galenb

Interesting. Yeah, that makes more sense. Although, the more I think about it, you might be able to rig some kind of remote or even just one of those cables that extends from the focus wheel (don't know what they're called). Might even be able to attach it to the yoke somehow. I'm sure someone has done something like this before. I can image it would be a cool effect to have a medium shallow depth of field during a nice smooth move.

Hey everyone, I hope I don't get in trouble for this being so off topic but I don't really know where else to ask about this. Maybe someone can at least steer me in the right direction. I've always had a thing for steadicam. To me, it seems like the ultimate dolly/track/ jib arm/etc, camera mover all in one. But as far as I've known, Steadycam systems are prohibitively expensive. So usually you would just rent one on the day of the shoot (hopefully along with an experienced operator). So I was surprised to happen across this on ebay: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Steadicam-Pilot-VLB-Camera-Camcorder-Stabilizer-System-w-IDX-Battery-Charger-/370636714953?_trksid=p3284.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%26otn%3D21%26pmod%3D330758111150%26ps%3D54#ht_3241wt_1398"]Steadicam pilot[/url], $4,000 for a steady cam seemed really cheap! But then I ran into this: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Magic-FM-arm-vest-kit-Flycam-6000-Steadycam-monitor-for-DSLR-DV-HDV-camera-/170891875135?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27c9f3133f#ht_7577wt_1165"]Magic FM arm[/url], around $1,400!! but the ultimate bargain basement steadicam appears to be this guy: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-15kg-Load-Camera-Video-Steadycam-Stabilizer-Steadicam-/120965723427?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D27%26meid%3D1284223392872710226%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D1011%26rk%3D1%26#ht_7587wt_1165"]Laing Hotweel[/url] because unlike the others, It can carry up to 33 lbs. Here's there website: [url="http://www.szlaing.com/en/product/html/?89.html"]www.szlaing.com[/url]. These guys sell the exact same model just with a different name: [url="http://www.wondlan.com/product/260-leopard--carbon-fiber-deluxe-edition--8f95/"]www.wondlan.com[/url]. Even though shipping it expensive, you can find these for even cheaper so the initial cost is still under $1,500. That seems crazy to me when I see people selling sliders or boom arms for that much. As far as I can tell, load bearing seems to be the big dividing factor between them. But that's only what I've been able to gather from the internets. I don't know anyone who has ever used one and I have only ever seen one being used once before and never bothered to ask any questions back then. So now the prospect of owning a steady cam has come into mind. Especially after seeing the John Brawley BMCC footage recently. So I have a few questions: 1.) What do you guys think of these Chinese made stedicams? Are they any good? 2.) Is 33 lb. enough to carry a Red (EVF not included since it will be mounted below)? 3.) If you have to hold it below the yoke with one hand and on the yoke with the other, how do you do follow focus? Thanks for any help you can give me!

Very enlightening conversation about bitrate. thanks guys. I'm not sure which of you is "right" though. Both sound conceptually solid. ;-)

Yeah, I expected this too. They even said last week sometime that you shouldn't expect shipment for another two weeks. So, this is just setting that in more certain terms for me. I was going to pre-order when it was announced but thought better of it once I realized that it was probably going to be another month before some of the bugs got ironed out anyway. P.S.: I don't really understand the hostility to this camera on the RED forums. It obviously wasn't made to compete with them right? I have yet to see anyone from BMD call RED on the carpet or anything. I just find it odd. I also know that the funny bit above was really just meant to be funny but I've seen some RED fans really bashing hard on the Cinema Camera and it's not even out yet. P.P.S: just an observation: MB, BMD, BMC, BCC, BDCC, BMDCC! OMG!! So many acronyms being used to describe this camera. ;-)

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343555294' post='14699'] The images of video cameras affordable for the common people have always been improved. S-VHS was better than VHS, Hi8 and DV were better, HDV was better. Many said about the HVX 200 (below 1k resolution with pixel shift), now the era of indie filmmakers was just around the corner. And it was. Timeless principle. The con- and prosumers are too stupid to realize that they can't win the race if they accept the industry's rules. 4k? Haven't you heard (read andy lees posting above), that these resolution tags are buzzwords to fool the consumers? If your display was 4k and you watched your own 4k stuff on it, you didn't move closer, because the video lacked the true resolution in the second place. And it looked terrible in the first place, because it neither had color resolution nor color depth suitable for a BIG image. You think all this will change with the BM? It will, but in incremental steps (including the fact that you have to monitor the better quality, did you think about that?). At the time every hobby dad has 4k raw, the aestethic standards of cinema will be higher again. All this without mentioning makeup, constumes, good acting, good sets, good lighting, good sound design, music ... [/quote] Actually I did mention that. ;-) Thats kind of my whole point. Maybe I wasn't being clear. I don't think it matters if it's shot on film or digital. If you are a brilliant artist or a Hollywood shill, the movie you make will only look as good as your talent allows. I feel like there is so much sarcasm in your replies that I can't tell what your stance is. Are you are saying that you think 4K matters or that is doesn't because what matters is color latitude? Or that digital will never be as good as film or that it's already there or... what? I think I may be misreading what you are saying. It's funny, when I started out I totally thought you would have agreed with me. :-D (silly me) To my eyes, the main thing that I notice in the digital era that makes things look cold and digital to me is all the excessive grading and post work that goes into it. I'm pretty sure a lot of that just has to do with how the Hollywood machine works now a days. It's just what they're expected to do. once you have a DI, a lot of directors want to fuss over all the tiny things they were never able to control back in the days of film. Or it's just the workflow they've been taught. I think this happens regardless of weather it's shot on film or digital. I know this because I've seen perfectly shot footage turned to crap in post. I've worked in Post production for almost 20 years now. Mostly in VFX and animation but I've seen footage shot on set that comes to us looking horrible all the time regardless of what it was shot on. Regarding 4K: All I was trying to say was that eventually someone will build a camera that will impress enough of the old school film guys. In order for that to happen it would have to be 4K and have as much latitude at as film. Not for me, for them. And I don't think that's long off. again, I'm not saying that's what it would take to impress me and I'm certainly not some kind of 4K zealot or anything. I happen to be very impressed with GH2 footage I've seen. In fact, the GH2 is the camera that made me think, "Okay, now I have no more excuses for not making my own films." But the GH2 certainly doesn't compete with film. But I don't really see that as the point though.

I hope you are not expecting me to defend George Lucas? Well anyway, mock if you will but I still think a proper digital film camera is just around the corner. And really, is it the camera that makes a movie look good? This reminds me of the arguments I used to hear about digital recording equipment back in the 90's. I just wanted to add something else: I feel like a lot of the raging against digital films lately has more to do with the god awful machine that Hollywood has become then anything else. Some people have mentioned certain movies shot on film (like Bladerunner) and how there are no digital equivalents that exist today. But I can also point out movies that were shot on film that look just as god awful and soulless as the current crop of digital cinematography. As it's already been pointed out, digital film making is relatively new and were all still learning. I don't think being shot on film was what made Bladerunner look so good at all. I think it looks good because of how different it looked back then and how it challenged so much of what had come before it. Not to mention the amazing sets, props and actors that made the world feel so gritty and believable. And, It had so much more to do with relentless stylistic/artistic vision. I think Scott lost a lot of this artistic vision before he even made Prometheus. Whether or not he used digital tools, the movie was just badly made.

I've been reading this thread and I love how there is an aspect of this discussion that is about comparing the GH2 to film. Com'on people! :-D I really hope no one actually thinks film is going to be replaced by a $800 micro 4/3 camera? Okay so film kills GH2 but what about RED and Alexa? And really, we may not have the technology to make a movie that looks better then film right now but just wait. In a few years... maybe even next year, there will come a camera or even multiple cameras that will be able to do it. Red, Alexa, C300, these are just the prelude to what will come soon enough. I really feel like all it will take is just the right mix of 4K full-frame with a wider dynamic range. I mean, doesn't it seem like that's just around the corner? For me the proof is in the current crop of digital still cameras. We already have the sensors and resolution to make images that look as good as 35mm sill cameras. All we need now is the processor and memory technology to get fast enough that we can capture 24 of those frames per second and we are golden. ;-) I mean, seriously, something like a 4K Black Magic Cinema camera isn't totally ridiculous to expect is it? If BMCC fly off the shelves then someones going to want to one up them. Right? Oh, and you guys should watch the [url="http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/sidebyside/"]SIDE BY SIDE trailer[/url].

I totally agree about the overuse/obsession with extremely shallow DOF. However, I think it's like any feature of consumer goods; even though you may never use it, it's nice to know you could if you needed to. In other words, I can understand people not wanting to be limited in any way... That being said, looking at this footage, I can't really see an issue with the DOF and this camera. That CU shot of the pool balls looks absolutely buttery. It's obvious that you can get nice shallow DOF just as long as the lens your using has a low f stop. I've been seeing so many cameras defy the limitations of small sensors lately (like the Sony RX100) that it's starting to make me question what the real issue is with smaller sensors? If sensor size was everything then the GH2 couldn't perform as well as it has. I'm starting to think that is has more to do with how the CPU takes the data from the sensor and culls it into a pleasing image then anything else. I think that's what Panasonic have done to make the GH2 footage look so good. Of course, if you're doing green screen work or needing to push in on footage or things like that, then a 4K camera is nice to have. However, Start Wars ep. 1, 2 and 3 were all shot in 2K right? There was a ton of CGI all over those movies so I still don't understand what the issue is. Maybe I'm missing something though? It seems like the only real issue is that if you already own glass, all your lenses will be croped. But if you know this ahead of time, you just need to plan appropriately. right? I guess if you were shooting skateboard videos and wanted that fish-eye there might be an issue. :-)

Hi everyone, this is my first post but I just had to point out something: I used to have a chair like that. It's not actually moire like what happens with a lot of other DSLR footage that's caused by aliasing. This is actually caused naturally by the fact that you are looking through two layers of mesh. It's imposable for the front mesh the line up exactly with the back mesh so you see a moire pattern. It's a completely naturally occurring optical effect that you would see with your naked eye. Another way you can tell this is the case is that the pattern doesn't change or move every frame like normal moire caused by aliasing or the simple fact there is no moire anywhere else. Thanks!