HurtinMinorKey

Holy shit. This is as good as any BMC footage I've seen out there.  The colors are ridiculous. When the f are these guys going to ramp up production?

Really like the BW stuff on the skate park. But, the gh3 5D3 comparison almost bored me to tears.

  [url="http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/05/peter-jackson-reveals-the-red-epic-secrets-behind-the-hobbit-vi/"]http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/05/peter-jackson-reveals-the-red-epic-secrets-behind-the-hobbit-vi/[/url]   At 5.05 PJ starts talking about HFPS, at 6.16 they mention the color issue, but it doesn't really answer your question.

  This makes sense. The more realistic(high rez-high fps) the viewing format, the more we expect natural points of view. Extreme closeups probably seem really out of place.   I'm still going to see it in this format. I kinda expect the movie to be trash anyway, so I'm really only going to see it for the tech.

I remember Jackson saying that they had to paint the sets with overly saturated colors because the RED cams were sucking all the color out of them. I wonder if this was something they never got quite right.

^I'm not saying non-narrative forms of entertainment will exist also, but I think narratives will always exist too. People like being told what to do, and how to think.

  I don't know. I'm talking about the best from each era. Budget has a lot to do with it, and so does the amount of time spent on it, and style/skill of the artists.  I feel like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park(1993) looks more realistic than any of the hulks.  Golem looks really good in some scenes from LOTR, but the Warg riders look stupid.    I guess what I'm really saying is that given how good things looked 10 years ago, i thought they'd be much closer to having seamless CG characters.

I own a plasma, and i agree that in most circumstances they have a better picture for a cinema experience. LCD's are much brighter though, so if you have a lot of sunlight in a room, they will look better than a plasma in the same space.     I've learned this first hand as i just moved into a fancy apt with floor to ceiling windows.

I feel like CG (in film) hasn't really improved since the early 2000s. It still takes a ton of work, much of which I think can't be automated, to match something into it's surrounding.  Living creatures still don't look quite right.    You have to figure that 100 years from now we'll all be watching some crazy high rez, high fps format, that makes us feel like we are actually there.  Something akin to VR but with a narrative.

  I agree. I think that production people need to catch up. I also heard that the CG really didn't fit in well with the 4K backgrounds.  But I don't think we should rush to judgement on the high fps format.   I've always thought Peter Jackson was an overrated director, his overuse of slow-mo during LOTR makes it almost unwatchable for me,  so i bet someone can do better with the new tech.

^ I was wondering when one of these would show up here

To clarify, two people use this account. My wife (Caroline) and I (Peter).  If the post is argumentative and or about tech it is usually me. If it's about style and/or has proper grammar, it's definitely her.   

^ they did an effect in Fightclub where they simulated the film jumping out of the projector gate.  I think it's a much more exaggerated than what you want, but it's the same concept.

...

BMC (min setup) + (HP Z820 editing station) =(price of c100) + (another league of IQ).   Andrew, why haven't you flooded us with footage yet?

The only thing that was truly "scary" about that clip is how good the ungraded footage looks. FUnkin Redonkulous.

  These days, the marginal benefit per dollar spent on a lighting set up easily exceeds what you get from incrementally better camera tech.  I like to light things with a three light kit.   [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/527159-REG/Arri_571979W_650W_Fresnel_Compact_3_Light.html[/url]   You can always find cheaper generic versions of these too.   Most on camera lights these days are LED, and while they give you a nice soft light, they still don't have the best color.   I like this for on-camera: [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html"]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185678-REG/Lowel_ID_02_ID_Light_100W_Focus_Flood.html[/url]

It's not expensive. All of its competition is priced >$10K.  Black magic does not have any high end products to protect, and/or they aren't involved in any collusive shenanigans with the other major manufacturers; therefore, they can produce a camera that undercuts all of the competition by thousands of dollars.    It would be nice if you could actually by one in a store though  :blink:.

  This "mobile card" is only slightly slower than their high end desktop cards. The 680MX absolutely destroys a 560 Ti 1.5GB. 2GB will be plenty to edit BMC footage. Remember, there's a big difference between 2K RAW and 4K RED RAW.   Nvidia locks out some "pro" features on their desktop and mobile cards. Some of these features are used for 3D rendering. The non Quadro cards will send these tasks to the CPU.  I don't think any of these tasks have anything to do with editing video, but they might.

If you notice, the new demos for the F55 use DaVici Resolve. It's. Where it's at for RAW.

^ i'm looking at the 27' mac myself, since I already have a MBP and i don't want to buy another Adobe license.   I figure I'll get the i7, 1TB fusion, Nvidia 680MX for about $2599. I'll upgrade the ram myself.   I can build a PC, and get a ultra-sharp monitor to go with it, but it's still going be around $2000. 

I had a question relating to the new iMac too:   Does anyone know whether the Nvidia Quadro cards offer any improved performance in resolve over the non-pro cards (GTX) other than clock speed and cores? Does the same apply to mobile(M) cards as well. On paper the Nvidia 680MX in the new top-end iMac kills the Quadro 4000, which is DaVinci Resolve approved. The 680MX is also cheaper. What's the downside? I know they lock out some 3D developer features, but is their any downside if you are just doing video editing?

Does anyone know whether the Nvidia Quadro cards offer any improved performance in resolve over the non-pro cards (GTX) other than clock speed and cores? Does the same apply to mobile cards as well. On paper the Nvidia 680MX in the new top-end imac kills the Quadro 4000, which is DaVinci Resolve approved. The 680MX is also cheaper. What's the downside?

[url="https://vimeo.com/54325017"]https://vimeo.com/54325017[/url] This footage looks better than anything I've seen from the FS700. But, BMC still kicking both their asses.

There were some squashed shots in there. But I really like both the sequences and the framing of the shots. But more importantly, that girl Lili is extremely hot. You should have used more shots of her and less of the bald guy.