Bruno

First question that came to my mind was: if they can make money selling it at 3K$, how much money were they making selling it at 4K$??

 

It's highly likely that the sensors have come down in price since the camera was announced almost a year ago, it's technology we're talking about after all!

Same goes for most other components...

I don't think Andrew was comparing compressed 4k with raw 1080p.

I think the point is that 4k downscaled to 1080p looks much better than line-skipped compressed 1080p.

Also, by the nature of it, it's less likely that 4k cameras will be using line skipping or trying to get by with a lower data rate.

This is cool for home videos, but since you can't even get honest 1080p (iTunes "HD" is laughable) on anything other than Blu-Ray, i'm pretty sure the 4K revolution is a bit premature.

 

You're thinking of playback, but it's different when it comes to acquisition. A low cost 4k camera is bound to give you a much better looking 1080p than a low cost 1080p camera did just a couple years ago. Also, being able to reframe or crop a little bit when stabilizing without sacrificing even more image quality is a big plus.

4k's advantages are very relevant even if outputting to 1080p.

I almost want a version of that Sony camcorder with a MFT or C mount, 1" is quite useable, and the price is kind of right.

I wonder if that sensor has anything to do with the RX100's, also a 20mp sensor, about the same size...

Jesus... it's about time this forum gets an option to make markm's posts invisible, this was a perfectly informative and interesting thread until he came in.

I liked the Swedish trilogy, but it did feel like watching TV movies...

 

Fincher's credit sequence with the Trent Reznor/Karen O song alone was worth the price of the ticket!

Clearly my posts are correct in the light of no opposition.

 

That settles it.

I agree that when it comes to price, the comparison would be with the Blackmagic 4k camera, and I'd probably rather get a Blackmagic 4k camera (when it actually exists) than the Digital Bolex.

 

However PB's review still makes sense as a comparison between two s16 sized sensor cameras, regardless of how much they cost. He points out many issues with the DB camera too, like the shitty screen for instance, so I don't think it's biased at all. The DB camera seems like a much better thought out camera, and I think that they made sure the hardware features were all there so that its cons could be sorted out later with firmware updates whereas on the Pocket Camera, there's no way a software update would give you good pre amps and sturdy audio connectors. In the end it's just a matter of what you need the camera for, and of course, each one's opinion, and he just gave his, I'm sure there's people writing blogs saying the exact opposite, why focus on the one you don't like? You're just giving him even more protagonism.

I don't see how budget has anything to do with this... I also don't see how I redefined the question, I even quoted it.

...very rarely will you see short focal lengthes in serious films or i.e. horror films. Cinema DOPs tend to use lenses above the 50mm full frame equivalent. Or they have an astonishingly small set that they want to appear much bigger. Then they use the wide lenses so that they appear as normal lenses. Good idea, one could think, but that requires care, experience and high quality lenses.

 

This assumption comes up too often, but as Sean was saying, it's completely wrong.

 

Wide angles have been used with great results on probably all genres, it's a matter of choice. You say wide lenses are rarely used in serious films when actually comedy might be the genre where they are used the least!

 

The Harry Potter films got more serious towards the end and most shots were 21mm or even 18mm, and there's tons of other examples out there, it's a stylistic choice, not something imposed by the genre. Not all horror films look the same, not all action films look the same, not all comedies or dramas look the same... the genre has very little to do with which lenses you should use, the same way the lenses you use will not define a style alone.

 

And please... don't feed Mark.

It's hard to tell what your point is... you beg them not to degrade super-8 cameras with retro-toys for geeks then you proceed to degrading every single super-8 camera you could think of! :)

 

This is not a film vs digital debate either.

 

If they get it right, you could have both in the same camera, and more important, in a camera most people already own.

These specs are not appealing to me, but this could pave the way to a more beefed up version, just imagine being able to choose digital sensors to go with your old film camera...

 

It's not about what this product is, it's about what it could become.

 

If you don't like it, don't buy it, it's not mandatory! :)

Saw this. Seems like a cool idea but I feel like it sort of defeats the purpose of owning and shooting on a Super 8 camera 

 

No idea how well it will work, but if it works well I don't see what the problem is. The purpose of owning a Super-8 camera has been defeated when the processing was discontinued by Kodak years ago, it's a pain in the ass to do it these days, so this would actually save all those cameras from becoming obsolete junk.

 

With new features and a more decent codec I'd be all for having something similar for 16mm cameras. I'm not really sure how the mechanical camera features from the different camera models translate into this product, but if they sort that out then this is only a camera brain, sensor and media storage. A nice way to convert an analog camera to digital, while still being able to use it as a film camera.

"Give new life to your Super 8 camera with the Nolab Digital Super 8 Cartridge. Shoot 720p HD video with any Super 8 camera."

 

http://hayesurban.com/current-projects/2012/3/14/digital-super-8.html

2.5k is a perfect format to shoot for 1080p/2k, since you get some extra room for stabilizing or reframing without resolution loss, but coming up with a 2.5k standard as the next big thing would be pointless.

It's a shame they release an RX10 that breaks with the RX100 and RX1 design. This camera looks so damn ugly!

Also, if RX100's sensor size is 16mm and RX1 is full frame, RX10 should have been APS-C.

 

This camera could turn out to be amazing, but IMO it doesn't deserve being called RX10.

Impressive!

 

A 36 megapixel mirrorless full frame?! Man that'll be great for portraits...

 

Kiss goodbye to old-fashioned mirrors...

 

The RX menu system is great, so that's a plus too...

 

No five-axis stabiliser though, it's a shame...

 

The APSC mode will great if it works in video too.

 

Fingers crossed no 24/28mbps AVCHD bollocks!

 

Yes good pancakes would be very hard with so little flange distance...

 

Yes to FD glass! :)

 

Sony unreleased camera specs, always so promising! :)

Someone said it looks better than the RED Epic with Dragon sensor  ;)

 

Let me guess... the people who sell them?

Never seen a good image coming out of a GoPro and its plastic lens. Great for holiday action videos yeah, serious filmmaking? Hell no.

 

The 4k BMD has many advantages over the other BMD cameras, Global Shutter, APS-C sensor and 4k are well worth losing 1 or 2 stops dynamic range, at least to me. People do great work with H264 DSLRs, you just have to know your camera and how to compensate for its weaknesses, and at that price range it should be the most capable camera around.

 

Personally, I will be thrilled to leave rolling shutter jello ridden cameras behind as soon as I can.

The thing with these cams is, they have options.
But why? Lol

 

Prores.

They will just have to watch as Blackmagic come up through the million dollar enthusiast video market to take over both the consumer and pro market then with keener pricing and more compelling products, haha.

 

Compare the sizes of both companies. Compare both companies' R&D departments and resources. The moment Canon wants Blackmagic Design's niche market, they will have it, but you're right, they're more interested in the billion dollar consumer market, go figure!

This year, the majority of jobs I've been involved with one way or another were shot on C300. That is expert business really. To completely steal the market previously occupied by Sony camcorders in a few years, out of the blue, Canon cemented themselves even more firmly in the professional consciousness than they ever had.

 

And remember how everyone laughed at Canon and how ridiculous the C300 was on paper when they released it. It was considered a massive defeat for Canon compared to the Scarlet that came out on the same day. Turns out the C300 was a well thought out camera that took the broadcast market by storm and is now most people's choice in broadcast alongside with the Alexa (which also conquered this market due to one little detail called prores). The Scarlet on the other hand, which original model they never figured out how to make, turned out to be a crippled Epic, and is still seen as the poor man's RED, without much effect in the industry.

 

And for those skeptical about Canon introducing high end features on cheaper cameras, like 60fps, remember that the C100 has a really nice ND system, which the C300 doesn't, the same way the 7D had 60fps 720p and the 5D2 didn't... basically, it all means nothing, we'll see...

Regardless of how Canon cameras are lagging behind, let's not forget it was all the other makers who have been disappointing time after time since the video DSLR thing began. Canon had the 1st DSLR hit and they still have the best video DSLR around all these years later, we gotta give them that. How many cameras have Sony released in the meantime that seemed so promising and never failed to disappoint? Way too many... all of them actually. Up until Blackmagic Design cameras, Canon didn't really have to improve that much due to the poor competition, and even with Blackmagic Design, I'm not sure the numbers will be enough to be a threat. Remember that tourists and parents with babies still buy way more cameras than us indie filmmakers do, and they don't bitch about moire, they would bitch about having huge raw files that only work on a few memory cards though, that's for sure!

There won't be 1080p/50 or 60, because they don't give you that in the C300 even. Go get a G6 for that. 

I've seen Canon people interviews where they said 60p was around the corner and very easily doable.
They weren't that optimistic about other features such as raw or 4k, but then again they're not selling as many cameras anymore and they might feel the need to step up in some way.
I'm sure you can also expect some improved video AF over the 70D, and a faster memory card standard could also prove very useful to ML raw.

Such rumours have been put around before about the 7D and have not turned out true, if Canon really were interested in pros using DSLRs for video they would not have a Cinema EOS line. As for enthusiast video I really think they have kind of given up.

 

They will hold off until they can't anymore, and I think they can't anymore.

I'm not expecting raw though, but a better codec, fixed aliasing and at least 60fps 1080p are quite safe bets.

Magic Lantern on top of that would make it a pretty damn good APS-C camera.

 

Also, of course they'd start with a Cinema/expensive range of products first, which company would start by releasing a cheap version of a product that includes all the features and then later release more expensive products with the same feature set? The opposite happens quite frequently though.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/eos-7d-mark-ii-talk-cr1/

 

Let's hope they're paying attention...

This footage has been processed, it doesn't have to always look like this, but no plugin will give you the dynamic range these images show.

Also, it's good to see some footage without rolling shutter artifacts screaming at you all the time, and you can't fix that with plugins either!