dbp

This thread themes comes up once a month at least on all the filmmaking forums around. But it is true. It's not too difficult though, you can still chase tech and have a passion for it provided you are honest about how important it is. Just don't put too much time/energy there at the expense of expanding your skills. It kind of surprises me that people are negative on the tech nowadays... I think it's an amazing time. I figure that it's kind of like back in the day when DOPs could choose different film stocks depending on the look and feel they wanted. There's so many cameras and they each have their own signature look, subtle as it might be. A lot of them are so cheap that it's possible to own multiple low end ones. Plus, there's a liberating feeling that no matter how good today's tech is...yesterday's (to a point) is still good enough. Until 1080p is dead and buried (if it ever is), then I firmly believe my GH2 will be sufficient to do high quality work, provided you work within it's limitations. Even though there is newer and better, I don't feel left out of the party so to speak. In essence, a really good DOP With a GH2 will still smoke an amateur with a C300/Red/Alexa etc... It's nice. Great times these days.

Looks like it shoots 1080/60p which is nice. Was definitely hoping for a pocket upgrade. Ah well.

​No doubt, I definitely root for them more than any other company right now.

I wouldn't really compare it to a GH4. Seems like a different product to me. If I was in the market for a GH4, I wouldn't want this and vice versa. For me, the biggest wildcard will be the look. I don't mind a smaller sensor with a deeper DOF personally. I still rely on a small chip camera for some of my work, and a larger sensor is actually a disadvantage in some cases. On paper, this camera sounds useful to me but the proof will be in the footage. If it has the canon look with 12 actual stops of DR, I'd be very interested. That said, the one test video didn't look very compelling. Here's hoping that was some weird operating error.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize this might be the thing to finally replace my HMC150. Very curious to see how the high ISO performance is, to help offset the slow lens. Most of the small sensor 4K cameras are atrocious in low light it seems.

I know it is early into the life cycle of 4K but it seems like 4K / 60P is a rare feature. I figured this, with it's smaller sensor, would be able to do it.

​The thought of this actually being a factor to humans with functioning brains makes me very angry. Outside of ergonomics, people *actually* care about how a camera looks? Good lord.

​Agree on this. Obviously subjective, but I find the color science very pleasing out of the C100 and it's very easy to get a pleasant image in many scenarios. I've seen a number of threads on forums complaining about the A7S color science. Also, Andrew mentioned weight. Not sure about the C300, but the C100 is surprisingly light. With the same lens, it might even be a bit lighter than most of the DSLRs out there. Physically it would take up more space though. Can't forget the ability to be inconspicuous, especially with something like a GH4. You'd draw attention for sure with the C100.

C100 for 2999$ seems like the steal to me It's an amazingly pleasant camera to use, but it's so hard to justify when GH4, bmpcc, A7S etc... exist

Perfect, thanks!

Sorry if this has been touched upon, but how is it in low light? My wedding video boss has a 7D, and he's asking about some primes to get. I realize that for the price of a few primes, he can just get this and have substantially better image quality. I currently have a GH2, anyone know how high ISO performance compares to it for a reference?

​True words. Its nice watching other people guinea pig stuff. The BMPCC was rough out of the gate, but a lot of the problems have been ironed out at this point. Good time to buy. Cameras are also going to take longer to become obsolete at this point. As long as 1080p is a popular delivery format, something like a Canon C300 will be viable for a long time to come, even if newer and better tech emerges.

The Alexa definitely seems to have some secret sauce that appeals to DPs, particularly in the highlight handling. I've never used these cameras but from reading a lot on reduser, workflow plays a big role. The ease and familiarity of the Alexa workflow can be huge for producers.

^ He's actually really good about answering questions on lighting set ups and offering tips. His whole philosophy on lighting/cinematography is great. I liked him before but my like increased ten-fold after browsing his forum.

True. I also think that it takes a while, longer than people think, before one's skills outgrow even something as modest as a 7D or GH2.

Shooting weddings, events, or Broll for an organization with people in it, I must say, I get more and more tired of people's fear and dislike for cameras. You're an adult, get over it already. Getting the stink eye gets old after a while. Just because cameras reveal and remind you of how stupid you look and how dumb you sound, please don't take it out on me.

On the DSLR front, the Panasonic GH2 can record straight until the card is full. Not sure about the other models (G6, GH3/4 etc...) I use it with a cheap Nikon 50 1.8 for interviews at it works well.

I thought some of the difference was not only on the long end, but on the wide end. For instance, something like a 16mm f2.8 on FF, is there such a lens on S35 that can match? Much less m4/3

The C100 is a fantastic camera, I'd love one if I could afford one. Glad they finally got 60p on there.

​I know this is definitely an issue, but it seems like it won't be so bad as long as you are aware of it and take the effort to update your files as the years go by. It's definitely not a set-and-forget type of thing like a film master. That said, I dunno about the rest of you but I've been making random stuff on digital for officially 15 years now. I still have my old master files from 1999-2000 that I can play today. Mjpeg was the codec back in those days. Some have been updated to different master codecs since then, but I've been able to maintain files for 15 years with little effort. I think it's definitely an issue that most be given attention, but as long as you do... it's not as complicated as it's made out to be.

​I know this is definitely an issue, but it seems like it won't be so bad as long as you are aware of it and take the effort to update your files as the years go by. It's definitely not a set-and-forget type of thing like a film master. That said, I dunno about the rest of you but I've been making random stuff on digital for officially 15 years now. I still have my old master files from 1999-2000 that I can play today. Mjpeg was the codec back in those days. Some have been updated to different master codecs since then, but I've been able to maintain files for 15 years with little effort. I think it's definitely an issue that most be given attention, but as long as you do... it's not as complicated as it's made out to be.

Looks great, those icy waterfalls are quite spectacular looking.... cool spot to visit for sure!

I've never specifically worked with film or done comparisons to digital, but here's the impression I get from reading posts by those who have. Digital has certainly caught up in terms of resolution. It appears to be caught up, or at least very close, in terms of dynamic range. A long time Achilles heel of video. Where I think digital might still fall behind is the richness of color and the color science itself. The "mojo", if you will. Which is why specs and charts never tell the whole story. Not saying I agree with it because I don't really know, but I do wonder if film is still king in this regard? Anyone who worked with it want to chime in?

For anyone who hasn't seen it, the 30 minute doc called "Life After Pi", detailing the downfall of Rhythm and Hues is a good (but depressing) watch

​I wonder what will happen as it becomes more common with other parts of post production? Ever try Elance or any of those online freelance sites? The rates you have to compete with are very, very depressing.