Other: Why did it take so long?

JMProductions said:
Oh behave yourself. A few wobbly shots in a largely professionaly shot movie does not make a professional film making tool. Oh and to finish my rant SI is not a video camera. (and costs a bundle)


*I just checked Act of Valor. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/technical Come on if they decided on using the 5D then they wanted a certain video documentary look. You don't use Panavision lenses if your cash strapped. Silly...
Click to expand...

Oh, come on man. Welcome to the forums. Now start acting less the age of the amount of posts you have contributed. If you want to bash cameras and call this or that professional or not, there are certain forums for that and it has a color in its name. Here's why Hollywood doesn't use the AF100. It's because they don't need to. They have studio financing to pick what they want to shoot on. But yet, they still strap 5d's to helmets, car fenders, motorcycles, and yes, even big ol' rigs. That's just the Mk2. So when I say INCREASING use in Hollywood, I mean INCREASING their use with the likes of the 1Dc, c300, c500 and even the mk3.
Act of Valor had maybe 80% shot in HDSLR's and the rest was FILM, not Alexa, not RED. No turn to TV programing. I could list countless productions using this tech. But I won't because I'm 901 years old now.
It would be cordial of you to drop an apology to Mr. Green by PM'ing him. He is one of this forums resource of info that a majority of users here value. And he is right, there are no excuses anymore. The tools are there to STORY TELL. If you can't do that with an Fs100, AF100, MK2 or 3, C300, then you won't be able to do that with the Alexa or the RED.
 
JMProductions said:
Utter nonsense you clearly haven't been aware of the last 5-10 years in Digital Cinema. The RED camera is in many ways producing an image that surpasses film. Why can't people with this tired opinion show me the blockbuster movies made on 'Video cameras' while 50% of the movies I watch in the Cinema these days are RED or Alexa. Red is not a Video camera, Alexa is not a video camera, the Black magic camera is not a video camera. The great thing about this camera is in theory this tired argument is redundent if people can't produce a cinematic image from this camera then yes NOW its time to give up and blame the operator.
Click to expand...

While you may have some points, the way you go about presenting them is kind of off-putting. Maybe try a different approach?
 
Razz16mm said:
SI2k shoots Cineform raw. It is not technically a video camera. By video I mean recording to an encoded YUV or RGB video format. Raw digital cinema is a fundamentally different medium and mindset from video, from acquisition to post software and workflows. The only common factor is both begin with a digital sensor.
The main reason practical raw motion cameras have not been in the broader market before now is the lack of compact recording media with capacities and transfer speeds necessary to handle the data.
Click to expand...

Been trying to point this out to people, I think it still gets lost. Although OP is being crass and rude, his point about the Magic Cam being a Cinema camera,in line with those other Cinema cameras, is right.
 
personally i think that they overused 5d2 in "Act of Valor"...it was necessary for POV , HOTOL jumps and thigh places...
but for classical shots it was to soft and mushy and parts shot on KODAK just jump on you with master quality ....
but this is GO,GO,GO AWSOME , kind a movie (same as CRANK 2: High Voltage ) so perfect quality image is secondary its more about crazy stunts....and i would hate to see film die its best medium for movie art , not digital ...
 
JMProductions said:
Utter nonsense you clearly haven't been aware of the last 5-10 years in Digital Cinema. The RED camera is in many ways producing an image that surpasses film. Why can't people with this tired opinion show me the blockbuster movies made on 'Video cameras' while 50% of the movies I watch in the Cinema these days are RED or Alexa. Red is not a Video camera, Alexa is not a video camera, the Black magic camera is not a video camera. The great thing about this camera is in theory this tired argument is redundent if people can't produce a cinematic image from this camera then yes NOW its time to give up and blame the operator.
Click to expand...

If you need the comfort zone of shooting RAW then of course you will require a camera that is RAW capable but just because you want to redefine a video camera as "other" does not make it so. I'll give one guy his choice, RED, Alexa, CineAlta, video camera of choice. If he's not competent he will deliver high end crap. If he's competent he can take a Canon Optura and deliver something compelling. I've used all of the cameras mentioned above and I've never found a "pro filmic look" button on any of them. It's just a guess but I think most who are waiting for that mystical "filmic look' camera are going to be disappointed with the results they might get regardless of the hardware.

There are an increasing number of young DP's who have used low cost DSLR's to open doors where bigger budget productions are available. You will find most producers are just frightened of a camera that cost's less than a good audio recorder. As these low cost cameras prove out as B roll and crash cams, you will find that more established DP's will realize they can offer advantages and their employment in bigger budget productions will increase.

It's never the camera. It's always the guy holding the camera.
 
Kholi said:
Been trying to point this out to people, I think it still gets lost. Although OP is being crass and rude, his point about the Magic Cam being a Cinema camera,in line with those other Cinema cameras, is right.
Click to expand...
Yes he had a valid point about the BMDC. But Barry also has a valid point about all the others. For lot's of us users, thinking the BMDC is somehow gonna magically transform your skills from the AF100 or so is quite a wrong way of thinking. Getting that "13 stops" will help, if you know what to do with 13 stops. But the BMDC is not going to change your lighting ratios, the temperature of the sun in kelvin or your hot light. And it's not gonna compose a shot for you. If you cant tell a story on the AF100, you probably won't be able to on the BMDC. Of course we want RAW and 13 stops and at a low price. It's here with the BMDC. But to state that all the other cameras are just not professional? Not a single user outside of Mr. Brawley has used this camera. Let's see how many adjust to an EOS mount on a less than m4/3's sensor with very little built in tools and possibly shooting RAW motion capture for the very first time?
I'm gonna most likely buy the BMDC, but I do NOT expect it to make my level of skill any better. In fact, I expect more post and more disk space on top of any other attribute. Barry point is that there is really no excuse anymore not to get your project of the ground. You consider your budget, the look and feel, and pick 1 of many cameras available and get shooting and work within the limits of the camera and your skills.
 
I'm not disagreeing with Barry at all. There'll be a lot of disappointed purchasers but that's just how it's gonna go.

ONly commented on JM's [rudely stated] points.
 
that point'n'shoot look will confused some people to try to use it as that ....and they will be most disappointed of all ...
others are those who think that is camera problem that they dont get good image not their lack of skill ...
and last but not least are one who will try to do all the job with BMD and they need more (faster fps , no rolling shutter,etc) ...
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Been trying to point this out to people, I think it still gets lost. Although OP is being crass and rude, his point about the Magic Cam being a Cinema camera,in line with those other Cinema cameras, is right.
Click to expand...

I've heard that many times but we'll just have to agree to disagree.:thumbsup:

It acquires with a sensor and it outputs to a file which equals digital acquisition or video. I think some people just don't wanna say they are shooting video so they redefine the terms. Cool if you like it like that but I can't buy it.
 
It's not the camera and it's not even the guy holding the camera. It's about the story, the script, the direction, the actors, the set design, the sound,...As far as I'm concerned good filmmaking is not possible without the HARD work of several people.

JMProductions, I don't want to be rude, but that's the tone you seem to have set in this thread... It sounds as if you are trying to justify lack of success due to not having access to the right technology. But the technology has always been there (whether film or video). To name a few, 28 Days Later, Crank, Monsters or The Raid: Redemption are all feature length movies that give the audience a true 'cinematic' experience and where shot on 'video' cameras. Right tool for the right job (including artistic as well as budget considerations).

I celebrate the arrival of this amazing camera, but using it is no guarantee of success. Talent and hard work (and a bit of luck) are a better bet.

 
dracalat said:
It's not the camera and it's not even the guy holding the camera. It's about the story, the script, the direction, the actors, the set design, the sound,...As far as I'm concerned good filmmaking is not possible without the HARD work of several people.

JMProductions, I don't want to be rude, but that's the tone you seem to have set in this thread... It sounds as if you are trying to justify lack of success due to not having access to the right technology. But the technology has always been there (whether film or video). To name a few, 28 Days Later, Crank, Monsters or The Raid: Redemption are all feature length movies that give the audience a true 'cinematic' experience and where shot on 'video' cameras. Right tool for the right job (including artistic as well as budget considerations).

I celebrate the arrival of this amazing camera, but using it is no guarantee of success. Talent and hard work (and a bit of luck) are a better bet.
Click to expand...
Not a +1. More like a +2!
 
dracalat said:
It's not the camera and it's not even the guy holding the camera. It's about the story, the script, the direction, the actors, the set design, the sound,...As far as I'm concerned good filmmaking is not possible without the HARD work of several people.

JMProductions, I don't want to be rude, but that's the tone you seem to have set in this thread... It sounds as if you are trying to justify lack of success due to not having access to the right technology. But the technology has always been there (whether film or video). To name a few, 28 Days Later, Crank, Monsters or The Raid: Redemption are all feature length movies that give the audience a true 'cinematic' experience and where shot on 'video' cameras. Right tool for the right job (including artistic as well as budget considerations).

I celebrate the arrival of this amazing camera, but using it is no guarantee of success. Talent and hard work (and a bit of luck) are a better bet.
Click to expand...

word
 
JMProductions said:
I beg to differ. The only Cameras that have produced a pro level filmic image (and that is what I personally have wanted) have been in the 25,000+ price range. If RED had a $3,000 camera I believe we wouldn't be having this conversation and this thread wouldn't exist. If you want to name more than 10 movies in the last 5 years which have been made on a sub 5,000 camera that look in anyway decent I will agree with you. I guarantee there will be a bunch of successful indie flicks that use this camera in the next 5. Anyway you've derailed this thread now I expect. Any potential lessons offically unlearned.
Click to expand...

Heh, I guess I wasted my life then. I started out with 3/4" decks and one-tube cameras. With your attitude I would have probably yelled in frustration and should have given up.
No, I kept on and researched while I was earning and making a living at what I loved doing. I even shot on film - the horror!!!!!
It is a riot watching you younger guys!!! Keep it coming!!!!!
 
Chaos123x said:
If you have big hollywood budget why shoot digital when you can shoot on Film?
Click to expand...

Film is beautiful, and it has some interesting characteristics. It also has some benefits, like how the highlights roll off, and you can push the film a good bit during the DI.

High end digital cinema cameras have benefits too. You don't have to wait for dailies to view the footage. It is quicker to offload the footage from a card or drive than it is to reload film. You don't have to worry about things like hairs getting stuck in the aperture gate. Hard drive space is more economical than thousands of feet of 35mm film, especially accounting for the costs and time of doing a DI. 35mm camera rigs are often more cumbersome than Red One rigs, and now the Epic is smaller than a Red One. That potentially means less crew to shuttle stuff around.
 
HVXguy said:
Heh, I guess I wasted my life then. I started out with 3/4" decks and one-tube cameras. With your attitude I would have probably yelled in frustration and should have given up.
No, I kept on and researched while I was earning and making a living at what I loved doing. I even shot on film - the horror!!!!!
It is a riot watching you younger guys!!! Keep it coming!!!!!
Click to expand...

Hey now, the kids are alright; sometimes we even shoot on film.
 
Since the bar/standard for resolution on the consumer electronic level was relatively recently placed at 1080p (I personally though not expertly acceptable when viewing on a large screen in the movie theater) I think digital products at the consumer level finally has reached that same level. Just a few years before that we had 720p, which I think most would agree would rarely be acceptable on a big screen. I personally think the inexpensive mass produced technology just wasn't there. The development of the BMDCC to me is a convergence of all of the various technological elements that go into producing a product which could be enjoyed on the big screen. For instance I just bought an SSD a year ago and the same drive is twice as big for the same price of around $200. I don't think anyone even made a 512 GB version back then (maybe they did but it would have been like $5000) and the average consumer would not have considered one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top