Andrew Reid

[quote name='Glenn Thomas' timestamp='1346505570' post='17092'] Yes, it is fast, and works well for 8 bit footage too as the files are converted to 10 or 12 bit. If you grade using First Light and don't use any NLE effects, pans or crops, videos will render faster than real time.[/quote] I'm trying out a Windows beta version of CineForm Studio Premium which supports CinemaDNG from the Blackmagic thanks to David Newman. Did you convert CinemaDNG to CineForm in that too Glenn, or in another program using the CineForm codec for Premiere?

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1346485280' post='17077'] One of the weirdest(and maybe lazy) things I hear people say is "we don't need RAW." I'd have to agree, we don't 'need' it, its just very VERY nice to have. Its not that they are taking your Prores format away from you, they are adding RAW along side to it! Lets say we don't have alot of gear, only a few lights, simple boom mic to H4N. Its fine when we're in a controlled set/environment, but if we try to move to say a parking garage? Or an office building with bad yellow florescent light? Wouldn't we want to shoot in RAW? Where we have the option to try and fix these issues? [/quote] Indeed, a large production would spend a lot more than they spend on post, to fix issues with a location and lights. We, the ones who are smart and think differently, will be able to do a lot of that in raw now. Every time we get more power allocated to us at $3000, the politics fire up... Is it any wonder hey?

[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1346485079' post='17076'] i work for a commercial production studio and we just shot a job with a budget of 2.5 million $. with this kind of budget you would expect the freedom to shoot on every possible camera out there and youre right. we shot on the arri alexa in 1080p prores for so many reasons. i find people here who say "people who dont see the benefits of raw, dont know what they are talking about" and the funny thing is that i get the feeling that many of YOU dont know what they re talking about. for example mattbatt, if you honestly believe that in a few years prores will be seen on the web, you have NO idea what youre talking about and clearly dont know a thing about prores. honstely. ProRes was created to be graded in professional purposes. you absolutely cannot compare this to a high bitrate H264, it will never be the same! you cannot put the argument out there saying raw gives you 12bit and prores only 10bit if you dont know what it means in real life. there is absoluty no way in hell and physics that you can tell the difference between 10bit and 12bit material. its so far from being possible. 10bit means more then 1 billion different colors that can be created. even if you decide that you want 75% grey to be white, thats more than enough. also andrew 13 stops is not a plus for raw, it doesnt have anything to do with that. the alexa has 14 stops and records in prores, whats the point youre trying to make? as one of the people in the 2012 camera shootout said, "its much more about workflow these days" you can import the alexa files directly into AVID and also use them for grading. thats about as easy as it gets. not only the space on HDDs but the transfer speeds and computing power you need to seemlessly edit uncompressed is extremly pricy. if you havent compared Uncompressed footage to ProRes you should not be talking here. do your homework and come back with evidence, because it blows my mind every time i realise that prores seems to have no boundaries and its about a tenth the size. [/quote] What a condescending tone. ProRes on the Alexa is not the same as ProRes on the Blackmagic. I don't yet know how ProRes performs on this camera, I very much doubt it will give you 13 stops of usable dynamic range or as much as raw. It certainly doesn't give you as clean resolution or as much or if or a way to reduce aliasing by downsampling in post to 1080p and equally it doesn't up-res as well to 4K. So let me get this straight, with your $2.5k budget you spend a boat load of cash on a monitor, 20 people to construct a tent so you can see it, a truck with a generator so you can power it and then two more trucks so you can move it around. Takes you an hour to move 100m with that crap. And you have this Alexa beast that shoots ArriRaw... AND... You choose NOT to shoot raw to gain a little hard drive space. Insane! I'm not anti-ProRes. I'm just in love with the look of CinemaDNG on the Blackmagic and that extra resolution provided by 2.5K and the way the raw material can be pulled around so much in post. Image quality all the way for me. I feel that if the film and TV industry really wanted convenience and to save money, ProRes is the last thing I'd look at frankly. If only you guys listened to all that new blood with the better ideas THEN you would save time and effort, instead of dismissing them as not knowing what they're talking about.

[quote name='Glenn Thomas' timestamp='1346489211' post='17080'] I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Cineform Raw here? This would give you the best of both. A true raw workflow, but with much smaller file sizes. I've been using Cineform for years, and the image quality has always been top notch. [/quote] I'm looking into CineForm. Performance wise it does sound promising too, the transcoding is mega fast - does in 5 seconds what AE takes 2 minutes to do.

I remember Philip enjoyed 4K raw on the Epic. I don't see why he should be giving up on the Blackmagic raw workflow after only a few days. Certainly not as storage or processor intensive as 4K raw that is for sure! Maybe his cat is in charge of the workflow, and he hasn't been feeding it enough Whiskers :)

The issue is easy to understand, and I fully appreciate it. I won't be using raw for everything, only when I think it is needed. I won't be archiving away 100TB of DNG files either. That would be insanity. HDD space is cheap but not THAT cheap! I can see the argument for ProRes, but actually I think maybe a workflow that results in 2.5K H.264 would suit people even better than ProRes. ProRes files are still relatively huge compared to DSLR codecs.

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1346467790' post='17063'] +1 This is almost everyone on DVXuser and DVinfo. The discussions over there are reaching the inanity level. Some are even going as far to claiming that RAW is gimmick, the BMCC is a "toy"... and real pros "get it right" in camera. Or "if you know what you're doing... 8-bits and 4:2:0 is more than enough". It's funny because when DSLRs were all the rage... it was almost a crime to shoot on anything less than a 4:2:2 codec. I guess now that there are "pro" large-sensor cameras that students and amateurs can't afford they're justifying the use of sub-par codecs again. [/quote] I remember this well with the DSLRs, all the discussion was about the poor codec, lack of grading flexibility, no 4-2-2, blah blah blah. Now we have raw, and we still can't win. They are saying you should get it right in camera! When we really did need to get it right in-camera with picture profiles etc. on DSLRs, nobody mentioned getting it right in camera, they were all mentioning 'you can't fix it in post so these aren't professional cameras'. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, with some people. The negativity is astounding. Well it is a good job we had DSLRs and our optimised picture profile settings so we are used to getting it right in camera by now. Don't let any so called pro patronise you when it comes to getting it right on the shoot. I am sure we will all be endeavouring to get it right 'in-camera' raw or no raw. Raw certainly is no excuse for sloppy operating.

[quote name='madaspy' timestamp='1346463425' post='17058'] I shot 267 GB with my 7D which comes to be about 13.5 hours of content. In Prorez 422 1.22 TB Raw 6.9bTB [/quote] I've also been looking at the drive space issues. I can get 6TB of HDD space for around 300 EUR. I won't be shooting 13 hrs of docu footage. I tend to cut in-camera. I don't do long takes or live events, or interviews, etc. For a music video or a typical EOSHD 'on location' vignette I'd probably even only do 1-2 hours worth of footage, I almost do edit with the shutter button! Treat the Blackmagic Cinema Camera like a film camera. Best quality for the price, use it when you need to, and not all the time. John Ford cut in-camera. He did this to stop the bastard producers re-editing his film!! For many a docu interview, a DSLR is just fine for run & gun. The BMCC is an artistic filmmaking tool designed to ease aspiring filmmakers into the world of post, the world of raw and the world of DaVinci Resolve. Smart move by Blackmagic and incredibly generous too. That price will gain them a lot of ground in the market too, and the image will gain them a lot of ground even in the pro market vs Red and Arri! Remember that the raw files can be deleted and they can be converted into ProRes. If you shoot ProRes in-camera like I said in the article, you are making that decision a lot earlier and I kind of find that a bit unnecessary given how quick it is to transcode later over a single night, depending on how much footage you have. You certainly won't be needing 6TB of SSD drives which would be very expensive. Unless you're shooting 13 hours per shoot without ever dumping to HDD. Again use the SSDs like 30 minute long film reels. 240GB = $180. Not expensive. These are not Red SSDs. I believe it is important not to say a blanket 'no' to raw, or a blanket 'no' to ProRes. It really does depend on the shoot, or even the scene. Just use it when you need to and it will work out fine.

[quote name='pss' timestamp='1346461061' post='17054'] i am a still shooter and so i find the discussion funny....raw is a no brainer....yes, it has drawbacks but the advantages more then make up for it....afaik the only people shooting jpegs are journalists whi have to beam the image back as the event is still going on...everybody else shoots raw....for good reason... for still shooters this is also a much easier transition into grading....we are all used to using adobe or other raw developers to make the adjustments.....now we can stay within lightroom or aperture (or even phase one?) to get what we are used to from our stills...not to mention being able to use every single PS plug in.... [/quote] Yes I agree totally, all this blubbing about raw workflows being unworkable is coming from people who haven't got their workflow figured out yet. It will take time, and they will come round to it. I'm quite happy flattening the raw file (full recovery of highlights and recover all the shadows) then doing some grading in Premiere on the H.264 or ProRes I transcode from the raw files in After Effects. It is SO easy to do. And I am learning DaVinci Resolve. It is a new camera, I will give it the time and effort it deserves. And a crop sensor really suits my shooting style, I am so used to it and it worked great for me with the GH2. Everyone is CONSTANTLY going on about how difficult a wide angle is at 2.3x crop. What about how much more easy it is to get a very fast aperture telephoto shot? People never mention that, yet it is really cool.

As I said before global shutter is under development at various companies. But the industrial and scientific sensors which are already on the market with global shutter have trade offs in that mode, regarding less image quality. (Less dynamic range, more noise) So it will still be a while before the development projects (say at Panasonic and Sony) reach a certain performance level to make it worthwhile. I don't think there are many people who want to solve jello by fucking image quality. If what I believe about the BMCC's sensor is correct, that too has a global shutter mode. Have a guess why it isn't used :)

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.