Axel

Don't know. Also I don't know the cheapest way to get ProRes into Quicktime. Does it suffice to buy Compressor alone? I find it strange that if someone has a fast enough Mac to run CS6 he doesn't edit with FCP X. Lesser issues with XMLs to Resolve (compared to former versions AND to Premiere), very comfortable editing AND grading (for ProRes) right within the NLE - lets you do 95% of what you can do in Resolve, but with a simplistic GUI and the flattest learning curve.

With Premiere on Windows you could either render a master to the free DNxHD codec (similar to ProRes) or straight to the delivery codec ("for Youtube"). More important than that is the fact that you need to color correct, in fact grade every single shot. So make an informed decision between Speedgrade or Resolve asap. Don't even start changing anything within Premiere like so many others do. It has many tools but no suitable UI to use them for color. Do the right thing and watch training courses/ read the manual.

Makes sense only if you have the IR-filter screwed on permanently and snap on the ND only when needed. I have also Tiffen ND fader. Less reflexes in backlight than one would expect (with Sigma 18-35).

I read about the IR contamination issue, but wasn't aware of it before. I checked my BMPCC shots and found the contamination in shots with strong ND and low light tungsten shots, where all colors were off and could not completely be restored in post. Bought the Tiffen IR-cut and leave it on always. It looks like a yellow color filter. It has the effect that most shots now have a greenish cast that can be easily fixed in post. I'd say that if you don't ever shoot in bright sunlight or extreme low light, you won't need an IR-filter. Also that a cheap IR is better than none if you do.

Most platform-independant software will run faster on a PC. So imo the decision for a genuine Mac or Hackintosh means FCP X. But FCP X changes fast and evolves with the OSX version. It's not advisable not to update and upgrade both. It's not like, 'I don't need Windows 8, I'll stay with 7'. A lot of things then won't work sooner or later (but rather sooner). I have no personal experience with a Hackintosh, but I assume there would be issues with drivers, components and so forth, and you'd be probably months behind and need to spent quite some time on overhauling the system. The worst part was when everything seemed to work fine, but you only later found out that it didn't. There are bugs in the official Apple updates! As owner of original hardware all you have to do is wait (usually a month) until an all-clear is given on the sites with the bug reports.

Here. Remaining time is top on everyone's wish list, very probably it will soon come for the smaller models. As histogram (a nice one!) and audio levels appear through the touchscreen-function 'Head-Up', they might be still missing for the Pocket, but let's be thankful that there are things to come (instead of the theory that BMD abandoned the BMPCC after clearing their storage rooms with the summer special).

I read this (or s.th. like this) too, I think it was in the german magazine Der Kameramann (like The Cinematographer). They said that because UHD needed - at least - 10-bit anyway (see rec_2020 description) and because none of the now-available 4k-TV-sets featured this, it was still a long way to go (from, basically HDready, the de-facto standard, in germany as 720 50p or 1080 25i). The Fifa championship in Brazil was recorded in 4k by Sony (slogan: See more detail - be moved). There was a peculiar issue with high contrasts that caused speculations as to whether the responsible technicians actually saw something in the overexposed and underexposed areas the images were composed of - because the millions at home could see shit!

Everybody will confirm that the price for the Pocket is a fraction of the whole rig, cards, lenses stuff you need to buy anyway. If there is no attractive successor, people will pay. But perhaps there will be some kind of Pocket2, and then the price will drop further.

You had the right approach. Just think about what Alexis van Hurkman (author of the DaVinci Resolve manuals) says about color casts: Light must have a certain quality or else your image has no feel, look and style. Sometimes it's not advisable to remove a cast completely in primary CC, only to have to recreate it later with much effort.

Good add, made me hungry (I'm a restaurant owner myself). Good lens, good camera, once you overcome initial frustration. When the going gets tough ...

Yeah, and why. Liked your post, because everybody else believes you cancelled the offer because of the Pocket's new price, but I made the same experience. One day everything just worked out the way I wanted, almost. Then I watched some of my pre-Pocket footage and saw how, well, threadbare it looked in comparison ...

It has been tested and reported (test with external battery solutions) that after a while dead pixels appear. Fortunately, they vanish again.

... and Proxy, for what reason ever. There are already test clips on the net, confirming what longtime Apple users suspected anyway: ProRes422 - quite a robust data rate (Arri Amiras default codec), @ 122 mbps (compared to 184 mbps ProResHQ) probably surviving serious grading. ProResLT - @85 mbps sufficient for "longplay", if you just do a simple primary CC it will be visually indistinguishable to HQ and double the recording time to a 64 GB SD card to stunning 1h 10 minutes!

Here is some action for a change! One thing about the grading: You seem to belong to those who got used to flat looks with BM cameras. As all this is a matter of taste, I can't criticize that. For my taste (longtime cinema projectionist and cineaste) it looks too much stylized, and if style can be evaluated by the impact it has, it has no. More contrast.

@Olly P Well explained. I see the benefits of that camera.

Glad to hear that. What issues with the GH3 exactly stopped your ideas from happening?

+++ OT: The video of music videos very rarely has any right of it's own. There are exceptions like Michel Gondry, David Fincher or Chris Cunningham. Here is a clip that exposes the ridiculousness of the typical music video's visuals, enjoy:

My theory: The obvious virtues of any camera - in this case low light - become the obvious weaknesses in the hands of someone who tries to exploit them in order to show off. He doesn't realize how ugly his clips are. So the better approach is to take the virtues for granted and concentrate on overcoming the weaknesses (or overcoming the tempation to show off the virtues). Shane Hurlbut once commented on rolling shutter issues with DSLRs. He said they became annoying when rolling the camera or panning too fast. People believe 50p/60p even out jerky camera movements or juddery pans, and that's true to some extend, but that doesn't make their camera movements or pans any better. Some cameras may tend to produce more RS jelly than others, but with the right stabilization and pace this ceases to be an issue at all. I think he is right. We are seeing better Pocket clips now, because meanwhile people figured out how to overcome it's limitations, whereas before they proudly presented awkwardly graded shots that never reached, let alone surpassed, well shot DSLR clips. The sensation of bending subway tunnel walls though: Are you really sure that can be fixed in post? EDIT: On the other hand: Looks cinematic, in a way. Could be seen as an *effect* illustrating the correlation between speed and gravity ('inertia of masses'), like in comics: Double Eagle & Co comic strip

Emblematic stills. All of them could (DoF-wise) be easily accomplished with a s35 size sensor (because they were, exceptions are some shots from Blade Runner, which was partly shot in 65mm). You think they would have been more cinematic with 5D and f1.4? 'The golden days' of 35mm adapters: Even without extreme sDoF, the old footage holds up well. That's imo because of the way the adapters created soft fall-off in the highlights (because of the rotating or oscillating ground glass) and subtly lifted the shadows. They made most images look three-dimensional because you subconsciously chose heavy backlight (difficult for naked digital sensors). And since they swallowed so much light, you were more conscious about lighting. As mentioned above, the low light capabilities of full frame sensors don't result in cinematic images (see A7S thread). Far-fetched idea: Put a 'vintage' Letus like this in front of, say, a Pocket. Cumbersome setup, but if one didn't try to show off but just made a serious film with proper lighting, I bet this would beat any genuine full frame DSLR.

People don't endure a video that looks real. They want it to look faked. They want to sense a special mood that it tries to transport. Therefore the inevitable romantic music, without which this would be too boring. The conventional kitschy waves in the beginning, the first shot of the kissing pair around sunset (surely too bright still to justify the amount of mosquito noise in the sky), the scope panoramas of the people watching the waves - very romantic. A good point. I agree. We use ND filters to be freed from the need to close the aperture in the sun, we should also be free to close it in the dark.

Stumbled over it and bookmarked it when I looked for reviews of the Came7000 gimbal. Couldn't decide whether I should be impressed or not. Still can't.

That's exactly what I thought. And I will *try* to put my finger on it, and it's true for every Sony A7 low light test I've seen (well, in fact this is only the third ;) ): It looks videoish. The second one being 'In darkness' (the girl with the lantern on the beach), the first this one (A7R though): To make one point clear: I'm all for video when compared to a forced 'filmlook' and 'cinematic cadence' and all that. So let me stress that this all boils down to personal taste. But that's obviously not Blooms taste. Maybe, but I doubt so. By the way, if you liked to see the footage graded, that's what Bloom said how he treated the footage: And what we look at are the remains of 4k downscaled? And: I don't know what device Bloom uses to monitor his grading efforts, but more often than not I feel that the blacks are washed out. This also was the case with his 13 Stops Down The Canals Of Venice. Also sometimes there seems to be too much noise in the image to be ISO noise. Can it be that this is Film Converts film grain at work, not surviving Vimeo compression unblessed? I know, I seem to be party pooper again, but I don't want to be.

A remake that's better than the original (given the original is a classic) is the exeption. King Kong. The Jackson version remains faithful but enhances everything, the story and it's credibility (successfully suspending disbelief, though in this respect the 1933 version hits the nail on the head. The tricks never had been convincing, but they say, believe us anyway!). I really try but can't come up with a second example off the cuff. Sidney Lumet wrote on sDoF. He said he liked to show the set. If the set was distracting, the director and the designer had made a bad job. This is exactly the position of old school filmmaking. I wouldn't like to make it a dogma, but I consider it a valid question: Why do I wish to blur the background? Better not because I am unable to frame, have no good location or are sloppy. And certainly not because I think sDoF will make video look like film ... There seem to be few negative side effects with the SBs. But all in all, you are right. Given the same price, the same size (portability) and the same codec options, everybody would choose the bigger sensor.

Wong Kar-Wai films, speaking about Deakins. The first two mainstream films where sDoF was used quite often were Die Hard and Alien3 (though only in 'selected shots'). You are right. sDoF is not typical for cinema.

Check out this interesting greenscreen test. Which image will do best? 4k 8-bit 4:2:0, 1080 10-bit 4:2:2 or 2,5k 12-bit Raw?