Andrew Reid

Well afraid I have to disagree with Bloomy here (though he's entitled to choose what works for him of course). DaVinci is the best tool in the world for a raw workflow, in my opinion. Also the workflow isn't painful unless you make it... 1. Drag and drop the DNGs to After Effects. 2. Full recovery on the highlights and shadows for flat image 3. Render queue. 4. High bitrate H.264 or ProRes Grade as normal in Premiere with Fast Color Corrector. What is hard about that? The complexity is there if you delve deeper than that, but H.264 2.5K at 80Mbit still looks better than ProRes 1080p.

[quote name='peederj' timestamp='1346458693' post='17050'] Can you get an Atomos Samurai and record the ProRes externally while you record RAW internally on the BMCC? If you can, then you have both with no transcode time, and an external monitor for the focus puller or director. [/quote] This is a damned good point. Certainly worth investigating. Also good to have that backup too. Some SSDs not famed for their total reliability.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/BMD2-1.jpg"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/BMD2-1.jpg[/img][/url] There's some debate at the moment around the Blackmagic Cinema Camera and how useful the raw recording mode is. For me it is ground-breaking at this price point but it seems not everyone sees it with the same enthusiasm because of the workflow and storage requirements. "It is time consuming. It is not practical. My clients don't need it". Well let me begin this article by being very clear - there is no single answer that suits everyone, or every shoot. If someone says that their current clients don't need raw and they don't see an advantage to working with raw video - then they are absolutely right to believe that. If someone tries to tell you that their opinion on this is the ultimate and final voice on the matter, they are wrong. Personally I am in favour of raw for what I do (this opinion is based on my own needs, yours may differ). But part of the reason I am coming down so heavily in favour of raw myself is not just because of me - but because I can see some less obvious benefits to work that many would be inclined to 'shoot the easy way' with ProRes in-camera.

The 8-16mm Sigma has the least distortion at 8mm. Much better option than the Canon 8-15mm fisheye and a lot cheaper. Check out the comparison shots here: http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=677

The Samyang 14mm does distort far less in the middle. On Super 35 / APS-C it is quite horrible for that. So on the BMCC it could be a winner, it will be getting some coverage when my camera arrives for sure.

Cannot tell from that video, it was all shot on AF! Plenty of re-focussing going on during a zoom.

This one is softer than the 36 and very bulky. I'd get the Iscorama 36 for that price.

I wish these guys would write it down!! He says it is awful but he doesn't say why. He doesn't reveal his techniques either. Could easily be user error. I just can't tell. He says the slightest shadow on an unevenly lit green screen broke the keying. So effectively if green is in shadow, it isn't green on the GH2 any more. Hmm. Don't believe that for a second. I'm trying to give him benefit of the doubt but he says things like this: [color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][left][background=rgb(235, 235, 235)]I've actually been reducing the red channel for noise reduction purposes the last two days (you can do that in the white balance adjustments on the GH2), and have discovered outrageous things like ISO 3200 that is indistinguishable from ISO 800.[/background][/left][/size][/font][/color]

Yes it will, get that hack saw ready :)

What is the optical trick Nikon used to give a 2/3" CCD a 1.0x crop factor in 1999? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_E3

Had a little try of the LX7 today. Nice screen, best I've yet seen on a Panasonic camera. Full manual control in movie mode, but not in the HS (high speed) movie mode. That was set at 720/100p and full auto. No 120p on the PAL model. The camera is not switchable to NTSC for the even higher frame rates. There's no lower resolution 240fps either like on the larger FZ200. Also the Samsung EX2F is worth a look. Though the 1080p mode is only 30p not 60p, and the image quality at the higher frame rates (up to 480fps) is poor. The RX100 of course wins on image quality for me. 1/1.7" cannot compare to that larger 1" 20MP sensor, even though the lens on the LX7 is lovely and much faster at the long end.

By the way this article only deals with the 2.3x crop, if you put the 8-16mm Sigma on an FS100 for example you will get plenty of distortion at the edges on the larger sensor. The centre is always the sweet spot of any lens in terms of distortion.

[quote name='itimjim' timestamp='1346352008' post='16992'] Andrew. Based on the LA7200's performance at both wide apertures and the edges, I'd possibly might be careful about recommending it until there are some results out there. [/quote] It depends on what size sensor and what lens you're using it on. The LA7200 was originally designed for the DVX100. I've long been using the LA7200 on a 2x crop sensor (well 1.86x on the GH2). I love the look of this anamorphic. Yes the performance drops off at the edges with a very wide focal length on this lens but it is one of a kind. A unique anamorphic because it covers the wider focal lengths.

Well for under $1000 you are looking at what has the best codec & cleanest detail, and that is the GH2 with the hack. The GH1 has 4-2-2 but only in MJPEG mode at 720/30p. I'd say rather than chase 4-2-2 (which you cannot get for your price range in 1080p on a large sensor) the GH2 will make your job the easiest in post because of the high bitrates and clean resolution.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/blackmagic-wide-lenses.jpg[/img] French rental house tries lenses on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera -Â [url="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398258513557700.106898.118532781530276&type=1"]La Blackmagic Camera passe chez PhotoCineRent[/url] Here I have rounded up all the lenses I have in mind for achiving a wide angle on the 2.3x crop sensor of the Blackmagic camera.

The 5D2 and VAF is a good budget choice unless you need to shoot wider than 28mm, then your corners go soft. The FS100 is a low light king and better value for money than the $3500 5D3. You are looking at $4000 for one used. You won't need the Shuttle unless you're doing a lot of fast camera work - action sequences and jerky handheld stuff. Internal codec is very good. D800 with the Mosaic filter will be nicer than a 5D3 image wise, but again you risk the blurry corners at wide angle. If you can wait for the GH3 it is sounding very nice on paper. Launch is mid-September at Photokina. But on shelves? I am not sure. Could be as late as November. GH2 for the price is unbelievably good. But you should think as carefully about your choice of lenses for a cinematic look as about the camera. Anamorphic lenses make more of a difference. All the cameras above have strikingly different lenses available for them which give a cinematic look. Research into it. I've done a lot of lens research for the GH2 as that has been my primary camera for the last 2 years, all that is in my book. The full frame cameras and FS100 - well that depends more on your budget since the camera eats into what you could be spending on very nice lenses for the GH2. If you have to build your lens collection from scratch go for the GH2 no question about it. The money you save, put towards good glass, makes more difference than those camera bodies towards overall cinema feel.

That is good news.

Interesting. So 10bit raw for example, is only 10 stops? That doesn't seem right to me, but there seems a lot of logic in what you're saying, do continue...

I am sure that oversampling scan of the sensor, picking up every red, green makes higher frame rates harder on the C300 / C100. It is still a big oversight though. The FS700 down samples from a 4K sensor at 240fps! Have Canon lost the CMOS race?

Sensor size is not the issue, the lenses cover but it is impossible 100% due to distance of the mount from the sensor and the Micro Four Thirds optics are designed to be 20mm away. EF mount is 44mm so too long.

2.5K 12bit raw for $3000 or 4K 8bit MJPEG for $12,999? Canon sure know how to do a bargain :)

Great post sir. I mean how can any sensible person not believe that a raw codec contains more image info than a compressed 8bit one until they see a 'chart test'. It is just a way to undermine my knowledge that's all. If people read these debates hopefully they get some info out of it. There was a troll today I had to ban because he was simply adding nothing to the conversation. It was all about how I am anti-5D3, biased-this and that. Christ, put it in a PM and save the other user's time. I have no time for any of these arrogant craftsmen churning out job after job not really caring about the art of it and lashing out at the younger guys who they feel threatened by.

Sure I am all for a balanced view but these cameras aren't balanced or close in terms of the specs sheet. I come down so heavily in favour of the Blackmagic Cinema Camera because I dislike the image from the 5D Mark III and the limited video mode which Canon have had ample chance (and 3 years) to improve. The codec is noisy in the lows, the resolution is not at the GH2 benchmark for a DSLR, even after sharpening in post, the roll-off to highlights is not smooth, sometimes even looks harsher than the camera it replaced. The 5D and 7D lack a lot of what the Blackmagic has - raw, 12bit, 2.5k, HD-SDI, ProRes, cinema optimised sensor and touch screen user interface (shutter angle instead of shutter speed for example), proper focus assist, wide dynamic range, it is a long list. That isn't misinformation I'm afraid! Don't mistake this post for a review, I never labeled it as one. The real proof of the pudding will come in the review and I will dissect the image and the camera extensively then. I agree with you that the DSLR is better for your needs and that the BMD is new and relatively untested but that goes without saying as it has not been around as long. No single opinion suits everyone, indeed there's no advice however objective and scientific suits everyone all of the time. I concentrated on image quality in this article. When I come to handling, I still believe the DSLR has no real advantage over the BMCC and both need rigging for handheld work similarly. In fact you can argue that the BMCC doesn't need an monitor as it has one built in, with a proper focus assist. That is the fact. When I say I like that aspect, it is my opinion. People who mistake my opinions for facts should realise what a blog is. It isn't Wikipedia. It is a blog of my experience in the world of filmmaking tools, I call it how I see it and will continue to do so.

Ruben, I'm excited about the Blackmagic but to mistake this as fanboy-ism is to miss the point. Filmmaking is broad, for sure. But as Mark said so eloquently above, I have to focus for the sake of brevity in the articles - I have to let people take up their own position on what is applicable for their needs and what isn't. If I spoke for any other person other than myself, it wouldn't be right. You won't agree with everything I write here. But you are flat out wrong to suggest it is Blackmagic fanboyism. To say I have no basis to be excited about a raw camera at $3000 which shoots the kind of image I have seen for my own eyes on my 2.5k screen, is wrong. This article started with me thinking long and hard about what matters to me in terms of image quality. The camera is incredibly filmic. For every argument I've heard against the small sensor there are 5 in favour of the raw codec, 12bit colour, workflow, resolution and dynamic range. You need to rig up a DSLR for handheld work, it is no different with this. Shoot handheld with a 7D & no rig and it will look as jittery as shooting two handed with the Blackmagic and no proper grip. There's no extra cost involved with this camera above a DSLR. ProRes doesn't even necessitate any extra upgrading on the post side, a laptop is good enough. Raw can be transcoded or edited by proxy. It isn't LOG. It is like a sequence of raw stills. You don't need to apply grading if you don't find it practical to do so within time constraints. Raw allows for mistakes to be made in the heat of the moment too. Under or overexpose a 7D shot, and you are... Shot. I read all your posts on the forum Ruben. You have some valid points. A shame about the conclusion.

An automatic 1.5x crop mode. The lenses would fit as normal.