gloopglop

It's really, really not. It's very competitively priced against similarly specced machines. 
 
And when you pay as much or more for a system with this level of power, chances are it isn't going to be this small.
 

 
It's an incredible feat of engineering.

Your opinion has been noted.
"Wrong" is one of the most popular words to start a pointless round of bickering online. In real life, the "wrong" is just a blunt way of expressing one's opinion, nothing more. "Wrong" is better suited to religious topics.
 
Like mentioned above, there is plenty of room for both your "fast food" and his "home cooking" approach. Be it a quick cheeseburger and Coke at McDonald's, or a self cooked pepper stake with a glass of wine at home, whatever you fancy.
 
Just pick one that's more to your taste, and be careful with the "w-word."  :P

G6 users give it a go and if you're not satisfied, email me. The chapters on lenses, post production and cinematography tips for example is 100% relevant for you.

haha, :-)

I Don't if its worth trying to calibrate or if its possible to successfully calibrate it. If there is acess to those controls then first step would be to download a couple of calibration images of some AV Home Cinema forum, the images with all the greyscale boxes on for setting brightness and contrast and see if the imac display can actually display them all after adjusting the hardware settings, if that's not possible then wouldn't waste any time trying to calibrate and profile it with a probe.

May be better to just use a decent backlit LED domestic TV and calibrate / profile that. :-)

Calibration and profiling are two seperate things, to calibrate, ie: to set black and white levels requires access to hardware brightness, contrast, LED backlight, RGB gain and offset.

Calibration gets hardware responsive to profiling and 3D LUT for display for Resolve after that.

So does imac give hardware access to those?

@citizenkaden Sure thing! But i didn't come across this it, instead Its my own first raw test! let me know what you think!

http://osgfilms.com/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-first-impressions-color-graded/ 
Or just video | 

As andy lee pointed out - pull down saturatuion and contrast, maybe NR too.
 
And then? It's about the lenses. The kit lens gives super video look. Buy you some old manual lens and adapter! Or some panny/oly prime lens if you have some € left :)
 
And I forgot - Film Convert addon for your AP/AAE.

edit avchd in adobe premier
 
I shoot on
Natural profile with contrast at -3, saturation -3 ,
avchd 24p
I try keep between 160-400 iso
dont use AWB - ever dial in the color temperature by hand it lets you shoot 2500k right upto 10,000k
(its labeled k on the wb menu last one on the list WB K set)
 
I dial this in to fit the look im after , at night on city streets try 2500k and add in more green /blue on that setting it looks superb
use the adjust menu to alter the amount of r b g y you want to add to make it warm or cool
 
out side I use 6400k with nd filters
 
a very good cheap cinematic lens for the g6 is the pentax 25mm f1.4 c-mount cctv lens - have a look on ebay - nice bokeh and very sharp

Not sure you question, but in general bit-depth is a computer (bits) + photo (depbth) lingo way of saying how wide the range in shading of any given color/brightness sampled be the electronic equipment.  
 
You can store 256 shades (or depth values) in an 8-bit memory slot (or byte). 
 
When working with Canon RAW, the camera saves each sensel/pixel as a 14-bit value.  That would give you a range from 1 to 16,384.
 
Once you save those values in smaller bit values you have to reduce the precision.
 
I tried to explain the "precision" problem on the ML forum like so:
 
One can think of it this way.  You have a palette of 14 scales of gray.  You need to convert them into 8 scales for something else.  So 1-2 because 1, 3-4, become 2, 5-6 becomes 3, 7-8, becomes 4; 9-10, 5, 11-12, 6, 13-14, 7 (and we throw out the 8, for example)

Let's say you have two gray colors in what you shot, and they are 2 and 6.  You want to reduce the exposure by 1 (increase contrast).   

They were convered to 1 and 3, so now they become 0 and 2.   You went from a 300% difference (in 14bit) to 200% (in 8bit).  More importantly, you went from some gray 1, in 14bit, to no gray 0, in 8bit.
 
What people don't understand, especially about H.264, is you can't just take 8 bit values and put them in a 14-bit space, for example, and get that 14bit precision again.  
 
Does this make sense?  You seem to know your stuff, so maybe you're asking something else?

anybody who makes a theatrically released film gets a salute from me; the more democratic the materials the more impressive the achievement
 
so good for them

Has anyone shot a feature on a ML 5DmkIII?  BMPCC is even newer.  If this trailer just came out back up to six months ago as a conservative guess for when they rolled on first shot, but this is a film already in theaters so conservatively you're looking at maybe a year ago, and that would be really fast.  
 
Folks who haven't ever made a feature can offer all sorts of Monday Morning Quarterback suggestions.  He might have just used the best camera he had access to.  The MKIII makes some sense if you already own it, not really as a new purchase decision in light of renting other equipment (then or now) or getting a great result out of a camera you might already own, or might get free.  $3-5K can pay for catering.  Nobody here knows the circumstances.  At a time when he could shoot on anything Soderberg chose to shoot a feature on an XL-1S when it wasn't even close to being the best or state-of-the-art for DV cameras at the time.  He had his reasons.  And even when he goes with an expensive, high-quality camera, on his own (The Girlfriend Experience) the result is quite raw and un-finished looking and that's his choice for that project.
 
Odds are ML-RAW wasn't available in this case (if this is recent enough for that then it begs the question: why Sedna?) and, still, I come up with nothing but some shorts being done that way when I google.  This could be a pre-final trailer also.  I couldn't actually see much evidence it was graded at all.  Even though it's on a site taking tickets it could very well be an early trailer, especially dealing with small sales companies.  Smaller outfits in general simply aren't always that great about getting the best or most current materials out there, or going back to re-conform an earlier trailer with final materials. 
 
Looks fairly raw (in the totally un-cc'd sense) to me and as such the lesser looking individual shots could have been improved substantially in grading.  But maybe this was just a purist, wham-bam, no post, warts and all "Dogme" style production where they weren't going to sweat the aesthetics.  Maybe the DP actually was sub-par but try and reconcile the fact that Underwater Love was shot by the same man who does Wong Kar Wai's sublimely beautiful films.  

It seems it's quite hard to coherently grade this camera across a feature. Shot to shot Upstream Colour was all over the place, even in the same location. But for that film it work, it added to the confusion.... for standard narrative maybe not so much
 
TBH it's hard enough with raw, when there are so many factors and lighting is predominantly practical.

They removed it because they can't be seen to endorse anything that isn't arse licking when it comes to the big names in the DSLR community.

Thanks! :D
 
Yes of course, for these frames I used standard Adobe Camera Raw for initial balance and exposure then tried something different out, that I figured may give an individual look: I used photographic software to process it. This is something you could do to sequences I believe, with Photoshop macros, though it would be complex, but I think the result is very very film like. I'm glad it comes across as a good photographgic style, though workflow wise it'd be slow.
 
The software used was Alien Skin Exposure. 
 
I don't own it personally, an older version (3) is on a work machine. It's now on 5. As you can see, it has beautiful film emulations that are very customisable to create deep looks. http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx
 
A blue and red primary shift in ACR are two of the major parts of this particular look, blue goes more teal, red a little orange... maintaining skin tone but twisting the world a little on its colour wheel, no secondary required.
 
The result is the blockbuster epic feel without the ludicrous orange skin you get in Transformers and the like.
 
If you don't mind shipping an SSD or hard drive, or setting up a big download for me, I'd like to experiment grading a full piece in raw like this!

From where I stand, I believe that making a living in this industry comes down to being willing to share credit and to take criticism, having a willingness to learn regardless of your experience level, and going out of your way to make the life of the person that hired you a little easier.
 
Also, punctuality and responsiveness to emails.
 
These are the kinds of people that I want to hire (and be hired by).

New Kids and Cooking scene modes!
 
Now everyone can count to potato....
 

 
 
Full stats: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-m2-announced-in-japan-23603?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ephotozine+(ePHOTOzine)
 
Yep, it's that sensor again. Sigh...

hello friend, you seem lost.
 
this is a thread about nuances in cinematography: its an "In Depth Test" of Camera A vs Camera B vs Camera C vs Camera D

Eizo CS or CX as mentioned above.
Images look 'eye candy' on the iMac screen, but flatter and darker on my Eizo. You want a true representation for correct grading.

In fact, just the difference between 23.98 (what final cut is using ) and 23.976 (what everything else is using) is quite big. When you have time code burn in your footage and when you are starting your edit at 10:00:00:00, you can have a lot of frame differences here and there.
 
Had this problem 2 years ago when a client worked in fcp (23.98) gave me the project so i can import it in AE (in 23.976)... lost a few days of work when I saw everything was off-sync (a 1h30 feature film with hundreds of cuts)

The iMac monitor is brighter and more punchy than a proper grading monitor. I use a second, flatter monitor with it.
I think you can probably use the current top level iMac with a fully upgraded graphics card, or one of the more powerful Macbook Pros with retina.

However silly it might seem to you, H.265 does 4444, at 8-bit, 10-bit or 12-bit:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles
 
Prores is a lossy compression method, so is H.265. The difference is that H.265 is a recent codec with a lot more focus on compressing filesizes, for the cost of requiring more computing power to encode/decode. This means, for the very same level of quality as with Prores, you'll have far lower bitrate, 4444 included.
 
Also: "and much better quality than H.264". Yes, a Prores 4444 will be higher quality than the H.264 4:2:0 at 8-bit we see implemented in most cameras. However, did you know that there are also H.264 profiles for 4:4:4 at 10-bit color (the specs even support up to 14-bit)? With proper encoding chips, there's nothing stopping cameras from having 10-bit H.265 4444 (or even H.264) that compress far better and has same quality as Prores 4444.

View 10 frames from a rehearsal shoot with Bunny Suit, a Berlin based band I'm currently working with on a music video

Disclosure: I have worked closely with SLR Magic in refining the flare and have a close relationship with SLR Magic, but I am approaching the lens objectively in my articles.

It's here! The finished lens.

Read the full article here

So by the year 2020?

My HD Hero 2 does 24p (& 25p & 30p) 1080 so I am sure that the newer Hero 3 & 3+ models do as well.