bwhitz

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1351109452' post='20243'] Btw, comparing the image quality of a GoPro3 even at 4k with a 5D3 is just stupid. [/quote] Well, honestly, the QUALITY is better. In a few modes, the GoPro3 seems to be resolving close to a real 1080p image. The "look" from a 5D3 is arguably better... but the "quality" is so abysmal, I cannot justify the use of a canon DSLR for any projects that require a finish above SD dvd.

Sounds great! Way to go Leica! I simply refuse to buy any DSLR without even an option for 4:2:2 through HDMI now. With cameras like the BMCC shooting RAW and Prores HQ for $3000, 4:2:0 is a joke and scam. Go screw yourself sony, nikon, canon, and panasonic.

[quote name='PAVP' timestamp='1348272423' post='18855'] I just don't see what the naysayers are going on about. [/quote] The detail is horrible and it renders textures like a 7D (everything looks plastic). The GH3 looks, unfortunately, like a disgusting leap backwards in image rendering. It's just another fake 1080p camera like the rest now. Terrible job Panasonic, terrible.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1347640079' post='18003'] If it is a Sony sensor, then we can kiss the good detail of the gh2 goodbye. I don't think Sony would let the Pany outdo their a99. [/quote] Yea, this is kind of scaring me too... maybe the NMOS sensor played some factor in the real 1080p detail the GH2 was giving? If this is the same psuedo-1080p that Sony and Canon are giving... there needs to be a major uprising and a global boycott must take place, in all seriousness.

Damn... looking good. It makes the C100 show it's true age with the 4-year old camera technology that it is. I really, really, love the BMCC... but I just don't know if I can pass up Full Frame-60fps. If this resolves a true 1080p image, then I might have to wait on Black Magic for now.

[quote name='dbp' timestamp='1346988904' post='17492'] I'll never understand people's obsession with soft, low resolving images, and equating that to the "film look". [/quote] Me neither. Please, jcs, go to Apple's trailer website and download a film-acquired movie in full 1080p. Very, very, detailed. I've shot extensively on the 5DII and have used/worked with 5DIII footage and I can tell you, it just doesn't compare. It should be really, really, easy for anyone to see the insane resolution jump from 5D footage to a full-1080p film scan. It's incredible... and the BMCC hangs up there with it...

Yeh, have youz guys herd of th3 canon 5D? It is tha roksorz!!!

Are charts really necessary? If you watch some BMCC footage... then 5D3... and think that they are even remotely in the same ball park... you probably shouldn't be shooting/grading anything. There is no "detail" on a camera like the 5D3... just compression blocks. It drives me insane, like there is plastic over the lens or something. Even on close-ups, the hair/skin/clothes/whatever... all have the SAME texture to them. It completely destroys the texture and feel of anything you're shooting. Not even in the same league...

In real world situations.... I really don't think there is going to be any aliasing situations. I just downloaded Philip Blooms test video and it looks amazing... resolving the tiniest of details with no aliasing on anything. Charts are stupid. Anyways though, even if on a chart the C300 resolves a few more lines... which it really isn't showing when you look at it... why would people still chose a 5 year old 8-bit codec for 5x the price? It makes no sense. Supporting smaller companies (especially when they have the superior product) like BlackMagic is the best thing we can all do for everyone right now. I mean come on, this is their first camera... and it's giving us 2.5k RAW for $3000!!! Canon is re-hashing 5-year old technology, that sells for $2500, adding a few zeros, and has showed no signs of stopping... All of this canon fanboy-ism I've seen on other forums makes no sense at all. Most of them are just most likely looking for reasons to justify their $15,000 purchase... and discredit people from using cheaper more affordable tools. People with no talent or creativity that still want to be in this industry either have to rely on "door holding" or "brush-holding". The later is basically gone away this year. This is why people are hating on the BMCC. Cheers!

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1346822884' post='17347'] BlackMagic in the field. Interesting. These guys used it. Enjoy. [url="http://latenitefilms.com/2012/09/05/blackmagic-cinema-camera/"]http://latenitefilms...-cinema-camera/[/url] [/quote] "This is NOT an RED Scarlet or Alexa replacement, but if you have a no-budget shoot, or if you need a decent “B Camera”, then this is a fantastic option. This camera is incredibly cheap for what it does – but at the end of the day you get what you pay for." I stopped reading their blog after this statement. What are they implying? What exactly is the BMC camera with a 2.5k RAW image not delivering? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who subscribes to the philosophy of "you get what you pay for" in this day and age, has their head in the sand. I would really, truly, like to know, what are they NOT able to achieve with this 13 stop, clean 1600 ISO, RAW shooting, compact sized camera? ...sounds to me like they are just trying to set-up a scapegoat in-case they fail in the creative process. It was nice about 5 years ago when the excuse of "well we only shot on a $3,000 camera" actually meant something. It means nothing now. The BMCC can produce a image that rivals ANY major release in modern cinema. The only factor that matter now is you, and your talent. This is probably why it's getting so much negativity already...

Anyone who thinks that a RAW shooting camera has crushed blacks... has no idea what they are talking about. And can people stop using the "no low-light capabilities" as a scapegoat? Anything that shoots this clean, and with still resolving full-detail, at 1600 ISO, is GREAT in low-light. Before 4 years ago, cameras looked like complete garbage around the sensitivity of 320 ISO. Now all the sudden 1600 is terrible? FILM itself looks like garbage around 800 ISO. Some people need a reality check.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1346517569' post='17103'] The Codex unit alone is around £1000 per day! [/quote] Interesting... I didn't know that the Alexa actually needed an external recorder for RAW. That makes the Alexa look like another over-priced hunk of crap, honestly. I might be the first person to state this... but the BMCC might actually be an Alexa killer. (well, besides over-cranking) But it does sound like Black Magic is working on the 60fps mode for 1080p... which would be amazing, even if it's only for prores. But for anything that's just straight narrative 24/25p... why even shoot Alexa now? Is that extra 1 stop worth it? Do you need more than around 24mm of wide angle? Maybe. I can't really see that many cases actually... You'd have to be frickin insane in this upcoming year to purchase a $60,000 camera that requires an additional unit to record RAW... which then becomes a 30lb behemoth of a camera. Do "professionals" realize that the support-gear and personnel you now need to run this is about 20x the cost of what it would take to support a small compact BMCC camera crew? The BMCC even falling a bit behind the Alexa spec wise... easily pulls ahead here. And this is where it matters most... getting your crew down from 100's to only a few key creative roles and cutting all the bullshit out. Now, isn't RAW starting to seem a bit more affordable? Again, while it does have some advantages, deep down... people really just like the Alexa because it's well, the most expensive digital cinema camera. People want to justify it's use, so that they can pretend like they're in another "league" of film-making than others. Well, I got news for these people... you aren't. People rave about the Alexa because, in the end, it's just big and show-off-y. Smoke and mirrors. People just want to get paid to play with big toys that other people can't afford. [quote name='tabac' timestamp='1346517569' post='17103'] Do you guys know how much extra dough it is to shoot RAW on Alexa? I'm in process of working out a feature budget. On a £1.6M budget RAW is nearly impossible with Alexa. [/quote] Well, uhh, I guess the Alexa sucks then... [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346532196' post='17117'] Is creativity completely dead in the high budget movie world now? [/quote] Pretty much. People seem to prefer spending their energy on over-complicating film shoots, so they can get paid $2000 a day to play with matte-boxes, then pushing the industry forward and innovating new methods of production. I estimate, that with a new modern-approach... throwing all the old industry and "pro" dogma out the window... you could make any given movie for about 100x less.

[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1346466126' post='17059'] B. people claiming RAW is unecessary are used to the investment they've put into their current camera and unless they gain access to a RAW camera workflow outside of coming out of their own pockets, will downplay its benefits to protect the "integrity" of their own purchased gear. [/quote] +1 This is almost everyone on DVXuser and DVinfo. The discussions over there are reaching the inanity level. Some are even going as far to claiming that RAW is gimmick, the BMCC is a "toy"... and real pros "get it right" in camera. Or "if you know what you're doing... 8-bits and 4:2:0 is more than enough". It's funny because when DSLRs were all the rage... it was almost a crime to shoot on anything less than a 4:2:2 codec. I guess now that there are "pro" large-sensor cameras that students and amateurs can't afford they're justifying the use of sub-par codecs again. No matter what anyone says... the real argument was never about if DSLRs were usable on pro-shoots or the codec being crappy (even though they are). It was the older industry guys being upset that they could no longer "buy production value" in the form of a camera. Student productions were rivaling and bettering $100,000 shoots with nothing more than crews of 2. They hated it. This has always been the crux of it, no matter what other justifications they use. It was just an unspoken truth that they knew deep down, all along. Enter the "this is professional... and this isn't” mentality that has plagued the internet filmmaking communities for the last few years. What happened to just trying to be "good" at filmmaking? Why does everyone aspire to be a "pro" now? Most pro-shoots are so stifled with creativity killing dogma and guildline BS that I'm amazing they even turn out what they do. The best new cinematography, directing, and editing are not coming from "the pros"... they don't have time for innovation anymore. All the time that could be used for creative shooting is being spent delegating to the 18 people it apparently takes to pull focus on a "real sets".

[quote name='peederj' timestamp='1346458693' post='17050'] Can you get an Atomos Samurai and record the ProRes externally while you record RAW internally on the BMCC? If you can, then you have both with no transcode time, and an external monitor for the focus puller or director. [/quote] [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346460276' post='17052'] This is a damned good point. Certainly worth investigating. Also good to have that backup too. Some SSDs not famed for their total reliability. [/quote] A add-on "proxy-recorder" from blackmagic could be pretty cool... 4:2:0 50mb/s footage for offline editing. Who knows? Something like this might be available in the future. Black Magic left allot of 3rd party development options availbe for this camera. Where companies like canon are still charging an arm and a leg for cameras that basically only shoot "proxy-quality" footage in the first place. This would also be great because I like to somtimes do on-site scene edits to show the actors how it's all looking. Then if we see somthing we'd like to change... it's easier to nail it.

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345781766' post='16364'] The quality from 50Mbps long GOP 422 8-bit is amazing. [/quote] Not in terms of motion quality. I can always spot the crappy look of Long-GOP encoding. Temporal compression on captured footage will always look cheap. And then 8-bit color-space? Don't even start on that... 8-bit can look good... but never "great". And it's not even worth talking about in the same breath as 12-bit color space.

[quote name='nickname' timestamp='1345596690' post='16173'] and i don´t expect any real advance in image quality from sony to be cheaper than the f3 is today. [/quote] Why? The sensors in the up-coming Sony DSLRs are already leagues ahead of the F3. Photo-tech just has quicker development cycles. Any new Sony DSLR with video mode, assuming they don't intentionaly cripple it, will most likley have better performance than the F3. It's just how technology goes. I think Sony is actually wising up to that fact that people aren't all dumb enough to pay the outrageous prices, for something like an F3, when it's obvious that the same techology in a camera can be had for under $3000. They MAY be ahead of the curve on this. Nikon is trying and making commendable efforts... and Canon is about 5 years behind the curve and out thier damn minds.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1345565248' post='16141'] Big sensors jus't arn't enough. You need to downsample. I think it's what makes the c300 stand out. [/quote] The c300 doesn't "downsample"... the processor it uses from 5 years ago it has isn't powerfull enough, or even made for that. It simply reads multiple photo-sites on the sensor. As far as tjhe processing is comncerned, it's comes of the chip as a 1920x1080 image. The GH2 and Sony FS100 actually come off the sensor as 4k-5k images and are downsampled with software... this is much better. The detail on the C300 has always looked video-like to me for this reason. It looks like nothing more than a XF100 with a larger imaging plane. I don't think it stands out at all.

[quote name='Shian Storm' timestamp='1343263365' post='14521'] I say smart softening, because there is a marked difference between the soft look of the 5D, and the soft look of film. [/quote] +1 Even if film is soft in certain scenarios... it's always very [i]detailed[/i]. The 5D's have no detail whatsoever... they're just mushy and muddy. There just isn't any detail in there. [quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343309809' post='14543'] An ungraded super-35 2k movie film scan doesn't look any sharper than what comes out of a 5Dmk3. [/quote] Maybe not "sharper" right away... but it's about 8x more [i]detailed[/i]. There is a BIG difference between "detail" and "sharp". If I were you, I would go shoot a few things on the hacked GH2 for a bit... it's like a gatway drug to the world of "detailed" images that the BM cam will improve upon even furthur. If you shoot a short on the GH2, then go back to the 5D, it will look like iphone video. No joke. I thought I was going to be able to switch between my GH2 and 5D depending on the project, but there is just no way I can go back to the 5D. I cringe everytime I have to watch 5D footage full-screen in my timelime. The canon DSLRs just don't even get in the ballpark of a real detailed 1080p image. The GH2 in 720p with a variable ND filter and a 30mm 1.4 lense wide open in the day time is a pretty "soft" image. Yet there is still a TON more detail than my 5D or 7D. And noticeably less artifacting as well. I used to be a BIG canon DSLR fan myself, but after working with hacked GH2, Red, and a bit of Alexa footage... you'll start to see the big difference between "soft and detailed" and "muddy and sharp". You can make almost anything "sharp" in post... but you can't fake detail.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343234344' post='14494'] I'm curious about the sensor though, there have been reports of bad rolling shutter issues, but on the other hand the rumored sensor has a global shutter mode, so I guess we'll have to wait and see... [/quote] It should be no worse than a RedMX/Scarlet... and definitley not as bad as the original RedOne. NOW THAT was a rolling shutter MACHINE. Besides, rolling shutter really isn't that bad... it was just a negative buzz-term created by digruntled old gear-heads like Barry Green who are jelous of new tools and want everyone to go back to shooting on $40,000 Vari-cams. It pains the older guys and "the established" that our generation has pocket-sized 35mm cameras and soon-to-be sub $5k RAW. It basically just levels the playing field and they hate it. Just don't buy into this "rolling shutter" non-sense. It's there, sure. But it's mostly just disgruntled scape-goat-ism. Hell, even the Alexa has rolling shutter... but you'll never hear about it. Because in the end, no matter what anybody tells you, "they" just don't want you to use cheap cameras that look good. "They" want you to belive that only $70,000 Alexa's can make quality pictures. It's just better business for them. It just creates more competition when 20-year-olds with a just few grand can rival thier production values. ...and they'd rather just put an end to it than compete. You really think that if the images doesn't "skew" a tiny bit durring whip-pans that your footage will look any better? Not a chance. It's just one more excuse in the bag for bad-filmakers... :)

The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing... Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;) My running list so far is: -Form factor [i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all. -Size [i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i] This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it. -Price "it's not expensive enought to be professional" Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering. -Too much dynamic range "detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks) These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors. -ISO [i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i] Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys. -RAW yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and confuses the "clients"" That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come.

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4733#msg4733 date=1335429414] this is amateur talk.  how can you say any of this?  sounds like a 14 year old just joining film school and not understanding film theory or the chemical aesthetics of film... [/quote] And this is this is pretentious film-hipster talk. I care about the motion characteristics of film and the aesthetics of the 35mm format. These are available digitally. Digital is also better for the speed of production and actors. Faster set-ups, more locations, actors can stay in character longer, ect. Nobody watching a movie gives two shits about the "chemical aesthetics of film". That is such an asinine point you have actually blown my mind with stupidity. Film theory has nothing to do with "film" in the literal sense of film stock. ...god that was such a stupid point. You sound like a brainwashed film-industry-obsessed lemming who thinks they're hot shit cause they shot a crappy short film about relationships and coffee shops on academy 16mm once in film school. Get over yourself. The only people threatened by digital are those who do crappy work and relied on expensive film-stock as a way of separating their derivative student films from others. Film still looks good, but so does Red, DSLRs, Alexa, and bla bla bla. Everything shoots film-looking footage now. Get used to it. Shooting on film is not going to make something better anymore. That era is OVER. There are filmmakers who want to tell stories and entertain an audience... and then there are film-makers who have self-esteem issues and just want to play with expensive gear to make themselves feel more important than others. You fall into the latter. [quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=637.msg4740#msg4740 date=1335454589] So you think that David Fincher is an amateur? That being said, if we compare the same director (and same DP) using different camera's, I think you'd have to agree that Fight Club(Film) looked better than either The Social Network or Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (RED EPIC). [/quote] Yea, seriously... who calls somebody an amateur because they prefer the look of digital cinema over film? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. But yea, honestly, I like the look of Dragon Tattoo and Social Network over Fight Club. I love how clean the blacks are. It's a clean modern look, but with the motion characteristics of film.

[quote author=xxbluejay21 link=topic=637.msg4724#msg4724 date=1335415556] Honestly, I don't think it's the 48fps. It's just the camera. I've never seen a cinematic movie on the RED before. Social Network, Dragon Tattoo, Contagion... Even the new Spider-Man looks horrible from the trailer. The Alexa is a little better, but still not that good. [/quote] Can't tell if you're actually being serious or not. There is nothing that magical about film. It sounds like you're just glorifying it for the sake of glorifying it. Personally, I actually prefer Red's image to film. The Social Network and Dragon Tattoo are two of my favorite movies visually. To say that they're not cinematic looking is just crazy.

[quote author=filmbjorn link=topic=637.msg4704#msg4704 date=1335385114] The whole idea of abandoning 24fps cinema is silly, if you want to keep the cinematic magic of cinema. I believe the framerate is one of the key things that identify the art form of film. Changing to a higher frame rate for "smoothness" and "more lifelike" means leaving the art of cinema and doing something else. [/quote] Yea, exactly. Movies are not supposed to be "life-like". They're meant to REPRESENT reality... but not to directly imitate it. If movies are supposed to be life-like, then you'll have to remove soundtracks, scores, focal lengths besides 50mm, and the entire concept of editing. All those things do not happen in real-life. It's just stupid to say that life-like frame-rates are better... there is SUPPOSED to be that suspension of reality. Your brain is smarter than you even know... and it knows that it's impossible to be watching reality with editing, musical scores, and ect. It works for live events and sports... but not narrative.

[quote author=abortabort link=topic=600.msg4215#msg4215 date=1334723664] Didn't Panasonic just release a firmware update for the AF100 giving it 50/60p 28Mbit codec? [/quote] A 28mb/s codec? HAHAHAH... what is this 1997?

[quote author=Sara link=topic=596.msg4050#msg4050 date=1334610573] And as far as holding up on a big screen - there are TONS of 16mm type films that have done very well on the big screen - Slumdog Millionaire / Black Swan etc. [/quote] +1 Also... Avatar, Starwars II&III, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Sin City, ect. Digital s16mm or 2/3" is not bad at all. And this is right in between that and m4/3... should be a pretty nice format.