dbp

Wow, that 8mm clip is much better quality than I expected.

I was on the east coast of Canada. Not much going on there. Moved to Vancouver. It's pretty solid here. I do weddings and lower end corporate stuff. There's tons of it around. I was able to move with no contacts and start freelancing right out of the gate, even just through craigslist ads. The film industry is apparently doing better than ever too, thanks to our current crappy dollar. Lots of productions coming here. I do get the sense that the mid level is being squashed out, and that there's a big gap between the low end (me) and the high end. I'm trying to move up in price but there's lots of competition and it's very easy to get "pretty good" for cheap nowadays.

For sure. Those 4 always have the nicest mojo, other than the really high end (ARRI, Dragon etc..) It's nice that high quality images can be had for 1000-2000$. In the past, you always had to pick the best camera that suited *most* of your shooting needs, but there was always compromises, because no camera can be suited for every scenario. Now, I feel like it makes more and more sense to own multiple cameras for different situations. Here's my run and gun camera, my cine-style camera, wedding camera, slow mo camera etc... You can travel light based on what you need that day.

Don't own the BMMCC, but I do own the pocket and GH4, so I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in if it helped. Image quality overall is better with the pocket. Solidly better in pro res, and a lot better in raw. I like using it more when I can. The GH4 has been very useful for the low rent jobs that I make my living on for a number of reasons. Battery life, ,memory card space and reframing with 4K in post being the biggest. I must say, coming from the GH2/GH4, I'm disappointed with the prevalence of moire with the BMPCC, particularly on wider detailed shots of architecture. I'm used to never worrying about it with the other two cameras, but it's often there with the pocket. Still though. I llike the pocket the most overall.

14-140 V.1 is fine. Even the 14-42 V.1 (Which I own) has excellent OIS compared to the newer models.

Whoops, should clarify that he was referring to The Revenant only with his digital reality look preferences. Not all movies in general.

I know what you mean. It felt like somewhat of an abrupt end, given how revered the image still was/is. Also, interesting how the very thing that we tend to seek through getting the 'film look', he deviated from. He said that film look to romanticized and surreal, where as the clean digital looked more real, and therefore immersed the audience further into the world. Interesting take on it.

If it ends up just being a glorified 6K GH4, then snooooooooooooore x1000

GH4 with 14-140 would be an excellent choice too. Maybe one low light prime and you're set. Really light to carry around too.

With BM, it's best to wait until they are in the hands of users, and have been for a while. I love BM, but there's ALWAYS gotchas with their stuff. What they are striving for is fantastic, but being overly ambitious at such a low price point is bound to have some bumps in the road.

How long are you going for and do you have any way to offload the files during your trip? That would be my biggest question. I'm in the same boat. Already thinking about which camera to take on my next trip. Last time I took the GH2. This time I can take the BMPCC, but I have the same concerns you have. I think I will opt for the BMPCC. One thing about RAW and file sizes, is that it sort of forces you to be a more disciplined shooter. Last time, I shot sooooo much random and repetitive stuff. It was a bit of a slog to go through it all. I went overboard. Aimlessly rolling. I find when I take the BMPCC out to shoot RAW, I know I only have so much on the card, so I'm much more careful with framing, getting a good shot and not wasting it on nonsense. The extra latitude really comes in handy on those sunny exteriors that you'll be encountering. As for size, I'd say there's probably going to be a big difference in weight between carrying around a BMPCC package vs a 5DMIII, so that's a factor. 5DMIII RAW stuff looks absolutely stunning though, so I don't blame you for wanting one. Plus it doubles as a really nice photo camera. I think that's a plus on a trip. A lot to think about. BMPCC can still do high quality pro res too if you really find RAW is killing your card space. I'd say upgrade to either, and b ring the RX100 along too, just in case. Can't add that much weight, and it'll be a handy back up so that you don't miss anything.

OBVIOUSLY the Canon ZR50

^ That's a good point. I do many indoor event type of stuff, and some of the lighting is just brutal. Some places I've used several different cameras and they all look like crap.

I use the F&V r300 alot. Mostly for weddings, but sometimes for other fast paced stuff that's dark. Works great, looks much better than most on camera lights I find. There's a diffusion panel that comes with it, and they sell a much more diffused one separately that I'm planning on getting. Partly for the look of the light, and partly because it's much easier for people to look at without going blind. It can get quite bright. It was 300$ Canadian. For what it is, worth every penny.

Hmmm? Didn't know this was a thing. Would be pretty sweet. Gh4 might not be perfect, image wise, but it's a real workhorse that can at least look solid in a lot of scenarios.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've never understood this. Currently 32 and have no problems remembering what is like to be 22, or even 12 for that matter.

I'll echo this. Twixtor is great but I've used it extensively and there's no way it replicates actual slow mo. It's great if the shutter is cranked and the subject is passing in front of a plain background. You can do some amazing things in those circumstances. Any time the subject is passing front of a complicated background (ie: picket fence like you said) or there's an object that's moving really fast (ie: limbs with sports footage), it will not look great at all.

How are you finding the Aputure Light Storm?

^damn, I didn't realize the F3 was spec'd like that. That really does sound like an insane deal for 2K. Like a souped up Canon C100.

This post reminds me of this discussion I just read a few days ago. Probably my favorite exchange ever on the subject of "cinematic" looks with filmmaking. Steve Yedlin recently made a video trying to match the Alexa and 35mm film as close as possible. Seen here: http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/ Following that, he posted an email exchange between him and Mario Carvalhal, here: http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html Really interesting stuff. I'm in pretty much total agreement with Steve's perspective.

I'm going to guess Nikon something or other.

What I always wonder is what's stopping people from uprezing to 4K and passing it off? Same with the BBC 4:2:2 requirements. How are they really going to know if it's from a 4:2:0 camera? I'm certain that the 5D/7D were used and presented as 1080p cameras, even though they most certainly were not.... what's to say that *good* 1080p uprezed would be that different than native 4K? Especially from older 4K like Red One, or cameras that shoot 4K, but aren't actually resolving anywhere near that.

That was fantastic. I'd love to hear more in depth about what his process was.

I remember that. Caused quite a stir. The iphone and the 7D were the ones that noticeably stuck out as worse. Not AWFUL by any stretch, just noticeably softer. The GH2 did look good. The third episode, they did reveal the lighting set ups and post time. That's where people came back to reality. It took a lot more tweaking with the lights and tons more post work to make the GH2 look good. Still, it was like 50x cheaper. Remarkable, given the price difference. But that security and speed to get a nice shot is worth a lot. That was years ago though, and I'd argue that the low end is crushing up into the high end more and more with each passing year. The test would be even closer now.

Yeah, pain in the ass factor does weight in heavily. Depending on the type of gig. More forgiving with something narrative. I shoot a lot of weddings currently, and pain in the ass factor makes me hate a piece of gear REALLY quick in that environment. I made fun of the C100. Until I used it. Then I got it. It just works. Not the best of all time, but very solid right out of the box. I love my bmpcc, and I overlook alot of the pains. Recently got a GH4, and man... despite not being in love with the online samples I saw, it is such a pleasant contraption to use compared to the bmpcc. Shocking, really. Tired old cliche, but I still think skill with framing and lighting pay way more dividends than camera or codec. Hell, I'm still mostly happy with my GH2 footage. The closer cameras get to ideal quality, the stronger the "how much do I hate operating this" factor becomes relevant.