peederj

I'm here Andrew because I think someone needs to put forward this point of view. Not because it's correct in all cases. But the opposite of isn't correct in all cases either. And I believe most cases.
 
I want to see something substantial from you Andrew. At least a 30 minute short or something, where you have primary responsibility as both director and DP. I haven't reviewed your history at all but I've read this site for over a year and I imagine you'd refer to something if you had done it. With that hindsight I do think you'd amplify rather than be allergic to my comments. I think you'd survive the experience. And your blog would be better off for it, as you'd see what your readership is really struggling with as opposed to helping them join you in constantly putting off judgment day for your art by focusing on preparing some arbitrarily interchangeable part.

Actually it's non-moving shots that interlacing helps. For a given bit rate, you have a certain amount of resolution you can represent. On progressive scan you have to show every line in the same frame, so there's less information you can squeeze into that bit rate. If you instead skip every other line for one frame and do them on the next, and back and forth, you can represent the same resolution at half the bit rate. However, when your footage is in motion, there will be scan lines on the edges of the motion as you are combining two different frames where the subject was in two different places.
 
That's an ugly artifact and for fast-motion shots you would often rather do 720p than 1080i. But for still shots with no changes from frame to frame 1080i is essentially just as good as 1080p yet half the bandwidth, and for the same e.g. 50Mbps bandwidth the 1080i will actually be better than what you can do 1080p at least with an intraframe codec. Long GOP codecs like H.264 relieve a lot of that problem by incorporating information from multiple frames, but introduce other artifacts of their own.
 
You can interpolate 1080i60 to 1080p60 for slo-mo but you do run the risk of the interlacing artifacts on edges. This is how you can get slo-mo on the C100 for instance. All the 4K modes for the BMD listed are progressive and therefore can't be used for slo-mo other than with something like Twixtor if that supports 4K now.

Heard the 1.8 zoom was even better:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-fixed-focal-length-quality-in-a-zoom/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-versus-primes
 

I think peederj is like one of those boys in kindergarten that has a crush on a girl and shows it by teasing her. I bet he is secretly a bmcc fan! :-D

Peederj    Meow!!!
 
Hi Brett, welcome to the site.
 
I found this site related to the rx100 http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f105/
 
My advice would be to play around with the camera as much as possible.
Practice and make mistakes and learn from them.
 
Regards,
 
Matt

I'm impressed with your grades mindcut. Some of the best posted on this site.
 
FCPX is deceptively simple, but you can do nearly everything you need with just the stock tools in it for well-captured footage.
 
To get around keyframeable color in FCPX, you can blade the clip and dissolve across the cut from one correction to another.
 
To have a comparison frame, you can just use the Match Color view, without necessarily picking a color to match. This also lets you match someone else's footage or still you import. Another way of doing that is Window->Show Event Viewer, and load your still or whatever (you can export and re-import a still from your timeline for this if you want) into it next to the footage you're grading.

If you shoot in PoRes it's hard-clipping everything over 100 for sure, unlike C300 you can't pull back the highlights. You mustn't ETTR with ProRes mode.
 
If it's raw mode you're just getting the vital image data in your shot at a sensible point in the DR of the sensor, using aperture ND and shutter. The ISO is post gain. Highlight recovery functions within reason!
 
That's what I've seen so far.

I am a radical, but I think a camera should be introduced with chart tests (resolution, moire, DR, and color), and an ISO ladder of the inside of the lens cap to show the noise floor. Some form of motion and visual load testing would be useful too to stress the codec and reveal any ghosting. Ideally these tests are carried out in a fully open, documented, reproducible manner by an independent test lab that knows how to do them properly. We then have an objective baseline for the camera system, and can move on to subjective concerns.
 
I think it's fine for there to be whizbang marketing pieces made, though ideally they aren't made by the gear reviewers (e.g. Philip Bloom being paid to make the GH3 promo and then casually leaving such conflicts out of his "ethics statement"). People want to get excited about their new toy. Certainly the C100 promo was embarrassing other than for those memorable girls on the beach and their lovely skin. The C300 promo was way over the top but announced Canon was now in town. These things cost a fortune to make and for a small struggling manufacturer are a luxury best left to the volunteer enthusiasts like you guys.
 
Though I honestly doubt anyone in this thread has ever shot footage in their entire lives that is as good as Reverie. I certainly haven't. But it's fair for you to criticize as it was made in the interest of separating you and your money. The people that bought 5D2s in 2009 after watching it still aren't suffering for their purchases however.

I am a radical, but I think a camera should be introduced with chart tests (resolution, moire, DR, and color), and an ISO ladder of the inside of the lens cap to show the noise floor. Some form of motion and visual load testing would be useful too to stress the codec and reveal any ghosting. Ideally these tests are carried out in a fully open, documented, reproducible manner by an independent test lab that knows how to do them properly. We then have an objective baseline for the camera system, and can move on to subjective concerns.
 
I think it's fine for there to be whizbang marketing pieces made, though ideally they aren't made by the gear reviewers (e.g. Philip Bloom being paid to make the GH3 promo and then casually leaving such conflicts out of his "ethics statement"). People want to get excited about their new toy. Certainly the C100 promo was embarrassing other than for those memorable girls on the beach and their lovely skin. The C300 promo was way over the top but announced Canon was now in town. These things cost a fortune to make and for a small struggling manufacturer are a luxury best left to the volunteer enthusiasts like you guys.
 
Though I honestly doubt anyone in this thread has ever shot footage in their entire lives that is as good as Reverie. I certainly haven't. But it's fair for you to criticize as it was made in the interest of separating you and your money. The people that bought 5D2s in 2009 after watching it still aren't suffering for their purchases however.

Sure, nothing against that, the more diversified the better.

People mentioned Reverie though, which as a marketing gimmick might work and I'm sure it sold a whole lot of cameras, but I'd rather they stop doing pieces like that. As a short film it's quite lame and as a marketing piece it's kind of questionable, a proper commercial would at least be more honest, regardless of the budget, since you'd know it's a commercial made with the intention of selling cameras.

That's why I say that when people ask for something like Reverie for camera X they're inadvertently asking to be fooled.

Good DR, colour etc. The highlights are hard clipped like a Canon EOS though. I miss the C300/Alexa soft rolloff! It's cheap though, so hey ho!
 
Reason 6 here is where it falls down. It wins in many other ways though. http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/1080p-better-4k-canon-c100-ryan-e-walters/
 
Where did this awful form factor come from though?  It should be a tube like a camcorder.
 
It's not a stills camera, but they designed a stills body. Definitely not Apple style innovation, despite the aluminium.

I always enjoy reading Peederj's analysis. Sort of the Andy Kauffman approach but I think it is brilliant in its dogged persistence.

This has been my experience with the BMCC actually. Image looks great as long as one is very mindful of the highlights, because once they go, they really go and look very noticeable even to a non-video person.

the 1DX is an important piece of tool for me to make my business running, as every professional has good tools, it's not a hobby! the good thing is I can photograph and film with the 1DX, and yes it very good in video. 

Hi, I am Ebo Fraterman ( photographer ) and new @ EOS HD, I am learning to film/edit since 1,5 years now. I also downloaded the files from the BM pocket camera and worked on it a little in FCPX, I was not blown away by the quality ( after reading many blogs about how good this camera will be ) especially sharpness was a bit disappointing, I am used to shoot on the canon 1DX in flat mode, curious to see work from others and hopefully they can handle it better then me.

Well I hope everyone is creatively fulfilled. And my recommendation for that is...drumroll please...
 
Shoot with what you have. Quit buying stuff. Borrow or rent as needed.
 
I think if you're a creative genius but under-equipped people will see through the limits of your equipment and solve those problems for you.
 
It doesn't matter if you're poor...it does matter if you have no talent or can't bring yourself to use and develop what you have. If you are suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome you will never, I promise, never be satisfied enough with your equipment to decide now you are finally ready to be seen and judged.
 
Go ahead and be seen and judged with whatever's at hand. Get used to it. Thicken that skin. See how lame you are...not your camera, but you as a creative artist...and fix that. The camera is the easiest thing to fix. Your mental blocks and your inexperience making art are the things that need to be fixed.
 
If someone came to me and said they want to be a filmmaker I would hand them an RX100 with a small pistol grip and a removable ND filter and tell them to go out and make something. Go ahead and use the auto everything mode if they want. Or they could use an iPhone and a $13 collapsible 5-color reflector. And by stripping away all other concerns they would be trained to focus on what matters in art, and be able to do the maximum number of iterations per year creating things, because they weren't wasting time transcoding crap in Resolve.
 
No one in the audience cares about your camera. Boo hoo. Fellow camera enthusiasts are not a meaningful audience. Pick something easy and use it. A lot.

Well I hope everyone is creatively fulfilled. And my recommendation for that is...drumroll please...
 
Shoot with what you have. Quit buying stuff. Borrow or rent as needed.
 
I think if you're a creative genius but under-equipped people will see through the limits of your equipment and solve those problems for you.
 
It doesn't matter if you're poor...it does matter if you have no talent or can't bring yourself to use and develop what you have. If you are suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome you will never, I promise, never be satisfied enough with your equipment to decide now you are finally ready to be seen and judged.
 
Go ahead and be seen and judged with whatever's at hand. Get used to it. Thicken that skin. See how lame you are...not your camera, but you as a creative artist...and fix that. The camera is the easiest thing to fix. Your mental blocks and your inexperience making art are the things that need to be fixed.
 
If someone came to me and said they want to be a filmmaker I would hand them an RX100 with a small pistol grip and a removable ND filter and tell them to go out and make something. Go ahead and use the auto everything mode if they want. Or they could use an iPhone and a $13 collapsible 5-color reflector. And by stripping away all other concerns they would be trained to focus on what matters in art, and be able to do the maximum number of iterations per year creating things, because they weren't wasting time transcoding crap in Resolve.
 
No one in the audience cares about your camera. Boo hoo. Fellow camera enthusiasts are not a meaningful audience. Pick something easy and use it. A lot.

Well I hope everyone is creatively fulfilled. And my recommendation for that is...drumroll please...
 
Shoot with what you have. Quit buying stuff. Borrow or rent as needed.
 
I think if you're a creative genius but under-equipped people will see through the limits of your equipment and solve those problems for you.
 
It doesn't matter if you're poor...it does matter if you have no talent or can't bring yourself to use and develop what you have. If you are suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome you will never, I promise, never be satisfied enough with your equipment to decide now you are finally ready to be seen and judged.
 
Go ahead and be seen and judged with whatever's at hand. Get used to it. Thicken that skin. See how lame you are...not your camera, but you as a creative artist...and fix that. The camera is the easiest thing to fix. Your mental blocks and your inexperience making art are the things that need to be fixed.
 
If someone came to me and said they want to be a filmmaker I would hand them an RX100 with a small pistol grip and a removable ND filter and tell them to go out and make something. Go ahead and use the auto everything mode if they want. Or they could use an iPhone and a $13 collapsible 5-color reflector. And by stripping away all other concerns they would be trained to focus on what matters in art, and be able to do the maximum number of iterations per year creating things, because they weren't wasting time transcoding crap in Resolve.
 
No one in the audience cares about your camera. Boo hoo. Fellow camera enthusiasts are not a meaningful audience. Pick something easy and use it. A lot.

Mac vs PC debate has shifted to cameras....pathetic.

Assuming you have the luxery, pick the right tool for the job/ budget and don't bank all of your pennies on companies offering the moon on a stick, with a dubious delivery history. It was not too long ago that manufacturers announced cameras after they were stacked in warehouses, ready to be shipped. Now people are announcing cameras after a quick CAD design and a handshake promise from a chip supplier. It seems that the recent disappointment with large (or small) companies are due to them being way too optimistic about every link in the real world manufacturing chain and too carried away with customer excitement for a product.

Give me a boring company that only announces when its products are ready, but listen to the right people for the target they are trying to hit.

Of course people are entitled to be mad at them if you we're an early adopter/preorder customer...but only so much these days (after multiple broken RED and BMD delivery/spec promises)....we have been here before.

It is a bit like expecting money back from a gambling addict....they will tell you every optimistic tale about how they will deliver your goods, meanwhile their car is being towed away behind them.

That collage took some work. (And then you went and cut it down!)
 
 
I addressed this in the recent strategy thread. Why aren't the "DSLR shooters" willing to fork over $5500 for a nearly-complete camera that saves you from buying endless add-ons? ND/IR filters, XLR preamps and built-in stereo mics, top and side handles, EVFs (OK but it's usable in a pinch) and articulated LCDs, EF mount adapters (assuming people have some of the 100 Million EF lenses extant), peaking, zebra and waveform monitors with audio level metering, one-touch custom white balance, log gamma, usable ISO 6400 and 20,000 with post NR to save on lighting, cheap compact commodity media and replaceable batteries that last all day without offloads or recharges,... how many things have I overlooked that the C100 offers included in the tin? How much does all that cost to duplicate (in an awkward manner) for your "cheaper" solution?
 
Why am I one of the only people willing to point this out?
 
Oh right, because everyone else who realizes this is out shooting and no longer thinking about cameras. Come to think of it I'm late getting the shot list out.

what exactly are you shooting at night. Short films? Documentaries? Cats?
 
C100 is a great option for night shooting and no aliasing. 5D is also great at those and the raw hack is available. 
 
Blackmagic is not great in low light, and has a bit of moire here and there

The problem with GoPro is the tiny sensor size. 

Let's see if all the happy sounding punters come back in 12 months on the forum when they still don't have a camera. Then we will see how they really feel.

It isn't the same.
 
The situation is that people have waited almost a year for their orders to be delivered, and just after they ARE finally delivered they knock $1000 off the price and they come into regular stock to pick up off the shelves. If you can't appreciate how frustrating that is for some people, then you're a lost cause.

Good News for 7D owners.
 
"a1ex committed 
2 hours ago (raw commit)
 
7D: found raw image buffers! raw overlays and silent pics working"