Andrew Reid

No because the OM-D doesn't have an HDMI feed in video mode, only playback mode. Listen - what a lot of people don't seem to get about HDMI is that right to this day (D800) aside, it has been a compressed interlaced feed and no better than the internal recording of DSLRs. It isn't worth using unless you have the camera to do it justice like the D800, FS100 or possibly the future Sony offerings.

Indeed the Scarlet can be had for this price even with Red's SSD pricing. I agree strictly rental, and only if that 8bit codec holds up. With the Scarlet at least you get raw. And it doesn't do 4K in full frame mode so there's little advantage to be had there over the Scarlet. At time of writing it doesn't even do 25p in 4K (rules out half the world) or peaking (yet). Magic Lantern has peaking for free, by a third party with no access to Canon's libraries and SDKs. It beggers belief that Canon don't yet see fit to put it on this for $15K!! This is the kind of thing that really gets on my nerves. After I posted the 4K files from this camera, I got an email from Canon's pro division product manager in Canada asking to speak on the phone. I emailed him back, but soon afterwards he went quiet and we never made that phone call happen. I presume it was to ask me to take the footage down! The only tip I have for Canon right now is god damn listen to me because you are going off the rails big time in the sub $10k video market.

If you want the wider field of view, the Sigma 8-16 will be the one to get. 8 compared to 11mm on the Blackmagic makes a hell of a lot of difference. 18mm equivalent to 25mm. So one is standard wide and one is ultra wide. If you value the faster aperture more, on the Tokina then that has to be it. Quite a big difference between F2.8 and F4 as well. A shame we can't have both in one lens! Also don't forget the rather lovely Canon EF 10-22mm F3.5

The Samyang is by far the better deal vs the Sigma 30mm. Yes the Samyang is full frame unlike the Sigma, and far sharper wide open. The 4.5mm is a Fisheye, it will have tons of distortion. Again can't think of anything better for wide angle on the BMC than the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 in Canon mount. Nothing is as sharp or with less distortion or a faster aperture at 11mm.

LOMO OCT 19 or PL? Cheers for the update.

You don't need to pay several hundred for ProRes on the GH3, just a couple of hundred will do for the Blackmagic Hyperdeck Shuttle and an HDMI cable :)

Is there any way you can change your avatar? It is awful, sorry.

Just a second, let me find that $15,000 down the back of my sofa...

I don't think they will be adding HD-SDI and 12bit raw in a firmware update :)

Here is Frank's graded version - http://frankglencairn.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/frame000060.jpg Yes if you push this shot you are going to see a LOT of noise. But with F4 in the dark, it is hardly surprising. This is the exposure we're really trying to rescue here: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/503a9e3075667_Frame000060actualexposure.jpg[/img] You'd need to boost the curves to the equivilent of something like ISO 6400 or even 12,800 to compensate for the under exposure. So when you see noise, you are really seeing what ISO 6400 looks like on the Blackmagic camera! And on a DSLR you would not be able to pull that up. You need faster glass.

Who is this guy, got a link?

Check out another raw DNG sample from Seb https://www.facebook.com/wiegaertnerfilms/posts/455784874461739 I'd have under exposed this a little but it is good like this since it is nice to see how much of the highlights in the grass can be recovered. Great shot too.

Here's a raw DNG shot in very low light from Frank, to try grading. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/uploads/Frame000060.dng.zip"]http://www.eoshd.com/uploads/Frame000060.dng.zip[/url] Check out the [url="http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/first-hands-on-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera-test-diary/"]test diary[/url] with more info!

Please can you explain the issue in writing? 5DtoRGB avoids the gamma issue so you have a valid reason for using it but it is better you explain more fully.

I disagree. Surprise. Look at the day rate of a Red shooter, raw moves you the ladder in the eyes of a client. I know a lot of clients who are keen to avoid the DSLR kid look now having been stung before by a cack handed shooter clutching a Canon 7D. Making cash as a photographer is a completely separate issue to making a living as a videographer. If you cock up a shot with the 5D Mark III on a job you can't save it later. What if your white balance is off, or your exposure, or one shot doesn't match the other when you cut them together? Maybe you come back to do a re-shoot the next day and your exposure is different, then it doesn't match on the timeline - with a raw codec that isn't an issue. Far more safe. Then there's the focus issues you get with a large sensor and clients really are getting tired of having their subject coming in and out of focus. On a smaller sensor again you have that extra safe margin. The Sony full frame E-mount camcorder will be the final nail in the coffin for the 5D line in pro video world. There are numerous reasons why, but we'll have to wait till September to find out if it has any major drawbacks that could stifle its potential.

It isn't out of my price range, I have one sitting on my desk.

It depends what you are used to shooting with. All the DSLRs are predictable once you learn to predict the outcome. You sure will if you want to keep old projects in raw format, archived away for years to come. I've looked at drive space and you can get a 6TB (6000GB) block for around £350. 30 minutes of raw footage takes up around 250GB. You can convert it to high bitrate H.264 once basic grading is done, and make more minor changes to the archived project / re-edit the timeline, just as you would with AVCHD. I won't be storing all my projects in raw, only the most important or stuff with a lot of artistic merit You don't have to edit the raw files directly. You can do it by proxy. Or simply transcode, or use the ProRes workflow for a faster turn-around for a corporate video and 1080p delivery. On personal projects I'll be using raw. When I just want to slam an image out there I'll be using ProRes. You have the choice. Likely far better. I haven't seen this from the camera yet though apart from via Vimeo from John. Ditto on the audio, unlikely to be a problem but cannot say for sure yet.

It is as simple as you want it to be. Flick the ProRes switch in-camera for a fast turn around.

I am in their marketing team now? I don't promote, I write about what I use as a filmmaker. When Canon do something good, I will be singing their praises until the cows come home.

Yes the Blackmagic has a significant resolution advantage over the FS700 just make sure your production hardware and storage can handle a raw workflow.

No shit sherlock! But I'm EOS *HD* in case you haven't noticed that yet in all your negative commenting.

Corrected article on the audio jacks, thanks. I really need to get my head around those 1/4 jacks, so rare to see them on a video camera. 5D3 doesn't have peaking as Magic Lantern isn't yet available for it.

With both cameras around the $3000 with a Canon lens mount, and the DSLR being such a popular choice for video, I thought I'd examine the reasons for buying one or the other. Which should you choose? http://www.eoshd.com/content/8841/5d-mark-iii-or-blackmagic-cinema-camera

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1345999712' post='16510']The MKII, as Gale Tattersall (House DoP) pronounced, is capable of cinema quality images, so why not get to the point where you can make it look as good as he did, before criticising its failings. So many people trash cameras like the 5D MKII/III, but they can't even make it look as good as it's capable of. These days, cameras are way ahead of us and we need to catch up. [/quote] Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam. However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money? Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC. You'd gain: Wide angle faster than F2.8 Stills Usable ISO above 3200 You'd lose: 12 bit colour 4-2-2 sampling Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+) Raw codec Larger built in screen HD-SDI XLR Da Vinci Resolve (it comes in the box) $500 cheaper I believe the BMC is by far the better deal. We don't need to catch up to Canon, we need to catch up to Blackmagic and so do they. What people don't realise very often about the large sensor in the 5D Mark III is that it only has ONE advantage - the way it renders a lens. Shallower DOF all else equal (which is not actually what you always want on every shoot, every scene, every shot) and more choice of lenses at wide angle. It doesn't give any of the dynamic range, resolution or low light advantage in video mode that the sensor is capable of in stills mode. The Blackmagic's image shits all over the 5D Mark III. The only thing it can't do by comparison is 24mm F1.4 and ISO above 3200. 13 stops of dynamic range for $3000 is a much bigger deal than a full frame sensor which is crippled by a dreadful image processor and dated codec.

I still can't download them. Their server is terrible.