Bruno

You really don't get it do you? It's not just about image quality, it's about production workflows. Many DOPs only made the switch to digital with the Alexa and not the RED, and that's because of how it was designed and how it fits in a production workflow. The Alexa image itself won't be that different from a RED after you've graded it, etc, but it's the whole experience that matters to them.   You'll see plenty of BMCC cameras on big films, that's for sure, they'll be replacing the 5Ds whenever they need a small compact camera, and they will be so much better at it, no doubt about it, but that's it.   Rolling shutter is the worst problem about DSLRs in my opinion, and it's too bad that the BMCC didn't improve that aspect of it. Saying no one notices it is just plain nonsense, have you ever even shot handheld? How can you not notice it? On top of the weird effect, it makes the footage really hard to track and be used in post production, etc. It also makes stabilizing more difficult for stabilizing software, global shutter footage can get much better results with stabilizing in post.

  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!   Is this forum becoming the equivalent of reduser for the BMCC or what?   You totally lost it. The BMCC is an amazing camera, and as I said before, an independent filmmaker would be crazy to get an F55 instead of a BMCC, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about when you state that the Alexa market would be equally well off with a BMCC.

  I don't know what makes you say 35mm film cameras didn't have video assist. They didn't in the first few decades of filmmaking, that's for sure, but any 35mm camera these days or the past few decades has full video assist support.   Well you were comparing these two cameras in the first place, it's no wonder my post seems disingenuous to you! :)

Agreed, a narrative film is a director's vision, and regardless of which camera was used on Moonrise Kingdom for instance, the final result wouldn't have been that different, it would have the same shooting style, color grading and your attention would still be in the story, not the image quality details. A camera test or shootout should be neutral and objective, be as raw as possible without any added treatment, unless it's illustrating something, like how far grading can go, etc.

Very constructive comments mister Andrew, but they should actually have been addressed at the original poster. What I meant is that they're not comparable products, they're meant for totally different types of movie production. It's amazing and great for us that the image quality is as close as it is for such different price tags, and honestly I don't think an indie shooter would gain absolutely anything in buying an F55 instead of a BMCC, he would very likely get much less done on his own, but that doesn't mean the F55 is not a valid product, or even an extremely cheap one for what it (possibly) does. Regarding The Dark Knight Rises, I think it would take much more than a video village to stop it from turning out the massive turd it is, no idea why you even brought it up...

  Image quality is obviously very important, but the BMCC is not a camera that a DP would use on a big production. You'll definitely see many being used on big productions though, as B and C cams, or for specific scenes where they need a stealth camera, etc. but it doesn't have what it takes to be an A cam on a big production, and I'm not talking about image quality. They need it to be able to plug into the video village, record into external media, and so many other specific things, and the BMCC wan't made for that, it was made for us.   On top of it all, no matter how much a vimeo video looks like the BMCC to you, the F55 is a different beast in all aspects, and a much superior one I'm sure, which doesn't mean the BMCC wouldn't still be preferable for some situations or aesthetic choices.   It's apples and oranges really.

So figure out how much that 2 inch thick machine will be worth used in 1-2 years time and compare it to how much a 1-2 year old Apple laptop sells for, then tell us where's the joke.

  They've been closer to that with Final Cut Studio and they discontinued it, like they discontinued X-Servers, which were unique in the market at that price point, but then again wouldn't sell as much as the iPhones.   FCPX and Logic are not only pro, but also prosumer and even consumer apps, so they still stand a chance, the rest I don't really know... and as for the "processing power module", maybe they'd open it up for a third party company to do it before doing that themselves, we'll have to wait and see, but it's way too many pro products being discontinued or abandoned indefinitely to be hopeful.

We can't know if Logic will have a new version or no until they tell us, but the fact is that pro apps are seeing unusual long times between updates. I'm not even ditching FCPX, I appreciate what they did and most people who got into it will never go back to editing in the old fashioned way. Yes, the first version lacked many things, but considering how different it was, it's not like people would make the switch straight away, and they did solve most of the issues in a dew months. I have no problem with a possible Logic Pro X, I'm all for it. If you see what they did with GarageBand for iOS it's pretty cool, it's so much better than the Mac version in so many ways!

[quote name='endlos' timestamp='1354204591' post='22636'] Bruno, I don't think Apple is ever going to invest in a delivery mechanism that is slowly dying off (DVDs). Haven't bought a DVD in years. [/quote] You're proving my point. Home DVD authoring is dying, and a product like DVD Studio Pro (for DVD and Blu-Ray authoring) would now be only used by professional disc authoring facilities, and not by the end consumers, therefore something Apple is no longer interested in.

[quote name='endlos' timestamp='1354204591' post='22636'] By the time you factor in the massive price drops that Apple has introduced (just take a look at what Logic, Final Cut X, and Motion cost today vs previously) Apple is if anything aggressive about growing market share. [/quote] Yeah, but that's a product of the times. Everyone edits HD these days, so even FCP will have a much wider target if the price is right. Even if they had done FCP8 instead of redesigning it, it would have made sense to bring the prices down because so many more people are willing to buy it now. You didn't mention the Mac Pros, which is undoubtedly their main pro product, and has been ignored for a few years, with many believing they're dead. There's also Shake, it had no competition whatsoever in high end compositing in the post production industry when Apple ditched it, so why was it? Because high end professional products don't make nearly as much profit as the millions of iStuff they sell. You can acknowledge it or ignore it, but it's quite clear for everyone to see, and I used all those products, so I feel the consequences, I'm not just ditching Apple for the sake of it.

[quote name='endlos' timestamp='1354194534' post='22628'] And where is the evidence of that? Your not referring to the tired and outdated arguments against Final Cut X are you? [/quote] Right in front of your eyes! DVD Studio Pro has been discontinued. Logic hasn't seen an update in years. Same for Aperture. There hasn't been a proper Mac Pro update in what, 3 years??? The iMac is their fastest machine at the moment! They're obviously focusing all their efforts on iPads and iPhones and consumer stuff, I don't think you need any further proof of that... The Alexa has become a favourite in film due to its amazing picture quality, and in broadcasting due to its picture quality AND prores support. The RED didn't have prores until very recently and on paper it's always been better than the Alexa, but that wasn't enough for many top cinematographers. I'm afraid these specs are more closely evaluated by people like us than actually top cinematographers, because they just hire one of each and run a bunch of test shoots, and in the end their decision is based on the image quality when they run the tests on a big screen. High fps will hardly be a deciding factor unless the film in question relies heavily on it. I've worked on films where the RED was only used because it's easier to use for stereo shoots, not because of image quality, so that has been a huge advantage for them. Sony will have to deliver in image quality too if they want to succeed, these cameras are not cheap enough for the spec sheet reading enthusiasts and for the pros it doesn't really matter if they're slightly cheaper than an Alexa or RED. If they deliver though, then it might shake things up even more, and who knows soon we'll even be able to afford one! Canon's C series cameras are great at what they do, you could almost say they're perfect for a bunch of different tasks, including indie filmmaking (maybe 60fps would make them even more perfect), but looking at what everyone else has on offer at the moment, I don't think I'm being unrealistic when I say that all their C cameras should have their prices dropped to half.

Best use of squeezing ever? Single take shoot by the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6LuwU3LPLE

I've worked with many different directors and cinematographers, and on many occasions there have been problems with the projectors or movie player software that causes slight aspect ratio distortions when we're watching dailies, and no matter how subtle these are, it is enough for them not being able to judge the work anymore and rather look at it later once the issue has been addressed. It's that much of a problem.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354114969' post='22532'] Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few? [/quote] IMO faces or full body shots is what gives it away the most. In the closeups of her shorts when she's walking, for instance, it's hard to tell since I don't know her, it can make her look thinner or chubbier if it's wrong, but doesn't feel as blatantly odd as a face or full body shot does. I totally understand it's a look to have it stretched or squeezed, I just don't think it cuts well with undistorted footage, unless you go further and use more extreme distortion, then it would be clear it's a creative decision, this way it looks like something's wrong with it.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354038866' post='22466'] Well Bruno. Once again, I don't agree. [/quote] You don't have to, it's your video, glad you're happy with it :)

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354028570' post='22445'] Really? You can spot that the pixels aren't square? [/quote] It was quite obvious to me too, people are distorted in many shots on this video. On same cases I thought they might even be skewed, as if the anamorphic lens wasn't properly aligned, but it might be just the distortion and an off level shot giving me that impression. I don't particularly like the change of styles, there were too many of them, not necessarily grounded on the story. It's fine to have a different look for a dream sequence, or even more than two different looks in one single video, but they should be serving the story when there is one, if you go totally experimental than do whatever you feel like. Lighting on those interior shots was on the poor side, maybe you could have graded it more to try to make up for that, but in my opinion you could have taken better advantage of the locations that looked good without much additional lighting.

It's no secret how much they made... http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joedp/the-digital-bolex-the-1st-affordable-digital-cinem People who paid for a camera (at the discounted rate) will get the finished product. They'll actually get a better camera than they paid for at the time, with all the tweaks they've been making. [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1353959921' post='22349'] This guy claims, they are also planning on manufacturing $600-800 kindda lenses, for $125 (1:20). Has he lost the plot? [/quote] He's not claiming they'll be selling $800 lenses for $125. They've talked about this a few times. What he said is they'll be selling lenses "as sharp as" an $800 dollar lens for $125, now the lens itself is a different thing, don't expect the same construction, they mentioned they'll be fixed focal length and fixed aperture, so nothing like an $800 dollar lens, but according to them still pretty sharp and useable. Now I'm not trying to sell you their cameras, I have no guarantees these guys are legit at all, but if you follow the updates it's not as nonsense as some are trying to make it look.

What a silly discussion. These people do have way too much time on their hands... seriously... I don't have any money invested in this, but you don't need to look further than the Digital Bolex website news section to get extremely detailed info on the progress of the entire project. On top of that, you have the 2 creators showing up for interviews everywhere, on every different filmmaking website or blog, do you think they're all in on it? I don't think it would be worth it... If this was a scam why would they stop at 100 orders? They could have gotten at least 5 to 10x more orders than that through kickstarter alone!!! Maybe they're scammers AND dumb?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_k1MS80SKk

That's why I feel the EF mount is not the best option for this camera (unless you could replace it) and why I think that the digital bolex's 16mm sensor size might be an advantage.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1353928089' post='22306'] You will probably get 3 BMC's for the price of a digital bolex anyway. [/quote] What makes you say that? First batch was sold at $2500, final price will probably be $3000. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353908694' post='22293'] Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big! [/quote] BMD shoots 2.5k, so if you really like your lenses, you could crop it to 2k and get rid of some vignetting, not ideal, but a workaround.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353869897' post='22271'] Then why are you so much in favour of the MFT mount version? The EF version supports Contax Zeiss adapters and IS on Canon lenses!! [/quote] I also have a 16mm film camera with some good lenses that could be put to good use with this sensor. Also, even if I had no lenses at all, 16mm c-mount quality cine lenses can be bought at great prices these days, the same is not true for super 35 cine lenses, and it would be neat to use cine lenses on a cine camera in my opinion :)

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353885930' post='22280'] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]How did they do wrong by not listening to what to what everyone was pointing out? Are you expecting them to stop production on the camera and reengineer it to support everyones needs before anyone actually had it in their hands?[/font][/color] [/quote] The camera wasn't in production when they first presented it and got all the feedback. [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353885930' post='22280'] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Digital Bolex is a crowd funded, work in progress and stand alone in the industry for the most part. This is very different from BlackMagic Design who are a corporation with very different focus and working methodology.[/font][/color] [/quote] You're right, BMD had way more resources to address any possible tweaks than Digital Bolex. Digital Bolex raised money to build 100 cameras and that's it, they didn't have an established running company and all those resources at hand. [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353885930' post='22280'] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Things like APS-C, XLR inputs, removable battery, articulated screen, etc. would have made it perfect but it also would have driven the cost up much higher.[/font][/color] [/quote] That's what a lot of people has been complaining about, not me. I mentioned XLR ports, because it's an industry standard, and definitely needed for serious audio work (with phantom power). The rest of those things I'm not complaining about. Sensor size doesn't bother me, the mount does. It would be handy to have an articulated screen, but you can get any monitor you like. Replaceable batteries could be good, but you can plug any batteries to it. However, no add on will bring you 60fps or the global shutter mode that reportedly that sensor comes with, or a replaceable lens mount. [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353885930' post='22280'] [/font][/color] Well, then I think you have just justified your argument for canceling your pre-order. [/quote] I never had a pre-order, never said so. Would I buy this camera as an indie filmmaker as it is? No. Would I rent it if I needed it for a project? Yes. Would I buy it if they sorted some of the issues I pointed out? Definitely!

The reason the Digital Bolex is still vapour ware is because they didn't go and release the product they first announced ignoring everyone's input, instead they listened and they've been tweaking it according to feedback, and their progress has been documented in detail on their website, with a transparency uncommon to other manufacturers. Besides, the BMDCC is still vapour ware to many people who ordered it months ago too. Anyway the point was that they're so close to having a really solid product that in my opinion it's worth going the extra mile and thinking it through. If you wanna settle for less, be my guest, I'm sure they'll appreciate it, but will it help changing things for the better? What you're saying sounds like if you put raw in a cheap camera you can ignore everything else, and that's not true. Everyone complained about the audio capabilities on the DSLRs and the BMDCC is not any better in that regard. I'd definitely rent one if I need it, but as an indie filmmaker I can't be buying cameras incrementally, when so many little things clearly need to be addressed even before the camera comes out.