Bruno

I know that, it doesn't mean anything, they're entitled to sell it like that, hacking it is a form of piracy. You can claim you can do whatever you want on your own gfx card, but whoever shares the cracked firmware could be legally charged for it. Also, the thing is in that case that was their intention from day one, whereas the 1DX came out before the 1DC was even ready, that's what makes me doubt it. That and the $6k price different, I'd think Canon would take an extra step to protect it. Anyway, the point here is Andrew finished his post suggesting legal teams wouldn't be able to do much about it and that's far from the truth. If you ask me, I'm all about having long lasting hardware, even if it means paying for firmware upgrades, anything to fight obsolescence and help save the environment, but that needs to come from the companies themselves. When you buy a 5D3 it doesn't say anywhere on the box or the manual that it has HDMI uncompressed output, and it's your decision whether or not to buy it, so stop bitching about it. I'll give you another example... Your kick ass computer could run ANY software around, are you gonna start bitching that not having Maya or Nuke for free is crippling your hardware and that it gives you the right to resort to piracy instead of paying for the $10k they cost?

What makes you think they're disabled instead of not present at all? Hackers could possibly extract all the firmware from a 1DC and try to make it work on a 1DX, but ML has never done anything like that, and I doubt Canon would leave the specific 1DC features in the 1DX firmware so they could be activated. In fact it would be highly unlikely since the 1DX has been out for a while now, so what are the chances it came with the future 1DC firmware? :) The thing here is Canon are entitled to do this, they could even be the same exact camera, they're entitled to charge for their firmware whatever they want. When you buy a 1DC you know what specs you're getting, they don't have to give you anything else only because their other version has it. Many software apps work like this, you install the whole thing and then you need to pay to unlock extra features if you need them. I'm sure clever hackers could find a way, but that's piracy, using software you didn't pay for. If you don't like the price don't buy it, get something else, but it's still a free market. Apple have been selling overpriced products for years and they've been doing just fine!

Even if the hardware is the same, I would expect Canon to have different firmwares and not include the 1DC stuff in the 1DX firmaware, so it wouldn't be just a matter of turning it on. Most of Magic Lantern's tools are written by them to run on the Canon cameras, there's a few Canon settings they can mess with, but most of the cool stuff is all ML software running on the cameras.

Yeah, everybody knows there's no law overseas.

Moire can be quite nasty, and no plugin will fix it easily. If you have a serious project to shoot, the additional $1000 would probably not be enough to fix it in post. AA filters like the mosaic engineering one don't work well with all lenses and they're made to work at 1080p only. I know moire is still present in most video DSLRs, but it's a huge pain in the ass, if you can avoid it, you should.

Moire is a big deal, worth the extra $1000 if you can afford it, IMO. Also, construction wise, they're different beasts.

Good colour grading is extremely important to achieve a good look, both on digital and film, and most DSLR footage around hasn't been professionally graded. Plugins like Magic Bullet get you somewhere fast, but still a long way from proper color grading by an experienced colorist. This video is a good example.

I don't think anyone said the 6D is better than the 5D3, aliasing is better on the 5D3, but apparently noise is better on the 6D. http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/12/the-high-iso-battle-of-the-full-frame-heavy-weights-canon-6d-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/

I'm not sure I'd recommend a 5D2+AA filter over a 5D3. The 5D3 is way cheper than the $3500 it used to cost. These days you can get a new one for $2600. A 5D2 + filter will cost around $2100 these days, but I'm not sure what you save is worth it. The filter has quite a few limitations and the 5D3 is a better camera overall, not only because of the better aliasing.

"And the 6D is? a 5D MK II sensor + some other fluff off the T2i, T3i, T4i range?" Not really, apparently the 6D beats the 5D3 in low light, so I wouldnt say it's the same sensor as the 5D2. It's not as good for video as the 5D3 though.

  It sounded more like a wish than a news report I think :)

There's also the Leica M, not sure how good its video is though, and it doesn't do more than 25fps I think.

  That's exactly what I said...   When I say it comes with an inappropriate mount, it's with regards to the sensor size, not the target market. The MFT is more suitable, but a passive one feels once again like a rushed solution. IMO this camera should have come with interchangeable mounts. They could charge anywhere between 250-500 dollars for each additional mount as long as they were well implemented active mounts, and it would still suit indie filmmakers, or they should have chosen the most versatile mount, something like E mount or something.

I know you're just going to disagree with anything I say, but I don't see why having good sound in camera would discard the need for sound recordists on set.   As on so many different professional cameras and productions, the sound goes from the sound guys into the camera with proper XLR connections, and you get your image AND your proper sound in the same file. They might record it separately as well, but on many situations, especially broadcast and documentary, this is extremely useful.   It's also very important for independent single shooters shooting documentary, etc. not to have to carry, rely on and operate external recorders while conducting and shooting interviews.   There's many uses for in camera proper audio, that's why pro cameras all have it.

  It doesn't, the professional features do, and raw alone isn't enough. Let's face it, a professional camera doesn't come with an EF mount. BMD said it themselves, this is a camera for DSLR video shooters, but not even the EF mount is properly supported at the moment. Raw is the only big selling point this camera has (for now). Don't get me wrong, it is a HUGE selling point, and there's nothing else out there like it, I totally agree, but on most other features its no better than a DSLR, and worse than many.     Yes, but that's exactly my problem with it. They should have gotten at least the basic stuff right. It comes with an inappropriate mount (one for consumers, not pros, and not the best choice for the sensor size), poor audio capabilities, ergonomics, etc.   Raw is great, it's awesome, and I'd rent or even buy that camera if I needed it right now, but otherwise, I'll wait, because it's not there yet, but it could very well have been if they had listened.

These terms are an approximation, APS-C is often referred to as Super 35 size, and they're not the exact same size either.   The projection aperture for Super16mm film is 11.76 by 7.08 mm, so the difference is not that big, and you can definitely use Super 16mm lenses.

I never questioned the image quality, and say what you will, but this is a $3k camera and its features should be thought for the $3k market segment, independent shooters. If you had the budget to do Skyfall you wouldn't be choosing a BMCC.

  Right...

Ikonoskop sensor is about the same size as the Thomson Viper camera's sensor. Some pretty good looking films have been shot with it, being slightly larger so it's the same as super 16 would probably not make much of a difference.

The BMCC is a consumer camera. In a professional work environment, I can rent a camera a month, depending on the project, but the BMCC is a camera for independent shooters to own. As an independent shooter, I'd like my camera to last me a few years and have the basic features there from the beginning. With the BMCC you can smell obsolescence from a mile away, it's obviously they're just putting whatever out there based on te RAW capabilities and great picture quality, and they'll worry about the rest on the next models. This is not a business model I will endorse. Everyone pointed those flaws when they first announced it and yet they listened to no one. How much do you think this camera will be worth in a year when they announce a new model that fixes most of the issues people have with it and costs the same price?

This review sums up what I think of the camera very well. "I gripe because I love" is a good way to put it, I praise BMD for doing something like this and at the same time I'm befuddled by some of their design decisions and how much it feels like a beta product.   http://prolost.com/blog/2012/12/19/lets-cook.html

It wasn't revolutionary, but it was a big improvement over the mk2. The iPhone updates have been way less revolutionary and it doesn't stop people from buying them like there's no tomorrow, not every product can have that effect, if they knew how to do it they'd do it every time!   The video quality has seen improvements, it's not just the noise. The color and overall image of the mk2 in low light is considerably worse, and the codec even though still not perfect or ideal was also a huge improvement.   The thing is, so many DSLR cameras came out this year, so many seemed to finally have got it right, from every single brand, and in the end the 5D mk3 is still up there. I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm just saying that no matter how much better it could have been, no one else has matched it yet (the BMCC is not a DSLR).

24 bits will help if you need to do any post to the audio, even when just bringing the levels up. It's the equivalent of having more dynamic range in your image.

  I agree with that, the 5D mk3 was a pretty decent update. Personally I prefer an APS-C sized sensor, so if they add the same improvements on the 7D plus 1080 60fps (and HDMI out), then I think it will be a great camera as well.   If you look at Super 35mm film scans, they don't look that sharp at 2k, they always need some kind of sharpening to make them shine (just comparing sharpness here, not dynamic range or image characteristics).   You can find sharper cameras out there but that could also bring up some aliasing issues, and Canon still has the best color in DSLRs.   It's also true they've been kind of slow and holding back though, but yes, the 5D3 is probably the best video DSLR out there.

Cheapest thing you can do is crop in Final Cut, that will give you the wide aspect ratio, but not the anamorphic lens characteristics obviously. It's not something you could achieve with filters, even though you could add anamorphic lens flares to your footage, but I wouldn't go there. Next cheapest thing is probably the vid-Atlantic cinemorph filter, it emulates some of the anamorphic lenses characteristics. http://www.vid-atlantic.com/cinemorphic.html Then you have anamorphic adapters at all price points, some more useable than others, most cumbersome and requiring focusing on both lenses. The good and small ones are quite expensive. There's also a few adapters like the Century, Optex or Panasonic LA7200 that I think don't require focusing on both lenses. And then there's the real proper anamorphic lenses. Expensive, very expensive. Apparently SLR Magic is working on a new more affordable one.