Given that you're swapping a stills/video camera for a purely video one I would advocate making the switch to lenses that are better suited to that purpose. And I would seriously consider the Veydra m43 primes that have just been announced. Superb build quality, colour matched, lovely lovely lenses all round and really not that expensive. In that scenario your lenses are your big purchase and you simply upgrade the body as and when the time comes. The BMPCC is so cheap anyway that you're in great shape that way. Blackmagic look to have committed a good ten years or so to cameras so we can fully expect a second gen BMPCC at some point. With those lenses you'd have a wonderful package for an incredibly low cost.

Well that's a little unfair. He's providing content for free and seems like the kind of chap who would supply an ungraded version if you asked nicely. REALLY nicely.

On another nite the grain intensity is fully diallable in film convert so that's actually wrong.

I think you're right though that it's hard to judge camera tests when shots are heavily graded but most end users will be doing exactly this and slapping luts on. Like everything else in our business, it'a all becoming commoditised.

But hey let's bash a guy for giving us free content, he probably should have paid us to watch it come to think of it.

Um, okay! I've actually shot a feature on alexa and countless promos on all flavours of RED, which will only come out as bragging but having sat in the grading suite for long hours scrutinising the footage I do feel I'm qualified!

True, that is fair I guess. Transformers... ergh!

Anyway, I guess, in amongst all this is the point that shooting on film isn't just about comparing sensors with celluloid, there's a load more going on which is still special, still magical and still worth preserving because it's value goes beyond simple pixel maths and resolution charts. Worth cherishing.

I'm kind of stunned by the comments here. Why give a guy shit for rationally expressing why he, and he alone, shot on film. It's absolute crap that digital looks like film when you put a few filters on. And I'd be surprised if many commenting here had ever shot on celluloid themselves. Not for me to launch into a debate about the aesthetic qualities of film but my own preferences stem from how exteriors, human faces and slow motion are rendered. Digital can't do it the same way. Yet.

Above and beyond all that tho is an elevation if story and filmmaking over and above the wretchedly mechanical repetitive process that it can easily become. I you're shooting film everyone on set steps it up a notch. You see that pile of cans slowly dwindling and you hear money ticking through the gate. That's when it gets really special. And if that isn't what you want out of filmmaking then I genuinely feel for you.

The cinematography is beautiful but makes me sad it couldn't be done on film. Snow and water in slow mo on film are so gorgeous for action sports. Personally hated the VO and the shell the action was put in but that's a small gripe from someone who used to make ski films