D.L. Watson

Don't underestimate the student, hobbyist, amateur photographer with aspirations of being a prophotog who invest thousands of Dollars buying and upgrading their Canon DSLR's to shoot weddings for a living.
DSLR's still make you look like a pro to a client.

Hi,

I have been reading this post, and I have two questions: 1.-  why not to use the sigma lense on the canon 5D III? (if you used on the 7D you could have been used it on the 5D III too, because the quality of the fixed 50 mm 1.4 Zeiss lens is better than zoom sigma...) 2.- I can understand about the resolution, etc, etc... but do you think all this is more important than a good story for a film or a good theme for a video or documentary? for example, any Canon (60D, 7D, 5D ,...) IS GOOD ENOUGH TO MAKE  A FUTURE FILM this is completely proved by filmakers around the world, even Hollywood used them as a secondary cameras in accion films like The Avengers, Iron Man, or drama films like The black Swan.

I feel this point should be a problem for engineers and not for filmakers or video makers about how make the cameras to be betters or how to find the best way to get the best from them, I feel that we should be planning good stories... THE CAMERA IS JUST A PART OF A PRODUCTION, anyone can have an Arri Alexa or a Genesis but if your story is not good... you could have the best resolution image, but that my friends is nothing... but now, you could have a nice and cheap good camera (the one you like: GH2, Canon, BlackMagic, GH3, I Phone, etc, etc...) and even low resources, but if your story is good... even Hollywood could buy it (for example: LIKE CRAZY, budget 250.000 dollars and sold by 4 millons dollars to Paramount Pictures, I read some guys writing about moire, and alliasing, etc in this film, but I repeat: SOLD BY 4 MILLONS DOLLARS...)

Technology is a never ending issue, falling in this "corporate game" is not good, we are the user of the technology and that´s it.! you can use the one you like more and is ok!! more resolution, less moire are just secundary points because all this cameras WORKS FINE!! if you know at least the strenghts and weaknesses of your camera you can do a good job!, a good director of photography can do a good job with all this cameras, no because of the camera, is because HE KNOWS WHAT MAKES... we need to learn about photography, directing, and writting and the camera will be the last problem in our carrer...

be fine!
 

I think the problem is so many people think that if you remind folks that you can get a great image out of a 8-bit camera, that means we are saying one is better than the other. Not the case. For me, I just wanted to remind people that in the end - a camera is a tool - and while the BMPCC has more DR and a better codec - the camera doesnt make the filmmaker. (And I'm speaking from as a filmmaker).
 
Personally, I feel like we can't get wrapped up in the gear envy consumerism that has increased expotentially over the last few years. I've worked with alot of gear and equipment that might have provided great features but at the sacrifice of other key options. For me, I'll wait and see what comes out of the Pocket Cam over the next year.
 
Everyone has their opinion. From my experience, Magic Lantern RAW is awesome. Produces beautiful clean image, but to really take advantage of it, you need to get the 5D Mark III. And the files are very large. Even for narrative short films like I do on a small scale - this would be highly expensive: hard-drives, CF cards, and the time to process such data on a massive scale. I'm an Executive Producer for a Discovery TV Show and to shoot in RAW at the amount of footage we capture during an 10 hour day would be rediculous. We'd have to have to expand our building to just accommodate the harddrive-farm.
 
Pocket Cam has a beautiful film-like image. And I'll probably end up purchasing one if it can stand the test of time. While it has a wider dynamic range and in a 10bit ProRes file - it comes at the cost of a lack of audio meters, a lack of a hot-shoe mount, a lack of anykind of weather resistant design, the lack of a full white-balance control, equipped with a viewscreen that reflects everything, equipped with a firmware that doesn't allow you to control your iris (without a ND filter), and riddled with SD card compatibility issues. Definitely not something I would want to buy on a run and gun shooting like I do for a living or even for narrative when every minute you are spending money on cast and crew. I'd like to know the tool that I use is going to work. Not randomly drop frames or not even read a card.
 
Additionally, I would hate to spend that 'easy' $1k and then Blackmagic devalue the product next year at NAB like they did with it's big-brother.
 
I'd also like to just say that everything you watch on the internet, either Vimeo, Netflix, Youtube, DVD, and most HDTV's are in 8-Bit. 
 

Where do i start!?
 
I started off using Sony cameras around 20years ago when I worked as a corporate shooter. Betacam, BetaSP, Digibeta....I suppose I was a Sony fanboy because they had the best cameras and formats back then. I then worked as a camera assistant (high budget) and operator (lower budget) on music videos and promos all shot on 35mm. The cameras we went for 90% of the time were Arri 435 & 535's. So I guess I was an Arri fanboy? Then the 5D came out and for my own personal use (and a lot of paid work) I used the 5DII so I guess I became a Canon fanboy? Nine months ago I used a GH3 on a shoot and was sold on one. Went out and bought one a week later. I guess that makes me a Panasonic fanboy now? Or, do I just choose the tool that I feel is right for the job regardless of brand? I am not a 'fanboy' here defending Panasonic to justify my purchase.
 
I good camera is more than just the end image. What if the camera you were using hindered your ability to capture that image in the first place?
The BM cameras may be great for narrative where you can do retake after retake but imagine shooting something that needed to be captured first time with no second chances and then your card being full because the camera gives no indication how much remaining time or space the card has? Your end image doesn't exist, no amount of DR or bit depth will get back that shot you missed. Going back 20years I can't remember a camera that didn't give the operator any visual indication of remaining media. You could, I suppose, ask the interviewee to re-say that last response to the question but how unprofessional does that make you look in front of them and your producer?
 
I find it amazing how new technology makes people forget their art. VFX aside, an 8bit camera can generate fantastic images if you know what your doing. All of a sudden everyone wants RAW so that they don't have to white balance, can get sloppy on exposure etc. Yes, RAW has it's place but many of the productions I work on don't want me to hand over RAW files.
 
The BMPCC is almost a fantastic camera, if BM can fix a few of its querks as well as reliability then it would be a cheap camera to complement the GH3.

If you expose for blown out highlights, push shadows, clean with neat video, you can capture just as much dynamic range from the GH3 as you can from Magic Lantern RAW.
 
https://vimeo.com/76030718

Manfrotto with a 502 head. 
 
 
Oh I get it, you think Trey Ratcliff is a talentless photographic molester. Well, at least he's successful at what he loves.
 
You may not consider this footage to look very cinematic and that is your subjective opinion. In my opinion, I could grade Canon footage the same way and the image would fall apart.
 
But you are right, using the Blackmagic Cinema Camera will tell the story of any film much better. 
 
 
I understand perfectly what Dynamic Range is. I know the BMPCC has wonderful graduations between highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. And I agree, the mid-tones are a little flat in my video. My point is, I graded that video in like 20 minutes in resolve. I believe with a little more time (and more talented colorist), one could produce extremely beautiful cinematic video from the GH3 and would be a great alternative to the BMPCC.
 
It's a nice camera to buy until Blackmagic gives us proper audio metering, compressed RAW, and oh yeah - make them available to buy and shipped within a week. 

Hey man. I totally understand that. The 5D Mark III is the perfect cinema camera in my opinion. It produces the best RAW images I've seen out of any camera. There is not question about that. I guess my point I was trying to make failed to resonate about the GH3. I've worked with RAW, Blackmagic, and RED, and for the price, the functionality, and lack of needed accessories - the GH3 holds up fairly well. 
 
But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I just create images that look like they had been molested by Trey Ratcliff. :P

If you expose for blown out highlights, push shadows, clean with neat video, you can capture just as much dynamic range from the GH3 as you can from Magic Lantern RAW.
 
https://vimeo.com/76030718

Manfrotto with a 502 head. 
 
 
Oh I get it, you think Trey Ratcliff is a talentless photographic molester. Well, at least he's successful at what he loves.
 
You may not consider this footage to look very cinematic and that is your subjective opinion. In my opinion, I could grade Canon footage the same way and the image would fall apart.
 
But you are right, using the Blackmagic Cinema Camera will tell the story of any film much better. 
 
 
I understand perfectly what Dynamic Range is. I know the BMPCC has wonderful graduations between highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. And I agree, the mid-tones are a little flat in my video. My point is, I graded that video in like 20 minutes in resolve. I believe with a little more time (and more talented colorist), one could produce extremely beautiful cinematic video from the GH3 and would be a great alternative to the BMPCC.
 
It's a nice camera to buy until Blackmagic gives us proper audio metering, compressed RAW, and oh yeah - make them available to buy and shipped within a week. 

If you expose for blown out highlights, push shadows, clean with neat video, you can capture just as much dynamic range from the GH3 as you can from Magic Lantern RAW.
 
https://vimeo.com/76030718