Camera of choice shooting raw -documentary

F

flean

Active member
I apologize if my question may sound a bit amateur-ish but what would be your camera of choice (based on your experience in the documentary field ) for a run-and-gun shooting style camera, shooting Raw in a natural light environment, filming landscapes (National Geographic like) but still giving a cinematic look and for a theatrical & broadcast release doc?


No budget for an Alexa or an Epic.
 
I'd recommend the C300. It isn't raw, but with C-Log and the decent codec in the C300 you'll get lots of post latitude and all the advantages of the best affordable doc cam around. Great ergonomics without a rig, small and light (and stealthy), great battery life on small, in-body batteries, lots of record time on cheap and portable CF cards, great available light zoom lenses with stabilization and useful focal ranges. There's no better camera for a documentary at the moment in my opinion, and you will not be disappointed with the image.

If you really, really, really want to shoot raw, then you're looking at either the Red One MX, Scarlet, or BMC. All of those will require quite a few large external batteries, expensive media, considerable hard drive space for footage dumps, larger rigs and more support gear, etc. The image quality advantage will be completely negated by the sheer useability of the C300 in a documentary setting, unless size/weight/storage aren't a concern (in which case are you hiring?).
 
Thanks Stefancolson. I have already a DP but hey...who knows for a future project...you have a reel or website ?
yes, the C300 is probably the best cam out there for doc at the moment and for under 20k.
 
You should look into the Sony F5. I think it'd be a great doco camera. I dislike the images for narrative film, but for doco they'd be great. It shoots raw, and it's design is moreso geared towards run 'n' gun and doco rather than narrative film, at least IMO when compared to say RED or Alexa. It's relatively small and light, you're not compromising on features like the BMCC, and you get raw.
 
I think RAW is a buzzword -- everyone wants to shoot it because it's the in thing to do but really for a documentary project like the one you're describing it's going to be more of a headache than a benefit. Go with the C300. It's definitely the best camera on the market for documentary work, in my opinion.
 
Like Sean, I also question the value of shooting RAW for a documentary... what is the typical shooting ratio on a documentary again?!

You will need some serious data management, backups, not to mention someone skilled and experienced to grade the raw images.

I'd go with a C300 in a heartbeat. If you need 4k then consider the 1DC.
 
Theatrical?

BMC. Dynamic range beats the cams costing 5X as much. With that ratio, you could have a backup cam and shoot two cams simultaneously. You don't have to shoot raw either, unless the shot is of exceptional importance. The Prores and DNxHD are outstanding as well, and these save a lot of disk space. See BMCUser for lots of useful info.
 
mail4joeg said:
Theatrical? BMC. Dynamic range beats the cams costing 5X as much. With that ratio, you could have a backup cam and shoot two cams simultaneously. You don't have to shoot raw either, unless the shot is of exceptional importance. The Prores and DNxHD are outstanding as well, and these save a lot of disk space. See BMCUser for lots of useful info.
Click to expand...

And what happens when you have to shoot on location for longer than two hours? I mean...different strokes for different folks, but for me it'd be an absolute logistical and practical nightmare to shoot a documentary on a camera that doesn't have interchangeable batteries. You're limited to 90 minutes of battery life at best before you have to find AC power or hookup to another external power source. It sounds like a terrible way to make a documentary film to me.
 
I do a few documentaries, I can appreciate that for some subjects shooting RAW might look appealing. There is no question that the C300 is the current darling of "documentary style" television production, which really just means that the image, workflow and cost are in the sweet-spot for a lot of producers, whether it is right for your production is an entirely other issue. I think it is safe to say that any of the true RAW cameras are not going to work very well in a OMB situation, you will really need a cohort/assistant standing-by to manage media, if you have budget for maybe 2 people, a pseudo-DIT and a soundie it opens a lot more possibilities for using different cameras. If I was a little more confident in the workflow I would suggest looking for someone with an Ikonoskop (good luck on that in the U.S.), it is RAW, really compact and opens up the world of 16 and s16 glass. A BMCC could work, but I suspect that after rigging it for off-the-shoulder shooting you might be getting into cost range where there are better solutions. I've read about people using RED1s and Scarlets for doc work but I admit I haven't seen any finished products at this point.
 
Finnegan said:
nightmare to shoot a documentary on a camera that doesn't have interchangeable batteries.
Click to expand...

Ahem. the BMC has an onboard battery - the others dont.

Any doc shooter IMO would be on Vlock batts on a rig, with the BMC you can go unrigged for a couple of grabbed shots - wonderful

S
 
My take on this is that our OP cant afford a Red, so cant afford RAW,

For example a BMC could work but you would need the value of half a Scarlet in HDs

If the doco is 'significant' (read historical value) raw must be the goal - but really its probably not a go-er right now.

Id be looking to test between the C300 and MFT BMC (if available)

My feeling is the prores codec of the BMC is ahead of the C300 but the C300 is ahead on ND, high ISO and potentially simpler builds (or not - IMO the C300 is an ergonomic dog)

One thing.

The metabones speed booster gets zoom options not available on canon, eg a 24-105 with a FF FOV - very handy - that is a significant boon that might birng the FS700 into the picture (or F3?)

rent - test

S
 
I've just spent a day prepping for a Blackmagic Cinema Camera shoot, and I can tell you that there's no way I'd want to use on on a run 'n' gun type doco. At least, given the way I like to work. If you're used to DSLRs, there might only be a few minor inconveniences, but for doco work, I would not recommend it, unless the only aspect you were looking at was price vs picture quality.

I personally don't like the Canon C300, but it gives a decent picture. I guess it depends on what the doco is, and where the doco would be shown as to whether or not you need raw. I would assume though, that the OP has decided raw is of importance in capturing what they are capturing and aren't simply looking for raw 'just because'.

I stand by my suggestion of the Sony F5. Raw if you want it, but if you don't you still have many options for recording. The images I've seen out of the camera don't exactly look like 35mm, and it would not be my go-to camera for shooting narrative - but my exact thoughts when first watching footage from it (in 4K, I might add) was 'this camera would be great for documentaries'. The way the camera works is kinda like a cross between RED and Alexa - small 'modular' body but with a menu system very similar to the Alexa, and an EVF. And the menu is on the operator side. I think it's a great run n gun camera.
 
mail4joeg said:
Theatrical?

BMC. Dynamic range beats the cams costing 5X as much. With that ratio, you could have a backup cam and shoot two cams simultaneously. You don't have to shoot raw either, unless the shot is of exceptional importance. The Prores and DNxHD are outstanding as well, and these save a lot of disk space. See BMCUser for lots of useful info.
Click to expand...

BMC does not offer the same FOV or DOF of 35mm glass, do people actually not care about what difference that makes to the aesthetic of your image? Or is the recording format really all that more important?

I shop by sensor size not the format its recorded in.
 
starcentral said:
BMC does not offer the same FOV or DOF of 35mm glass, do people actually not care about what difference that makes to the aesthetic of your image? Or is the recording format really all that more important?
Click to expand...

I think you way overstate that importance. It's not like you're talking MiniDV vs 2.5k Raw. No one ever walks out of a theater saying, "Well, that was good, but damn, they needed a bigger sensor size." How many docs have been shot with 1/3" sensors? Answer: a s*%t-ton.

That's fine if you want to shop by sensor, but I don't think you're gaining as much as you think you are, especially in the doc arena.
 
starcentral said:
BMC does not offer the same FOV or DOF of 35mm glass, do people actually not care about what difference that makes to the aesthetic of your image? Or is the recording format really all that more important?

I shop by sensor size not the format its recorded in.
Click to expand...

Plenty of great stuff shot on Super 16 - brilliant cinematography work too. Sensor size isn't everything. That's not to say that recording format is everything, but if I had to choose between a 5D and Blackmagic, I'd go for the Blackmagic every time, regardless of it's many shortcomings. The picture out of it is simply better. In fact, you could potentially adapt the m4/3 version of the BMCC to PL mount lenses and use Ultra 16s. You'd have to crop the vignette, but you'd still get ~2k of useable image area, assuming shooting raw... HD at the very least.

The BMCC is far from the greatest camera out there, as I say I've been prepping it for a shoot and there are a lot of things I don't like about it, but you can't really argue with the picture out of it - if the only thing you're looking at is picture quality, it's unbeatable in the price range. I still wouldn't recommend it for a doco, at least a run n gun one.
 
Gary Huff said:
I think you way overstate that importance. It's not like you're talking MiniDV vs 2.5k Raw. No one ever walks out of a theater saying, "Well, that was good, but damn, they needed a bigger sensor size." How many docs have been shot with 1/3" sensors? Answer: a s*%t-ton.

That's fine if you want to shop by sensor, but I don't think you're gaining as much as you think you are, especially in the doc arena.
Click to expand...

The point is there is a difference, and as long as you are aware of it then all is good... the other point is there are FAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR too many threads comparing BMC and raw as the holy grail because its only $3000 but A.) most people don't need raw, B.) most people have no idea the challenge of shooting 2x crop.

As for the S16 comments, that is all true except those docs and/or feature films were also shot using s16 glass. Unfortunately due to the sensor size of the BMC you will not able to use S16 glass.. so again, my post is more preemptive to warn people about what they might not know.

Too many talkers here on DVX and not enough people who have actually shot with anything. Over on another thread BMC is being compared to the F35, it's friggin ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
A.) most people don't need raw,
Click to expand...

Agreed. And not only that, but they can't afford it (drive space, processing time, ect.)

B.) most people have no idea the challenge of shooting 2x crop.
Click to expand...

The BMC is a bit more of a challenge than shooting, say, the GH2 (whose crop isn't as severe), but I had no issues with that. I think the crop issue is overstated.
 
Gary Huff said:
The BMC is a bit more of a challenge than shooting, say, the GH2 (whose crop isn't as severe), but I had no issues with that. I think the crop issue is overstated.
Click to expand...

The crop is just awkward. It is easily the kookiest thing about the BMCC. If there is one thing the imaging world really doesn't need it is additional sensor formats, but here we are.

I also think that uncompressed raw is dumb, but as everyone should know by now RED evidently owns compressed RAW in perpetuity (some sarcasm).
 
LyleGorch said:
I also think that uncompressed raw is dumb, but as everyone should know by now RED evidently owns compressed RAW in perpetuity (some sarcasm).
Click to expand...

I don't think it's dumb, but as the BMCC gets more out into the world, I think people are in for a shock. I suspect that most will be shooting ProRes 4444 and give up the 2.5k. In fact, if I could get ProRes 2.5k 4444, I'd never shoot Raw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top