Xiong

No, it's not.  
 
Hack the Planet.
 
 
 
Your examples don't really impress me as much as maybe you were hoping.  One, I'm a licensed Houdini user and one of their, or used to be, top users worldwide, so I've never cared much what Maya ran on or how much it cost.  Too limited.  Two, I was one of the first Nuke users on the planet, version one, when it existed as a command-line only program in 1993 and nobody outside 300 Rose Ave.  could run it on anything but overpriced IRIX boxes.
 
I know full well what R+D and product development costs.  I'm also smart enough to recognize double-dipping.  It's their prerogative to do as they please and it's the consumer's prerogative to beware, be educated and more clever than they're being assumed to be.

Yeah this is really telling, well.. If we have someone who can hack the 1D X for 4K, then we'd have a $6,800 4K dslr. This is just kinda sad really...

I'd have told her to go and do her nails or something. And pointed out to the men around her that in my opinion, the wide angle and low light ability of the full frame sensor more than makes up for these slight obstacles, and that even if the final product were (very unlikely) played on a display higher res than full hd, most of the viewers wouldnt notice the slightly soft line skipped 1080p anyway. I'd finally remind them that it was a conference setting where we are not filming fast paced car chases or quick pans where rolling shutter becomes an issue.

No one, and i mean no one with any idea about anything would question a man working with a 1DC, -unless they were jealous they didn't get the job that is!

In every situation like this there are 'do-ers' and 'talk-ers'. Usually it's the talkers who outweight the man who is actually doing something.

Very observant Pixelheist. No I don't shoot skateboarding videos for a living! The focus of that day was not really on making Dogtown and Z-boys. Those few hours at the skateboard were organised as a test session of the pre-production GH3 with a feedback session afterwards. I think Simon has done a good job to edit together various shots from around 10 different people in that video. This isn't what he usually does, he is a filmmaker and here's an example of his main work - [url="http://www.humansproject.com"]http://www.humansproject.com[/url]

Actually, no, it's not that different.  In fact the threshold where it stops making much of a difference is in the 48fps-60fps range, at that point the human brain is processing the incoming visual information as if it were watching something that's actually happening, live.  This isn't the case with 24fps cinema at a 1/48th-1/50th shutter speed.
 
This isn't merely an issue of culture or what we're used to or economics.  This involves fundamental ways the human brain and our vision works together, influencing how we interpret what we're seeing.  It's science and the science has already been done (see: Douglas Trumbull).  
 
There are no surprises to be had here.  None.  Not one *.
 
 
 
*-except maybe why Peter Jackson doesn't know more than your average person about his job, the film industry and stuff involving movie cameras that was figured out in the early 1980s.

I don't want to judge why I tend to agree with the critics who are having a hard time with it, because I may see it and change my mind.  I'm sure it's something that everyone will have to get used to...  If for the last 100 years we'd all been watching 48fps and suddenly somebody slows it down to 24, we'd probably have the same reaction...  It's different.  You're messing with a key ingredient in a huge part of our culture.
 
When all of this talk about the Hobbit being shot at double the frame rate started going around, the first thing I saw in my head was a Middle Earth home video that just looked cheesy as hell.  Just another ploy to "change" things...which I'm all for innovation, but part of what I think makes 24fps work in cinema is how slow it is.  Really, go up just 6 frames to 30, and it takes on a new character.  Part of the magic of that slow frame rate is the disconnection it creates for the viewer...  They watch films to get "lost" in the story.  I'm trying to develop this into words but it's hard to explain why it just "works." 
 
I'm not saying a great story can't be enjoyed at a higher frame rate.  If immersion is the goal, then it should be fine.  Just seems like everyone is saying it's all drawing attention to itself.  It's a bold scenario to try though...  In Indiana where I am, only ONE theater in the whole state is showing it at 48fps...the other 1,000 or so the usual 24.  Which begs the question, what's the damn point? 

Price!! Minimum shooting price is $3000 + $299 battery + $200 SSD + $100 vari-ND. Stick it on your tripod, shoot ProRes and you don't need to upgrade your editing rig. So a long way off $6500 C100 price for a better image. Same Canon lenses.

Alot of interesting discussions here. Still think people should step back and realize this is a phenomenal camera for its price point delivering great footage. Alot are still looking for the "end-all-be-all" camera, which will never happen. You wont see the big guys like Canon or Sony delivering on what we want out of fear for cannibalizing their markets. This is Black Magic's first outing into the camera making business there have been some pit falls but they should still be commended for trying something new.

Hi did shoot Black Swan's subway scenes with a Canon 7D and Canon lenses. :)
 
It's not uncommon at all to go wider than that on Super 35mm. Most of the Harry Potter films' main lens was a 21mm, and many other films use equally wide or even wider lens choices. It's a valid aesthetical choice and to me the argument "no one does/uses that anyway" is always a weak one. Films shouldn't all look the same, people shouldn't all use the exact same focal lengths, versatility is very important.
 
I don't think the BMCC's sensor size is a problem though, it's not that different from super 35, and between the EF and MFT mounts you should be able to use most of the available super 35 lenses, and maybe even some 16mm lenses too.
 
Having a pure super16 or super35 sensor size would work better with cine lenses, that's a fact, but few people amongst the target market of this camera own cine lenses anyway.

Well, alot of people have become spoiled with how technology has made things so easy. Top quality images for the price of 3K, that still boggles my mind! Its incredible! Yet people still complain, of course pointing out one flaw that needs improvement is fine, but then to say its no C300/Alexa/RED Epic? That doesnt make any sense... I didnt know the C300/Alexa/Epic was only 3000 dollars. Thats when I throw their statements out the window, because they clearly dont realize these are in totally different market prices. The BMC isnt the end all be all camera, it has flaws, but for 3K? I can live with that. SSD are to expensive? Remember when people had to buy film? Digital can be rewritten over. Buy a few SSD's, you have infinite film real equivalent. RAW to hard in post, well you also have 10-bit proress, now your just being stubborn.
 
Crop factor, yes it is important, but not a deal breaker. Like what Andrew mentioned before, use wider lense. Not wide enough? Mount it outside the car, if you need the shot, you will find a way to make it happen. Spending upwards 8K plus for a camera on one shot alone? Doesnt seem plausible sacrificing image quality of the entirety of your film for one single shot if your on a budget, but thats just my opinion, do what works for you.
 
Sports shooting, weddings, If this is your goal then look else where. Black Magic "Cinema Camera" is aimed more towards the narrative aspect. Its aimed at the lower level price market of up-and-coming indie film makers, doesnt mean you cant use it to shoot a wedding but it wasnt designed for that type of shooting scenario, you'd want an FS100/700.
 
One again, these are only my opinion :)
What you shoot on is your decision, we are all creative in our own way and thats whats so great. Some scenarios are best with a small GoPro then an Arri Alexa. ;)

I will quote David Lynch... No, I'll do one better then that...
 
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0[/url]

What Lynch says is always springing to mind. How about this from the Hollywood Reporter... It's another gem...
 
 
 
 
 
This is so true. As soon as your heart is not in what you do and you are more concerned with what people will think of the outcome, and the more you try and focus on controlling the outcome rather than focus on the film itself, you are done for.
 
In today's Hollywood a paycheck without inspiration is all too easy.
 
Unfortunately the 2nd page of his interview is behind a paywall :)
 
[url="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/david-lynch-feature-films-have-395849"]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/david-lynch-feature-films-have-395849[/url]
 
A couple of examples from my own experience really relate to what he's saying. If suddenly a format that I didn't like became incredibly popular with readers of EOSHD, would I start using it and blogging about it? I would not. It has to come from your passion, your interests. Another example... The reason EOSHD carries no advertising despite 500,000 visits per month is because I'm dispassionate about it. To do something well you have to believe in it. I believe in the books and my own filmmaking. Everything else is not concerned with the "action" as David puts it, or the love of it, but for the fruit of the action. I believe if the emphasis is placed in the action that the fruit of the action follows naturally. This is my advice for all filmmakers. Just focus on the action and only do something if you're passionately in love with it. You can make a quick buck with no passion or inspiration, but you'd have to be insane to put so much energy and effort and time into something you're not interested in.

Gene there are specialist uses of a large sensor (confined spaces) as you rightly point out, and slow mo. But unless your whole film is going to be shot inside a car at 240fps, the Blackmagic is the better choice. I mean look at the history of cinema. How much super slow-mo do you see? Is it really that critical? Don't forget Sigma 8mm will be wide enough for the car shot you're trying. Equivalent to around 18mm on full frame.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354114969' post='22532']
Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few?
[/quote]

IMO faces or full body shots is what gives it away the most. In the closeups of her shorts when she's walking, for instance, it's hard to tell since I don't know her, it can make her look thinner or chubbier if it's wrong, but doesn't feel as blatantly odd as a face or full body shot does.

I totally understand it's a look to have it stretched or squeezed, I just don't think it cuts well with undistorted footage, unless you go further and use more extreme distortion, then it would be clear it's a creative decision, this way it looks like something's wrong with it.

Gawddamn Canon. There's moire in the damn brownies.

DONE.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353991858' post='22392']
Yeah, I think the GH3 is probably better in some ways then the GH2 but just don't shoot with them side by side like you did the other day in the BMCC shoot out. In almost every shot where there was a GH2 and GH3, I liked the look of the GH2 better. But then again, if you compare the GH2 to the BMCC, it's not going to look perfect either. :-) I think the GH3 is a odd duck. In some ways better, in some ways just the same if not a little worse. It's seems like it's a matter of choosing what are the most important aspects to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be perfectly happy with the image quality just like there are tons of people who are happy with the 5D MkIII. The low-light performance does seem a lot better to me which is a good thing. I didn't see any moire in any of these shots which is good too. One thing I've noticed (and this is true for 5D too) is that if you shoot with a shallow depth of field, you have much less chance of seeing moire. I mean, this is probably obvious to you guys but I was just musing to myself that all of the footage that I've seen that I thought looked really good, was all shot shallow. Obviously, the technical reason is probably due to that fact that moire only occurs when thin lines are come together. You're more likely to see this in the distance like on buildings or fine patterns in fences. When you are shooting with shallow depth of field, you are usually (although not always) closer to your subject so if you think about it, there's probably less chance of seeing moire. Does that make sense?

I'm glad to see some more pleasing footage coming from this little beast. I was definitely one of those people who made a big deal out of the moire issues of the GH3 footage I'd seen so far. To me, image quality is paramount and I don't feel like that's to much to ask for. It's good to see that moire is at least avoidable and not something that you will be fighting against all the time.
[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. For simple medium to close up shots moire is less of an issue because you'll most likely be shooting at a wider aperture, the 5D is fine for this. But things get messy when you need landscape, having to lose that shallow depth of field can show the bigger issues of the 5D. Thats where the GH2 seems to shine, incredible amount of detail.

http://vimeo.com/29549553

48fps wont be the new standard, 24fps has always been the staple and I dont see that changing. On the other hand, if cinema's wanted me to pay a premium, it'll be for watching a screen thats not horribly projected(bulb turned down for cost reasons) and being seated with actual polite audience who dont bring their kids/baby's to a Rated-R movie, and having people use their phones during a movie.

So I'd rather pay for a more polite humanity haha :D

48fps wont be the new standard, 24fps has always been the staple and I dont see that changing. On the other hand, if cinema's wanted me to pay a premium, it'll be for watching a screen thats not horribly projected(bulb turned down for cost reasons) and being seated with actual polite audience who dont bring their kids/baby's to a Rated-R movie, and having people use their phones during a movie.

So I'd rather pay for a more polite humanity haha :D

Here's the thing with moire & aliasing...

ALL cameras have it. Even the 1D C and that is $12,000, and the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.

The 5D Mark II had much worse moire and aliasing than the GH3 and that didn't stop it being used by pros in Hollywood.

It isn't a desirable quality of the image but the way some guys have gone on about it on forums has been ridiculously over the top.

The list of cameras that the GH3 is better than for moire and aliasing is staggeringly long - 5D2, NEX 5N, NEX 5R, NEX 7, A99, D800, D600, 7D, 60D, 600D, 650D, EOS M, 550D, OM-D and nearly every other DSLR on the market.

The 5D3 is soft but when you sharpen in post sometimes you get some aliasing.

The GH2 had slightly less moire & aliasing than the GH3 given the same situation. But it still occasionally flared up. Not so much in the real world but with a very sharp lens with a very narrow band of fine patterns. You may get 1 occurrence out of every 100 shots with it. On the GH3 maybe you'll get 5 occurrences out of a 100. Depends what you're shooting. The 5D2 was doing it on roof tiles and water!! All sorts of stuff.

The GH3 seems to have a lighter anti-aliasing filter, so there's a very slightly wider window of fine patterns that it occurs on.

I hope this puts the GH3's moire into perspective. I know it can be a confusing issue, as it depends on so many different factors whether you get some or not. By the way, it is far less visible on a TV or projector than it is on a computer monitor - which is the least organic and cinematic way to watch video.

I agree with the above comments, im not saying you should never use shallower DOF, heck it helps when your on a budget. But there are these weird techniques I see sometimes where even the subjects face is barely in focus... then again these are just my personal tastes, I do also enjoy shallow DOF, but sometimes I dont see the point of it, its ok to let the viewer's eye wonder in my opinion. To me closeups are perfectly fine for this technique because you're suppose to see the subject and focus on him/her only, Whats weird is when its a shot that doesnt need it at all or when used with run and gun, then there are some that are crazy like shooting 1.4 during a chase sequence.

Im not saying you should never use it, heck i know I will, but its good to know when it has an actual effect to the scene, then being saturated with constant shallow DOF, which can be exhausting at times and can lose its effect when you purposely 'do want to' use it.

To me the the main things that are on my mind when Im shooting is composition, lighting, and what is necessarily to the narrative. To me lighting is so important, its something that I always strive to improve on (probably because im terrible at it haha) because thats usually what gives away the illusion to the audience, in my opinion. It sometimes makes a location feel more like a set then it is a location.

I agree with Andrew. $6000 seems excessive.

Let's say the BMC sells 20000 cameras. It is a niche market that Canon had but is losing market share. If Canon gave better specs, do you think people would have been embracing BMC as they have?

The Big Boys will not rock the market too much as it takes money off the table. Gopro has a 4K camera (although not 24 frames/s) however it is 2K (24 frames/s) for $400. They are making money at that price. It includes a lens. Surely, a giant company can offer those specs with an interchangeable lens for a reasonable price? Surely Gopro had to spend on research and development.

Canon came out with the 5D2 years ago. Their upgrade path years later was the 5D3. People wanted better color space such as 8 bit/10 bit, 422. Nope. How about true 1080p without the shrinking then upscaling? Nope. Look how detailed the GH2 video is. Surely Canon could have offered. Sony is coming out with alot of cameras, but are the specs truly earth shattering? They seem to be towing the same line with respect to specs. If you are willing to pay $20K then the specs are excellent.

Why can a new camera as the BMC offer a $3K camera with such good specs? Why can't an established entity do the same? An establish company has most of their R and D paid. Initially pricing only came down due to RED. In the past, you'd be paying a quarter of a million for top specs. RED upset the food chain.

You'd think after the dslr revolution, Canon would have wanted to secure the market. They could have offered a better spec DSLR for $4500, and people would have bought - such as 422, 8 or 10 bit, better compression, real 1080p, etc. Instead they off not so much. They did develop the C300 but for $16000. I think mass appeal can be more profitable in the long term than making these niche markets. Sell more batteries, lenses, etc. You don't want the competition to gain market share either. Once you lose a customer then it could be years to gain them back. Or you may never get them back.
Just ranting, and don't want to debate.

I agree with the above comments, im not saying you should never use shallower DOF, heck it helps when your on a budget. But there are these weird techniques I see sometimes where even the subjects face is barely in focus... then again these are just my personal tastes, I do also enjoy shallow DOF, but sometimes I dont see the point of it, its ok to let the viewer's eye wonder in my opinion. To me closeups are perfectly fine for this technique because you're suppose to see the subject and focus on him/her only, Whats weird is when its a shot that doesnt need it at all or when used with run and gun, then there are some that are crazy like shooting 1.4 during a chase sequence.

Im not saying you should never use it, heck i know I will, but its good to know when it has an actual effect to the scene, then being saturated with constant shallow DOF, which can be exhausting at times and can lose its effect when you purposely 'do want to' use it.

To me the the main things that are on my mind when Im shooting is composition, lighting, and what is necessarily to the narrative. To me lighting is so important, its something that I always strive to improve on (probably because im terrible at it haha) because thats usually what gives away the illusion to the audience, in my opinion. It sometimes makes a location feel more like a set then it is a location.

Some really great information here thanks!

I also agree, whats the point of having a set built if your only going to blur that background, or going to far off foreign locales to capture that feel and look in the shot. Shallow DOF is great for indie "because" we dont have that kind of budget though, I wont argue that at all. But sometimes I see short films that use that technique in almost every single shot, even on some higher budget short films. Shallow DOF must be used sparingly for extreme purposes in my opinion (Yes just my opinion, dont get mad :P ).

Same thing with shaky cam, I wont even get into that rant here hahaha!

PS: Lawrence of Arabia is timeless, and is masterfully shot.

Intersting quote from Roger Deakins Cinematographer on James Bond 'Skyfall'
from his website forum.( which is a goldmine of infomation have a look)
http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/index.php?sid=62d881c4b1d9407ddc8709183d62bdd1

Re: Selecting DOF on Close-Up Shots

by Roger » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:19 am
I have only rarely shot a close up on a 135mm or longer and only then for a particular effect. There is no comparison between shooting one at a T2.0 on a 40mm and at 4.0 or 5.6 on a 135mm. The sense of space and relative distance of viewpoint will be different at any T stop.
As for a standard stop I don't have one. I generally like to shoot a night time close up at a T2.0 and I will most often shoot a day exterior close up at around a 4.0 or a 5.6 but I could also shoot at a 11.0. Every situation and every film is different.

I agree Andrew ...

Most Hollywood Motion Pictures don't shoot past T3.5 or T2.8 as the dof is so shallow the actors are in and out of focus too much and the Director has to do multiple takes to get a usable pass ,
this takes more time and costs more money.
If you read up on all the great Cinematographers they all tend to offer this opinion .
I just read Cinematographer Freddie Young's Biography (he shot Lawrence of Arabia , Ryan's Daughter, Passage To India, Dr Zhivargo etc etc for Director David Lean)
He states he didn't like shooting past T3.5 for this reason.

Citizen Kane was shot 'Deep Focus' all around T11 - T22 ....everything in focus!! this required a huge amount of light on set just to get this look!!