Bioskop.Inc

Viewfinder & by eye - it's all about practice & once you know what to look for (e.g. how sharp your lens is in focus), then it just becomes so easy to determine. Also, you got to remember that the more you stop down your lens, the bigger the range of what is in focus gets - so you have some wiggle room.

Me too

I started on FCP5, then 6/7. I've used Premiere (yuck!) & AVID (yummy!). I'm now on FCPX & basically it does everything in a more logical way - compared to Premiere/FCP7. Yes it takes a bit of time to adjust (not that much of a learning curve), but most of the people who claim they tried it & don't like it, probably are talking about when it was first released. It is soo much better now & I can edit at least 3/4 times faster than I could on FCP7/Premiere - what most people see as problems with FCPX, I see as logical improvements for editors. If you're on a Mac, it's pretty much a no brainer (& Motion is much improved to or should that be completely different now). Try the trial version (but for more than 5mins).

I'm just surprised that they even bothered. They should have made a camera that was better for compact handheld work (Ikonoskop style) - larger than the BMPCC, smaller than the BMCC (you could rig it a little or use as is). Have an internal EVF (no poor screen), make it s16/s35 switchable, make it either 1080p or 2.5k & give it 60p for the slow-mo freaks. They could still do this & kill the market dead!

If you're using 8-bit (doesn't matter the resolution), you need to get it as good as you can right out of the box - post should be for correcting white balance, saturation & very minor colouring - editing some 8-bit footage ATM & its limiting. I loved your comments about RAW DNG files - great if you shoot right, crap if you don't (there's a difference between fixing & butchering in post). Using the Pocket, which has RAW, but I never use it anymore - ProRes HQ all the way & have even started to use Video mode instead of Film (Video mode much improved in BM cameras). DSLRs & Professional cameras are completely different things, and yes, I lump BM cams in with the later - that's the gift BM gave us all (cheap affordable Professional type cams, but with small company problems). Side note: Beginners who buy BM cameras should test in Video mode, to find out what the limitations/results should be, then move to Film mode & finally to RAW (it would save sooo much hassle in the long run). There's a great quote by Keith Richards, or is it Zappa, when asked how you become a great guitar player - practice, practice, practice. In camera terms test, test, test - just don't always show/bore the world with every minute aspect of it.

Think there's a free program released for use with Magic Lantern DNGs that converts files into video - might be worth a look over on their forum (lots of stickies): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?board=49.0 If not, go to BMCUser - they have a workflow section: http://www.bmcuser.com/

Wow! So it's really that bad? Bummer! So, if it is really meant to be a drone camera (looking that way isn't it), then I wonder if anyone has done any night drone camera work with it or is that never an option? (gives new meaning to flying blind at night!) I think this is where it all lies & BM didn't need to release a camera better than the Pocket, just a camera that could be used in daylight on a drone (hence the better battery power etc...). The silverlining in all this? - BM haven't released a firmware update yet & when they do, i'm sure these things can/will be ironed out eventually. Shit, my production values are really basic to zero - boost practicals with stronger better bulbs, use cheap China Balls, reflectors & the use biggest light source known to man as much as I can, the sun. I'm cheap & I love it PS. Bet this never would have happened if the cameras were built in China or should that be Hong Kong

In the end, its up to the person shooting. IMHO i prefer to do as much in-camera as is humanly possible - whether that be choice of lens, filters etc... Yeah, there's always going to be a program/app that can do this or that - great marketing, gotta love it! But why not see what's available in your NLE already, because lets face it, that's what these people are using as a baseline anyways. Testing is really the way to go - look at how most films choose their cameras. In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO

An interesting test would be to shoot something in Film mode & the in Video mode, then grade accordingly (e.g. make the Film mode look like Video mode & then some). Then again, this could all be a conspiracy to force people to stop using milky blacks or just to light properly - but its most likely BM QC, since they're a small firm doing it all themselves & not out sourcing to China!

Blink once for start & blink twice for stop. And roll your eyes to change aperture!

So many discussion about this - 4K too sharp sometimes. Filters on your camera/lens - all sorts out there. There's a really good topic/s on the RED/Scarlet forum, with lots of info from David Mullen: http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=5941 The next one is long, but sooo useful for a number of things: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?2714-Ask-David-Mullen-ANYTHING

The main problem with Resolve is that if your computer is a little old, like mine, you just can't use it. I really like RPP - love the Film Simulations, the different Curve Types & basically how it converts RAW/DNG files (just used to the workflow & results it gives me). I mostly use ProRes HQ with Pocket - hardly any Moire/Aliasing & just as good to grade with. I try & get as close to the finished product in camera - none of this fix in post nonsense. As far as FCPX is concerned - the BMCC RAW files open with no problem & would love that option on all BM cameras, as it would make my life (& all Mac/FCPX users' lives) a lot simpler!

As Jim said, you can edit ProRes but not the DNG files. However, I use "Raw Photo Processor 64" (its a free download) to convert the DNG files to 16-bit TIFF files. RPP has the best Highlight retrieval of anything that i've used, it has 4 different curve types (Film-like, L*, Gamma & Colorimetric Gamma), Custom or Auto White Balance (which is v.accurate), a load of TruePaper & TrueFilm simulations and so much more. Oh, did I mention that its free! So no need for Resolve...

Wow, nice heads up! Really need some new Pocket & Canon batteries - 2yr warranty, free postage & local too (for me anyways).

No I got lucky & bought a mint M42 copy for £100 from a guy in the UK. They have a little, single multi-coating & are almost macro lenses - amazing in either mount. Buying from Russia is a bit like buying a lottery ticket. However, there are some good ebay sellers that have nearly always been spot on, nothing technically wrong with the lenses (good condition etc.) but their QC can be so off. But Russain lenses are cheap & you just buy another one.

Mir-24m 35mm f2 It's been mine for a while now

LMAO! Yeah, you've got it bad...

Saw an interesting piece on the BBC about VR & Binaural Sound - one without the other just won't make too much sense for fiction. If you can watch this, go to 5.20min - it will freak you out! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b078jryn/click-23042016 If not google some clips or read the following: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

Love the 35mm, but mostly use it for photography - i've started to use it on the BMPCC with an M42 RJ clone SB. The 28mm f3.5 is meant to be good too & there's also an 85mm f1.9 & 105mm f2.8. Damn! Gotta stop thinking about lenses!

Its tricky when you post stuff on forums for advice/feedback - but if you do want it, then state that when you post. On this forum, you normally get some comments if you ask, but it isn't always forthcoming - people either use the "like button" or they just move on. I've had some useful feedback on here, but it has normally been the obvious stuff that I can't always do anything about because of the client or other circumstances. I've posted some stuff on other forums & some of the comments were just plan...I don't know...stupid, e.g. "There was a crackling popping sound in the audio track at 1.30min, you need to fix that" "You mean like the static from a record player?" "Oh, that's what that is! Take it out it sounds really bad & unprofessional". "I can't as its part of the band's song!" I'm lucky, i've got a couple of friends that teach/study/write about films & they really pick out everything (sound, cutting, scene structure, camera angles, narrative etc..), but not in a horrible way. And then we discuss, either how to change things or use what I've got. I'm from the same background as them, so am used to that sort of analysis. I also use other people who know shit about films etc..., just because they'll give you a straight simple answer (the average, everyman view) e.g. "The acting was shit" or "The sounds too low" or "I didn't get the story...so the man's in love with his cat, but really wants to marry the neighbour's dog for the money! Why?"

I've only gone for Super-Takumars, not the SMC ones: 24 f3.5, 35 f3.5 & 55 f1.8 (I had the 1.4, but the 1.8 is just as good & back then it was cheaper). The longer range ones are the pricey ones, or they used to be. But as i've said, i've curbed my addiction - only 4 anamorphics & 10 lenses left. Voitglander still sounds nice & the click to clickless aperture - well that might have sold me.

That Voigtlander does look very tasty, damn! I inherited loads of lenses from my Grandad - kept them in a box for years until I started photography. Unfortunately, I became like you & in the end it becomes an addiction - I had too many & was spoilt for choice. Ended up selling stuff like crazy once I knew what sort of silly money things were going for: 3 Iscoramas (who would have known that they'd be worth stupid money years later!), full set of Contax Zeiss, full set of Nikon ai-s, both Angenieux zooms etc... The list was stupid in the end. I kinda regret selling some things (Angenieux zooms!) & am now in a pickle about whether to continue with my Super-Takumar set or to go back to Nikon ai-s? Got a lovely set of Russain glass, which I will not part with for love nor money. Really loving the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm more than I thought I would - so close to the Angenieux at a snip of the price.

Got to remember that not everyone wants to replicate that modern [overly] sharp look. When we talk about digital & looks, this is exactly what its all about. So just because someone has a different aesthetic than you doesn't mean that the footage is bad or badly filmed, or that the camera is of inferior quality. Look at the DPs that use digital 4K cameras & use filters to soften the image - not everyone wants to see every single hair, bump, wrinkle, crease etc... Personally, i'm not interested in overly sharp images & I use lenses/filters that soften things up a little, but which keep the resolution that the camera is capable of capturing (in my case the BMPCC). And then there is the popular misgiving that sharpness=resolution - it doesn't & they are different things. I think some of the D16 footage could do with being better CCd - the blues in that holiday video were just too fake looking.

Peaking a complete waste of time when you're using the Bolex as a focus through, especially @ f4 - viewfinder is the way to go. You need to get used to focusing by eye - TBH i've never liked focus peaking, just don't trust it at all, for anything. I use a cheap £10 one from amazon - there are more expensive ones out there, its your choice. A tip: if you're doing a lot of racking, then its best to use a lens with a long focus throw.

Something seriously wrong then, because it shouldn't/doesn't introduce artifacts with BMPCC footage (RAW or ProRes). I've been using it with some old Canon 60D footage recently & it doesn't introduce any artifacts with that either.