dafreaking

Yeah it's weird the amount you change your mind at the drop of a hat or suddenly irrelevant things become relevant or vice versa. But, it's refreshing to see you embrace things with an open mind. Also, the general all-round positivity. Keep up the good work. Wishing you a stellar 2015!

Saw this last night and while it wasn't as bad as how people were saying it would be it was definitely watchable with a a few decent laughs here and there.

That's the thing with the BMCC, it's an excellent camera for environments where you can control the lighting. It's great for green screen work. DPs rarely take the Alexa over 800. While it goes upto 3200 usually if you have the budget for an Alexa you have the budget for the lights. That's one thing people take for granted with the Blackmagic cameras due to their low low cost.

Just remember the Samsung lenses are fly-by-wire, so adjusting focus during a shot can be unreliable.

Were they regular drinkers of Coke or their competitors? Would be good to know. I for one know the taste difference between Coke and Pepsi but I don't drink too much of either any more.

OMGizzle! the 1DC is now a paltry $9999. That's four figgaz my miggaz.

Don't say that. Commenting on a negative article means you are negative here. Seriously though. The most negative camera blogger I've come across. If it weren't for guys like andy lee and others all one would do here would bitch and moan. For the record I am NOT a Canon fanboy though I still own a Trex.

Err..the name was chosen when Canon were the flavour of the month. That's how most have come to this site. Maybe he should register anythingbuteoshd.com or something like that. These articles every month are getting quite lame. Some sound as if while remembering his ex (Canon) he has drunk a bottle of vodka and written a 'hate' letter (THE SENTIMENT)

I'm sure Channing Tatum is reconsidering his decision after reading this.

Thanks Ebrahim. BTW its the 8mm (Wide angle) not the 85mm Arri Zeiss. I don't want to much of a shallow look. There will be compositing in a lot of the shots, so obviously the better the quality, the easier it is to work with them. If I choose the BMPCC, will definitely shoot RAW as I have time to edit. An extra day spent making proxies is absolutely fine. Most of the film needs to have a dimly lit feel to it except for 1 scene that has bright glowy feel. Will be shooting this end December and if I shoot on the BMPCC + Arri Lenses I will upload some frame grabs.

Apologies for bringing up an old thread. I am looking at shooting a short and the BMPCC along with an Arri 11-110mm (S16) Lens is available for a decent rate (rental) Most of my scenes are indoors and only 1 scene is INT. DAY. Now I have lighting available and will also be compositing using after effects onto a tablet that the main character uses throughout. Will this be a good combo? I will have an experienced DOP shooting this. The aforementioned lens is pictured below. I will also get an Arri Zeiss 8mm T1.3 as part of the package. The other option is a 5Dmk3 (NO RAW) with a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200mm. Which do you think will be better?

To check video at same light, same lens, same aperture, same resolution, frame rate, shutter, ISO, Faithful picture style minimum sharpness and contrast.

Ebrahim. If you get the chance please compare the ISO in VIDEOs. How do they compare with the same lenses at same apertures as far as light transmission/brightness are concerned?

Yeah looks like Smooth Motion turned on, on a new TV. It looks fake too. There is no consistency with the shots. Some parts look video gamey and a trailer is definitely not the best way to view high frame rate video due to the length on shots and lack of continuity. Complete disarray of the visual senses.

To get the best results you will have to adjust each clip individually. That's just the way stabilization pugins/software work. You could try copy pasting the warp stabilizer to each clip (if in Premiere) to see if it saves time.

I couldn't seem to fine what picture profile was used in those tests. I shot a similar scene in a bar at 6400 ISO using the Flat profile and it is quite noisy. The Standard picture profile not so much though. And the clips look brighter and noisier in Premiere than say in MediaPlayer

I said MAYBE! Of course if it still focuses only in the center of the frame like the AF upgrade for the original one does then it will suck. (ze autofocus)

You'd sacrifice battery life, audio, video auto-focus. Both camera's have their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe the C100mkII's auto focus ends up being a game changer. We'll just have to wait for both cameras to be released. The arguing over specs never leads to anything but more arguing.

If you can, try and save for the D750. It is definitely worth it.

I absolutely loved using the D750. Take it with the a grain of salt as I'm someone who personally uses a 600D with MagicLantern for personal use and 5Dmk3s for "paid" gigs. There are a few quirks with the D750, but none that I would call deal breakers for my use. 1. The ribbon on the tilt screen is an accident waiting to happen. 2. The mic jack is below the headphone jack, so the cord of the mic is moved around a bit by the cord of the headphones. 3. Even if the camera is in movie mode one has to press the liveview button when switching on the camera. Seems to be a a weird quirk with Nikon as all their other cameras seem to have it too. 4. Can't use all meters,info,grid etc at the same time. e.g. you can't have the histogram and audio meters at the same time or even for that matter the grid along with audiometers. 5. The liveview framing grid is divided into fours as opposed to the regular threes. 6. No magnification while recording. These are the things that I missed compared to my MagicLantern'd 600D (that doesn't have a headphone jack though) My not so scientific battery test gave me 100 mins of recording on one charge, Obviously not under an ideal scenario as I would immediately hit record after the 20 min mark and not move the camera.

Yikes! Just saw some of the comparison shots I took and they are all out of focus. *hides forever*

Deakin's says he found the film disappointing. He does not state if it was the cinematography/look that he found disappointing.

Gotta love reviews that have 'compromised' 80's porn music!

Thanks Andy. A quick question. Wouldn't 2.8 be too shallow on a full frame to keep a face in focus though?