Ernesto Mantaras

To my eye, the image from the D5200 doesn't look as crisp. I'll be curious to see some comparisons between 400% blow ups. 
 
Does it enable magnified focus assist when plugged into an external monitor? Coming from the GH2, that's a big one for me.

I can't figure out if you were laughing maniacally while writing this piece, or not.

For me the most exciting aspect is M4/3 becoming Super 35. The look and crop of smaller sensors doesn't much appeal to me, but some of the cameras are great, like the GH2 and 3. This solves that.
 
S35 becoming FF seems pretty niche to me, in comparison!

Brian Caldwell talks more and answers some questions about the Speed Booster here:
 
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php?/topic/47313-speed-up-your-lens/page__st__60#entry378097
 
Look for the "brianc1959" username.

But they're also the most expensive, and their focus rings are servos, motorized ones. That's why a lot of people fancy Carl Zeiss lenses for video, which are way more expensive still.

I love having a wide lens choice. I can put anything I want in front of my GH2. And the focus rings on the vintage lenses or the Voigtlanders are awesome.

On the other hand, I shoot a lot of low light, and although I light most of my stuff, it'd take a lot of light to get a good exposure at night with the lens stopped down at f/5.6. 17.5mm @ f/0.95 is beautiful.

you hardly loose any light......1/4 stop maximim it is very small
 
and yes this does let you get wide fast primes .......it works very well !
especially on a GH2 where fast primes are expensive.

Oh great! Thanks for posting that thread. I totally forgot about that. Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the 1DX is not noticeably better then the 5Dmk3 to justify the price. Looks like it really is going to have to be the 5Dmk3 this time. It's really depressing that there isn't another full frame camera that can best it though. I mean, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus?... Nothing guys? Really? It's a shame.
 
Thanks for al the input guys! 

Most people wouldn't choose the BMCC in that scenario, no. But the comparison was made in regards to the image quality being comparable to that of the Alexa, which is way more expensive.
And you mentioned it's a consumer product, which it isn't. The price doesn't define its professional nature. It makes it affordable for the independent shooter and the low budget filmmaker.
 
I think that for the price it offers quite a lot, and the essential features it provides as of now allow for shooting and exposing the right way. Film cameras often give you just that and not the features we're used to on most DSLRs and video cameras, yet they fulfill their purpose. But guess what? The firmware improves and so does the camera's performance and features.
 
I do think it's a camera that seems to still be in a beta stage, but it pushes so much that I think no one can blame them that much.
It does what no other camera in its price range does right now! And in a level that will give you material that will last for many, many years to come, even if its value should depreciate more than that of the 5D MkIII.

If he had the budget he could alright. Because this camera delivers amazing image quality for an extremely low price, making it affordable, not consumer oriented. If a consumer was to buy one of this he/she wouldn't know what to do with it.
 
The only comparable cameras in image quality are REDs and Alexa, and maybe the new Sony's now. But if I had $4000 I couldn't buy any of them but the BMCC, yet I'd get that level of quality! The rest goes in front of the camera, and behind it of course. It's talent and work.

And I don't see what the point is in measuring a camera's worth in the longevity of its original price, its reselling value. I don't want a camera to place it in a locker and then resell it in two years. I'm not a finance company, I'm a filmmaker. And I want the best camera I can get, one that can deliver the best possible image and one that will hold the test of time, just like film does.
The BMCC is the closest to that I could afford right now, and shoot an independant film without having to deal with rentals or the budget it implies, and yet still get premium image quality.

BMC is not a japanese manufacturer where they have years of experience putting in all the little comforts you like. If I were to give you a 35mm panavision camera and lenses you would have so many issues with ergonomics weight and lack of features. Yet most feature films are made with similar.
 
This is what seperates real cameramen from amatuers. For a DP and a director its about the best picture with light. Of course you can film stuff for news for other stuff but for film making you need a good tool. As far as that goes the BMC has a better form factor than most RAW cameras including an Alexa. The BMC is so simple compared to whats gone before for the same quality. Its so frustrating listening to people bash waht the BMC have clearly done so well and right.
 
Companies like Sony dont want the consumer to have access to this technology They could easily make something like the BMC but in an EX1 style body for about £5000 to £6000.
 
They wont.
 
The BMC might be one of a kind. and they certainly wont be getting Japanese style gimickry at this price for a long time. They may come out with a 35mm version.
 
Give me the BMC anyday and with a few lenses Mattebox and batterries etc I can go out and make movies to the standard of Skyfall. Anyone though with anything other than RAW wont.
 
If you dont want a Camera that can make film quality pay more for something that offers compression Preferably without a big sensor and an automatic overide on everything Should just say BUY a point and shoot camera and stop trying to get involved with the professionals. OR hire a DP that will do it for you.
There is nothing worse than someone who doesnt understand what they are doing professing to the masses they are an expert.

Awesome!
 
P.S. I'm so glad to finally be reading about something other then the Hobbit and HFR. ;-)

Where I disagree with your article is your letting Jackson off the hook.  The Hobbit, like King Kong, like the LOTR trilogy are not the product of corporate film making, whether they foot the bill or not.  There is no influence, no choice, no direction that isn't pure Jackson.  His supervisors, producers, etc. are figure heads even.   He's making the films he wanted to make the way he wanted to make them.  Like Lucas.  Like Cameron. 
 
With this in mind the problems with the action sequences and animated hordes are not the result of any deficiency in the armies of people it took to create them.  Or have we all forgotten all the boring, repetitive chase sequences in King Kong.  110% of this is Peter Jackson.  Just like the self-mutilation of the Star Wars saga by Lucas, this is an "auteur" with total control, no limits and no one telling them "no."  
 
The artists that worked night and day, more often than not seven days a week, for months (or years, in the case of Cameron and Avatar) on end, are execution.  They're doing their job, often at the expense of their own health, their families and any regard for anything other than the film.  In the case of filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron or George Lucas there's also the masochistic reality of these people pushing themselves even further, allowing themselves to be exploited even more than usual, due to their futile idol worship.  
 
I used to be one of them.
 
These filmmakers learned from the mistake of Francis Ford Copolla who was only compelled to return from the Philipines and eventually complete Apocalypse Now with the threat of the destruction of the negative he'd already shot.  With these guys,  there is no outside influence, no tampering, no limits and like Kurtz going off into Cambodia, no method, only madness.
 
 
edit: re-reading several posts I've made on this subject I'm gonna try to make this one my last.  I just hate the negativity it brings out of me.  You'd think I was talking about the GOP or whalers, lol.  I'm gonna try to concentrate on positive stuff and enjoy the anamorphic discussions which was what brought me to this forum in the first place.

I'm not sure that 4K or 48p are the problem here.... Film has often resolved that sort of resolution and 48p, other than less motion blur, shouldn't affect the set/make up too much.
 
I think the bigger problem is that 3D tends to rely on a deeper DOF, so more of the set/actors are in focus for prolonged periods of time.

The comments about attentionspans, video games and frame rates are pretty much universally missing the point.
 
At Thanksgiving I was talking to my 18 year old brother about video games, movies, etc. He had never been educated on the frame rates involved with various formats but he made a comment about how much he disliked watching movies on his friend's TV - using several disparaging analogies, etc. When he described the phenomenon, I was able to piece together that his friend's TV had motion-smoothing and explained how that worked. It was like a lightbulb went off for him and he could understand what was going on. He was glad to know such settings could be disabled.
 
Someone that spends more of their time playing high frame-rate video games is not inherently going to like higher frame-rate movie formats. He likes them in his games in part because they reduce the input and response latency (something I've discussed in several previous posts as being unique to interactive media and a non-issue in cinema).

As far as attention-span, I can tell you that before he ever turned 7 years old, I used to watch artistic computer animation compilations with him (the kind that had essentially no dialogue to the tune of two sentences in 45 minutes) and he would watch intently, ask one contextual question during the viewing and be fully engaged the rest of the time.

Some people in each generation will have taste and some will not. The same goes for people that enjoy a given form of entertainment.

As far as computer animation in movies, let's not forget just how far the boundaries were pushed by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in regards to realistic human figures as compared to all the other CG movies around that time. It took a while for everyone else to catch up and if you look at what some of those animators have been doing recently compared to "The Hulk" examples, it's a pretty stark contrast. Just because CG makes extensive use of technology does not mean that the artists stop being one of the biggest differentiating factors. :)

I don't know. I'm talking about the best from each era. Budget has a lot to do with it, and so does the amount of time spent on it, and style/skill of the artists.  I feel like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park(1993) looks more realistic than any of the hulks.  Golem looks really good in some scenes from LOTR, but the Warg riders look stupid. 
 
I guess what I'm really saying is that given how good things looked 10 years ago, i thought they'd be much closer to having seamless CG characters.

Grain, anamorphic bokeh, 24/25p, handheld camerawork. All these things actually help me to become involved in the film as a STORY. It's storytelling for God's sake!
 
I don't read an adventure story to a child like I'd read a news article to my colleague. The latter requires formality and stark realism to present it with proper purpose, the former needs to be told a sense of wonder and otherworldliness in order to achieve the goal: magic!
 
All these "unrealistic" artifacts that are part of film tradition serve the same purpose as dry ice lighting and music on a magician's stage: they take us out of the ordinary and into a place where we can almost believe the impossible may well be possible...
 
People appear to be forgetting thousands of years of storytelling culture because of a slightly upgraded silicon chip.

I guess we all assumed stuff. The OP was talking about a non-IS lens being usable even on a tripod. We respond supporting ourselves in personal experience, I believe. Then the thread starts drifting and we end up discussing whatever it is drove our attention away. For the last 20 posts I was thinking the OP wanted to shoot handheld with the 200mm! haha

But to summarize, I'll add my list of 2 cents.

1. It's hard to discuss stuff when we don't share the same language, and I'm talking about mere technical terms (or not so technical). I assumed "handheld" was about literally holding a camera with your bare hands, no support whatsoever. IS does help, using a non-IS lens is jittery as hell. And that's talking about a 200mm on a full frame camera. 'Cause it becomes around 300 on a super35 sensor or an APS-C sensor. Then 400mm on a MFT sensor! So unless we agree on the camera, it's hard to say how bad or good it will look.
There's definitely a "handheld look" as opposed to using a camera "handheld" or shooting with a "handycam". If I shoot with a shoulder support I wouldn't say I'm shooting handheld, but I'm definitely getting a handheld shot. So there's that, if it means anything to you.

2. I shot a documentary last monday with just my 28mm, 50mm and 135mm (and sadly, my 14-42mm kit) on my GH2. 50mm is as far as I'd go when shooting handheld (that is, using my bare hands). I like to think I've pretty steady hands. But 135mm (270mm on 35mm equivalent) is crappy footage altoghether, of course. But when I put on my shoulder rig, things start to look sweeter (although I really really miss IS). In other instances, some kind of support like a monopod or a tripod acting as one (of course, the ultimate weapon is a proper tripod, with which I've managed to get awesome pictures using EX Tele on the 135mm). I could put together a private popurri if you want to see those shots.

3. About IS not working handheld on a 200mm lens, markm... I used the HV series (HV20, 30 and 40) for a couple of years almost daily. I loved it, and still do. They all have image stabilization AND rolling shutter and shooting at their maximum 10x zoom was the equivalent to 430mm in 35mm terms. I'm not gonna say it was the best footage out there, but it was certainly useable. So I can say tele shots with IS do work. And of course, on the other hand, I would've never achieved them without it.
Here's a promo video I made to sell my cam with many shots I made through the years, and there you can see many long tele shots (like the little Beagle's ass, the two Jehova Witnesses on the building, the road/plane shot which reads "CON MUCHO ZOOM...", the crowd shot of Fito Paez's scenario...)

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM[/url]

I used this position shake trick for most of my promos, just came to the conclusion on my lonesome, but it's good to share :) Subtler int he first one:
 
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGquFXmLOU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGquFXmLOU[/url]
 
More extreme here:
 
[url="https://vimeo.com/48174944"]https://vimeo.com/48174944[/url]
 
I did it in After Effects using a wiggle expression on position. Set a frequency either at frame rate or below, and use no more than a pixel or so. It works great!

This is the one I have right now, although I never use it mounted on the camera, but on a light stand. It's the most powerful out of most of the mentioned lights and uses cheap NP-970 (as well as AA batteries). Also the color is quite there, it doesn't have a green tint.
 
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-AL-198-Camera-Lighting-Camcorder/dp/B008VKMLE4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351190687&sr=8-3&keywords=aputure+led"]http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-AL-198-Camera-Lighting-Camcorder/dp/B008VKMLE4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351190687&sr=8-3&keywords=aputure+led[/url]
 Then one option I'd like to have (but I haven't tried yet) because of it's higher power and the fact that it can be plugged is this one:
 
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dimmable-Switch-Battery-Charger/dp/B0054EI79I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354919069&sr=8-2&keywords=312+led+light"]http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dimmable-Switch-Battery-Charger/dp/B0054EI79I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354919069&sr=8-2&keywords=312+led+light[/url]
 
This one up there could be bulkier, but it doesn't seem to be much bigger.
Both lights come in daylight and selectable temperature versions. In the latest there are 156 daylight balanced LEDs and 156 tungsten balanced ones, so supposedly it has the same power as the daylight LED light only when all of the LEDs are on (which is a color temperature that sits in the middle).

You sure have options!

EDIT: I think the 312 ones are the same as the ones Tomekk mentioned, but these from Amazon are branded as Fotodiox, which is a brand that hasnt't let me down yet (in the adapters department at least!).

I guess we all assumed stuff. The OP was talking about a non-IS lens being usable even on a tripod. We respond supporting ourselves in personal experience, I believe. Then the thread starts drifting and we end up discussing whatever it is drove our attention away. For the last 20 posts I was thinking the OP wanted to shoot handheld with the 200mm! haha

But to summarize, I'll add my list of 2 cents.

1. It's hard to discuss stuff when we don't share the same language, and I'm talking about mere technical terms (or not so technical). I assumed "handheld" was about literally holding a camera with your bare hands, no support whatsoever. IS does help, using a non-IS lens is jittery as hell. And that's talking about a 200mm on a full frame camera. 'Cause it becomes around 300 on a super35 sensor or an APS-C sensor. Then 400mm on a MFT sensor! So unless we agree on the camera, it's hard to say how bad or good it will look.
There's definitely a "handheld look" as opposed to using a camera "handheld" or shooting with a "handycam". If I shoot with a shoulder support I wouldn't say I'm shooting handheld, but I'm definitely getting a handheld shot. So there's that, if it means anything to you.

2. I shot a documentary last monday with just my 28mm, 50mm and 135mm (and sadly, my 14-42mm kit) on my GH2. 50mm is as far as I'd go when shooting handheld (that is, using my bare hands). I like to think I've pretty steady hands. But 135mm (270mm on 35mm equivalent) is crappy footage altoghether, of course. But when I put on my shoulder rig, things start to look sweeter (although I really really miss IS). In other instances, some kind of support like a monopod or a tripod acting as one (of course, the ultimate weapon is a proper tripod, with which I've managed to get awesome pictures using EX Tele on the 135mm). I could put together a private popurri if you want to see those shots.

3. About IS not working handheld on a 200mm lens, markm... I used the HV series (HV20, 30 and 40) for a couple of years almost daily. I loved it, and still do. They all have image stabilization AND rolling shutter and shooting at their maximum 10x zoom was the equivalent to 430mm in 35mm terms. I'm not gonna say it was the best footage out there, but it was certainly useable. So I can say tele shots with IS do work. And of course, on the other hand, I would've never achieved them without it.
Here's a promo video I made to sell my cam with many shots I made through the years, and there you can see many long tele shots (like the little Beagle's ass, the two Jehova Witnesses on the building, the road/plane shot which reads "CON MUCHO ZOOM...", the crowd shot of Fito Paez's scenario...)

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgWXuQLQgM[/url]

To clarify, two people use this account. My wife (Caroline) and I (Peter).  If the post is argumentative and or about tech it is usually me. If it's about style and/or has proper grammar, it's definitely her.   

You can see it here in the title card right at the beginning (very subtle, you might have to make it HD and full screen to notice it), that's using Final Cut's "Earthquake" filter.
 
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpcNvHmjx4Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpcNvHmjx4Y[/url]

Great, thanks! You got it right at last, we're talking about the difference between the look of 'handheld' footage and the way you're holding a cam. Don't mess those things up. When you're shooting shoulder or chestmounted you get (most of the times) the look of handheld footage, so that's why it's called handheld.
 
Handheld in the way you describe as holding the camera with just two hands only is only 'doable' with smaller cams for a short period of time. With the larger cams, like the pdw-700, holding it like that means you can't pull focus or zoom at the same time, even pulling focus alone will mean you have to support a 10/15 kilograms beast with just one hand, good luck in getting usable footage for longer than let's say 20 seconds. In my experience you're always looking for a third point of support, it might be a part of your body, a wall or the floor, it's just for keeping the cam steady, the motion in control and getting the shot right.
 
But let's end this discussion and agree that 200mm on crop and handheld isn't recommended to say the least.

i like the Rokinon 650-1300mm for interviews handheld!  it's really hard.   :(   but that's what she said!  :o

OMG, what an offense!!!
 
 
English is not my native language, but what I read from this is "The BMCC is a much better deal. Andrew, when are you posting some footage so these people stop talking shit?".
The way I see it she was supporting what Andrew was saying, and didn't deserve such a harsh response, but that's just me.
 
 
So you compare the BMCC to the F55 and claim that the F55 market needs nothing else than a BMCC, but the C100 is a completely different market. Seriously...