Philippe Orlando

Yes

Instead of the Pocket of the Micro, why not the BMCC 2.5K MFT?

Cinegain opinions are worthless! Opinions are the modified stuff of faith. I don't care. In his case he's shooting a film and he's talking about image quality as relevant to narrative work, which means in his "opinion" the G7 produces an image comparable to an Alexa for narrative work. Now, I'm the one to say "Come on!" I'm not saying the G7 doesn't produce a very good image. Actually I do believe it does! I just don't think it's on par with what comes out of an Alexa, not even close as far as acquisition quality, dynamic range and what it allows you to do as far a color grading. Now, go back to the footage provided on this thread by Lee and tell me if ALL the skin tones on all the shots look fine to you? They don't to me! Look again, I'm watching this on a calibrated NEC and I do NOT think the skin tones on those images are decent. Why is that? And also, why is that that you believe they might be fine. Please, please, please, before you say something go again and look at the skin tones in this thread. It has nothing to do with compression. How do I know? Netflix and Hulu compression are as bad and the skin tone I see in many series, that I watch on my computers, are fine, of course not filmed by a G7. Please, before you jump on me, compare those skin tones with the ones seen in your favorite series, I bet filmed with an Alexa!

CInegain, I have no idea what you are trying to say? Differences between facts and opinions are not trivial! I can have the opinion that vaccines are dangerous and not vaccines my child, doesn't make me right. I can believe all I want that the G7 is better, in anyway, than an Alexa and so what? I'm sure you have people who have the opinion that reincarnation is real and that Trump would be the best president? How does this translate into facts?

Mercer, that's not what I read here: "Yes buy one g7 recording internal is in my opinion as good as in places better than / comparable to red and Alexa , its that good ,g7 is great for stills too , this is the best Panasonic camera so far ...in my opinion .""

Good point!

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I still don't believe it's as good as an Alexa, as Andy Lee said. That was my original point.

Andy Lee you said "Yes buy one g7 recording internal is in my opinion as good as in places better than / comparable to red and Alexa , its that good ,g7 is great for stills too , this is the best Panasonic camera so far ...in my opinion ." Better or comparable to red and Alexa! Mr. Lee, with all due respect, really?

Thanks for all the great answers. I think now for me it's going to be a matter of deciding between the Ursa mini, 4K, no need of that extra .6 K, the NX1 and the new Sony A7R2.

A while ago I made a 77' film using a Canon XH-A1. Obviously I want to use something else today. I've seen amazing footage out there of all the Black Magic Cinema Cameras, but I've also heard horror stories. I've seen footage from the GH4 and recently a lot from the new Samsung NX1. Yes, of course, these two are not shooting raw. I can really tell, even through the compressed files playing on Youtube and Vimeo, that the footage out of the BM cameras is more "film like" to a point. Nothing to do with resolution, probably with dynamic range and the possibility of better color correction. Now, having said that, I do notice the difference because I look for it and I have spent time comparing a lot of footage. But I'm wondering if that extra difference really matter for an audience captivated by the story...or that should be captivated by the content! Of course when you are watching footage of the ocean, women walking on beaches, nice cities, etc, with absolutely no story and plot, all you can do is pay attention to which footage is better, especially if you are actually watching it to compare two pieces of equipment. But I don't know anybody entering a theater or watching a movie on Netflix who's going to bother about depth of field, saturation, and whether or not, because of dynamic range, the trees we can see out of the window are clear or a little fuzzy. No audience is really paying attention to that. So, I'm wondering, considering that most of the time people watch docs for content and information and narratives for entertainment and plots, if we are not splitting hair when we worry too much about equipment. In other words and to summarize what I want to say: Considering what the NX1 can produce with decent lenses, is it really worth it to go through the pain of using Black Magic Cams for audiences that can't really see any difference? Is what we want to show so boring and uninteresting that we are actually bothering about depth of field and an extra stop of dynamic range? I'd be curious to know what most of you thinks Thanks Philippe

Would you mind sharing why you chose the NX1 over a BMPCC?