galenb

I have an old swivel head light meter and a hand grip type spot meter somewhere. I haven't needed to use them in some 13 years now. The only reason I ever had to in the first place was when doing 'stop math'. That's what I called it back then. You know, when you have a bunch of light on a set and you need to meter each one separate to figure out what light it throwing you over the top of whatever. You meter each one individually and add up the number using some equation I can't even remember and all that. But honestly, this was all because I was working on tiny little stop motion sets and shooting on film. Now a days I don't do that at all. I suppose if I was working on a set then yes, I would most likely need to pull one out now and then to check levels and what-not. But just going outside and shooting videos of my cats... not so much. ;-) 

I'm just blown away that this technology even exists. This is something that should just be built into all small sensor cameras right? I mean, wouldn't it be great if the Black magic cinema camera just had something like this built into the camera? Just before the lens mount? Why not?

Yep, A cheap GH2 or even cheaper GH1 would definitely do the trick. The only issue with the GH1 is that the HDMI out doesn't work while you're recording video. So that might be a deal breaker for you with the Photo Booth setup. However, the GH2 is fine. so yeah, that's probably you best choice. Also the GH1 or 2 will have deeper depth of field due to the smaller sensor. The recommendation of a 50mm lens is good if you are out and about and want to shoot telephoto but I would recommend a wider lens for the Photo Booth. Maybe a 24mm or 28mm lens instead. You can get a cheap Canon FD mount 28mm and an FD adaptor on ebay or Amazon.

Oh man that looks sweet! It's good to see the Sigma 8-16 on the BMCC. It really shows that you can get plenty wide if you want to. I don't think I would ever go that wide to tell you the truth. It's a little disorienting and odd feeling. But it's good to see just how wide you can get before you start getting into fisheye lenses.

FInally! Someone actually has one. I was wondering when someone would get one and fill us in one what it's strengths and weaknesses are.

Specifically, other then low light performance, how is the 6D better then the 5DmkII for video? Or is it?

Pretty soon it's going to be time to pick up a used one. The price is bound to plummet after today.... At least I hope.  Say what you will about that camera, I think it's still a viable option considering what else is out there in the full frame DSLR market. I think it could be handy to have as an extra camera for specific things where the GH1, 2 or 3 might not work as well. Mainly, Low-light and ultra shallow DOF.   Okay... Looking on Amazon, you can get a used body for as low as $1300!... If it comes down any more then that, I'll be forced to buy one. ;-)

Oh, that's awesome. Great minds... What site is that?

I was just thinking, it would be cool to get an old Power Mac or older Mac Pro case, gut it and replace all the components with new hackintosh parts. Someone probably has an old G5 tower sitting with the pile of other old retired computers in there basement. I know my parents still have an old blue and white G3 in a closet somewhere. That could be a fun project. :-)

  Fair enough. I totally agree there. It's really to bad because having a passive mount means you cant use any of the electronically controlled Panasonic or Olympus lenses. That cuts out a huge library of actual MFT lenses out there and reduces it to a small handful of Rokinon, SLR Magic, Sigma and Voitlander. However, if you just want to use Vintage glass then you're all good to go with the appropriate adaptor. Although... With the exception of some close flange mounts like Leica M and PL mount lenses, most of those can be adapted to EF mount anyway so... I don't know, I think I would still go with the Canon mount due to the availability, quality, and image stabilization.    Interchangeable lens mount would definitely have been the best solution. Yes. I totally agree with you there too. E-mount might have been a good solution too but I have a feeling it's a proprietary mount and Sony might not allow it. You never know though. I wonder if the passive MFT mount was a way of getting around having to pay licensing fees?

Oh great! Thanks for posting that thread. I totally forgot about that. Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the 1DX is not noticeably better then the 5Dmk3 to justify the price. Looks like it really is going to have to be the 5Dmk3 this time. It's really depressing that there isn't another full frame camera that can best it though. I mean, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus?... Nothing guys? Really? It's a shame.   Thanks for al the input guys! 

  Inappropriate mount? What mount would you have put on it? I'm assuming that by "Professional", you mean it should have had a PL mount? I don't think that would have been a good idea. Have you priced PL lenses? Plus, that would put it squarely in a "Professionals only" box and I don't think it wouldn't be able to back that up with the rest of the expectations that come with that claim. Maybe you meant the opposite and that it should have been meant MFT?   The whole point of the BMCC is to put professional image quality in a package that indy filmmakers could afford. It was never to make a camera that would compete head to head with Alexa and Red. It's for people who are on a tight (or no) budget. So, then the question is, what mount is the most popular, widely available and has the most options available for it? Well, that would have to be Canon right? What camera currently is used the most by indy filmmakers? It's Canon right? Some may argue that it's Panasonic now and to this we see the MFT mount version pop up.  But otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that the people who would be first to buy this camera probably have a lot of EF glass already. Right? Also keep in mind that there are a ton of popular lens mounts can be adapted to EF too. Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, etc. So you really are not that restricted to began with. The biggest restriction seems to be at the wide end but as we've seen, there are options out there. And, the situation would really be no better with PL mount.   The thing that I think both sides of this argument have lost sight of is that the BMCC is not made for everyone. It was made with a particular user in mind. Indy filmmakers stepping up from DSLRs. Pros will want more from their camera systems and will appropriately choose to shoot on a camera that better suits their needs. Shooting a commercial with a high profile client? You're probably just going to rend a RED, a set of PL primes and shoot 4k RAW. But that's not what this camera was intended for. Can you use it for that? I'm sure you could! But with so much money involved in commercials and so much riding on a single day of shooting, I can't imagine it being the best decision. If you've ever worked on a big budget commercial shoot (and I have) You'll know that the choice of camera isn't always made based on price. The camera needs to offer such fine grained control that's just not there on this camera. But I don't think you can fault them for any of that because like I said, It's not intended for that kind of situation. I'm sure there will be a lot of crossover though. The more comfortable people get with the camera and the better the firmware gets, I'm sure we'll see more and more professionals using it for those quick jobs with less riding on it.   Where this camera will really sing though is in the hands of talented and motivated indy filmmakers who only care about getting the highest image quality and are willing to sacrifice a few niceties in the process. So yeah, a lot of the people in this forum actually. ;-)    As far as resale value goes, only time will tell. If the next version comes out too soon then yes, I think a lot of people will be upset so I do think you're earlier point is valid. I hope they will wait at least a year before announcing anything new. But I have a feeling that even after a super 35 version (or whatever) comes out in a year or so, the original will still be a desirable camera with indy shooters. Similar to how the GH2 is still popular. The price will obviously come down a lot (maybe in the $1500-$2000 but that depends on how much the next version costs) but that might actually serve to make the camera even more desirable to indy shooters making low to no budget films. And just imagine, by then the firmware will have matured computers will be faster and SSD media will be even cheaper!     My point is just this: The BMCC is not for everyone. If it doesn't suit you, then it doesn't suite you and that's fine. 

  I think I know the video. Is it this one?   http://vimeo.com/54141436   That's Rick Young btw.

  Interesting. I'm sure you're right but for that matter most people here would be fine with a hacked GH2. ;-) To be honest though, if money was no object then I would definitely go with the Alexa just because I've always thought the image was amazballs.   For the Price though the C500 seems to be a little lacking in it's features compared to what else is in that price range. I think the C300 makes a little more sense for the price but (AFAIK) the C500 just adds 4K. When you can get a Scarlett and shoot 4K raw, the C500 doesn't really seem to be priced right. But like you said, it probably comes down to an issue of forum factor for a lot of people. Just saying, for the price, it would be nice if Canon could come out with a camera that shoots raw is all.

What about Nikon? Do they have anything worthwhile?

I have some stuff I'd like to shoot full frame. I'd like to shoot some of it in slowmo but I don't know if there are any full frame cameras that can shoot 1080/60p. I was just going to rent a 5Dmk3 for a few days but I'm wondering what you guys think of the other options out there? Are there other full frame options that compete with the 5Dmk3? Any that will do 1080/60p?   Thanks!

Ooops! Wrong section! Sorry. Please delete.

  Why is this?

Newest update from Friday the 14th of Dec:   http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3457   Full production is finally underway!

Awesome! P.S. I'm so glad to finally be reading about something other then the Hobbit and HFR. ;-)

I'm an animator by profession. I can see Mocap has it's uses, mostly games and VFX but not for a feature film that's supposed to be character driven. This is all about making more money. You save money by not having to pay top dollar animators to sit and animate. Instead you can just hire art school kids to sit and edit mocap data for pennies. Sometimes even for free! Then, you charge more for the tickets because it's in 3D and on top of that you take money from advertisers. It's all about money... Not art or advancing technologies or anything else.

  Ah yes that makes more sense. Thanks Andy.  ;-)

I think MC is Minolta mount. MD and MC are standards for Minolta if I remember right. Obviously this is a Cosnia 75-300mm. I imagine it's fine especially since it looks like it supports Macro focus. It should work on full frame cameras since it was originally made for 35mm film cameras. Obviously, this means it will work fine on Canon APS-C cameras too. You should be able to get a Minolta MD to Canon adaptor for pretty cheap on Amazon or Ebay. 

You have to understand that the original was shot in either 2.5k or 1080P. if you have footage that has moire in it and you down-sample (scale) it properly it should smooth out some of the moire because the pixels are being averaged together. This is actually the very similar to the process that the camera uses internally in order to get rid or aliasing/moire in the first place. It's called super sampling or over sampling. You capture a larger image than you need and then average small grids of 4 or more pixels together in order to smooth out artifacts caused by aliasing. If however, you used some funky method for scaling (by not resampling or using funky cheap programs for instance) it will exaggerate and in some cases even create aliasing/moire. There are also a host of other post processe, effects, poorly designed encoders that can cause artifacts as well. Seeing that this footage was scaled to this odd format makes me think there was some kind of tomfoolery that happened in post.     I need to find someway to illustrate this because I think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation about aliasing and moire. I think some basic understanding of what exactly aliasing is would go a long way in understanding the issues.   I just want to clarify though that I'm not dismissing this as in camera. It very well could be. But I highly doubt it.

Yeah, I call shenanigans on this. I'm sure it was down to some post process that caused the moire. If this was in the original footage it would have to have been really bad for it to show up in a resize. And since exactly no footage that I've seen shows Moire like this, I'm pretty positive it was a post processing error. However, all cameras will moire at some point. The issue is how often it shows up.