Xavier Plagaro Mussard

Just for reference, the italian BBC1, RAI1 is actually broadcasting in SD 4:3. Digital terrestrial TV, is horribly implemented and you more often that not get glitchy videoart instead of your favourite program. We haven't even Full HD working for all of us and now they want 4K 120fps..... I hope the next Mac Pro is not THAT expensive!

We all love happy ends and the black-hole seems 100% fixed, but the white-blobs have been improved, can we call them solved??

Probably this video specs castration is consequence of the deal with Sony.

As nlw said, there are a lot of adapters for a 2x anamorphic. I am not a fan of flares, but I like very much the start of this video and some shots are really "cinema" ready.  When the focus is close resolution suffers, maybe too much.  Of course it depends on the final price!

I forgot about the Nikon, you are right!    Let be honest about RED, it has been bought by people who makes movies or people with too much money. I don't think they have sold many, but they have shaken the audiovisual market to the root. Now BMD is doing this for the rest of us. Let's show some love instead of hate!   

Husah, Canon would probably never try to put video on a DSLR camera if RED didn't exist. Cameras are tools, the important thing is the production you are doing. Since you can't shoot anything with the "future specs" of a possible/vapourware camera, focus on the cameras that exist. I wouldn't start a serious job on a camera it just came out. I would at least wait to see if the camera works well. But that's just me!!!

I can't believe people still counts on vapourware! Blackmagic is like 0.1% of Canon or Sony, they are probably doing their best. More cameras they make, more money they make. You still could be buying crippled HDV interlaced 1/3" CCDs 5000$ cameras if not for Red or Blackmagic, show some respect...

JVC only positive move in the digital video was when they introduced cameras that had this long format so you could actually use them without any "rig". They have never done any other interesting thing, their colour rendering was the worst of any big brand...

This camera will really need a Speed booster or wide angle will be impossible or impo$$ible...

  Thanks god someone said it. Who cares about shit shoot at 4K 3D??? TV should think about interesting content...

FCP 7 and Premiere are more similar than dissimilar. FCP X is more modern, more "intelligent" if you know what I mean. At first is a little shock, but when you get used to it, it's a lot better, at least for me. 

I think it's a must see, because new cinema formats doesn't come out every couple of days. Then a "theoretical" improvement doesn't provide a direct improvement. For me there is a debate, a debate I would like to have with people who have the bases to discuss, and the first step is to watch the thing itself.    But if you already hate HFR before you see it, then of course is better you save your time and go do something else!  :P  

Tony, I respect your passion, but I don't agree good cinema can only be made with film, there has been so much shit shot on 35mm. Cinema is a mix of storytelling/visuals/music/acting/etc and can be shot in any format! To make art with movie making is a lot more difficult. Peter Jackson is not even trying to make art, he's trying to make money and he is pretty good at it!    LOTR is a little more serious/epic, The Hobbit is more entertainment, but I don't feel any of them to be satanic! Both are pop-corn eating movies... ;-D    

It's a must see in HFR!

I saw the film monday night at a press projection in Rome, 4K HFR 3D, the way the film is meant to be seen if we believe in Peter Jackson.    The film is in the same mood, if only a bit less formal and with some comic bits, of the LOTR. If you liked the Trilogy, you will like The Hobbit. Really.   About the HFR I have mixed feelings. I spent yesterday reading most critics about the film, and I remembered why I never read movie critics. Most spoil the film and most are really useless. Being a critic doesn't mean you have to point ONLY to defects in a movie. Most of course are really anti-HFR, which made me try to "defend" it. But the truth is that, imho, there is little to defend. The 48fps resolve a lot of problems, but in 2012, it also takes you out of the movie a lot of times. The first 15 minutes are spent trying to adjust, but you never adjust 100% in the whole movie.    I was expecting to be more "surrounded" by the movie at HFR, instead it didn't produce this effect to me. It didn't produce the sensation that I was in the "movie set", either. It really works well in outer scenes, works bad on indoor/close up scenes. The movie is really well done and the CGI really works. But the 48fps it's a big big change, one that I am not sure we will ever adjust to.