Chrad

In the video quality charts from 2014 it's noted that the 1DC's ranking is based on "lightly graded only."  Does it not grade well or have you reversed your decision about that?
On a different note, I think I must be the only person who thinks that the a7s is the most overrated camera of 2014.  It's gotten to the point where the differences in image quality between these budget "film making" cameras is difficult to truly discern without side-by-side comparisons and really focusing on minute aspects of the image.  The a7s has some strengths in extreme circumstances (e.g. low light and high dynamic range shots), but if we're talking about bang for your buck, the GH4's image is just about on par with the a7s in most cases and shoots 4K in a more compact package for about 1/3 of the price.  Needing to "see in the dark" is a feature that I don't see as very useful for narrative film or that I'd use except in niche circumstances.  Even the BMCC, which I think is the worst for low light, can still produce fine low light shots if handled correctly.  I've rarely seen any a7s footage that I feel justifies the extra $3K over the GH4.  
In my mind, there's no doubt from the footage I've seen that the 1DC is in a different class than the GH4, A7s, NX1, or even FS7 if we're talking about making a narrative film that emulates the Hollywood look. Watch a good quality download on your TV instead of pixel peeping and most of these cameras still have some sort of indescribable lack of film-like quality to them, while the 1DC footage looks much more like something straight out of Hollywood.
I'm not a Canon fanboy and I really like my GH4, but I feel like too many people on forums and such are trying to tout some cameras, especially the a7s, as being far superior to higher priced cameras.  If price were not a factor I'd surely trade my GH4 for a 1DC.  

The upside is that when choosing a camcorder, it doesn't really matter which one you pick. It's not a camera system like a DSLR where you need to match your body to your lenses.
For anyone happy with Sony's or Panasonics' offerings: go for it! Why wait for Canon?

If directors want to go to HFR I think they have to be extremely disciplined how they move their camera in this visual space.  
I feel HFR can be exploited, but in order to do so you have to appreciate how humans utilize their own eyesight.  Even though our eyesight has a biological "shutter speed" well above 48fps, we also FOCUS our attention on specific objects in our personal field of view.  All else, according to our brain, falls out of focus, so to speak.  I really think that we're evolutionarily wired to appreciate a motion picture frame with a strong focusable center of interest.  Take that away and you're asking for trouble.  AKA: This Hobbit nonsense.  Ultimately it's just poorly directed.  The sensational motion and hyper-kinetictivity is so incredibly abnormal it's a visual liability.  Again, any director going this route better be extremely wary of the technology they wield.  Jackson just went for it all as he had that capability at his disposal...and it bit him in the ass. 
Here's something to think about, do the very limitations of 24fps cinema supports our visual experience?  
It may be counterintuitive to think so, but consider how a film camera has to stay below a certain pan speed to avoid judder.  Couldn't that visual constraint actually reinforce our biological expectations?  Obviously our sight shifts much quicker than a slow 24fps pan, right?  But, we also "defocus" our perception as we rapidly shift our field of view.  Perhaps when you DON'T do that in cinema it's an uncomfortable assault on our senses.
Longer takes, slower camera movement, no rapid editing, and a bit of shallow DOF.   This combined with HFR might make a more tolerable experience.  The whole biological and psychological human visuality needs to be more considered.  It's going to take a serious re-think of the cinematography approach, I believe.
That said, I think maybe a good compromise would be to shoot 48fps with a 0º shutter.  You'd get the benefit of object motion blur combined with a high frame rate.  Also, you'd create a source file that would be easily down converted into the traditional medium for those that prefer it.
I'd encourage any of you PAL shooters to give that set-up a go with 50fps and a 50 shutter.  Then convert to 25fps and see how it plays.  

a personal favourite for dslr's with live view through a built in evf is to use a battery grip and bring the evf to exactly the right eye level when the base of the battery grip rests against my shoulder.  it adds a very solid point of contact, and since the shoulder is all bone you get no heartbeat/micro shakes.  
 
this technique has 4 points of contact-  the eyebrow, the shoulder and both hands.  added to this, the elbows can be kept close to the chest forming a very solid shooting position.  pans are also easy since you can lock your upper body and just rotate your hips/waist for a smooth 180degree pan.

Any camera is perfect as long as you actually do something with it...besides just take test pictures of leaves and then compare DxO charts the rest of the time.

Or, just wait for the next big/best thing. Have a lot of patience because it never comes.

The Alexa will be available in 65mm format. I'll be interested to see how many productions shoot on it..
 
In terms of still photography, sure. But when it comes to cinema, you're using lenses that cost anywhere from $5k-$100k per lens (usually renting). Mostly, they're designed to cover S35mm as that's been the standard for a long time. Very few of the options are designed to cover larger sensors, many don't even cover the RED Dragon @ 6k! Slowly, newer lenses will start to be made with more coverage. Personally, if it's shoot on a 5D with Canon stills lenses and get a 'full frame' look or shoot RED or Alexa with Ultra Primes or Master Primes and 'end up with' a S35 look - I'm gonna go for the latter option (and have, many times).
 
This is a creative question, and sure - if that's how you like to shoot that's fine. Personally, I'd rather ND and I tend to shoot no bigger than 2.0-2.8 when outside, as I don't generally like the look when we go shallower than that.
At night, I try to stop down a little as I think it looks much better when you have a bit of depth at night. Adds a bit of production value. Of course you need the lights to be able to do this.
 
Yes. But then, what's the point of shooting full frame if you're going to close down to make it look like S35 anyway?
 
 

All manufacturers have slightly different sizes for their 'Super 35mm' sensors. It's interesting and kinda odd, however none are extremely different (in terms of full frame vs S35). They're all very close to S35, and the slight difference in measurements is barely noticeable. S35 is also close in size to APS-C.

I used to think of S16 lenses as what I would get from S35 if I doubled the lens size - for example, when I put on a 12.5mm I knew I was getting something around a 25mm. A 25mm would get me a similar FOV to a 50mm, though with less DOF.

I have no issue with someone using a system to compare to what they know.

But there's also absolutely nothing wrong with using a smaller sensor size. We've been using S35 for years, and before that Academy 35. And we've been shooting on S16 for years! There are some absolutely beautiful films shot on S16, and many great commercials were. But you post on some of the forums on the internet and suddenly shooting on a Blackmagic Pocket is insane because the sensor is so small! We also had even smaller sensor for years in video cameras and were able to, in many cases, get beautiful images out of them.

I guess I don't really care for the 'snobbery' of sensor size. Use whatever sensor size you want. But a 'crop' sensor (it's not a cropped sensor, the camera still uses the whole image) is not bad simply because it's smaller. Full frame is not inherently better just because it's bigger. If that's the way you like to shoot then that's totally fine, but I and others may not like to shoot that way! And that's also totally fine. I'll judge you based on your work, not the sensor you use to shoot it on.

Some of us think that many films shot on full frame cameras are way too shallow for our liking, and may cause some to not get a full frame camera for that reason. And that's totally fine as well! On person's too shallow is another person's 'super cool' - just as one person's 'great lighting' is another person's over-lit. I personally own a full frame camera. But I won't be changing my shooting style because I've now got a bigger sensor. I will have to get my head around the differences in lens FOVs though.

In relation to the original question:  I think if a person uses one system exclusively they will get used to what field of view a certain lens or focal length gives them.  That person has no need for knowing full frame equivalents or crop factors.   But for people that use different sensor sizes you have to have some way of knowing what you are going to get.
"Full frame" equivalent has become the standard way to do that.  I get peoples point when they reject the term full frame:  Using a system such as micro four thirds with a lens designed specifically for it is full frame in that context,  but this is just an issue of nomenclature.  Full frame or 35mm should really be called 135 format.

Why not use super 35mm as a standard?  well what is super 35mm really?  super 35 is 24.89mm wide and was only invented in 1984.  Until then academy 35 format was used which is 22mm wide.  I would argue that if any of these should be a standard if should be academy 35 as more classic films were shot in this format, although whether anamorphic was used adds a layer of complexity.  But why should we use these film standards when most cameras are APS-C which is 23.6mm wide?  But then we cant forget that canon APS-C is smaller than all the others at 22.2mm wide.   Even though their cinema line supposedly has a full super 35mm sensor.  Then there’s the cameras that say they have a super 35mm sensor but don’t.  Like the black magic production camera and the Ursa.  Which are actually 21.12mm wide: Not even academy 35 never mind super 35.  Micro four thirds is certainly no standard.  You get a different sized sensor depending on whether you have a multi aspect ratio sensor like on the gh2 or are using a crop in 4k mode on the GH4.

All this is just way too confusing.

135 format is the only one that stays the same with no variations and has multiple existing examples from different companies.  It’s always 36mm wide.
For that reason all crop factors relating to it have a fixed meaning.  So I think it is the sensible option as a standard for describing field of view.
There is nothing to stop people trying another way like using degrees, but you would have an uphill battle trying to get it established as a standard, and after all who really knows what 10 degrees field of view looks like.

So for you personally there isn't much of a problem, you have already associated a visual field of view with its 135 format focal length.   So you can think in that focal length, you then just work out the precise crop factor for the camera you are using and write down or remember which setting gives you which focal length.

I try to think in 135 equivalents even though I have never owned a 135 camera.

I've been a film-nut since my teens and I'm in my 50s now.  Nine times out of ten, I now exit the movie theater wondering why I still bother.  In order to suspend my belief, the filmmaker can't dare me to ignore the incongruous.  Like many of Tim Burton's movies, Interstellar came across as a movie made by a visually imaginative person with no interest in subtle character development and story-telling.  Am I just too old to get it?  What am I missing?  To put it bluntly, though the film was watchable, I thought it immature.  
 
Inazuma, what about Interstallar did you find incredible?  How is it a movie that defines moves?  Have you see the original "Day the Earth Stood Still", or "2001 A Space Odyssey" or even "GATTACA" or "Contact", which are fairly recent?    
 
There was only one thing that Interstellar got right.  The black character who waited 23 years, alone, in the ridiculous time warp remained cool, while the white one became a sociopath ;)

If you're buying a camera in the $5k+ range, you're looking for a camerat that's going to help you book work.
 
Camera purchases are usually bad investments unless you can pay it off within about 18 months worth of work. What sort of work would you normally doing where you'd provide your own camera? Maybe docos and corporates? Is an F35 practical for those, and are you going to make enough from those to cover the cost of the camera (say $10k+), recorder, lenses and also still be able to cover your own living costs and bills?
That's the question you sohuld be asking yourself if you're thinking about investing in any camera.
 
If you're doing narrative type stuff, do your clients normally have a budget to hire cameras? If so, why would you not simply hire a camera? If not, do they have a budget to pay you? If they don't, then is it worth buying a $10k+ camera to shoot it on..?
 
The only other way to make money off a camera purchase is via rentals - if you have a RED or Alexa, then sure you're in a decent position to make money off rentals if you price your packages right. If not though, what's the rental demand for F35s? Is there any? It will usually depend on your market, but you should definitely look into it before you commit to buy.
 
It certainly has nice images, that's for sure. But in the grand scheme of things I would say it's a nice option that you can rent quite cheaply when you have a low budget. I don't think I'd be investing in purchasing one.
 
You can grade A7s images to get pretty close.
 
The F3 on the other hand - if you don't care about resolution higher than 1080p; I know of friends/colleagues who are selling their old ones with the Sony primes it came with for <the price of an FS7. Which is pretty decent value if you ask me. An external recorder and you'd be good to go with three PL mount primes @T2.

That is some spectacular footage. When I first watched it, I was only interested in looking at the difference between the cameras, but I didn't even notice the first one, I was that captivated by what I was watching, no exaggeration!!! It is very obvious to me that you have a great eye and I really wish I could tag along with you to watch you shoot, just to see how you pick your shots. I think the one that impressed me the most was towards the beginning of the reel, the shot of a train in an urban setting (London?) travelling over a bridge, bathed in an amber light (morning?). It is the type of establishing shot that I see made so mundane and dull at every level of the profession, yet you took a really complex scene and made it look, as others have said, like a living painting. Absolutely brilliant.
 
I don't think the reel is too long, but I have to agree, the tone is downbeat, which may not sell you to every potential customer. There are just a few things I personally would include, that for better or worse seem to be popular with clients - shots of really nice looking gear being used, a few really crisp "HD ad" sharp images - remember how they advertised HD TV's on an SD screen, just a few like that, bright colours too. Lastly, I would include a shot that I refer to as the breath-taker - a shot which people (and remember the public have a vastly inflated sense of their ability behind a camera) do not feel that they could replicate, even if they knew how it was done. Doesn't matter if it's a trick and in fact it's the easiest shot in the reel, and it often is! But don't think that I'm suggesting you add all that to this reel, make several so you can choose which one to show which potential client. This one I think will sell you very well to very many people, especially to people who are perhaps in the industry already and looking to hire someone on a project because they will really understand what you've achieved here!
 
Also, because I believe you want some constructive criticism (if not, ignore this paragraph) - I found the intake of breath as the very first person to talk fades in a bit jarring and could be feathered a little more. 
 
So apart from that tiny nit-pick, I think this is amazing! 

These are also very good points. Thank you.  :)
 
My main interest is on the documentary side of things, but like any filmmaker I occasionally daydream about doing a narrative piece. I'd love to. But time, money, people, life, ideas ... you know ... life is short and very full. Maybe one day ...

It's a fake press release designed to fool people. Knock yourself out if you want to remain open to every bit of bullshit on the internet, but I think a bit of skepticism goes a long way.

I used to see a lot of such trash when I was 16. 
 
Rutger Hauer as van Helsing looks like the B-version of Anthony Hopkins in Coppolas Dracula. My, what a fine film that is! See the DVD/BD and turn on Coppolas comments. They were advised to use greenscreen instead of old school matte paintings, multiple in-camera exposures through matte boxes (the original purpose, hence the name), on-set light effects, stop motion, reverse time and many other Méliès-like tricks, but Coppola had it his way. Watch this scene:

 
The extremely artificial colors, daring. Carefully, almost lovingly composed. What powerful performances of all! Note, how at 3:07 Reeves' face is distorted by short focal length. Note, how sparingly and appropriately sDoF is used. Just for fun compare the Argento trailer to this scene.
 
Two years ago, I helped a friend of mine to dress a set for a student film (big budgeted for a student film, but we weren't paid). It featured a canary, the pet of a lonesome old man, who kills all his 'birds' in despair when the solitude becomes unbearable. The rooms were supposed to reflect the sentimental hell of this character, dark oak furniture like coffins, light from outside (fat HMIs on a scaffold), much bibelot. When finally the vet arrived with the canary in the (of course) golden cage, we immediately felt pity for it. A professional TV DoP (actually less than a DoP, in german Kamera means more or less operator of main camera) filmed with a Red. During the shoot I mused if with all these high contrasts I could have done anything with my then new GH2, and decided, no, there would be banding and videoish clipping most of the time.
 
Some months later, we were invited to the premiere, but I was there anyway, because I was the projectionist. Big letdown. Nothing of the depressing atmosphere we created was in the final film. I know I'm a lousy photographer, but now I'm convinced that without the fancy HMIs I could have done better with my GH2. Looked as videoish as the Argento trailer above.
 
Therefore: Yes, the HDSLR-look is somewhat more pleasing at first glance compared to ordinary small-chip camcorders. But in the end, this makes less than 10% of the overall production value.

For me it isn't a huge issue as we now have it via HDMI, with the advantage of SSD media capacities, prices, much better focussing and monitoring if you choose a recorder like the Atomos Ninja!
 
ProRes 10bit 4:2:2 is very processor intensive, maybe Panasonic didn't want to give us 40 minute battery run times like Blackmagic ;)

Bullshit. I have seen for my own eyes putting more powerful equipment in the hands of aspiring filmmakers does inspire them, does improve their cinematography and does allow them to get noticed. This community wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the gear.
 
You won't know any of my work if it wasn't for this platform, which is based on the gear.
 
Let's knock this content is king nonsense ON THE HEAD permanently from now on. OK?

Check EOSHD 5am GMT Friday 7th

There's going to be the same quality of films being made, they're all just going to look a little bit better.
That's not to say that I'm not extremely excited.

Why do people come to a site that is primarily discussing film making EQUIPMENT and then go on about 'content is king'.
 
The technical side of film making is also extremely important at telling a story.

Has to be Panasonic. Andrew's silence about 4K GH rumours is telling.

That's a ridiculous notion.

I agree. I can't believe RAW makes sense for Panasonic. Besides, Andrew seems specifically excited about 4K, which basically HAS to be compressed in the GH4. But won't 4K 10bit 4:2:2 file sizes be gargantuan? As myself and numerous other people have already said on the 4K thread, it just seems a shame to put so much of the bitrate and file size into over-the-top resolution.

That's a ridiculous notion.

Oh, and it didn't click until now, I must be getting old, Gravity is this year's Life of Pi test. More than 80% of that film is not Alexa or film it's synthetic, lit by digital artists using the Arnold renderer (same as Pacific Rim and, going back a bit, Monster House).  Cuaron named his Framestore vfx supervisor, Tim Webber, in his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes which makes him a class act, unlike that prick Ang Lee.  Cuaron acknowledged that his film could not have been made otherwise.  
 
If they give the DP award to Lubezki I'm fairly positive he will also be showing Claudio how it's done.  Unlike Miranda, Lubezki was actually involved in the visual effects and animation that make up an overwhelming majority of the film's imagery and therefore rightfully shares ownership in the end result, like Deakins does in his immersive forays into effects and animation.

Interesting post Kays.
I think this camera actually sounds really nice. While there certainly seem to be some shortcomings, it sounds far better thought out than the Blackmagic CC/PCC in a number of ways. The ability to see how much storage space and battery power is remaining, and the choice to use an internal four hour battery (rather than necessitating the use of a lot of small swappable batteries) make it seem far more usable, especially for shooting without a rig.
The Pocket is very cool tech but in a number of ways it's a bit of a muddle design wise - what's the point of a pocket camera that's not really usable without a rig? Yes, it's cool that it can be rigged up in any way you choose, or go stealth with it, but I would prefer a consistent design vision and a commitment to a workable form factor.
 
I would say though, these cameras sound like they could compliment each other really nicely. Why just use one body or film stock all the time? Different shooting situations call for different tools, and after the passive M43 mount for DB is released, these two cameras could make a great raw shooting kit for use with a single set of lenses.

Got there around 3pm yesterday and hung out for about an hour. These are just my personal impressions from a very limited interaction with the camera and brief conversations with Joe and some of the other attendees. Please keep in mind that these are personal opinions and they might not be entirely accurate or reflect the final camera's functionality.
 
Ok, here goes:
 
First let me say that Joe seems like a very passionate and super nice guy, there is a lot to be said about someone who pursued an idea a saw it through realization, kudos to him and his team!
 
I also want to say that the image quality that I saw on the computer (the camera records CDNG files with Aiff audio) was very pleasant and detailed with low noise and good shadows and highlights.
 
Having said that, unfortunately this camera appears to have a classic case of a solution-looking-for-a-problem, starting from the form factor which doesn't lend itself either to traditional mounting solutions nor to newer DSLR rigs. Sure you can mount it on a tripod, but trying to attach it to a rail system with a follow focus gear is going to be...challenging. I was also surprised at the lack of some screw holes in the body which would come in really handy to attach an external monitor or other gadgets. It does have a hot-shoe flash mount, but I personally avoid those with larger and heavier attachments.
 
The pistol grip is a cool idea, but the camera is fairly heavy (heavier than a 5D with a hefty lens) One's arm would likely become sore after about 20 minutes of holding it. The decision was made  to be true to the original and make the record trigger on the handle not latch when pressed to record. While this is the way the original Bolex operated, it would have been nice if a latch option would have been provided. The camera does have a record button on the top which works as expected, but makes one wonder if the pistol grip button will largely be ignored by most operators.
 
The camera features two CF card slots, however all the video is recorded to a non-removable internal SSD 500Gb drive. Why not write directly to easily removable CF cards instead? Methinks if the Blackmagic Pocket Camera can do it, why not the Digital Bolex?
 
The internal drive can hold about an hour-ish and then some worth of video, and the data can then be transferred to the CF cards, or to a computer through a USB 3 slot. Transfer time through USB 3 for about 500Gb worth of data....about an hour. 
 
Lens mount is a C-type. This was another bit of odd choice to me, while once again this mount is true to the original Bolex, why require the end user to buy into yet another type of adapter, particularly one which is not used by anyone else?
 
No removable battery...grrrrr.
 
2K -- The sensor is a super-16mm sized one, shooting at 2K uses the entire sensor, while shooting in 1080p mode crops the sensor down to what Joe described as regular 16mm size. In my opinion, 2K offers neither high enough resolution for re-cropping and enlargement in post, nor is particularly useful as a delivery format for web, festivals, and DVD/Blu Ray where this camera's output is likely going to end up. So why not either stick to 1080 and use the full sensor, or go all the way up to 4K?
 
Last but not least, the price. At over $3k (actually $3600 after the drive upgrade to 500Gb) I am not quite sure how this camera will fare against the Blackmagic Cinema Camera which features a larger sensor, EF or m4/3 mount, higher resolution, swappable media, and already a thriving accessories ecosystem. Will no-rolling shutter and a cool vintage vibe be enough?
 
In closing, I did like the image that I saw quite a bit, and I feel that some of my concerns could be fixed with a firmware update (most notably the gun trigger function and maybe the ability for the camera to write directly to fast CF cards). I'm not quite sure how this camera will do against Blackmagic and whatever else is announced in April, but I wish Joe and his team the best of luck and a great deal of success nonetheless.
 
I applaud Joe for pursuing a dream, and I think this world needs more, and not less guys like him. Despite the potential shortcomings of this camera, I am happy that it exists, and I am happy that people like Joe are able to realize their visions.
 
 
Once again, these are just my opinions based on a very brief encounter with the Digital Bolex, please take everything I just typed with a huge grain of salt and try to test drive this camera for yourself before you come to a decision on whether you want to buy one or not.