webrunner5

I think in this day and age Gear matters a Hell of a lot because, just like your A7s, there is a lot of cameras that can be bought for less than 2000 bucks, that a skilled person can make a film, documentary, Band video that you can look back at 5 years from now and say damn, that is really not too bad. This crap where you use a piece of shit camera is just that, crap. If you want to do this stuff pony up 2k for a camera rigged and just do it. There is too many great used cameras for 2k to make excuses. You are wasting your friends, paid actors time, and yours with a friggin Canon T3 in this day and age. Make a commitment to do the best you can do gear wise, give up smoking, drinking, eating out ,and buy a camera that stands the test of time. OK, off my soap box LoL.

Well to me, that guy lost all credibility, when he sold the BMPCC and bought a freaking Canon T3. If you can't make damn near a feature film with a BMPCC you need to find a new hobby! Blackmagic gave us poor folk a gift of a lifetime with both the BMPCC and the BMCC. And this guy sells it and buys a God Damn cheap ass Canon!! What the Hell! We are talking ProRes HQ, and Raw! That is what the big boys use. And you can also do it for maybe 650 bucks for the BMPCC, to a grand for the BMCC. And have a beautiful, creamy output. Jesus what does this guy want?? Now he has a GH2, Oh boy that ought to work. Mpeg output.

Yes you have to have a external recorder to do it as far as I know. But it can do 4k up to 60p Raw, 1080p footage at 240fps, and super Slo Mo up to 960fps at lower resolutions. Now the really fast Slo Mo stuff is for short bursts. It is a beast in reality with a external recorder. Pretty much can cover anything you need to do for not a heck of a lot of money. Probably the most versatile cine camera ever made that mere mortals can afford now. But yeah, you would have to buy a Odyssey 7Q External Recorder to make it really work it's magic.

Well the Fuji X100f certainly crushed the blacks on her top. Not good. Same old problem though, it takes a Lot of money to have top end gear, that does get the job done, whether photography or video. Sigh. But Fuji always has fudged their ISO ratings!

That works, My Bad. I am going to throw something in the mix, I know, I know, something to think about. Good low light, great Slo Mo, and the kicker, 4k. Not a bad price! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-NEX-FS700U-w-4K-Upgrade-and-Zacuto-Accessories-/322441953597?hash=item4b1309c13d:g:zScAAOSw32lYuwn2

Kind of on the slow side. Well the 11-16mm is a constant f2.8, 12-28mm constant f4. I like the longer focal length of the 12-28mm and they are the same price. But if you need the speed, oh well. I am not too sure I would not go with the Canon STM's. Some of them have face recognition also. the 10-18mm does I think for sure. That would be hard to pass on. I know they don't have a constant aperture but C100 mkII has damn good high ISO.

Well if they sort of are going for a ENG audience well the big batteries will help balance long zoom lenses. There is a reason news cameras had them. Plus they last forever with the big ones. And I am sure people will make plates that you can use just about any battery on them. I doubt there is any room in it anyway. I heard that inside it has a big Aluminum heat sink? No fan either?

Yeah that is just about as crazy!

Wow I never heard about the upgrade. That is fair as hell. I am not too sure how they are going to make the B4 option work without a heavy crop on the sensor, or have to use a 1.4 or 2x extender between lens and camera to make it work, but would suck ass as far as F stops go. B4 2/3" lenses just cover a m4/3 sensor with the 2x engaged. I think you could totally make a full time living with this new Ursa Mini Pro, it is that impressive specs wise. Canon had better think real hard about the pricing of the C100 mkIII now with this out. It had Better be 4k, and have a high bit rate to boot. But a C100 is ready to shoot right out of the box with just adding a lens and memory card. So that helps price wise. But I am glad Blackmagic is not getting into the stupid priority battery, memory media crap business.

Yeah and Red cameras suck ass for the cost of accesories on them. Someone can give you the Brain and you can't afford one. I am not saying the Pro is cheap, but it comes with most of the stuff you need. I mean I could Almost see myself being able to buy one new if I bust my ass on saving money for it for less than a year. Sure as hell never going to buy a New Red, Arri. Not even a used Red, unless it is a Red One.

I am not expert at it, but it would seem that it might not really be any better if it truly is ALL-I. I must admit I find it hard to believe that the GH5 can do IPB 400bps internally. If so they are using some pretty serious computer horsepower to do it. That is a Ton of data to move for a "consumer" camera. But I think I read that the Olympus EM1 mkII is using a separate computer just for focus alone. So nothing saying Panasonic can't do the same for data crunching alone. Just makes it amazing how much a Smartphone has tucked inside such a small body computing wise. Hell 50% of it is battery. We live in an amazing technological time for sure.

Yeah, they have been dangling the carrot for a long time!

Yeah but how many seconds can you shoot it?

Yeah Arri is going to have to up their game no doubt. Can they keep a Film look in true 4k, 6k I am not really sure they can.

"Guy McLoughlin rutenrudi • 2 months ago But the 400 Mbit spec is for an ALL-I format instead of an IPB format. From 10 years of experience shooting with both Panasonic professional and consumer cameras, the ALL-I formats rarely outperform the IPB formats at 1/3 of the data-rate. The only time I've ever seen an improvement is for high speed events where your subject is moving really quickly across the frame, and even then the difference in the finished image is not that big. IPB encoding is really efficient but it requires a LOT of processing power to produce a finished image that matches the much higher bit-rate ALL-I encoded video. Try comparing the GH4 50 Mbps IPB encoded 1080p footage with the 200 Mbps ALL-I encoded footage, and you will see that the 50 Mbps footage looks identical and occasionally better than the 200 Mbps footage. rutenrudi Guy McLoughlin • 2 months ago The 200mbit implementation of the GH4 is a joke, which is also why I don't feel that Lanny offers the great encoders that you claim. Obviously it's not only about the Bitrate, but the 80-100mbit of a GH4 in 4K is already too little IMHO. Now you have way more data but not really the space to keep it. For imagefilms and lowbudget stuff I can see how that's still appealing, for some users this is simply off, it's no help to sugarcoat this, especially when you think about existing formats and how they perform. And Panasonic is meant to rule with 2/3 the bandwidth, sure. Guy McLoughlin rutenrudi • 2 months ago But it's an ALL-I format, so there's really not much being done to the image. Each 200 Mbps frame is a separate entity that has nothing to do with the frames that came before it or after it. IPB frames look at the frames that came before and after it, and only record the difference between the frames. This requires a LOT of processing power to work properly, or you end up with poor looking footage. Generally when you compare Panasonic IPB footage with ALL-I footage shot at 4 times the data-rate, the IPB footage is pretty much identical, which shows just how good the IPB encoding is. I've shot with a few Sony cameras ( both consumer and professional ) over the past 10 years, and the Sony IPB encoded footage has never looked as good as the Panasonic equivalent. Which is why I'm not worried about Panasonic 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 footage encoded at 150 Mbps." Something to think about.

I would imagine if Netflix turned down a short or feature film shot on a Arri Alexa they need their head examined! True 4k or not!

Bill Monroe is smiling from above on you. Well done.

This has to be the craziest BMPCC rig I have ever seen. Envy in a sense. http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?18136-Huge-BMPCC-ENG-style-kit-for-sale

Ah you mean you sold you F3?

Well I will jump in. I have been doing this a hell of a long time between film and video. The main advantage of a Digital FF, MF is their ability to gather light, or fill factor in the Sensels, or Wells. The bigger the microns on a sensor the more light they capture. Micro Lenses also help lately with this. So they are better in low light, bigger pixel size = more sensitivity is the end result. That is one reason a camera like the Sony F3 is good at low light, s35 sensor and big ass microns. Same reason a Sony A7s is great at low light. small MP count, big microns compared to a Sony A7r with smaller microns at 36MP = better low light. Also they end up being better for DoF. You can isolate subjects way better with larger sensors or. Some call it the 3D effect. Light gathering ability and DoF applied to film back in the day just as it does now with Digital Sensors. Sensors now are a mimic of film in a strict sense. They were designed to replace, simulate film, and they have to follow the same rules of Physics. The whole modern world of photography, Video is based on the 35mm aspect ratio as being the Holly Grail. Anything bigger is better, anything smaller is worse. And it isn't going to change. Any gains made in say a m4/3 sensor can be applied to a 35mm sensor. so m4/3 will Always be worse than a 35mm, always. So this MF thread is pretty much has an advantage in 2 areas, more light gathering ability and better DoF isolation. Other than that I can't think of any thing better, and they are actually worse in a sense because the camera weighs more and the lenses have to be larger in diameter and length. Both sort of a negative in the handling of them. As to putting big ass lenses onto little sensor cameras, well that does not change DoF, or Fill Factor of the Sensor at all. You are not going to get anymore light into a m4/3 sensor by using a FF, MF lens on it. The image circle is too big to matter. It changes the look some, because every lens maker has a LOOK to them, like them or not. And the older MF lenses were made for film with no coatings applied to them now like they use.

Oh don't get me started about Canon. They only do shit because they HAVE to, not because it would be nice for us to have. And they are only updating every 3 or 4 years like Nikon does. Well technology is changing way fast than that to sit on your ass and wait for everyone to piss a bitch before you add that to you New, 2 year late product. I have owned a lot of Canon top end stuff, they have great lenses. But they have sucked hind tit in the last 6 to 8 years. It is not until the 80D came out that they entered the real world with DR low light ability. I have to admit the DPAF is a great thing they came up with, but if you are looking to be on the edge of technology Canon ain't the company you want to be with.

Looks like I highjacked pooli's thread, sorry. Didn't want to start a whole new one.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1390359131016532&set=pcb.10155093261758708&type=3&theaterer Bunch of Lomo Anamorphic apapters this person has for sale!

Anyone buying a $6,000.00 camera can probably afford some decent lighting equipment. But yeah, would be nice if it was a stop or two higher. You have to remember that BM has not really been around that long, and they have brought out a Ton of equipment in a damn short time. They are learning. This whole website is full of people that admire their products. Pretty amazing for a startup company.

So are you saying he is going to be able to save the whole file for you you think?? Hmm a hell of a lot of you's in there. Yikes looks like you are going to shoot your Cell Phone!