hmcindie

  That's because they have huge amounts of data wranglers. How many low budget shooters have a pickup truck full of dudes converting stuff and keeping metadata updated? Even smaller budget films forgo RAW and just shoot prores.

I'm gonna have to disagree about the focus of the 100mm f2.8L. Yes, it is a bit too fast at the teleside but when you get used to it...it starts working great. An awesome lens for filming.

  That kind off attitude means you won't be shooting anything worth seeing.

  1920x540 is still a bigger resolution than 1280x720. Think about it.

A lot of misconceptions about interlacing here. Interlacing is a method to get 50/60 fps into the same bandwidth as 25/30 fps. It just basically halves the resolution. Because they way interlaced televisions showed the image (one line after the next) it looked pretty much as running at 50/60 fps. Except the resolution was lower.   But the thing is. It's not fake. It actually is 50/60 fps. So you can get slowmotion out of the C100 and BMCC (if it can do 50/60i) if you handle the interlacing properly. The end resolution would be 1920x540 per frame.    There isn't supposed to be artifacts anywhere if the interlacing is handled properly.

Actually you can use the Nex-5n/6 very well manually. You just need to assign some buttons and off you go.

  What the f? Photographers (especially professional ones) tend to make WAY more beautiful pictures than regular "cameradudes". I noticed a huge boom here in Finland with photographers grabbing a 5dmkII and making way more beautiful musicvideos/short films than working professional DP's when the DSLR craze started. But people here are bashing photographers? I've seen a bunch of "professional" DP's make horrible images that all copy one another. Just look at regular network tv. Basic stuff.   A professional photographer - like Vincent happens to be - will make beautiful images. Axel's ludicrous "I love shit inside arthouse exhibitions"- is bullshit at the highest order. 

This time, no raw, just regular h264.   Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVOoNh4ICM     Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/71972795  

  I haven't used BMC myself yet but it's very difficult to get an honest representation about the moire issue (and others) because people tend to skip over them. I've seen videos of the BMC that have had quite a lot of moire/aliasing. For example, immediately the first shot here (the whole pebble road is moired/aliased, just like first gen Canons.   https://vimeo.com/66170436

I'm gonna have to agree with Peederj. Yes, it is elitist but usually the elitists are actually working and the ... other guys aren't. BMD has moire and aliasing. Why isn't it being bashed? Why even the question "Does BMD have moire?" is being skipped over? It can look absolutely horrible (as anyone with a 7d/60d should know).   So Blackmagic are given a pass because they are not aimining for elitists? Well what in the f? Is this just some kind off odd "my car is bigger than your car"- competition instead of actually using these things as tools? Apparently.

Doesn't snapsort just use specs? They don't actually test anything. Just a spec list. Quite useless really. I wonder if it's automated?

Our first ACTUAL fight scene with the Canon 5d mk III raw hack. Had to eliminate one dead pixel with AE (funnily, it doesn't show up in H264).   http://t.co/j0ty8A780V   Vimeo version:   https://vimeo.com/71280534

Lucas is just pissed because Red Tails sucked. There is a reason no studio wanted to release it. It was bad.   There have been bombs for years. Claiming this is the beginning of an "implosion" is naive. This maybe a bomb for Disney but Disney makes a gazillion billions a year. Also claiming that studio bosses are always wrong is naive. A lot of the time studios actually save films made by incompetent directors. Reshoots are a bitch but a necessity sometimes to save pieces of wreck. There is a reason studios are hesitant to give final cut and only to those who have proven themselves.

Nice but some weird misconceptions here and there. For example, he claims that you coulnd't do that chroma key with a 1DC. Eh? You could do that with almost any camera in the market, even older HDV variants. I bet I could easily do that chroma key with 1DC or even 5dmarkIII h264 material.   RAW gives you the ability to do LOTS of cool little things. But that shot is not one of them. It seems like people are forgetting that grading has been done a long, long time with all kinds of different material and the tools are here. Undercity wasn't much graded so I kinda get that he is new at that.   Capitalizing RAW is just easier to read I guess.

This machine will be absolutely bustling with cables in and out.    Specs wise the only thing impressive is the design and marketing. Those are top-notch. When people say "competition will catch up", what does that mean? You can already get a 16 core pc-system with four gpu's if you want to. Apple just packages it very beautifully but that packaging comes with a price tag attached.

  Rubbish. I had the D800 and compared it to the 5dmkIII. In the end I kept the 5d. Better video, better ergonomics. Way easier to shoot both videos and photos at the same time, not really possible at all with D800. Or it was but they way it's set up makes it not-workable in a hectic environment. I shot yesterday for a band and I got great videos and great stills at the same time. The amount of photos/videos ratio just would've went to hell with the D800. A bit of dynamic range bonus for the D800 wouldn't have mattered.

  Eh? You can do a linear workflow with sRGB stuff too, it's not rocket science and you don't need RAW for that.

Was shooting some stuff for a friend and took a bit of Magic Lantern RAW- with the 5dmarkIII at the same time. 22nd may build. Very interesting.   http://vimeo.com/67085402

  Since when did you care for the DR of a camera that DXOMark only ranks at 11.8 stops? So the Blackmagic is about the same? Whoopty doo.   That was *sarcasm* by the way, I really dislike the way DXOMark results are always paraded around like truth in photography forums. 11.8 stops? Really?

  Sony sells cameras like the VG-10, VG-20 and VG-900. How can you claim a company that sells those things as "not greedy?"   The XF100 was a very well priced camera when it was released. It also had 50mbps 4:2:2 out of the box. How many competitors had the same features on the same price point? Let me answer that for you. Zero.   The Panasonic you so eagerly point to being better than the XA10 is also very new and it actually has a higher list price (XA10 = 1700dollars, AG-AC90 = 2000 dollars). It also came out this year. When did the XA10 come out? Also notice the ridiculously small sensor types on the AC90. 1/4.7". That is ridiculous. The new Canon XA20 looks to beat the Panasonic completely.   Why does it seem that most Canon bashers are very young teenagers who can't even write?

  That's funny considering how many projects have been shot with the Alexa straight to prores. And it has GREAT highlight/shadow dynamics.

Perhaps. But maybe that's because we don't live in a vacuum. If there has already been huge amounts of sites reporting on the ML hack positively and with huge hyperbole, why not one that focuses on the negative a bit more? Imagine if the BMC had only been getting positive reviews without anyone mentioning the negatives (like skipping over moire? Some people have actually been kinda duped by it, but that's their own fault). On another note, perfectionism can be a huge downside into actually getting creative and doing interesting stuff. I'm also someone who tends to fall onto the technical side of things but that's not why we are actually watching stuff. Now it's very interesting and fun messing with formats and spend days converting stuff and looking at pixels...but that's always the easy job. Some people say that it's extremely important. I disagree with that. People have a feeling that finally all the vulnerabilities are gone and now they can be in 100% control of the image. That feeling of vulnerability and feeling of "I'm not qualified enough" will disappear when they see RAW-images and are hooked.

I think you are seeing things through some odd misty-colored glasses where Philip is a bad guy. Ego is probably involved too. When you say "nowhere near as cinematic", that's just hyperbole. I could call that a flat bold-out lie, and be just as "right" as you are. There was a test on DVXUser where the C100 and 5d hacked shot the same scene. Not much difference to be honest. 5d raw was resolution wise, slightly worse because it had small amounts of stairstepping. Both looked excellent still.

Old CRT's actually give you that "window feeling" WAY better than LCD screens. Especially if that CRT is an HD model. They really look outstanding. No LCD I've ever seen has ever given that "out a window"-feeling and they won't until they are OLED. Nothing to do with resolution. Resolution is a red herring. I'd much rather have an old 720p plasma than a new 1080p lcd. Contrast, blacks...That's where it's at. At home I have one of the last plasmas Pioneer did before they sold the business to Panasonic And it's gorgeous. It really is. Man those blacks really do their stuff, especially when watching films in the dark.

Hmm. No they didn't. The increase to 1080p was one of the biggest things ever especially coming from NTSC. 720x480 interlaced? How can anyone say the difference was small? But now, moving from 1080p to 4k is not as big a deal. People's eyesight ain't that good. That's why many movietheater is content to play 2k. It doesn't matter.