December 20, 2013

New Blackmagic Production Camera 4K Footage is Absolutely Breathtaking

Blackmagic Production Camera 4K No LensWe got our 1st taste of Blackmagic Production Camera 4K footage yesterday, and now we've got even more -- this time some of the most gorgeous stuff that has been shot on any of the pre-production cameras. Hook, who previously shot with prototype Blackmagic cameras, has delivered some spectacular-looking images with his new video. If you've been waiting for some real samples to see what the Blackmagic 4K can do, you should really take a look at the video below:

Here is what he had to say about the footage, which was all shot in ProRes 4K on the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Canon 35mm f/1.4L, Canon 50mm f/1.2L, Canon 85mm f/1.2L, Canon 100mm f/2.8L, and Canon 70-200mm/2.8L IS (there is a UHD/4K link coming soon as well):

I went out and grabbed footage like with the previous two cameras just to see how it did 'out in the wild', but i also arranged with my good friends Tanya and Lance from The Storyboard to bring the camera onto a music video they were working on with me as 2nd Unit DP. Kent Belcher was the main DP for this shoot and a Red MX was to serve as 'A Cam' with me operating the 4K as 'B Cam'. After the first couple of shots of the shoot, Kent and Tarn (Director) were loving the 4K and it basically became 'A Cam'. :-D The shots i've included in this video are random clips i picked myself and don't reflect the edit or final video (still in progress as i write this). What was interesting to me is that this was a night shoot and i had the camera set at ASA400 (had already tested at night with 800 which is at the end of this video) and the red was at 1200 yet Kent and I were both surprised the Blackmagic looked brighter on the monitors!

The rest (and bulk) of the footage as i said is just me grabbing footage when i had the chance (busy time of year for everyone!), but i'm still impressed with this camera. I didn't think global shutter would be a big deal for me, but i LOVE the motion from this camera, and the colour is what i would expect from BMD (i REALLY like it).

Honestly i kind of went into this thinking i probably wouldn't like this camera as much as the other two, but right now i like it more! The images are really nice, really really nice. This time the BMDFilm coming from the camera has a lot more contrast and saturation than the previous two, so you don't have to do anywhere near as much to grade it (but yes i already have a LUT i've made/been using with it to speed things up even more). I went for quite a contrasty/saturated grade with most of this to see if i could push it 'there' (combined with my LUT i made it for it). I think it holds up really well.

Obviously any camera is going to look good in daylight, but we do get to see a little more night footage here. With fast lenses you might come pretty close to what the original BMCC is doing, but it will likely be noisier when pushed to higher ISOs.

The biggest thing we heard after the original announcement of the BMCC was that people wanted a Super 35mm sensor version, and now we've got it. Not only that, but it doesn't seem like the penalty going to a global shutter will be that bad judging by the footage. Yes, the original BMCC might edge this new camera in low-light and dynamic range, but it looks like you're going to be able to get nearly indistinguishable results from both (though extreme low-light may be a bit much for the new 4K cam).

It might be late, but it's better late than never considering there are no large sensor cameras at this price point giving you high-quality ProRes and RAW. Blackmagic might have some issues with quality control in the manufacturing process, but they've shown time and again that whatever they put out to the public is going to give video that is both cinematic and very malleable in post.

Just like with the 2.5K BMCC, the company has started with a Canon EF mount, and while it does make perfect sense for this sensor size, it does mean there are fewer options for adapting lenses, and no way of increasing the amount of light hitting the sensor with something like a Metabones Speed Booster.  I am pleasantly surprised by this recent video, and it looks like the color science is very similar to the other two cameras -- even though the sensors are completely different.

We're likely going to get a lot more footage in the coming weeks, so stay tuned if you're still on the fence.

Links:

Your Comment

231 Comments

Aaaand done. This is my next camera.

December 20, 2013 at 7:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
matthewx

WOW!

December 20, 2013 at 7:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
David F

Jaw on the floor...
Well done, Blackmagic!

December 20, 2013 at 7:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
tungah

Almost every video from Black Magic Cameras shows something "wrong" with colors that I can't really understand. The same doesn't apply to DSLR (ML RAW) samples I've seen, and done, since July.

December 20, 2013 at 7:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply

Any chance of getting a bit more of an explanation? At least in regards to this video? My dissatisfaction with the color from much of the sample footage usually has less to do with the color science of the camera and more to do with an uploader that doesn't understand color correction or grading. Grab some raw footage and have a go at it yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.

December 20, 2013 at 7:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply

I agree re a lot of the previous BM camera footage - didn't see a lot to complain about in this footage at all. :-)

December 20, 2013 at 7:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
marklondon

I agree too. A lot of the footage from the black magic cameras has a yellow/orange tint. Too much information in the green channel and too little in the red channel. The raw files from Canon has more information in the red channel and the color palette is more neutral, so it's easier to work with. But this footage from the black magic production camera looks absolutely fantastic. Skin tones are really wonderful!

December 20, 2013 at 8:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Martin

Looks like something with highlights and always the color of the midtones, to me, like a mix of different WB for each. I agree that a lot is related to the cinematographer style but when it happens everytime... in every video... than... it may be the gear and not the people.

December 20, 2013 at 11:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

I think the colors are absolutely beautiful what dont you like man?

December 20, 2013 at 7:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Caleb

There is definitely something slightly off, although it is most likely due to the way it was graded. I feel it is a touch too saturated in some areas, the blue in the sky is certainly not what a blue sky looks like, not sure if in NZ things are terribly different but around here there is less aqua and more magenta in the sky, but as I say, this has only to do with way it is graded

December 21, 2013 at 12:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
Raul

Ha! The sky is that colour there in summer.
I'm going to guess you don't live on the Pacific.

December 21, 2013 at 1:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
marklondon

:) No I don't, but will keep an eye open next time I get to spend some time there!

December 21, 2013 at 3:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Raul

+1

December 21, 2013 at 5:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Jonny

Pretty incredible, especially given the price point.

December 20, 2013 at 7:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply

Way to make me feel very homesick! Nothing like AK in the summer.
Footage looks absolutely fantastic, and the bonus of that global shutter is very obvious on anything moving.
S35 sensor helps too. I'm not shocked re the MX comment (and at least the MX overcranks!) - its over 6 years old!
Including the music vid footage was great - gave you an idea how commercial this camera's going to be. Night footage looked great at 800asa.
They better get the factory & QC geared up for this....

December 20, 2013 at 7:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
marklondon

Hello Mark, you mentioned on another post some time ago about a mandatory filter for digital cameras to help emulate film. Which filter was that again?

Thanks!

December 21, 2013 at 12:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
vinceGortho

Tiffen's Digital Diffusion range. Gives you smoother skin and a nice 'glow' on lights without the full-on hammer that are Pro-Mists etc. I generally have the .02 on unless I'm shooting wides/landscape (although it can be ok there too).
Would ROCK on this camera on people.

/not affiliated with Tiffen.

December 21, 2013 at 1:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
marklondon

I'm actually a fan of the Tiffen Glimmerglass on the BMCC and need to try it out on here too, but i agree - i like some diffusion. :-)

December 21, 2013 at 6:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply

Hey Mark, sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but I was really interested in the filter you mentioned and looked it up, what density is "0.02" referring to?

December 21, 2013 at 11:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Curtis

mx is two years old isnt it?

December 23, 2013 at 5:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
andy

Holy sh*t! That's amazing footage. Sold!

December 20, 2013 at 7:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Looks great. Two main concerns are It seemed overly sharp with some aliasing and moire on a few shots. And it seems like the highlights a sooner than the blacks get noise. all in all it seems like this will be a great camera in everyones toolbox. Hopefully the data amount wont be too unmanageable for small productions.

December 20, 2013 at 7:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

AAAH! Give me my pre-ordered camera now. I cant wait to play with this baby. I am really surprised how well this does in low light I mean its no 5D but it isn't awful. Plus the noise structure is very filmic so I dont mind that and Im sure it would clean up nice with all that resolution.

December 20, 2013 at 7:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Caleb

Black orbs in the LED lights on the car at 1:03?

December 20, 2013 at 7:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
Kurt W

Noticed that too. Luckily this is just in testing so Im sure they will fix this before sending out because they have fixed it before.

http://tinypic.com/r/14vtrph/5

December 20, 2013 at 7:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Caleb

Maybe it's just my monitor but in much of it I see blown out highlights with a lack of shadow detail in the same shot. I must be missing something. Haven't looked at the "raw" but judging from this vimeo clip, not impressed.

December 20, 2013 at 7:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
ronn

I second that. Skin colors are unnatural and sometimes look sickly blue. Clipped highlights everywhere. Looks like canon 550. Not impressed at all. An I love my BM pocket cam.

December 25, 2013 at 6:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
palisady

And sadly, at no point did my mouth water. :)

December 20, 2013 at 8:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
ronn

Sad for whom?

December 20, 2013 at 11:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
marklondon

What's with the guy in the funny red hat?

December 20, 2013 at 8:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply

Wow! Skin tones looks fantastic!

December 20, 2013 at 8:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Martin

That sweet moment when you tell yourself, good thing I waited through all this frenzy.

December 20, 2013 at 9:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

I want to love this camera enough to justify paying $2K but to me, it looks no better than a $400 Cannon. I'd rather use that money toward production.

December 20, 2013 at 9:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Kristi

This camera will cost $3,995 and it is in no way similar to your standard $400 canon dslr.

December 20, 2013 at 9:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
David

There's a GIGANTIC difference. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

December 21, 2013 at 12:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Muh

To me, the image looks dirty & washed out and because I represent the average American viewer, if I can't tell the difference, neither can they.

December 21, 2013 at 7:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Kristi

@Kristi - Get a better monitor and color calibrate it.

December 21, 2013 at 11:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
Razor

Sorry but you don't represent anyone but yourself. The global shutter alone changes how the camera looks and feels compared to a dslr, the motion cadence is very different. Next, this is 4k, MUCH higher resolution than 1080p. This isn't even raw, and it's a compressed video that your watching online. Like someone mentioned, if you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

December 21, 2013 at 11:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
David

That's all techno-babble to the average American viewer. If they have an Ultra HD monitor (which most don't) then I agree, they may see a difference but think about what most people are viewing their content on nowadays. Show your grandma a side by side comparison on her PCor even TV, then tell me if she can tell the difference.

December 21, 2013 at 12:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Kristi

Yeah Kristi, we should get advice on grandmas as to how we shoot professional work. That's a great idea, maybe we can go back to Super-8mm film too!

December 21, 2013 at 3:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

The average American viewer can't noticed the difference between SD and HD half the time. That's why I think all the talk about 4K and 6K and 8K is nuts, no one will be able to tell but a select few. But there IS a difference, and a professional can tell. If you can't, that's fine, work with what you like! But you can't say there's actually no difference, because there is.

December 21, 2013 at 3:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

But your grandma isn't cutting the film or grading it. Everyone says "it's not the camera, it's the film maker." And we all get that. No one is saying "hey guys it's all about the camera". But a better camera IS a better camera, no matter what. Why shouldn't Steven Spielberg shoot his next film with an iPhone 3GS camera? After all, the viewer probably can't tell the difference. And that should be "you're" in my earlier comment, my mistake.

December 22, 2013 at 7:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
David

Then why should any filmmaker choose to use 16mm or Super-16, when they still do? Or choose to still use 5Ds when they could use an Alexa? Hell, recently I did use Super 8mm for a project, because it's a great look and I wanted to use it. A better camera is better, sure, and I don't want to say granny can't tell the difference so who cares...BUT there comes a point when it just becomes jerking off, I can see it in these threads constantly...4K, 8K, no 16K!!! And it's like, are we in love with technology or making something decent? And do you need to go through the hassle and expense of making something in 4K when frankly 1080 would be just fine? And as a guy who does some low budget stuff, sometimes a lower resolution IS better...do I want to deal with 6K when we don't even have a full time makeup person on set?

And all of this talk of digital, but that ignores film, because film is naturally beautiful and it covers so much...where video naturally ugly and you have to fight that stuff to look good...which you can do, sure...but it can be a battle sometimes. So in way, going digital IS a step back. Not to say I'd want to go back to film much, because it really was a pain sometimes...but that's the push-pull of doing creative stuff.

December 23, 2013 at 1:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

I want to clarify my point about 6K vs not having a makeup person on set, in case the connection is fuzzy...with film you could get away with a lot of stuff. With high-def, less so. So going higher resolution means not only increasing the chain of expense on the tech end, but making sure there aren't as many problems on set...where before you could get away with some flaws in makeup or whatever, with 6K suddenly all of that is going to be BIG AND UPFRONT. And it's harder to make the actors look good...a number of stars took a hit when high def came out, because suddenly their flaws were more apparent. I mean, in film a DP is fighting resolution all the time... why do they use diffusion and use smoke on set and all of that? And her we are adding to resolution. For me, I can sort of look at using a lower resolution as a sort of built in diffusion.

December 23, 2013 at 1:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Muh

@Muh my comment was for Kristi, but you make some good points. However you're talking about super 16 FILM (which I love), Kristi said a $400 canon dslr. There's a big difference between a dslr and film. And yeah some people have chosen to use a 5d, but my point still remains, if you personally could choose any camera in the world to shoot your next film with, would you choose a t2i? I mean seriously. My other point is still valid, a camera with better specs has better specs, period. That may mean nothing or everything depending on the project. And like I mentioned, no one is saying it's all about the camera. I'm simply stating that the blackmagic production camera DOES in fact look different then a $400 dslr. And in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of makers everywhere, it looks better. I don't even think this is really an argument at this point.

December 23, 2013 at 10:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
David

I agree, Muh. There's a difference. It's just most viewers can't see it. Only professionals. And if you're going for an Oscar for best cinematography and you want to impress your peers, go for it. 'Cause grandma can barely tell the difference between a polaroid & an iPhone photo.

December 23, 2013 at 12:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Kristi

Well David, you are right about that...and Kristi seems ignorant. I assume she's a young person starting out and playing around, and when we're young we all think we know what they hell we're talking about...but hate to break it to you Kristi, you don't.

Would I shoot a feature on some rinkadink camera? Not if it was supposed to look great I wouldn't But if I wanted a gritty, low budget feel...sure. Kristi saying there's no difference is just not true, and the thing is I'm not making movies for my grandma, I'm making them as a professional and they get released all around the country. Kristi, you not seeing the difference doesn't mean there isn't any. And there's a gigantic step up with the Blackmagics.

I personally wouldn't go 4K, I'm not as impressed with resolution as I am dynamic range, and supposedly this camera has less. I'd rather stick with the 2.5. And I'm still interested in the DB but so far the footage hasn't looked that great.

December 24, 2013 at 10:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Muh

Canon DSLRs look like their is Vaseline over the screen... and everything has that disgusting Canon-y red-magenta tinge to it. Terrible.

December 21, 2013 at 12:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

17
Reply
bwhitz

+1

December 25, 2013 at 7:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
palisady

just shot a feature with the BMCC 2.5k and we were only getting about 8-9 stops of dynamic range. And usually clipping in the shadows at only 2 stops under...This camera looks fantastic but I'm disappointed if we can't get more shadow detail out of the black magic cameras...

December 20, 2013 at 9:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Jerome

You're not doing it right.

December 21, 2013 at 12:03AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Nicole

Lease explain

December 21, 2013 at 12:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
vinceGortho

Depending on the ISO used there would be a "sweet spot" for maximum dynamic range. By not properly lighting a scene and compensating with ISO you will lose detail and add noise either in the highlights or the shadows depending which way you went past that native ISO. Sometimes you don't have to add a light, but maybe a flag for negative fill to get the most out of a camera. I think a lot of this stems from some people in todays digital world forgetting their most important tool, a good light meter. A good meter used around the scene in the composition can tell a DP quickly where light needs to be added or subtracted.

December 21, 2013 at 9:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Jorge Cayon

We are definitely "doing it right". We rated the camera at 800asa as suggested. If you can light a scene with any shadow detail more than 2 stops under your taking stop please please please show that to me. Before I was on this feature I was working GE swing on an Alexa shoot and that camera really can handle its reported range...this camera sadly just doesn't have the DR that the press materials claim and the global shutter is supposed to take that DR down even further...not good enough in my book.

December 22, 2013 at 10:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Jerome

Also I'm a 1st AC so I'm not totally in charge of the lighting but we treated this like film. We never changed ISO (ASA). Our Gaffer and DP metered every scene and we had a very expierenced DIT on with us...I'm telling you this camera really only get 8-9 stops....please prove me wrong.

December 22, 2013 at 10:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Jerome

footage looks nice but moire and aliasing like crazy unless watched fullscreen. I assume because it's shot 4k.

December 20, 2013 at 9:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jerber

It looks great!

December 20, 2013 at 9:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Tom

Skin tones rock.

December 20, 2013 at 9:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Ben

The only way to make this camera better is to put it's electronics into an ex3 body.

December 20, 2013 at 9:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Caleb

Why would a global shutter be a penalty? It seems like a bonus to me. Not having a rolling shutter...awesome.

December 20, 2013 at 10:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jon

you lose ISO sensitivity because the global shutter has larger electronic components and less space can be given to the image sensor sites.

December 20, 2013 at 11:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Luckily, there's a solution, which is use a light.

December 21, 2013 at 12:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

And really fast lenses, as above.

December 21, 2013 at 2:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
DLD

Thanks for explaining.

December 21, 2013 at 1:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jon

Adding a light doesn't help when you are stuck to using very flat lighting ratios. Sure go shoot a romantic comedy with this thing where your ratio will only be like 2:1 or maybe a 4:1 for a night scene but if you try anything more dramatic than that you are going to be clipping in your blacks.

December 22, 2013 at 10:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Jerome

test

December 20, 2013 at 10:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
test

Done, Take my money twice at least !

December 20, 2013 at 10:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

They better be careful - a lot of this was shot within half a kilometre of my apartment *cough* *stealing distance* *cough*

December 20, 2013 at 10:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Greg

Where do you live Greg? Give me an email - you can find it on my site etc.

December 21, 2013 at 6:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Done. Just a qualifying statement, the only thing I've stolen is a bounty bar from countdown, and that was an accident.

December 21, 2013 at 5:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Greg

Now I can steal it and Greg will get the blame.

December 23, 2013 at 10:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Muh

My main question is whether we'll see more lens mount options down the track. Not being able to adapt to PL mount is fairly crippling. And having an E mount or FZ mount version would also allow for speed boosters, FD lenses, tilt shift adaptors, in-built ND adaptors and so on. Even a non-electronic mount with shallow flange depth would make a massive difference.

December 20, 2013 at 11:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

My main question is whether we'll see other lens mount versions down the track. Not being able to adapt to PL mount is fairly crippling. And having an E mount or FZ mount option would allow for speed boosters, FD lenses, tilt shift adaptors, in-built ND adaptors and so on. Even a passive E or FZ mount would make a massive difference to the camera's flexibility.

December 20, 2013 at 11:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Based on the way BM has operated so far I strongly suspect there will be an MFT version announced in '14, so you'll be ok.
The EF works for me though, and having used the top-end Canon cinema glass in 4K on a 1DC, that should do me fine if I need it. Also, you can get the awesome Angeniuex Optimo Rouges in EF mount in Europe, but not here for some reason.

December 21, 2013 at 1:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
marklondon

Is it an active mount? Thanks

December 21, 2013 at 2:10AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Anthony Marino

would a mft mount fit the sensor size? E mount or PL makes more sense to me.

December 21, 2013 at 3:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
luke lasley

Good detail, poor dynamic range.

December 21, 2013 at 1:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Very Impressive, by far the quality of the video blows away the Mark III and Nikon D3 but I'd still want( and have not seen) any footage were they really "whip" the camera around and prove there's no jello.

December 21, 2013 at 1:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Bolex16

Looks great, but I'll wait a year when they knock $1,000 off the price! In the meantime I'll keep using my vintage BMCC, it's still a great camera.

December 21, 2013 at 1:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Yea, I love what Blackmagic is doing and this looks like a great camera... but I do think the BMCC 2.5k looks more like film.

December 21, 2013 at 12:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

too much resolution starts to look video-ey.

December 22, 2013 at 6:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

Really amazing stuff right here. This camera in the right hands will do wonders but what I dont get is I understand the hardware inside cant do slow-mo according to some reports, but that 6G-SDI has to be able to send a Higher Frame Rate signal out to maybe a recorder of some sorts? I mean this would be a great stuff for Blackmagic, all they have to do is say they are working on something and I would be happy, and I know many others would be to.

December 21, 2013 at 4:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

The issue with slow motion is not the 6G-SDI. The issue for slow motion at this point is heat. BlackMagic cameras can only do 30fps and anything beyond that is causing an issue with heating up. They have said they want to go to 60fps, just like everyone else wants it, and they are working on getting there.

December 21, 2013 at 4:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Looks nice but my BMCC 2.5k will do it for now i will get the next 4k 120fps Camera :P

December 21, 2013 at 4:46AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

About time. A Blackmagic on a tripod so we can really look at the footage.

December 21, 2013 at 5:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Ed

What the fuck.
Does somebody know if it will finally be able to shoot at 50/60fps? Because if it does I might forget about trying to buy a 5D mark iii...

December 21, 2013 at 6:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply

that's what I think...resolution is not so important for me...and if 5D goes RAW...and it's a still images camera...and it does 60 p.....and it's cheaper....I don't see why the BMPC 4k is better...

December 21, 2013 at 7:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jesuan

BMPC4K has a global sensor and a vastly vastly better workflow than ML RAW

December 21, 2013 at 7:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply

we've been living with rolling shutter....i don't plan to only shoot super fast pannings....and the DNG workflow isn't so different from 5D RAW.....i prefer have more options in camera and maybe tweak a little bit more on post than being limited while shooting and then have a faster post.

December 21, 2013 at 12:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
jesuan

Well, I doubt anyone is ONLY shooting fast whip pans or anything. But I shoot action stuff, and not having jello is nice. Personally I think the Black Magic stuff looks better than 5D RAW, but not enough that picture quality alone would be the difference for me. And I don't think you can shoot 60 frames on a 5D in RAW, can you? It doesnt work as I hear.

December 21, 2013 at 3:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

I know...but at least I can shoot 60p on H264....better that than nothing....and for less money.

December 21, 2013 at 3:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
jesuan

And if 60p is what ends up being the deciding factor, and you need slo-mo most of all...well then, there you go. That's why I'm never a booster for ONLY this or that camera is great, it depends on your needs, and how you're shooting. I wouldn't mind having slo-mo, but I'd rather live without it for the global shutter and dynamic range. I look at too many of these videos and they look great, but people's skin just looks more plasticy. Looks more like video...excellent video...than film. My last feature was shot on something like that and I wish I had a BM for it now, but at the time it was what it was.

December 21, 2013 at 8:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

How can you shoot at 60fps 1080p with Canon 5D Mark 3? Am i missed something? I thought that raw 60fps with Magic Latern is not continuous recording, only for 5-10 sec, and i never heard anything about h.264 1080p 60fps…

December 23, 2013 at 1:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Stan

Uh, because Canon uses crap-ass, low-bitrate, interframe-compressed codecs? Because Canon STILL doesn't properly downscale their images to get to video resolution, so there's hideous aliasing?

Any of that ring a bell?

December 25, 2013 at 1:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
What Haveyou

As the big rental houses in Germany refuse to offer the BMCC (whilst offering the 5D MIII and MII for some unknown reason) I just hope they will offer this beauty just by popular demand. Primarily I don't care about 4K THAT much, but Super 35 plus Global Shutter plus a color science that is much more Alexa than it is RED: In all regards BMD have hit the sweet spot. And by tactically releasing this footage at the dawn of Digital Bolex' sluggish release of its 16mm cam, they absolutely know how to make people rather wait than go for something else.

December 21, 2013 at 7:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Anteeru

I agree about the 4K. I would find it more appealing if it was closer to 2k--HD plus a little extra room for cropping. That would give it larger, more low light friendly pixels as well.

December 21, 2013 at 8:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Tom

You just described the 2.5k BMCC... pretty much to the T (besides the global shutter)

December 21, 2013 at 5:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
yep

no because vmcc has a smaller sensor.

December 22, 2013 at 4:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

MBF Hamburg has a 2.5K BMCC.

December 21, 2013 at 3:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Markus

No over-crank, batteries included, jack inputs for sound...

All camera kit has to be paid for over the length of its lifetime, and this product is destined to be short-lived.

It's an expensive toy for the wannabe market. Maybe those wannabes will grow with it and one day Blackmagic will have built a fanbase that's grown into a community of real film-makers, but no serious film-maker will want to use it.

It might have a market for people who want to shoot reccies cheap.

December 21, 2013 at 7:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Sam

Please continue to tell us what qualifies as a "real filmmaker".

December 21, 2013 at 7:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Coty

Maybe he means rich filmmakers or filmmakers with money. I loved the films "28 days later" and "Another Earth" but alas...they used lowly DVX type video cameras.... I always knew Danny Boyle wasn't a "real" filmmaker.

December 21, 2013 at 9:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Pat

Really, the guy who directed Slumdog Millionaire isn't a real filmmaker? I think it's time for you to get of your parents computer and go to bed.

December 21, 2013 at 12:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Bolex16

Look guys, we've got someone with a defective sarcasm-detector over 'ere! ^_^

December 21, 2013 at 12:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
TK

Uh, I think you missed the sarcasm in his post.

December 21, 2013 at 12:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Ben Howling

Bolex 16 you clearly missed his sarcasm in this post.

December 22, 2013 at 12:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
kyle

LOL Pat!! I needed a laugh this morning too. I think are not catching it was a joke.

December 21, 2013 at 1:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

@Coty - Please continue to grace us with your smart aleck and worthless comments.

December 21, 2013 at 10:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Razor

Okay.

December 21, 2013 at 11:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Coty

It's nothing more than FUD. There is a HUGE group of filmmakers that work in the industry and actually lack any real talent on their own... actually most have no real talent. They don't like cameras like these because they won't be able to simply buy gear that "out-classes" other people anymore. That's where 80% of professional's "professionalism" comes from... better connections and better gear. That's it.

I mean, honestly... you really think calling a 4k RAW Global-Shutter camera a "toy for a wannabe market" is a reasonable/rational argument? No. It's just fear. We're entering an entirely new film-making era and everyone knows it. The current established career guys are ALWAYS going to be resistant to this stuff. Don't listen to it. They won't be getting work anymore soon, we won't need them on set, and we won't have to hear from them. Just wait it out a few more years.

December 21, 2013 at 11:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
bwhitz

+1

December 21, 2013 at 11:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Coty

Fear not.

December 21, 2013 at 9:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Stephane

This is a really badly thought out statement. "A real" filmmaker would never has said what you posted.

December 21, 2013 at 10:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
notarealfilmmaker

Sam,

I don't think you know about Black Magic. Nothing they make is wannabe. They make nice quality products that have real use, and work well, in the real world. Their cameras don't look like conventional movie cameras. But they are designed with saving cost in mind---and they make pretty video. :-)

December 21, 2013 at 1:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Not completely sure of the footage. Looks more videoey. Was it the settings on the camera ? The highlight roll off is quiet harsh. Most probably it was done in a haste dont know. The shadow detail is all but gone. Still early to comment. But the footage shown above did not really blow my socks away. Fingers crossed.

December 21, 2013 at 9:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
raj

Uh...did we just watch the same thing??

December 21, 2013 at 12:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Christian Anderson

Can you crop this footage in a manner like RED, while maintaining reasonable picture quality?

December 21, 2013 at 10:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
moebius22

4K is 4K. There's nothing special about RED that makes it better for cropping in. Ultimate, it depends on your delivery resolution.

December 21, 2013 at 12:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Christian Anderson

*ultimately

December 21, 2013 at 12:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Christian Anderson

Philip Bloom suggested there is a difference.

December 21, 2013 at 1:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
moebius22

Pixels are pixels, aren't they? Maybe one camera has better compression quality but that's something completely different.

Do you have a reference for the Bloom mention?

December 21, 2013 at 2:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Christian Anderson

December 21, 2013 at 3:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
moebius22

I am sure I saw moire' and aliasing in the shirt patterns and hand rails of the steps. It was pretty noticeable, or was that just the vimeo codec?

December 21, 2013 at 11:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
notarealfilmmaker

go fullscreen with the video.

December 22, 2013 at 10:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
mick

Interesting. There is a lot of similarity between this and the BMCC (which I've owned since february and have become quite familiar with). Although I will second raj's comment on the highlights. They are a lot more DSLR-like. This may be a color correction thing but I noticed that the skin tones are very off. Almost greyish. Especially the girl at 48 secs dancing in the orange dress and the girl who walks up at 57 seconds to the bar.

Obviously it's ironic I'm even complaining as we are talking a $4k camera that creates visuals we could only dream of 10 (5 maybe?) years ago. Overall I'm impressed. I just wish we could get the original sensor in a 35mm format but obviously that will never happen.

December 21, 2013 at 11:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Just use a speed-booster on the original! it looks great and gives you a true super 35mm FOV... plus the extra stop of light.

December 21, 2013 at 12:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

I think it was 5 years ago.

Here's an interview of Marc Hauser from 5 years ago using 'high tech' of the day. Look bad compared to high tech today:

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GQMBfBcOmw ]

December 21, 2013 at 2:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Gene

There was a lot better tech five years ago than that video...I know because I was using it. There was widescreen 24 frame HD. That just looks like it was shot by old fogeys.

December 22, 2013 at 2:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

Nice footage, but imho still does not produce the color and tone of motion film. Colors seem to be skewed towards the yellow/orange to magenta side of the spectrum on nearly every blackmagic footage i see .

I agree with a previous post, i'd be more interested in a camera co other than Alexa (the standard in digital video) that would perfect the 1080p/2k format before rolling out higher resolutions.

Not meaning to troll here, just an observation.

December 21, 2013 at 11:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

What more is there to give in the 1080p/2k market? Some overcrank in the lower priced options - what else? Colorimetry is going to be different from one manufacturer to the next. You pick the flavor and feature set you like. Nobody is going to exactly match ARRI's color science - RED has been trying to best it for years now, and to this moment have not succeeded.

December 21, 2013 at 1:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Brian

yes, well what happens is investors get into the camera business without a history of image making, like RED whose founder made sunglasses for a living. you do realize that most of these companies ramping out 4k cameras use generic cmos sensors. the alexa and sony f65 are custom sensors. it is more than tweaking colorimetry, it's the basic architecture of the chip sensor and understanding what a good image looks like. too many times have i gone to a product seminar promoting a new 4k camera and their engineers don't know what they're talking about.

December 21, 2013 at 2:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

@MenAtWork - Jim Jannard might not be the best example for your point. Since he made sunglasses, you'd think he'd at least have a cursory knowledge of things like lenses, optics, coatings, filtering, UV rays and various atmospheric factors. Since these things don't exist in a vacuum, he'd also have to have at least a passing knowledge of how these things relate to human vision, both perceptually and physiologically. After all, sunglasses do cover your eyes. He also ran a very successful company with manufacturing know-how for an international customer base. The point is his optics-centric experience with building Oakley is at least relevant to image making in a broad sense.

On top of that, he's a camera aficionado and, having become a billionaire, could afford to buy (and probably did) practically every significant motion picture camera made before he started RED. It's not like he was a hedge fund manager that only ever used a point and shoot. I know it's convenient to pick on RED but there are more legitimate and accurate arguments to be made. And, as far as I know, RED's sensor is also custom designed and not off-the-shelf.

December 21, 2013 at 6:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Brian

I don't necessarily disagree with you there, but at the same time, the custom sensor is a huge factor in the price tag. Expecting something similar out of BMC or anyone else is a little bit of a stretch. When the money is coming out of my pocket, I'll take the generic sensor producing images like this for $4k over the F65 any day. With that said, if the client is paying, it's a whole different story.

December 21, 2013 at 10:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Brian

I wasn't implying I expect custom sensors out of BMD, especially at their current prices. My comment was actually off-topic from the article. I was just responding to the inaccuracies of the other post. BMD and DB are smart to leverage off-the-shelf technology wherever they can in building professional quality, yet affordable gear. I don't think BMD and RED are direct competitors. RED is clearly targeting the requirements of the highest end productions while pricing for and trying to accommodate much smaller budgets. BMD is targeting smaller budgets but will take (and, in most cases, satisfy) any high end productions that come their way.

December 22, 2013 at 7:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Brian

The D16 has a custom Kodak CCD sensor

December 24, 2013 at 9:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Hildebrand

Overcrank and global shutter would be sweet.

December 21, 2013 at 4:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Muh

I do not agree with you.
I'm downloading a lot of material from R3D reduser. All material and 'movie with the new Dragon, available in various hause rent ..
I'm sorry but right now ARRI and 'outdated and many more. Even though I really love this camera.
Dragon has an excellent colorimetry and better Alexa and continues to improve, resolution, more dynamic range, light weight and Carbon be fantastic.
But of course if you can prove otherwise I'm curious to hear your professional opinion.

December 21, 2013 at 3:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Alexiss

i am biased, since i come from a film background and have only worked in 35mm for 20 years prior to shooting with Alexa. I thought I'd chime into this discussion as BlackMagic puts Cinema in their product name.

Keep in mind that we live in an era of technical marketing where people are sold on spec sheets alone and not real world shooting, and equally important post production. Very rarely do I read or hear someone say, "wow that camera produces great colors", or "her skin tone is gorgeous", or "those blacks look very rich". That's more important to me than manufacturer's spec sheets on resolution and DR. From our perspective, the Alexa at 2k has consistently delivered the most filmic image. Also, an important characteristic of the Alexa is that it has a 'transparent' image. People can't recognize the image to a particular camera, wheras I can identify RED, Canon, BM, etc footage within 3 seconds..

Also, post production is something people rarely consider when purchasing a camera. We actually found that shooting 35mm stock film and digitizing to a 2K DI was even easier and more cost efficient than using large sized REDCODE and their proprietary storage solutions. he Alexa has a much more streamlined and superior post/DI process. Also, the Alexa provides in camera LUT, which it's competitors don't and we like to have control over ASA/ISO during the shot and have that metadata available to us in color correction instead of the "coloring with crayons" process of other digital cameras. From a film perspective, imho the Alexa is the most cinematic digital film camera in terms of image and post processing.

December 21, 2013 at 3:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

I'm with you...it's frustrating sometimes to read forums about this stuff, because people get so excited about the specs but don't really talk about the image...it's a bunch of tech stuff and I don't care about that, I want to know what the skin tone looks like.

December 21, 2013 at 4:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

I thank you for your answer proffessional .
There are many people in reduser who have more experience than you , great cinematographers and film directors , and they are in the movies since they were born , does not mean that if you have 20 years experience you are better .
ok , I agree with you in part on the work flow partly not, always depends on where you want to get .
If you do not have money, and of course everything must be done in a hurry, then Alexa has a better flow , recording in ProRes and everything is faster, but no one is stopping you from doing it even on RED , and if the need to be quick.
Open Davinci and make a few corrections does not seem difficult. This is done with Alexa if you want the best result.
I do not know that ARRIRAW be more lightweight REDCODE Dragon now.
Kindly what you think of DRAGON ?
There seems to be a camera, " transparent " or you do not like and you already had the opportunity to do some testing ?
Muh , I just wanted to express an opinion, maybe my English is not good, but that does not mean I'm willing to learn and know .
I've always enjoyed Alexa, but now watching movies DRagon from my point of view is much better than Alexa, for all that I listed before.

December 21, 2013 at 5:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Alexiss

I agree with you Alexiss. Red Dragon 6K footage is the most beautiful and fascinating video I have ever seen. I find these Pavlovian responses to everything Red to be just that, prefabricated responses without first thinking. There is a 4K ARRI in the works right now. And there's a slate of new 4K cameras coming out in 2014. Higher K's really are king. They are not just a passing fad. No other aspect of video is sought after as much as higher K's. If a camera company wants to create buzz for themselves they need to get to work on not just 4K or 6K, but, they need to get to work on 8K. There are a few camera manufacturers around the world that are working on 8K cameras, right now, not some time in the future after they find out if higher K's will be a success. We can see NOW that higher K's are a success. Sony has a 16K camera in research and development that will also include holographs. And the camera makers of these higher K's are not so stupid as to neglect having a beautiful color palette. Commenters on the internet that cannot see this are not worth paying attention to. And fortunately there are only a few of them.

December 21, 2013 at 6:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

6
Reply
Gene

Film still trumps all digital formats. Film can be digitized to 12k, 20k, when that digital technology comes to be since film is not pixel based. This obsession with resolution was born out of REALITY TV of the last 20 years and it has really set visual storytelling back 100 years where everyone wants the most real thing they can get. People forget that motion pictures is actually an illusion. A good film format and story will give the audience space to dream. This Dragon is ultra sharp no doubt. But it is part of the endless REALITY TV/media/marketing crusade.

December 21, 2013 at 8:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Rezzman

We’re at a point in technology where format is a discretionary choice and I clearly said that I am biased because of my film background. We’ve gone full circle in digital as DP’s are now even de-rezzing footage to get grittier looks. Sounds alot like the impressionist movement of the 20th century when they rejected realism. And to Gene, there is no absolute superior format. I only speak for my own tastes.

December 21, 2013 at 8:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

Alexxis, unfortunately, the digital film/video industry has fallen to the same planned obsolescence cycle as every other technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRYI8DKZTsA

December 21, 2013 at 8:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

I think Red Dragon 6K makes the most fascinating video I've ever seen. And the look in the Tranformer movies is incredible. But maybe I have my own biases since I don't feel sentimental about celluloid. I grew up, of course, watching only celluloid movies and tv. But I think digital has become better, the clear turning point being the Red Dragon 6K. There is nothing like it. And even though I don't like Canon as a company because their products are pricey, the low light performance of the 5D's is awesome---better than film.

I also don't think digital is a marketing crusade. Hundreds of movies and tv shows have been shot in digital. It's just progress, not marketing. If some feel the need to add grain to digital it likely could be they want to lower the quality to a film look because it's what they're used to, it's what they love. I don't have any reason to hang onto the filmic look. I like digital more. I like the richness in the color. We're all different. And I still the the generation growing up with digital movies and tv will find film looking more and more outdated as K's go higher and higher. It's all a matter of viewpoint. I really don't think digital needs to keep finding ways to alter its look so it will continue to look like film. Film still looks beautiful. And will still be used for years. It's just that as K's go higher the attraction to film will continue to go down---especially since the internet, where video entertainment is growing fast, is digital. Film and internet are incompatible. Digital and internet are compatible.

December 21, 2013 at 9:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Wasn't Transformers a computer animation? :-) I understand your points and you're right, each generation gets nostalgic about a certain format and what people grow up with surely influences their opinion. However, digital has always tried to emulate film and will continue to as the "film look" is the standard to which all these new digital cameras are judged by. Let's not forget that film has no limits on lines of resolution. It can be scanned into 4k, 8k, 12k, 20k, 3D etc and it's limitation is the sharpness of the lens.

December 22, 2013 at 6:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
MenAtWork

Film is still the most popular format for acquisition on large scale feature films. http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm

December 22, 2013 at 6:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
MenAtWork

I would not say film is dead. I did say film will be around for a while. But it will continue to fall in use. As memory cards, and rendering, get faster for digital it will become even more popular.

I have only heard of 40% of the tv/movies on that list.

I'm not arguing that film has no place and digital should only be used. And I wouldn't. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either.

But there is something a little off about what I see happening in the film vs digital debate (heated argument most of the time). When there is talk about digital cameras going higher and higher in K's there seems to be an automatic response of anger in some people. But when people mention that film is actually 20K there is no angry reaction. Odd that...... Situational like/love of K's I guess. ;^)

December 22, 2013 at 8:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

list of movies shot with digital:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_digital

list of tv shot in digital

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programs_shot_in_digital

TV/movies more in digital than in film.

December 22, 2013 at 8:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

Gene's only heard of 40% of the movies on that list? Dude, that's a bunch of pretty mainstream stuff.

December 23, 2013 at 10:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Muh

I'd also argue that a lot of those digital movies don't look nearly as good as the film ones. I was actually distracted by something like The Avengers, which even though was expensive, looked like cheap video.

December 23, 2013 at 10:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

The big problem with digital over film is that you can take a movie shot 100 years ago and project it today. I have videos I shot a few years ago that I can't do much with because the codecs are outdated and the players don't play them. Every camera has it's own thing, the editing software has to scramble to keep up with them.

December 21, 2013 at 10:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

I think the answer to that problem will be vector based video codecs five to ten years down the line as a digital preservation/delivery format.

December 22, 2013 at 5:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Coty

There have been tons of film formats and a lot of the old ones are incompatible with most modern projectors/scanners.

December 22, 2013 at 6:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Gabe

Super 16mm, 16,mm, 70mm and 35mm? What other film formats are there? Sure there's Super-8 but that was more of a hobbyist thing. There may have been some obscure ones, but these are the main formats and are still in use today.

December 23, 2013 at 10:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Muh

What film formats are you talking about? 35mm has been the industry standard since the 1890's.
8mm, 9.5mm. 16mm were originally amateur, and 70mm is still the ultimate. 15/70mm / IMAX is still vastly better than any current digital cinematography camera by a mile.

December 23, 2013 at 6:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Cameron Glendinning

I completely agree with you, people are trying everything to get digital to look as close to the beauty of film still. It is only tv sales and tech corporations that are telling us "no no no you want more k's!!!"(exactly like they did with 3d). Give me something that looks even close to the colour/latitude/motion/texture and general beauty of film, that is all i ask from a camera. Nothing else matters...
As you pointed out, what is so effective/beautiful/captivating about film is that it doesnt look like reality, thats why the separation between us and the world within the film exists and is immersive. high res digital does the opposite. i dont want realism i want beautiful illusion.

December 23, 2013 at 4:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
andy

What you think of this footage, especially those cityscape shots ? :

http://vimeo.com/77584248

Can you guess which part of the clip is shot with film camera ?

December 21, 2013 at 4:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Juhan-i

At first glance Im sure the plane footage and the clouds outside and then the yatchs at about 2:13. Could you please give more details about this video, the camera-lens used.

Thanks

December 21, 2013 at 11:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
raj

Sorry, I was being a bit smartass. But basically catch here is that it was shot with Sony F55 and Sony FS700 cameras. Pure digital, no film... I do not know what lenses were used, sorry. Only thing I know for sure is that is pure Sony digital material.

Basically my point was that there are huge amount of people, who continue to claim that you can not get "cinematic material" with for example Sony F55 camera. In reality if know what you are doing....you get great results. Actually results that surpass for example basic Red Epic material.

December 22, 2013 at 7:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Juhan-i

I can haz 4K?

December 21, 2013 at 11:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Yusuf

It is 4K, yes.

December 21, 2013 at 2:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Gene

It IS? It really really is?

December 21, 2013 at 4:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

I've seen it mentioned on other posts and it should be mentioned here as well some of the comments here have been extremely and unnecessarily negative. I notice that it happens to be on the technical posts more so than the posts on scriptwriting etc. It could be because those who are more technically inclined tend to not be as well versed in the social graces (i.e. the grumpy I.T. guy at work) but I think it could also be because of the anonymity the internet provides. The comment about real filmmakers-I could almost picture the guy saying with a pipe in his mouth, wearing a smoking jacket and an ascot, using a fake British accent. BWhitz, I was really w/you up until the point where you started going off about 80% of the older filmmakers lacking talent. I've worked on several national commercials as well as feature films, television shows, and music videos. There are those who were just rich enough to buy equipment but there were also those who were extremely successful because they were extremely talented and that's how they became extremely rich. I love Nofilmschool, but the environment has become such that I spend more time wondering why people can't just offer sincere and honest opinions without such incredible dickishness than reality appreciating what the sight has to offer. That's ridiculous and it doesn't have to be. I tend to believe that those who seem overly concerned about a camera's performance in low light are so because they can't light. If you don't like what a camera has to offer say so and then stop before you get to the point about wannabe filmmakers and all that BS. This is first, foremost and always will be a people business first. You need other people to get things done. Hopefully, some of you who are so arrogant will figure that out before you find yourself sitting at home alone w/ the 4k, S35, ergonomically perfect camera w/ 14 stops of dynamic range, global shutter and a button that allows you to drive it to work for $300 dollars that you keep requesting. Champagne taste on a beer budget...Sheesh.

December 21, 2013 at 2:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Lopez

Thank you!

December 21, 2013 at 2:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Daniel

"Hopefully, some of you who are so arrogant will figure that out before you find yourself sitting at home alone w/ the 4k, S35, ergonomically perfect camera w/ 14 stops of dynamic range, global shutter and a button that allows you to drive it to work for $300 dollars that you keep requesting"

Point well taken.

December 21, 2013 at 2:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
Gene

Ok, I admit, the 80% of pro lacking any real talent was me being a bit facetious... it's really only like 50%. :)

December 21, 2013 at 6:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

Plus, I only make dick-head comments like that when I see other dick-head comments.

December 21, 2013 at 6:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

It's better to keep a higher level in your comments and not exaggerate. I stop and read your comments. Protect your own reputation even when the Pavlov sharks come feeding.

December 21, 2013 at 6:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

5
Reply
Gene

Black Magic says that the camera has 12 stops of dynamic range.
The sad truth is if you read the spec sheets for the sensor, it only offers 10 stops of range.
That being said, too many "DPs" go nuts over no shadow detail and the hyper wide latitude.
That's what lighting is for. I haven't seen brilliant lighting in movies since in I don't know how long
Because its light flat, shot flat and graded in resolve.

Now I'm not bashing resolve, but if your a cinematographer and you want to see into shadow, your supposed
To fill that in when your lighting your scene.

Movies made from the late 80s and back had only several stops of range, it was up to the DP to light
The scene, and those are the greatest movies of all time.

My point is, the DP is not just responsible for the camera, he's responsible for the lighting too.
So if you don't like a shadow, get a reflector and fill it in.

December 21, 2013 at 2:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Daniel

I think I understand you, and I've wondered about this. I think people psychologically budget more for a camera than the lights, and Resolve is free so people will try to pull out whatever detail they can. For example, I can visualise the new BM cameras, the 5DMk3, the Digital Bolex, etc, but don't have a clue what equivalent budget lighting sets would be for these - anyone chiming would be appreciated.

December 21, 2013 at 3:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

7
Reply
Saied

Depends on how many you need. My stuff is horror and action, so I tend to only use a few lights...in fact on my last movie we only used 4 at the most, and that was for a crowd scene and one was just to light some stairs. Digital tends to want to look flat so I don't like to overdo lights...for some scenes I used only one light with a reflector and I think they look great...and so have others, so it's not like I;m deluded about it. You can get light kits for 300-400 dollars for a few smaller lights. Just think about how many you need and look around.

December 21, 2013 at 7:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Muh

Spot-on. Very few people know how to light anymore. I'm eternally grateful to the key grips and gaffers that brought me onto bigger productions to see how its really done.

December 21, 2013 at 3:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Thank you all for your comments, it's good to know there are level headed filmmakers on these forums. If anyone is familiar with the action web series "The Danger Element", it is shot on a Canon hg10 with about 7 or 8 stops of range. The show looks fantastic not because of the camera but because of the lighting.

December 21, 2013 at 8:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Daniel

how can you complain about people shooting flat and then telling people to fill in the shadows? Filling in the shadows is what makes a scene flat. The problem with the lack of shadow detail is that you are forced to light your scenes flat. You can't have your fill side be more than 2 stops under your key. You can't have ANYTHING IN YOUR FRAME BE MORE THAN 2 STOPS UNDER WITH OUT LOSING IT! How are you supposed to light it any other way than flat? Have you actually worked with this camera before? Actually lit a scene before?

December 22, 2013 at 10:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Jerome

youtube.com/watch?v=FcPIAFQh60M

Sometimes it is good to listen to the master...
I guess he would have loved some of the new "un-professional" cameras...
like, if even a 8bits GH2 is good for Shane Carruth to shot a master piece full of mystery
- as bunnuel used to say good movies should be full of mystery -
so maybe 10bits, 12bits, 10/11/12 stops "toy cameras" can be useful for that other kind of cinema, the artisan kind, not the industrial one. :)

December 21, 2013 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
guto novo

Like most of the "tests" I see on Vimeo, the footage is crappy, panning around for no reason, shakycam, no lighting and I don't see much difference in quality. Why don't people understand once and for all that tests are just that, tests, and are made for a specific reason, to see what the camera can do, don't try to make crappy films in the process. When tests were made for a new 35 mm stock, the camera was set on a @$%# tripod, you shot under different lighting conditions, daylight, fluorescent, tungsten, with filters, no filters, 1,2,3 stops over. 1,2,3 stops under. It was boring footage, but you could really see what the film could do. You should do the same with digital. After over 35 years of shooting small stuff on 35mm, you know..like Heineken, Mitsubishi, McDonalds, Coors, I started shooting Digitally with a 5d. Recently, one of the short films I shot for a director in the Bay Area won an award at a film festival. Smallest crew and least amount of grip and lighting equipment I ever had, but it was shot like a film, no raw, no 5k, and I didn't have my camera work having an epileptic seizure. I wish we could deter people from using a new camera for at least 2 years until they could show they know what they are doing with the camera they have. Oh! I am sorry..I am just an old fart ranting....I forgot that every new camera makes you a better film maker

December 21, 2013 at 3:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply

Hey, first i didn't call this video a 'test video'. Its a collection of footage i've gathered with the camera so far. Also, it was shot in a variety of conditions, daylight, natural light, tungsten, night, and scenes with lighting (the music vid stuff used a 2.5k HMI, kino 4 banks, and a diva, scrims, flags, gels, etc) and it's a combination of shoulder rig and on tripod. There's also landscape shots, and shots of people. Again, it's not a test video, but i think it at least gives people a glimpse of how the camera might react under a variety of "real-world" situations. Thanks. :)

December 22, 2013 at 12:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Good grief, dude... get it together. I am very seriously considering this camera, and this type of well-shot test is very useful to me. I don't care that a short you DP'd recently won an award - one I recently DP'd is also collecting a number of awards on the festival circuit - it doesn't make your rant any less ridiculous.

December 22, 2013 at 1:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
Brian

@ Saied: A good producer is willing to have a real conversation w/ the DP and Gaffer to determine what lights they need on set. We can get caught up with the next awesome cameras but we've all seen things shot on a good camera that were mediocre in their look because no thought was put into the other elements of production like art direction/production and lighting. A plain white wall shot on a Red is the same as a plain white wall shot on T2i. Truthfully, most lighting kits are the same. When you pay more for a kit you're paying for build quality and control. The light sources themselves, give or take a bit here or there, are pretty much the same. Some of the cheapest sources are some of the best. I love Chinese Lanterns. To me, they're a great run and gun light. Hope that helps you a little. I spent a lot of time working in art department. Don't dismiss your production design. You'd be surprised what it adds to your finished product.

December 21, 2013 at 4:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Lopez

BTW, I realize that saying the "wannabe filmmaker quote" guy's British accent might not be fake as I stated in my first post. He used the phrase reccie instead of tech scout. Even when I'm upset by something I want to have my facts right.

December 21, 2013 at 4:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Lopez

Amazing how losing one stop of DR changes the image so much. Dem highlights.

December 21, 2013 at 4:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

3
Reply
Corey

Sad thing is that once everyone shoots on and can afford this... nothing will be "filmic" anymore... Power in the hands of everyone means no one is powerful (sorry for the "The Incredibles" reference)... As quickly as we are hyped about all the advancements is just as quickly as they will appear mundane and common...

Just Saying

December 21, 2013 at 4:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply

Well, yea, like Coppola said in that famous interview... the "professionalism" will be gone. Audiences will still want to watch films and shows though. Production will just be about the story and doing interesting things within the film. It'll be about making cool stuff with flexible small teams of people. No more 100 person crews, no more unions and regulations, no more bull-crap.

December 21, 2013 at 6:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

The same thing happened in the Realism period in European paintings. Everyone was so obsessed with Rembrandt portraits and who could most realistically paint a person and then Impressionalism came around and ended that :-)

December 22, 2013 at 6:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

*impressionism

December 22, 2013 at 6:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

0
Reply
MenAtWork

In a sense that's true, in a sense it isn't...because the lousy filmmakers will still make lousy films. While Coppola was shooting The Godfather, countless hacks were making terrible b-movies on 35mm too.

December 21, 2013 at 7:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Muh

Yes. The ratio of very talented filmmakers to mediocre or non-talented ones will never significantly change, no matter how affordable the tools get. The democratization of filmmaking that everyone is stoked for will put more gear into the hands of gifted people but average-to-bad filmmakers, who number more, will have just as much access to the equipment as well. Proportionally, the percentages will be roughly the same, there'll just be more material to wade through.

December 21, 2013 at 8:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Brian

And all I care about is getting these great cameras for great prices because it benefits ME! I'm completely selfish about this. I don't care what anyone else does with them.

December 21, 2013 at 8:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
Muh

As I've mentioned many times here before, this isn't much different the music industry that went from being largely acoustic - culminating in Big Bands with electronic/mic'ed vocals - and highly professional to a largely electronic and filled with folks of all stripes and sizes, an era which began in the late 1940's with the first affordable amps and electric guitars. Suddenly, nearly everyone could make a lot of noise and nearly everyone did. It resulted in a vast amounts of new music, including vast amounts of great new music. And even your neighborhood watering hole got better bands because everyone could practice their guitar riffs any time he chose. This is what has been happening in the image making community for the last decade and a half also. These days one could take great still images with a simple point&shoot camera and great quality moving pictures with consumer level product priced in the mid-$300's. (Sony A3000 with a 20 Mp sensor and 1080 24p recording). And the same trends go for the lighting kits, editing suits, stabilizers and lenses. The moment to worry about the amateurs having the "real tools" is way, way in the past.
.
PS. Depending on the region, 4K may arrive sooner than later. Phil Bloom may be able to use the 4K format for reframing the wider shots into 2K but, in the US and wealthier parts of Asia, this is about getting the same shot but with more res. And, if you want to reframe into 4K, you can shoot in 6.

December 21, 2013 at 9:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

2
Reply
DLD

When talkies came along some people thought movies were worse because there was no more Mighty Wurlitzer creating moods. I guess we need to go back to the Mighty Wurlitzer. What we've been missing all these years listening to the actors talking. ;^)

December 21, 2013 at 10:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

1
Reply
Gene

the jackson pollock of film will come about and turn the entire film industry upside down haha

December 22, 2013 at 6:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:45AM

4
Reply
MenAtWork

Pages