Bruno

A Tokina 11-16mm sounds like a must have on the BMCC, even though you might run into the flange distance issue some people had.

sure 1.3 with 16:9 will result in a perfect 2.35, but so will just cropping your footage... whats the point of anamorphic if you are not getting the bokeh/burnt in stretch?  

 

Using a 1.33x anamorphic adapter gives you increased resolution when compared to cropping the image, since you're using more lines, and the effect is still there. The louder it is the more you risk it becoming a distraction, it's a matter of taste really, but I'm not that keen on 3.5:1 aspect ratios on longer narrative work.

1.33x on a 16:9 camera will result in a perfect 2.35 format, the standard for wide screen, which makes it the ideal anamorphic ratio these days.

I'm pretty sure they'll start including 50p/60p starting with the new 7D.

I use bare hard drives and a dual hard drive dock to read them.
This way you only have one "reader" and one power supply, as opposed to having several external hard drives of different formats and with different power supplies.

http://www.everythingusb.com/startech-usb-to-sata-standalone-hdd-duplicator-dock-18699.html

You can also get these anti static hard drive cases that look a lot like a betacam tape case.

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/cases.php

Also, with the raw footage you might want to look into compressed raw formats for archival, or even some sort of prores depending how much you need to push the footage.

Using something like a Nexto hard drive makes it even easier as it has a CF/SD card slot built in and copies the cards without requiring a computer. There's even options to verify and format in the end, all with the click of a button. Been using one for close to 3 years now with no problems at all!

Well, many great filmmakers are known for not being economical on takes :)

 

Anyway, you could get by even with just two cards and a Nexto hard drive backing everything up.

Working with raw does take up way more space, but dealing with it only requires discipline (and hard drives), not tens of data wranglers.

Yes Will, the camera gets hot enough writing 1280x720 to the card at 24 fps.   VIMEO default to 720p, so for online video, the EOS-M is a killer.  If you don't believe me look at this video by someone in NY I think, 

 

https://vimeo.com/72938179#comment_9829955

 

Being limited to 720p is far from ideal, but the real deal breaker here is the nasty moire all over that video.

Maybe at 1080p it would be better, if the card was fast enough for it.

 

Maybe ML can find a way to optimize it further or even compress the raw files, it looks like anything is possible now, and the EOS-M shooting 1080p raw would indeed be an amazing feat, after all it's the same sensor as the 7D, but for now it's just not up to par.

While RAW is a neat trick, in reality who is going to shoot a whole movie in RAW?

 

Most films you see in the theater these days were shot in raw...

That kind off attitude means you won't be shooting anything worth seeing.

 

Fortunately a few distributors have thought differently, and they all demanded 1080p. :)

 

Getting a 4k camera to shoot half 1080p res is kind of missing the point, don't you think?

I'm not interested in any less than 1080p, especially when you're talking about slow motion, where you'll have more time to stare at the footage!

1920x540 is not very tempting, and unfortunately it doesn't do 50i at 4k.

I'm curious how it compares to the new Sigma 1.8 zoom lens. Reports say it's ultra sharp, but could it replace the 35mm lens at the same price?

Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

Yup, I'm all for the flaws and character of a Super 16mm $25k Zeiss Cine zoom lens that can now be found for less than $2k :)

Transmitting light that falls outside of the active sensor area is just wasted. That's how the speed booster works, it condenses the projected circle of light onto a smaller sensor. Just cropping an S35 sensor to 16mm size loses you your light otherwise.

I don't follow... a cropped area of the image won't become any darker just because it's cropped.
The speed booster is a different thing, it compressed light into a smaller area, it's not the same as cropping, cropping s35 to 16 won't make it any lighter or brighter, the lens' aperture will remain the same.

Not really, in termos of light coming in a 1.8 is a 1.8, you only "convert" the aperture when translating depth of field distances, not when measuring light.
A 16mm 1.2 zoom lens is a 1.2 zoom lens, regardless of sensor size.

Sensors should get bigger and we should celebrate them being bigger.

I think we have plenty of out of focus short films already, shot on 5D full frame cameras.
IMO APS-C/Super 35 is the sweet spot, east to get shallow DOF shots and easy to keep things in focus.
Even though full frame cameras can be used with amazing results, most people abuse them, and it gets quite hard to shoot wide open with a full frame camera.

16mm sized sensor is great for documentary or one man shoots, as it's much easier to keep things in focus, and yet it can also look cinematic.
It's definitely a useful format that should be supported by modern cameras.
There's also loads of high quality 16mm glass available, calling it a hipster trend is shortsighted to say the least. :)

Yeah, i think that was brought up when the camera was announced 50i is 25fps, only interlaced. In fact, if it's proper interlaced footage, I don't think anyone will be touching it!

"This is all you have to say about this camera" and yet you only mention the prores shooting mode of a raw shooting camera, aren't you kind of missing the point?
You also keep basing its performance on the original BMCC camera, even though it's a different sensor.

See this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/07/25/box-office-catch-up-after-earth-survives-iron-man-3-doubles-iron-man-2/


After Earth made 175 million overseas and $59 million domestic. That's $235 million worldwide. The production cost was only $130 million, so After Earth already made profit. Add future DVD sales and it's like 150 million net profit.

It doesn't really work like that. They usually spend in marketing as much as they spent in the movie, that would make a $130m film cost more like $250m, also studios don't keep all the money made from ticket sales, in a movie like After Earth where cinemas were mostly empty, it's likely that theatre owners kept two thirds of the ticket money, making the studios about $80m if that much, do you still think they made any money?

Also, studios and investors are not in this business to make their money back, they're in it for huge profits, so even when a film just gets its money back it's seen as a failure, you wouldn't want to part with your money for a few years only to get nothing in return. DVD sales are close to dead, and they don't define a movie's success at all.

Forbes also says After Earth could have reached $300m if it was a 3D movie, but that's misleading, since the 3D tickets price difference goes to the theaters, not the studios, studios make 3D movies in hope they will bring in more people, but they don't make more profit per ticket.

It's a system I don't care for, but it's how it is.

Laforet and his exciting narrative structure.

That's how you end a conversation, what can one possibly reply to this? :)

Just real world footage.  The footage from Auckland is much better and I'm going to work with it later to see how much I can get out of it.  Thanks to AaronChicago for posting the link.

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.

For any film or commercial yeah, for a camera test? Not really, all these things will disguise what the camera is or is not capable of.
Any kind of stabilization rig will hide rolling shutter artifacts, any kind of lighting might compensate for lack of dynamic range.

Watching pretty images is one thing, judging a camera's capabilities is another thing. Personally I'd rather see the footage as raw as possible, and from that I can tell exactly how much good lighting and grip can improve it. When I see a well shot and graded image, it's harder to tell how much money and time was spent making it look like that, and it could very well be beyond my budget, even if I can afford the camera alone.

I'm certainly not asking for helicopters, jibs, cranes, etc. A simple interview, maybe a studio lit and more natural lit one, would be wonderful. A few dolly shots, maybe a simple tripod pan. I don't feel like I'm asking for TOO much...

Honestly, it sounds like you'd rather be fooled by a huge production where the camera is the least responsible for the images you see.
I'd rather see what it can do on its own, that gives me a better idea of what it can achieve within any kind of budget.

I think it is too early to say much on pq vs original bmcc, but there are of course several advantages to go with the bmcc which may or may not matter to you. The bmpcc's only(?) Advantage is active mft mount. (And portability I suppose)

And sensor size (for S16mm lenses) and compressed raw. Two very important features!