markm

This thread is ridiculous. The guy isn't even making sense. I'd like to suggest just leaving it alone now.

So what is it you don't understand and why is the thread ridiculous? You would like to suggest leaving what alone? You don't have an opinion so whats your point?

Youre right this is ridiculous made that way by stupid posts like yours.

Everyone is entitled to one's opinion, and that's fine. Let's agree to disagree or not to understand and move on, let's not feed yet another pointless perpetual motion machine.

 

Quirky

You don't have an opinion SO what are we agreeing or disagreeing too? If you want to discuss this then do so Otherwise bog off.

What is ridiculous is that I have given my opinion and sadly none of you have any argument whatsoever other than insults abuse and putdowns. Clearly my posts are correct in the light of no opposition.

And laughing.  Thanks for offering the amusement.

Yes demeaning Putdowns and drivel all very funny to you aren't they. Pretty sick if you ask me. Why dont you get a life.

Assuming you know what kind of camera I want to use based on this conversation is amusing.  Maybe we just don't find PB's statements as much of a big deal as you do?  Try not to get worked up about it.  People don't agree with you.  It's not that important.

Where did I say I know what camera you want to use? I actually couldn't give a toss as for PB's reviews I dont find them a big deal But just thought they were skewed There NO big deal. People actually do agree with me Just not so far on this forum which means nothing. As far as being important I think it is and you dont care so why do care enough to answer my posts? The reality is you do care dont you and the reason for answering my posts are to put me down. I know you will follow that up with more But let me tell you I dont care You want to make a fool of yourself be my guest.

I'd say that's good advice.

Good Im glad you're listening.

The Pocket camera is a professional film production camera IE RAW and 220mb prores that can be used in hard to get to places Like for example flying the thing.
Assuming this professional status means it is intended to be of a theatrical release standard then why on earth are many even considering buying it then moaning about its lack of decent sound and batteries and not fitting in your top pocket.

Lets be honest there are very few of us who need the RAW workflow when it is only really for those wishing to release a feature.
Now on most professional shoots sound is recorded separately so why on earth would you care if it had XLR and great sound.

PB cites all its shortfalls for the WRONG reasons but then fails to apply those reasons with the same gusto to the Digital Bolex When really the bolex is just so wrong and fits a workflow that doesn't care if it has XLR sound or not.

The reviews are fatally flawed and do not address the reality of what the cameras were designed for.

I find it amusing but also a little sad that many are buying these cameras and wasting their money Often based on irresponsible reviews that should stick to the professional nature of these cameras and why they are of no benefit to 99% of people and specifically speak to those who want to make indie films.

Its just plain absurd to be planning a raw workflow to release on vimeo or you tube. Even for TV and most drama.

Its also absurd at the stupid comments regarding these cameras and the frills and spills often quoted as missing.

Many here need to get a grip and stop buying stuff based on reviews and buy stuff you can use and if you truly are going to use it to make films dont ask daft questions about sound battery life and all the rest of the stupid comments that come from ill informed ideas that I can only imagine come from skewed reviews.

Just well, try and use the old intellect a bit more and if you can't then fine be happy and take the meds as you read skewed reviews and maybe be the proud owner of a Digital Bolex that records RAW DNG's that you show on you tube after shooting your cats.

Im sure you wont get laughed at bandying about an old sixties style antique looking camera that spells "Look at me Im a moron" all over it. Because you can tell them hey Im making a movie Don't worry I dont need a sound recordist as I have XLR's I dont need a focus puller as I have 3 arms and two heads. Guess what? You probably do.

I don't see how budget has anything to do with this... I also don't see how I redefined the question, I even quoted it.

That's the problem Bruno!

Obviously Bruno you disagree with everything I have said but instead of putting forward your reasons it is far easier to join in the name calling and putdowns.

I actually agree with what you said re lenses are not specific to a genre Of course they are not and Axel didn't say they were but then really you redefined and set the question up and answered it.

I don't want to speak for Axel but from what I took from it is not that wide angles weren't used but that they were used rarely in horror or serious film Undoubtably meaning preference given to other lenses especially for smaller sets. But as usual your to busy showboating to see the finer detail. Of course Wide angles are used but often serious and horror films are made for less than the mainstreamfilms and it stands to reason what Axel said However not all Horror or serious films are low budget and when that is the case wides are often used.

But then that is really just common sense isn't it?

Are you like blind? It is SPECIFICALLY listed as a plus for the pocket cam.

Yes I know he did. Thanks for taking it out of context when clearly It was meant for Dalhfors post and not PB

If others cant see the article favours the Digital Bolex over the Pocket and that it is a fair comparison and that is the forum concensus then fine. I can see I am talking to the converted who clearly think the Digital Bolex is the way to go and even if the pocket is a better camera in their opinion then PB is entitled to say what he likes and no questions asked.

I wont raise the issue here again.

What is unfair in his review?

 

Refer to the opening topic post

 

If he prefers prores then that's a plus for the pocket isn't it?

 

I also think a reviewer must put aside his own personal interests and remain neutral don't you? I mean where does the logic of writing what you want as a reviewer get you? Lying Cheating Scheming conning? Is that what you are advocating as freedom he or any reviewer is entitled to?

 

Surely anyone with an intention to buy based on a review will want the facts? Unskewed? Surely if the facts are played with or even done away with then you as a consumer will get shafted? Don't you even care? Just a little? Nope Oh okay then..

 

Fanboyism heh.

Turning it on me Like I am to blame for the skewed review is not really answering the question.

I have never said PB cant write what he wants or do what he wants Still doesn't mean his review is skewed or not.

The real problem is dealing with all the fan boys and arse lickers who deliberately subvert any debate by their inappropriate actions.

Sean it is clear that Kubrick is an exception to the rule You seem to write a lot standing still Completely miss the point and then act like you just won an award for being clever?

IE the see Mark comment. Maybe you're trying to hard Have you though about some deep breaths?

In the case of what I was responding to my tone might have been a response to the mentioning of "perfs" which is an irrelevant component to FOV given the context of "anamorphic".  By this time all hope for clarity for the OP had virtually been lost and the thread was a complete mess.

 

 

A mess you and Andy helped create.

 

Anamorphic 35mm is both an acquisition

and

release format.

 

Correct. 
 

Before you can champion standards and precise thinking you need to also be correct in your precise use of standards.

 

 
Point out where I haven't?
 

Seriously, dude.  I welcome anyone to point out when I'm wrong about anything.  You're the one going on about "standards" and misuse and have been the most un-knowledgeable poster here.  I would also like to point out that I'm likely in the 1% of this board that's actually worked extensively with 35mm material and in the context of my work I have to be precise.  It's why I absolutely loathe the whole concept of "crop factor", because I consider them imprecise bullshit and often completely irrelevant when introduced into a motion picture conversation.

 

 Okay Dude. I think we can agree on your crop factor statement Maybe then this thread already deteriorated with the crop factor bollocks.

I was paying you a compliment by originally not wanting to believe you were this wrong here, hence the "troll" comment.

 

 The thing is Sean I did misunderstand him and a simple explanation would have been fine instead of the crap that followed.
 
 

I fully admit aggression though.  I'll own that.  You better be capable of bringing it if you want to dispute or argue something with me.

 

 
I don't need aggression to prove my point. Using aggression is a cheap way to forcing your will rightly or wrongly on others. It wont work on me. So fire away.
 

You better be able to actually argue, not simply state an opinion.  I don't respect opinion I respect argument.  If I'm wrong about something, I'm wrong and I'm not too proud to admit it.  But you had better be able to prove it and back it up.

 

 
 I just did

that was the only thing that he'd written, if that was a paragraph on its own or a single line reply you would be correct. But you're cherry picking and/or fixating on one line without placing it into the context of the paragraph it's in. You're going to continue to confuse yourself if you don't take context for the entire thought into account before trying to be a grammar nazi and throw discussions needlessly off track.

 

The line actually implied full screen was used for films Now that's what I read and I simply tried to correct that but in any event the comment was aimed at Andy not you.

So to avoid confusion lets look at it in context. Andy wrote


I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

DOPs like Roger Deakins tend to use a 32mm lens on the Alexa alot of the time , a large part of SKYFALL is shot on a 32mm lens

that is approx 50mm on a Full Frame Camera,


We have discussed the first paragraph The second paragraph says deakins shot on a 32mm lens The next paragraph which is actually a continuation and really a sentence states a 32mm lens is aprox 50mm on a full size sensor. In fact the whole thing makes no sense Although after reading the follows ups I can now see what it is Andy was trying to say but no understanding as to why I would read the bloody thing as it was written Just that I must be somehow being anal for not second guessing this.


 

Here we can agree and you shouldn't throw stones since you've done it yourself in this thread.

 

Fine So where?

 

Um, no, you're wrong again. Anamorphic is not printed on Super 35mm or a Super 35mm format. In fact it can be considered the antithesis to Super 35mm. Also, anamorphic would never be "printed" on Super 35mm but films shot Super 35mm were routinely printed to anamorphic release prints.

 

You're the one taking sentences out of context and getting it wrong. Super 35mm 4 perf is used for anamorphic shoots and printed to the neg UNSQUEEZED From there its up to the director to decide where it goes after that. This is what I actually said.
Even this statement is a bit condescending to the poster. Obviously Anamorphic is printed as 4 perf on Super 35mm so of course he is meaning unsqueezed. The rest of the statement is okay but why the rudeness and superior attitude?
 

Both Super 35 and anamorphic 35mm are 4-perf 35mm formats.

 

No they are not Super 35mm is the umbrella 4 perf 3 perf fall under. Super 35 basicly describes the removal of the soundtrack in order to make way for a larger frame size Hence the name Super.

 

QuoteSuper 35mm is full silent aperture and spherical

 

Correct


 

and an acquisition format.

 

Correct
 

So my premise is wrong? Phil blooms article is not a review because the headline said his thoughts?

 

I guess then anyone can safely write a review that isn't a review with the headline MY THOUGHTS. Well I think someones thoughts wrapped within a review is still a review. I also think its important that your thoughts are in line with the mainstream. Although of course thoughts don't have to be. Maybe then I have it wrong Maybe the review isn't skewed but just the opinion of a user who wants all camera's to suit his/her workflow? I'm not saying that's right but is that what some of think a fair review should or can be based on?

Well to compare the two cameras which really is wrong because of the price difference anyway
 
The DB has
A global shutter
Better sound.
 
The POCKET has
Prores
Better Raw lossless compression
Small size
1/3 the price.
 
He seemed to work on the negatives regarding the Pocket which fair enough his opinion. Like the RAW workflow which is because as he said a professional format and what do professionals working in raw do for sound? That's right they use separate sound. He says no prores LT Its like if it has a professional feature why hasn't it got a lessor one.
Like the pocket isn't really a pocket. My opinion is that it is a pocket You can put it in your pocket take out a lens and attach it Bit like saying my car keys aren't really pocket sized because my car doesn't fit in my pocket too. Then there is the whole thing about the battery's short life when the battery can last for an hour if you turn down the screen or you can easily buy an outside battery which leads to all sorts of complaints that it aint a pocket no more.
 
Then when the DB review comes in its shot on a merry go round with lights in the rain reflecting lights in puddles And Im not saying deliberate but it does make the DB footage look good. Okay its just my opinion But I would rather have prores than XLR sound inputs because I wouldn't be stupid enough to buy the pocket or the bolex for any other reason than for the image if I was working in raw. I would rather record to a card than a disk I would rather pay a third of the price and I would never compare the pocket to the DB when the real comparison in BM's lineup should be the BM4K to the DB because that Is a similar price and with global shutter and that camera will knock the DB into hyperspace.
 
I just feel that where a normal review should be balanced this is a little uneven to say the least.

Super 35mm Use

 

85mm is a portrait lens

50mm is a C/U

35mm is still a C/U

21mm is a wide

 

Super 16mm Use

50mm Portrait lens

25mm C/U

18mm still a LCU

12mm is wide

9.5mm is wide

 

You can work the rest out approx.

 

If you start adding crop factors it creates confusion as crop factors can be applied to any sensor size as a starting point.

 

A 32mm lens is not a wide angle on a Super 35mm frame Its somewhere in between.

Phil Blooms recent review of the Digital Bolex seems very skewed in favour of that camera when compared to the Black Magic Pocket or the BMCC. I'm beginning to wonder if his reviews are neutral. What do others think?

my favourite lens I use on all jobs is a 50mm Full Frame Equivilant lens
 
so the Canon 5d it is 50mm
on my apsc 550d it is 35mm (as I dont have a 32mm lens like Roger Deakins!)
on my micro 4/3 Panansonic G6 its 25mm
 
I find it gets used everytime as the main starting point for planning shots and the main master take I do first of each scene.

The main master take?
What the hell is that when its at home? Are you saying you shoot your masters with a C/U lens?

Okay I'm now getting confused by the way you write I initially thought you meant one 50mm lens doubles as the rest. Maybe its just me But I have a lot of trouble understanding you. In future I will skip your posts.

;)
@ markm
You deliberately confuse everything. If you were told, 'use a 50mm' and you said you put it in front of a MFT sensor and wondered why the heck you needed to cross the street every time you just tried to frame a normal CU, I don't believe you.

Thanks Axel for adding to this crap..

 

this is getting boring now

 

 

When you are wrong you should have the balls to admit it even if it was an error in syntax.

Mark just read it I didnt say full frame was used ....Axel was refering to 50mm full frame EQUIVILANT and so was I and Burnet too
its simple to understand
 
Roger Deakins uses a 32mm lens - THATS THE EQUIVILANT of 50mm Full frame - its quite clearly said multiple times by all of us
just read it carefully
 
 
ok here we go again...... it clearly says   'that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,'  the last sentence OK
 
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.
DOPs like Roger Deakins tend to use a 32mm lens on the Alexa alot of the time , a large part of SKYFALL is shot on a 32mm lens
that is approx 50mm  on a Full Frame Camera,

Okay So if that is what you meant you should have put equivalent

IE You said
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

What you should have said is
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame equivalent and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

Your sentence actually implies full frame is used in most films these days. Whatever way you look at it you were not clear in your meaning. I'd also take issue that 32mm lenses are used as a standard in film making anyway. You may be right that 50mm is closest to human vision but very wrong to think Directors want that look. Maybe you're looking at Roger Deakins to hard and losing sight of everyone else?

just read it carefully its quite clear what I was talking about everyone else undestands it!!

So full frame is used in most films these days as a standard? Course not There was no need for all this All you had to do was acknowledge the error and move on. But no It has to be followed by wishy washy posts insults and name calling. You want to be professional then learn to take on board what is right and do so in the vein it was meant. With a good attitude and willingness to learn.

Sean You are clearly misinterpreting my words. I replied to Andy's post which read
------------------------------------------
I agree with Axel 50mm Full Frame and above is used in most films these days as a standard.

----------------------------------------
Now.. Read what he put Full frame is used in most films. It is not full frame but super 35.

Terminolgy is often thrown around with no regard to STANDARDS.

I suggest Sean that you make sure YOU understand what is being said.

You said
Unsqueezed, I'm assuming you're meaning. Width wise it actually represents an even larger image area than the 5D's 135 format sized sensor, clocking in at 42mm x 17.5mm for modern 2X anamorphic photography, 42.6mm x 17.8mm for films between 1970 and 1993 and 42.6mm x 18.2mm for anamorphic films prior to this.
----------------------------------
Even this statement is a bit condescending to the poster. Obviously Anamorphic is printed as 4 perf on Super 35mm so of course he is meaning unsqueezed. The rest of the statement is okay but why the rudeness and superior attitude?

Between you and Andy its kind of bad form and lack of knowledge coupled with aggression and don't question me I am superior. Funny I had hopes we could have collaborated on something in the future right up to the point you called me a troll.

Sean I am not fucking with anyone. However the Alexa doesn't do full frame and full frame is the wrong label to put on Super 35mm. As for bringing up vista vision that's fucking if you ask me.