Bruno

The EF mount is far from ideal for the sensor size, regardless of which lenses I own. This and other things have been pointed out since day one. I'm not ditching the camera as I think it's great to have something like this at last, but BMD did wrong in not listening to what everyone was pointing out You gotta agree it's not ideal for them to support 2 different versions, it would be much better for them and us if they had full featured replaceable mounts. Digital Bolex were set on a few ideas that were criticized at first and they've been shaping the camera according to the people's suggestions, it feels like they're trying to make the best camera they can, whereas with BMD it feels like they're giving us something to play with for the moment and keeping possible improvements for future versions, that we will have to pay for again (that's the apple philosophy resemblance I don't like, do you think an iPhone 1 is that valuable these days?). I hate the idea of buying products that I know straight away I'll want/have to replace in a year or so, more for environmental reasons than economical, I'd rather pay for decent firmware upgrades than have to buy a new camera, but the issues I pointed out with the BMD camera are mostly physical and not easily fixed with firmware updates. I know it might feel like I'm asking for too much, but i'm not asking for 4k or 120 fps, I'm not complaining about sensor size, i'm asking for better or proper implementation of features the camera already has, mostly reasonable and common sense things, why settle for "this will have to do for now" when you can aim at perfection?

I undertand both versions have down sides as it is, and I blame it on BMD for not thinking it through since the beginning, and only reacting to it too late and with a half ass solution. I get that they're aiming at canon DSLR users, but it would have made way more sense for them to adopt a more versatile mount (maybe E mount ?) and then provide quality adapters. I doubt it does them any good at all having two versions of the camera in production at the same time. Canon users would pay 200 bucks for a good adapter I'm sure. I'm a Canon 7D user myself, and most my lenses are contax zeiss, so I don't even care about the active mount, but if I spend the money on te camera, I'll want it to support IS lenses if I ever need it to! Also, having a more universal mount would make it easier on their clients if they ever upgrade the camera. They could release a new version with an APS-C sized sensor and the users wouldn't have to change lenses/adapters/etc, it would be a matter of a straight camera body replacement. This way they're asking for a very specific investment from the users regarding lens choices, not necessarily future proof, and lenses should definitely be a future proof investment. I think there's quite a few things they need to sort out for v2, after they actually sort out v1 first, like: -lens mount (as I just mentioned) -compressed raw workflow (RED is a pro camera and has compressed raw, indie users need it much more, since we'll be dealing with the large amounts of data ourselves and at our own cost) -global shutter option (if it's in the sensor, they should find a way to give us the option, regardless of any possible drawbacks) -60fps, same as above -audio meters and phantom power (and why not xlr) These are the main issues I have with it at the moment, there's other smaller issues but I'm sure they'll eventually be sorted out through firmware updates. It's a great camera but I'd like to see it as a filmmaker tool I can rely on for a bunch of differen tasks, and not as something that "will do until there's a new version", and that's why I won't make a decision until I see it compared with a digital bolex.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353536743' post='22086'] I see no reason why someone cannot buy this sensor in quantity, around $1200 per part like you say, add $200 worth of processors to the back of it and build a camera. $5000 retail on $2400 is a nice margin. To grab market share you need to be less comfortable and more aggressive, take a bit of a hit. I can honestly see this sensor in a 4K camera for $3500 in less than 1 year. [/quote] [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353715236' post='22211'] Why the hell would they be starting from scratch? [/quote] You said "someone", you didn't say BMD, and neither did I.

This camera uses the same Kodak sensor as the Digital Bolex, right?

It can be bought today (black Friday) for $499 with the kit lens! It's time to move on though isn't it? We'd expect a follow up camera to be much more than te GH3 turned out to be, especially when they claimed they were focusing on the video aspect more.

Also don't forget that BMD already had most of the technology in one form or another. Would be much more expensive and time consuming if they were starting from scratch, which would be reflected on the camera price.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353536743' post='22086'] I see no reason why someone cannot buy this sensor in quantity, around $1200 per part like you say, add $200 worth of processors to the back of it and build a camera. $5000 retail on $2400 is a nice margin. To grab market share you need to be less comfortable and more aggressive, take a bit of a hit. I can honestly see this sensor in a 4K camera for $3500 in less than 1 year. [/quote] That's very optimistic to say the least. BMD had a finished camera 6 months ago after at least 2 years of development and they're still not available. Actually they're having problems with the only thing that was available off the shelf! Also, a BMD camera costs 3k and I doubt its sensor costs anywhere near $1200, so with $1700 sensor I doubt you'd see a camera below $5k at the very least. I'd rather see BMD figuring out a way to use its sensors' global shutter mode and 60fps before they start thinking about developing another camera. Even if the image quality is lower, if the sensor supports it then I'd like to have the option and decide depending on what I'm shooting at each situation.

In my opinion the MFT version is a massive reason to cancel an order. The Canon mount made no sense when the camera was announced, makes even less sense now that an MFT version is coming. You'd have to rent it straight away, because once the MFT version is out no one will touch the canon mount one and I'm guessing they'll be worth much less used than the MFT version, even though they cost the same. Also with all these delays it starts making a lot of sense to see what the digital bolex can do before deciding on either camera.

The practical realities are also that many times you don't have enough light to shoot at 5.6 at all. Saying "most films are shot this way or the other" is pointless, no film is shot the same way, and many films are shot wide open, it's an option as valid as any other. Kubrick was shooting with f/0.7 lenses wide open on Barry Lyndon, but film wasn't as sensitive back then, so the reasons were probably different. Shooting wide open also doesn't mean you can't see the sets, if you want to show the sets you focus on them, when dialogue is the most important thing in a scene to drive the story then it's probably a good thing to have them out of focus so they're not distracting (and so it doesn't look like a soap opera). If you watch films like Road to Perdition or The Shining, I think you'll find it hard to disregard shooting wide open as too unpractical for the realities of shoting.

It's not uncommon at all. You can find examples of entire films shot wide open everywhere, from big budget ones (Social Network) to lower budget films (Let The Right One In), there's plenty of films shot like that, at f/1.3 even. It's a beautiful aesthetical choice, why discard it? It's certainly not nearly as over the top as it would be on a full frame like the 5D.

You often mention setting the shutter speed to 360 degrees on low light situations, but the shutter shouldn't really be used that way, as it affects the way camera will shoot moving images. A 360 degrees shutter will have twice as much motion blur as a 'normal' 180 degrees shot. It can be used for effect if that's what you want, but when shooting moving subjects it's not an alternative to raising ISO or opening the aperture, it's got a different purpose. The picture of the BMCC with the battery module next to the DSLRs is quite scary, what a massive monster :) DSLRs will feel like a compact pocket camera after using it. Image quality is in a different league though.

Global shutter and 16mm sized sensor, very promising, i really hope the image is good!

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353186778' post='21869'] somehow u can’t accept OSX as just another variation of the unix. [/quote] What are you on about? I know OSX is based on UNIX, Apple stated it since the beginning, it doesn't mean they just stole it and started selling it as it is. [quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353186778' post='21869'] They focused on it and paid large amounts of money to programmers. [/quote] Wrong. They paid large amounts of money to designers, something few others ever do, and that's what makes all the difference.

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353136173' post='21832'] It’s UNiX you can say its the best. [/quote] All Linux distributions use as much UNIX as OSX does, if not more, try and find me one that's nearly as competent and you'll see that maybe Apple did work a tiny bit more than all the others... or try using UNIX without Apple's interface on top, if you really think all they did was steal it. Saying they "only designed an interface on top" is not only a massive understatement, but you make it sound so easy that I wonder why nobody else has been able to come close. Calling me a fanboy is also useless, I've used Mac, Windows and several variations of Linux professionally for several years, and I'm against Apple in so many other things, but with OSX you're just wrong.

[quote name='tomekk' timestamp='1353085313' post='21781'] MAC is the same hardware as PC laptops and is based on FREE UNIX operating system. They’ve just made graphical interface for it and called it Mac OS X to rip you off. [/quote] Bastards spent years designing, developing and supporting the best operating system out there, how dare they charge you 20 bucks for it? You're right, people like you deserve Windows.

Calling a Mac a PC with Linux is plain ignorant. OSX is based on Unix yeah, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with Linux. I've been using Linux full time for over 6 years now at work, and I can assure you it's nothing like OSX, I which it only came close. (and let me tell you, I work on Boxx machines that cost more than Mac pros, why do they cost more? I have no idea!) The fact that Apple uses the 'same' hardware as PCs is also very misleading, just open a Mac Pro and look inside, the thought and design put into it are unmatched on any PC I've ever seen. Same with laptops, every time i look at a PC it looks like i went back in time at least 10 years. 1 inch thick laptops? it's 2012 for fuck's sake!!! Windows is designed by software developers and engineers, including the interface, OSX and macs are designed by the best designers around, and even though they'll do the same thing at the end of the day, the experience (and transparency) is worlds apart.

BMD should sort out their problems and focus on getting us active MFT mount versions of the camera, that's what they should have went for in the first place, it's been one of main critiques since they announced the camera and it took them way too long to accept it, and when they did, they ran into these other problems that are keeping them from selling cameras. We'll probably see the Digital Bolex come out in the meantime, if they don't run into problems too. They're different cameras that will probably deliver similar quality images, but for different styles of filmmakers. I'm not crazy about the Digital Bolex's form factor, but the mount variety and global shutter are definitely strong points for my shooting styles. Also, having an S16 sensor allows the usage of 16mm lenses, whereas the BMD camera has a slightly larger sensor which might not work with all 16mm lenses, while not being bigger enough to make a difference to the look of the image and DOF.

Here's a good overview of BMD Camera's audio capabilities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=srXGEUCRS5k

I wonder why Resolve only works with compatible gfx cards, I understand it uses it for great performance but should still let you use it with any card, even if slower, for simpler tasks like footage conversion, etc. You can easily edit R3D footage on an old mac, so I would hope BMD or someone else comes up with simpler and less demanding raw processing tools.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1352854504' post='21575'] iMac have the new NVidia cards but they are still mobile versions and not as powerful as the desktop versions. Frustrating. They will be better in Resolve than the 2011 models but not as good as a PC. [/quote] The iMacs are currently the most powerful macs in the market. The Mac Pros haven't seen significant updates in about 3 years, check these benchmarks: http://www.marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/ And they're not even the latest iMacs.

http://wideopencamera.com/cameras/gopro-hero-3-black-4k-video-demo-cineform-1-3-2-update-link/ Cinematic and GoPro shouldn't really be used in the same sentence... It's great for what it does, but 4k is very relative in this case, and when people talk about better highlight rolloff, I seriously don't know what they're on about!

With 6k you could also shoot an entire short film with decent production values, if you rent the equipment. What do you want to have after you spend your money, a film or a camera?

I don't know of any film festivals that would accept 2k but not 1080p. Anyway, if you want RAW and have 6k to spend, I think it's a no brainer, go for the Red One. Your m43 lenses might not cover the entire sensor, but if they do maybe you can find an adapter?

So the Magic Lantern guys got the 7D to write up to 300mbps bitrate (even though it's pointless to go that high) and they found a way to make it write All-i frames. http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3404.0 They're working on MJPG 422 as well, this shows us how much Canon and everyone else are keeping from us, imagine what they could do if they wanted to.

[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1352077149' post='21027'] Tempted to buy a Red One asap. Can Dragon be upgraded to the One? [/quote] It would be the other way round, and no, which means your films could probably only look as good as The Social Network or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, is that a limitation you're willing to live with? :)