HurtinMinorKey

I really like the sequence of shots, color, and all the captured moments.

But I f-ing hate the camera. I can't wait for you to start tearing it up with the BMC.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1347961787' post='18429']
The footage still looks soft especially in lower light levels. I would think this could be on par with a canon mark3
[/quote]

Agreed. No detail on the faces in the crowd. Looks 5Dish to me.

[quote name='avrofilmvideo' timestamp='1346709723' post='17255']
That's right..youngsters
Off to School..
TADA have to go now-time to make some $$
[/quote]

Doing what? Working in the call center for Sony? Have fun with that.

If you client cares about raw, then they probably arn't looking to hire someone who is just starting out. They'd probably be more scared if you tell them you are using a Black Magic Camera (they''ll think you are into Vodoo). :D

I'm talking return on investment. For all the advantages raw offers in post, it also comes at the cost of workflow drag. Plus, being able to do stills really broadens your market.

All that being said, if all I cared about was doing video, and getting work wasn't a problem, I'd get a BMC.

I feel sensor size is an issue. Even if it's twice the BMDs price I'm sure Kineraw S35 is gonna help you capture the deep, movie feel more easily than the heavy crop of the BMD, with equivalent lighting etc. BMD has a lot less physical space gathering light than S35...

I have the RX100 and it's a bit dead but it's useful. Try out a medium format stills camera with no AA filter and you're looking at creepily 3D pictures (if you light it well of course), a huge area gathering light. IT definitely makes a difference. Roll on medium format video! ;)

many years ago some cotton pickin retrobate stole a foto off a manly website the foto was of me and my rubber ducky in are favorite tin metal bath.
no problem with a foto but dis evil doer got a companie in china to copy my rubber ducky and sell an asian ducky witch looked like my rubber ducky.
eyes was real mad sea i tells you.
without imcramanating me myself der guy died scrreaming in panes and der china duck factory burnt down in a freek accident.
it was very lucky these things happen as i was sueing the duck man copy cat true der patent orifices.
eye had 2 patent infrangement clames
eye beliefs cinema cameras have many more areas for legal clams
dem patant infridgement clams can gets messy
either ways my ducky exists he going for a swim tonight.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6_d22aMqZs[/media]

[quote name='kitchentable' timestamp='1345025929' post='15749']
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]"...cameras are now leaving the production facility and first deliveries would have commenced, however Blackmagic Design are currently waiting for a third party license to be issued before deliveries can legally start."[/background][/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]

If that's true, then that third party has quite a bit of bargaining power. My guess is that a team of lawyers from Canon and Sony showed up at the last second and said “here are 397 patents that you are infringing upon with the production of this product. Here’s our number, have a nice day!”

[quote name='amband' timestamp='1344771945' post='15386']
the price is good, however, how many owners would graduate to cinema. 99% of owners will have their vid compressed on TV or youtube, defeating the purpose of uncompressed vid, although I've been told result isn't bad. Getting Da Vinci Licence is the deal maker for some
[/quote]

The purpose of the uncompressed vid is for the sake of editing, post, and the best aquisition possible. Once all that is done, a compressed interframe codec is always the way to go for output. Most Blu-Ray uses AVCHD and a bit rate that's significantly lower then what you get out of the 5D3, but there is a reason "No Country for Old Men" on blu-ray looks 100 times better than anything you'd ever see off a 5D using intra-frame compression. In other words, a better acquisition format will still look better once it's compressed intelligently.

[quote name='PAVP' timestamp='1344369725' post='15078']
I really think we're missing the point if we look at this footage and are critiquing the manner in which it was shot. It's a good thing that it wasn't a perfectly lit, steadycam'd, big production that accounted for every weakness the camera could have. What would we learn from that? With enough time and money you can make any camera look great and yet not know much about what the true character of the camera is. This is like a window into what the camera is really like minus all the trappings.
[/quote]
1. To some degree I agree with this, but there are certain technical things that even the most indie film maker should/could iron out.

2. If the article had prefaced these shots with something like, "we wanted to show what the camera looked like, ungraded, and under poor shooting conditions so we...", I would have judged it [b]very[/b] differently.

3. Clearly Mr. Brawley is an accomplished and talented filmmaker, and I doubt he gives two shites about what some meathead like me thinks about some of his unpolished work from an unreleased camera. All I did was criticize the footage that was shown to me without any context.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069']
The aesthetic they choose was probably down to one of two things. A) they like it like that, loose and informal, can be read as intimate. B)
[/quote]

There is a difference between informal and sloppy. What we saw was sloppy work, for all the reasons I listed above.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069']
You've seen next to nothing yet you demand something that doesn't have "terrible lighting". It's a daylight shoot with a 3 man crew!
[/quote]

Last time I checked, a three man crew was enough to use a glidecam while someone else holds a reflector.

After going to John Brawley's website, and looking at his reel (and seeing how good it was), I'm even more disappointed with what we see here.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344363313' post='15065']
Just signed up here just to say, where do you get the balls?
[/quote]

From a Y chromosome...duh.

What part of my criticism do you disagree with?

1. The handheld was shaky throughout, starting with the very first shot
2. Sloppy focus at 0:15
3. Guys face mostly in shadow, with a bright spot ocasionally hitting his forhead (1:45)
4. Weird tracking shot swaying back and forth (2:40 ish)
5. Guys face is too dark in the last scene

Look, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd put out there to show off new tech just weeks from the suposed launch.

Another Black Magic test that proves only one thing: They need to give the camera to someone else who knows what they are doing. I liked the pool footage better. This was shot with terrible lighting and bad camerawork. What's up with the huge sways durring the tracking shots?

It's got a small sensor(relative to most of the competition) so i'm not surprised about the low light perfromance, but I want to know what this thing can do when lit properly.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344363313' post='15065']
Just signed up here just to say, where do you get the balls?
[/quote]

From a Y chromosome...duh.

What part of my criticism do you disagree with?

1. The handheld was shaky throughout, starting with the very first shot
2. Sloppy focus at 0:15
3. Guys face mostly in shadow, with a bright spot ocasionally hitting his forhead (1:45)
4. Weird tracking shot swaying back and forth (2:40 ish)
5. Guys face is too dark in the last scene

Look, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd put out there to show off new tech just weeks from the suposed launch.

Another Black Magic test that proves only one thing: They need to give the camera to someone else who knows what they are doing. I liked the pool footage better. This was shot with terrible lighting and bad camerawork. What's up with the huge sways durring the tracking shots?

It's got a small sensor(relative to most of the competition) so i'm not surprised about the low light perfromance, but I want to know what this thing can do when lit properly.

At this point BMC is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. We've seen so very few clips, that if they start selling them really soon, then one has to wonder what they are hiding: like a movie that doesn't get reviewed before its opening. The alternative is a longer delay before the general public gets their hands on it. I'm hoping for the latter.

I like what I've seen so far, but I am still very very very very suspicious.