket load instead of puffing it out into an F3 further dividing their pro stuff from their meat and veg consumer market. The canon puts profit before customers. You need a certain amount of goodwill with a loyal customer base. BMC have earned that. Not Canon in my opinion. Roll on the kinefinity. I had hoped Panasonic would have put a better sensor in the AF100 and 10 bit out But NO they wouldn't do that would they. They all seem to stick together to lock indie film makers out of the professional arena and now another little tempting offer the C100 that in short offers a NEW crippled camera like the children catcher in chitty chitty bang bang that may sway some. They will have to do a lot more to win back by trust in them now.

The idea that you can shoot what I would only use as test footage that is lower than a hacked GH2. For better quality you need an outboard recorder on HDMI at 8 bits is not doing it for me.

Just been playing with the DNG stills on John Brawleys site. Had one overexposed picture you would never be able to use come right back to life. This truly is a dream camera! Thanks again BMC.

Yep For your uses that's how I would see it. I'm not in the same situation as you. I would never have used DSLR's for film making although I have recently made a music vid for a friend with a hacked GH2. Previous to this I directed two crewed short films and DP'd one. The first on Super 16mm and the second with an EX1 Letus adapter and 10 bit out to prores recorder 220mb Black Magic has given us a pro tool that beats all the above. I'm used to putting in the extra work for high quality and the BMC gives me an opportunity now to make a feature film with even less stress and work.

Andy Hows it going?

I'd be quite interested to see what Phil Bloom has to say on it. My guess is if he is something like me it would be along the lines of if you can do without a large sensor and prepared to work you can get cinema quality images at a knockdown price. He might also say his C300 is easier and more user friendly to use with a proper sized sensor that unless you are making somthing for the big screen he wouldn't swap out his C300 for a BMC. BUT would be buying a BMC to replace his lost scarlet and for high quality work and until it can be replaced with something as good with a preferable 4k workflow. At least that's what I would do.

Right so you have a C300. I can't own every camera out there and like most of us have to make informed decisions. I followed the Canon C300 very closely on it's launch and really liked the short films made to sell it. The resolution colour and low light were all great. We were all expecting it to be reasonably priced and in the end it was sold as a professional camera unaffordable for the indie film makers who had built it up. The camera uses a 4K engine and states this is what gives it it's magic for amazing results with an emphasis on skin tones and low light. However the camera is 4.2.2 with an 8 bit workflow and if you believe the hype about the 4k engine magic then it should perform better than an alexa which only uses 2k. The camera gave the best picture at the time as there was nothing much for it to compete against. The camera is a lovely machine in use and gives a great picture. However since then the BMC has come along and trounced its specs to the level of an Alexa. The BMC opens up what the C300 has been deliberatly crippled with. Anyone who understands cameras will realise why the BMC specs mean a better picture. Thats not to say you couldn't make a feature with the C300 and beautiful pictures but in the right hands the BMC is a much better tool.

After testing the BMC footage Changing the exposure and colour correcting raw you must be joking? Right?

Undermining others in order to stop them having an opinion is really just sour grapes over a lost argument. I think most of us understand what is what here and cameras are just tools. I really don't like it when people treat cameras like football teams because they bought into it and now want to show the world what a wonderful decision they made and to justify the cost.. The fanboy stuff is a waste of everyones time and educates no one. Some forums actively promote brand names and ban you for not supporting what they sell. Others have self made Gurus who actively tell you a camera is better than everything out there and then blind you with psuedo science by telling you a version of the truth that helps their promotion while forgetting to mention all its faults. Or someone PAID by Sony or other companies to promote their stuff on the forum where they are given free reign. Thank Goodness for Andrew's site and look may it be kept clear of one sidedness that some are nefariously accusing him of. In order to promote their own. Andrew is clearly saying it how it is re the BEST quality imaging HD camera for out there for making films below £12,000. If you bought a high priced marvel machine, I feel the pain I really do. But the truth is there is a NEW king and it's called -THE BMC. We all need to see the new landscape and instead of trying to pull it down to congratulate Black Magic as it's the future and in all our interests if we really want to have proper tools to make decent films. Thank you Black Magic! -

Wthout the DSLR revolution we wouldn't have large sensor cameras and be stuck with overpriced 2/3 three chip cameras. You could make a very nice cinematic feature using a canon mark 3. However they are deliberately held back and crippled so companies like canon can seperate pro's Smi pro's and the public in order to make as much as possible. All the canon needed was a 10 bit 4.2.2 out.The idea really is to buy the best tool and there may very well be times when the mark 3 is a better choice and to cut in with another camera if you can afford all the seperate lenses and messing about with two cameras. The BMC does not have a large sensor and somehow the mark 3 can sometimes work magic with its look. Overall though if you seriously want to make a film with the highest quality and the best post options then the BMC is the right choice. The mark 3 is still a nice camera if you like out of focus backgrounds that sometimes have a very cinematic look if you dont mind working in 8 bits and try to get your grade as close as possible when shooting. I think anyone that knows anything about film making and offered a choice of all the cameras out there below £12,000 would pick the BMC The next step up in my mind would be an F3 with an outboard 4.4.4 recorder.

[i]I'm just voicing my opinion here and not trying to be argumentative.[/i] [i]Yes I agree the mark 3 is capable of cinema like images but ONLY because of its dof control and what the camera does with it. [/i] [i]I don't agree I need to catch up and I'm not buying into a one trick pony like the mark 3 Or make another of the endless demo shorts puportedly showing the mark 3 as a cinema camera because oh look the background is out of focus better than everyone elses.. I need a camera that can do it all. Thats not to say the mark 3 isn't good though it's just the GH2 can do certain things better at a lower cost. But lets face it both cameras on face value can take cinema quality images if you work around their shortcomings. The real problems turn into a nightmare when you have a cast and crew and a camera thats driving you nuts and then in post the 8 bit workflow means your colour correction or/and exposure is screwed.[/i] [i]We have lots of highly rated cameras out there that are crippled compromised and overpriced. At last we have a proper camera now that can make cinema images and that is the BMC and if the Kinefinity does get realised then the pro end will be open to all. [/i] [i]A camera like the GH2 or the mark 3 will either have to sell at about the £600 mark or find that people will go for the Kinefinity or BMC OR a cheap camera perhaps even a future i phone.[/i] [i]LONG LIVE THE BMC![/i]

Kineraw are doing my head in. This seems like Red Scarlet two I bet soon the price will go up.

If you can sharpen the image then my question is Is it really soft? OR have canon simply left it unsharpened. If so that should be more filmic as a 35mm movie camera doesn't add sharpening either. Sharpening adds a black line around objects. I'd be more happy with a mark 3 that doesn't add sharpening. The Mark 3 is the easiest to get a film look with its dof control but without the background out of focus the images to me don't look that great and not as good as the GH2. Another problem area is the 8 bits and for that reason see it as a very nice tool that is a bit of a luxury for me as it can only do one thing albeit very very well. The GH2 to my mind has more resolution. So resolution with cheap price OR better dof control with 4 times the price on two still compromised cameras that for me are just placeholders till a proper camera like the BMC is here. Why waste money in the manufacturers game of now you have it now you dont crippling

That link to Phil Blooms picture reminds me of CHRISTMAS!

Hi Andy Trailer looks great Really made my toes curl when her finger was - A nice original idea. Good luck with it. Mark

I think the important thing is to ask is what will the footage be used for If you are making a film then the BMC is the camera I would choose. Its basically what we all thought the scarlet could have been except cheaper. The new clips prove by a mile the BMC is better than anything out there under £20,000 for film makers. If I wanted to make something for the web or testing or for fun or to record family events or weddings or hope to get on TV even for hidef then I wouldn't pick the BMC. The BMC is a specialist tool aimed at indie film makers looking (Hoping) for a cinema release and a film look in extreme grading and it will entail some post work that will mean a lot of effort. Really many would be more than happy with a canon mark 3 especially if it had a video camera form factor. I could use a GH2 and get the results I want for most things and I think it would be hard for many to care if the film was shot on a C300 or GH2. Personally with Andrews hack which I have now tested I am more than satisfied for anything less than a film quality wise. As for form factor and decent tools I just wish sony could make a camera like the pmw200 with a large sensor but then that would be an F3 nearly. The manufacturers have made cameras like the C300 and F3 to expensive and now BMC are cashing in on that. I do feel sorry for those that bought into these cameras but they are still nice tools just not as good as a much cheaper BMC for film making And if dof control is important maybe for some they do still hold the high ground. You should choose your tools for your needs.Right now for film makers the BMC is the camera of choice!

Resolution was one thing I would say good about the C300. Beating everything else at its price point. I'd say the resolution of the C300 and BMC is about the same and that is just a guess on footage I've seen before. Mind you that could be down to sharpening in camera on the C300. As far as the two cameras go the BMC trashes the C300 apart from the sensor size and onboard tools. If I was going to shoot a film and someone offered me a BMC or a C300 to shoot it I would choose the BMC. What would you do?

Just had a play with clips 2 and 4 in AE - Resolution, colour correction and bringing back overexposed areas all do what it says on the tin. This is a GREAT camera and a professional piece of kit at a well affordable price. Really is a game changer.

I shot a pop video on Tuesday for a really great guy whose son has put together a band. The kids are so enthusiastic I hope this encourages them. [color=#000000][url="http://vimeo.com/47664006"]http://vimeo.com/47664006[/url][/color]

Hi Per I just realised your part of the team developing the hacks! Well done! I want to try Cluster V6 Drewnet or Sedna B next. What I'm really after is the highest quality with reliability built in.

Thanks Per Driftwoods vy canis majoris day with a sandisk extreme 32gb 30mbs card. 25fps and a 200mm lens in tele mode Two shots were fast moving action. One was stationery. Everytime the picture froze and the battery had to be removed. However I did manage to get one shot and that one was fast moving. Maybe though a few seconds shorter. This clip was 14 secs. The others were maybe 20+ secs. I had to wait 20 mins for each shot and walk miles to get them. I assume that it was the sheer amount of information that changed on each frame except the stationery one. Anyway The GH2 is a great camera but I'm pretty certain I wont make a film with one!