No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Hugh Sweeney (Huey)

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:13 pm

No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 2:22 pm

Hi Folks,

Just looking for a little advice here (and perhaps some piece of mind). Like a lot of you on here I was hoping to get my hands on a 4K last summer. (I know, what was I thinking?! :cry: ) Anyway, I was in fairly early with a deposit with leading UK supplier and believing that 'shipping in July' was actually gonna happen I planned to do a few small commercial films with it. I'm not a full time filmmaker but I do a certain amount of product / fashion photography and recently I've started doing video for my clients and plan to move more into this side of things. I also make my own films.

I have to produce a bigger film for a client starting in about 2 weeks and I guess I'll just have to do it on my trusty 60D. But just seeing that some BMCC's are available from the supplier (that I have my deposit with) I'm half tempted to go for one. Especially as the price is dropped quite a bit and I can also claim vat. I'd probably go for the ef mount as I have Canon glass. But then there's the 5D3? which can film raw (not as large or nicely as the BMCC) but that lovely full frame that doesn't crop everything like the BMCC will. Plus I can use it for the photography side of things too. Before you suggest that I've already answered my own question please bear in mind that I love the look of the BMCC and really want to get into the raw workflow as compositing and colour correction is something I love.

So what do you think I should go for?

Hugh
Offline
User avatar

georgetsirogiannis

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:51 pm
  • Location: Greece

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 2:30 pm

We're almost in the same situation! I have a 60D, I preordered the 4K and now I'm going to change to BMCC.

And I would definitely suggest you get the BMCC for film work. If you can get a superwide lens to compensate for the small sensor size, it's all set.

ML RAW is too experimental, meaning that it's not supported by Canon and any damage to the camera is not covered by the warranty. I don't think it's a system you can rely on for longer works.

Take advantage of the "native" RAW on the BMCC, the beautiful dynamic range, but most of all, the incredible color science of BM. There's a certain way colors are rendered on the BMCC that one can compare only to high-end cameras like the Alexa. You won't find that on 5DMkIII.

You also have the advantage of high quality ProRes recording in case you don't have as much storage as needed for RAW. You definitely don't have this on the 5D.
Website: georgetsirogiannis.com
Offline

Christian Horne

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:34 am

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 2:33 pm

Speaking from my own experience I would opt for the BMCC, as I did. The RAW hack on the Canons is just that, a hack which is fine for personal use and private movie making but I would't use a hacked camera for a professional paying job. Philip Bloom has some excellent blog's that could be useful in your decision as he uses DLSR heavily in is work. The BMCC is a Video camera right out of the box and I use it for professional use without any rigging, only an external battery.
Offline
User avatar

Hugh Sweeney (Huey)

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 2:47 pm

Thanks for answers guys, George, using a very wide lens to achieve the look a full frame cam will give you with a mid range lens isn't something I'll enjoy doing. To me a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and has a certain look. Putting an 18 on a BMCC to match a 50 on a full frame won't compare as far as I'm concerned. Although using my new 18-35 sigma would be nice! I get you with the workflow and colour too, that's what I really like about it.

Thanks Christian I must look up Philips blog on that. There's no way a 5d using an sd card with hacked raw can compare to using the bmcc. If I was to get the 5d I'd probably shoot in h.264 along with the 60d as the footage will end up being viewed online anyway. I wouldn't chance doing those jobs using hacked raw.

H
Offline

Christian Horne

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:34 am

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 2:54 pm

Will you be using any heavy colour grading on your footage?

Another thing to do is down load some footage from the Cameras you have in mind for the job you want it to do, try not to judge them on what you see on Youtube or other heavy compressed video sites, Vimeo is a good place to download the high quality videos you are interested in. ;)
Offline
User avatar

georgetsirogiannis

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:51 pm
  • Location: Greece

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 3:01 pm

Huey wrote: George, using a very wide lens to achieve the look a full frame cam will give you with a mid range lens isn't something I'll enjoy doing. To me a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and has a certain look. Putting an 18 on a BMCC to match a 50 on a full frame won't compare as far as I'm concerned.

If you're talking about the 50mm look by looking in the history of cinema, maybe it's good to think that most filmmakers were using Super 35 and (earlier) Super 16 films.

I think that, if you exclude the DOF, this 50mm look on a Super 35 sensor/film will be roughly the same if you use a 35mm lens on the BMCC. To me the most important element of the look of a specific focal length is the compression (or not) of the background or, better put, the relationship between the foreground and the background. And this can definitely be reproduced with the proper lenses, in whatever camera.
Website: georgetsirogiannis.com
Offline

Kenny Suleimanagich

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 4:19 pm

5D has been doing video for less than five years now, before that "full frame" did not exist in motion pictures.
Offline

Perrone Ford

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:18 pm
  • Location: North Florida

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 6:16 pm

Kenny Suleimanagich wrote:5D has been doing video for less than five years now, before that "full frame" did not exist in motion pictures.


Say what?

Google 70mm film/ 65mm film. 35mm IS the crop size if we are looking at this historically. And S35 is the MFT of motion picture film. 16mm was the iphone format of it's day.

More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame. In fact, those cameras use medium format glass, not 35mm.

Don't people study history any more?
Offline
User avatar

georgetsirogiannis

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:51 pm
  • Location: Greece

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 6:41 pm

perroneford wrote:Say what?

Google 70mm film/ 65mm film. 35mm IS the crop size if we are looking at this historically. And S35 is the MFT of motion picture film. 16mm was the iphone format of it's day.

More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame. In fact, those cameras use medium format glass, not 35mm.

Don't people study history any more?

Of course there was full-frame before digital, but if you look back in the recent years, especially after DI emerged, many people turned to Super 35. If they didn't use anamorphic, they used Super 35.
Website: georgetsirogiannis.com
Offline

Perrone Ford

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:18 pm
  • Location: North Florida

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 6:57 pm

Huey wrote:I have to produce a bigger film for a client starting in about 2 weeks and I guess I'll just have to do it on my trusty 60D. But just seeing that some BMCC's are available from the supplier (that I have my deposit with) I'm half tempted to go for one.


Bigger than Skyfall? That was shot in 2k. Most major films of the past 2 years or so were shot at 2K or 1080p. Avatar was shot at 1080p So how big is this project you're working on that you feel you'd be let down by 2.5k RAW?

Huey wrote:I'd probably go for the ef mount as I have Canon glass.
Hugh


I don't know that I'd do that, but I guess that would be somewhat dependent on what kind of EF to MFT adapters were out there. Since I am mostly Nikon, my choice was simple. The EF mount will get you IS (I believe) and iris readout. The MFT mount will get you the ability to use nearly any kind of glass you could name with fairly inexpensive adapters. For a larger client, that offers the ability to rent PL glass. For small clients or personal projects, you could use your own glass. And with a Metabones SpeedBooster adapter, you'd get most of your width back as well.

Huey wrote:But then there's the 5D3? which can film raw (not as large or nicely as the BMCC) but that lovely full frame that doesn't crop everything like the BMCC will. Plus I can use it for the photography side of things too.
Hugh


By and large, Hollywood isn't shooting full frame. RED is not full frame, Alexa is not full frame, Genesis is not full frame, heck even most celluloid films aren't full frame. If you are shooting on F1.4 or F1.8 glass, the difference in DOF between full frame 35 and S35 is measured in inches. As an example:

50mm lens on a 5D at 6ft the DOF = .46ft. So about 6" of depth. Good luck handholding with a moving human subject and keeping that in focus...

Same lens on S35 (Canon 7D) backed up to 9ft to maintain field of view DOF = .66ft. 2" different.

Same lens on a MFT camera backed up to 12ft to maintain FOV DOF = .93ft. So about an extra 6" of depth.

For my money, the MFT sensor allows me more success in keeping things in focus since I am not using Cinetape. Of course, you may be far better than I at pulling focus.

Huey wrote:Before you suggest that I've already answered my own question please bear in mind that I love the look of the BMCC and really want to get into the raw workflow as compositing and colour correction is something I love.

So what do you think I should go for?
Hugh


So let's see...

The BMCC gives you 2.5k (more than what 90+% of Hollywood is shooting), RAW with no hack, comes with some of the best grading software on earth, costs less than the 5D3, has more lens options than a 5D3... I don't understand why you're even tossing this around.
Offline

Perrone Ford

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:18 pm
  • Location: North Florida

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 7:02 pm

Yea, it's called budget! Shooting 4-perf is pricey. And digitally, no one wanted a different "view" going over to digital from film. They were shooting mostly S35 when digital came to the fore, and no one was going to try to force everyone onto new glass.

There is VERY little reason to shoot full frame unless you are making a movie in low light, or doing it in extremely tight spaces. It makes focus harder, it makes getting screen depth harder, it reduces your lensing choices, etc.

georgetsirogiannis wrote:Of course there was full-frame before digital, but if you look back in the recent years, especially after DI emerged, many people turned to Super 35. If they didn't use anamorphic, they used Super 35.
Offline
User avatar

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

  • Posts: 2302
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Oct 30, 2013 7:10 pm

perroneford wrote:… There is VERY little reason to shoot full frame unless you are making a movie in low light, or doing it in extremely tight spaces. It makes focus harder, it makes getting screen depth harder, it reduces your lensing choices, etc.


+1!

-
http://www.peterdv.com
Online
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11960
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostThu Oct 31, 2013 4:26 am

Huey wrote:Thanks for answers guys, George, using a very wide lens to achieve the look a full frame cam will give you with a mid range lens isn't something I'll enjoy doing. To me a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and has a certain look. Putting an 18 on a BMCC to match a 50 on a full frame won't compare as far as I'm concerned. Although using my new 18-35 sigma would be nice! I get you with the workflow and colour too, that’s what I really like about it…
H


Setting the Sigma 18-35mm lens at about 22mm will get you the field of View of the full-frame 50mm lens but with greater depth of field and so on. You do have some control over the DOF on the BMCC as that lens performs reasonably well wide-open and that may correspond to a smaller aperture you may like to use on the full-frame camera. As others have indicated, you may not want to be too shallow a DOF or you may have more problems keeping things with movement in focus.

With two weeks or less before you begin, I’d also recommend you pickup the BMCC and shoot raw if you can.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Dave Perry

  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:42 am
  • Location: Roanoke, Va.

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostThu Oct 31, 2013 4:48 am

Hands down, the MBCC. It's made for film production. The 5D is a still camera that shoots some nice video. I actually prefer my hacked GH2 over the 5D MKIII.
BMUM 4.6k PL, BMPC 4K, BMPCC
----------------------------------------------
Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC
Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production
1111 Shenandoah Ave. NW
Roanoke Va. 24017
540.915.2752
daveperry.net
Offline

Margus Voll

  • Posts: 1089
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:31 am
  • Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostThu Oct 31, 2013 6:02 am

5D is super soft in file specially if resolution is the question.
Dof or sensor size do not make it better in any day.

BMC 2,5 k is much sharper and has much more detail in it.

Here is a screen crab shot on shoulder:
http://www.iconstudios.eu/city.png


For now BMC renders Scarlet pointless in most cases.

And color reproduction is class of its own.

Of course you need to test it and need to have grading possibility
with nice machine and need a lot of space for raw material (lots of TB if a lot of material).

I have grading machine that can matchup with the material
and it is super nice to work with if you know what and how.
Margus Voll, C.S.I.

http://www.iconstudios.eu
margus@iconstudios.eu
Insta / Twitter @margusvoll

Resolve 15 W10 (i9-7940x 14c OC @4.4 Ghz, 2x Titan Pascal, 128 gb ram)
Resolve 12.5.4 OSX
BMC 2,5 K
Pocket camera
Offline
User avatar

Hugh Sweeney (Huey)

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 11:09 am

Thanks for all the answers folks, anytime I post here I get good advice and I learn a a lot. You made some good points here regarding the sensor size and dof etc. Someone asked if I plan to do 'heavy colour grading' - yes absolutely, and compositing would be a thing I'm into too. I come from a design / image editing background.

Regarding my new project > is it bigger than Skyfall or Avatar :D I said 'bigger' than my previous jobs not 'big'. I.E. most of my productions are simple promo films that I can easily knock out on the 60d, I just felt this new project was worthy of getting a second camera so I could film from 2 angles at once etc. I know I'd be mixing h264 with RAW footage which isn't ideal.

The BMCC appeals a lot to me and especially now that they dropped the price. The only thing I don't like is the large crop factor and the fact that the (prime) lenses I currently love using will end up very telephoto and I'll end up having to get something like a Tokina 11-16. To reiterate my point, I'd rather film a scene with a 50mm 1.4 prime than use a wider zoom to match the same shot.

I may re-post about the MFT v EF to get some advice from some of you regarding which option would be best for me!

Hugh
Offline

Margus Voll

  • Posts: 1089
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:31 am
  • Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 11:15 am

Think of BMC 2,5 more like Alexa with crop.

Image is so much different from 60D.
Margus Voll, C.S.I.

http://www.iconstudios.eu
margus@iconstudios.eu
Insta / Twitter @margusvoll

Resolve 15 W10 (i9-7940x 14c OC @4.4 Ghz, 2x Titan Pascal, 128 gb ram)
Resolve 12.5.4 OSX
BMC 2,5 K
Pocket camera
Offline

Christian Horne

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:34 am

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 11:52 am

After spending most of my life compositing and grading heavily compressed footage the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is a breath of fresh air, whether shooting RAW or ProRes this is the Camera to use to get the best possible clean footage. regarding lenses you will have to buy lenses to adjust for the crop, The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is my favourite for this camera, and the money saved in the price drop just about covers the cost of the lens. The best approach here would be to download some RAW footage from John Brawley and just the difference in comping and grading you can do. ;)
Offline

Margus Voll

  • Posts: 1089
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:31 am
  • Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 12:03 pm

Oh and green screen is like magic if lit properly.

1 click as it should be :D
Margus Voll, C.S.I.

http://www.iconstudios.eu
margus@iconstudios.eu
Insta / Twitter @margusvoll

Resolve 15 W10 (i9-7940x 14c OC @4.4 Ghz, 2x Titan Pascal, 128 gb ram)
Resolve 12.5.4 OSX
BMC 2,5 K
Pocket camera
Offline

Pete Proniewicz-Brooks

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:06 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 12:41 pm

perroneford wrote:
Kenny Suleimanagich wrote:5D has been doing video for less than five years now, before that "full frame" did not exist in motion pictures.


Say what?

Google 70mm film/ 65mm film. 35mm IS the crop size if we are looking at this historically. And S35 is the MFT of motion picture film. 16mm was the iphone format of it's day.

More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame. In fact, those cameras use medium format glass, not 35mm.

Don't people study history any more?


Historically S35 has dominated for a lot of films time, 65mm and 70mm have genrally been in the minority. 16mm was never the iPhone format, was far to common in pro productions for that to be true (ie it was actually used for reasons other than as a gimick). There have been what is now called Full Frame 35 formats (VistaVison is one) used as well but most remained niche or fell out of favour quickly, with people prefering S35 or the larger film stock formats to FF35. Imax is not fullframe in the common usage which refers to 35mm normally, as it uses a larger film stock.
Offline
User avatar

Hugh Sweeney (Huey)

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 2:56 pm

To be honest sensor and film sizes / formats is double dutch to me, I don't know a whole lot about the history of film etc but I am learning! All I have experience with is the APS-C sensor! and shooting with my 60D. I've only owned the DSLR for just over 2 years but the amount of work I've used it for amazes me (mostly product / fashion photography in conjunction with my design work). I bought it just to do my own fun videos and never thought I'd be offering professional photography services.

Anyway, to get back to the point I reckon at it's new low price and availability I can't really go that wrong with the BMCC. I had hoped to get the BMPC 4K by Xmas but I reckon it could be next summer before we see it. The idea of having both camera's is quite appealing also. It'd be great if the 4k could shoot 2.5k :o as that would be perfect for cropping down to 1920 when doing stabilising / letterbox etc.

My new dilemma is which version to get. The EF will work straight out of the box but the MFT has better options from what I hear.

Hugh
Offline

paulgolden

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:16 am
  • Location: portlandia

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 3:00 pm

If your primary purpose is to have a good production camera that shoots stunning film (video) in a predictable manner, than the BMCC 2.5K is not a compromise. If you want a dual purpose stills/video camera that costs about 50% more, than a 5DM3 is a fine purchase too. The BMCC is not a DSLR and operates for a different purpose.

As far as FOV is concerned, no one and I mean no one will look at your properly composed BMCC footage and say "gee, too bad they didn't use camera with a much bigger field of view". It will appear natural, filmic, and depending on lighting & grading, spectacular. Shooting Raw on a 5DM3 is a hacky PITA that has all sorts of workflow pitfalls. Shooting Raw or ProRes on the BMCC works really well and gives you the option of using either, being able to match the footage and output easily.

I vote for the MFT BMCC as the most versatile thing you can buy right now. For $2K, its a steal.
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 5:47 pm

Huey wrote:To be honest sensor and film sizes / formats is double dutch to me, I don't know a whole lot about the history of film etc but I am learning! All I have experience with is the APS-C sensor! and shooting with my 60D. I've only owned the DSLR for just over 2 years but the amount of work I've used it for amazes me (mostly product / fashion photography in conjunction with my design work). I bought it just to do my own fun videos and never thought I'd be offering professional photography services.

Anyway, to get back to the point I reckon at it's new low price and availability I can't really go that wrong with the BMCC. I had hoped to get the BMPC 4K by Xmas but I reckon it could be next summer before we see it. The idea of having both camera's is quite appealing also. It'd be great if the 4k could shoot 2.5k :o as that would be perfect for cropping down to 1920 when doing stabilising / letterbox etc.

My new dilemma is which version to get. The EF will work straight out of the box but the MFT has better options from what I hear.

Hugh


Others have already made some good points regarding "crop factor". But I think it's worth pointing out that APS-C is about the same size as S35 film... in fact, I think it's in the neighborhood of 1.1:1 (being very slightly larger). I know you're mostly asking about the EF mount BMCC, but I think it might also be worth considering that the MFT model with the Metabones Speedboster will give you about the same FoV as APS-C or S35 film.... and will increase your maximum aperture by one stop.

I know you also talked about workflow, I was wondering if you've seen the Magic Lantern workflow for raw video.... (disclaimer: there may be a newer and better workflow, hopefully someone will share if that's the case )



Lastly, I think the 10bit log video files produced by the Blackmagic cameras are just fantastic. I love shooting and doing post in raw... but, man is it nice to have the option of shooing in DNxHD and ProRes. :-)

Shawn
Offline
User avatar

Owen

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:36 pm
  • Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 5:50 pm

After seeing the latest shipping estimate change to "Q4" I'm in the same boat. Having been through the paces of shooting major projects on a 7D (and most recently an AF100), I went ahead and put in a BMCC order last night. At under $2k it only makes sense.

I'm someone who had originally pre-ordered the BMCC MFT way back when, then jumped ship once the 4k cam was announced. I'll keep my 4k pre-order, but in the meantime I might as well be shooting raw on the BMCC, not to mention DNxHD to drop right into the Avid. In my case, I just ordered the EF mount version since I've been slowly gearing up for the 4k cam. Once it is released the transition should be simple enough.

DSLR was a neat transitional phase, but I see no reason to put up with it given current current price points. I'd love a 5D for stills, but not enough to justify buying one for video use as well.
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 7:23 pm

perroneford wrote:
Kenny Suleimanagich wrote:5D has been doing video for less than five years now, before that "full frame" did not exist in motion pictures.


perroneford wrote:Say what?

...35mm IS the crop size if we are looking at this historically. And S35 is the MFT of motion picture film.


Completely untrue, full frame motion picture is about the same size as Super 35 motion picture film. Note the creation date of full frame 35 in 1892 vs 70mm's invention in 1896.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

" It is the original gate size pioneered by William Dickson and Thomas Edison in 1892 and first used in the short film Blacksmithing Scene. Full frame is generally used by all 4-perf films, whether silent, standard 35 (Academy ratio width), or Super 35."

"Films formatted with a width of 70 mm have existed since the early days of the motion picture industry. The first 70 mm format film was most likely footage of the Henley Regatta, which was projected in 1896 and 1897, but may have been filmed as early as 1894."

perroneford wrote:16mm was the iphone format of it's day.


Not even close to true. Super 16 used to be the standard for television and news. Today, it's still common in film and television production... the "biggest" films in recent history probably being Leaving Las Vegas, Black Swan and The Hurt Locker. I know that The Walking Dead was shot on Super 16, as well as Burn Notice and Veronica Mars... and, if I'm not mistaken S16 was heavily used on BBC shows until fairly recently.

perroneford wrote:More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame. In fact, those cameras use medium format glass, not 35mm.

Don't people study history any more?


Here is a list of 65 and 70mm films produced from 1955 to 2013. Interesting to note that the vast majority of them were shot in the Soviet Bloc between 1961 and 1974. Also interesting is that it is very common to blowup S35 to 70mm for IMAX projection... see Avatar as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

Shawn
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 7:44 pm

perroneford wrote:More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame.


Oops, I should have caught this before. You're conflating two different standards. Full frame stills (S135) isn't the same thing as Full Frame motion picture... so no, 65/70mm isn't considered Full Frame in video and film.

Shawn
Offline

Perrone Ford

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:18 pm
  • Location: North Florida

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 7:48 pm

Shawn Miller wrote:
perroneford wrote:
Kenny Suleimanagich wrote:5D has been doing video for less than five years now, before that "full frame" did not exist in motion pictures.


perroneford wrote:Say what?

...35mm IS the crop size if we are looking at this historically. And S35 is the MFT of motion picture film.


Completely untrue, full frame motion picture is about the same size as Super 35 motion picture film. Note the creation date of full frame 35 in 1892 vs 70mm's invention in 1896.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

" It is the original gate size pioneered by William Dickson and Thomas Edison in 1892 and first used in the short film Blacksmithing Scene. Full frame is generally used by all 4-perf films, whether silent, standard 35 (Academy ratio width), or Super 35."

"Films formatted with a width of 70 mm have existed since the early days of the motion picture industry. The first 70 mm format film was most likely footage of the Henley Regatta, which was projected in 1896 and 1897, but may have been filmed as early as 1894."



Alright... can we agree that Kenny's assertion that full frame 35 didn't exist before the 5D is way off the mark? because honestly, that was my only major point.

Shawn Miller wrote:
perroneford wrote:16mm was the iphone format of it's day.


Not even close to true. Super 16 used to be the standard for television and news. Today, it's still common in film and television production... the "biggest" films in recent history probably being Leaving Las Vegas, Black Swan and The Hurt Locker. I know that The Walking Dead was shot on Super 16, as well as Burn Notice and Veronica Mars... and, if I'm not mistaken S16 was heavily used on BBC shows until fairly recently.


Black Swan and The Hurt Locker were both shot on S16 as aesthitc choices by the cinematographer/director. And both wanted a feel that was more raw/gritty/real than S35 would have given. S16 was has also been shot for it's cost savings. As you alluded to with its use in TV and news. Much the same reason as video cameras took over for TV and left film in the dust.

perroneford wrote:More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame. In fact, those cameras use medium format glass, not 35mm.

Don't people study history any more?


Shawn Miller wrote:Here is a list of 65 and 70mm films produced from 1955 to 2013. Interesting to note that the vast majority of them were shot in the Soviet Bloc between 1961 and 1974. Also interesting is that it is very common to blowup S35 to 70mm for IMAX projection... see Avatar as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

Shawn


Yes, it is common to blow up S35 to 70mm for IMAX production because actually shooting IMAX is horribly expensive and unwieldy. The cameras have gotten smaller over the years, but even today they are still pretty big. With the RED Epic at 5K and the Dragon coming, IMAX use will likely fall out of favor sooner rather than later.

It is interesting to note on that list of 65/70mm films, how many are considered among the greatest movies ever shot.
Offline

Perrone Ford

  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:18 pm
  • Location: North Florida

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 7:50 pm

Shawn Miller wrote:
perroneford wrote:More recently, perhaps you've heard of VistaVision.. and certainly of IMAX. What do you think those are if not full frame.


Oops, I should have caught this before. You're conflating two different standards. Full frame stills (S135) isn't the same thing as Full Frame motion picture... so no, 65/70mm isn't considered Full Frame in video and film.

Shawn


Yes,

When I spoke of "full frame" I was not referring to "gate", I was referring to actual equivalent negative size. Since it was the 5D we were talking about, I was more referring to a film size equivalent to that.
Offline
User avatar

Hugh Sweeney (Huey)

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:13 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 10:17 pm

Again guys thanks for all the answers, although I won't attempt to start chatting about the different formats etc I do find it very interesting and I'd love to educate myself properly on it. I envy the experience and skills some of you guys have in film. Regarding what John just said (before he deleted!) about 'crop factors' and the 'gold standard' it reminds me when I was getting the 60d (which I could barely afford at the time) some of my friends that owned 5d told me to stay away from the aps-c as it crops everything way to much, it was a big deal that you had a reduced FOV. So many advantages to that sensor though, I'm shooting diamond rings now and the aps-c is way more suited to that (IMO).

Apparently the MFT sells only a fraction of the EF yet according to Philip Bloom review it's a better cam? I know a lot of you guys own and love the EF so I won't ask which is better. They're the same camera afaic but owning 4 EF lenses I'm swaying to the EF. I'm not worried about manually focusing (that's a given) but setting aperture by locking it on a DSLR first seems to be a pain in the arse. Therefore, what kind of powered adaptor could I get and what FOV would I have on an MFT with adapter compared to an EF?

Thanks again for all the answers and advice although I mightn't have quoted any one and responded I've read all responses in detail.

Hugh
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 10:32 pm

perroneford wrote:Alright... can we agree that Kenny's assertion that full frame 35 didn't exist before the 5D is way off the mark? because honestly, that was my only major point.


Absolutely

perroneford wrote:Black Swan and The Hurt Locker were both shot on S16 as aesthitc choices by the cinematographer/director. And both wanted a feel that was more raw/gritty/real than S35 would have given. S16 was has also been shot for it's cost savings. As you alluded to with its use in TV and news. Much the same reason as video cameras took over for TV and left film in the dust.


I think this is completely different from referring to S16 as "the iphone format of it's day."... My point is that S16 was, (and is still) a format for professionals... perhaps you meant Super 8?

perroneford wrote:Yes, it is common to blow up S35 to 70mm for IMAX production because actually shooting IMAX is horribly expensive and unwieldy. The cameras have gotten smaller over the years, but even today they are still pretty big. With the RED Epic at 5K and the Dragon coming, IMAX use will likely fall out of favor sooner rather than later.

It is interesting to note on that list of 65/70mm films, how many are considered among the greatest movies ever shot.


I didn't realize you were making a point about artistic merit... :-) The points I was trying to make are; a. Super 16 is NOT the motion picture film equivalent of the iPhone, b. Full Frame motion picture 35 is not the same as 65/70mm, c. S35 is not a crop of 65/70mm... that's all. :-)

Shawn
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 10:56 pm

perroneford wrote:Yes,

When I spoke of "full frame" I was not referring to "gate", I was referring to actual equivalent negative size. Since it was the 5D we were talking about, I was more referring to a film size equivalent to that.


Okay, I'm still confused then. The 5D has a Vistavision sized sensor... which is twice the size of 35 mm motion picture film... That's why I think you're conflating two different standards, 65/70mm motion picture isn't full frame 35 motion picture... what am I missing?

Shawn
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostFri Nov 01, 2013 11:14 pm

Huey wrote:... some of my friends that owned 5d told me to stay away from the aps-c as it crops everything way to much, it was a big deal that you had a reduced FOV. So many advantages to that sensor though, I'm shooting diamond rings now and the aps-c is way more suited to that (IMO).


Ha ha.. you may be discovering the truth of things here. Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses. APS-C/S35 sized sensors are a nice balance between controllable DoF and wide(ish) FoV. MFT sized sensors are also a nice balance between the two, favoring controllable DoF. :-)

Huey wrote:Therefore, what kind of powered adaptor could I get and what FOV would I have on an MFT with adapter compared to an EF?


I can't speak to the powered adapters, since I've never used one. But I can say that the FoV on either model will be the same, since the sensor size is the same.

Shawn
Offline

paulgolden

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:16 am
  • Location: portlandia

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 2:36 am

I have a BMCC 2.5 MFT and tried out the RedRock EF-MFT adapter. It is awkward to use and requires an outboard 9V battery on a cable in order to control the aperture. I decided to return it after it worked with only a couple of my EF lenses. Furthermore, the LED screen was almost impossible to read in the dark and you needed to hit the up button numerous times to make a several stop change. I cannot recommend it as a production tool that any AC or DP would want to deal with.

I have mostly Contax Zeiss lenses which have manual apertures and either EF mounts (which I'm waiting for a Speedbooster) or Contax mounts (I've got the Contax-MFT speed booster). I also use PL glass (when I can afford it) and a Tokina 11-16 Nikon mount with a Metabones non-Speedbooster adapter. I really prefer manual apertures for production because you don't have to mess with the camera in order to change your stop. It's faster and more precise.

If you have a substantial investment in EOS electronic aperture glass, then you should probably get the EF model. But if you have mostly manual lenses and want to try using PL mount lenses too, then get the MFT version, which allows you to run Speedboosters and get back your Super35 FOV.
Offline

DavidJames

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:09 am
  • Location: Salt Spring Island B.C.

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 3:21 am

I'm a little late but you asked a question like: should I buy a ford or chevy at a ford dealership?
I'd ask this question on a slightly less bias forum.

I love my BMCC cameras and I love the 5D mark III shooting RAW.
I just shot a network piece and did it with the 5D and it looks beautiful. It was well lit and the DOF was nice and deep (f5.6- 7.1) The colours looked amazing and the client loved it.

If it was me be I'd be testing out both and finding which worked best. Forum are great but what "you" see matters the most.

I also love it when I have to move quickly with my prime set and knowing how it will look with out factoring the crop. I shoot motion and stills and I just know what my lenses do on my SLR.

My 2 bits.
thekreative
www.thekreative.com
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 8:32 am

Honestly I would like to have seen John Brawley's post not removed, I have never seen him post a SCATHING RANT, and then remove/Delete it.

Makes me wonder since this one made sense, but had some derogatory tones, even so I wonder why he decided to delete it, shame really.
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 5:16 pm

Darryl Gregory wrote:Honestly I would like to have seen John Brawley's post not removed, I have never seen him post a SCATHING RANT, and then remove/Delete it.

Makes me wonder since this one made sense, but had some derogatory tones, even so I wonder why he decided to delete it, shame really.


I completely missed it... what was the gist of JB's post?

Shawn
Offline

DavidJames

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:09 am
  • Location: Salt Spring Island B.C.

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 6:21 pm

Hope it wasn't anything I said........ Just trying to be straight up about picking the tool that works for you and not what you are told to use.
thekreative
www.thekreative.com
Online
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11960
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 7:29 pm

[quote=“Owen”]I went ahead and put in a BMCC order last night. At under $2k it only makes sense… I’ll keep my 4k pre-order… In my case, I just ordered the EF mount version since I've been slowly gearing up for the 4k cam. Once it is released the transition should be simple enough.[/quote]

That all makes sense but one thing you may have considered is the BMCC MFT with the (pending) Metabones Speed Booster for MFT to EF. That might allow you to use your EF glass on both cameras and the angle of view on the BMCC MFT would then actually be like APS-C and slightly wider than the MBPC4K. if your lenses are electronic, not the best solution, but if you use manual EF lenses, it could be an interesting way to go with two cameras.

Edit: don’t know why my quoted material is not being interpreted correctly. i did upgrade to Mavericks but nothing else has changed.
Last edited by rick.lang on Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Lang
Online
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11960
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 7:45 pm

thekreative wrote:Hope it wasn't anything I said........ Just trying to be straight up about picking the tool that works for you and not what you are told to use.


I’ve been missing hearing from John Brawley and to think I just missed seeing a rant… i have no idea what it was about or what prompted it, but when I read your previous remark that you know what your lenses will look like on your SLR camera, I was taken aback by that simple remark. I’m sure you and others who use more than one sensor size also know what their lenses will do on a given sensor, not just when they’re on the SLR.

Anyway, glad you got good results on your last project, but personally I would choose the BMCC raw over the 5DMIII since I wouldn’t apply the Magic Lantern fix. To each his own.

Edit: so now the quoting function works for me. I think technology can be capricious.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

Owen

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:36 pm
  • Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostSat Nov 02, 2013 7:51 pm

Good points, Rick. I've debated it endlessly. I went with the EF mainly because of my electronic EF glass. In six months I may find myself going back to the MFT world, at least for my b-cam.
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 7:07 am

It was true bliss, It had as much techno babble about RAW and sensors, DOF, S16/S35,
Full Frame sensors, About When, How, Why, and Who, that anyone could read in a single post from JB,
It was like "The Wikipedia" of Camera RAW and Sensor technology Reality to date, I'm truly sad he deleted it.
Oh and the Rant???? Haha I can only say I felt I was at a local pub drinking a pint with JB as he let lose with the vulgarity! :shock:

I will never read a post like that and close my browser without first taking screenshot ever again! 8-)
Last edited by Darryl Gregory on Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 7:15 am

thekreative wrote:Hope it wasn't anything I said........ Just trying to be straight up about picking the tool that works for you and not what you are told to use.


It was all about you!
and not in a good way, Mentioning you by name was the most shocking part of the rant!
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 7:38 am

I'm just kidding of course, It was a brilliant post mostly about Sensors size and RAW and more, It was long but informative, but it was a little bit on the negative/ranting side, and that is why I think he deleted it, Well that and the pint or 3 he (May Have) had before he decided to post it :lol:
Offline
User avatar

Joe Gonzalez

  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:26 am
  • Location: sacramento

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 8:45 pm

Ive used my BMCC EF for the past year on productions and its paid for itself. Problems ive had with it right out of the box, no audio level, dropped frames on certain cards, a battery solution, a affordable external monitor thats compatible, no in camera formatting or info on card time and getting a fast card reader. You need all these to work, trust me, but to use RAW you need a powerful computer. If you have a tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 16-35L, or 24-70L, (which are standard working lenses)......well some work with the camera and some don't, meaning some reach infinity and some don't. Some work with the Auto Iris and some don't. Also, that huge beautiful LCD display is no good in the sun, you need a monster hood just to see. The Black Spot of death is still on my camera and really sucks NOT being able to get certain shots with the sun in the background without a ton of ND, and get a nice flare. Not a real big deal, but is an issue. Your going to put about 1k to get it to a pure production level camera. EF was the wrong choice to go with for me now looking back,.. Id say go with the MFT, cause the flange wont be a problem but there is no auto support for it as far as lenses (as far as i know yet), but you can get a speed booster and get more light but you still have all the in camera functions that still don't work on the specs i said above.
Hopefully the EF lens mount issues will be fixed on the 4k and not have these same problems as far as flange distance and working basic lenses. It would suck to still have the same issued on the 4k EF that are on the BMCC 2.5EF. Working with ProRes is awesome and hands down wins all the time.

Now , I recently just shot a short with the RAW hack on the 5dMark3, and i got to say, i didn't have alot of problems with it and the picture, BUT NO AUDIO when recording in RAW but i hate to say it looked pretty wonderful. Yes its a hack, but man having such a clean output on that camera and shooting a film on it, for me was absolutely great. Also , the positives of having a camera and video in one is pretty awesome. If canon had a 422 10 bit pro res option FOR THE SAME PRICE, id go canon hands down, just on the sensor alone. Also, remember BOTH have rolling shutter and the BMCC does have a lil moire and aliasing, and the Canon doesn't cause of the filter it has. My recommendation would be to rent each camera and shoot on them, with the hack and right out of the box. They both have their bad and good. Its funny when people say too much shallow is not needed, well when you are shooting a film you definitely want that option, and options are what really matter to me. I am a BMCC owner and worked with it and still do but its not the end all of cameras and you will have your problems with it, but if you can get passed them, then your good. If you need a camera and video cam go with the canon if you think you wont be doing a bunch of high end productions. I never had a client once say, WOW look at the resolution. They either like what they see or don't. and if your good they don't care what you shoot on. Don't drink the koolaid that theres one camera for everything, there isnt. Cheers!
Last edited by Joe Gonzalez on Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Gonzalez - Filmmaker/Photographer/Editor
www.thenewcinematographers.com
Offline

Shawn Miller

  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 9:07 pm

Darryl Gregory wrote:It was true bliss, It had as much techno babble about RAW and sensors, DOF, S16/S35,
Full Frame sensors, About When, How, Why, and Who, that anyone could read in a single post from JB,
It was like "The Wikipedia" of Camera RAW and Sensor technology Reality to date, I'm truly sad he deleted it.
Oh and the Rant???? Haha I can only say I felt I was at a local pub drinking a pint with JB as he let lose with the vulgarity! :shock:

I will never read a post like that and close my browser without first taking screenshot ever again! 8-)


DANG!! Truly sorry I didn't get to read it... I might have learned something. :-( If Mr. Brawley is still reading this thread, I hope he seriously considers re-posting his rant... with maybe a lighter tone (if that was the issue). :-)

Shawn
Offline

Jayson Rahmlow

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:33 am

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 9:08 pm

What's the longest you can record raw on the 5diii? I thought it could only shoot in 4gb files so less than a minute in raw. Or has that been worked around?
Jayson Rahmlow
Applejackfilms.com
Los Angeles
Offline

Jayson Rahmlow

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:33 am

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostTue Nov 05, 2013 9:33 pm

I had 5diii and sold it for bmcc 2.5k and om-d em-5. I had the 5d just as raw had been discovered but was limited to 48 frames. There was a very subtle mosquito noise in all my 5diii raw shots even bright daylight shots that made me not like the 5diii raw footage but I didn't work with it all that much so some noise reduction may have gotten rid of it.
I've got the 2.5k EF now and am in the process of switching to the 2.5k MFT mount to use with the speed booster and sigma Nikon 18-35 which so far has proved to be as awesome as I hoped on my om-d em-5.

The speedbooster makes the 2.5k sensor a super 35 sized crop. And adds a stop of light.

I've been using the 2.5k EF for a couple months now and have gotten to really like it. Especially using the prores/dnxhd workflow.

I like this combo also cause it is two cameras for the price of one 5diii.

Plus u get resolve.

Plus the speed booster gives your lenses two lengths. My Takumar 50mm 1.4 is now also a 35mm 1.0.

The one thing I have yet to know is will I miss I.S. since MFT is passive mount
Jayson Rahmlow
Applejackfilms.com
Los Angeles
Offline

Haakon Sundry

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Nov 06, 2013 10:15 am

I'm guessing this is actually a topic that a lot of people ponder, and it's sad that there really isn't a fantastic answer. The correct one, however, is BMCC without question. The 5D MkIII is an exceptional still camera with a mediocre video mode tacked on. It's ever slightly better than the video from the Mark II, but the only reason that camera caught on like it did was because it offered digital video shooters 35mm DoF in a $3,000 package. Period. Before that, the only options were extremely expensive cinema camera offerings or hack adapters that twisted and distorted your image to a barely-recognizable mess. It's not because it shot full-frame video (clearly most people still don't know what that means) or because the video quality was amazing (it wasn't and isn't); it's because people who were previously using DVXs and PD150s could now get an out-of-focus background at 24p and make something that looked more like what they saw in cinemas than their current equipment could deliver. And they sold a crapton of them as a result.

There is no question that - all other things being equal - the larger the sensor size, the better the image quality. There are likely some opinionated people here who will disagree (some who may even rant about it and then later delete their posts), but it's just math and physics. Larger sensors equals more real estate, which can be used to offer bigger pixels, more pixels, or both, which directly translates into greater resolution, increased dynamic range, and more sensitivity. I don't know anyone who wants less of any of those things. Actually, I take that back... some people feel like the push for more resolution is futile, and they're probably the same people who think that 4K TVs are a "fad." But would you rather use a 1-megapixel camera to shoot a still image or a 23-megapixel camera - even if it's just going to end up on the web? The larger one is clearly the better choice, because oversampling is king. It's the same thing for video, which is after all, just a bunch of still frames.

Of course, there are things you have to consider. Can you afford the storage needed for the increased file sizes that greater resolution brings? Do you have a computer that can handle the requirements of the footage? Sure, the MkIII compresses its images to hell and back so you can record a decent amount per gigabyte and your copy of FCPX can chew through them like butter. Conversely, you're going to use up a lot more space shooting ProRes or Raw, and that Mac Mini might not be able to chomp through it as readily. But those are your limitations; it doesn't mean the MkIII footage is "better." Clearly, the output of the BMCC is lightyears ahead of the Canon - it's just a matter of your ability to deal with it. (The same holds true for something like RED, which requires even more storage space and more computing power. Is it overkill for what you're doing? Perhaps... but it's still "better.")

The one thing that is a frustration with the BMCC is that sensor size, but if you have the MFT version and appropriate glass, it's a non-issue. I don't think the Canon mount version is of much worth to many people, unless you have a lot of crazy wide glass laying around. You mentioned you do have Canon lenses, so the best option for you really should be the 4K camera, but who knows what they're doing with that (and I get that's why you have this dilemma). That brings me back to my first statement that there really is no fantastic answer for you... you're ending up compromising no matter what you do. If you truly can't wait until the 4K camera comes out and you intend to shoot with Canon glass, I would still recommend the BMCC over the MkIII just because MkIII video looks like crap unless you want to deal with all the hack stuff. Just know what that crop factor is going to do to you and plan accordingly as well in advance of your shoot as you can. Good luck.
Offline

DavidJames

  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:09 am
  • Location: Salt Spring Island B.C.

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Nov 06, 2013 2:06 pm

I think we are talking about the mark III shooting raw and yes it's a hack but this is all about image. The bmcc still seems a bit like a work in progress. I love it but it's pretty much the same as shooting with magic lantern. I don't care about sound as I've always used external recorders do I'm just looking at the image and workflow. As for workflow the mark III takes one more step (raw to dng). It's been said here before. Get both and see what you think. Each has its own place.


thekreative
www.thekreative.com
Offline

Haakon Sundry

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: No 4K so BMCC or 5D3?

PostWed Nov 06, 2013 8:16 pm

thekreative wrote:I think we are talking about the mark III shooting raw and yes it's a hack but this is all about image.

Actually, the original poster said "If I was to get the 5d I'd probably shoot in h.264 along with the 60d as the footage will end up being viewed online anyway. I wouldn't chance doing those jobs using hacked raw," so no, I wasn't under that impression. It's certainly an option, but it doesn't look like one he's really considering (and I don't blame him).

Shooting RAW with the MkIII can look gorgeous, no question, but that process brings along with it a whole new set of challenges. There's of course carrying out the hack itself, a much more cumbersome post workflow, the extreme limitation of shooting times, and the need to have very specialized CF media. Whether or not the user is willing/able to deal with all of those things is something that needs to be taken into consideration. It's not as if you just flip a switch and you're suddenly shooting RAW (like the BMCC), and everything else about your production (and post-production) has to be altered to accommodate it as well.
Next

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 278 guests