Axel

I think one can use these capabilities of one's big sensor camera without producing crap images. This was actually a test shot directed by David Fincher with the Red One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJpLgdD7r3c Note, how the background is lit ever-so-subtly (and cinematically ...) How everything works together. How Fincher found a purpose for the 'lit by a cigar' - situation, to suddenly reveal something interesting, dramatic. How the colors mix. There is faint, blueish moonlight from the upper floor. There's a yellow lantern outside. Both cause fine gradients to - what? Black? Not completely. Then the flame is so bright, it even covers the blue and yellow. Note, that the skintone of Leos face is near perfect, under this circumstances only achievable by good CC. The clip was once downloadable as a big ProRes file, flat as hell, and you could try and grade it yourself. That was when I went and bought new monitors ... Note, how the girl - in complete darkness - holds the lantern to her face. She mimicks enjoying the stars in the sky, not convincingly. She's not a trained actress of course, but that wouldn't have helped anyway, because everybody knows that a lantern 3 inches from your eyes would automatically fade out all stars. Note, what the light does to the colors. There is little else than sepia, very little definition despite 4k. Looks videoish to me. Cinematic only if you find Blairwitch Project cinematic. That's what I mean with 'embarrassing'. Especially since it's obviously meant to be a jawdropper. Imagine she was looking for a friend who left the party with the awful DJ in anger, despair or drunk. She can't see shit on the beach. She is worried. This then would have better been made either shortly after sunset, with any camera and sensor size, or at noon (day for night). Yes, and good shadows. What's good and what's bad depends on the intention of the whole film/photo.

I agree. I think so: Light is an argument, low light isn't. Actually there is nothing magic about a scene shot with candlelight or practical lights, it's done either for the sake of it, then it's embarrassing, or out of carelessness. Hey, my camera shoots in low light, I can just forget about lighting. Looked okay for a year or two, but no longer.

Alex4D writes: Hang fire.

I'd really like to update, but with the new media organisation I'm afraid the XML-roundtrips might cause crashes (different paths to the media folders). Anyone tried with Resolve Lite 10? Anyone with 11 beta?

I like it, and imo it's another proof that 'it's not the camera'. Be honest, from ten vimeo clips you skip nine after the first ten seconds. That I watched it to the end makes it a winner for me.. Storywise? Yes, I guessed right what was coming, but I do so with nine of ten feature length Hollywood movies. I like them nonetheless, if I like them, because they are a joy to watch. I thought the surface of the table looked too profane, a matt finish would have been better.

In a way they lease twenty year old software, worked up adobe by adobe. An evolutionary process, if you like to be nice. I think they are afraid to be too innovative, considering themselves the 'industry standard', bearing in mind the ill-fated release of FCP X. It was a luxurious suite once, though smelling a bit like curd soap (I always want to say 'After Shave'), now it's a shiny modern cloud ...

Certainly not the first choice for grading. I guess this 'someone' wasn't Andrew Kramer?

This is comparing apples with oranges. On paper, both may have a similar DR. Colors? With BMPCC, that's completely limited by your ability to grade, and beware, few people can grade. I thought I could, having used Apples Color for years, though admittedly only with usual DSLR footage where you essentially enhance something that's otherwise pre-defined. With ProRes (imo the wiser choice for the Pocket) and especially with raw you start with NOTHING. That's why you sooner or later become friends with LUTs. If you apply a LUT and on top of that perform a normal correction, it's practically as if you had dialed a DSLR preset like landscape or baby. A really good colorist will get the most out of the Pocket, good colors. A not-so-good colorist will do better by enhancing some pre-defined GH4 setting. Please, don't expect too much of flat picture styles with 8-bit. That's really neither fish nor fowl. The french review above says it: BM footage is easier to grade, but you must grade it. With the Shogun, you could perhaps get the best solution.

@fuzzynormal Yeah, I did study all the pages of compatibility lists, and I did buy a vignetting c-mount at Ebay before (very cheap though), it was a misleading description of Mario Gorlas in Ebay that made me ask, I translate: "On MFT it has a focal range of 16mm- 128 mm, and with the internal EX-Tele mode even further" - Also, he tagged the article expressively as "for MFT and BMPC". I was actually looking for a modified Kowa 8mm, which is hard to find and anyway more expensive than this 8mm Angenieux. However, Mario Gorlas answered via Ebay and confirmed that it was only usable with the Lumix' tele crop. As Patrick wrote: Too good to be true. Found another zoom (not that wide, unfortunately), but won't tell details for fear I might attract concurring bidders.

Very short question: Since it apparantly didn't vignette at the Lumix (crop factor 2, you wrote it is effectively a 16-128, even w/o EX-Tele), it shouldn't vignette with the BMPCC (crop factor 2,8). Is that correct? EDIT: And what about vignettes with the Canon zoom? Can you tell me how I can power the motor? Very interested indeed.

Stereo should (like surround) be 'mono-compatible'. A sound event that comes from a point in space (or has very small dimensions) in most cases should be located in the middle (the center channel in 5.1 or equally balancedto left and right in stereo). Especially language. Exceptions are the extremes: Someone out of the frame shouts Hello Frank. Frank looks to the left. Stereo (L.R) is perfect for a panorama of atmosphere, composed of very many sound events or i.e. continous traffic noise or foliage in the wind. Ls and Rs are even more atmospheric. To mix all these elements to the best effect, they should be recorded cleanly and seperately. It's easier to add something in post than to eliminate it where it's unwanted.

Arguable. But the arguments are hard to nail down. My Apple TV plays iTunes movies (indeed, as it seems, everything) as if filmed with higher frequency (like the 200Hz TVs). The images then look very clean and clear, but actors, even great actors suddenly can't convince anymore. Also small movements sometimes look slightly sped up, but very fast movements (car races) lack any momentum. Before he published his HFR Hobbit, Peter Jackson said you would get used to it within five minutes. Maybe. You get used to it because you eventually start to follow the story, but I for one will never forget it completely. For me it's irritating, for others not so much. Some see the 'clarity' aspect and say it's better. Different people have different perception. This FS100 motion looks clearer to me than my BMPCC. I do see some barely perceptible judder. Maybe I'm just too much used to it as a long time cinema projectionist. This is becoming esoteric.

This part is right. To get the APS-C lens fill the full frame sensor, you'd need a focal expander, the opposite of a Speedbooster, with loss of light. I see your point. You say a pound of iron will slay your neighbour beneath your window, but the feathers won't. You mean, a 50mm f 2.0 that's calculated for full frame will appear darker on APS-C than a 50mm f2.0 that's calculated for APS-C? No, because these values are invariable, only the FoV changes (not because of the lens, but because of the sensor size, the APS-C lens just might have a vignette). It's more puzzling with a focal reducer. The FoV changes, the amount of light changes, but actually the DoF doesn't change. But then again it does, because you always think about DoF in conjunction with FoV. With narrowFoV you could always have shallowDoF.

Well argued. This counterbalances my one-sided phrasing with which I tried to counterbalance other things. We are getting close. Now allow me to go on. But better not, since this is a serious gear-oriented forum, and I don't want to risk my reputation by disagreeing with two moderators at once.

BM stated a while ago, that the problem with deleting single clips in camera was the risk of fragmentation, which particularly affected videos with high data rates, therefore they would never implement it. So if the only way to go is to format the whole volume, you need to save your footage before you erase it. With a computer, no? Personally, I find the routine of copying and then wiping the card a good habit, but I don't want to argue on that anymore. Petty in the Vimeo clip announcing 1.8 looks as if he needed some sleep, I just imagine him and his little crew (BM is a very small company) working on the (for me) wrong priorities. Please don't be so grim. It was meant ironically. Those BM forum members complained how little response they got from BM and stated that Canon and Sony saw better to the needs of their customers. With my - believe it or not - high sensitivity for fairness I find such remarks stupid beyond comprehension. With my limited english, I took in the term 'crippled' in conjunction with Canons policy from this very forum. I believe it was Andrew himself who introduced it in an article. I agree: The most overwhelming shots are Canon shots, just visit the screening room and see Brandon Lis 5D M3 videos. Of course (is it inadequate to say this? Then I apologize in advance) this is due not mainly to Canons determination to deliver the best possible product at an affordable price to their customers, it's mainly because the heroes at MagicLantern took this 2-year-old camera and unleashed it's possibilities. Yes, get this: The M3 is out longer (March 2012) than any of the BM cameras (BMCC was first delivered in small quantities in September 2012). Absolutely. I wasn't aware my tone was aggressive, I don't see where I attacked any of the EOSHD members, but if you feel adressed I apologize.

You were referring to mine. And I wasn't referring to your need to format in camera (it's probable I misunderstood the whole importance of it). I didn't mean you by describing the critics at BM forum (as jerks). Over months they lament about the way BM ignores their customers, and the very day the update arrives they again find only negativ aspects. Imo the very good new BMCC ProRes images alone justify to have faith in BMs integrity. Those who don't deserve a new crippled CanSon every other year. Excuse misunderstandings. I wasn't attacking anyone in this forum.

Update is online again.

Why? Where is the advantage? I wish there was a proprietary card structure like with almost any other camera. This would allow me to make the backup of the footage reviewing it with FCP X, set in-points and out-points, skim vertically over all clips and copy just what I deem usable. With just clips on the root level of a dumb volume I am condemned to scroll clipwise and either copy the whole clip or nothing. (EDIT: But perhaps I misunderstood 'formatting in camera' :unsure: . Does it mean exactly what I ask for? Then yeah, awesome!) BTW: How is that with Prelude? Given that the new CC version can play back compressed DNG directly within Premiere. If I could log or tag directly prior to import without camera card structure, in fact prior to backup, this was indeed a huge advantage.

Upscaling is easier than downscaling, as far as aliasing is concerned, because edges are filled with interpolated pixels and are not prone to 'invent' new patterns. It's only the perceived sharpness that may suffer. Good upscaling software therefore adds an appropriate amount of sharpening.

Can you describe an occasion where this would come in handy? Like, you had time to backup your recorded footage via a computer but just forgot to format the card with it afterwards? I just don't get the importance of that request. Regardless of incremental improvements, you either see the mere existence of such cameras as a step in the right direction or you better keep clear of them altogether. If there are, say, fifty major issues with them for anyone who is used to traditional camcorders, taking away two or three of them is a drop in the ocean. The critics on the BM forum call the defenders 'fanboys' - as if they had a distorted perception. I say, it's good to ask for improvements, but nothing stops you to shoot with the cameras now. Nothing but a mental malfunction.

You are right. Some shots call for a tripod, particularly with this music. Others look good handheld (Inarritu style). Try stabilize in post. What software do you use? After Effects warp stabilizer is very good, for FCP X there is Coremelts Lock&Load (but the built-in tripod method actually works well). You have a raw beast slumbering in your modest 5D. GH4 (just for the 4k aspect) can't compete. One day you should try that.

This is BMCC only, yes? Man, they should try to reduce aliasing (moire) of the BMPCC! Makes me jealous.

Makes me want to be there. Nice images, cheesy music.

Not yet. Seems to have been a shot in the dark. Accidently published a beta version too soon? A histogram would be very good. As others have pointed out, instead of changing the design of the menu, they should have rearranged the order, like putting WB and ISO on top. Can't be hard to change this ...