puredrifting
Major Contributor
^What was implied is that it is a near-waste of money (even $400 for a clunky blade) to add-on a box that yields little qualitative difference to the C100 output. It works when wired together. Is this still misleading? Working professionally will certainly put capital purchasing at the top of the priority sheet..
In some people's opinion, a near waste of money. For our clients, the Blade has been a decisive win-win that has paid for itself dozens of times over the past couple of years. Clients love being handed Prores HQ files and really dislike weird .MXF formats that typically cannot be viewed without knowledge, specific software, codecs and utilities. SInce the C100 has basically a useless VF, having the nice, relatively sharp Blade screen to compose and focus with has been a huge win. If I am not shooting for clients, like this upcoming weekend, shooting some footage for our own internal project, yes, the Blade will not be along for the ride as we are shooting fast moving, handheld footage of subjects doing sports and having the extra weight, cables and hassle are not helpful in capturing the shots we need efficiently. As far as Michael's needs, I contend that if he is going to shoot green screen or wants to really lean harder on the footage for grading, 4:2:2 10-bit capture is superior. If not, skip the Blade, I agree.
