Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The EOSHD Blackmagic Cinema Camera Shootout

112 posts in this topic

Posted

Maybe I do get hung up on sensor size as it directly affects the DoF. Yes, the BMCC sensor is slightly larger than S16 but only 3/5ths the height and less than 1/2 the width of a S35 sensor. ( S35 = 24.89 x 18.66mm) vs (BMCC = 15.8 x 8.9mm)

DoF will be increased dramatically and the ability to isolate the subject from the BG will be reduced without getting into the increase in focal length so my wide angle is not, so it's a lot less desireable to me. Has anyone done a proper DoF comparison that you know of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you very very much for the comparison, very helpful in making buying decisions when one lives like me in a remote area and can't get hold of any of the cams.

Jurgen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


Maybe I do get hung up on sensor size as it directly affects the DoF. Yes, the BMCC sensor is slightly larger than S16 but only 3/5ths the height and less than 1/2 the width of a S35 sensor. ( S35 = 24.89 x 18.66mm) vs (BMCC = 15.8 x 8.9mm)



DoF will be increased dramatically and the ability to isolate the subject from the BG will be reduced, so it's a lot less desireable to me. Has anyone done a proper DoF comparison that you know of?




You can still isolate the subject from the background. It is not small chip. Who wants a completely creamed out background any way? No major motion picture I can think of off the top of my head is shot entirely at F1.4 on S35mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



I kind of lost interest in shallow depth of field when I shot Zen on anamorphic and realised that at F5.6 on a 1.86x crop sensor (GH2) it wasn't giving me much shallow depth of field but that the character of the blur was what mattered most, not how much of it there was.

Here is the relative size of the Blackmagic's sensor to the GH2 and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I do believe The Walking Dead is shot on 16mm film. No DOF problems there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can have razor thin DOF on the Blackmagic. That is what the interchangeable lens mount is there for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You often mention setting the shutter speed to 360 degrees on low light situations, but the shutter shouldn't really be used that way, as it affects the way camera will shoot moving images. A 360 degrees shutter will have twice as much motion blur as a 'normal' 180 degrees shot.
It can be used for effect if that's what you want, but when shooting moving subjects it's not an alternative to raising ISO or opening the aperture, it's got a different purpose.

The picture of the BMCC with the battery module next to the DSLRs is quite scary, what a massive monster :)
DSLRs will feel like a compact pocket camera after using it.

Image quality is in a different league though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish the MFT mount version has an active MFT lenses. Thence we would be able to use all the panasonic lenses with aperture control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Man, am I excited about this. This is the first camera since the hacked GH2 that has gotten me to geek out over some tech.

I think that this essentially confirms what everyone expected: the BMC is well beyond similarly-priced cameras and anything that is cheaper. As some have said before, the real test will be when it is run head-to-head with Arri, Red, and other uber-cameras.

That's not to say this test was pointless, though. It gives us a hierarchy at all price points, while also showing us the possible ways to save money based on our shooting. I know that I am not the only guy who's walking away from this with a different value perspective.

I am curious, though. How much storage do you, Andrew, estimate you will need to work with this camera? I mean, 45 minutes per quarter-terabyte is a number that scares the shit out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thanks for the comparison Andrew, BMC will be my next camera after the GH2, maybe by them there might even be a BMC MK.2 that'll blow the waters out of the BMC? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


Who wants a completely creamed out background any way? No major motion picture I can think of off the top of my head is shot entirely at F1.4 on S35mm.




It's not uncommon at all.
You can find examples of entire films shot wide open everywhere, from big budget ones (Social Network) to lower budget films (Let The Right One In), there's plenty of films shot like that, at f/1.3 even. It's a beautiful aesthetical choice, why discard it? It's certainly not nearly as over the top as it would be on a full frame like the 5D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Once again thank you Andrew for doing this comparison. I'm blown away by the BMCC, but also the GH2/3 based on just how inexpensive those cameras are. Really like the look of the GH3 but if I had the money i'd grab a BMCC in a heartbeat. I'm tired of reading complaints about the BMCC when in fact there's nothing that can compare in this price range. Almost all of the options have limitations and needed additions to help make it easier to shoot, so what's the complaint there? I just think it's a great time for low budget film makers with these great affordable options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow, thanks for posting this shootout. Blackmagic pulled the veil from the holy mgf rooms. No more getting away with high prices and poor image quality. Jim, owner of Red has been preaching this same message for years. Can't wait til my BMCC arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thanks for this first shootout!

For me, i can use my old adapted lenses, the new one from the Gh-2 ( wouw..sad, that Pana could not
bring the advenced gh-2 Sensor in the gh-3 body...maybe gh-5 in 2015).
And the BMCC is in a pricerange, where i can use 2 maybe 3 for filming and at one go, 2 of them record
for lightning situations in rendering in Maya, what i need.
This Camera brings all faster to the point, where the big ones would go...first in 2018...
And they have to may types. CANON..just bring all you know in one c100 and for 2900 euros in one line.
SONY..okay. have the fs100 and short mv hands on vg900...shure taht dey did not build a mini fs-100...nex 5n for 400 euros..


Final, you get with the BMCC so much. i like this, don`t know it remembers me a litte on my old 16mm AAton
and others..
Formfactor, in a modular situation, in a Rig, in a Robot-arm, in a Fly-robot.. just fit it.

AND IT BRINGS THIS PICTURE.... somewhere in 1967... but the girl is not ROMY SCHNEIDER..it is an DROID..ops
and in the POOL ....wosh... ( my english teacha mrs stone says i go better now - thank you sir)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Impressive test and write up Andrew, always interesting to hear how your relationship with each camera has evolved. In retrospect, a lot of what freaked us out about 5D3 initially was more endemic of the Japanese imaging industry. It's going to take someone like blackmagic to disrupt the expectations of consumers and I think most of us can gladly say its about damn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This one was actually good! I've been criticising EOSHD a bit in the past about superflous articles but this blog post was killing it. Great stuff and good reading. One thing about the FS700 is that it has way better highlight roll-of than the FS100 because of the included cinegammas. Cinegamma 4 is unbelievable, almost giving 14 stops of exposure. Offcourse it's then compressed to hell but anyway. And yes, NLE's tend to clip those 236-255 levels but they can be brought back with a filter.

But I don't get how the FS100 and 700 are so poorly designed otherwise. Extremely fiddly to use. I didn't believe it but then I used the FS700 on a shoot. The buttons are all over the place. Changing gain was horr-i-ble. 99% of videocams use this method of changing gain/iso and it's so silly. ND's were great though. I actually loved the 5dmarkIII's USABILITY more than the FS700 which was a pain compared.

One little thing about the 5dmkIII (As I've been using it) is that you can get the shadows cleaner when using those intermediate ISOs. So instead of going ISO 1600, go either 1250 or 2500. That way the cam pushes the shadows down and brings the highlights down too. You won't lose any DR but will gain cleaner shadows.

The thing with DNG raw is that it just sucks up so much space that there are not many projects I can shoot like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


The 1D C in my opinion looks very nice.



But it is $12,999 (maybe even $15,000?) and that is the problem. The Blackmagic is $3000. Shoots 12bit raw. You may have heard of it :)/>




I have full set of Zeiss ZE PRIMES.
I do not want to cripple them. I make good money so i paid $12,500 for it. No problem.
I do not need RAW 4:2:2 I ned nice organic look on internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Agree on all FS700 points there. That CineGamma setting is very useful! It's an odd camera, grerat image in general, odd shot have a very video feel though and I can't work out what. Used all Zeiss glass with it too. It's horrific to use though, buttons everywhere, square shape, stupid preset-based gain switch. Cheap rattling ND wheel was disappointing as was the stupid screen and "viewfinder".

I must say I had reservations, but the BMD cam is looking really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This discussion of 12 bit raw versus 8 bit 1080 reminds me of the days of film... I remember the pure joy of working with medium format Hasselblads after years of Nikon F and TriX... the extreme resolution, the clarity... but somehow the rougher, grainy, less detailed 35mm shots never lost their appeal....
I'm sure I'd go crazy exploring the possibilities of the BMCC, and I'll probably buy one if they get active M43 mount... but the sheer, simple beauty of working with the tiny, inexpensive GH2 and getting quite amazing shots is still appealing IMHO... warts and all :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you very much. It would be intresting to see also Go Pro 3 Black in this comparsion (https://vimeo.com/53872859).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


You can still isolate the subject from the background. It is not small chip. Who wants a completely creamed out background any way? No major motion picture I can think of off the top of my head is shot entirely at F1.4 on S35mm.




I agree Andrew ...

Most Hollywood Motion Pictures don't shoot past T3.5 or T2.8 as the dof is so shallow the actors are in and out of focus too much and the Director has to do multiple takes to get a usable pass ,
this takes more time and costs more money.
If you read up on all the great Cinematographers they all tend to offer this opinion .
I just read Cinematographer Freddie Young's Biography (he shot Lawrence of Arabia , Ryan's Daughter, Passage To India, Dr Zhivargo etc etc for Director David Lean)
He states he didn't like shooting past T3.5 for this reason.

Citizen Kane was shot 'Deep Focus' all around T11 - T22 ....everything in focus!! this required a huge amount of light on set just to get this look!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


The form factor really is good for my kind of work. I don't 100% understand the obsession with excessive rigging. Here I have with the Blackmagic a much larger screen than a DSLR and a picture making box with securer connections on top of sticks. Want more? Not me. On a DSLR you have a tiny screen and wobbly HDMI port, then inevitably spidery arms to whatever add on is flavour of the month. Not for me really. I like the simplicity the Blackmagic gives my shoots.




Andrew, the BMCC weighs in at 1.7Kgs, without the lens (and the SSD Cards). It IS pretty heavy. Not comparable with mamoths like the F65, but, compared to DSLRs, and, especially the M4/3rds.

The 5 inch screen was a gr8 idea, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm also a bit concerned about the size. It looks rather large in your photo. It even makes the FS 100 look small. Any chance of some side-by-side shots with the 5D III and FS-100 in your next blog post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Pretty good comp. But what's with all the landscape shots, and the complete lack of closeups? You guys afraid to get in front of the camera?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great comprehensive review. I figured the BMCC was the best and this helps confirm that. For me I'm still leaning towards the GH3, mainly because I'm not ready to buy a new computer to deal with the post production of the BMCC.

Andrew, any thoughts on lenses that work well with the GH3 for video? From the article you seemed to be high on the voigtlander...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0