HurtinMinorKey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWjdFcziXpI
 
@ 2:00
 
BM employee- "A little less dynamic range, a little less sharp"

Loss-less for viewing is very different that loss-less for editing.

Raw for under $1,000.

This is actually what you call a "game changer" in the real world Laforet. Lmfao

Sans probably frame rates, this just out gunned the Scarlet, Sony "F's", Red Ones, and everything Canon makes..Actually the Alexa too.

Internal Raw on SSD's on S35 with a Global shutter. $4,000.

Ftw.

Granted, i will have been dead for 60 years by the time it arrives. Lol

Except that a better lens pretty much strictly dominates an inferior lens. Whereas for 95% of shots, a $300 tripod will look as good or better than the results i get from using this.  And in 80% the 5% of cases where it doesn't, my $500 glidecam will look just as good.
 
It's a gadget. It isn't even new tech.  Furthermore, this whole thing has been a publicity stunt, so I'm inclined to shit-talk it until further notice.

I think there's two things going on here, the MoVi thing, and Laforet's "short", one is awesome, the other is incredibly terrible.

This thing obviously has a lot of potential, it's a novelty and they're charging for that, realistically this thing could be sold for well under $5k. But they were the first to provide it at this level of completion and useability, so let them milk it while they can.

Laforet's short however seems to me like a terrible demo. Most people have mentioned the out of focus and poorly framed shots, bad editing and poor filmmaking in general, most shots are totally unmotivated, and worse of all, there's nothing here in terms of camera movement that I haven't seen before. Watch a film like Hannah and and you'll find plenty of fluid steady shots, much better shot, so he missed his chance of showin off the specific skills this thing might have.

I have nothing wrong with advertising per se, but I do have a problem with false advertising.  Hyping it as a game changer on par with the 5D2 is false advertising. 

You mean the one that was poorly focussed and poorly tracked @:40? You could do that with a glidecam, its a smaller setup than the Movi. 

More lies...

Putting this the same league as the 5D2 is abject nonsense.  I hope he was paid well.

Putting this the same league as the 5D2 is abject nonsense.  I hope he was paid well.

Putting this the same league as the 5D2 is abject nonsense.  I hope he was paid well.

I didn't take Laforet for a barker. Guess i was wrong.

I am not against the MoVI at all.
 
Right now it comes to my mind that I always wanted to back out of a restaurant (a stair) to the street at night with the guests laughing and raising their glasses. With a friend I made tests with stabilizers, but only with the extreme wide angle of a GoPro we got smooth enough results, and I didn't like the extreme distortion.
 
This is a good device. All I say, forgive my bluntness, is that it seduces you to show off, that you do things without need. Because, look at the history of film, too prominent traveling shots are distracting, they don't help the story.
 
AND EDIT: In most situations, a tripod or a shoulder rig will do. For most situations, they would be indeed more appropriate. How many percent? You 'll see, with a MoVI, there will be less cuts, the device changes the approach to the scene. 
 
Brace yourself for an example of nauseating camera work. It's enough to watch the first five minutes, perhaps then you'll see what is looming once these MoVIs get to the hands of the vimeots or youtubers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucmZsCwcCjA

I think the c300 is the best for handheld documentary stuff. 

The preview frame is not representative at all; but nonetheless, this is sweet.  Great use of the GoPro.  

30fps for 2 seconds would be so much more useful.
 
Although at 60fps it can do something the $26,000 Canon c500 cannot. Internally record 12bit RAW 4K @60fps. :lol:

For those looking for simplification, a summary of what I've learned so far about the destructive aspects of video compression follows.
 
This is from the perspective of someone who likes to shoot but loses interest at the level of coding and mathematical formulas, or where the complexity of information outweighs the practical benefits gained from the knowledge outside of the lab/software or hardware development.
 
If you're the same, you'll probably like it. 
 
---
 
Bit-depth = number of possible shades.
 
8-bit allows 255 different levels of colour for each channel. 10-bit allows 1023 different levels. And so on.
 
Side effects of limited bit-rate such as 8-bit include banding in areas with subtle gradients such as sky and smoke, "plastic" looking skin tones.
 
Practical fix: shoot your footage as close to your final look as possible. If you shoot flat, colour grade in After Effects, DaVinci, or another application with a 32-bit processing mode.
 
---
 
Sub sampling = spatial resolution of colour channels. There are three colour channels in digital video.
 
Uncompressed is R G and B, all at full resolution.
 
Sub-sampled is Y (black and white, or luminance), Cb (blue) and Cr (red). 4:4:4 all channels are full resolution. 4:2:2 the colour channels are half resolution. 4:2:0 the blue channel is half resolution, the red channel is quarter resolution.
 
This is not a mathematically perfect way of describing it, but it's conceptually sound for most of us in practice. It's as much as we need to know.
 
Side effects of 4:2:0 sub sampling include jagged pixelation and edges to red areas such as red glow from lights or red clothing. 
 
Practical fix: use a cooler white balance and bring your red back in post using a finishing application like after effects.
 
---
 
Bit rate = the amount of data used for video encoding measured over time.
 
50mbps is 50 megabits per second = 6.25 megabytes per second, for example.
 
This data rate alone does not necessary directly reflect visual and aesthetic quality, as compression algorithms and implementations are extremely complex and varied. Some fall within standards, others do not.
 
I-frame codecs encode each frame individually. I-frame allows most film-like motion "cadence".
 
GOP encoding uses Groups Of Pictures. The longer the GOP the more the codec can struggle with lots of movement. Long GOPs can contribute to a digital video "feel"
 
Side effects of limited bit rates include pixelation in high-motion shots, very little data in under-exposed or dark areas leading to blockiness and inability to recover shadow detail. general masking of natural sensor noise (grain) with unattractive pixelation.
 
Practical fix: a low bit rate is very destructive even with an advanced codec like AVCHD. This is why Canon use AVCHD for the C100, and their implementation of MPEG2 for the C300.
 
If your camera has a "black level" or "pedestal" or "Cinestyle" or "DRO", you can shift this up a little to prevent data from being encoded where there is very little priority given to it by the codec. This does spread data more thinly though, also remember your 8 bits...  Hack your camera if you can ;)
 
---
 
In short, working with compressed footage is a bit of a balancing act. A huge amount of data is thrown away in order to make files small and to separate markets.
 
The process is destructive, and cannot be reversed, though being intelligent on set and in post can help a lot. 
 
The ideal is something like Red R3D: visually lossless compression that maintains raw processing capabilities. It is a joy to work with.
 
Ironically, it's actually more important  that you get your shot right with a cheaper consumer camera than with a RAW camera, as you can't do so much in post production. Though users of lower end DSLRs are the least likely to use a light meter, for example, they are actually the most likely to benefit from it.
 
Practice makes perfect.

Jaw dropping. It's the best thing i've seen posted in a long time.  No joke. This shit is primetime. 

To make a long story short....
 
The c300 uses a proprietary sensor readout that makes it relatively immune to certain visual artifacts like moire and rolling shutter. 
 
As far as bit depth is concerned, a higher bit depth gives you a lot more leeway in post. Camera's like the c300 compress information so that you get a great image out of camera. But this information is compressed to give you the best image right out of the camera. However, when using 8-bit, you lose sensor information that informs what the scene would look like under a different exposure or white balance(which could be considered extraneous). 
 
For example, if your out of camera image reads shadow detail as 100% black, you will only get greys when you brighten it. At a higher bit depth, those shadows will contain detail that can be elicited through brightening. 
 
Does this make sense?

I don't think there's a shortage of small, intelligent films at all.
What seems to be in extinction these days however, are the big, intelligent films!

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

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

A wise man once said, "They're not gonna kill shit, they're not gonna do shit. What can they do? They're a bunch of fuckin' amateurs"
 
FU Canon

A wise man once said, "They're not gonna kill shit, they're not gonna do shit. What can they do? They're a bunch of fuckin' amateurs"
 
FU Canon