DSLR response to BMPCC?

Hi, first post. I've enjoyed reading all the topics. I'm a hobbyist saving up for (possibly) a BMPCC. A question has come to mind that it seems is reasonable to ask whilst everyone waits for their various cameras.

The question is this: How defensible is the BMD cinema technology vs. a future DSLR from one of the big boys? As far as I can tell, the main features generating all the interest are dynamic range, raw uncompressed video and whatever firmware/software is required to make it look like film. Is BMD "hiding" for the time being in a niche, doing market research for the likes of Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc? Or do they "have something" not easily replicated?

I suppose Panasonic, Canon, and the others are somewhat constrained by a requirement not to cannibalize higher-end offerings. But I was wondering if maybe the "GH4" might suddenly appear with a lot of what the BMPCC brings to the table. With the GH3 priced at $1300, it appears BMD might have a fairly long window.

Just curious...

DR is just one thing.

Other is how the images are recorded uncompressed or prorez. both are superior to canon or
panasonic compressed files in technical aspect.

This is the part where all dslr like cameras fail now.

I have the BMCC EF. I love its capabilities and what it can out put. I also have the 5D Mark II, and the in the last couple of weeks, I have found myself experimenting with Magic Lantern the 5D again, because of the new raw capabilities from Magic Lantern. Because of what Magic Lantern is able to do with these machines, it is clear to me that the current tech in the DSLRs can be used for a lot better moving image and the DSLR have been purposely crippled. And because of Black Magic's Pocket cam, there is no doubt in my mind that the DSLR makers are going to have to adapt to a new reality to enable their lower end cameras for better video. Canon has already tacitly conceded with its unwillingness to block Magic Lantern cracking and development, and we see other camera maker allowing the same.

I have the BMCC EF. I love its capabilities and what it can out put. I also have the 5D Mark II, and the in the last couple of weeks, I have found myself experimenting with Magic Lantern the 5D again, because of the new raw capabilities from Magic Lantern. Because of what Magic Lantern is able to do with these machines, it is clear to me that the current tech in the DSLRs can be used for a lot better moving image and the DSLR have been purposely crippled. And because of Black Magic's Pocket cam, there is no doubt in my mind that the DSLR makers are going to have to adapt to a new reality to enable their lower end cameras for better video. Canon has already tacitly conceded with its unwillingness to block Magic Lantern cracking and development, and we see other camera maker allowing the same.

I'm not sure Cannon has blocked ML completely, At least not that I have read(I could be wrong) either way the ML hack is still not ready, and record times and speeds vary per Memory cards, and as of yet is is only looking decent on the 5D MKIII and at $3000,00 I would still rather purchase the BMCC 2.5K or the 4K Production Camera at $4000.000, But the hack on the 50D is very exciting since it was never designed to shoot video in the fist place, but it still lack video settings in menu,
Making it a gimmicky camera with AWESOME Video

Well, no matter what happens in the DSLR market it's not going to take away from what the BMCC currently does, which is product really beautiful images. Every camera is going to get outdated in a few years, it's a sad fact! My personal opinion is that BMCC owners are going to enjoy at least a couple of years before the current models will begin to fall behind.

Also a lot of people are shooting ProRes on their BMCC and working right off of their SSD. It has other advantages besides just RAW that DSLRs don't currently provide. Some people aren't even shooting that much RAW, rather they are just enjoying the latitude and log format to get a look they want. If you have to shoot RAW in order to get this type of look on a Canon then right there is a more tedious workflow to get the same results. So that's something to consider as well.

. If you have to shoot RAW in order to get this type of look on a Canon then right there is a more tedious workflow to get the same results.

No sir. It is the same workflow.

As I said on Andrew post. Every digital camera have to deal with raw information. The big companies haven't give us the raw data since the normal consumer simply doesn't care neither know what to do with it. But now that we have computers capable of deal with "Hollywood quality footage" The companies have to feed the necessity of all the filmmakers considering the purchase of this photo/video hybrid little monsters.

If you put it this way. Uncompress 14bit 1920 by a canon camera require around 95MB/s The 5D Mark III have a buffer capacity of 700MB/s. Then yes, the technology had catch up with the raw necessity that filmmaker are claimed like blood.

So, now that the cards are fast enough, it wouldn't surprise me if the 5D Mark 4 come with rec raw already enabled on the camera. We will see, but for now I don't care. I want to enjoy the already good news I received in the course of this 2 years.

DSLR's have nothing to worry about, because the vast vast majority of their consumers are photographers, not video shooters. H.264 and 8bit 420/422 gets a bad rep, but the reality is for 90% of video shooters out there, its MORE than sufficient. 10bit, and RAW are for those who need more from their camera because their WORK requires it. There is no need for the massive file sizes of 10bit and raw, and high speed storage mediums for the typical enthusiast or prosumer, and its also a workflow nightmare for the uninitiated.

I love the filmmaking community, but I think a lot of us fail to remember that we are the very minute minority of the consumer base for these products. As frustrating as it is to see the Big Companies market their material for the big picture, repeat user average consumers, they're simply acknowledging its the most profitable way to run their company. If all they did was listen to us, they'd probably go out of business.

Oh, and the DSLRs are fantastic stills cameras. I'm definitely not doing time lapse on the BMCC.

Steve, thanks for your thoughts on this. I take your points. Still, consumers have an odd thing about them, especially younger ones: they want technological improvements they don't really need. I don't think it's too big a stretch to envision some segment getting educated about better DR, etc. I'm wondering when this might happen and if BMD will be "collateral damage" if say, Panasonic decides cinema-look has broader appeal. I concur that BMD cameras don't pose an existential threat to DSLRs. But they (BMD) could picking up "dimes in front of a steamroller". Maybe not. That was why I wondered how defensible their feature set was.

Imo BM has always been company oriented for professionals.

DSLR's have nothing to worry about, because the vast vast majority of their consumers are photographers, not video shooters. H.264 and 8bit 420/422 gets a bad rep, but the reality is for 90% of video shooters out there, its MORE than sufficient. 10bit, and RAW are for those who need more from their camera because their WORK requires it. There is no need for the massive file sizes of 10bit and raw, and high speed storage mediums for the typical enthusiast or prosumer, and its also a workflow nightmare for the uninitiated.

Mostly I agree with you, apart for the H264 codec. It's good as a delivery codec, but even on the amateur level its not a great codec for capture/edit. Hell it's limitations put it much more of a difficult segment to shoot with. RAW is not needed for a lot of things, hell unless your going really mental in the grade then ProRes etc are great. A baby version of prores/dnxhd would be great for most cameras in the h264 world.

I love the filmmaking community, but I think a lot of us fail to remember that we are the very minute minority of the consumer base for these products. As frustrating as it is to see the Big Companies market their material for the big picture, repeat user average consumers, they're simply acknowledging its the most profitable way to run their company. If all they did was listen to us, they'd probably go out of business.

Indeed, to many people want a camera for all jobs in one package at a price that just isn't viable.

Oh, and the DSLRs are fantastic stills cameras. I'm definitely not doing time lapse on the BMCC.

Indeed DSLRs are much better for this than most cameras, A RED Scarlet/Epic is one of the few cameras that I'd likely use for a timelapse (if I could spare my poor scarlet for it) instead of a DSLR, as it would be easier to use it in a RED based workflow (correct aspect ratio so no cropping, same sensor/colour science).

. If you have to shoot RAW in order to get this type of look on a Canon then right there is a more tedious workflow to get the same results.

No sir. It is the same workflow...

I don't think you actually read my post. Obviously a RAW workflow is not hugely different from one camera to the next.

. If you have to shoot RAW in order to get this type of look on a Canon then right there is a more tedious workflow to get the same results.

No sir. It is the same workflow...

I don't think you actually read my post. Obviously a RAW workflow is not hugely different from one camera to the next.

They can vary substantially, depending on how the RAW is presented.

A RED RAW workflow is a lot smother than the BMCC's, a 4k .R3D edits better in a HD timeline than cinema DNG. The compression in it allows you to manage data better and the way the debayeur is coded means it edits well.

I happily drop R3Ds into edits in a way I wouldn't with a number of RAWs (or even some non-raw camera codecs).

I think you do it wrong.

Take your Resolve and make proxys with it.

Edit with these and then reconform in resolve to grade and finish.

I think you do it wrong.

Take your Resolve and make proxys with it.

Edit with these and then reconform in resolve to grade and finish.

If that was aimed at me that is still a more complex workflow than the R3D, where for many projects proxies are a waste of time.

In fact you kind of make my point. RED footage I can just drop into FCPX or Premiere Pro edit it, then if I need to send it to resolve. BMCC raw footage I pretty much have to create a proxy, R3D its my choice, as R3Ds are structured to make this work.

Yes I can use pretty much identical workflows for both if I wish to, but there are more streamlined ones for RED footage if I want them.

Many non-raw camera codecs benefit from a trans-code based workflow, but most now play nice if you don't want the hassle, of RAW workflows RED is about the only one that does.

Win in workflow loose in Color since maybe.

We mostly do proxys of the red also so director can have material in laptop to carry with.

I see bmc and alexa more pleasant and faster to grade these days.

red offers just slomo and resolution. color is big question mark some times.
when hd output then benefit is not very big.

So it really depends what you are after.

Win in workflow loose in Color since maybe.

We mostly do proxys of the red also so director can have material in laptop to carry with.

I see bmc and alexa more pleasant and faster to grade these days.

red offers just slomo and resolution. color is big question mark some times.
when hd output then benefit is not very big.

So it really depends what you are after.

8 times out of 10 the Alexa you should be shooting in ProRes anyway, the extra gradibility of the alexia raw just isnt enough to make it worth it, especially on jobs where theres the budget to get it right in the take. Unless you're going extreme on the grade or something Alexa's ProRes is fantastic.

Yes for many projects transcoding R3Ds is a good idea, but it is the only one of the raws that edits well if you want it to. With FCPX you can even have FCPX create your proxies while you start editing, and have a much better expereince doing this than other raws.

BMCC and Alexia footage gets a pleasing result quicker and more easially as they have been designed to produce a certain result (though the latest round of colour science from RED isnt exactly hard).

Performance wise 4k RED grades as smoothly on my iMac as 2.5k BMCC raw does (havent used Alexa raw on my system).

My main point however was that not all raw workflows are the same (though many are) and the BMCC one is at the less flexable end of the scale as regard to workflow.

Yes i see.

Sometimes just flexibility is not so important if you have result in mind.

For extreme conditions.......my choice

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

K-5 II 13 step dynamic range 100 - 3200 ISO

For more info:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_I ... highlights

More than a DSLR

- RED -

Full Frame 35mm has such a unique and powerful look. With this comes many advantages and disadvantages as in any sensor size. For serious pros, Super 35mm is so much more advantageous because there is so much more glass for that sensor size. The same goes true for the BMPCC. Example, the 5D Mk4 comes out with 1080P RAW at $3500. You buy the 24-70mm II, & 70-200mm F/2.8 lenses: $4300 (and that's with the current rebates which takes off $500). Your package total is $7800. I've got my BMPCC camera on pre-order for $1000 + I purchased a Canon 7-63 T/2.8 Super 16mm cinema lens. Its a 21mm to 189mm Full Frame 35mm equivalent, optically every bit as good as the aforementioned DSLR lenses, its faster (F/2.8 is equal to about T/3.0 for the 24-70 and T/3.4 for the 70-200, where as the 7-63 is a true T/2.8), its focus ring is at least 10 times better than either of the DSLR lenses with 23 precise focus points compared to like 5ish unspecific focus points (5 each for M & Ft), unclicked aperture ring with T/stops, minimal breathing (unlike the the DSLR lenses that breath like there is no tomorrow), super smooth zoom ring (the DSLR lenses aren't bad, but again, put side by side the cinema lens makes an DSLR lens look rough) and its 1 lens, I don't have to worry about switching back and forth and I paid $2750 for it. That means my package total is $3750, half what the 5D package would be, but as mentioned above, its much better suited for video production work. Sure I don't quite have the depth of field, but I also picked up a set of Zeiss Mk 3 cinema primes for Super 16mm (9.5, 12, 16, & 25mm lenses) a 27mm, 36mm, 50mm, & 75mm FF equivalent, all F/1.2 or T/1.3, so yeah, won't have any problem getting all the depth of field I want. No one makes a F/1.2 lens set for DSLRs, Canon's 50mm F/1.2 is sharp in the center but very weak in the corners to say the least, and the 85mm F/1.2's electronic aperture ring make it almost impossible to use for video work. Now admittedly FF 35m doesn't need F/1.2 to make everything go so blurry like a smaller sensor does.

My point here is, Super 16mm and Super 35mm glass well suited to video production work is readily available for the BM cameras. Bodies aren't everything, half the time lenses suited to video production work are more important than the camera itself. True, more and more glass is becoming available for FF 35mm, but there is an unavoidable road block; the sensor is so much bigger the range of glass and the price of glass is considerable more. For an example, I bought a 10.5-210mm T/2.4-T/3.4 zoom (its only about 10 years old and was originally a $28,500 lens, so its quality is top notch) for Super 16mm, that's a 20x zoom. No one makes a 20x zoom for Super 35mm or FF 35mm. I mean imagine having a 30mm to 600mm, T/2.4 from 30mm to 450mm and T/3.4 from 450mm to 600mm. Now try to imagine what a zoom for a DSLR with that kind of range at that speed with weigh? What it would cost! Or compare the Canon Super 16mm 11.5-138mm T/2.5 which can be bought on eBay for less than $4,000 (super 35mm equivalent to 24-289mm) to Angenieux 24-290mm T/2.8 zoom for Super 35mm. At $65,000ish new and over 24Lbs, the Angenieux its quite the lens compared to its super 16mm equivalent which is a mere 3.75Lbs and under $4k. You aren't getting massively better optics or mechanics, slightly yes, but the reason its so much bigger is because that's what it takes to cover super 35mm, which translates into higher costs, now image the Full Frame 35mm equivalent (which is almost 2x of Super 35mm). You are talking about a lens that would probably be at least 50lbs, and at least $150,000. So I rest my case, the thing the BMCC and the BMPCC will always have over FF 35mm AKA DSLRs, is professional lenses designed for cinema work, and for that matter, just better lens quality in general.

Insanely good post!

Yes, Sproctor, thank you for your thoughts on this. I should perhaps refine my original question to be what is Panasonic's response to BMPCC? Right now it appears that the BMPCC will have better DR compared to the GH3, and also will record CinemaDNG and ProRes. But the GH3 will do 60fps and, from what I gather, has a lot better battery situation.

I'm wondering if a "GHX" with the right specs might put some serious hurt on BMD.