maxotics

Here's another, the camera (in good hands here) produces lovely images, I'm really enjoying playing with these
 

So I've had the BMPCC and a cold for the past couple of days.  
 
https://vimeo.com/80026814
 
This camera may wake Canikon up to Andrew;s arguments. For more reasons than enthusiasts, young film-makers, or professional buying this camera for personal use.  BM may have shrewder plans.
 
Yes, for anyone who knows anything about video, or uses it professionally, the BMCC and BMPCC are good niche products.  Many executives at Cankon can argue, if the BMPCC makes it in the professional sphere, fine, no real biggie, small market.  If they gain any traction with the retail market, then it wouldn't take too much to add raw-type capabilities to our cameras (as I've found out, the latest two models and the EOS-M can shoot very good 720p raw).
 
History, however, always seems to repeat.  No matter how much money large corporations have, it's hard to beat really motivated and smart competitors who have got a lead on you.
 
The problem is Canikon is not actually moving forward, but one could argue, almost moving backwards.  I'm sure there must be executives at these companies who argue that their corporations have gone to hell in a hand basket.  How could some uppity Australians come out with such an innovative camera?  Because really, what video person wouldn't want or love this camera?  Forget what's coming out tomorrow.  Forget the 5D3.  This is more camera in your pocket than Lucas had to shoot "Attack of the Clones" only 11 years ago!  In your pocket.  Doesn't even have to be a big pocket!  
 
I'm not trying to pitch this camera.  Or say it's the best thing since sliced bread.  I am saying this camera has the potential to be truly disruptive in the retail marketplace.  It has certainly changed how I view consumer video.
 
I should go to bed, so let me shorten my points.
 
1. With additional software, consumer could get this video automatically adjusted to blow away the quality they get from their DSLRs--ALL OF THEM!  Forget DNGs.  If the public reaches that conclusion using this camera the name "Black Magic" will be synonymous with quality High Def video.  
 
2. There is NO CURRENT PUBLIC perception of what is the Bentley/Gucci/Mazarati/etc of true color video cameras.  If this camera claims that spot, just like the Palm Pilot, iPod, Blackberry, Nokia (all products from companies that were nobodies at the time), Canikon may catch up, but will not overtake.
 
3. No one in the current market wants to admit/recognize that their current video cameras doesn't measure up.  Same happened with American TVs, cars, etc.  The one day, the market has changed.  No one knew exactly when it happened.  You just woke up one day wanting a Toyota.
 
4. It would be smart for BM to let the early adopters work out the bugs with this camera and continue to build their distribution channels and name recognition.  
 
5. This camera could easily take photos.  I don't believe BM is preventing this for engineering or purist reasons.  If I was them, I wouldn't tip my hand.  
 
I would recommend this camera to any friend with money to spare.  This is not some difficult to use piece of equipment.  It's the post-processing that's difficult, and I can tell you, from my experience in software development, that is cheap to fix.  BM can create a plug-in for iMovie, or an app for Macs, with little expense (compared to camera making).  
 
Everyone looking at the shortcomings of this camera are way too jaded.  I look forward to using this camera during Thanksgiving.  The 50d made me want to give up H.264 and adopt RAW.  This camera makes it a reality.

1. I open a DNG in Photivo and, under "Camera", set the Demosaicing to "Bayer Pattern".  The default box will say DCB.  I will also set the output to the highest JPG setting at 4:4:4.  
2. I create a batch proceess to save all the DNGs in that folder to jpg (but you can save to TIFF etc.).
3. I then use a DOS/CMD script that calls ImageMagick that crops out a section of each JPG and scales it back up
 
for %%f in (M*.jpg) do (convert %%f -gravity Center -crop 170x90+0+0 +repage -scale 600%% crop170_%%f) for %%f in (M*.jpg) do (convert %%f -gravity Center -crop 85x45+0+0 +repage -scale 1200%% crop85_%%f)  
I then create clips of the various JPG series and put together in NLE and render.
 
At some point I hope to do a better version, where it would show something recognizable, like someone's face, in the expanded crop.

I didn't get this the last time. You didn't set 'crap-o-vision' between quotation marks. Tell me you meant it at least ironic. Or is this indeed the 'latest&greatest'-forum, hyping only today's 'nerd-o-vision', which trivially becomes tomorrow's 'crap-o-vision'? I am the last person here who is against quality, and I always said that resolution was about quantity (size, actually) and that we needed to pay attention to colors and tones. But a better technical quality means nothing if there never is a creative use of it other than posting more landscapes and flowers. You will know them by their fruits. By their cats, dogs and front gardens.
 
 
Basic instinct. Simple, primitive. Reminds me of a girl we met when shooting a music video. She was strikingly beautiful. I made the remark. My friend said, but she is thick as a brick. I said, remember, she's only seventeen. He asked, do you mean she will ripen?
 
Another truism: You can't f*ck inner values. We all judge a book by it's cover. 
 
But we judge differently. If the title font is veeery big, embossed and gold and if there is a sticker beneath it shouting best novel of the year, I know it's a barbecue igniter. 

That clip (with its scantily clad women) reminds me of an interview I read of a producer of pornography.  He said, the interesting thing about porn is if you go out and shoot the worse piece of porn ever recorded, with the ugliest person and worst production values SOMEONE WILL BUY IT.  He said no matter how much porn is created, that doesn't change.  

I just ordered a BMPCC a couple of hours ago.  BH has a special where you get Vegas 12 Pro for free.  Wow!
 
Like you Axel, I'm a bit nervous.  However, a 5D3 is $2,300 more AND as far as I know you need expensive CF cards AND glass, etc.  AND it's big.  
 
In photography I'd say bigger sensor wins every time.  Yes, the 5D3 footage looks really nice.  However, I don't see anything I don't like about the BMPCC.  I've looked at tons of videos from all RAW cameras.  The color and the dynamic range is simply beautiful.  Totally unexpected, I think I finally went for it after seeing Andrew's photos from RAW.  Not bad!  When I want to take a photo maybe I'll take a few seconds and choose the best frame.
 
I just looked at this BMPCC footage night.  Not my kind of thing (I like people), but the detail in the shadows!  
 
https://vimeo.com/79478553
 
No H.264 camera comes close, not by a country mile.
 
Finally, I don't trust ML, sorry.  I'm going to keep working with it, but as Bioshop said, shooting ProRes out of the box will get me to the fun part again, shooting, editing and posting!

I personally don´t think you can shoot RAW with either of these cameras on most of the shootings you are doing. Maybe some stock footage, but nothing "daily", maybe the one or another establisher or landscape shot. But the huge difference between the pocket and the 5D is with the canon you gotta use a hack and shoot raw to get a picture quality that is comparable to the pocket. But with the pocket you can just shoot prores and in 98% of your shootings this will be sufficient and its far far superior to any of the h264 crap of current dslrs. And it will be 100times better to manage than any raw as soon as you pull your card out of your camera.

I just ordered a BMPCC a couple of hours ago.  BH has a special where you get Vegas 12 Pro for free.  Wow!
 
Like you Axel, I'm a bit nervous.  However, a 5D3 is $2,300 more AND as far as I know you need expensive CF cards AND glass, etc.  AND it's big.  
 
In photography I'd say bigger sensor wins every time.  Yes, the 5D3 footage looks really nice.  However, I don't see anything I don't like about the BMPCC.  I've looked at tons of videos from all RAW cameras.  The color and the dynamic range is simply beautiful.  Totally unexpected, I think I finally went for it after seeing Andrew's photos from RAW.  Not bad!  When I want to take a photo maybe I'll take a few seconds and choose the best frame.
 
I just looked at this BMPCC footage night.  Not my kind of thing (I like people), but the detail in the shadows!  
 
https://vimeo.com/79478553
 
No H.264 camera comes close, not by a country mile.
 
Finally, I don't trust ML, sorry.  I'm going to keep working with it, but as Bioshop said, shooting ProRes out of the box will get me to the fun part again, shooting, editing and posting!

I think as a general rule, all else equal the better the compression method is for delivery, the worse it will be for grading/editing.

Standard DSLR is dead for video. Who the hell wants to get a 7D Mk 2 over a 4K shooting 10bit GH4, or a mirrorless full frame A7R?

I'd happily pitch into a beer account for citizenkaden!  Some of us definitely need to drink more! 
 
And @Michael Ma.  Us Americans need space in our bags for McDonalds burgers (at least 2), fries, and our Venti No-Foam Cappucinos.  We can't be carrying around the BMPCC AND DSLRS!  That's way TOO MUCH camera stuff and not enough FOOD.  Or beer!  
 
Seriously, those stills are much better than I expected.  I won't repeat what citizenkaden said because it was perfect.

yeah
 
everything ive done to these files looks amazingly good
 
the grain in amazingly filmic
 
with zero sharpening in acr the point of focus certainly has enough clarity for me rn
 
and then, sharpening it, bit by bit...the reaction seems amazing to me, how well it sharpens in acr without falling apart
 
im delightfully surprised
 
i KNEW the prores was way off of what this lil guy was capable of :)
 
that being said bm needs a new pr guy
 
>EDIT: 
 
OH. AND?
 
THANK YOU ANDREW FOR POSTING THESE LOVELY IMAGES
 
IMAGES THAT REFLECT WHAT I MIGHT ACTUALLY DO WITH THIS CAMERA, NOT SOME HIDEOUS MONKEYSHIT
 
I HAVE A GOOD IMAGINATION BUT YEAH
 
YOUR LITTLE AESTHETIC GESTURE HERE IS NOT LOST ON ME

Everybody knows the best Photographers are left eye dominant (running the gauntlet  :lol: )
 
So when will Nikon make a LED camera? I am fed up wiping nose oil from the LCD  :angry:

Some more observations.  I've been trying to make the EOS-M a nice portable RAW camera (720p), as an alternative to the BMPCC.  One of the obstacles are the focus dots that appear in the raw frames.  They generally turn into pink dots after debayering (because most are in the red pixels).  Someone created "PInk Dot Remover" in Java which is certainly a very slick and effective piece of software  However, it doesn't get all the dots (interpolate around the "hot" focus pixels).  The first dev is no longer around, nor the second guy who took it up.  I also wanted something in Windows, just to make my workflow easier.
 
Anyway, I use a C# project open-sourced by g3gg0 (one of the lead rock stars) to get me going.  It has a function to read pixels from the RAW files, but not to write them.  I ask him if he can do it and he says he's too busy.  No problem.  I figure it can't be too hard.  Well, it takes me hours upon hours, and I can't do it..  I finally go back to him and another developer and ask them what the format of the RAW data is.  They don't seem to know!  Seems incredible to me.  How can they not know the basic format of pixel data in RAW files?  I believe the answer is that they took routines from elsewhere and modified them a bit without knowing exactly what these routines do (lots of bit-wise arithmetic).  They were able to get each pixel's value into a ushort and that was it.  As smart as they are, they are overloaded by technical stuff, which I believe even they can't get completely on top of.
 
I finally figured out that the data was encoded as a 14-bit stream where each other byte was swapped with the one before it.  If I had known the original format I could have figured this out easier.  The point of this story is that as much as the devs seem to know, the stuff is monstrously difficult on so many levels.  Knowing what I know now, I'm amazed ML continues to move forward.  However, if one or two of those key guys quite that would be the end, or severely slow down the development of ML.  I believe this is not unlikely.  Because...
 
Video is a narrative medium.  Yes, it's fun to take some RAW video of your garden, kid, tugboats, etc.  After that, no one wants to watch a video that doesn't tell some kind of story.  Story requires scripting, editing, actors, lighting, audio, etc., etc.  I don't know if this is heresy, but I can't see why someone would use a 5d3 to shoot a film when they could use a BMCC or any of the other dedicated cameras for that purpose.  Now that the BMPCC seems to get in stock I"m thinking, I have $850 in a used 50D (CF card+10-20mm) to shoot RAW, what am I thinking!  I've already watched 2 people on the ML forum sell their 50ds, or try to.  I may be next.  The other thing about narrative video, VERY FEW people actually do it.  That is a VERY SMALL market.  And many of them, like Andy, don't have the time or need for any kind of RAW-type workflow.
 
Yes, I believe the 5D3 is a better value than the BM cameras, but only if you're going to spend the time/effort to get the most out of the RAW feed.  If you just need basic improved dynamic range, the BM cameras make so many things easier.  And they will continue to improve.
 
Because the devs won't try to make ML stable on these cameras, or even allow the general public discussion of a to-do list, I can't see it growing beyond a "cool" hack.  Maybe I'm too close to it.  Familiarity is starting to breed contempt ;)

I thought this was a filmmaking website, not photography.

I don't see why it's such an issue that the Nikon doesn't do video. Who cares?

Time is better spent making stuff than ranting about a camera model. There are plenty of cameras out there, waiting to be used. Now.

Andy, I thought you were in the business of creating fantasies, not destroying them  :(

As much as I love ML, and I've been working with it intensively for 3 months now, it is NOT a professional hack and I have no sense that it ever will be.  Each devs work independently to implement cool features that HE wants to work on; they work together only by chance.  There are conflicts and rivalries beneath the surface.  There is no ML leader, I can see, who sets priorities or goals.  However, yes, if you're happy with a build and it shoots fine there is no reason it won't work forever.  
 
It appeals to me because video is a hobby and I love photography.  I get the sense from other posters that followers are either old farts like me (relatively speaking) or young aspiring film-makers who can't afford professional equipment.  This isn't to say people aren't using it professionally; they are.  But you want to be realistic.  If you're shooting something important enough where you have actors showing up, grips, lighting, an audio person, etc., you're going consider renting equipment, or going with something like the BM cameras that are designed for this purpose.
 
As great as the video is from the 5D3, it remains a STILLS camera designed for stills.  
 
In short, the 5D3 on ML "CAN" do professional video, but you may not want to.
 
The real benefit I think you'd see from getting a 5D3 and doing RAW on it is the learning experience.  I've learned more about photography in the past 3 months wrestling with RAW than I could ever imagine.  In order to do it well, you have to learn about RAW non-bayered images, and all that goes into making them usable.  So if you feel you're still learning, and have the money, this is the camera you want.  (I don't have a 5D3 by the way, I bought a used 50D and EOS-M.  You don't have to spend a lot of money to work with ML RAW!)

also the KineRAW MINI looks like a spare part from the Kaypro II,
i wonder why they dont invest in the design at all.
who would buy something that looks like it came from a time capsule of the 50s.
 

This thread needs to continue.

We can work on her English later.

Andy, I thought you were in the business of creating fantasies, not destroying them  :(

This. Smart move by Nikon to leave the movie mode out. The amount of photographers crying with happiness over the lack of movie mode is astounding.
 
The Canon photographers on the other side are crying a 1000 tears over the fact that Nikon does pay attention to the photographer, instead of Canon who only cares for the movie makers (yes... that's what they think, it's more like Canon doesn't really care about anyone or anything).
 
This camera is bullshit anyway, yes, it has appeal.... ohhh the looks, ahhh the buttons! But what is wrong with the ergonomics of a D800? What is the point of selecting your shutter speed (limited to full stops) with a huge wheel, that you first have to unlock... Form over fuction.

How big is the percentage of people that actually realise a Canon 550D is basically the same as a 700D? I think it's very small.
 
That doesn't necessarily mean the economy is to blame, although it does make sense. People have less trust in the economy and that stops them from buying stuff, that's a fact.
 
Also market saturation could play a big role. Average Joe who buys a dslr isn't going to upgrade anytime soon. You could blame this on lack of innovation, maybe if things really got better people would be tempted to buy, but then again.. the economy really doesn't help. It's not just the camera manufacturers that notice this, even the shops around the corner do.
 
Thinking a 5D3 Mark III hack makes a big impact on sales is also naive... sorry.
Yes, some people will buy it now because of it. The world isn't full of enthusiasts / indie filmmakers. On the grand scheme that really isn't going to make a big difference.
 
Not defending the manufacturers here, but we're talking mass market here. 8 million camera's. The percentage of nerds like us is just a small part of that.

“Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television.”
― Woody Allen
 
“The chief enemy of creativity is good sense.”
― Pablo Picasso
 
Two of my favorites ;)

This is an experimental/narrative film I made for my practice-based Fine Art PhD several years ago. Technically it will certainly be regarded as very poor in the context of this site: it was shot on an HV20 in 2008 and admitedly before I understood much about the technical aspects of filmmaking. However it was made in art school, not film school, and appropriately to this thread intentionally explores the degradation/materiality of the video/film image: the "poor" image is the point of the film.
 
The thesis I wrote alongside it had a significant section about La Jete and how it related to ideas that went into my film. No prizes for guessing the main film it alludes to though!
 
This is a recent re-edit, which has shortened it a bit. Go to Vimeo to watch in HD, and please use headphones or good speakers if you can - the audio is dense and relies on good stereo separation. 
 
Critique welcomed (though please bear in mind that I'm very aware of its technical "deficiencies")!!
 
https://vimeo.com/63100819
 
 

I really like zooming in on pixels, fake slow mo, degradation, noise, so on, so I enjoy the aesthetic!
 
I find it hard to take art films seriously these days though, unless they refuse to take themselves seriously that is ;)
I must admit I was guilty of more than a few...
 
Hahaha that reminds me, when I lived in Brighton and was first shooting with Sony Z1 HDV, me and my friends made a piss take of art films to learn the camera:
 
You can probably tell I studied sound before video, the soundtrack was incredibly complex to build!
 
;)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaZl-jPDX88