Bruno

Apparently they also have a 2k camera that shoots up to 60fps, would be great to see a review on it (and find out what the price is).

Hey Andrew, what's so seriously bad about the 5D3? The tests without the AA filter you posted a while back looked damned good to me. Yes, that will affect the color of the images, but last I heard someone was working on a replacement filter. That should give you a kickass full frame camera that's still quite cheap considering the alternatives (actually there's not that many full frame alternatives). No one buys a RED not expecting to spend quite a lot of money on accessories, so having to buy this replacement filter so you can use a stills camera to shoot great video doesn't seem that bad to me!

I agree with the article if you're talking just about beauty shots, commercials, music videos, etc, but for narrative work, that can become quite distracting. If you're shooting a dialogue and cutting from different focal lenghts between 2 shots, close ups, wides, you don't want every lens to have a different aspect to it, you want consistency, and that's very hard to get with vintage lenses (you'd need to have a set for each lens you like, probably impossible to find!). That's when good neutral lenses are very important, most serious work is shot as neutral as possible, because in this time and age you can make it look however you want it to, but once you shoot with one of those beautiful lenses, that's pretty much it.

[quote author=PAVP link=topic=637.msg4684#msg4684 date=1335371163] What was wrong with the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  I thought those movies were well done and generally well accepted by the public.  I don't like the look of BlueRay and perhaps that is how some of the scenes in The Hobbit are looking.  To me BlueRay versions of movies look like video. [/quote] BluRays don't look like video, check yout TV settings, you probably have some sort of digital smoothing turned on. That setting usually needs to be readjusted for every TV input you use.

Take any beautifully shot film classic and play it on a modern TV with "Auto Smooth Motion" on and you'll see it instantly turn into cheap looking soap opera video. This is what 48fps will do. If you look at Peter Jackson's latest films, clearly 3D and 48fps is not what was missing to make them any good, he's wasting all this time and money on gimmicks instead of focusing on making a decent film. Do we have another Zemeckis here?

Why do we need to find a winner? The winners are us, having different choices is a great thing. No two filmmakers need or like the same camera, so this is all good, it's not like we need to elect a winner and ditch everything else, is it? Also, how would Canon releasing a 2k raw DSLR for $6k clear their name when BMD's camera costs half the money?

Canon are obviously crippling the video side of these cameras, but then again these are not video cameras. Still, if the hardware is capable of more, they'll eventually have to give in, unfortunately they might not do so until everybody else does. It's the underdogs like BMD that will eventually change this mentality. There's now some rumors of new video features being added to the 7D via a firmware update. Still hard to believe, but I think that would be a great move from Canon that would 'resurrect' a camera that was never used to its full potential. Even as a paid upgrade, it would make a lot of sense, if they could add manual audio control, some peaking tools and 5D3's new codecs, it would totally be worth paying for an upgrade. At the moment they have nothing else on this price range, and unless they have a new 7D ready to announce, I don't see many people buying 7Ds at this time, so a move like this, if done right, could be really smart. The 7D features 2 processors and yet it doesn't do anything that the Rebels don't on the video side, it's obviously capable of much more, and Canon know this, that's why they protected its firmware so much better than on other cameras so that Magic Lantern couldn't work their magic on it. Let's hope for a change in their philosophy, but in the end, we're a minority, and no matter how much better and cheaper BMD or other companies' cameras are, there will still be way more people buying Canon cameras for taking pictures of their holidays, etc...

Quicktimes are just like a prores file, so you can edit real time, but you wouldn't do any post work or grading to it. Once you're done with editing, then you move on to post and grading, for that you replace the proxies with the raw files. It's obviously more of a cumbersome workflow, but it's what you get if wanna shoot RAW. However, for most independent filmmakers, Prores will probably be enough, as it will be so much richer than the DSLR footage, and still very gradeable.

[quote author=johnbauerphoto link=topic=613.msg4336#msg4336 date=1334840258] What kind of processing power do you think will be needed to properly work with the camera's files especially the DNG RAWs. [/quote] You don't edit with RAW files, no one does, you use proxies. RED has a quite cool quicktime proxies system that allows you to create different res quicktime proxies that are just an alias and don't take up any disk space, but they interpret the RED raw footage as lower res quicktimes, that you can edit on any system.

If you just take a look at those 2 jpg stills you'll see this camera is in a completely different league than any DSLR. And that's only a 1080p jpg, not the proper 2.5k raw file. Put a lin2log on them and you'll get an idea of what they have here. Sensor size is being way overrated, beautiful films have been shot on 16mm, which is smaller than this, Avatar was shot on a smaller 2k sensor too.

It accepts external batteries, but yeah, it's one of its downsides. When buying it you need to spend at least 500 dollars more on a battery system and the ssd hard drive(s). They're probably cheaper than CF cards though. I don't see the sensor size as an issue at all, I don't know about you guys, but I'm kind of tired of watching 5D short films constantly going out of focus, full frame is way too much and too distracting for film imo, especially when pushed too far, as it constantly is.

Regarding the sample videos, if you read the guy's large post, you probably know they were shot with a cheap and slow canon zoom lens (15-85), so I wouldn't expect much sharpness there...

These are high end Cinema cameras that Canon is announcing, they're meant to compete with Red and Arri, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. For years film cameras cost way over 100k, and I don't remember people demanding they put out sub 5k USD cameras. Even RED, who promised everyone such a camera, that never existed and that they never knew how to make, got away with it easy, so why point the finger at Canon now, who came out with the HDSLR video revolution in the first place, allowing us all to make great work with them, while RED kept pointing the finger at all their downsides without ever managing to come up with an alternative. If you look at this Cinema 1D, it's a hi-speed 4k full frame camera, there's nothing like it out there, no matter what. You crank up the speed on a RED camera and it crops the sensor the higher fps you go. It's true most their DSLR cameras are due for updates, specially on the video side, but they were never video cameras in the first place. They already have cameras on the price range you mentioned, wait for new versions of the 7D, 60D, etc... The current 7D came with some improvements on the video side when compared to the 5D mkII, let's hope they do that again and smooth out some of the less appealing glitches with the 5D mkIII, but I don't get all this fuss against them wanting to get into a new market as well.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=456.msg2929#msg2929 date=1332626335] No need for 5DToRGB or MPEG StreamClip, Premiere Pro CS5.5 is a superb piece of software for editing natively in. Especially 1080/60p AVCHD natively, which is still very flakey in FCPX. [/quote] 5DtoRGB does way more than just transcoding the footage. It does a great job of removing compression artifacts that Premiere or FCPX won't, so it's not just a case of transcoding to Prores, to me it's an essential "cleanup" pass. You can tell the difference by comparing the channels before and after. Now it would be really cool if they released this as a Premiere or FCP plugin instead, so we would get the same results without the need to transcode. Bruno

Hey Andrew, you don't seem to be taking this into account on most of your reviews, instead leaning more to round ISO numbers: [url=http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/[/url] I'm not sure it still applies on the 5DmkIII, but it's probably worth testing. Or maybe there's another reason for you to run tests at 100 ISO? Would be great to get you opinion on this! cheers, Bruno