Bruno

Isn't the signature Caroline something? In my book that's a she, my book could be wrong though, I apologize if that's the case :)

  OMG, what an offense!!!     English is not my native language, but what I read from this is "The BMCC is a much better deal. Andrew, when are you posting some footage so these people stop talking shit?". The way I see it she was supporting what Andrew was saying, and didn't deserve such a harsh response, but that's just me.     So you compare the BMCC to the F55 and claim that the F55 market needs nothing else than a BMCC, but the C100 is a completely different market. Seriously...

I think you misunderstood HurtinMinorKey, Andrew...   What she meant is that for the price of a C100 you can get a BMCC + essential add-ons + workstation and you end up with superior image quality, which seems to be among the lines of what you were saying yourself.

Why is that? Both cameras need storage and extra batteries when you buy them, one costs 3k, the other 6.5k, that was the whole point. You keep saying how it would make the BMCC more expensive but you can't understand that it would also increase the C100's price?

You could say the same regarding C100's 6.5k, that's all I'm saying.

I would agree with you if it came with a motorized zoom lens and auto focus capabilities, this way I don't really see it as an eng camera. It does have better ergonomics and form factor than the BMCC, but the way I see it it's in the same market as the BMCC really, there's pros and cons on both, but the C100 doesn't justify paying 2x more. Honestly, I don't even think the C300 should cost 2x more than the BMCC, let alone 5x!   IMO, the C100 should cost the same as the BMCC, and the C300 could be more expensive as long as it did at least 60fps.

Sorry, it really looked like you were making a comparison. :)   The internal battery will die even on a C100, and you need a lot of CF cards on a C100 so you don't run out before a 240gb SSD on a BMCC will, if you're shooting prores.   I'm not saying you'll only ever need the internal battery and one card/drive and that's it. The point here is you also need to spend that money with the C100.

But you're comparing BMCC's raw with C100's compressed video, that's apples and oranges. BMCC doesn't only shoot raw, and if you compare the prores file sizes with the C100, the difference is not that big anymore.   Also, a 240gb SSD for the BMCC costs $170 USD, while 240gb worth of CF Cards would set you back $750 USD (rough prices from a quick amazon search).   But even if you had it going up to the price of a C100, the BMCC shoots prores and raw, and the C100 only shoots compressed video, so it would still be a better option, except for ergonomics of course.   In the end it's about using the right tool for the right job, but Canon's C series needs to see some serious price drops pretty soon.

Agreed, and it's not like the C100 comes with CF cards or extra batteries.

Check my original answer. The post you quoted was answering markm, not the OP.

Of course it won't be steady, it's part of a shooting style, handheld is usually shaky by default, and if you go with longer lenses, you expect it to be even shakier, but if that's the style you're after it's perfectly possible, and you see it all the time in action sequences.   Look at this clip shot handheld with a 500mm. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9L-y42Nj58"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9L-y42Nj58[/url]   Sure it's shaky, but I've seen way shakier footage on so many films. The rolling shutter is the only thing making it look bad in this case. And of course in this case it doesn't fit the subject, it's a parked car, if he was shooting a fast moving car, it would have been perfectly suitable and acceptable.   You can use any lens you damn please, as long as you understand what you're doing and how it fits the story you're telling.

You thought wrong :)   Why can't you shoot handheld on 200mm or even longer? Is it forbidden?   If you wanna ignore the couple films I brought up before, then just look at this two random youtube clips and tell me what's so wrong about them. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-pxkFIuM3k"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-pxkFIuM3k[/url] [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSuQ7CHoO4E"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSuQ7CHoO4E[/url]

No I haven't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, just check out the films I've mentioned and you'll see plenty of shots. The Canon 70-200 IS is a great lens for video for instance. Rolling shutter sensors will make these lenses harder to work with, that's for granted, but even that is relative, as the results depend a lot on how far you are from your subject.

You mean like in the Bourne movies or Ridley Scott's Robin Hood? Wide or long, lenses are meant to be used, and they are.

If it's on a steady tripod I don't see why it wouldn't work well. Handheld though it might reveal too much of the jello effect caused by the rolling shutter.

You know moire is a physical effect, right? Your eyes see it, film cameras see it too.   Some video cameras have a tendency to make it look way uglier than it should, but there will always be situations where it's visible. That's why they shoot wardrobe tests on film for instance, using different lenses, etc to evaluate whether or not it might become a problem, you don't want your lead character's main wardrobe to flicker on every shot, do you? Yes, early video DSLRs made it worse than it should be, and added that nasty colored moire, but moire has always been there, they just found a way to deal with it, we need to do the same. :)

  My "thesis that Apple is doing for video editing software what BMCC is doing for low-priced cinema cameras"??? First time I hear about it, where the hell does that come from? When did I ever even mention the BMCC in this thread?   If you read my posts you'll actually realize I agree with most of what you're saying, only thing we might differ is that I think FCPX will still be quite a valid pro app, it was a brave and risky step, and it will take some time, but it might find its place with time.

Hi did shoot Black Swan's subway scenes with a Canon 7D and Canon lenses. :)   It's not uncommon at all to go wider than that on Super 35mm. Most of the Harry Potter films' main lens was a 21mm, and many other films use equally wide or even wider lens choices. It's a valid aesthetical choice and to me the argument "no one does/uses that anyway" is always a weak one. Films shouldn't all look the same, people shouldn't all use the exact same focal lengths, versatility is very important.   I don't think the BMCC's sensor size is a problem though, it's not that different from super 35, and between the EF and MFT mounts you should be able to use most of the available super 35 lenses, and maybe even some 16mm lenses too.   Having a pure super16 or super35 sensor size would work better with cine lenses, that's a fact, but few people amongst the target market of this camera own cine lenses anyway.

Just out of curiosity, how does the prores recording mode compare to raw in terms of battery life?

If you can afford it, the BMCC is definitely the best video/cinema camera for the price, by a huge margin. You can shoot prores for events and raw for narrative pieces if you decide you need the extra dynamic range. Personally, I think the MFT version has a better mount considering the sensor size, but if you intend on sticking to Canon lenses then you might as well get the EF mount version. Even though it's extremely cheap for what it is, it's still a considerable investment for someone to make on his own, so I would recommend you rent it out for a week first, have some lenses ready, and see what you think. You're already familiar with the Canons, so it will be easier to reach a verdict.

  Aronofsky's films are far from being big budget films. Actually Black Swan, Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, etc are all seen as lo-budget films and yes, they could have very well have been shot on the BMCC and still look as good if not better.   The BMCC is in a completely different league from the DSLRs, however it's also in a completely different league from what a multi million big budget production needs from a camera. Am I defending big budget filmmaking and discarding the rest of the films as inferior? Not at all, I tend to not like blockbusters and big dull films (even though I worked in a lot of them), but I do understand the BMCC wouldn't be appropriate on a big budget set, and once again, it's not all due to image quality.   I could definitely see a smaller production (up to $10-15m) using it successfully. Hell, I remember films like 28 Days Later being shot on mini DV! So for the first time (maybe), we can have a small film use a cheap camera with uncompromising results in its image quality, if we're willing to compromise on some of the well established workflow features, but saying it would be up to the task on ANY big film is just not true.

  markm quotes:   "For me the BMC is a better camera (than the F55) that happens to be a fraction of the price." "They use 35mm cameras on big productions and in years gone by without monitors or video assist." "As for Jello and global shutter. Come on No one really notices this stuff anyway." "16bit? Makes no difference No one can see any imporvements." "How about listening to the truth which is the BMC shoots RAW so does the F55. SO you get the same picture with BOTH." "There is not a rational argument to choose anything other than a BMC.""dont try to make yourself look an expert and me a wannabe or a fanboy" You're right, we're the ones who made ourselves look like losers. "To those who get a BMC. You literally got yourself a baby Alexa." You know babies can't do grownup work, right? :)  But I gotta give it to you, you did get something right: "This is what I hate about forums as they destroy the truth in favour of fanboyism"

"I dont care how good red says its compression is. It's still compression."   Never heard of lossless compression, have you?   "Making proxies is the least of your worries on a feature in post production So what you have to pay the editor a few more bob for the proxies BIG DEAL."   It IS a big deal. Try telling the producer (guy with the money) that you'll show him the last takes as soon as everything finishes transcoding in 2 hours, while he's paying for 150 crew people to sit and wait...   "Maybe you are heavily invested?"   Nope, not at all, anyone with a BMCC is more invested than I am!   "the truth which is the BMC shoots RAW so does the F55. SO you get the same picture with BOTH."   Holy crap, when I thought you couldn't be any more ignorant... oh wait, maybe the Magic Lantern guys will soon get the Rebel/550D to shoot raw, then we won't need to use the overpriced BMCC everyone is talking about!   Seriously, how old are you? There's no point...

Because it takes up to 5x less disk space with higher quality, and it does come with proxies, something you have to do manually on the BMCC. And because no one grades ALL the footage, you grade after you edit and you only grade what you need, and you don't need to edit raw. If you ask me, this would be equally beneficial to indie filmmakers.   I don't have a favourite camera, and I said more than once in this post that an indie filmmaker would gain absolutely nothing in buying an F55 instead of a BMCC, you're just not listening. The F55 however is a different market, BMD will tell you exactly this, they designed the camera for DSLR shooters, not for the Alexa market, so if you can't listen to me, maybe you could listen to them.   The fact that one camera is perfect for you doesn't make it perfect for everyone, do we have to elect one camera as the camera to end all cameras, is that the point?

  You sure are entertaining mister... There's many forms of raw for your own information (which is not an acronym btw), go find out about RED's raw workflow for instance, and by the time you realize their raw files are 5x lighter than the BMCC's and come with editable lo-res quicktime proxies that you can choose to work at any resolution you like without data redundancy, since they reference the original raw files, and without the need for an expensive machine (yes, editing heavy raw files is overkill, and it's not how it's done), then you will see the BMCC's workflow still has a long way to go, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.   But please, feel free to entertain us some more.