JHines

The Canon Cinema line is the worst thing to happen to the Canon brand imo. They've stopped all progress in regards to image quality on the video side of things with their dslr's based on the underwhelming specs of their more expensive "C" cameras that they don't want to best.
What Canon should do is offer legit pro cameras with high frame rates and raw recording ability with all the bells and whistles for top dollar. Maybe a camera that actually commands its price. 
DSLR's should be B and C cameras to these high end "Cinema" cameras that can offer similar image quality at the standard 24p and 30p frame rates, that way people can actually afford to buy multiple cameras. 
The XC10 is the most bizarre, over-priced camera that's really unbelievable Canon would even produce such a product. With releases like this I've lost pretty much all hope but I wish they would deliver stunning 4K video quality in the next 5D4 update. I'm not holding my breath... 

Compare Canon's 7d MII sample footage to Samsung's NX1 footage... I don't have a 4k screen, but even at 1080 there is quite a difference.
 

Andrew, while it's relatively easy to get great color and especially skintones from 5D3 RAW, the same cannot be said for the A7S. While the A7S can look great, especially with post work (sometimes a lot of post work), it has a problem with green that can make skintones a challenge. Have also seen examples online where the highlights make skin look like plastic (something I don't recall seeing with 5D3 RAW examples online (certainly not with anything we have shot)).
 
When the A7S can produce something like this:

No disrespect to anyone, but I feel the notion that record labels are only now waking up to whats happening wrt to copyright infringement is lame.
 
The owners are really smart street wise tough business types. Gordy, Branson, Blackwell, Geffen etc 
 
The truth is they have failed to address this issue in the past which started in the early seventies en masse with the introduction of the C90 audio cassette. Even the BBC were encouraging people to send in their mix tapes later in the 80s,
 
The companies tried to get the Japanese to disable the record bias when a copyright signal was detected on the source - they failed
Later with DVDs they tried to get the software burner people to prohibit copyrighted works from being duplicated.- they failed
They even suggested a tax on blank recordable media - they failed.
 
There have been test cases similar to the 'Bob Monkhouse video recordings' lawsuit which again have failed.
 
My point is that if something cannot be policed then the universe is teaching you a valuable lesson. Woodstock and Isle of Wight festivals became free for a big reason - people power.
 
Technology affects many people in this new world, why should record companies be exempt? Are they Gods?. Technology has devastated lives by making millions of typists, drafters, shops, businesses, checkout tills, banks ad infinitum...     jobless.
 
Sure a new business model is required or a pay per view of material containing copyright. But good luck if you can make that work.
 
The notion that artists work is devalued is laughable. The record companies know all too well that any publicity is good publicity, smash your guitar on stage, get busted for substance abuse da da da.
 
Regarding the value of old material which has long since passed its sell by date, you only have to pop into Charity shops to find CDs for a quid DVDs 2 quid Paperback novels 50p. I think this places the value of this stuff into real perspective.- this stuff is one step away from landfill.
 
Anyway meet the new boss - same as the old boss   da dummmmmm dat dat  (oops how much do I owe ya Pete?)

The suits are stupid on the part of labels, because things like lipdubs and so on don't harm revenue, they're free advertising.
 
A person a who re-appropriates a song over some test film is advertising the song, not stealing it. It affect no revenue virtual or otherwise.
 
No one watches that video instead of putting a song on their ipod or music library.
 
Counting "lost" revenue is straight up bulshit. Not every theif of digital, infinitely copyable goods is a potential purchaser, not every person who watched the video would buy the song. It's a moronic way to measure losses. You can't lose what doesn't exist.
 
The YouTube plan was far better, adding a purchase link, and allows videos to sell the original, turning it into revenue generating free advertising.
 
Using an arbitration bot to delete video will send a lot of users packing.
 
It is literally finding everyone guilty until proven innocent, and is a spineless move.

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth.  C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these. 

So "Jhines" initial impression was right all along, the footage was soft for a reason.

Sure, let me clear this up for you.
I read all you comments and, to start clearing things up, I perhaps was confused by your key words to read, which got contradicted when you mentioned that "the 5D3 at 1920 x 720 looks more appealing to me than the BMC piece at 1920 x 1080(which is being streamed as of right now).", since the streamed version was 720p at the time you commented this (and at the time I mentioned that you had watched a 720p file if you only watched the streamed version). So did you actually watch the streamed version at 720p or the original uploaded file at 1080p. To see the answer, jump over the next paragraph.

But, since you were being condescendent to me, let me clear this bit up for you first: Vimeo only converts to 1080p by request of the user and only if he/she is a Plus or Pro member. Do you know what that means? It means Vimeo tries to save bandwidth (and perhaps take care of the users with lesser machines that maybe can't play 1080p right). Well, that's speculation on my part. But you don't care what Vimeo does. So let me tell you: did you know there's a little button to the left of the "full screen" button on the Vimeo player that allows you to see the real pixels (only when you're in full screen, mind you)? Thanks to that you can see whether or not the user who uploaded the video has upgraded it to 1080p or not. James hadn't at the time you started all this (and you could also tell by looking at the download options). But you can tell whether or not a video is 720p or 1080p, right? I mean, since we're coming from 4K, it should be pretty obvious.
Yet, again, the BMPC video at the time of discussion was being streamed at 720p (1280x720 that is) and the 5D video was being streamed at 1080p (1920x720 is 1080p cropped, you see) and you didn't notice there was an obvious difference that could very well be due to Vimeo's de facto system? Oh, right, you don't care what Vimeo does. So why argue?

No argument then. It's enough to just take a look at the pictures you uploaded in >this post, comparing the BMPC video and the 5D video, saying how bad the first one was, how soft and all... You see, that pic tells you off. It comes from a 720p video, even if the file's resolution is 1920x1080. So indeed you were comparing a 720p video next to a 1080p video (and not the 1080p originals like you're trying to make us believe you did) and saying the first one looked soft. Well, of course!

Just to be clearer still, here's your grab next to the current 1080p upgraded streaming version of the BMPC video. You're welcome.
 
 
 
Sorry for my tone, but I don't like being condescended. Your statement was confusing and I thought your opinion on the resolution of the BMPC made no sense, so it had to be that (according to the second part of the conflicting paragraph) you had watched the streamed 720p version of the video to arrive to such conclusion, and not the originally 1080p uploaded file. You confirmed my suspicion with your posted framegrab and still you you denied it and talked down on me. Why not have a little self-criticism?

Now we go back to discussing dynamic range, tonality, grading and all that.

Cheers!

Next to the GH4 comparison, this seems to be the other match up people are interested in. 
 
 

 
The link below has the details, and says there are more test to follow. 
 
 
http://***URL not allowed***/?p=23506

Compare it with this video he shot at 1080 with Canon 1DC Zeiss Otus  and a Atmos Pro Res recorder :

Let's not forget that James is a master grader who made 5D H264 footage look incredibly film-like long before RAW showed up, so I suspect the softness and the muted colors in this latest video are very much intentional, and result of his grade.
 
I remember seeing him being dissed around on various forums for his 'aggressive' visual style, so perhaps he decided to scale back in response? I hope it is only temporary, as I very much love his visual approach, which he perfected with Genesis. 
 
As for BM4K, I am still on the original NAB-date pre-order but will reserve my judgement until RAW update comes out.

I'm comparing both streamed and downloaded ORIGINAL FILE versions and Genesis blows it away. PERCEIVED RESOLUTION Andrew. Thanks for the update that it was shot in different light. Obviously the 4K will have more resolution on paper and with the original file(4K) but the 5D3 at 1920 x 720 looks more appealing to me than the BMC piece at 1920 x 1080(which is being streamed as of right now). Just my opinion. 

Really didn't think this looked all that great, especially compared to his work here -

Your point is correct. But the users are also correct.
 
They are not talking about the amount of detail, they are talking about the PERCEIVED detail. To get a nice looking image you have to know how to ballance the amount of detail captured and the amount of local contrast (sharpening).
 
Most people still use 1080p displays. In my 4k display, I can clearly see the difference in the amount of detail between the 4k prores and a 1080p video, but once you watch both videos on a 1080p display, the difference is not that big. Why? Because if you have a lot of detail and you dont add LOCAL CONTRAST (some people call it sharpening), your detail wont be noticeable.
 
So its totally fair to say that, on a 1080p display, a 1080p raw video from a 5D can "LOOK" more "detailed" than that 4k ProRes video. In reality it wont have more detail, but this detail will be hidden by the lack of local contrast.
 
I dont like oversharpening, but that video is too soft. I know that its a UHD video, but the average person watching that video wont be impressed. And we make videos for the average person.

Really didn't think this looked all that great, especially compared to his work here -

I'm not that awe struck either, but I'm not judging that fast. That being said, I've never found many video's made with the BMCC 2.5k or BMPCC that I liked. 5D is a different story. This is, I think, the main difference:
 
BMCC: Made to look like film
 
5D RAW: 25 frames of actual photographs (which is what the 5D was build for)
 
It's just personal preference

I'm not overly impressed with James MIllers Blackmagic video. Thats not to say its a very capable camera, but minus the global shutter, I much prefer the more filmic image of the BMCC and BMPCC. 

Maybe I'm not alone here being an owner of the Bmcc, but does it seem that nearly everything these (black magic) cams crank out is tinted blue?