hmcindie

I agree. Now I believe that will be overcome with spanning but even a 5 minute clip limit can be debilitating while shooting dialogue and narrative scenes. Yes, I can do a fight scene with 40 second takes (will try that when ML is released or beta) or film landscape shots and the like, but working with actors...Nope, not gonna fly. Maybe something that has no dialogue but still... People are saying that "Yeah, but you can work around those things." Yeah. You can. But that's not what shooting is about, atleast for me. For a fun afternoon with amateur actors, that could be cool as trying something new, but anything else... oh man.

  Well I have. These are my problems:   Cinestyle raises the blacks from 0 to 16. This is to match Cineon film scanners. It decreases dynamic range, mostly from the midtones as the highlights and shadows are compressed. Good highlight rolloff is gone. Cinestyle clips them ugly. You have to create them back with a gamma curve. It increases the noise in the blacks and when you pull those blacks down in post, the noise is there. And it doesn't really help in grading at all plus way more difficult to assess exposure. If you want milky blacks, just raise them afterwards.   For example the Flaat10p profile is lots better and also Prolost Neutral.   You personally don't see banding but that's because you use Neatvideo and it creates very good 16-bit files out of 8-bits. Neatvideo actually fills in the gaps. It's actually quite remarkable how much banding it can take away. But it will do that to any profile, not just cinestyle.   Those intermediate ISOs are cleaner in h.264 mode because they are digitally pulled down. This pull down only decreases DR in RAW files but because h.264 loses so many stops anyway, it doesn't really matter there. So basically, when shooting stills, try to go with the original ISOs and when doing h.264, drop down once to get the shadow noise gone and more for the highlights.

The problem in doing those kinds of comparisons is A) you're not looking at the RAW-material and B ) 5d actually has ISO with analogue gain. BMC doesn't. So when you change BMC from ISO 800 you will always lose DR. 5d keeps it A LOT better when going high and also at ISO 100. and C) The exposure point maybe different for the sensors so one of the cams might hold more highlights/shadows at different points than the other. Also when you guys say that BMC "has been shown" to hold more DR than the 5d in stills...where has this been actually shown? DXOmark has only measured the 5d, not the BMC and you can't compare other measurements as everyone does it differently. Provideocoalition measured the FS700 at 14 stops...Is it comparable to the 5d at 11.7 DXOMark stops? No. Way.

So why then is the Canon 7d / Sony nex 5n results completely different than what I see on the images? First of all, Canon 7d is pretty much 100% the same image as the Sony nex 5n. Same dynamic range (Sony slightly better in ISO 100, Canon slightly better in ISO 6400), Sony clips highlights a bit worse but holds shadows a bit better, 7d the other way around. I have both of those cams so I know how they look. I consistently get better images with my 7d, even with the sames lenses. So why are the scores so different? The difference is BIGGER in the score than D800 vs 5dmkIII! That doesn't make ANY sense and it invalidates DXOMark. The difference in sensor quality between the D800 and 5d is easy to see. Not so with the 5n and 7d. And it's not the only weird thing going on there. For example, their Olympus results have always been quite odd. Also, FYI, line skipping does not affect DR.

What are you on about? There is no 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 when going raw.

That's not exactly true. There is quite a lot of shadownoise with Canons compared to for example the Nikon D800 but DXOMark just cuts off that shadow and says that's it when in reality there is still dynamics and range there. And in higher ISOs the 5dmarkIII will bypass the D800, that's no small feat. For someone like me who likes to shoot in near darkness, that dynamic range in higher ISO's is a real boon. I really find it odd that people say these sensors are bad. Are you guys actually shooting with them? I have and I also shot with the D800 for awhile. My choice between them would be...the 5dmarkIII. D800 does indeed have a more capable sensor, but a camera is more than that.

Oh come on. Lucas had to go to the camera manufacturers straight to even get 24p 1/2 inch HD cameras for films when they did Episode II. That doesn't mean the technology was there. When Sony made those cams they didn't know anything about how films were made, they were mostly doing broadcast. Times change, doesn't mean a conspiracy is everywhere.

The amount of space that will take from your laptop will still be quite astronomical. For example, doing any kind off dialogue or a narrative is almost out. Yes, this is great for playing around but for shooting something serious this will need a lot of tinkering, time and cash (for storage). A lot of people are using Prores on the BMC. Though I will definitely run this down and do a little short immediately this is released.

Nice.   Though I find it kinda funny how all those example images look very soft and oversharpened.

If you want to make independent films with a small budget. 5D3.    If you want to shoot landscape shots to put on Vimeo. GH3.   If you want beautiful shots, 5D3. Hands down. I was shooting b-roll with the 5D3 for a film shot on the FS700 and I got a couple of my shots in. Because they just looked awesome. Something the FS700 couldn't touch.

  Don't use Cinestyle. Use either prolost neutral (which is neutral with contrast and sharpness at minimum and saturation two notches down) or flaat10p. Those two are the best styles.   Also if you use IPB please switch to ALL-i. IPB breaks up quite quickly and introduces banding and smoothing. Here is my extremely scientific test (a slight exposure difference as I was not actually testing IPB and ALL-i, but HDMI):    ALL-i (named them accidentally other way around, but this is ALL-i) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...otion_zoom.jpg IPB: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...otion_zoom.jpg   As you can see...IPB is shit. Huge amounts of banding on motion blur, everything smoothed out, pretty much like any AVCHD cam. ALL-i is probably one of the only consumer codecs on consumer cams that doesn't do that. Motion doesn't even have to be that fast, regular handheld does it too.

  Andrew is right. Cropping the image is actually the exact same thing as cropping the sensor.

I agree with BurnetRhoades. I am a gamer and my gaming pc is pretty darn good compared to some "professional editing stations" that cost more and suck more. I do editing as a living and my gaming rig beats up a bunch of silly macs I've been using in different studios. Everytime I get to edit at home, I feel gooood. And also, it games pretty ok.   And yes, this place for some reason has some quite cheap people. Indies regularly use Epic and evenmore expensive stuff. Being an indie doesn't mean being completely broke.   That said, I LOVE how cheap stuff has become. 10 years ago...it was so different.

  A device like that will never do chroma filtering. Come on now. It can't detect if a signal is 4:2:2 or 4:2:0. If it would do filtering, then it would do it always. Detecting a lower bandwidth... The bandwidth is the same. HDMI  always sends atleast 4:2:2, never 4:2:0.   From my 5 second test, it also seemed like real 4:2:2 so I am backing Murray up 100%. People are mad towards Canon and spew lies. It's funny really.   The difference in filesizes was telling. I recorded the ALL-i internal stream for 1 gigabyte. Same clip, at uncompressed 4:2:2 was 12 gigabytes. So the all-i is at 12:1. It's actually pretty good. Think about it.

  What do you mean? The signal is proper. The fact that 25p is inside 50i signal doesn't mean anything as 25p can go through 50i quite well. It will look 100% the same as the signal was 25p. They use 50i because it works better with external monitors. Same thing for 60i. So people complaining about that are just supersilly.   Only real problem is that apparently this leaked version doesn't transport sound. Let's see if that works on the release version.

  If you happen to have a greenscreen, doing a keying test takes about the same amount of time as walking out and setting up a tripod.   That's IF the person doing the tests knows anything about greenscreening. But that actually applies to setting up a tripod too.

That solution is for the older versions. CS6 should work properly already. Apparently the OP noticed this (why were you rewrapping them into .mov anyway?)

  Sorry but that just screams "I have no idea how to make filmic stuff". It actually is more about meticulously shooting and crafting than choosing the newest hyped up cam. Your "Sick Boy"-indie flick would not look any better if you shot it with the BMC because the skills are lacking behind the cam. You might getter better highlights but that's not the reason the image sucks.       Asylum shoots with Red cameras so it has to be quality. (Seems to be the attitude here lately?).   I agree with gene_can_sing, the FS700 can look absolutely great. I loved cinegamma 4 with it's extra latitude and natural colors. Codec is not good but workable. There are also literally hundreds of horrible, videolike images on vimeo from beginning users of the BMC. That's normal and that will be like for every camera.    The only real bad things about the FS700 are the ergonomics, shadow noise and the codec. But they shouldn't stop anyone from shooting beautiful stuff.

  Provideocoalition did a WAY more proper test than Abelcine. 11.5 stops is really down considering how much stuff the cam has in cinegamma 4. 

Why are people so mad here in EOSHD? This looks great. How often do you see those "perfect" shots in films anyway? Lots of films have shots that aren't perfect or steadyshots that look floaty. I mean...jesus some of the comments.   This is way more important than another DSLR shooting a bit sharper than another. This and the BMC.

So even though EOSHD is constantly claiming no one should ever buy a Canon now because the competition is SO much better, actual users are still recommending them. How odd.

  But for their video division, very true.   BTW where does all this "Canon is losing money"-stuff come from? It looks like they are still doing pretty well.    End of January: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578273061369407422.html   http://www.marketwatch.com/story/canon-profit-falls-04-sees-14-growth-for-2013-2013-01-30   In the same time, things look worse for Nikon too.   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/nikon-cuts-profit-outlook-on-price-drops-it-expects-to-continue.html   And how about Blackmagic? How is their profit situation going? Maybe start analyzing all the players instead of horseshoeing your particular prejudices around?

Remember guys that Canon is actually a very conservative company. They are not Blackmagic. They don't really do the whole "trailblazing thing". They like to let other companies go first and after that maybe step in. That's how they've always worked. All of the previous professional cams (XF300 etc) usually come by a couple of years later than the competition.   This has actually worked very well for them as being the last guy on the block, they usually had some improvements that the competition didn't have (50mbps mpeg2 for example for the xf100-300)

  True I seemed to have missed that point. Still. Talking to friends and colleagues is all well and good but there were hundreds of people doing VFX work on "Life of Pi". Even if the DoP had gone through stuff with a VFX Supervisor, you could still work months on that film and never talk to anyone higher up.

  But you weren't there. You were not actually inside Rhythm and Hues while they were doing previz or the final composites or the grading.    Granted I haven't been there either but I just think it's a bit over-the-top in complaining that the DoP did absolutely nothing. We did a grade for a feature film and that grade is not really the colorists own version either. The director and DoP were sitting right behind him and making demands. There is always someone who has the "vision" about what the shot should be like. Sometimes it's the DP, sometimes the director, sometimes the vfx guys. I have edited a lot of stuff and I can very rarely say that "this cut here is my choice". The director is the guy I answer to and usually they have a completely different style than I have.    Complaining that I haven't read the thread? I have and it's ridiculous. So what am I missing?