galenb

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.
Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.
But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:
With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)
But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.
I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

Shot this film in Botswana and I have to say that the BM cinema camera works perfectly for wildlife filming. You will need an external monitor because the screen on the back acts more as a mirror than as a display but other than that it has been great. It eats a lot of hard drive space so a few extra ssd's are needed.
 
 
Let me know what you guys think.

It's funny, I have only minimal interest in 4k video in the first place and even less in 6k. For my needs, better low light performance, less rolling shutter distortion and in body stabilization are way more enticing features. 
My dream features would be if they added compressed raw and global shutter.  I'm tired of the resolution wars.  Make the cameras more useful please.
But I'm a realist and I know that will never happen in a pro-sumer camera.

This is my music that I make all on my own:
 

 
Let me know if you like it and want to use any of it. :-)

This is my music that I make all on my own:
 

 
Let me know if you like it and want to use any of it. :-)

Wow! seeing those graded shots was a real eye opener. G6 wins to my eyes.
 
I'm really curious about the focus peaking. Would it be possible to shoot a video with the GH2 pointed at the back of the G6 while you pull focus?

I don't know but all I have to say is... This is the third or fourth time I've seen your girlfriend in one of these videos and I'm mesmerized by her. She is sooo cute! ;-)

In simple terms: The more bits you have, the smoother you gradients will be. :-)

As an addendum, you can get a lot from 8-bit source in post. Most of those complaining about footage "falling apart" are in fact complaining about the 4:2:0 spatial compression aspect, that destroys red-channel resolution, not the limited 8-bit colour pallete, or the temporal compression of bit-rate.
 
For this reason I tend to avoid capturing 4:2:0 footage with a warm balance. I always head towards green and blue, there's more resolution there, then bring out the red in post, when you work in a programme like After Effects for example.
 
Work in a 32-bit space, and you eliminate compression aspects as much as is possible. Your footage is treated as individual RGB, 32-bit frames, instead  of 4:2:0 sub-sampled 8-bit heavily compressed GOPs.
 
You can't gain back information you lost in capture, because compression is destructive unless it's lossless, but you can get the best from your footage this way since you aren't limited to 8-bit colour values, and there's no need to transcode.
 
If you don't clip your highlights, and keep the lows away from the zero point where the codec compression is worst (Cinestyle does this, and you can do it on sony cameras too) you have a greater chance of achieving a film look.
 
Not clipping and lifting black reduces your range of bits that are used for colour shades BUT i find it far easier to bring in more shades in post, than I do to recover clipped highs and shadows, which is of course, impossible.
 
But of course, if you know exactly the look you want, and it can be achieved in camera, doing it that way when using heavily compressed footage will actually yield a nicer result.
 
Decisiveness and consistency on set pay off...

Simply put:
The number of different colour shades the camera can record. It's bit depth, because unlike a bit-rate, it isn't measured over time.
 
Essentially (as technical as we need to be) 8-bit allows 255 different levels of colour for each channel. 10-bit allows 1023 different levels.
 
Each channel is: R G and B for 4:4:4 or uncompressed, while it's Y (white), Cb (blue) and Cr (red) if it's sub-sampled (like 4:2:2 or 4:2:0).
.
The result is that 10-bit codecs record a greater number of subtle shades, great for skin, the sky, and other subjects with subtle gradients.
 
I say codecs rather than cameras, because most of these sensors convert analogue light to digital data at higher depths, like 14-bits, which has 16384 possible levels per channel. The rather crippled codecs then interpolate (pick the nearest one) out of 256 shades, so you can see how much data you're losing.
 
That's why people are always complaining, because a lot of companies make a conscious decision to cripple their hardware for commercial reasons.
 
There are certain considerations, like processing, heat dispersal and buffer speed and size, but the main concern of certain companies is profit margin. Which is why those companies are so huge.
 
Now, in practice the division of these bits across dynamic range spectrum blah blah is very complex, but it doesn't matter. More is nice.
 
But you can make a movie that gets Oscar nominated, or a promo that makes you a fortune, with 8-bits, so don't worry too much even though it's nice to know and nice to have more.

I'm just blown away that this technology even exists. This is something that should just be built into all small sensor cameras right? I mean, wouldn't it be great if the Black magic cinema camera just had something like this built into the camera? Just before the lens mount? Why not?

OP could even get by with a gh1. the hacks for that when i used it were great as well. last i saw the gh2 body was going for $500 on amazon. pair it with a canon fd mount 50mm/1.8 or 1.4 and you should be set. though with the crop factor, 50mm (100mm equiv) could potentially be a little too long, depending on your photobooth setup. if you need autofocus, go with a native lens

Specifically, other then low light performance, how is the 6D better then the 5DmkII for video? Or is it?

I was just thinking, it would be cool to get an old Power Mac or older Mac Pro case, gut it and replace all the components with new hackintosh parts. Someone probably has an old G5 tower sitting with the pile of other old retired computers in there basement. I know my parents still have an old blue and white G3 in a closet somewhere. That could be a fun project. :-)

Oh great! Thanks for posting that thread. I totally forgot about that. Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the 1DX is not noticeably better then the 5Dmk3 to justify the price. Looks like it really is going to have to be the 5Dmk3 this time. It's really depressing that there isn't another full frame camera that can best it though. I mean, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus?... Nothing guys? Really? It's a shame.
 
Thanks for al the input guys! 

Inappropriate mount? What mount would you have put on it? I'm assuming that by "Professional", you mean it should have had a PL mount? I don't think that would have been a good idea. Have you priced PL lenses? Plus, that would put it squarely in a "Professionals only" box and I don't think it wouldn't be able to back that up with the rest of the expectations that come with that claim. Maybe you meant the opposite and that it should have been meant MFT?
 
The whole point of the BMCC is to put professional image quality in a package that indy filmmakers could afford. It was never to make a camera that would compete head to head with Alexa and Red. It's for people who are on a tight (or no) budget. So, then the question is, what mount is the most popular, widely available and has the most options available for it? Well, that would have to be Canon right? What camera currently is used the most by indy filmmakers? It's Canon right? Some may argue that it's Panasonic now and to this we see the MFT mount version pop up.  But otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that the people who would be first to buy this camera probably have a lot of EF glass already. Right? Also keep in mind that there are a ton of popular lens mounts can be adapted to EF too. Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, etc. So you really are not that restricted to began with. The biggest restriction seems to be at the wide end but as we've seen, there are options out there. And, the situation would really be no better with PL mount.
 
The thing that I think both sides of this argument have lost sight of is that the BMCC is not made for everyone. It was made with a particular user in mind. Indy filmmakers stepping up from DSLRs. Pros will want more from their camera systems and will appropriately choose to shoot on a camera that better suits their needs. Shooting a commercial with a high profile client? You're probably just going to rend a RED, a set of PL primes and shoot 4k RAW. But that's not what this camera was intended for. Can you use it for that? I'm sure you could! But with so much money involved in commercials and so much riding on a single day of shooting, I can't imagine it being the best decision. If you've ever worked on a big budget commercial shoot (and I have) You'll know that the choice of camera isn't always made based on price. The camera needs to offer such fine grained control that's just not there on this camera. But I don't think you can fault them for any of that because like I said, It's not intended for that kind of situation. I'm sure there will be a lot of crossover though. The more comfortable people get with the camera and the better the firmware gets, I'm sure we'll see more and more professionals using it for those quick jobs with less riding on it.
 
Where this camera will really sing though is in the hands of talented and motivated indy filmmakers who only care about getting the highest image quality and are willing to sacrifice a few niceties in the process. So yeah, a lot of the people in this forum actually. ;-) 
 
As far as resale value goes, only time will tell. If the next version comes out too soon then yes, I think a lot of people will be upset so I do think you're earlier point is valid. I hope they will wait at least a year before announcing anything new. But I have a feeling that even after a super 35 version (or whatever) comes out in a year or so, the original will still be a desirable camera with indy shooters. Similar to how the GH2 is still popular. The price will obviously come down a lot (maybe in the $1500-$2000 but that depends on how much the next version costs) but that might actually serve to make the camera even more desirable to indy shooters making low to no budget films. And just imagine, by then the firmware will have matured computers will be faster and SSD media will be even cheaper!  
 
My point is just this: The BMCC is not for everyone. If it doesn't suit you, then it doesn't suite you and that's fine. 

Awesome!
 
P.S. I'm so glad to finally be reading about something other then the Hobbit and HFR. ;-)

Awesome!
 
P.S. I'm so glad to finally be reading about something other then the Hobbit and HFR. ;-)

I don't want to judge why I tend to agree with the critics who are having a hard time with it, because I may see it and change my mind.  I'm sure it's something that everyone will have to get used to...  If for the last 100 years we'd all been watching 48fps and suddenly somebody slows it down to 24, we'd probably have the same reaction...  It's different.  You're messing with a key ingredient in a huge part of our culture.
 
When all of this talk about the Hobbit being shot at double the frame rate started going around, the first thing I saw in my head was a Middle Earth home video that just looked cheesy as hell.  Just another ploy to "change" things...which I'm all for innovation, but part of what I think makes 24fps work in cinema is how slow it is.  Really, go up just 6 frames to 30, and it takes on a new character.  Part of the magic of that slow frame rate is the disconnection it creates for the viewer...  They watch films to get "lost" in the story.  I'm trying to develop this into words but it's hard to explain why it just "works." 
 
I'm not saying a great story can't be enjoyed at a higher frame rate.  If immersion is the goal, then it should be fine.  Just seems like everyone is saying it's all drawing attention to itself.  It's a bold scenario to try though...  In Indiana where I am, only ONE theater in the whole state is showing it at 48fps...the other 1,000 or so the usual 24.  Which begs the question, what's the damn point? 

+1 for that :)
 
Andrew, i understand you are a very passionate person, but i believe your inconditional love for the BMCC and recent hatred towards Canon is slightly biasing your comments.
That beeing said, i believe the c300 is a great camera , but not really a "cinema"  camera. With the broadcast friendly internal codecs and recording media, form factor and all, it is clearly aimed at ENG/documentary...The price is expensive, but it is for people who can make a living out of it, so not such a big deal.
 
Regarding the BMCC sensor size, it is an issue for many people whether you agree or not.
You keep refering to some great movies shot on 16mm but sorry i see  no connection with the topic at all. 
 
The BMCC is truely a revolutionary camera at a crazy price tag. But it is known that BM people were limited to that type of smaller sensor for budget & technical reasons, not artistic ones.
This camera design is extremely minimalist (which is very nice) just a sensor, disc recorder & touch screen in a box. But even then,  this is a big & heavy box, compare to say a GH2 with a similar sized sensor.
That makes one wonder how big and expensive it could have become with a S35 and the hardware to process RAW data...like a F5 for example.
 
My point is : this camera is a revolution and we should welcome it with open arms.
But those unmatching comparisons & over-heated debates are a bit pointless.