Black Magic vs Fs700?

[daomay]

If you had the choice to get one if these baby in July which one would you get. We all know the spec for both.

Price wise I think Black Magic win by a mile but the SONY FS700 might have my money this july...cause those 240fps @1080p is too awesome + 4K ready it is too hard for me go with any other cameras.

[Axel]

Easy: BMC. 4k is described as an option by Sony, not a promise. Clever, but not trustworthy. The Canon C300 was also announced as 4k ready first. Reason won, and the next evolutionary step is not to have more ugly pixels. Suddenly everybody talks about HDR and finer hues of color. The mega-slomo is a nice feature, but how often can you use it? If every asshole uploads Jonathan the seagull, people get sick of the shit.

[FilmMan]

I'm thinking about this dilemma.  Some mumble jumble talk below.

FS700 has lots of positives.  Do we really need 4k?  Downsampled from 4k to 1080p produces a very solid image  (provided the shooter knows what he/she is doing).  Slow motion is nice to have too but too much sugar ruins the coffee.  A larger sensor helps. 

BM's image is early.  Raw or using the robust codec should keep excellent detail.  BM's image is very filmic.  Looking to be a baby Arri?  I did some of my own testing and like very much what I see so far (the big boys better wake up).  Still early in the game and more footage is needed to veryify.  There are the concerns as people pointed out but there is not perfect camera. 

We are indoctrinated by camera companies.  Having more horse power under the hood doesn't mean the speed is needed. We are being lead about 4k.  People talk about seeing the pores under the skin.  Doesn't too sharp defeat the purpose?  More doesn't always mean it is better.

Dynamic Range is very important.  Detail is important.  A robust codec is important.  Hey, BM offers that.  Kineraw is coming too.  Magic Lantern people are making progress too.  Still early in the game.  May should be interesting.

[daomay]

It is so hard to decide! I get my tax return around 10K in July. I skip the mark 3..skip the fs100, skip red cause I will have to wait another year to get all the gears for red. I have my heart set on the FS700 then BMC was announce at NAB...I love them both and I want them both....this is worst then deciding if I should use twitter or Facebook.

[Simco123]

What I like about the BM is it uses EF lens. The flexibility with SSD RAW recording, the small form factor plus Da Vinci Resolve makes it more appealing. Of course if money is not an obstacle FS700 is a better choice but then wouldnt an Arri be better?

[Leang]

Workflow is a serious term in the industry.  You need to know what workflow you and your team decide on in order to get the best results and completion for the project.  For any project the motivation should be the content not the gear.  Everybody can acknowledge this.  Comparing these two cameras are like apples to oranges.  Might as well list every current trendy camera.

Workflow and practicality go hand in hand.  If you can convince anybody that working in 12-bit RAW and grading is a breeze on your non high end grading monitor then go for it.  It's a fact that not everybody can work in these environments in post nor will have the patience to.  If you assume post pro houses share the same speed workflow like your indie room think again.  It's not a DSLR domain.

As far as the FS700 workflow becomes a bit more universal with NXCAM.  later on upgrade to 4:4:4 RAW 4k recorder's a nice future plus as we wait for the stupid marketing wars of 4K televisions.  When major networks start broadcasting 4K as a standard I think this cam will be obsolete!  4K Home entertainment is going to be nice in the next couple of years if youre willing to invest.  4K Cinema in theatres is nice when you know the film was shot in 4K and understanding the workflow to make come to life.  Until then this cam is still badass with its overcranking which will suit every style of television programming.  Every now and then I enjoy wildlife cinematography or sports programs.  In general the Japanese pretty much make the protocol agenda for the future.  The talk of big brothers falling to new innovations such as BMD... I mean cmon. 

To be totally honest I still want to invest in a couple of GH2s!  thanks to this site.

[FilmMan]

Black Magic will have an effect on the big boys.  Did Red have an effect?  Here's some info:
1.  Number of hits on BM  plus 100K a while back.  That is a significant number.
2.  BM is an established company.  It isn't a start up.
3.  They understand workflow.  Look at their current business.
4.  Get in with the majority.  Grab a market niche that is in disarray.
5.  Product appears to be ahead of the curve (it could be competing with Red and C300 in picture quality- more info is needed, but that is the talk).
6.  Will this camera be the only one produced if it is successful?  Will they stand still?  Will they eventually offer 4k if needed?  I think most people know the answer.  So if they establish a good base, then they can grow with it.

Look at what Canon did with the DSLR.  They are moving into the motion picture market now.  DSLR's had a huge effect on video camera sales.  Look at how the Canon Mark 5D2 change the playing field.  Now there exists BlackMagic.  It is still early but if they deliver then it could have a serious impact.

Have large companies in the past, not only camera companies, lose market share when other competitors came to market?  Once you lose market share, then it could take years to recoup if at all.  These are different times.  The internet has changed the playing field. 

[FilmMan]

This was posted before but is an excellent read.  This should be read by all.
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

[Leang]

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=626.msg4593#msg4593 date=1335224511]
Black Magic will have an effect on the big boys.  Did Red have an effect?  Here's some info:
1.  Number of hits on BM  plus 100K a while back.  That is a significant number.
2.  BM is an established company.  It isn't a start up.
3.  They understand workflow.  Look at their current business.
4.  Get in with the majority.  Grab a market niche that is in disarray.
5.  Product appears to be ahead of the curve (it could be competing with Red and C300 in picture quality- more info is needed, but that is the talk).
6.  Will this camera be the only one produced if it is successful?  Will they stand still?  Will they eventually offer 4k if needed?  I think most people know the answer.  So if they establish a good base, then they can grow with it.

Look at what Canon did with the DSLR.  They are moving into the motion picture market now.  DSLR's had a huge effect on video camera sales.  Look at how the Canon Mark 5D2 change the playing field.  Now there exists BlackMagic.  It is still early but if they deliver then it could have a serious impact.

Have large companies in the past, not only camera companies, lose market share when other competitors came to market?  Once you lose market share, then it could take years to recoup if at all.  These are different times.  The internet has changed the playing field.
[/quote]

BMD is taking over the world!!! there's no room for any type of competition!!!!  companies never steal competitive ideas!!  we're on a sensor outsourcing age!!  everybody hide! ... 

[FilmMan]

Leang,

BM isn't taking over the world. The internet did with porn, by the way.  BM could grab market share.  In business you don't want to lose market share.  There  is alot of hype with BM and still needs to be proven.  It could impact as did the Canon Mark 5d2.  The 5d2 affected camcorder sales alot.

With respect to 4k, here's an alternative point of view. 

  http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels.
Here John Galt writes says about 4k: [i]“The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That’s why I call these “marketing pixels.” It’s intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don’t do anything to quality. But somehow the world has accepted that that’s 4K. It’s purely semantic. It’s like saying, “I don’t like my weight in pounds so I converted to kilos. It sounds better! You’d be amazed at how many non-technical people I meet, often producers and directors, but sometimes even cinematographers get fooled by that stuff.”[/i]

[daomay]

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=626.msg4596#msg4596 date=1335228476]
BM could grab market share.  In business you don't want to lose market share.  There  is alot of hype with BM and still needs to be proven. ”
[/quote]

I think I will make my decision when I see more test footage with BM in July. It is gonna be very interesting come June-July.

[SlimsMcKenzie]

This is a very good question, as I to have wondered about BM vs the FS700, the s35 sensor, the 4K (granted yet to be fleshed out) and the slow mo on the FS700 are a big deal to me, as I like to shoot a lot of slowed down material, The 4K would give you room to crop the image a bit in post and that's certainly nice. NDs are also nice. The other factor is the rolling shutter should be a fair bit less on the FS700 which bugs the heck out of me on DSLRs. Of course this is offset by the price of the FS700 and the fact Sony will probably nickel and dime you on accessories. Plus if working in 4K it's going to be a bit more demanding on your computers etc.

By contrast, I love the dynamic range of the BM, and the way it's integrated into Resolve, it's also got a nice filmic image straight out the cam, and well the price is very good considering you get Resolve in the bag as well.

It's a tough one, if you combined the two you'd have the perfect cam.

[Axel]

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=626.msg4596#msg4596 date=1335228476]
With respect to 4k, here's an alternative point of view. 

  http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels.
Here John Galt writes says about 4k: [i]“The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That’s why I call these “marketing pixels.” It’s intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don’t do anything to quality. But somehow the world has accepted that that’s 4K. It’s purely semantic. It’s like saying, “I don’t like my weight in pounds so I converted to kilos. It sounds better! You’d be amazed at how many non-technical people I meet, often producers and directors, but sometimes even cinematographers get fooled by that stuff.”[/i]
[/quote]

What is more: There [u]is[/u] true 4k, *in selected cinemas*, as they say. You only [u]can[/u] see a difference at all, if you sit in the first six rows (Galt says it, and it is exactly what you'd find out, if you tried) AND if the screen is big enough. Not arguable, plain fact.

This leads to the conclusion that resolution is not about quality. I print it in capitals:

RESOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY.

It is about size. The size of our displays may change in the future, who knows? We might no longer suffer to be able to see pixel structures (who suffers, anyway? Lowering resolution doesn't mean proportionally lowering sharpness, - every projectionist knows that sufficient resolution is 1k for most screens - Star Wars I from 1999 was projected in 1280 x 536 *in selected cinemas*, and nobody complained).  A lot of things may change, because the limitations of analogue film are out of the way. We probably will have higher framerates. Perhaps "only" 48p. If the director then doesn't like the too clean look of it in a certain sequence (why should he? you might ask), he can easily double the frames, and he has 24p back, because the higher framerate swallows the lower. We have 50/60p already, and we can tell it looks technically more perfect.

The next observation is that images contain details, but are not [i]seen[/i] with details, not only highly stlylized Picassos are'nt, pointillistic impressions, that consist of "pixels", aren't, van Eycks, that feature precisely defined details a thousandfold, aren't. The smallest items we perceive in an image are parts of the composition, [i]meaningful[/i] parts. We never see the letters when we read, we see words. Details are meaningless. Again:

DETAILS MEAN NOTHING TO US.

There has to be progress. If we can have better resolution, we want it. I only say that it is overrated and had been for too long.

RESOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY. DETAILS MEAN NOTHING TO US.

And the industry delivers false labels to make us buy their cameras. What has been underrated for too long is picture quality. Now this seems to change to the better.

[SlimsMcKenzie]

Resolution is not the be all and end all, but it's also an exaggeration to say it's not important at all.

I think 4K is the standard we will probably settle on for a while, because it's more or less the resolution of actual film (even if a lot of film end up being produced and projected at lower res). Whilst you can get away with lower resolutions in a cinema e.g. Star Wars, Public Enemies etc, some people do pick up on it and certainly I notice it myself, films like Episode 2 of Star Wars looked awful quite frankly.

This is all also ignoring the fact though that if you are getting 4K worth of material you can pick and choose your 2K or 1080p shot within that, which is certainly handy in getting a nice composition or in removing shakiness etc, a bit of leeway never hurt.

[hmcindie]

I'd choose the FS700. A real production camera, you could use it as a clumsy ENG-style cam or Cinemastyle. Integrated ND-filters, easy audio options, a battery system that actually works, great sensor for lowlight and slowmo. Codec is surprisingly good for being not that well specced. If you shoot 10 hours of material, it will still look great and not fill up your space completely.

Though the BCC is so cheap, we could buy them both and be happy. But I wouldn't do any eng-style stuff with the BCC but the FS700 would fit that bill pretty well.

[eosjames]

As much as i like the BD, i would get the FS700 cause its 4K. Guessing by NAB2013, BD will have their 2nd cam which will be 4K. I would get that one instead of FS700.

[Axel]

[quote author=SlimsMcKenzie link=topic=626.msg4649#msg4649 date=1335356616]
Resolution is not the be all and end all, but it's also an exaggeration to say it's not important at all.[/quote]

I didn't say that. It is important, when the screen gets too big for 2k.

[quote author=SlimsMcKenzie link=topic=626.msg4649#msg4649 date=1335356616]This is all also ignoring the fact though that if you are getting 4K worth of material you can pick and choose your 2K or 1080p shot within that, which is certainly handy in getting a nice composition or in removing shakiness etc, a bit of leeway never hurt.[/quote]

I see. The ProDad answer. Film in 4k to allow Mercalli to do it's magic.

The "fact" is, that resolution is neither measured by
a) the amount of pixels on the chip nor by
b) the amount of pixels saved in the file on the card.

Resolution refers to the smallest picture element, a square of specified dimensions, that faithfully describes a section of light-absorbing and reflecting objects in reality. To verify, how faithful the picture is, a testchart with lines can be recorded.

What these scientifically unquestionable tests showed: We never had the resolution that the manufacturers promised. It was always way lower. That is because an image with interpolation is a fantasy that only resembles the motif. You are joining in the chorus of believers - against all contradicting proof - that there is 4k. There is not even 2k. There is not even fullHD.

If it [u]was[/u] true 4k, you could only cut out 2k or 1080p by literally cutting it out. Scaling means interpolation means reducing true resolution. You can't make fullHD out of 4k, the resolution is automatically lower then (because of a and b). 

[daomay]

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2012/04/nex-fs700-8-bit-video-but-12-bit-raw-in-4k-23-lenses-using-center-crop/

Interesting read -

"The more I think about this camera the more exciting it becomes. At release the FS700 will be limited to HD and in many respects will be similar to the FS100. This means that although the FS700 has a 3G capable HDSDi output, when in video mode this output is still restricted to 8 bits due to the internal video processing. However from what I have been able to gather, the proposed 4K mode bypasses this processing altogether and outputs the direct sensor data as 12 bit RAW sensor data. How is this possible?" taken from the article.