andrgl Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Clickbait title! Mwuahaha. Obviously the BMCC does not best the Alexa but it's amazing how well it competes. Factor in the cost and it is outstanding. Testing compliments of Chaz Olivier, check out his blog post on these two cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagnje Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 BMCC is great for the price, but it`s flaws become very disturbing very fast if thats is an only camera you have. We are shooting a TV series with those and not being able to go over iso800 is very disapointing. We`re using zeiss 1.3 glass and it often happens we could use more light...pulling focus is also very interesting at 1.3 :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreaking Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagnje Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 the DOP here keeps saying that if he could use Alexas instead they would save money, because we would need half the lights and half the time preparing the scene...I think he is right. but othervise they get the job done for the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Well to be honest these blackmagic cameras have matured very quickly to become among the best in the filmmaking world, surprisngly rivaling Arri, Red, Canon, Sony and all the big boys. I hated the Blackmagic cameras for all the glitches and bugs and workaround we had to go through as beta testers, I thought it was how the cameras are going to be, but I turned out to be quite wrong. Not they are fully equipped and suitable for any kind of work. The glitches that made them horrible were the inability to delet or format clips in-camera for example, the inability to see any Histogram/waveform monitor to help exposure, the inability to see any audio meters, the inability to see the F stop, the massive files unsuitable for documentary/corporate work, Their small sensor sizes compared to the competetion now every single one of these issues is gone and all these feautres have been inplemented to all their cameras, even the last one was addressed with the Speedboosters. The pocket cinema camera and the BM 2.5k are actually very good lowlight cameras unlike common belief, they're for example better than even a 5D once they're handled adequately in post. Only the Production camera is quite limited in lowlight performance mainly because of the FPN in the shadows. I don't like the production Camera. The only issue these cameras have now is for example power, they need an external solution, but it's easy to get a neat one now that fits on the coldshoe so not a huge problem, I really can't find many other issues that make them unsuitable for even wedding/documentary work after the release of ProRes LT and ProRes 422. It's just the BM marketing buzz died exactly when the cameras became excellent, so all the reviews out there now give a horrible reputation on how the cameras are a complete pain to use and only suitable for a niche limited studio type of work. I have absolutely no issue shooting a wedding on a BM 2.5K now. You put a small battery on top, turn on the camera, adjust exposure with histogram and focus with zebras and hit record, and at the end of the day you have ProRes LT files on the cheap SSDs to directly edit and deliver. No issues whatsoever unless you really "need" to shoot at 3200/6400/10.000 ISO, which most of us don't. I wish all the reviews would be redone and released now to change that negative prespective clients have regarding Blackmagic cameras, whenever I mention one it's conpletely dismissed as buggy beta cameras for kids to try raw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax_rox Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 This 'test' is hardly scientific.To me, this looks more like someone who doesn't really know how to test cameras, rather than the fact that the cameras are 'very close' - I've seen BMCC and BMPCC footage intercut with Alexa, and you can always tell, it generally looks terrible.I've seen SLRs and handycams that would hold up will in these 'tests' and settings.AlsoIt doesn't really mean anything on the internet. The only place it matters is when projected on a cinema screen.You can shoot stuff on a 550D/T2i for web and it can look great. I would not want to attempt to use a T2i as my B cam.Also doesn't seem to be any mention of whether the Alexa was shooting Log-C or REC709.The blog mentions 'testing out real life situations' which none of these are. I'll never shoot anything where I don't use a single light, diffusion frame, black flag or floppy, or blacks in general, or any way of shaping the light.Reminds me of that 'test' that 'proves' the GH4 is sharper than the Epic, even though that whole test is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrgl Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 I've seen BMCC and BMPCC footage intercut with Alexa, and you can always tell, it generally looks terrible. That's odd. The posted video seems to refute your claim. Care to post proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattH Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 This 'test' is hardly scientific. To me, this looks more like someone who doesn't really know how to test cameras, rather than the fact that the cameras are 'very close' - I've seen BMCC and BMPCC footage intercut with Alexa, and you can always tell, it generally looks terrible. I've seen SLRs and handycams that would hold up will in these 'tests' and settings.Also It doesn't really mean anything on the internet. The only place it matters is when projected on a cinema screen. You can shoot stuff on a 550D/T2i for web and it can look great. I would not want to attempt to use a T2i as my B cam. Also doesn't seem to be any mention of whether the Alexa was shooting Log-C or REC709. The blog mentions 'testing out real life situations' which none of these are. I'll never shoot anything where I don't use a single light, diffusion frame, black flag or floppy, or blacks in general, or any way of shaping the light. Reminds me of that 'test' that 'proves' the GH4 is sharper than the Epic, even though that whole test is flawed. Did you actually set out to write the snobbiest post ever or did it just sort of happen? because to do that by accident is quite an achievement. andrgl, Inazuma and IronFilm 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 It doesn't really mean anything on the internet. The only place it matters is when projected on a cinema screen. What's so great about cinema screens? Most are only 2k and the contrast is always really bad. If you can intercut material on a grade A calibrated monitor, it will also look good in generally shitty "cinema screens". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.