Xiong

Pile of crap, there you can say it. But you're wrong. The DSLRs are still as good and as exciting as they always were it is just that the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is EXTREMELY good and has raised the bar at the $3000 price point. You can blah blah blah about Red all you like, they are not $3000. Big difference for most of us.

For a second there Andrew I thought you were speaking in the 3rd person haha
Great info.

I don't spend a lot of time 'pixel-peeping' and 'measure-bating' from one camera make to another. I've made piles of money shooting Canon full-frame video, and it does many things well... namely, headshot interviews, which is where I make most of my money. It's not well-suited for landscapes and deep DOF shots, as Andrew tells us time and time again. Lucky for me, I don't make any money shooting that stuff. There's other makes of cameras for that, though. As to which is 'money better spent' or 'too expensive', just know that less than a half-decade ago, filmmakers would DREAM to have the quality of video at a sub five-figure price point that people trash and deride today as 'over-priced' or 'greedy'. I say, go out and shoot with WHATEVER make of gear you have and work on your craft, lighting, and storytelling. Transcend your gear and its limitations.

Wow, you guys need to calm down. The elitist mentality needs to be put away, this is a forum. You're not going to be winning any awards here, dont take things to personal.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
Are you serious? The C100 looks to be a fantastic camera for anyone who is actually doing real camera work and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

You don't NEED more than a T2i really to do anything of substance. Hell, you don't even need that. The point is that spec/price ratio is completely out of balance. Drawing logic from other cameras price/performance ratio (BMCC, GoPro, GH3) a C100 even WITH 60fps in 1080p is only worth about $1500... IF THAT.

It's not that a C100 can't be used for anything... it's a question of why?
Why shoot to an external recorder when the technology exists for internal RAW recording at $3000?
Why shoot to a GARBAGE 24mb/s AVCHD codec... when there are hybrids like the GH3 that are capable of 80mb/s Intra-frame recording for 1/5 the cost?
Why is there no 60fps in even 720p when $400 toys like the GP3 can do 120fps?
And then, if you can afford the $6000 investment, why not just spend a teeny-bit more and go for the FS700 and get yourself a mind-boggling more flexible camera in terms of frame-rates and res-output?

You have to be a blind, non-critical thinker, who's terrible with money/investments, to even entertain the idea of a C100 purchase for more than 3 seconds. It's only appeal, is to the older "professional" elite crowd, that still thinks "bigger cameras" make them seem more professional... and the extreme-newbies who came into cinematography in the last year and think everything must be shot on canon cameras. It's a joke.

For under $5k I can get a BMCC and a GH3 that will allow me to record high-quality 2.5k 13-stop footage, to EITHER RAW or ProRes, up to 30fps... AND an amazing B/Utility-cam, that get's me great quality 60fps footage and allows for a lighter/quicker setup for certain jobs.

For $6k in canon's "pro" world, I get ONE camera that maxes out at 30fps, has lower than cell-phone quality AVCHD at a measly 24mb/s rate... and... well, that about it.

It's a no brainier to any sane individual. The only reason I'm being so aggressive about it, is because supporting terribly spec'ed cameras from canon just creates slower, more stagnation, in the industry. We need to be moving forward, not applauding them for a camera that should have been available 8 year ago. People need to stop this elitist-ego driven "well if you do REAL work, you can afford it" attitude. It's getting real old, and it's an emotional-ego driven argument, not a logical one.

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351162800' post='20270']
...and not under the assumption that you need 4K/120p/RAW to do anything of substance.
[/quote]

Well, you know what... to me, I DO need these things... and it's up to INDIVIDUALS to decide this. Not industry unions, not "pros", not anyone. I don't just shoot corporate interview and promo pieces. I'd like to PUSH the boundaries of what's artistically possible of myself, as well as my equipment. And when done right, this can lead to MANY more opportunities and higher-paying jobs than those who are shooting "standard" projects because they don't feel like anyone "needs" to make anything better. There is NO QUESTION that the flexibility of higher-frame rates and RAW coloring can potentially push my pieces above and beyond what most people feel the "standard" is.

In the end, I think people are just afraid of the competition, and are desperately trying to standardize these sub-standard tools in order to control competition.

35mm 1.4 for around $300, Im very interested in getting. Just hope the color fringe isn't too bad.

For me its about mood and themes, I like using music as a canvas, or an inception of an idea that is to spawn from the music. Letting music play and piecing a loose storyboard in my head depending on the mood of a track on my mp3, trying to connect the theme and plot into an understandable narrative or "path." My teacher always mentioned that it doesn't always have to start from a beginning, it can spawn from the ending, the middle, even as simple as a conversation at a dinning table. The point was to start a spark somewhere and then to try and fuel that spark into a flame to structure your story.

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1346536622' post='17124']
Any chance you can elaborate? I like to know more about what you cam across using the scarlet.
[/quote]

a couple of things turned me off the scarlet and made me cancel my order...
crop factor....the red sensor gets smaller and smaller as you shoot higher frame rates....that concept is just strange to me but it goes right along with the second issue i have with red....the higher and higher raw compression they use to get higher frame rates....a lot of the footage from the scarlet would have been highly compressed from a small portion of the sensor.....since i want to use the stills as well this just would not work for me.....
don't get me wrong: the EPIC is great and the stills are great as well....yes, i am not too happy with the raw compression there either, but 5k makes up for a lot....
another issue: a proprietary raw format locks you in with RED....the BMCC uses an open standard and from the first day on i have several options to find whatever works best for me.....
another big issue to be honest: price....i ordered the brain for 10000? and to be able to start shooting would have been another (realistically) 10000....selling SSDs and batteries with such a huge markup leaves a bad taste....
i can get 2 BMCCs, more then enough SSDs and some other gear for the price of a scarlet body (sorry, brain)...and i am pretty sure from what i have seen comparing raw files from both, the BMCC wins for a beautiful and detailed image....
the scarlet is a perfect back up for someone already invested in red....i do not see why anyone would get a scarlet over a BMCC right now....

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1346485280' post='17077']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]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346503849' post='17090']
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.
[/quote]

When part 2 of the Zacuto shootout was discussed, everybody agreed with the conclusion that 'forgiving' greater capabilities of high end cameras lost against conscientious lighting and clever planning. This is not rendered invalid by an affordable raw camera. With photos, I admittedly use the raw format in the same sense. There is a temptation to do a sloppy job, because almost everything can be fixed in post.

Or so it seems. As a longtime analog photographer and professional darkroom laboratory worker (sounds awkward, from german), I know that 'raw' (undeveloped emulsion) actually came long before Jpeg. Digital imagery are historically the first instances of baked-in compression, and I always scoff at the post-deniers who consider themselves better pros.

The point is that the goal of it all is a better image and that you will fail if you believe that a 'forgiving' codec will get you there. In the end, decisions have to be made as to how much the colors should deviate from average, natural looking values to creatively change the mood or express something. I suspect that many who welcome raw for making their lives [i]easier[/i] will just botch around and compensate for being too shirt-sleeved. Raw needs the same care during shooting as any other format to lead to good results. And the post is actually most demanding.

[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='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.

In 2011 I wanted to upgrade to a large sensor camera when Canon announced something amazing was going to happen on Nov 5th 2011 that would change everything. So I waited as I knew they were going to transplant a DSLR camera into a video body and would be affordable. After all I large sensor from a DSLR into a video cam WITHOUT a lens couldn't be that hard for Canon..

However up pops a clever marketing strategydisguised as not being a marketing strategy emerges and getting four directors to make cinema like films with the camera they advertised a 4.2.2 8 bit camera for initially what was going to be $20,000.

Lots of people were annoyed as they thought they would be owning one and the realisation that this was only for pro's and out of reach for most of us especially the DSLR community who had pushed for this.

My heart sank as I realised they promised all and delivered nothing. Yes the camera has good resolution and operates in low light Although in my opinion with low light you get to a point where the night sky looks too bright and would be unusable for real film making. If they had made a camera with 10 bit out 4.2.2 for £5000 ALL perfectly doable then I would respect them. It seems they are doing the same again. It's a shame as I always liked Canon cameras in the past. The BMC shows what can be done. Sony could always have put a large sensor into a camera like the EX1 and sold it for the same price and it would have sold by the bucket load instead of puffing it out into an F3 further dividing their pro stuff from their meat and veg consumer market. The canon puts profit before customers. You need a certain amount of goodwill with a loyal customer base. BMC have earned that. Not Canon in my opinion.

Roll on the kinefinity. I had hoped Panasonic would have put a better sensor in the AF100 and 10 bit out But NO they wouldn't do that would they. They all seem to stick together to lock indie film makers out of the professional arena and now another little tempting offer the C100 that in short offers a NEW crippled camera like the children catcher in chitty chitty bang bang that may sway some.

They will have to do a lot more to win back by trust in them now.

better to say RIP extreme shallow DOF ...
always used as a crutch by bad and lazy DPs ...