bwhitz

"In no way is the Metabones adapter giving us a poor man’s full frame image here."
 
Uh oh... just wait for it. :)  You know this is going to be the talk of every indoctrinated 5D fanboy on the planet. "Don't let those speed-booster shooters fool you... they're not shooting on REAL FF cameras!"

Anyone want to take bets on when the "real full-frame look" cine-meme will show up? I say 2 months.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Damn... looking good. It makes the C100 show it's true age with the 4-year old camera technology that it is. I really, really, love the BMCC... but I just don't know if I can pass up Full Frame-60fps. If this resolves a true 1080p image, then I might have to wait on Black Magic for now.

In real world situations.... I really don't think there is going to be any aliasing situations. I just downloaded Philip Blooms test video and it looks amazing... resolving the tiniest of details with no aliasing on anything. Charts are stupid.

Anyways though, even if on a chart the C300 resolves a few more lines... which it really isn't showing when you look at it... why would people still chose a 5 year old 8-bit codec for 5x the price? It makes no sense. Supporting smaller companies (especially when they have the superior product) like BlackMagic is the best thing we can all do for everyone right now. I mean come on, this is their first camera... and it's giving us 2.5k RAW for $3000!!! Canon is re-hashing 5-year old technology, that sells for $2500, adding a few zeros, and has showed no signs of stopping... All of this canon fanboy-ism I've seen on other forums makes no sense at all. Most of them are just most likely looking for reasons to justify their $15,000 purchase... and discredit people from using cheaper more affordable tools.

People with no talent or creativity that still want to be in this industry either have to rely on "door holding" or "brush-holding". The later is basically gone away this year. This is why people are hating on the BMCC. Cheers!

Anyone who thinks that a RAW shooting camera has crushed blacks... has no idea what they are talking about.

And can people stop using the "no low-light capabilities" as a scapegoat? Anything that shoots this clean, and with still resolving full-detail, at 1600 ISO, is GREAT in low-light. Before 4 years ago, cameras looked like complete garbage around the sensitivity of 320 ISO. Now all the sudden 1600 is terrible? FILM itself looks like garbage around 800 ISO. Some people need a reality check.

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345781766' post='16364']
The quality from 50Mbps long GOP 422 8-bit is amazing.
[/quote]

Not in terms of motion quality. I can always spot the crappy look of Long-GOP encoding. Temporal compression on captured footage will always look cheap. And then 8-bit color-space? Don't even start on that... 8-bit can look good... but never "great". And it's not even worth talking about in the same breath as 12-bit color space.

The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing...


Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;)

My running list so far is:

-Form factor
[i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all.

-Size
[i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i]
This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it.

-Price
"it's not expensive enought to be professional"
Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering.

-Too much dynamic range
"detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks)
These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors.

-ISO
[i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i]
Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys.

-RAW
yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and confuses the "clients""

That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come.