Axel

Dear people.
 
Shot this musicvideo for a friend when is was in US. 
Enjoy

I second kidzrevil. Shows perfectly the BMPCC's excellent colors. Because all three images are good, the first one, rather flat, looks cold and misty and could work as well to transport that mood.
I had the FC trial once but didn't buy it. Yes, I see the idea behind it, but there's nothing that can't be accomplished manually within, say, Resolve. But that's just me, and I don't want to argue.

ProRes is a flavour of mpeg2, a very old codec that is not very intelligent/effective in terms of compression. H.264 allows for much smaller file sizes to store the same quality. More so H265. But these codecs fall apart very quickly once you change anything. For delivery, i.e. to upload to Youtube or to stream for broadcast, they may be better. But they are not good for editing, let alone grading or compositing.

You probably read the book DV Rebel's Guide by Stu Maschwitz. He said in order to maintain quality you should never recompress. I think it was an own chapter with capital letters:
NO RECOMPRESSION
Therefore he recommended to use DV (an intraframe codec as well) only as acquisition codec and to encode to *uncompressed* immediately before any further changes were made (referring to changes to the pixels, not simple cuts).
That was in 2006. Now ProRes is not uncompressed and it's lossy, though 'visually lossless'. Surely after some generations compression artifacts will show, I don't know when. I don't worry about generations though if I stabilize and denoise my clips and re-import them before making the Resolve-roundtrip (don't have Studio and don't have the Neat plugin for Resolve). 
With interframe codecs, the image is always completely recompressed. So-called 'smart rendering' isn't smart. Depending on the data rates and the profiles, you will *see* compression artifacts not later than in the third generation, sometimes in the second. This could be called 'visually lossy'.

ProRes is an intraframe codec. That means if you don't change anything within the frame itself, grade it or resize it, there will be no recompression.

Where have you been hiding all those years?
Or had I been just blind?
We are finally talking sense.

Personally, I don't think it really makes much difference these days. Not sure I'd want to try and run Avid on an underpowered Macbook, but Premiere or FCPX will be fine with it. Granted, Premiere plays nicer with Nvidia/CUDA cards, and Apple only allow OpenCL AMD cards in their new Mac Pro (which FCPX is tuned for), but there's no reason why you couldn't/shouldn't run Premiere, or any NLE on a Mac.
There are plenty of things that FCPX still can't do - like export an OMF, for example. There are things it is good at, but there are certain projects where I would avoid FCPX if I could. If it's the only thing you have - you've gotta work with it. The 'magnetic' or 'lack-of' timeline is both great and awful, depending on what you're doing and how you like to edit. Things that are quick in other NLEs can end up being much more difficult in FCPX. And vice versa. Simple things like fine adjustments to cross fades, or lengthening a clip that has a crossfade on it become more tedious and annoying.

FCP X on El Capitan. I must apologize in advance, because my postings often sound too enthusiastic when it comes to my NLE. I feel like I have to defend it when others complain that it's frustrating because of the magnetic timeline paradigm. I have been editing (mainly weddings) since 2002, and I know FCP up to FCS2 and Premiere up to CS5.5.
Why FCP X?
The simple answer: because I'm on a Mac. Imo it makes no sense to install Premiere on a Mac because it doesn't take full advantage of the OS and (with modern Macs) hardware. You could edit 4k video with a tiny MB with 1,1 GHz, 8 GB RAM and no dedicated graphic card using FCP X. Premiere now starts with proxy workflows as well (as I described here), and I think that's a good idea.
When in FCP classic you had to always log (& capture/ & transfer), which meant you knew your footage in greater detail before you actually could start editing in the timeline. Whereas with FCP X you could start editing after import, it's not a wise thing to do. And many of those who are used to other NLEs and 'give FCP X a go' aren't wise, because they tend to skip this part.
For instance, when I review freshly imported clips in the browser, I already synchronize external audio, uncheck the camera audio and mark all usable portions of clips with "f"(avorite). I then set up a smart collection with the following rules: Show synchronized clips, favorites and unused clips. Then I work from this smart collection. I don't see anything I don't want or need, and as I proceed my browser gets emptied because all used clips simply disappear. This of course is just the tip of the iceberg, not using custom tags and roles. Organizing many clips (like typically from a wedding) is a time-consuming nightmare in Premiere, and I can understand why people do that in the timeline instead of renaming, tagging or sorting things into folders.
However, if I was to abandon Apple, I would go Adobe on Windows. Simply because I know it. I never touched Avid, so I can't tell. I assume it's good.
We have that in common. I have always preferred JKL (even over the funky 'skimmer'), and I always learn and customize all shortcuts. Why? Because it's way faster than shoving the mouse. I type blind and just watch the image. 

Do you only know cmd+shift+3 or also cmd+shift+4? Can't be easier.
With Affinity Photo (Mac only), you can save the Photoshop fee. It was $39 last year when I bought it (you pay once & get all updates free). Now it's $49. At first glance, you think it's just an overly simplified PS clone that offers much less functionality. After you got used to the "persona" workflow you realize it lets you do the same things, and sometimes more easily and logically:
BTW: Affinity also brings back the functionality of the old iPhoto (indeed more, and better) to the crippled Photo app OSX now includes:

In german of course on my system. This is one of the Affinity extensions that Photo gets from Affinity called "Develop" (meant for raw). Develop is a "persona".
Some of the classic Photoshop tools appear if you switch to "Retouch":

These screenshots were both made in no time with cmd+shift+4, drawing a rectangle with the mouse and letting loose. 

Well, here is the answer. Make a Timemachine backup of your current system (any external drive will do), and you are back there within half an hour if necessary.
 
Drag & drop works. Of course every new OS has some bugs. I always read bug reports before I update. But I update eventually. I have an office iMac with Mountain Lion, and though it's working fine it feels slow and antiquated in comparison. Staying with an old OS is not the Apple way ;-)
Since Yosemite, the most dramatic change is the appearance. The system font changed from Lucida to Helvetica, which is harder to read on low res displays but easier on retina displays.
El Capitan supports "metal" for most Macs built after 2012. Apples statement that it would make graphics up to ten times faster has been challenged, but an average boost of round about 30% has been reported, depending on system and software. My 2009 MP with GTX680 feels faster, but I didn't measure anything, may well be a placebo.
The most annoying bug, NO BLUETOOTH, has allegedly been fixed with 10.11.2. Don't know, use no BT.
I didn't find this bug description, but my WiFi and Lan-Connection failed reliably after a while since El Capitan. I tested different things and identified the cause: Adobe Flash. I deinstalled this. Only little AV content will not be played back through HTML5 (Firefox announced "Shumway", a plugin that will play the dubious rest too), and Flash is risky anyway. Do not install it, even (and particularly) if you are prompted to. 
 

You are right. I just wanted to stress that one shouldn't make a dogma from anything. Artists have been performing "post" long before computers were invented. Surely the most fun comes from finding, making, forging things to become worth filming. 

In the end, its up to the person shooting. IMHO i prefer to do as much in-camera as is humanly possible - whether that be choice of lens, filters etc...
Yeah, there's always going to be a program/app that can do this or that - great marketing, gotta love it! But why not see what's available in your NLE already, because lets face it, that's what these people are using as a baseline anyways.
Testing is really the way to go - look at how most films choose their cameras.
In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

Well, for me there is one answer: Tiffen Dfx!
It's a bundle - indeed a LARGE bundle - of digital filters as plugins hosted by Premiere, Avid, FCP X and Resolve (with or without own GUI) or as stand alone app. It's not exactly cheap, but it does better than any glass filter by the same brand. Because you can very subtly choose the luma/chroma range for each of them in post, they have many parameters to tweak, and there simply isn't anything comparable on the market. In this webinar, jump to 52" to see how you can deal with skintones:
For my taste, the filters applied here are almost too crude. These are extreme examples for the audience to see what's going on. I shot a restaurant scene that was way too bright and lacked any atmosphere. There are incredible light effects in Dfx that let you make the candles in the scene appear as if they were the sole light source (fall-off, shape, skin-protection, what have you). Highly recommended. There is a trial too.

On a Mac? ProRes, no question.

There is an easy way to always have a reference shot - and not a still image, but a live piece of footage - open in FCP when you want that.  
You make/grade your reference shot(s), put them in a library (which you could call "ColorRef") within your working event. Then just open the event viewer and put your ref. shot in there. Then you have a constant reference  to the left in the event viewer and can compare the rest of your footage to that in the player to the right,
It would be nice to have nodes. The best way for me to "copy" this in FCP is to save a preset including the different plugins and their settings for the reference shot. Then it is pretty easy to make these settings available for all shot in the timeline and make adjustments when nessecary.
 

Never shot a timelapse on the BMPCC, let alone in ProRes. Experimented in upscaling some of the footage by 100%, in order to zoom in - its possible but has its limits.
Looks Ok on a phone or tablet, but you'll notice the zoomed in bits on a computer.
Oh, wasn't mean to look too sharp - just in case any sharp freaks watch this!
 

I wish we as consumers would react more vocally and in unison when the oligarchs play these petty games of taking away their toys. They should compete for market share by innovating rather than denial of services. I am sick of still having to find ways around limitations in all these ecosystems, when I know full well that everything I want to do could be fully supported on one PC, phone, camera, etc if the companies that slogan themselves as trying to change the world stopped trying to slow it down to maximise revenue. Bah humbug:/
Edit: ... and when a camera gets 'hacked', the consumer is telling the company to its face that it has not utilised the full potential of its offering and the response should not be to bury its head in the sand.