peederj

And external mics are apparently mandatory...   http://cheesycam.com/internal-noise-from-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/

With defenders like that who needs critics! Thanks Clark.  :wub:

  I think you'll find this backwards. Your render format should be at least as good and ideally identical to your export format. Because FCPX will use your rendered frames in export if the formats are equal. That's why "Export Master File" works quickly if the project is fully rendered. If you are going to only export once, you don't need to bother with rendering, but I like to render and then export master file because changes are inevitably requested and that makes things a lot faster avoiding re-rendering. The rendering done for export sadly does not get cached for future exports otherwise (though you could I suppose drag in the export and blade it up as a cache).   If you aren't going to do any renders, or trash your renders, then it doesn't matter FCPX will always go back to the original media to render from. The "optimized media" is never rendered from only used for previews in the editor. You are correct on a fast machine you can skip optimized media entirely as I tend to.   So if you want ProRes HQ output use it for the project render format as well as exporting to it and then on to Compressor etc. for grid-accelerated transcoding to H.264 or whatever. But ProRes HQ should really just be considered an archival format at the moment...the best YouTube/Vimeo do right now is a miserable 5Mbps (10Mbps peak) H.264, and even Blu-ray is only 40Mbps, wiping out all detail the HQ could conceivably give you.

I'm here Andrew because I think someone needs to put forward this point of view. Not because it's correct in all cases. But the opposite of isn't correct in all cases either. And I believe most cases.   I want to see something substantial from you Andrew. At least a 30 minute short or something, where you have primary responsibility as both director and DP. I haven't reviewed your history at all but I've read this site for over a year and I imagine you'd refer to something if you had done it. With that hindsight I do think you'd amplify rather than be allergic to my comments. I think you'd survive the experience. And your blog would be better off for it, as you'd see what your readership is really struggling with as opposed to helping them join you in constantly putting off judgment day for your art by focusing on preparing some arbitrarily interchangeable part.

The very best thing a beginning filmmaker needs to learn is to be independent in their resourcefulness, problem-solving, and opinion. They won't have a team of experts to help them until well after they demonstrate they don't need them.

  In the case of the 5D3 yes they cheaped out on the downsampling. But not as severely as the other DSLRs that still use line-skipping. Pixel-binning uses all the light falling on the sensor and avoids introducing worse moire than the bayer sensor does already. And that's not only a lot better than line-skipping it's a lot better than a small native res sensor like the current BMD attempts.   The Cx00 line has proper downsampling and the 1DC is a prototype example of a full-featured full-frame DSLR. I hope for a full-frame Cinema EOS camera line and I think we'll get one as it makes Canon's full frame glass something special for filmmaking. Note their Cine lenses cover full frame already. There's a new teleconverter that adapts old PL lenses to larger sensors out too, and the Dragon sensor is nearly full frame width, so Vista-vision sized sensor video is probably going to be a common thing soon even above the DSLR level.   Wouldn't it be nice to shoot your movies in the equivalent of 15 sprocket 70mm IMAX? At 70.41 mm × 52.63 mm that's bigger than even medium format 645. Ambitious filmmakers will demand that, to their credit, and they'll soon (by the end of the decade?) be able to afford it through the virtues of digital and Moore's Law.

Here's one:   http://bit.ly/1bBM58e

I find all of them I've read to be 90% good or vaguely useful and 10% mediocre or plain bad advice. Wolfcrow for instance...worth a bit more than you pay for it (zilch) but not much more. Most of these sites have guides of some kind for sale or free. Just keep in mind the limitations of the authors and square their advice with those of others and most importantly your own experimentation.

Emm runs into snags already, ends up recommending the Ninja 2 for Pocket shooters anyway:   http://cheesycam.com/blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-a-few-tips/

  And being able to work with the information of nine times as many of them will lead to...?

Then there's always the Samyang 35/1.4, full manual, long throw, hard stops. A bit big but fine enough quality and I enjoy mine... I'm surprised this crowd values sharpness, I would figure vintage blur would be your thing.   http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Bigger is better when everything else is equal. Super 35 is a decent compromise but if we had a full-frame of the same sensor quality and downsampler yes it would be better. The 5D3 RAW has a poor downsampler but a great sensor yet it's hobbled by its lack of a worthy codec and there's no way to pipe the signal out other than CF cards. But that's a better idea than the small-sensor BMD cinderblocks and that's why BMD had to slash their prices by a third.   As for the sample above, I think it shows how misleading subjective samples are. What people are responding to in samples isn't the camera so much as it is the people operating and posting it. This sample was posted by someone who apparently didn't know how to even hold a camera much less focus it or do post on the image. But if you pay a great cinematographer to make the iPhone look like masterful video you will wonder if you should be shooting it instead of Alexa on your next tentpole feature.   It's the wizard, not the wand, and as I will insist both privately (ahem) and publicly, it's better for people to learn how to get the absolute most out of a cheap camera like the Rebel rather than attempting to buy their way into skill. The cheap consumer camera is less forgiving than the fancy ones, it doesn't have a baked-in "cinema look" so you have to learn to do that yourself in post. And having gone through that challenge you will be better able to make the most of any camera presented to you, and you won't want cameras that bake in a specific look. You'll also come to really appreciate practical flexibility on set (e.g. low-light capability) vs. absolute image quality, because the impact of your content relies more on getting the right shot in high-pressure circumstances than on the finest gradations of blue in the sky.

  No but it makes it lower quality, because there are fewer photons countable per shutter cycle. Not to mention losing the DR and anti-aliasing benefits of downsampling if you have a native res sensor or crop. And again it makes the DoF deeper.   The whole "sex appeal" of the wide aperture lens is that it will make image quality better (vs. cranking ISO) and DoF shallower. This is brought most to fruition on larger sensors. The inherent tradeoffs on smaller sensors mean that while you can have cheap and light lenses with huge apertures like 0.95 the image quality you can get out of the system will not be comparable to what you can get on a same-generation larger sensor with an aperture of f/2.8 or even narrower. And I'm ignoring a lot of the problems presented by smaller lens design in terms of CA and distortion etc...note how MFT lenses, even quite expensive ones, perform pretty terribly without the in-camera correction tech. Most FF shooters don't use in-camera correction tech because their lenses don't need it.   And coming all the way back round to topic, is there any word yet whether the BMD Pocket camera supports the in-camera image correction (CA, distortion, vignetting) technology that the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras do? Because if it doesn't, then the lenses you have to choose from for the native mount are rather dismal performers. Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

Why the hell are they wasting time re-silvering mirrors or whatever this woman is doing and not finishing the g.d. cameras?  :P

The story I heard on Panasonic is that they were working on some revolutionary new codec and the whole effort fell to pieces moments before announcement. That was NAB2012 IIRC. I would figure they are betting everything on 4K right now and will probably have something by NAB2014.   I tried all the Crumplepop plugins btw and found no use for any of them. Better things readily available in every category. The free film noir thing may be their hit. I think they are a really cool company with mediocre products, the opposite of say, Coremelt who are a really crummily run company with useful products.

Well I'm happy you're willing to cover at least one camera over $4000USD. Because a lot of the cheaper options end up costing similar once kitted out adequately.   The FS700 I've always considered a rental, a poor man's Phantom. But if I shot overcrank instead of low light every week I would have bought one instead of the C100/Ninja 2. Hopefully the R5 rental prices come down with competition from Convergent/AJA/Atomos.

The FS700 is the best camera you're willing to cover on this site Andrew. With the Speed booster it's very nice in the way it offers 1080p240 overcrank (albeit 10 second bursts of AVCHD). I would hope for a better IR filter onboard so the color doesn't wash out at high ISO (also critical for overcrank). I imagine we will have to wait for the next generation before the ergonomics and build get anywhere near the C300, which are second only to Alexa in the entire business.   The news about 4K is good, I welcome 4K as long as there is a good codec. I would like to repo and stabilize shots freely in post. I am not interested in RAW unless there is no other way to bypass crippling.   I don't foresee upgrading from the C100 until NAB or thereafter. This updated FS700 is the only other camera of interest yet announced though. I imagine by the end of 2014 it will be replaced with a 4K XAVC camera with F5 ergonomics/build, hopefully retaining the overcrank capabilities and adding better low-light. By then new Canons should be in the picture too, much to your dismay.

Transmitting light that falls outside of the active sensor area is just wasted. That's how the speed booster works, it condenses the projected circle of light onto a smaller sensor. Just cropping an S35 sensor to 16mm size loses you your light otherwise.

An equivalent would be the 24-105/4 L. Note you need to scale aperture with sensor size for apples-to-apples.   Where is the Sigma 18-35/1.8 equivalent for 16mm under $800? Because it's shipping now for S35.

I think Digital Bolex is doing everything right, they are sold as advertised, it's not so much about making films as being cool in the way you pretend to make films in front of your friends.   If there were a half dozen people demanding everyone scream their praises on every online forum and a full court press to work up a frenzy over it it would not be cool. It's just some quirky oddity like steampunk gear and handlebar mustaches. For people who can afford to do things in style, like Leica wearers.

The Rebel is a super 35-like sensor size and doesn't require bottomless pockets. It doesn't have more moire than most of these cheap cameras being discussed. The lower end Nikons (7100/5200) are even better and they are also super 35mm.    Face it, it's hipsterism, a cheesy anachrony that drives the interest in smaller sensor video. For people whose only story is irony and reference to something their parents thought was cool at that age. Not poverty. Poverty doesn't make movies.

  Actually it's non-moving shots that interlacing helps. For a given bit rate, you have a certain amount of resolution you can represent. On progressive scan you have to show every line in the same frame, so there's less information you can squeeze into that bit rate. If you instead skip every other line for one frame and do them on the next, and back and forth, you can represent the same resolution at half the bit rate. However, when your footage is in motion, there will be scan lines on the edges of the motion as you are combining two different frames where the subject was in two different places.   That's an ugly artifact and for fast-motion shots you would often rather do 720p than 1080i. But for still shots with no changes from frame to frame 1080i is essentially just as good as 1080p yet half the bandwidth, and for the same e.g. 50Mbps bandwidth the 1080i will actually be better than what you can do 1080p at least with an intraframe codec. Long GOP codecs like H.264 relieve a lot of that problem by incorporating information from multiple frames, but introduce other artifacts of their own.   You can interpolate 1080i60 to 1080p60 for slo-mo but you do run the risk of the interlacing artifacts on edges. This is how you can get slo-mo on the C100 for instance. All the 4K modes for the BMD listed are progressive and therefore can't be used for slo-mo other than with something like Twixtor if that supports 4K now.

  The performance of the 8mm sensor is likely to be equal if not worse at 400 than the 135 sensor of the same generation at 6400. You have in those larger photosites a lot more light harvesting ability and a lot more photons to count per site for a given shutter release, and you can also downsample them to increase DR and suppress bayer moire.   Super 35 is a fair compromise and I mostly shoot on it but I will happily mix in my 5D3 when I want that look. Medium format which there are murmurs Canon is entering (purchasing Phase One?) would be even nicer to have around. 8mm sensors? I use the GoPro Hero3 Black and it's fine in daylight for its purpose. But generally deep shots are also wide ones (think establishing/landscapes etc.) and so it's not too hard to go hyperfocal with them at reasonable apertures. Yes there is Citizen Kane as an example of the value of INT depth, but for that situation I have lots of KW of lighting as did Mr. Welles.   There are 100 Million EF mount lenses covering the Super 35 sensor size and a good number of them also do FF 135. Not terribly expensive. The "Cine" lenses are really only better for situations where you have a 1st AC pulling focus...if you are pulling your own focus just grab the lens or use one of those cheap rubber follow focus gear straps. Declicked iris again is a non-win to me other than on real cine lenses where you have a very long throw to the iris dial.

  I heard there are going to be more Super 16 and even Super 8 sensors coming out soon. This completely confounds me. When I shot and cut Super 8 as a kid it was because film was expensive enough as it was and it was simply ridiculous to spend more until you were really making movies. Nowadays everything is so cheap you can get a full frame 135 camera with essentially infinite film for less. Why would anyone want those dinky old lenses unless they were the most painful form of retro-hipster trying to gain cred by borrowing someone else's decade rather than contributing to their own?   Sensors should get bigger and we should celebrate them being bigger. Using a native res crop mode has awful false color artifacts and moire, not things you would find on 16mm film. The kit lenses on the Canon Rebels are better than anything we had for Super 8 and a lot of what's still around for Super 16. If the antiques are affordable it's because most people are smart. If you want to live in the past go all the way for heaven's sake and shoot and cut real film. Anything else is just hokey and hackneyed predictable instagram filters on your so-called "art."

I'm impressed with your grades mindcut. Some of the best posted on this site.   FCPX is deceptively simple, but you can do nearly everything you need with just the stock tools in it for well-captured footage.   To get around keyframeable color in FCPX, you can blade the clip and dissolve across the cut from one correction to another.   To have a comparison frame, you can just use the Match Color view, without necessarily picking a color to match. This also lets you match someone else's footage or still you import. Another way of doing that is Window->Show Event Viewer, and load your still or whatever (you can export and re-import a still from your timeline for this if you want) into it next to the footage you're grading.