galenb

  Oh I see, No I was meaning $500 for body only like what was being suggested for the NEX 5n. But yea, with kit lens its actually a lot more expensive which now a days it not at all a good deal. Especially when you consider the kit lens goes for about $100.     Ahhh. I see. I wasn't able to find the NEX 5n for such a low price. But I see what you are saying. If you can fin it for $300 then yes, that would be a better deal. 

  There is a trade-off SSDs. They are actually about the same cost as SD cards per GB but you wind up burning more GB in the end. Would be useful to know what the MB per minute is with ProRes is in this situation.     Yeah, this whole extra cost of ownership might not be worth it with weddings. Hard to tell though. Factor in some kind of large tarabyte drive for archiving your work and another large, fast array for editing on.   Its a tough one because the image that comes from the BMCC is soooo good. It's hard to turn down. And it uses the Canon glass you already use (albeit with a pretty sizable crop). And I think, other then an external battery, you won't need that much more rigging then a 5D.     But there are obviously drawbacks specific to your work that I see. I've never shot weddings so mybe I'm totally off about this but It seems to me that they are a lot like fashion or food photography. You really have to make the subject look as dreamy and sexy as possible and that usually means a lot of shallow depth of field. For that kind of work, the 5D really shines with it's full frame sensor. I really believe that there is no single camera that will work in all situations. You should use the camera that best suites your kind of work. In my opinion, that's the 5D mkIII. Sure the image is less detailed and there is less latitude but you won't have to work as hard to get that dreaminess.    Can you make things look as sexy with a BMCC? I'm sure you get pretty damn close but I feel like it will take some very expensive lenses to make that happen. In this specific situation, it all come down to lenses in my opinion. Sure you can find lenses to use on the BMCC that will give you that nice dreamy look. If you were to opt for the MFT version, there's the hyper primes out there. But they will cost you. On the other hand, with the 5D you're not as restricted by aperture as you are on the smaller sensor of the BMCC so you can get away with using slower and thus cheaper lenses. Also, don't forget that you can still get adaptors for older vintage lenses like Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Nikon etc. to use on the 5D.     And there's still yet another advantage that the 5D has over the BMCC in this situation: Lowlight. I would imagine that since you are shooting well into the night, there is going to be some difficult low light shots that would be hard to get with the BMCC. Not imposable but again, the 5D just makes it easer.   If it wasn't for the weddings, I'd say sure, go for the BMCC. The image a amazing, much more flexible in post, ProRes just drops into your editing app, etc. There's a lot of reasons to choose it over most other cameras. But in your specific situation, I think the 5D is better suited.      Yeah that's really the rub though. I mean, that's exactly why you wouldn't buy a 5D mkII or 6D. Yeah it's pretty close to the 5DII/6D image wise... except for aliasing! That's a pretty big deal I think. Right now it's the only full frame camera that doesn't suffer from that in it's price range.    I don't know. Like you said, it's a tricky situation. But I would still go with the 5D mkIII for the reasons I listed above.   The GH3 is a close second but it would suffer from the some of the same issues the BMCC would in this situation. But, maybe since you will have some money left over, you could put that towards a voigtlander or SLR magic.

  I don't understand this statement? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong though. The price of a NEX 5n body averages about $500 which is about the same for the GH2 (deals for even less can be had in either camp).  So, if the price of a GH2 is about $500 then It sounds like you're saying you can buy a NEX 5n body and four Zuiko primes for $250?! If this is true I would love to know where.

Seems to look fine from that video. I didn't notice anything to distracting. I think I've mentioned this before, with full frame obviously you can get much shallower depth of field so the amount of in-focus area is relatively small. This can help hide artifacts caused by aliasing because aliasing only shows up in areas of sharp focus. I'm sure if you stopped down the lens so that more was in focus, you might start to notice the artifacts. Still, maybe a price you pay for such nice bokeh. It's hard to tell. I really want to see some more scientific tests to know where exactly the camera breaks down and thus, how to avoid the issues in the first place. I mean, It's obviously capable of shooting nice footage but what exactly causes the other footage that we've seen to look so bad? 

Yeah, these Panasonic cameras are a mixed bag in my opinion. They produce the best image of any DSLR but there are trade offs. High ISO is one of them. My GH1 is really, really really bad in low light. To the point where I don't even bring it with me if I know we are going to be in a dimly lit space. On the other hand, I'm very happy with the performance of the camera in just about every other situation. And even still, there are situations where it will produce almost no noise at all in low light. I haven't been able to pin it down quite yet but it seems like as long as there is at least one part of the image that is exposed with some bright light, the rest of the frame will be less noisy. But, if the entire frame is dim and under exposed, then it will be a noise fest. For me, this shows up as FPN noise. for the GH2, it's just simple random noise and much easer to filter out in post. So at least you're definitely better off then me. :-) A few months ago I shot my friends birthday party. We were in a dimly lit restaurant for the first part of the night then we went outside to the fire-pit. The fire-pit footage was lit only by the light of the fire. It was a bright light though. Most of the footage with fairly noise free and looked beautiful. But the restaurant footage was almost unusable. Well, I used it because it was just a little video I did for a friend and she still thought it was great. But, it's not something I would stick on my reel because of the noise.

tomekk, Do you get paid to try and convince people to not buy Apple products? Because judging by the amount of energy you expend in doing so, you should be. ;-)

Well then, I guess I don't understand.

Um... I understand the difference between global and rolling shutter. But I think you are missing my point which is that sensors need to be made to support global shutter as an acquisition method. Maybe you know something that I don't but as far as I knew, the sensor on the BMCC is not a global shutter sensor. So, you can't simply glue a rotary shutter onto a digital camera and expect it to produce global shutter.

Okay, I took the liberty of downloading the video and scaling it in premiere Pro 6. Here's the project file if you want to have a look at it. All I did was to find the shots that looked stretched and add an additional 84-85% vertical scale to them. The main thing I noticed is that it seemed to be very consistent. Like it only applied to a certain combination of lenses or something. Going through it frame by frame by the way was pretty interesting. I like what you did here. :-) Here's the Premiere pro project file. Theoretically you should be able to just load it up and replace the missing media with your fully rendered version: [attachment=315:Anamorphic_correction.zip]

Um, Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? It seems like you are suggesting that by attaching a rotary shutter it will somehow enable global shutter on the camera? As far as I know, the sensor has to be made to support global shutter in the first place. And, even if it did, it would need to be switched on in software before it could even be utilized. So we are also talking about hacking the firmware. And, there is a tradeoff with global shutter too. Loss of dynamic range so I would expect that we would loose the 13 stops of latitude in the process. Am I missing something?

[quote name='Paddy' timestamp='1354052502' post='22480'] "[i]I remember reading another article about 2 years ago by a more independent source, and they concluded that in a regular sized theater, you would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows to really notice the difference in 4K.[/i]" Check this page: [url="http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels"]http://magazine.crea...uture-of-pixels[/url] Written by a much more trustworthy source than a Sony marketer... [/quote] Well even thought I agree that that article is very enlightening especially as it pertains to sensor technology, I really don't see how you can say this is a more "trustworthy" source? John Galt is from Panavision who as it so happens, stands to loose a lot of camera rentals if everyone suddenly starts thinking they need to use 4K. At the time of this writing they only had digital cameras cameras made by Sony. Also, I'd like to see what he says about 4K now a days. Panavisoin was the king of Hollywood up until the last 5 or so years before digital started making any kind of dent in their business (however tiny is may be). It's in their best interest to keep everyone thinking that they still make the best cameras. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying this is every bit marketing material as the Sony research is. It's an industry trying to justify their choices in technology. Just saying. [edit] The more I think about this, the more I feel like I'm probably being a little to harsh. Sorry folks.

Nice job! Love the super slow motion. I wish I could identify exactly what it is about slow motion that I love so much. ;-) There's some nice subtle CG stuff in there as well. It was pretty cool. What did you use if you don't mind me asking?

Looks really nice! Where did you find that glowing under-lit floor?! That was awesome! Shades of THX1138 (one of my favorite movies) Nice to see actors in your movies. This is my next passion too. About the anamorphic squeeze, I think.... I have to agree that it's not quite enough... Please don't kill me for saying that. :-( I really loved the video and to tell you the truth, it didn't "Bother" me at all. But I did notices it too. I actually noticed it a few weeks ago when you posted the still from it... I don't remember off the top of my head what blog post it was... I took a few screen shots from the video into After Effects and applied an additional squash in the Y axis of about 88% if that at all helps. I don't know, maybe you might like it better that way? Either way, it's a great video.

Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense? I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.

[quote name='mikeritchie' timestamp='1353918871' post='22299'] Still need to experiment more with low light shooting, but from the little bit I've done it feels cleaner at high ISO than the GH2 (hacked or not). I saw this video online yesterday, which shows off the high ISO performance: [b]GH3 real ISO 1600 - 3200[/b] [url="https://vimeo.com/53786898"]https://vimeo.com/53786898[/url] Please note, I didn't shoot this! [/quote] Wow! Nice!

Interesting. Looks like fold-back clipping... Or maybe that's wrap clipping? I can't remember now what it's called. We see it all the time in Ray Tracing.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353908694' post='22293'] Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big! [/quote] Unless you want vignetting of course. ;-)

Pre-order: By bad, I got you and Kingswell mixed up. 60p has been talked about by Blackmagic design as something that could possibly be added in a firmware update. I'll see if I can find a link to that quote but I think it might have even been grant himself.

[quote name='mikeritchie' timestamp='1353882438' post='22277'] Not too sure about the moire. I've noticed it on any of my shots, but I still need to shoot more to know for sure. [/quote] Cool, let us know when you do. :-)

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1353875944' post='22272'] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I think there's quite a few things they need to sort out for v2, after they actually sort out v1 first, like:[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]-lens mount (as I just mentioned)[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]-compressed raw workflow (RED is a pro camera and has compressed raw, indie users need it much more, since we'll be dealing with the large amounts of data ourselves and at our own cost)[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]-global shutter option (if it's in the sensor, they should find a way to give us the option, regardless of any possible drawbacks)[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]-60fps, same as above[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]-audio meters and phantom power (and why not xlr)[/quote][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I agree that all of these things would make the camera even better but just as far as thinking in terms of what is [/font][/color][font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]actually feasable to change in a reasonable timeframe, I would narrow the list down to:[/color][/font] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- Cineform RAW could come in a firmware update.[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- 60p in ProRes only mode (has been [/font][/color][font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]discussed) could come in a firmware update.[/color][/font] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- Audio meters could come in a firmware update. [/font][/color] I'd also love to see 2.5k in ProRes, File/Disk management in the menus and a better one touch on menu overlays similar to how the GH1,2,3 has the quick menu overlay along the top and bottom of the screen. I think all of these things might come in later firmware updates and that's when I'll buy one. [quote]The EF mount is far from ideal for the sensor size, regardless of which lenses I own. [/quote] Okay that's fine. That may be true for you and many others but not for everyone. [quote]This and other things have been pointed out since day one. I'm not ditching the camera as I think it's great to have something like this at last, but BMD did wrong in not listening to what everyone was pointing out[/quote] Okay I don't understand this. How did they do wrong by not listening to what to what everyone was pointing out? Are you expecting them to stop production on the camera and reengineer it to support everyones needs before anyone actually had it in their hands? This isn't the way companies work. [quote]You gotta agree it's not ideal for them to support 2 different versions, it would be much better for them and us if they had full featured replaceable mounts.[/quote] Yes, I agree with this. A universal mount of some kind would have been great. I really hope some engineer guys will find a way to remove the current lens mount and make it interchangeable. [quote]Digital Bolex were set on a few ideas that were criticized at first and they've been shaping the camera according to the people's suggestions, it feels like they're trying to make the best camera they can, whereas with BMD it feels like they're giving us something to play with for the moment and keeping possible improvements for future versions, that we will have to pay for again (that's the apple philosophy resemblance I don't like, do you think an iPhone 1 is that valuable these days?).[/quote] Well, I think you are making an unfair comparison. Digital Bolex is a crowd funded, work in progress and stand alone in the industry for the most part. This is very different from BlackMagic Design who are a corporation with very different focus and working methodology. I don't think this is necessarily better but it is what it is. And I don't think you can expect BlackMagic to just stop what they are doing and start listening to every little criticism while trying to make it all perfect. They are simply not that agile. And, I really think they did what they did because it was a matter of cost. They started out the project with a fantasy of making this cinema camera that shoots RAW for only $3000 that would shake up the industry. In order to do that they had to keep costs down and that usually means they leave things out. Things like APS-C, XLR inputs, removable battery, articulated screen, etc. would have made it perfect but it also would have driven the cost up much higher. Basically, you get what you pay for. I think they have delivered what they set out to make (I use the term "Delivered" loosely). No it's not perfect but it shoots RAW for $3000 and it looks amazing! No other camera on the market can make that claim. [quote]I hate the idea of buying products that I know straight away I'll want/have to replace in a year or so, more for environmental reasons than economical, I'd rather pay for decent firmware upgrades than have to buy a new camera, but the issues I pointed out with the BMD camera are mostly physical and not easily fixed with firmware updates.[/quote] Well, then I think you have just justified your argument for canceling your pre-order. Seriously though, maybe this camera is just not the right fit for you? I feel like everyone knows what the limitations of the camera are. There are work a round to just about all of them and some people are fine with that while other are not. I can totally understand why someone would not want to buy this camera. I myself have not bought one for some of these same reasons. But no one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes and I hope no one is under any delusions that this camera is perfect. [quote]I know it might feel like I'm asking for too much, but i'm not asking for 4k or 120 fps, I'm not complaining about sensor size, i'm asking for better or proper implementation of features the camera already has, mostly reasonable and common sense things, why settle for "this will have to do for now" when you can aim at perfection? [/quote] For all the reasons I have listed above. ;-)

Hi Mike, How's the Moire? Have they made improvements since 0.5? P.S. The video is really nice. Thanks for that. :-)

Yeah, I think you're right. Super 35 is the sweet spot. Hope we see a BMCC like s35 camera for indy filmmakers soon. :-)

All I can say about that video is the Leica 25mm is a really nice lens!

[quote name='Leto' timestamp='1353717836' post='22214'] I'll let you know how the lx7 works out. [/quote] Yes, please do! I'd be very interested in seeing what this little camera has up it's sleeve

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1353527556' post='22076'] Alexa like? This video looks way worse than what we have seen previously. Was it supposed to be that flat? [/quote] Some of the shots do look kind of flat yes. I have a prediction: Now that we are getting cameras with all this dynamic range shot in flat profiles, I bet we will be seeing a lot more flat looking footage. I think there will be a tendency to avoid crushing and burning so much because people will want to show all that latitude that people will leave it more flat then anything else. In some ways I see this as a good thing. Frankly, I'm totally sick to death of the current "Film" look with the over bearing crushed blacks and desaturated orange and blue cast. I'm sure this more subtle grading will eventually even out though and turn into something interesting. We'll have to see what happens though.