Jump to content

rygenova

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Mere speculation, but a MFT camera with 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording (and the possibility of external RAW), LOG, decent low light performance, great dynamic range, and proper audio inputs for significantly less than the C300 Mark II or FS7 could certainly disrupt the industry. If the rumored GH4 firmware update is true, it's already got a lot of those features so I don't think these would be unrealistic specs.
  2. 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.
  3. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but the math makes sense. Let's look at a really simple example, say converting a 2x2 pixel video to 1 pixel video with 2-bit luma channel. 4K is roughly 4 times the resolution of 1080p, so in this example it is the same down-coversion. For 2-bit luma we can have a value of 0, 1, 2, or 3. Let's say we take our 2x2 video and the pixels end up with luma values of 2, 2, 2, and 1. Now, let's average these value for our 1 pixel, down-converted video and we end up with a luma value of 1.75, a value that can't be represented by our 2-bit luma values. For this averaged, down-coverted pixel we can have values of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, etc. In fact we can have 16 different values of luma now, a 4-bit value. By averaging the luma values, we've definitely gone from 2-bit (4 possible values for the luma) to 4-bit (16 values for luma). Reduction from 4K to 1080p does increase the number of possible luma values by a factor of 4, hence 8-bit to 10-bit. Could be interesting that using a Shogun could yield 12-bit 1080p.
  4. I don't think looking like "TV" is necessarily an inherently bad thing. I think we're used to the Alexa as a gold standard of "cinematic" image because that camera is used so often on great films that are coupled with excellent cinematography, actors, etc. Last years Best Picture nominees were all shot on Alexas. Naturally, we're going to equate cameras that produce similar-looking images (e.g. RED and Blackmagic) with "cinematic-ness." This type of image also best mimics film (in my opinion at least), which is what we have equated with cinema for decades. The Cinema EOS line and a lot of the Sony cameras produce excellent images...more photorealistic and sharper in my opinion than the cameras listed above and often better in low light. While the image is impeccable, we equate this with TV, since these cameras tend to be used more for sitcoms, reality TV, news/documentaries, and lower budget TV productions. Again, the image is excellent, but different, and we associate it with TV rather than film. If we had all grown up watching epic movies shot on C300's and American Idol shot on film or Alexa, we'd probably be having the opposite debate. In the hands of skilled professionals the C100 and C300 can be made to look more cinematic, but even in some of the best examples I've seen, I think some of that "TV-ness" still shines through. Conversely, even in the hands of amateurs the BMCC looks damn cinematic. Every camera has some flaws and some features that set it apart from the competition. The root of this entire debate in this thread is that Cinema EOS bills itself as being a cinema camera line, while arguably producing a less cinematic image than even cheaper alternatives while offering some ergonomic and connectivity advantages. I also have to chime in on the workflow issues people have cited with the BMCC. Even if you don't want to deal with the storage requirements of RAW, shoot RAW, reap a few of the benefits like exposure or white balance correction if needed, export as ProRes or even a more compressed codec if desired, delete the RAW file and you still have a better starting point than 24Mbps 8-bit AVCHD. Even with an iMac this type of workflow takes very little time.
  5. Curious as to whether this thing will be prohibitively expensive or how much Sony will cripple it in order to sell it at a more affordable price point. If it is in the $10,000+ price range and not crippled, what really differentiates it from an F5? Probably way too much to ask for, but I'm hoping for "F55 quality" 10-bit internal 4K with all the pro connections (XLR, SDI, etc) stripped off to lower the cost in a DSLR body for around $5K. With the Blackmagic 4K cam and GH4 at much lower price points and similar specs, I don't think it's unrealistic, but I doubt Sony would do it. Could create a big market for Sony FZ, FE, and A mount lenses though. I'd love to see what the new Sony 55 f/1.8 is capable of on a great camera.
  6. As an absolute amateur enthusiast, I enjoy reading reviews of high end gear on a blog geared toward budget filmmakers. I think it gives a much better perspective than reading the opinions of Hollywood professionals. I'm sure everyone has their own list of dream gear and I think it's great to see someone who has been able to snatch some of his up. Plus, there's only so much consumer gear out there...Andrew has to find something new to write about if we want to have something to read a couple times a week :) Hell, if I found these lenses at that price, I'd buy two sets :P
  7. Right now my widest lens is the Canon 24 1.4.  On the BMCC it's like 55mm, so I definitely need to get something wider if I stick with the BMCC.
  8. I've had the Black Magic Cinema Camera (EF version) since April, coming from a hacked GH2. I kind of jumped on the BMCC fanboy bandwagon and jumped into the camera without really studying other options at the time. It's capable of some pretty great images, but overall, I just don't like the camera. It stinks for any type of handheld shooting, the crop factor is a pain to deal with, pretty much every hard drive I own is full of RAW footage even though I try to delete what I'm not using, and it takes a ton of time just to grade a shot to get it to look "normal" and sync audio from my external recorder. No built in ND's (coupled with a native ISO of 800), lack of changeable battery, and poor audio with no audio meters is annoying as well. Like I said, the image quality can be great, but it is just no fun to shoot with and there is so much not to like about the camera. Sometimes I like to just pick up my camera and shoot something, but with the BMCC, this is really impractical. I'm not a professional, just an amateur/enthusiast obsessed with great video quality. I'm primarily looking for something that has a large sensor and can produce sharp, detailed images with minimal noise. I'd like something good for narrative with the bonus of having something I can run and gun with if I want to. I can hold my own with basic color grading, but I'm by no means highly skilled at it, so I feel I wouldn't lose too much if I no longer had RAW. I've narrowed my options to either selling the BMCC and buying a C100 or FS100, or sucking it up and keeping the BMCC. As for price I feel they are all somewhat similar. If I keep the BMCC I need to still buy ND's, a battery solution, a better rig for handheld, a wider lens, and probably some type of storage array for all this footage I'm amassing. For the FS100 I'd need to add the Speed Booster and ND's to get it up to the C100 configuration. For the C100, I'd probably pick up an Atomos recorder at some point in the future. For the FS100 I'd be shooting only with the Speed Booster as I have only EF glass. From what I've read it seems like the C100 should be an easy choice over the FS100, but I feel like the FS100 looks much more cinematic (maybe it's just that I've stumbled upon videos made by FS100 users with better skills than the C100 users? Or maybe it's just because the FS100 has been out longer?). Honestly all of these very cinematic pieces shot with the FS100 are pretty much the only reason it's on my radar as otherwise I believe the C100 to be superior. Any advice from people who have shot with either camera would be much appreciated. Is the C100 just as good or better than the FS100 when it comes to image quality? C100 Concerns: -Possibly not as cinematic as the FS100 FS100 Concerns: -Would only be shooting with the Speed Booster (bugs/issues/etc. with this?) -It's a couple year old camera, so I'd probably be disappointed if Sony released a replacement shortly after I bought one -No ND's -Form factor not as much to my liking as the C100
  9. The BMCC has 1/4" balanced audio inputs, which, with a proper cable or adapter, is essentially XLR.
  10. I may as well go to NAB and announce an 8K Cinema Camera with 15 stops of dynamic range.  I'd probably have a better shot of getting it to market before Blackmagic.   In all seriousness though, these cameras look awesome, but they still can't ship the product they announced a year ago and now they are set to announce two products?  How can they devote development and manufacturing time to new products when they can't even mass produce a product that's existed for a year now?
  11. [quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343525799' post='14691'] Yes, of course the DOF changes with the sensor size, what I meant is that it doesn't change the amount of light you need, therefore if you need an aperture of 2.8 to shoot a certain scene, it will be 2.8 regardless of the sensor size. [/quote] I didn't claim otherwise regarding the amount of light needed, only DOF.
  12. I've watched this footage and the older test clips on my 55" TV and it looks good on there. The color looks great and the noise isn't very apparent. My biggest issue with the camera so far is the 2.4X crop factor which really limits the choice of wide lenses and shallow DOF. I'm not saying this might not be a great camera, it's just that it might have some pretty big limitations depending on one's shooting style. To get anything wider than an almost 50mm FF equivalent it seems you're stuck with zoom lenses: either the Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22. The Tokina is an f/2.8; at 11mm it's about a 26 mm f/6.7 FF equivalent. To get a 24 mm FF equivalent you're stuck with the Canon at 10 mm and f/3.5, which is about equivalent to f/8 on a FF. Until you get up to a 24 mm prime (57 mm FF equivalent) it's difficult to find a good, fast, non-fisheye lens or get a shallow DOF. I think Black Magic missed the boat on not making this camera with a MFT mount. From a marketing standpoint an EF mount makes sense since there is a ton of Canon glass floating around out there and based on volume of videos on Vimeo it seems there are a lot more people shooting on Canon DLSRs as opposed to MFT. In practice though MFT would have given wider prime lenses and the possibility of shallower depth of field with lenses like the Voigtlanders and SLR Magics. I'm not really a fan of razor thin DOF (not looking for a 50mm f/1.2 wide open on a 5D), but achieving a desired background blur could be difficult in some circumstances. DOF is acceptable in the sample, but the camera always seems to be right on top of the subject. In practice, this isn't always the case.
×
×
  • Create New...