Axel

I was told these reducers, though simple in principle, need to be of highest precision or else they'd cause CAs, hot spots and what have you. I don't know if this is true, but it would explain the prices for the Metabones. And also the delays.

I like it.   One thing (not negativity!): Is the audio sometimes out of synch?

In this interview: http://vimeo.com/63892665#at=0   ... Petty says, that due to debayering the image of the Pocket BMCC was 'not so sharp as that of the 2,5k camera, but close'. He also talks about the idea to wrap DNGs as Quicktime files in order to facilitate playback (okay, I see Andrew wrote about this a week ago, I lost that then).   The interviewer made a short film with the BMCC and compared the camera to the 5D, this is his channel.

  I have two 12mm already. I don't love the Olympus, but I need it occasionally, because it's my "P"-mode-lens on the GH2 (the automatic mode), i.e. for stabilizer shots. I do love the SLR magic. A lot of slight differences add up to a completely different look, the Oly more videoish, the SLR 'cinematic'.  I hope - but can't know yet - that both will be good on the BMPCC.     Then you shouldn't buy this camera. I trust my Videospec app (containing Bitrate Pro), which says you can record two hours of ProResHQ on a 128 GB card. Full stop. What wedding ceremony lasts longer?         A wide angle allows (i.e. in a room) to show a person from head to feet. This is the basic idea. A 'portrait lens', i.e. an 80 mm, is better for close ups for three reasons: 1. Assumed you don't change your position from the establishing shot, it will allow to now only frame neck and head of the same person. 2. You don't need to move too close, entering the privacy distance (or whatever it is called in english), forcing the person to behave unnatural, to act to the camera. 3. To get the same framing with a wider lens, you'd have to come so close, the person's face would be distorted, making it ugly, comiclike. Watch Men in Black.   We see much more wide angle shots today than a few decades before, due to the steadicam. That doesn't contradict the rule that the original purpose of the wide angle is to show a character surrounded by the set (with absolute DoF) and that of a portrait lens to isolate the person (with shallow DoF).    As long as a film doesn't have persons as motifs, wide angle lenses produce an artificial feeling of depth through distorting perspectives, something that was considered bad photography once. And I think there is a truth in that. If we have to distort rooms, it must at least be some kind of trip or nightmare.   Why I say we can't know about lenses in advance:  On the GH2 'worse' lenses look better. All in all, you have comparatively subtle DoF effects. On the 5D, the better the lenses, the better the look. You have DoF effects everywhere, you don't have to worry about it. I shot on 16mm (Bolex), and I don't remember mentionable DoF effects. If something was out of focus, it was annoying ...

Closer than 2 or 3 feet @ 8mm, which is an ultra wide, will distort the foreground object, which doesn't fit to an aesthetically satisfying image. So thanks to the DoF master, we now know we have to change tactics. Sounds reasonable. To get bokeh, we need to get used to longer lenses. With 35 mm f1.4, you'd get enough DoF for a close shot from 10-15 feet distance (of course, since the lens behaves like a 105 mm, it might be a rather close shot). But wide angle lenses, let's face it, don't have shallow DoF worth mentioning. The extreme wide lenses are less attractive on a BM Pocket. How would you connect the external recorder? It may very well be, that as of now, there is no RAW DNG with the Pocket CC. Watch this: http://vimeo.com/63597094# They say, somewhere, that on a 128 GB SD card fit half an hour DNG and more than double that of ProResHQ. Bitrate Pro says, that ProResHQ 1920 @ 24 fps has an average datarate of only 147 mbps, and then 1h 56m would fit. Lets assume the DNG has 300 mbps (57 m recording time), then it would with 38 MB/s still be recordable on a SanDisc Extreme for 45 MB/s. It should at least work with an Extreme Pro. BTW: I love that Fujinon zoom.

  You are right and wrong at the same time.   The death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 was allegedly filmed, but nothing of this was ever shown to the public. The corpse was thrown into the ocean. There actually is no way to tell, no way to prove, that he actually was killed. But where are all the usual myths? Even Elvis, whose enormous corpse was not hidden after death, did survive for some.   The reason is logic. If Osama was alive, the easiest way to put shame on his arch enemy was a short video in which he says, hi Barack, I'm as fresh as a daisy, na na-na na-naaa-na! And because Obama could'nt sleep with this scenario in mind, that's enough to prove he didn't lie.   In this case, not being able to deliver in July would be suicidal for BM. The excuses of the past (we couldn't catch Osama because he was hidden so well) don't count now. This is not the hangdog attitude of someone who disappointed others, it is a swell announcement. So they have to be sure, they really think, that they can deliver as promised.

@Rungunshoot Before buying any of those (around $500 price range), I'd rather wait 'til they are produced by SLR magic or others (or abuse some of the cheaper or older lenses Andy listed). I expect the BM Pocket to be a bestseller, it will push MFT tremendously and people will demand wide angle lenses. Panasonic and the other MFT sellers say 'thanks BM'! Until then, there are two existing MFT lenses that allow a run&gun style (equaling 36mm, the classic reporter's focus length) and are fast enough to provide some shallow DoF, this is the SLR magic 12mm (originally an observation lens as well) and the Olympus 12mm (with the automatic functions working, I am curious to see the auto exposure work with the 13 stops and high iso). As for a standard lens, why not the Lumix pancake 14mm that's seen on the camera on the BM site? (EDIT: I know 50 mm is considered standard, but that's valid only for a 3:2 aspect ratio, it would be 47 mm for 16:9, 42 mm is a good compromise. You wouldn't shoot portrait close ups with it, but as far as portrait lenses are concerned, there are of course hundreds of options for MFT.) With the BM cameras, we will see another game changing. It will no longer be about 'as shallow a DoF as possible'. There is nothing special about that any more. It will start to be about image quality. We are not yet fully aware of the avalanche that has been triggered. Ordinary hobbyists will buy the BM Pocket for under $1000 (in Germany, you can order it for 894,88 €, that's almost 200 € less than the GH3, body only). They will be able, at least, to use Resolve lite 10 for free, which has more editing features than #9 and works platform independant (a very shy love relationship between BM and Apple has to be acknowledged though). They will be told that RAW as well as ProRes 422 10-bit provide better quality than their pathetic '16,7 million colors' display can handle. They will be convinced by the industry that their old displays don't suffice anymore. They will buy 10-bit monitors (a few years ago 5-10.000 bucks, now starting at ~500, allegedly Dell has some good and affordable models. BTW: This is a serious limitation for all iMac users. Their displays are 8-bit. Probably there is/will be a solution from BM, I don't know, BM says 'thank you Apple'). They will learn to see the higher quality (frankly, it's easier to see than the difference between, say, 720p and 1080p). This is what I call a change. EDIT: We can only speculate which lenses will be best for the Pocket. Sensor size, lens characteristics, post-debayering, we simply can't tell how these things influence each other. I really think it's wise to start with the most basic pancake and then collect experiences.

  How is that? Andrew christened it 'EOSHD'.    British humor. Of course it should read 'EOSSD'.  :( 

I don't know.   A possible explanation:   1. You shot "movs" with the GH3, which are Quicktime films, but nonetheless mpeg4 (as H.264, the same codec as AVCHD). 2. You created a log bin and imported those clips, using ⌘i (indicator: There is a log bin, but the clip names don't look logged). 3. The clips played back, and, since they are 'All-I', they played comparatively smoothly for a 32-bit player restricted to the use of 2,5 GB memory. 4. Perhaps not all clips are 'All-I' or perhaps 'All-I' mpeg4 is still more annoying for such an old software than DV, HDV or ProRes. 5. Then of course, opening a whole sequence with those problematic clips could overcharge the program.   Again, I don't know what actually happened, but within the past few years, even with complex projects, I didn't experience problems of this kind. I always used ProRes, ingesting my footage after qualifying it, logging it in the Log&Capture resp. Log&Transfer window. I mixed Ex from the Sony EX3 with HDV from my XH A1 (I think it's G1 in America) with movs from my 7D - all transcoded to ProRes. I imported only what I intended to use, I sorted it, I renamed it.   Perhaps you did this too. Then I can't explain it. If you imported original clips, the ProRes solution is your answer.

Andy, this almost sounds too good to be true. Excuse me for being so lazy: > Can they be adapted without problems? > Can the zoom servos be activated, and if, how?

What I think as well. Bit depth is not so much about gradability, it really is about image quality. A quality though that with 8-bit only gets, er, visibly lost on 10-bit (new displays) or 12-bit (DC) playback. Certainly 2k is a limit. Everything bigger than that needs to be at least 10-bit. Unless 4k and 10-bit become standard fast, the GH3 really has more advantages than shortcomings.

No, I have a Tascam on my GH2 rig, headphones, no problem.

  Yeah, probably right. There is a downer everywhere. Can't the world be perfect just one time?

  Who says it's shrunk or cropped? Could it not just be a regular MFT sensor?     Today I think I did a lot of things right.  > returned to FCP (now X) > finally learned Resolve lite (btw, do you get Resolve full version with the Pocket CC? ;) ), I'm loving it. > invested in more MFT lenses > didn't believe in vaporware gamechangers

AndreasK: Thanks for the Soy Cuba. Knowing that such a scene was filmed in prehistoric time, whilst we are debating so-called 'gamechangers', makes me sad. Brandon: You got it right now!

  I watched most of Mintons playlist.    1. I need to practice more. 2. I've seen a lot of hypes in my life. I can sit and wait another year or two, until this becomes affordable.

It's not about hate or cynism. It's about not getting carried away completely by that kind of hysteria. "Wow, this revolutionizes the way films are shot!  Things will never be the same. The only thing I can say right now is WOW.... WOW.... WOW.... Unbelievable! Insanely fascinating! " And if you say, a good improvement of existing stabilizers, adopting existing technology for air-photography, then you are a hater?   Laforet wrote:   So the master himself came to his senses in a later passage. This thing will make a lot of steadicam work obsolete. The latter (during the last decades) made a lot of dolly shots obsolete and static tripod shots (filmmakers found out, that a slight instability added dynamic and emotion to the frame).    It's an improvement, not a revolution.   EDIT: I just found a video BurnetRhoades once posted, about the refinement of the tracking shots in five of P.T. Andersons films.  http://vimeo.com/56335284

Andrew wrote:   European mindset. Tired of having every new piece of adapter boodle inaugurated like Pharao. Sounding the fanfares, the priest (Vincent) shouts 'awesome, this changes everything, the next big thing hath arrived, worship the eternal sunbird of Freefly', asf.   Not only am I not cynical, I am a believer, and the sureness that I can't live without the MoVI deepens by the minute. Just allow me (and the other cynics) to save us a hint of dignity  :mellow:   Caleb wrote:   It could take another year or two before the Chinese discover the market potential and frankenstein it together. I don't think I could DIY (can I use 'DIY' like 'frankenstein'?) it, but I would like to understand the principle. Can there be a smaller (or an even smaller and lighter) version? Could pan and tilt somehow be locked to the operator's head (every frigging iPhone seems to have gyro technology, how hard can it be to let the MoVI follow the angle of the head?)? So that he just needed to control the focus?    EDIT: Focus as well could be controlled by the operator simply through looking at a certain motif (if he wears special goggles). As soon as this technique is sold to the masses at a reasonable price, there seemingly will be very little to separate the boys from the men.    But the other side of the truism it's not the camera is, that all that hightech won't give us better films. There is a benefit in barriers. If something gets too easy, many might get careless. And care is the factor that really matters.

  Unlike the photographer, who takes 1000 photos to get 30 that are at least technically okay, the wedding videographer knows what he needs. Of the described shot, he knows he will use only a few seconds (brevity is the soul of wit), so he asks the photographer to have a smoke and advises the bridal pair to kiss chastely, as if pretending for the photos, then more passionately. He takes his MoVI, climbs into the waiting helicopter, ignites the heli's speedbooster and spins around the couple in 5-second rounds, using the longest lens he has (watch Roam, no problem). That done, he signals the photographer to carry on with his work and proceeds to the buffet.     All those kitschy highkey-shots. You don't need to be a miserable photographer to produce for the drawer. Granted, there are abysmal wedding videographers, but if you have empathy, know the tricks and all, you can stir emotions. You entertain a small audience, you make them laugh and cry. Nothing to be particularly proud of, but imho much more rewarding than presenting some dusty photos.

  Since I occasionally film weddings, I guess it won't be long until the bride's pov hovering towards the altar (and her fate) is an expected standard. Also, when the couple kisses for the photographer (on a green meadow), the camera will orbit them, creating a vertigo of happyness. The veil dance (in some cultures) will be a threesome, the MoVI participating and getting the steps right. We can't refuse to use it, we are whores who must obey the client's wishes.   Talking about POV, as a compensation for the serbian movie, I choose this edit from a masterpiece (put your best headphones on, get into a relaxed mood, enjoy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VivvaYLpqfE

  I am not against the MoVI at all.   Right now it comes to my mind that I always wanted to back out of a restaurant (a stair) to the street at night with the guests laughing and raising their glasses. With a friend I made tests with stabilizers, but only with the extreme wide angle of a GoPro we got smooth enough results, and I didn't like the extreme distortion.   This is a good device. All I say, forgive my bluntness, is that it seduces you to show off, that you do things without need. Because, look at the history of film, too prominent traveling shots are distracting, they don't help the story.   AND EDIT: In most situations, a tripod or a shoulder rig will do. For most situations, they would be indeed more appropriate. How many percent? You 'll see, with a MoVI, there will be less cuts, the device changes the approach to the scene.    Brace yourself for an example of nauseating camera work. It's enough to watch the first five minutes, perhaps then you'll see what is looming once these MoVIs get to the hands of the vimeots or youtubers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucmZsCwcCjA

@Andrew   Everything nowadays needs a superlative. Films are all blockbusters, software is awesome, video gadgets are gamechangers. The FS-700 was a gamechanger, the BMCC was a gamechanger, the Speedbooster was a gamechanger.   For a, er, change I think it's good to stay cool. This is not cynism.   An improved steadicam, very highly priced. That's it.   I like it. I really want it.    But am I actually handicapped without it? 

The 5D was a gamechanger not because it allowed shallow DoF. 35mm adapters also allowed this. It was a gamechanger because all of a sudden thousands of aspiring hobbyists deemed themselves indie filmmakers. A specific look that was - adequately or not - associated with 'cinema' now was affordable (and manageable, because the mentioned  35mm adapters were a pain in the ass, bulky and swallowing light).   Did the change bear any fruit?   First of all, very many terrible DSLR shots. But also a few very interesting ones.   The 5D fulfilled the promise that everybody could shoot attractive video on no budget. And some really did.     This Mōvi (at a price of, say, 2000 bucks) would lead to dramaturgically unmotivated steady shots in heaps. Just as DSLRs led to 99,9% self-related focus transitions and attempts to blur the banality of the motifs. And I don't favor helicopters over cats.   None of the steady shots would change the quality of low budget films at all. It causes us to believe we need yet another gyro gizmo before we can express ourselves. It is a change-delayer.

Inevitable. If analog film was the Titanic, the iceberg had already collided. Maybe you can still keep your balance and insist on taking a quiet walk on the upper deck despite the panic around you, but not for long. I went down with analog photography, that was more than 15 years ago already. Back then, the professionals detested digital and stated they would never ever use it for serious work. This changed FAST. Like, one day the customer said, don't worry, you're going to handle my stuff forever, next day he said, your job is history.

Well done. Could have been shot with a much lesser cam, but the style is great.