Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...

Cory Braun said:
Why is that doing it wrong? Why is it wrong to use smaller, less power consuming, battery powered, LEDs and going up to 3200 (or higher) if it's still a great, clean image? I don't think it's wrong at all. I think these cameras that provide clean high ISOs, are allowing DP's to be more creative with lighting, with options that we were not previously capable of.
Click to expand...

Come on Cory, you know the attitude he was getting at. He wasn't literally saying if you go to that ISO you're doing it wrong. He's just talking about the mentality/attitude that some have and the lack of understanding there is today in what it means to shoot or light a scene with or without sensitivity and a large sensor.
 
Well, either this thing records RAW DNG or does not. But if it is RAW DNG as they claimed, there is no such thing as unchangable baked in color temperature. I am assuming that the camera records a referential color temperature for each shot and that could be to what Mr. Brawley is referring.
 
regnaleb said:
He asked how to shoot WIDE on the BMD CC. The Tokina 11-16mm equivalent will be like a standard 24-35mm on this sensor: not so wide. 8mm will be like 18mm.
Click to expand...

Depends on your needs I guess. Using the 12mm of the Tokina to get somewhere around the 24mm equivalent on a 5D is more then wide enough for most normal things.
 
snowleopard said:
Don't really disagree for the most part. I'll just be a little surprised if the BMC siphons off that much sales from Canon, that's all.
Click to expand...

Fair enough snowleopard. I actually think that this will impact "DSLR Indie-Film Maker specific" sales for Canon. (Most Canon sales for 60d, 5dMIII is still for photography....) I do think that this is going to be MONDO-HUGE for all of the little groups like us. I am NOT saying that people will ***SELL*** their Canon equipment, and if they do, I think that is a mistake at this stage. I think there is still a place for DSLRs and I think that it will continue just fine. I didn't start with a $3K camera, and I think that the 500 dollar Hacked GH2 is tough to deny (along with many other cams out there.)

I think low light performance will be one of the most common uses for myself for the NEX5N or GH2 or whatever else.....

That said....I think the 5dMIII has some pretty clear cut applications if this cam delivers what it appears to have under the hood.

5dMIII/D800 (similar cost)
-Full Frame goodness for those who love the flavor
-Low light performance for situations where light isn't in the shooter's control and there isn't much of it
-Tight quarters, super wide angle needed
......hmmmm.....maybe someone else can think of another?

As far as I can puzzle together, .....I'd rather shoot this cam in every other situation.
But those are situations that happen in "Indie-ville" all the time, so....my DSLR stuff will stay in the bag, they just get a really wicked play-pen partner that shoots 12bit RAW.....drool.

Anywho...I do think Canon will lose sales....but maybe I'm wrong?
 
KyleProhaska said:
Come on Cory, you know the attitude he was getting at. He wasn't literally saying if you go to that ISO you're doing it wrong. He's just talking about the mentality/attitude that some have and the lack of understanding there is today in what it means to shoot or light a scene with or without sensitivity and a large sensor.
Click to expand...

I guess I misunderstood, but it was a pretty concluding statement that he made.
 
Cory Braun said:
Why is that doing it wrong? Why is it wrong to use smaller, less power consuming, battery powered, LEDs and going up to 3200 (or higher) if it's still a great, clean image? I don't think it's wrong at all. I think these cameras that provide clean high ISOs, are allowing DP's to be more creative with lighting, with options that we were not previously capable of.
Click to expand...

Cory for the win.

Telling someone what their workflow or shooting style should be is presumptuous at best. You want to watch a man not light a set with a million watts of light? Watch any film from Don Siegel - you might know the work of his student, who also tends to under light - Clint Eastwood.

Cory said it quite nicely - if a camera allows you to shoot under more challenging lighting conditions, then it's a positive.
 
From smallest to largest, equal Angle of View at the same distance

Magic Cam - 11mm
GH2 - 13(ish)mm
APS-C - 16mm
Full Frame MKII (recorded 16x9 area) - 24mm

At the same distance, each of these will have similar angle of view, but will look VERY different in regards to composition compression etc.

Maybe I need to start an info thread... in a new sub forum or something...
 
jdv said:
You want to watch a man not light a set with a million watts of light? Watch any film from Don Siegel - you might know the work of his student, who also tends to under light - Clint Eastwood.
Click to expand...

Tom Stern lights Eastwood's films.
 
Cory Braun said:
Why is that doing it wrong? Why is it wrong to use smaller, less power consuming, battery powered, LEDs and going up to 3200 (or higher) if it's still a great, clean image? I don't think it's wrong at all. I think these cameras that provide clean high ISOs, are allowing DP's to be more creative with lighting, with options that we were not previously capable of.
Click to expand...

This times a million. Having a cam that has good low-light capabilities expands your artistic options, it doesn't narrow them. A good low-light camera still allows you to throw as much light as you like, but it also allows you to do with less. That's quite aside from budgetary issues and cheap lights. If I have a choice between two cams equal in all respects, but one can do with less light, guess which one I would choose. It's insane that anyone would object to this.

You pick the right tool for the job. If I need to shoot in tight dark spaces where I can't bring in much in the way of lights, I'm going to look for a good low-light capable camera, period.
 
"Tom Stern lights Eastwood's films."

Clint Eastwood is a director - as was Don Segal, Eastwood's acknowledged teacher. Obviously, they hired DPs who follow their sensibilities....

And nicely put Oldcorpse.
 
To be clear I'm not attacking the need or time to use a camera with high iso and little or few lights...just the overuse of it and the assumption that because you can ratchet up that ISO rating, that you don't need to worry about properly lighting something, whether that means you're only using a single light bulb or the street lamp above you.

I prefer natural light and I find lighting up is much easier then lighting down, so the super sensitive chips out there actually make it harder for me. Negative lighting to me is far harder...it's just something I need to learn.
 
OldCorpse said:
This times a million. Having a cam that has good low-light capabilities expands your artistic options, it doesn't narrow them. A good low-light camera still allows you to throw as much light as you like, but it also allows you to do with less. That's quite aside from budgetary issues and cheap lights. If I have a choice between two cams equal in all respects, but one can do with less light, guess which one I would choose. It's insane that anyone would object to this.

You pick the right tool for the job. If I need to shoot in tight dark spaces where I can't bring in much in the way of lights, I'm going to look for a good low-light capable camera, period.
Click to expand...

True dat.

Remember that this is NOT (as far as we can tell at this stage) THAT CHOICE.

The choice is (includes), lights + .....:
1. Cam with 12bit RAW, average to poor low light performance (for $3K) (Black Camera)
2. Cam with 8bit 4:2:0, with good/great low light performance (for $3K) (5dMIII)

There are many other options of course that include spend more money for FS100, F3, EPIC, etc, etc....but you get the picture.

At this stage, we're all going to have to ***CHOOSE*** better colorspace (RAW) or better low-light performance (NOT that you can't use both at the appropriate moment/shot...) But that is the current state of things. (I weeeeeee bit better than only 1 week ago btw, lol)

Cheers!
 
OldCorpse said:
If I have a choice between two cams equal in all respects, but one can do with less light, guess which one I would choose. It's insane that anyone would object to this.
Click to expand...

But you don't have that choice. Lots of people have made low-light capability the king and to hell with an otherwise lack of image fidelity. And, let's be real here: a lot of people are jumping on the low-light bandwagon because they don't want to light at all.

And if you'd pick 3200 and above ISO over RAW, you need to have your head examined.
 
KyleProhaska said:
His tweet was:

Pedro Guimaraes,SOC ‏ @m3pedro

The black magic camera has a really bad rolling shutter performance.... FYI
Click to expand...
To my question from where he had got that, he just tweeted again:

« with the working cameras at NAB booth »

Other opinions from NAB? I'm wondering how does it compare with a DSLR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top