bwhitz

Looks awesome... definite buy if it's around $6k.

Man... I'm not sure why, but this stuff looks better than the 4.6k footage I've seen so far. Something seems "off" the Blackmagic-Mojo with that sensor... it looks like high-quality GH4/GH3 footage... not as organic as this stuff. Maybe it's too clean?

​Kind of like how the Alexa makes you a better film maker cause it's big and exclusive and costs $60k...

ughhh, can we at least get 48 fps on the 2.5k yet? I actually like this look allot. Looks like a music video. I'm just a fan of more stylized color though...

I think I remember you saying that the 96fps option was looked more like 720p and wasn't the same quality as the other frame-rates? Can you confirm this, and has it been addressed in the final firmware maybe?

^ I'm in the same boat. The GH4 looks great... but after the reading about the 96fps not being the same quality as 60 or 24... I'm a little more interested in this machine. I'd definitely rather have higher quality 60fps over higher sub-par FPS. Forgive me for maybe not reading all the info on this... but does the A7S export any 60fps signal to external recorder? Plus, if the new processor in this is as good as it sounds... the 120fps, even in 720p might be really quite usable.

Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be personal... I'm just going crazy with all the "form factor" talk when all people mean is "I want big things". :rolleyes:

OMFG, who cares what cameras LOOK LIKE!!! Are you making films or are you trying to stand around in public while on-lookers gawk at your camera gear? What is the film world coming to? And stop using buzz-words/terms like "form factor"... just say what you mean. Just say that you're not confident in your abilities and you want to just impress people with giant gear set-ups. I'm so f-ing sick of hearing "form factor" I could puke. There is no better form factor that something small like the Pocket Cine cam size. It's tiny, it fits on the back of the lens, and you can add whatever you want to it... bigger shoulder mount, more weight, whatever. Arguing against small cameras (which is really just innovation) is an irrational one, and can only be explained by the desire to have something "bigger looking" for the sake of impressing people and the facade of "professionalism". Seriously, if you fall into this category of big-camera chasers... quit film making. Go buy a Harley Davidson or a Ford F-450 truck. It's not an insult... it's a genuine suggestion. You're probably just looking for some kind of personal validation.

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...

So... films like Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" (s16mm even smaller than Micro 4/3rds) are not cinematic then? I don't think you understand cinematography at all. You must be one of the "canon film-school" kids that believe cinematography began with the 5D MarkII in 2008.

Yea, I need to let him know. He has a huge collection of lenses/cameras. Don't know about Hawks though... he was more into photography. But he loves unique things, like anamorphics, there's a good possibility of more. Just got back to LA... wish I was still back home or I'd go look through his basement! Anyways, the only downside to this Iscorama is that the 50mm f2.8 Taking lens seems to not open up wider than the f5.6 mark... possibly damaged. Also, what I'm assuming was Pentax threads on the mount have been filed off for a custom mount. So the original taking lens might be DOA. I'm looking at using my Rokinon 35mm 1.5 as my main taking lens, though. Seems to work fine optically. I made a makeshift cardboard-tube mount and tested it out... looks good. Tracking down a 77-49 step-down ring now and a clamp. Anyone else used this in practice? Yea, I think definitely will for now. Really could use the $4.5k though... damn. :blink: *edit Just did some more night time testing with the Iscorama on the 35mm Rokinon... looking real good! What cinematographers/directors have ever been able to shoot 2.66 at 1.4 with this amount of sharpness! Holy smokes! I'll upload some real footage once I get my real set-up built!

Couldn't believe it at first! Was back at home for the holidays looking through a box of old photo equipment in the basement when I stumbled upon a Iscorama! My grandfather gave me this box of lenses about 6-7 years ago... when I was just getting into filmmaking and didn't realize what anything was. Good thing I decided to rummage through it again over break! I'm new to anamorphics, but this is the pre 36 Isco right? The picture is kind of crappy, but the glass is perfect on the lens. Any tips for re-greazing these things? The focus is a bit slow... from old lubericants I'm guessing?

...yet everyone still bashes the free-market that makes things like Blackmagic possible. Sony and Canon are NOT part of the free-market, they are Corporate-Statist entities. Sorry to take it political territory, but it's important to understand the economic conditions that gives great products like Blackmagic a chance to come into reality. Many Filmmakers, Young-people, Westerners, ect... are voting for more and more socialist policies that are going to DESTROY companies like Blackmagic and kill our opportunities for future innovation in this field. Know the real enemy! "BM like cameras do not have mass market appeal and never will." Not yet, but they are going cult-status as we speak. They're a "word of mouth" product. They don't "need" mass-market appeal, because like Grant Perry said, they are not in debt... they don't need to move 10-million units to pay back loans. And, BTW, is that what you really look for in a camera? Mass market appeal? Who gives a crap about "how popular" something is... I only care about what products can deliver. Let the "fad-chasers" wallow in the misery of their overpriced, 8-bit, 2005-codec, technology forever if they like... Almost every film-person, here in LA, that sees my Blackmagic in use orders one. They're only going to get more popular as the other companies continue to under-deliver.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions. It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried. But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.   It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

I agree. These guys have not been supportive of RAW or other creative technological breakthroughs unless they are on $20,000+ cameras that only they can afford. They're either: A. Are getting paid to tote the C series cameras B. Don't like the competition Or C. Don't want to put in the extra work to required for RAW workflows (and therefore don't want anyone else to either) All reasons are bullcrap. I know Ive stopped listening to those guys a while ago. This is just icing on the cake...

I really enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek, but honestly, nothing really comes close to the experiance of something like the Mass Effect or Bioshock sci-fi worlds. (just skip the Mass Effect ending) My expectations are not very high for this new Trek or the new Star Wars.   I love cinema for drama and comedy. But, my sci-fi thirst is better quenched with gaming now. Never thought I would say that... but it's true these days. You just can't get into the characters enough in the two-hour timespan of movies.

  Ok, I can tell from this one sentence alone that you're operating on very false and skewed premises. This train of thought is what is actually destroying civilization. The poor are not poor because something was "taken" from them. They are poor because we have very large population-to-industry ration right now... and the amount of industrial jobs and physical labor is decreasing regardless if products are manufacturing overseas or not. Things will eventually be mostly automated. And we don't "owe" it to laborers to simply stop progress in the name of keeping unneeded jobs around for no reason. Nobody is at "fault" for poverty. I'll try to address a few of these flawed premises here... First of all, besides some corruption, bankers and business do not "take" from anyone. Capitalism operates in a non-zero-sum system. The rich are not rich because some are poor, they are rich because they created the wealth (at one time or another) by creating products and services that people use. It raises the wealth of everybody. This is a non-zero system. It's also the most common misconception about economics that probably arises to avoid cognitive dissonance when people find themselves in bad situations. People would like to blame their misfortunes on the "greed" of others, but this is really not how things work. It's simply just proletarian propaganda. Nobody in a capitalistic country like the US actually benefits from poverty. If the current poor could somehow be elevated out of poverty, it would raise the wealth of everybody as a whole. Especially the "evil" corporation owners. The sad truth is, most poor, are poor, because their lacking in skills, motivation, creative, talent, ect... in comparison to society as a whole. It feels convenient to our brains to believe that they were somehow "cheated"... but it's really not so.   Secondly, this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with "morals". It's just in human nature to achieve as much as we can for ourselves, families, friends, and communities. We are not a collectively wired species. We would have NEVER EVOLVED if early humans had refused to better themselves and families until every last person was taken care of. There is nothing in nature and science that even points to this being possible. There is no working system where all people can live exactly the same regardless of circumstance. It's just not real. I can get really philosophical and deep here, but to be brief, this is just anti-existence/nature in general. This is fantasy-land childish thinking. You can't simply "teach" people to "not be greedy" and then have poverty magically disappear. This is NOT REALITY. And again, this has nothing to do with morals!!!   Sadly, you seem to be one of those people who ignore reality and nature and believes that it's possible to create a utopia free of all suffering and violence by simply "teaching" it away. This couldn't be further from the truth. Some people are just inherently good, and some are bad. Allot are in-between. And to get back to the topic of this thread as a whole... entertainment and film DO NOT effect people in the way you're describing. People are not bad because they "learn it". There are example of this, sure, but on a whole... behavior and mental stability are inherent traits. I've been watching "violent" movies like Terminator and such since I was 7 or 8. Never had violent urges in my life. I've had friends who've listened to insane death-metal and murder-music their whole lives, watch disturbing horror/killing films, and they are the nicest people who wouldn't hurt a fly. I've ALWAYS known the difference between reality and movies. My parents didn't even have to explain it to me. To ANY mentally stable person, the difference is OBVIOUS. It's a bunch of BS to listen to anyone who says differently, and they're probably just trying to push some "agenda".   It's all part of the same line of thinking that you revealed in the sentence I quoted above. The belief that there is always someone "to blame" for all of life's problems and misfortunes. You're rejecting the vary notion of inherent traits and nature itself. I know it's popular to believe we can "teach away" all the bad of life. And that with the right institutions and removal of "greed", everyone will prosper, but it's really a dangerous road to go down... as it's just not based on anything or even tangible in real-life. This is ultimately what leads to totalitarian and Orwellian outcomes... the rejection of reality and the "surrender" of liberty to those who claim they can "fix" everything.

  I don't exactly understand what you're really trying to say here? This is how many undiscovered directors have got their start. Crews of 100+ are not WHY films are good. Good films come from talent, not crew-size and money. Well produced films typically HAVE allot of money and crew, but it's not "why" they are good.   Seems like you're bitter about something. Threatened by the innovation and falling costs/sizes of production? But then again, maybe some people should be... the days of hacks who could never make it in the creative aspects of film-making, yet still getting paid $1500 a day to hand people lenses, are coming to an end.   Technology is finally freeing the creatives from the "brush-holders" of the industry. This is great! Should be celebrated!

  Sorry, you seem to be wrong here.   From the testing article: "Again, the images were from different distances so that the chart filled the image with both shots. It’s not an optically critical test, but I’d call it a complete success for the Speed Booster. Even spotting the original image 1 stop of light, there’s no significant difference in resolution to my eye."   I mean, MAYBE, at like 6k resolution their may be some loss of sharpness. But for something like 2.5k Blackmagic footage, I'm gathering that it's pretty much a non-issue.   If anything, wouldn't it actually increase the perceived sharpness of something like cheaper EF glass? As the speed-booster is compressing the image, as opposed to magnifying it with an extender...  

"In no way is the Metabones adapter giving us a poor man’s full frame image here."   Uh oh... just wait for it. :)  You know this is going to be the talk of every indoctrinated 5D fanboy on the planet. "Don't let those speed-booster shooters fool you... they're not shooting on REAL FF cameras!" Anyone want to take bets on when the "real full-frame look" cine-meme will show up? I say 2 months.

  Yea, sure they can. But we as the consumers are allowed to exercise free-speech and publicly criticize them if we choose as well... and I think the industry on the whole is in some dire need of "calling out" on shenanigans like this. Welcome to the free-market 2.0 canon. :)

I say keep going hackers! If the 1DC is really the 1DX, besides some coding, canon deserves to be exposed for it. Keep it anonymous and release the patches and tools from multiple sources at once... they can beat this crap!

I could see people's sensor size complains as having merit if the BMCC was shipping with, let's say, a 1/2" sensor or something... but come on, it's still a pretty damn large sensor. Plenty large for cinematic productions. 8-bit codecs, and the disgusting motion cadence of temporally compressed long-GOP footage, are MUCH bigger problems than lens choices if you working on anything remotely "cinematic". Besides, dynamic range and contrast ratio are by-and-large the most important aspect of separating a cinematic image from video. And shooting narrative pieces on lenses wider than a 30mm FOV, honestly, look really stupid. I just don't see the complaints about this camera being anything more than FOD... and an attempt to selfishly protect last years pathetic 8-bit investments (i.e. C300 type cams). If you really want that 90's-music-video fun-house clown-look of 12mm lenses that distort heads and body limbs... then have at it. You're probably not the caliber of director/dp that would make use of 12-bit RAW anyways.   Actually, on second thought... I think it's probably a good thing that most of the new cinematographers and directors think you need FF sensors and sub-20mm lenses for every project. They're going to be turning out goofy-looking garbage and still be wondering how others are achieving that "serious film look". Less competition!

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270'] Are you serious? The C100 looks to be a fantastic camera for anyone who is actually doing real camera work and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance. [/quote] You don't NEED more than a T2i really to do anything of substance. Hell, you don't even need that. The point is that spec/price ratio is completely out of balance. Drawing logic from other cameras price/performance ratio (BMCC, GoPro, GH3) a C100 even WITH 60fps in 1080p is only worth about $1500... IF THAT. It's not that a C100 can't be used for anything... it's a question of why? Why shoot to an external recorder when the technology exists for internal RAW recording at $3000? Why shoot to a GARBAGE 24mb/s AVCHD codec... when there are hybrids like the GH3 that are capable of 80mb/s Intra-frame recording for 1/5 the cost? Why is there no 60fps in even 720p when $400 toys like the GP3 can do 120fps? And then, if you can afford the $6000 investment, why not just spend a teeny-bit more and go for the FS700 and get yourself a mind-boggling more flexible camera in terms of frame-rates and res-output? You have to be a blind, non-critical thinker, who's terrible with money/investments, to even entertain the idea of a C100 purchase for more than 3 seconds. It's only appeal, is to the older "professional" elite crowd, that still thinks "bigger cameras" make them seem more professional... and the extreme-newbies who came into cinematography in the last year and think everything must be shot on canon cameras. It's a joke. For under $5k I can get a BMCC and a GH3 that will allow me to record high-quality 2.5k 13-stop footage, to EITHER RAW or ProRes, up to 30fps... AND an amazing B/Utility-cam, that get's me great quality 60fps footage and allows for a lighter/quicker setup for certain jobs. For $6k in canon's "pro" world, I get ONE camera that maxes out at 30fps, has lower than cell-phone quality AVCHD at a measly 24mb/s rate... and... well, that about it. It's a no brainier to any sane individual. The only reason I'm being so aggressive about it, is because supporting terribly spec'ed cameras from canon just creates slower, more stagnation, in the industry. We need to be moving forward, not applauding them for a camera that should have been available 8 year ago. People need to stop this elitist-ego driven "well if you do REAL work, you can afford it" attitude. It's getting real old, and it's an emotional-ego driven argument, not a logical one. [quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270'] ...and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance. [/quote] Well, you know what... to me, I DO need these things... and it's up to INDIVIDUALS to decide this. Not industry unions, not "pros", not anyone. I don't just shoot corporate interview and promo pieces. I'd like to PUSH the boundaries of what's artistically possible of myself, as well as my equipment. And when done right, this can lead to MANY more opportunities and higher-paying jobs than those who are shooting "standard" projects because they don't feel like anyone "needs" to make anything better. There is NO QUESTION that the flexibility of higher-frame rates and RAW coloring can potentially push my pieces above and beyond what most people feel the "standard" is. In the end, I think people are just afraid of the competition, and are desperately trying to standardize these sub-standard tools in order to control competition.

[quote name='Alex Mand' timestamp='1351124665' post='20253'] And now here go 1D C overpriced as hell. This should cost $6000-$7000. Not 15k! [/quote] I still think this is WAY too much. All of the 1DC features SHOULD have just been in the 5DIII... and if not, they should have made the "cinema" DSLR the 5DC for $4500. Not the stupid 1D, that barley has a video user base. They just picked the 1DC because it was the most expensive and doubled the price. Then there is the C100... which is so pathetic, I can't even stand to talk about it with any shred of sanity. Does canon think it's 2005? There is no other explanation... they are absolutely bat-shit insane. Worst camera manufacturer by a long shot. I hope they go bankrupt.