ike007

Sorry but this story about 4k cameras threatening DSLRs because (some) people may pull still images from video sounds like a world of bull crap to me, I have yet to be in a situation as a stills photographer were a continuous 4k burst at shutterspeeds ranging between 1/50 and 1/240 would be useful, let a lone practical. And if, in all seriousness, somebody will come along and tell me that dealing with terabites of raw video frames for a still or two just not to miss the right moment is the way to go I'd have to suggest that person to find a different occupation...  

Even when shooting with the ARRI "The Fridge" D 20 back in the "old days" the decision to use it instead of a RED was a decision for the aesthetic character of the image, it's "film-likeness", that made people to put up with a camera which was kind of hard to handle concerning size and weight. This concept - stay as near to film aesthetics as possible - was quite efficiently transferred to the Alexa which provides great DR plus excellent colour rendition, especially skin tones. Also Alexa fitted better into the existing workflows. A decisive bit less franken-rigging. Very nice and not overly complicated menues. Sturdy body. And great reliabilty.

What befuddles me is that the rental costs of a camera should be a big factor in a major production of a narrative film or even an average one. For a German TV-Movie costs for camera (excluding lenses) is maybe 3% of the budget or even a bit less. The cost-factor should be really only kicking in, when you go small to low budget or your production manager is named Scrooge. Apart from questions of aesthetics - you like or dislike a certain characteristic delivered by a sensor (which really is there or maybe only assumed :-)) - again workflow on set and in post is also cost-wise the decisive factor to take this or that camera. Not rental costs.

In the end all a camera is is a tool. And Alexa seems to fit in better under most circumstances for middle to bigger budget productions of narrative films. No miracle here and definitely no "fanboy'ism".

I imagine that you have to think of any big production as part of a very well established camera ecosystem. The camera, lens, whether you use film or video etc can not be isolated choices. Arri, which has been around since the silent era, very purposely made the Alexa so that it can be interchanged with (film-based) Arricams almost without notice - all the bits of gear that make it work (gears, flags, matte boxes) are widely availabe and second nature to a practised camera crew. 
 
You can find crews around the world that will know how to work such standard 35mm-like gear. While RED has made tremendous progress, its layout, unique setup, and the depth of support by rental houses are just not as well established. While very technically adept directors like Fincher and Jackson might prefer a RED and enjoy fidling with it and pushing the camera system to its limits, most directors have enough on their hands and want as little drama as possible from the camera dept.

I don't understand this post.

DSLRs are for photographers. They are made for stills and not video. It's just so happens that we have adopted it as a filmmaking tool.

If you are a serious filmmaker, Canon want you to buy the Cinema EOS Line. Nikon aren't interested. Fuji, erm... No need to bother. Panasonic...they have plans and want you to buy into their M43 system. They get punters in with the GH line, to then offer video based models later. ;)

So what if Nikon haven't bothered with a video feature in this camera, who cares?

Technically, hobbyists don't need professional features. Professionals need professional features and therefore buy professional cameras.

Blackmagic cameras are for pros and lack many pro features. Canon etc, I expect, don't care. It's very niche.

I'm not sure why ML RAW comes into this in any way at all. The effect this has on the market is literally nothing. It's a hack. It's not a feature of the camera. ML RAW is a discovery, it's not a market leading feature.

The annoying fact for most is that if you want a camera with better features, you need to get shooting and earn some money. If it's just a hobby, then why would the camera manufacturers screw their business models by giving top features to people who just want to point and shoot? It doesn't make any sense.

There is a feeling that manufacturers (Canon especially) are not putting in the juice they could even into their pro cameras. This is true, and it happens because they are a business who want to make a profit.

I don't think the camera companies are out of touch. This forum is out of touch. The camera companies believe they are catering for you, and as we are all buying their cameras, they are. ;)

I'll believe it when I see it. If it does do true 5K readout to the engine processor and then uses the downscaling engine most cameras use when you set them to lower resolutions the video should be razor sharp, the difference would have jumped out at Dave and he would have been gushing all over the look of the video. But he didn't because I don't think the camera can do it - the dead giveaway that it isn't really doing this is that it should offer a limited 60 fps burst mode like the Nikon One cameras, but all I see in the specs are 10 fps. Now maybe it's using a binning technique that utilizes every pixel on the camera but I don't think it's discreetly sampling every pixel for its video mode.
 
A bit disappointing but hopefully we won't have to keep waiting too long; Aptina says it will have 1" sensors with accompanying processing engines capable of 4K ready next year. It's not that I want 4K - I don't - it's just that I want a 1080 mode that has been derived from an entire 4K image sample. JVC's PX10 was the first camera to do this but it threw away so much fine detail along the way it ruined the usefulness of it. Their conversion processor probably wasn't up to snuff. Hero did better, I don't know about Samsung's Note.
 
The reason you're seeing these fast smaller sensors is because it's a lot easier to bus the incredibly high numbers required for video off of smaller sensors than it is for large ones, that's just physics. That's why the A7's video is probably not going to be anything to write home about. For the smaller sensors I imagine the bottleneck right now is getting processors fast enough to take 5K worth of data and downsampling it to 1080 in realtime like you would for a smaller jpeg image, then encoding that to mp4. 
 

Lucas has already cashed out his chips to the tune of $4 Billion dollars and is finished as a filmmaker.  Spielberg has been looking for foreign money to prop up Dreamworks and to finance his films and I don't think really cares anymore about making quality films, but money, even though he's already super rich.
 
Lucas burned out in 1983 after Jedi, but with Spielberg, I think he's reached his theoretical event horizon long ago, probably around the time of Jurassic Park.  So I think both of them are saying, "Look, if we can't make good movies anymore, and the system is abhors new talent, and new ideas, then Hollywood is pretty much screwed."

BUT, what both Spielberg and Lucas are VERY good at is finding new talent.  If they focused on finding the newest talent, they could save Hollywood...perhaps.

Sometimes I think that bombs like "The Lone Ranger" are intentional; simply a payout for the actors and producers as a reward for previous hit projects AND also act as a way for studios to mitigate any of the remainder of tax losses.  Disney is a HUGE corporation, and probably pays little taxes as is, and flops such as TLR probably help to mitigage any tax burdens.

Wonder if it has something to do with a 50 year old white guy playing a Native American. Cause we all know there are 0 Native American actors...

They never asked if anyone was interested in seeing a Lone Ranger movie and that is why it failed.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

This kine camera although it may be more than usable, it has the build quality of a cheap black & decker drill. 
just look at the buttons, seams and decals. we do not need to know how it is made inside...
To put this product in the same sentence with an Alexa is an insult.
 
If the colors of the BM production camera will be spot on, unlike the current BM cinema camera, I would buy the BM over the Chinese one at anytime. But BM colors are a concern.
Everybody seems to be concern about BMPC dynamic range, but what is more concerning are the colors of the current camera.
Skin tones and saturated colors of the current BM are not acceptable , reminiscent of the quality of early 2000 DSLR.
 
We tested one BMCC before shooting a commercial for skin care product and decided to give it up, because of the issue with the skin tones. it would have made us waste time (money and time of our life that will never get back) on post to fix  colors and never get satisfactory results. It was a pity that we could not use this camera that otherwise was good. So we decided go with a Sony F55 which in Tokyo is only 500 usd per day with the 4k recorder and the viewfinder, (vs 150 of the BMCC). the cost of renting rigs and lenses would have been the same for both cameras. at the end we spent an extra 350$ per day and we saved a lot of time and money.
You normally get what you pay for.

I got to disagree here, sorry. Particularly on the comparison of the 1DC to the MKIII. We have both and use them extensively.
 
The 5DMKIII's sensor was measured by DXOMark at 11.7 stops total. The 1DC gets around 12.5 in Canon Log at ISO400. It's not possible that the new 5DMKIII RAW has more dynamic range than the sensor is capable of seeing. I suggest you get a dynamic range chart before posting that sort of claim. :S
 
In reality, the difference in clarity is actually far greater than your crops show. As we punch in to 1.3x we are actually fighting a losing battle against the resolving ability of the glass. if anything, it should get relatively softer since the glass has been optimised to resolve detail at full frame. Apply sharpening to the LOG, as you have to, and those tests show how poor upressing is as a solution. 
 
Sorry guys, not a 1DC fan boy upset about 5DMKIII RAW nipping at the 1DC's heels - I love the fact we now have a viable B cam for the 1DC on 1080P deliveries, but i've seen both first hand and you just cannot compare the 4K to the 1080P - it's not a fair comparison.

The 5DMKIII RAW is great - but we're still rolling with the 1DC in Log simply for the ease of the post process in a high volume environment.
 
It's nice to want to believe that the 5DMKIII is almost a 4K beater. . .but it just aint the truth. . .yet! :) Still hoping the Magic Lantern guys bust it open even further and despite Canon's pithy threats, turn their attentions to the 1DC to see what they can do with some real horsepower. Fingers crossed.

i don´t really like the anamorphic lens. there is too much weakness for me, especial in the corners. the quality of the 5d mk raw is amazing but i prefer modern lenses which perform really god. i don´t need this nostalgic retro trash look...

Here's a short shot with the panasonic LA 7200 and 5D iii from a few years ago and it looks suprisinly good. I think.   : 
Correction : It was shot with 5Diii not 5Dii . No magic Lantern .
http://vimeo.com/52401060
 
[Edited by EOSHD - just paste Vimeo URL no need for embed code. Cheers]

Needless to say, it looks extremely good. :)
Yet, the workflow is for huber geeks only and I'm afraid it will stay too geeky for long time, plus reliability will always be a concern.
Unless there will be developments that will make an hacked 5d3 practical to work with, I would use it, only on tests, my own training and personal shooting that does not involve any production costs or involvement of other people time.
 
The new Black Magic with the super 35 sensor will always be a more practical solution. And if time has a value to any of you guys, on the long run BM would also be a less expensive solution as well.
 
BTW, I'm pretty sure canon knew this was going to happens, and they will be very happy to sell more of these cameras and not having to bother to honor any warranty.
Plus it will hardly put a dent on the other Canon expensive camera sales. Who can afford them, have not time to bother with these hacked thingies.

As much as i'm loving the new camera.... You shouldn't keep wheeling out the "$36k" specs thing.
 
The F55 has:
at least, 2 stops more DR
4K/60p
2k/240p
Much better low light
Much better I/Os
Much better features (dual recording, better codec choices etc etc)
Much better ergonomics
 
The 4K BMCC is not even spec'd better than RED Scarlet (though, does have global shutter).
 
Stear clear of hype.... It's a bargain, an amazing bargain that will change the indie scene..... but it is not on par with the highest end cameras... Not by a long way.

One example on how an A99 should be used.
[url="https://vimeo.com/52031763"]https://vimeo.com/52031763[/url]
Although we could always look for ways of generating moire and aliasing if we like spend our time doing that, but that is just an exercise that will not put bread on the table, unless we run one of those cameras testing sites, of course. ;)
cheers every one.