Andrew Reid

[media]http://vimeo.com/54266780[/media]At the moment I am using the Panasonic GH3 like a bit of a director's viewfinder. But the advantage is, it is a rolling one. You can then put a draft cut together of the concept you're thinking of shooting - like a live action storyboard, see if it gives you an emotional response and if it succeeds - hire actors, and go back out and shoot it fully.

Most 16mm lenses won't work. Sensor is too big!

I am liking the GH3 more and more now having just shot some proper footage with it in Berlin. Will upload Monday.

Regarding 1D X and 1D C please read: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9140/interview-with-canons-mike-burnhill-on-the-canon-1d-c-4k-dslr

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1353865261' post='22268']I'm a Canon 7D user myself, and most my lenses are contax zeiss, so I don't even care about the active mount, but if I spend the money on te camera, I'll want it to support IS lenses if I ever need it to![/quote] Then why are you so much in favour of the MFT mount version? The EF version supports Contax Zeiss adapters and IS on Canon lenses!! I don't get this agro towards Blackmagic. They have just buried DSLR video with their first ever camera, and you want MORE? Right now?

Whilst I welcome the option of MFT mount, my opinion is the opposite. When you go to the MFT version you lose all support for Canon glass. No aperture control on the EF, EFS and L lenses. This is the most popular range of lenses with DSLR shooters overall. So many people want to use these lenses on the Blackmagic, especially people upgrading from Canon DSLRs such as the 5D Mark II, III and 7D. I think the EF mount version will sell the most. Besides, the Canon mount does not mean just Canon glass. It means Nikon, Leica R, M42, Olympus OM, Zeiss ZE, Contax Yashica Zeiss and more. Also - doing an adapter for Canon EF aperture control on the passive MFT mount is difficult and one likely won't arrive for some years. Passive means no electronic contacts between lens and camera body. Iris control on the body would be impossible unlike on a standard Micro Four Thirds camera so any adapter would have to be especially for the Blackmagic and have a built in aperture control switch. Of course this passive mount rules out a hell of a lot of nice MFT glass such as the Olympus 12mm F2, 45mm F1.8, Leica Lumix 25mm F1.4. Only one or two truly useful Micro Four Thirds lenses works on the passive mount. The pros for the MFT mount are... - C-mount glass, such as the lovely Switar 26mm F1.1 (though most c-mount stuff I have found impractical) - Leica M mount lenses such as the SLR Magic 50mm T0.95 - Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm and 25mm F0.95 (probably the best reason to get the MFT version) - Canon FD lenses (more affordable than the newer versions in EF mount, but mostly softer) - Adapters to OCT 19 and PL mount Now ask yourself how many people have Canon glass and how many have the more rare stuff in the list above. I think the Canon mount version will outsell the MFT version actually. Canon mount only restricts those lenses on the list above and not Nikon, M42, etc. Even though I am an avid user of Micro Four Thirds and a big mirrorless fan I am having a hard time deciding which mount is right for me. It is not a straight forward decision. I'd love to use some of the more unusual glass on the mount, but the lack of electronic contacts and losing aperture control all my Canon EF / L glass is a serious turn off. Most of my Micro Four Thirds glass is electrical.

You have a normal lens (gives similar image to Canon EF 35mm F2 on Amazon). Not an anamorphic lens. Did you get my anamorphic shooter's guide? Would have saved you some money :)

Funny yes. Useful or educational no. But the colour IS nice :)

Ah right. Sorry, wasn't clear.

Why the hell would they be starting from scratch? Swapping the sensor and using a different lens mount on a new model is not exactly starting from scratch. They already have all the expertise to do it and the software side in Resolve, and the image processing hardware, and the codecs, and so on.

Colour is absolutely superb on this camera.

The GH2 is still amazing. It can probably be had for less than $600 now which is just staggering considering that in some ways it is better than the GH3 because of the video optimised sensor. The GH3 is more optimised for stills (Panasonic trying to catch up with Canon for mass market sales).

I'm letting the camera off the hook here. The fault is with the shooter. He was using ridiculous shutter speeds like 1/250 or 1/1400 with no regard to ND filters. 180 degrees should be 1/48 for 24p. That is going to heavily reduce the cinematic look unless his shots are locked down - but he was shooting tons of motion so you really notice. The guy also needs a proper handheld rig. It felt like the camera was given to a monkey on several cups of coffee who had been accidentally let lose inside a car and on a race track. So much jittery framing going on. The gradation and tonal range was lumpy and his contrast was poor, mainly due to LOG and not grading it properly... But I have to say that is partly down to the camera as well, not giving that smooth transition between tones and again it all looks very 8 bit now I am use to 12bit raw for my $3000 :) 4K and a large full frame sensor are a kind of magic. The rest of the camera is your standard Canon DSLR fare. It has moire too.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/P1020070.jpg"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/P1020070.jpg[/img][/url] The Ikonoskop A-Cam is a 12bit uncompressed raw digital cinema camera that shoots in Cinema DNG format, much like the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. In many ways though this is a different animal. The Ikonoskop addresses some of what the Blackmagic Cinema Camera lacks in that it features a global shutter (it uses a CCD sensor rather than CMOS) and uses interchangeable Sony batteries (NP-F770, the same ones the FS100 uses). The only other digital cinema camera currently to feature a global shutter is the Sony F55 (likely over $25,000 when it hits the market). The Ikonoskop is 7700 Euros.

I agree it is not just a case of adding $1700 to the price of a Blackmagic Cinema Camera (minus the cost of their existing sensor). The processing power for 4K would also add to the cost. Software development - erm Resolve already handles 4K. Labour, testing - yes that has to be factored into the R&D. But they will absorb those costs pretty quickly with a 4K raw camera at $6k because they will sell tons of them.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1353611092' post='22132'] Because they choose to comprimise in other areas.... your good specs (and mine, incidentally) are another man's "why bother with such a smaller sensor?". Your "great, it takes SSDs" are another man's "damn, SD cards are so much cheaper, lighter and i have 10 already". Under $10k, you will comprmise, for now at least.[/quote] I'm sorry, but WTF! How in any way is an SSD a compromise. SD cards are yesterday's technology, painfully slow and low capacity. Good luck getting that 1D C 4K footage off your compact flash in a hurry. The sensor is NOT SMALL. It sits in the upper-middle of the film stock range. Much larger than 16mm, larger than Super 16mm and smaller than Super 35mm. I am interested in the image and it is anything but compromised. I'll tell you what IS a compromise. Line skipping to get an image of a photographic sensor. Compressing your colour with LOG. Compressing your entire image with MPEG or H.264. Wreaking your colour with 8bit and your motion with long-GOP. Being unable to adjust the ISO or the white balance properly in post. Having a focus plane the size of a grain of sand in low light on a full frame sensor & fast aperture. All but one of these apply to even the $12,000 1D C. Canon is over for me. Sony on their way out. Panasonic in their by virtue of one camera. All must try harder.

The way to overcome the focus issue when something is in the path of the optics is to use a clear filter when the ND isn't in place.

Well Rich there's two sides to this, and maybe you are right. One possibility is that Blackmagic want to grab a share of the digital cinema market. Best way to do this is the pricing. Even though BMCC is really as good as a $15,000 camera, had they priced to match Canon they would have lost. At $3000, they are positioned to grab a share. It could be that the benefits of establishing themselves, giving themselves a foothold in the market were larger than the money they'd lose on the cameras. The other possibility is that electronics are getting cheap to produce, and Blackmagic already make a profit on their Hyper Deck Shuttle which is extremely keenly priced - that tells you that the image processing hardware to encode an uncompressed signal to ProRes is now affordable to produce in 2012. They may be aiming for the mass market in great quantities. If that is the case, a slim margin on the camera doesn't matter so much. I honestly would take the view that you can build this camera for $3000 and make a profit and I'd say the mark up on the other digital cinema cameras is insane.

I really don't see any logic in cancelling a pre-order, at all. People have waited this long, they should hold out. Even if you don't like the camera, they are so rare that it can be rented out to a film production as a B-cam, or indeed anybody who wants raw and can't afford a Red. You'd make your money back.

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1353617686' post='22139'] BMC what is the number...10000? How many waiting in the wings? How many GH2 people? How many 5D2/5D3 holders? How many Red holders? You'd be surprised how many would jump on the bandwagon...And so on. I'm not arguing about the 1DC - it is an incredible camera. There are pricing risks going forward. Alot of competition will be entering the scene. How about the "company" which is working on their 4K "dslr type" and may show it at NAB 2013? Has competition entered in the 5D3 space? Yep. Pricing will change as more 4K competition arrive. Canon won't be the only fish in the sea. Cheers. [/quote] DSLRs sell in quantities of millions. I find it hard to believe that only 20,000 of those millions are interested in the video mode. The market for DSLR video has a lot of different sub-sections - some point & shoot, some casual hobbyists, some students, some pros, some artists, some tourists, some... You get the idea. But as a whole, the need for Canon to keep pushing the feature-set and image quality at consumer price points is huge. So why haven't they done so? Because somebody at the top level (or somebody possibly poorly advised) is more interested in making huge margins on Cinema EOS products in the broadcast industry, which is a tiny niche compared to the consumer DSLR market, and somehow they think it is OK to halt any progress in the large market for the sake of concentrating on the Hollywood niche. It is not just DSLR video people that Canon aren't providing enough progress for - think of the poor photographers who have not seen a step forward in image quality from their APS-C sensors since the 7D 3 years ago!

DSLRs are not a niche. It is the mass market sales Canon should be more worried about. Since they chose to focus purely on photographers rather than videographers with their DSLRs and try to move the videographers up several price brackets, their bread & butter business holds very little appeal to me and many others. The film industry is changing, there's a lot of shooters out there working as freelance owner operators or as a small production team, and they're doing a good job and taking away business from established pros. The market for DSLR video is growing. You can't forget about the 1D X for even a minute. It is essential to the point I'm trying to make about the 1D C. You say the 1D C is produced in small volumes for a niche - hang on - all the major components (and most of the minor ones too, indeed 95% of the hardware) is mass produced in 1D X+ sized quantities. The 1D X is produced in huge quantities in comparison to any indie filmmaking tool. Canon are addicted to 'added value', 'segmenting the market' and other bullshit business strategies from a text book and they have severely taking their eye off the product itself... In my opinion. What I recommend is to get the 1D C on a finance deal and shoot 4K stock footage. A lot of demand for it. The camera will pay for itself. Which is just as well. Remember, my perspective is of an artist not a businessman. I want these tools to change the world and to enable masses of creativity. I am not interested in the mechanics and the process of a quick turnaround for a client. The C300 is perfect for that, but it doesn't interest me. Image quality does. Which is why I am no longer a Canon DSLR shooter when it comes to my cinema work.

Thanks for the analysis Per. Global shutter has a trade off in terms of dynamic range and noise which is why it is 11.5 stops. The high-speed readout reduces image quality. But in terms of everything else it is certainly seeming like a high end sensor in cinema terms. It is of the same generation of their Leica M sensor and likely shares a similar pixel design. It is this aspect of the sensor which has become most important. 2 stops of DR is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make for global shutter. The 16mm Ikonoskop which uses a CCD sensor with global shutter is also an option well below the price of the Sony F55. But this is a 2K camera, no Super 35mm sized chip and it doesn't have any high speed frame rates. Important to remember that we don't really know what the image quality or real world performance is of this sensor, so a lot of my article is speculative. This is a sensor which costs less than $1700. It's pretty good for the money. Yet to see what image quality is like. On paper it is high end.

[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1353582801' post='22105'] or can anyone justify the cost for this weird body scheme? [/quote] Like I say the firmware development R&D costs and re-wired circuitboard with a better heat sink do not in any way add up to doubling the 1DX's retail price.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1353593897' post='22118']Everyone bangs on about that Canon's profits are down, but they still made a profit & that's what they see.[/quote] Indeed their profits are down. Remind me of my digital cinema upgrade path from the 5D Mark III again....

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1353587260' post='22112'] The 1D-C is in a league of it's own, literally no peers. A large than s35 DSLR that shoots cinematic 4K video onto cheap media with cheap batteries. If you can't afford it, wait.... But don't hate on Canon because it's out of the league of the indie crowd, for now. New tech, especially in a niche market, will always cost a premium. [/quote] New tech? Aside from the sensor (which is from a $6000 camera not a $12,000 one) this is not new tech at all. There's nothing material or in the manufacturing of this camera that justifies the price tag. They could have made a healthy margin at $5k on this.