Shawn_Lights

[url="http://youtu.be/hzbjoJquKWc"]http://youtu.be/hzbjoJquKWc[/url] I'm not really good at coloring.

You can edit them in Premiere. I used the same workflow I seen Theo use for the upcoming Ikonoskop. Basically open the files in After Effects. Create a comp for a shot. Render out as QuickTime photo JPEG. Import that into premiere and edit. Once you're done with the edit, just go to the file in the project window, right click and replace footage with the after effects file. It'll ask you which comp to replace it with. Select one and then it'll revert to the raw files but keeps your edit. Doesn't take long and no third party software is needed. I did this then graded, worked perfectly.

I actually played with some of the footage. It's amazing. Worked great in premiere pro CS6. I think this can be the camera that most of us been waiting on. The only question really is support. Hopefully they partner with someone to tackle this. I actually read somewhere that they were going to try to partner with someone so if something goes wrong you won't have to ship your cam all the way to China. This is the camera I'm most interested in. Then the BMCC.

I would love to know some info on the GH3. Anyone know anything about it? I guess Andrew can't say anything if he knows some stuff about it. I plan on purchasing a new camera this year and currently I been impressed by the BMCC but I feel that their are some things I have to get around with that cam. I like the ease of use of DSLRs and the versatility. Looking forward to more info on the A99 and the GH3.

***I sent you an email via the contacts page and after I sent it I saw it said write to the forums for a faster response. Sorry about that*** I received some KineRaw S35 footage and I did some grading test. Edited in Adobe Premiere Pro CS6. I only had to download the CineForm Decoder for it to play nice with Premiere. Only used the LUT provided by Kinfinity, Magic Bullet Misfire Post contrast, and Magic Bullet Looks in the grading process. I provided download links to the video so you can see the highest quality. Also links to some tiff screen grabs. Hopefully Andrew will be able to check it out and give it his thoughts. Please note that I'm not a colorist at all. Everything located here: [url="http://flopitworks.com/2012/07/15/kineraw-s35-test-still-in-production/"]http://flopitworks.c...-in-production/[/url]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342408742' post='13943'] I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across. [/quote] I agree I think the core of the test should change. You can make nice images for cheap, We get it already. Let's show how certain tools work best for certain purposes. Also how to get the most out of them. Perhaps they should give the operators/teams of the cameras a short script to shoot consisting of like 3 scenes. One outdoors, one indoors, and one at night. Something like that and then show how certain decisions have to be made when using a certain tool. I don't know, that's just the first thing that came to me. I understand totally. I don't understand the doubt with all the evidence out there. I actually don't own a GH2 yet. I plan on getting one because I think the image is lovely and it's a very powerful tool.

@Andrew I think what you're failing to understand is we're commenting on how the GH2 was used in the shootout. It did look like soap opera TV. Now is that saying that the GH2 isn't capable of a filmic image? no. However, the way it was used in the shootout was pretty bad to me. Yes the other cameras kept the room too dark and I would've loved for them to add a little more light. However, I think it had more of a drama feel than the GH2 footage in this test. I like this site and respect what you do. I just feel sometimes you get too defensive sometimes like no one is allowed to dislike anything about the GH2. Also sometimes you don't simply state a fact about Canon products you resort to trashing it. I admire your passion for gear that indie filmmakers can use that'll produce high quality stuff. This isn't an attack on your or anything. I don't always agree with how you go about things but I respect it. Also to be clear I was simply commenting on the way the GH2 was used and not the camera itself. I think this was more of a DP test than anything.

I actually hated how the GH2 was used. Reminded me of those Spanish soap operas. I also think that people chose it because it was lit to where you can see everything. When I first saw the shots, B stood out because I was able to see everything. After I watched it several times it became one of my least favorites. Just seemed very digital. I felt the established DPs were pretty lazy here. The younger DPs lit like they had something to prove and kudos to them. Still it's proof that the GH2 can hang with the big boys. I was just not feeling the way it was used. The F65 and Alexa were my favs. If anyone picks a camera based off of this test he or she is a fool. This was more of a test of the DPs than anything.

Now I'm interested. I think I know what it is now.

Yep. Most likely a re-housed GH2 seen on DVXUser. If not perhaps a GH3?

"Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera won’t just be a tiny niche of indie filmmakers – they will be stills photographers, camcorder users, DSLR owners, students, artists, freelancers, [b]journalists[/b], small production studios and even some of the bigger ones, [b]broadcasters[/b], [b]wedding videographers[/b]" Not with that short battery life. The BMCC will be a good indie film camera but it's not the end all be all. We need to stop with that attitude. Documentaries etc, a FS700 or C300 will be the better choice. It depends on your need. The 1DC may be a better choice for some (you said people said it's not that much better than the 5D's image, yet I keep hearing people being blown away by the image :/). This isn't something that can be simply stated for everyone. There is no winner other than consumers. Some will like the way a certain camera renders color etc better than another. The point is we have a choice. Again people are jumping on the BMCC train too fast without evaluating their needs and how it'll perform in different conditions. Calm down people. If NAB showed me anything, it showed me that buying a new camera may not be smart because they're coming out so fast. People's GH2, T2i, 5Ds, aren't rendered useless because a new camera is announced. I see the filmmaking community quickly turning into the mobile smartphone community. Always wanting the "best" and in turn they barely use their phones because they keep switching and "upgrading". As soon as they get a phone a new one comes out and suddenly their current phone isn't good enough. Need to get back to telling stories and getting jobs done.

The image the camera produces matters most to me. Specs are numbers, I rather wait and see what it can do. When the C300 was announced the specs was underwhelming, but once we saw what it could do, it was a different story. I think people are jumping too quick calling this camera the messiah. Andrew I see where you're coming from, but I think you're jumping the gun. Until we see good samples and test, I'm not calling it the future. I'll say it has the potential, but seeing is believing for me. I know i'm going to get people screaming at me because I don't 100% agree with Andrew but whatever.

[quote author=Bruno link=topic=596.msg4096#msg4096 date=1334624996] Regarding the sample videos, if you read the guy's large post, you probably know they were shot with a cheap and slow canon zoom lens (15-85), so I wouldn't expect much sharpness there... [/quote] That's way too soft regardless. I've used the 18-55mm lens that's slow and it's not this soft on any camera I put it on. Perhaps some post work is needed but those test videos are extremely soft.

Go here for the test videos: http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera They completely suck.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=484.msg3154#msg3154 date=1332964150] [quote author=Shawn_Lights link=topic=484.msg3148#msg3148 date=1332959620] Sorry I think splitting the market makes more sense. Videographers need certain features and Photographers need certain features. Providing a balance means you're paying for features you don't need. Unless you just want decent video and good photo capabilities. I think this is the route Canon is going. The 5D3 provides decent video but it's mainly for stills. They'll release a cinema dslr to cater to videographers. If you take out some of the photo features you can provide more video features for cheap. [/quote] I disagree with you on two quite big points here sir... [color=red]A lot of people DO want both pro stills and pro video in one body. Carrying just one camera as opposed to juggling two, plus lenses makes a lot of difference if you are shooting on foot in the real world outside of a comfortable studio.[/color] [color=blue]And then there is the issue of price and that full frame sensor. Name a video-only pro camera that does full frame for $3000 and I will buy it in a flash!! Oh... It doesn't exist. This is why so many videographers will be buying the D800 for video even though they have no interest in stills.[/color] [/quote] [color=red]Then in that case get one of the current DSLRs. I said this in my initial post. However, if you simply are a filmmaker and stills isn't as important to you, taking out those photography features for video features will keep the price down. DSLR body but a video camera.[/color] [color=blue]Name a DSLR that is simply for video...you're right it doesn't exist. This is what I been saying. Make a DSLR that is simply for video. Take out the photography features for video features and you can keep the price down.[/color] I honestly don't see how you're disagreeing with me. You said exactly what I said :/ If Canon made the 5D3 the way filmmakers want it, photographers will be paying for features they don't necessarily need. This goes vice versa. Solution: Make DSLR cameras that have decent video but is mainly for stills and make DSLR bodied cameras that are mainly for video.

I think Canon, Sony, and Panasonic is going to have people rethinking how they price their cameras. Offering an immense amount of features for a reasonable price. Arri definitely have some competition coming its way.

4K does not automatically mean "better". I don't understand why people seem to think this. The C300 can easily be the better choice without 4K. How? Better DR, Low Light ability, built in NDs, XLR ports, monitor, etc. The 4K Eos can have 4K and still not undercut the C300.

Sorry I think splitting the market makes more sense. Videographers need certain features and Photographers need certain features. Providing a balance means you're paying for features you don't need. Unless you just want decent video and good photo capabilities. I think this is the route Canon is going. The 5D3 provides decent video but it's mainly for stills. They'll release a cinema dslr to cater to videographers. If you take out some of the photo features you can provide more video features for cheap. 

I think renting is very smart. Weigh the pros and cons, and if renting will save you money go with it. RED cameras are nice but aren't ideal for every situation. Rent it when you need it...simple as that. Hell you can even rent lenses for dirt cheap now lol.

[quote author=Sara link=topic=368.msg2397#msg2397 date=1331353067] [quote] I don't like the GH2 when it comes to low light. Cheap cameras will sell more but that doesn't make it better. GH2 is awesome when hacked but I'll take a F3 over it. I understand people love the GH2 on this site, but if Canon adds the things we really want in a DSLR camera, I don't expect it to be that cheap. The GH2 is the best deal by far, but It's not the end all be all. If you're expecting a film/cinema camera to be under $3,000 you'll be using the GH2 for the rest of your life, which isn't a problem at all. [/quote] I love the F3 also but getting 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 out of it isn't cheap.  $14,000 for the camera (s-log now free) plus external recorders makes it a $15,000 camera. Anyway have you seen what the GH2 can do in low light with Orion? [url=http://youtu.be/OKTmb8opPEI]http://youtu.be/OKTmb8opPEI[/url] And was with a soft lens (SLRmagic 12mm) no AF and ISO 3200! [/quote] Yea I saw that and I'll still take a F3 over it. Generally, the GH2 isn't great at low light. I agree with you that Sony price is deceiving. They are however, now adding S-log for free. Look, you can get great images out of cheap cameras. I agree 100%, I use cheap cameras. However, I find this "GH2 = All I need" and "Canon needs their cinema DSLR to be under $3,000" attitude ridiculous. How can you ask for all the features and expect it to be cheap. Yes the GH2 and Canon DSLR cameras create awesome images for cheap but don't tell me you don't have to compromise. We need rigs, audio recorders, special cables to make up for the flimsy connectors, etc. Mid-Level to Pro-level is all about eliminating most of those compromises. What we want is features like the FS100 etc, but still in a DSLR body because we love the way you can get into areas with them. If that is made, paying for it at a similar price as the FS100 isn't unreasonable to me. As a note: I'm not talking about you specifically. The person who replied to me first felt like $4,000 - $6,000 is too much. I disagree with that and although I think the GH2 is amazing, I'm not the type to act like it's the only thing one needs. It's awesome for starting out, but eventually I would say it's time to move on to something that eliminates those compromises we make when using DSLRs.

[quote author=sandro link=topic=368.msg2318#msg2318 date=1331143169] [quote author=Shawn_Lights link=topic=368.msg2317#msg2317 date=1331142493] The $4,000 - $10,000 range will be where the mid-range pro cameras will be. The C-DSLR will most likely fall between there. We want so much for such a low price. I don't think, at least not now, we will get a camera with all the features we want for under $4,000. Just doesn't make sense to me. We deal with the short comings of DSLRs because they produce great images and are cheap. However, if you want the amazing video features, expect to pay more. The 5D2 was over $2,000. I expect the C-DSLR to at least double that. The C300 and F3 is on the same level. Hopefully Canon creates the C-DSLR to be on the same level as the FS100. $5,000 is reasonable if they add the features we see in cameras like the FS100 and keep a body like a DSLR. I think Canon is going to try and put the C-DSLR in the FS100 price point. That's my guess based on wishful thinking  ::) [/quote] Then they can keep it :) What will sell more a $700-800 DSRL with a GH2 video (apparently easy to do and not pricey, the hacked GH1 is still better than the Canons!!) with same things the 600D has or an expensive $10k video camera??? [/quote] I don't like the GH2 when it comes to low light. Cheap cameras will sell more but that doesn't make it better. GH2 is awesome when hacked but I'll take a F3 over it. I understand people love the GH2 on this site, but if Canon adds the things we really want in a DSLR camera, I don't expect it to be that cheap. The GH2 is the best deal by far, but It's not the end all be all. If you're expecting a film/cinema camera to be under $3,000 you'll be using the GH2 for the rest of your life, which isn't a problem at all.

The $4,000 - $10,000 range will be where the mid-range pro cameras will be. The C-DSLR will most likely fall between there. We want so much for such a low price. I don't think, at least not now, we will get a camera with all the features we want for under $4,000. Just doesn't make sense to me. We deal with the short comings of DSLRs because they produce great images and are cheap. However, if you want the amazing video features, expect to pay more. The 5D2 was over $2,000. I expect the C-DSLR to at least double that. The C300 and F3 is on the same level. Hopefully Canon creates the C-DSLR to be on the same level as the FS100. $5,000 is reasonable if they add the features we see in cameras like the FS100 and keep a body like a DSLR. I think Canon is going to try and put the C-DSLR in the FS100 price point. That's my guess based on wishful thinking  ::)

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=368.msg2305#msg2305 date=1331135238] Don't forget Sony. They will have a full frame camera out by Photokina 2012 and they have come on a hell of a lot with DSLR video lately. Sure I am disappointed the 5D Mark III resolution is as soft as 5D Mark II but at least moire, aliasing, codec, rolling shutter and low light ALL improved. And it no longer drops to 540p over HDMI. It is a refinement of a great camera. [b]The price is too high though, I agree[/b]. [/quote] Too high if looked at as just a video camera. We filmmakers tend to do that with DSLRs, but the fact is, they're still cameras first. If you look at the stills features + video features, It's not priced too high. A bit high one can argue, but not really. Looking strictly as a video camera...way too high, thus the disappointment. The 5D3 isn't Canon's answer to the video DSLR demand. Their C-DSLR coming this year is. I thought they made that clear when they announced a cinema line. I think it's important to make this distinction. It's not strictly made for us.