So it changes the EF mount of the new light weight zooms to PL. I'm missing how that helps the c100 EF mount, If theirs a solution to get PL lenses on C100s I would very much so appreciate a link
C100: BMC vs C100 vs Scarlet
- Thread starter RZE
- Start date
So it changes the EF mount of the new light weight zooms to PL. I'm missing how that helps the c100 EF mount, If theirs a solution to get PL lenses on C100s I would very much so appreciate a link
How about?
http://bit.ly/YAvRF8
http://bit.ly/YAvRF8
Finally got my hands on a BMC, its a piece of crap all in all. The color is great the dynamic range is great but the aliasing is god awful. With the aliasing, I would never use it even on remotely serious jobs. The c100 is a better camera, though a single image may look better on BMC, a scene that has wide depth of field, minimal motion, and contrast on horizontal lines will have rainbow non sense. The BMC was remarkable in that I was able to overexpose by 4 stops and still get a great image out of it. But the aliasing renders the camera useless. Its not worth $2,000. Red has everything the BMC has but sharper with no aliasing, on the other hand, c100 is simpler and easier to operate.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
Its not really an issue in my opinion.
I'll post some aliasing destroyed prores stills later, but I didn't do a full-fledge because (no offense but) the level of discussion here didn't warrant the effort. I shot with the BMC all weekend and compared the footage to my other material shot on RED and C100.
The BMC looks amazing, but I would never take the risk of using it on a budgeted production that I'm responsible for. I'm not the first to make this claim check out bmcuser. Once a filter comes out for the sensor to fix this problem, then the camera will be great, but until then it will ruin a couple shots in your production. Its not even like the 5d, you get aliasing on fleece like surfaces or an high contrast horizontal line, some times its out of control. If you shoot nothing but hand held, thin depth of field you won't see it but if you shoot tripod still shots with wide depth of field its destroy the shot.
Pure hyperbole, imo.
The fact that I've seen tons of stunning footage and even a great looking music video is solid evidence the camera is not useless or crap. Does it have faults and/or flaws? Yes, of course, it has an Alexa like image for $3,000....one can't expect it to be perfect all around at such a revolutionary price. I believe talented individuals will work around its flaws and accept them at times if they need to in order to make beautiful footage. Can't say I'd recommend it for a job, but for me I think I can work with it. I can't wait to get mine, because I know it won't be at all useless to me, crap and definitely will be worth well above $2,000. The software alone is worth almost that much.
From the direct comparisons against the Alexa and the Red Epic I saw, once scaled to 1080p, the BMCC was vastly sharper than the Red or Alexa, due to the lack of an OLPF (though admittedly I'd prefer one and would probably soften the footage in post), so if your end product is the web at 1080p it seems that the Red's 4k sharpness advantage will cease to exist.
I'd love to have a Red, but they are just too costly compared to the BMCC right now due to Red's highly overpriced proprietary nature. I'd love the C100 for its low light and pretty good dynamic range and sharpness/detail compared to the DSLRs, but I've experience first hand the magic of 12-bit RAW and it's wonderful. If the C100 was around $4,000 I would seriously consider it. It's overpriced for 8-bit and no 60p, has some great features, but not enough to make it $6,500, imo. Canon just thinks way too highly of their products. At $6,500 I'd probably just go ahead and save up a little extra for Sony F3L instead.
My colorist actually prefers alexa over red. And bmc has alexa like qualities.
I do get aliasing and moire on the bmc. But its nothing to be alarmed about. I think you get more on prores than Raw. You learn how to use something and avoid it's weakness. Funny how it is compared to cameras twice its price
I do get aliasing and moire on the bmc. But its nothing to be alarmed about. I think you get more on prores than Raw. You learn how to use something and avoid it's weakness. Funny how it is compared to cameras twice its price
Tell your colorist to stop comparing Red with cameras twice the price!
dustylense
Veteran
I am one of those guys that sold the BMC and went with the C100. Don't regret it for a second. The BMC has plenty of moire if you tend to shoot wide. I shoot lot's of wides and was bitten many times with the Moire of the BMC. Moire that is almost worse than the Canon 7D or 5Dmk2. The C100 is clean through and through. The second part of the decision is the fact that on the EF BMC you are super limited to ANY wide lenses, not to mention speed of the lenses. Thirdly is was an ergonomics and powering issue for me. Followed by workflow. Then by issues the camera has/had with flange. Support for the camera if it goes down.
I shot a relatively small project with the BMC and chose to go RAW. Storage took up 2.5 TB's of disk space to archive.
The C100 just fit my bill better than the BMC. When the BMC hit an image without issues, it's gorgeous! But it will moire the crap out of other images. It's 2013, enough with moire!
I shot a relatively small project with the BMC and chose to go RAW. Storage took up 2.5 TB's of disk space to archive.
The C100 just fit my bill better than the BMC. When the BMC hit an image without issues, it's gorgeous! But it will moire the crap out of other images. It's 2013, enough with moire!
I've had both. Sold the C100. Right now have the BMCC.
If I had a choice, I would prefer the Alexa XT to both actually. But it has a pretty BIG flaw too. MSRP: $69,600 to $103,600. Lol.
I almost got into RED but then I decided I wanted a camera, not a religion.
The C100 makes the most logistical sense out of RED BMCC and other cinema cameras. Although I'm not really attracted to the image, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Practically speaking, it makes way more sense than the BMCC. For me though, I'm interested in cinema, film, movies etc etc. The EOS cameras do have an overall pleasing image... but it just doesn't feel right for a short or feature film. I just can't get into it. For events, documentary and other run and gun projects... this camera is the ideal I think.
For a feature film... the only other camera outside the BMCC I'd be interested in using, would have to be the Alexa- if I was privileged with such a choice. It honestly feels the most film-like / cinematic to me. RED is far superior in many ways as well... with a super35 sensor, much higher resolution... but I love the image out of the BMCC way more... it feels "right", is the only way I can put it. When I see BMCC footage compared to EOS, Sony FXX series cameras and RED... I gravitate more to the look of the BMCC, then RED, then Canon and then Sony (with shooting a narrative in mind).
For a feature film... the only other camera outside the BMCC I'd be interested in using, would have to be the Alexa- if I was privileged with such a choice. It honestly feels the most film-like / cinematic to me. RED is far superior in many ways as well... with a super35 sensor, much higher resolution... but I love the image out of the BMCC way more... it feels "right", is the only way I can put it. When I see BMCC footage compared to EOS, Sony FXX series cameras and RED... I gravitate more to the look of the BMCC, then RED, then Canon and then Sony (with shooting a narrative in mind).
I agree. It has that secret sauce so few cameras do.
We've squabbled some, but I must say that you were right. The BMC is amazing quality but until they figure out the moire issue, it is like the girl of you dreams, but with a std. Some guys would take that deal, but I'm not me.
Also the look is not nearly as impressive as how far you can overexpose, its jaw dropping. Anything that is not 100% clipped can be brought down to where ever with detail without washing out.
dustylense
Veteran
Like I've said, there is NO one perfect camera for everyone. There are also lots of cameras to choose from. It's usually best to find the balance that YOU need for YOUR work. Not what other people say or think is "the best".
The BMC is a cool camera. Hopefully it opens some doors for others to follow. But I like that analogy of "it is like the girl of you dreams, but with a std". I found it had a few STD's. Or at least enough of them to not continue dating her.
The C100 "for me" alleviates lots of the BMC's shortcomings. I'm really enjoying shooting with it. If I need something bigger and badder, I'll rent it. We can argue about cameras until we die. It will not change. This one vs that one. Just pick one that feels right for now and shoot something. None of them will make you better. Some of them just make it easier. I happen to like built in ND, waveform, peaking, awesome low light, XLR, great battery, good ergonomics (C100 excels at that), good service support, and an image that pleases the eye (eye of the beholder).
Some people like blue, some people like yellow. For the BMC, I'll wait for version 2.0 or until the moire is curbed. I can always rent one if I feel I need it.
The BMC is a cool camera. Hopefully it opens some doors for others to follow. But I like that analogy of "it is like the girl of you dreams, but with a std". I found it had a few STD's. Or at least enough of them to not continue dating her.
The C100 "for me" alleviates lots of the BMC's shortcomings. I'm really enjoying shooting with it. If I need something bigger and badder, I'll rent it. We can argue about cameras until we die. It will not change. This one vs that one. Just pick one that feels right for now and shoot something. None of them will make you better. Some of them just make it easier. I happen to like built in ND, waveform, peaking, awesome low light, XLR, great battery, good ergonomics (C100 excels at that), good service support, and an image that pleases the eye (eye of the beholder).
Some people like blue, some people like yellow. For the BMC, I'll wait for version 2.0 or until the moire is curbed. I can always rent one if I feel I need it.
squig
Veteran
I've found the whole BMC hysteria quite amusing, all that hype for a camera with a little sensor and circa 2008 rolling shutter and moire.
I was figuring out how much disk space I need to cut and backup my feature, recording everything to a ninja Prores 442HQ I need 16 terabytes! Thankfully at todays prices I can get all the drives I need for only $1200. If I was shooting RAW it would be thousands more so a BMC works out costing the same or more than a C100.
I don't know why anyone would need more than than 1075 lines of C100 resolution, I've done good work with 700 lines on the 5D but it is a bit too soft for my liking. I've had the opportunity to grade some c-log footage myself and I have no complaints about the filmic quality of the image from the C100, it's just the price and slomo no go that's been putting me off.
I'm betting on an FS200 and C200 @ NAB with a $1000 C100 price drop.
I was figuring out how much disk space I need to cut and backup my feature, recording everything to a ninja Prores 442HQ I need 16 terabytes! Thankfully at todays prices I can get all the drives I need for only $1200. If I was shooting RAW it would be thousands more so a BMC works out costing the same or more than a C100.
I don't know why anyone would need more than than 1075 lines of C100 resolution, I've done good work with 700 lines on the 5D but it is a bit too soft for my liking. I've had the opportunity to grade some c-log footage myself and I have no complaints about the filmic quality of the image from the C100, it's just the price and slomo no go that's been putting me off.
I'm betting on an FS200 and C200 @ NAB with a $1000 C100 price drop.
Last edited:
