HurtinMinorKey

Watch videos that you like, take notes about the angles, length of shots, camera movement, and editing.  Try and emulate what you see.  This requires research.  I think learning by doing is the best.

I really hope there will be a new wave of influental independant films that deserve this name. Even worse than being dependant on the politics of major production companies is the situation in my country. It has the "FFA", an acronym for film promotion association, founded in 1968, and it effectively finances german theatrical films with tax money, but approving the standards, which can only be described as uncinematic and boring. It's a federal association that decides if scripts are worth the investment, and you can easily imagine what that means for creativity and originality. 
 
I particularly hope, that indie filmmakers will stop to think retro. If they want to reinvent cinema, there is no frigging 'cinematic look' to be followed, no grain filters, no exaggerated DoF-gimmicks, no oange-teal-'blockbuster'-grading, that would be embarrassing. There has to be a good and revolutionary story that dictates it's own aestethics, preferably clean and straight.
 
Don't dream about fancy imagery, you've got a camera with sufficient color depth to look good on a big screen. Now it's time to tell something!

Yeah, you know what man, sorry for being a dick. Seriously. That was pretty immature to defend the
Project when it was presented like a redneck with a camera & some explosives.. So my apologies
For blasting off over it. I like over the top humor. I see every cut in my head and think "how could anyone
Not laugh their asses off at this scene?" But, nobody's seen anything yet.

To follow up however, I found a squadron of rebuilt Huey Hogs about 45 minutes away that will begin memberships and event
Flying next year. Oddly enough the PR lady was very sweet and down to earth on the concept of working with me, and
The negotiation is pretty awesome considering they need a videographer to get the word out there. Double whammy

Karim,
 
The BMCC gives you two basic monitoring options: Film and Video, which can be used for any recording mode. I think by monitoring in FILM Mode (log), you will get a much more useful monitoring image for the purpose of lighting  Was all this stuff monitored in Video Mode? It looks like it.
 
If you want to see all of the detail you are capturing, Film mode is the only way to go. It won't look pretty, and you may want to punch up the contrast and saturation on your monitor, but it's definitely better than looking at the over-exposed video mode monitor.

I say, let's wait for some moving images. Noise is hard to evaluate from a single image. Yes, if it was a stills camera ...
 
It may be bad, it may actually look good. You know, all the high bitrate - small GOP hacks of the GH2 never added any real detail to the images, they dithered obscure parts in a way like film did, creating so called 'temporal samples'.
 
Yes, I know, iso noise is fundamentally different from film grain. But, like Andrew wrote, it still is something people add voluntarily to make their videos look more organic (they add random film grain simulation, which like iso noise, has nothing to do with the pixels in the image, it's an artificial layer).
 
If it really turns out to be an 'issue', there is a good chance that tools like Neat (or the pro version of Resolve?) can fix it easily.
 
Raw photography is also not free from noise. Adobe Raw within Photoshop has it's own NR filter. The noise you detected on the ship is nothing I would have found in original size (1080 viewed on a 1080 monitor from a viewing distance appropriate to, er, cinema), my guess is that it is negligible for video in most situations. In this photo, the noise disappeares completely with a mild 18% luma NR (visible in 400%), no big deal, since one has to treat the raw with several agents anyway.
 
What is more, the sensor is said to be comparable to that of the BMCC. The first Brawley demos also showed some noise, but it isn't discussed as problem anymore, afaik. Maybe it can be avoided altogether, maybe not. No reason to despair.
 
Paramount for me, I like the images, I am not for missing the wood for the trees. Or worse, to ignore the path underneath your feet! 

Hello friends, I am new here, long time lurker. Thank you sincerely for the discourse; it's extremely educational to me.
 
After a brief analysis of these .dng files in ACR my reaction is, in a word...pleasure~! These images feel naturalistic to me in a way that the BMPCC prores for the most part does not, not to shit on the prores and say it's worthless––it's very fine. But there is a certain character to these that I far prefer, perhaps because of the added effective dynamic range [when properly processed]? I'm really not sure; I appreciate all of your comments as they help me get a grasp on what is going on here. I would like to understand the 'why' of digital cinema as much as possible and ultimately I am just a beginner.
 
Anyway, again, ACR produced pleasing results for me with minimal effort, and a little noise reduction goes a long way if that's the look you're going for. I didn't find what I would consider to be an unexpected amount of noise in any part of the images based on my perception of the exposure and lighting conditions.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing more raw imagery from the BMPCC and I look forward to seeing the analysis here on this board, thank you guys.
 
Cheers!

One thing to note.  ACR applies sharpening by default on dng files.  So if you haven't zeroed it the noise does get lifted a bit.

An oldy but goldy, but worth another look if you've seen it before
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ
 

I prefer the image on the BMCC, but not enough that it overwhelms other considerations. If you like to shoot a lot of handheld and or really make use of it as a stills camera, I'd probably go with the 5D3. If you are going to be using tripods or other forms of stabilization I'd go with the BMCC.
 
The ability to shoot to SSD is a huge plus for me. I can store and edit a bunch of footage directly off it, without having to dump a bunch of footage between shoots.
 
I recommend spending a lot of time watching the best clips both systems have offer, focusing on the types of shots you envision yourself using.

I got a good offer on a 5D MKiii recently, but despite the raw and overall superior image to 600D I've just stuck with the latter for a few things that are coming up because I know it, and the cost won't improve the product enough.
 
I could also borrow a BMD M4/3 for these shoots, but still, it's an unknown factor and delivery is PAL SD (yes, SD!), so I think the 600 will be fine.
 
I that situation 4K and raw are overkill, I just want to make the piece and deliver it as quickly and efficiently as possible, quality is not the priority, and would go un-noticed. Five friends who barely shoot ever own 550Ds that I can borrow as other angles! FIVE! That's market share...
 
When it's my own work however, music videos and films and so on, I'd like the best I quality can get, but still within reason. I love raw manipulation, so much freedom, but right now the idea of having multiple terrabytes of rushes and a long, long workflow feels like it'd slow me down a lot, plus it's expensive to deal with and presents archiving problems...
 
Shoot ratios on music promo and narrative are both high. Documentary can be insane, 100:1... there I'd probably use an RX100 (and a million batteries) but raw would be project suicide with current technology.
 
If ML could code RAW compression (down to 10-bit from 14-bit colour, some lossless compression) into the 5D MKiii it may become more practical, but now it's pretty mental to handle, and I keep reading about lost clips and so on.
 
I think that's why out of all the BMD owners I know, none have actually embarked on a truly ambitious full project with raw.
 
***
 
The last short film I did was for Virgin Media Shorts, I used the 600D with hacked high bitrates and antialiasing filter and I'm happy with it. Sure it's a limited look, but so is certain film stock. I had to work so quickly, I just couldn't have done it with a glitchy camera, too much weight and rigging, or a demonic workflow. I just ran with the look and gave it a grungy psuedo 16mm feel.
 
If I could've had an Alexa look from a small DSLR box (as BMD promises), complete with compressed ProRes or DNxHD, then it would be the best option, but right now I hear a lot of grumbling from those using those cameras in the heat of battle so I'm keeping clear.
 
I loved Upstream Colour.... you could tell it was an 8-bit cam and quickly shot in places because the colours were different on every shot, sometimes in the same scene, but it worked with the piece, the confusion and surreal settings, it all added to it.
 
I think the key is working with what you have. If you have a camera that makes footage look like video, work with that look, if you try and make it look like Red Epic, you end up looking cheap, and so on...
 
I see a few films shot on Epic where they've tried to emulate film stock and the result is actually too sharp to be believable, so it works both ways.

I suggest, you pick up a pair of Zoom H1 ($99) or Tascam DR-05 ($99), and get a pair of Giant Squid Lapel Mics ($40) (get 3, just in case 1 has any issues). You land up spending about $198 + $120 = $318
 
You could add an opteka shotgun mic VM100 ($80) for reference sound, and you have brilliant quality audio, at a fraction of the cost of Sennheisers.

I have a LowPro Flipside 500, which is huge, and I love it, but I'm not sure It's big enough for all of your gear. It fits a BMCC with it's Switronix battery pack, a 5D3 and 6 lenses.
 
Sounds like a lot of gear, you might consider...

You are almost certainly panning too fast. It's really surprising just how slow you need to do it. If you can't pan slowly enough it's better to do a whip pan as the brain accepts that better than the jitters of a fast pan.

Make sure that the image stabilization is turned OFF on your lens.
 
But I suspect more that it's a side effect of shooting at 24 frames per second. If an object takes less than about seven seconds to pass from one side of the screen to the other, then you are likely to experience motion judder when viewing on a 60hz monitor. It is one of the limitations of that frame rate.
 
If you really need smooth motion, you may find that 30 and 60 frames (especially 60 frames) per second are better for your purposes.

I have a LowPro Flipside 500, which is huge, and I love it, but I'm not sure It's big enough for all of your gear. It fits a BMCC with it's Switronix battery pack, a 5D3 and 6 lenses.
 
Sounds like a lot of gear, you might consider...

I have a LowPro Flipside 500, which is huge, and I love it, but I'm not sure It's big enough for all of your gear. It fits a BMCC with it's Switronix battery pack, a 5D3 and 6 lenses.
 
Sounds like a lot of gear, you might consider...

A short film from Germany, shot with the Pocket. They speak english, because Germany isn't exactly the home of cinematographic talent, and the latter has to be invited from elsewhere. However, it's graded rather extremely, but it has a story and not just landscape or cats. One of the marks of cinema.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ_INEKUQpA#t=22

I just got my BMCC up and running last week and I wanted to see how the camera would perform under conditions that i wouldn't even try with the ol' 5D: Direct bright sunlight.
 
https://vimeo.com/65017609

Vid atlantic claim the smaller sensor of the Black magic will make shooting with these adapters easier in comparison to full frame slr's where you will have to shoot with 85mm+  focal lengths to avoid vignetting.
 
http://vidatlantic.tumblr.com/post/29382687522/small-sensor-fears-blackmagic-camera-with-anamorphic
 
That article mentions 2x anamorphic adapters whereas the one you listed is 1.33x. 
 
Also the century optics filter your linking too really isn't worth the money, all the test videos are riddled with distortion and it looks cheap. If you want to use anamorphic for a few short films and to play around with get a Sankor 16C, it's 2x so the image is super slim but it's the best looking anamorphic footage for this price range that isn't an iscorama. 
 
The LA700 has been used to good effect with the BMCC however I really don't see the merits of using one. The LA700 creates a bland image and the flares are less than unique. You're better off buying the vid atlantic flare filter than shelling out next to a grand for a pretty useless adapter which you will have to continue spending money on for things such as diopters to really get it to work. It's a pain in the ass you'd rather not have. Just buy a Sankor 16D (cheaper but cooler blue flares) or a Sankor 16C (sharper image), much more reasonably priced and it will allow you to have some anamorphic work on your vimeo/showreel! And the vid atlantic article suggests these 2x lenses will have a better effect due to it's sensor, check em out. We're just enthusiasts not pros so don't blow your money on the LA7200 or century optics. I was once tempted and can safely say I couldn't give a flying f*** now. I'm curious and may purchase a 16C for fun in the hopes of one day buying an iscorama 36. 
 
16D flares: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1AooxwR3w
 
16C test: 
http://vimeo.com/65590394

Here is a rough cut of a short narrative that I'm working on. 
 
https://vimeo.com/68572361
 

When you are just starting, lesson 1, let raw be lesson 101, second volume. You can start with just about every camera. If I lost my whole equipment in a fire and just had so much money, I'd be torn between those choices:
 
1. GH2, used (latest biddings in € on ebay), 500 €, with SLR magic 12mm and SLR 25mm, cheap tripod, cheap but well chosen shoulder rig, Tascam audio recorder or the like.
2. BlackMagic Pocket, new, 880 €, SLR magic 12mm (wait for other aproved lenses), cheap tripod, cheap but well chosen shoulder rig, Tascam audio recorder or the like.
 
and, if I was into photography in earnest:
3. 5D M2, used, with kit lens 24-105, ~1800 €, external EVF via HDMI, able to zoom in the 5D's output, peaking, that means Zacuto or this price class, ~800 €, Sachtler ACE, 550 €, relatively cheap, but VERY well chosen shoulder rig (let's say, 300 €). Tascam or the like.
 
Why not the ACE in any case? 
 
Because, I wrote this before, the main duty of a tripod is to stand motionless. Many tripods under 100 € will do with light cameras. Only if you wish to make very good, smooth pans, the fluid head needs to be of high quality. And still it's a craft only mastered by few, most pans have either the wrong speed or are unnessesary und uncinematic.
 
But why the ACE for the 5D then? Because it is relatively small and lightweight, yet built well enough to carry the 5D. You get heavy weight, low duty junk for ~150 €, but it's not worth the shipping costs. And besides this, the head allows for good pans.

cost for new PC approximately 1600.
 
If you ever plan on shooting/editting raw, you need at least a 2GB graphics card. I'd go 4GB GTX 780.
USB 3.0 or thunderbolt ports to offload the SSDs
Raid configured hard drive, or SSD  for read/write speed while editing.
Intel I7-37** or above for encoding.
 
There is no need for multiple SSD if you are doing work in the studio. Just get a caddy with USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt and you can offload you footage pretty quickly. 480 GB is plenty for shooting in the studio.

https://vimeo.com/71650199
 
 
BMCC raw, graded in Resolve and Primiere 
Rokinon 24mm, Canon 100mm Macro.
Music: "Fractal Universe" by Mat Zo
Sunset on the Charles looking at Boston from Cambridge. This started as an idea to see if i could get some rolling shutter grossness (from fast pans), and moire from all the buildings, but the camera did pretty well. I tried out a bunch of different grades and LUTs to give it some variety.

I did some shots of the Duck Boats in Boston to try out my new Revo Rig. As you'll see,  It wasn't quite stable enough for the 100mm shots.
 
The company liked the video and posted it on their Facebook and Twitter.
 
https://vimeo.com/73272837

Paulio, I'm still chuckling at your post.  Too funny.  Cheers.  :D