Blackmagic Forum

Well explained.

Experimental aesthetics from the last century, only seen in festivals or arthouse cinema, are commonplace stylistic tools today. They are now accepted by general audiences.

Heck, even a close-up was a bold choice by D. W. Griffith at the time, causing some in the audience to leave the cinema while complaining that he's showing cut-off heads and hands. At the time, everybody else was filming like documenting a theater stage. There's no progress without experimentation.

For me, that's the true meaning of "f… the audience".

It is.
If you change your ideas because you are afraid the audience may not like it, if you rewrite dialogue because you're worried that someone in the audience may not get it when it's not explained to death, if you stick to the good ol' beat structure because what you originally had in mind may, god forbid, force anyone to participate instead of just consume, if it all is just a loud, garish compromise...

...then you're doing a Netflix movie


EDIT:
I must apologize, I quoted David Simon falsely. He did not say "F... the audience", he said "F... the Average Viewer". Quite a difference, but arguably same lessons.

David Simon can say that only because he has something of a day job at HBO. The Wire was never very popular, but was beloved by critics and a small audience. So they made the admirable decision not to cancel. Since then, he hasn't equaled it in my view, but they keep him on anyway, his series have a certain prestige.

Today it's really an impossible situation. Classic art film is an anachronism, accurately pronounced dead on several occasions in the 1990s (see, Susan Sontag, Godfrey Cheshire) well before digital. And it was the invaluable contribution of Robert Redford, that he took alternative American cinema, which was of some interest in the 80s and early 90s, and turned it into Hollywood-accessible material, but without the commercial value, to prove how virtuous and heartfelt he is:



[btw, every one of those clips is a parody of an actual "indie" film seen at Sundance]

These days, so-called "independent film" is full of people who've never even seen a classic art film. Even Bresson-Godard-Tarkovsky-Fassbinder-Mizoguichi nostalgia is no longer possible.

I think "hopeless" is the word. The audience for the real thing will die out completely in 10 or 20 years. Then bring on the youtubes and more camera comparisons.

John, there’s another generation coming so there’s always hope for the future. Your posts are an inspiration.

Just to update my tangential thread on the iPhone 14 Pro: phone arrived on the 20th and I’m now configured to produce 48 megapixel 10-bit Apple ProRAW (uncompressed DNG) and 10-bit ProRes video. I have the 1 TB storage option so I can record about 2.5 hours of ProRes before offloading. I read that Airdrop is faster than Apple’s ’Pro’ Lightning connector so I guess I’ll try that.

Trying to get some tests soon, but I expect it to be similar to the BMPCC4K.

I have three days of client shoots next week to prepare for! I’ll post some results in it’s own thread.

John Paines wrote:These days, so-called "independent film" is full of people who've never even seen a classic art film. Even Bresson-Godard-Tarkovsky-Fassbinder-Mizoguichi nostalgia is no longer possible.

I think "hopeless" is the word. The audience for the real thing will die out completely in 10 or 20 years. Then bring on the youtubes and more camera comparisons.

I believe the audience for authenticity will grow again, when people are sick of the shallow mediocrity they are being fed in tiny, loud, fast flying spoons every minute.

John Paines wrote:David Simon can say that only because he has something of a day job at HBO.

Everyone can say that. It's just that few dare to do, which is why we don't get to see a lot of original content. But everyone can say it, no excuses.

I'd like to ask a question about digital vs. film. If you shoot in digital and then transfer it to a negative film, can it then recreate some of those subtle and nice images of the old-style films mentioned here?

Ricardo marty

rick.lang wrote:I have the 1 TB storage option so I can record about 2.5 hours of ProRes before offloading. I read that Airdrop is faster than Apple’s ’Pro’ Lightning connector so I guess I’ll try that.

In my testing Airdrop often failed on large sets of video files, but let us know if you have better luck with it.
If relying on the lightning connection, it is USB 2.0 limited, so transferring a full 2.5 hours of shooting will take about 5 hours (or more).

ricardo marty wrote:I'd like to ask a question about digital vs. film. If you shoot in digital and then transfer it to a negative film, can it then recreate some of those subtle and nice images of the old-style films mentioned here?

Ricardo marty

Yes. "Dune" was done that way, and there are a number of others. Some people actually went the other way, to degrade the image. "Breaking the Waves" is one example. Shot on film, transferred to video so they could muck it up and domesticate it, then back to film.

CPC London for example record your digital content to positive 35mm motion picture film and scan it back to digital.
https://www.cpclondon.com/truegrain-scanning

John Paines wrote:"Dune" was done that way, and there are a number of others.

For more detail on that digital to film back to digital process (which Fotokem cheekily abbreviates to “AI” — short for “analog intermediate”) that was used in Dune and why they chose it, my colleague Robert Gomez Hernandez and I made a video that covers that. It is one episode in a series of shorts on Hollywood color work, sponsored by Portrait Displays International (the company that makes Calman calibration software).

It's an idea that's been around a while.

One of my first jobs in the early 90's was operating a "telekine" which was a version of the same thing. Putting VIDEO onto FILM.

I'd also argue shooting on FILM and then doing digital post is kind of the same thing and has been much more common and prevalent even to today, with many shows still stubbornly shooting film.

You get FILM origination, and DIGITAL post / colour correction. In my view that's a pretty nice best of both worlds look.

Shooting digital and "washing" it through a film process allows a similar approach in terms of film and I'm imagining it's because it meant they can shoot larger format (Alexa 65) and get a film feel without having to resort to shooting on 70mm, which is frankly really difficult these days. There are so few labs and only a handful of functional camera 65 cameras that work. Arri made the 765 but there's only a few of those (maybe less than 12) and they Arne't that reliable. I feel like I've heard of several references to them breaking down on set (shutter island was one)

Panavsion have a 65mm system as well, but again, it's not in wide circulation. ON a massive show like dune where they probably have multiple units and many bodies, it's harder to support a camera 65 origination.

JB

Jamie LeJeune wrote:

John Paines wrote:"Dune" was done that way, and there are a number of others.

For more detail on that digital to film back to digital process (which Fotokem cheekily abbreviates to “AI” — short for “analog intermediate”) that was used in Dune and why they chose it, my colleague Robert Gomez Hernandez and I made a video that covers that. It is one episode in a series of shorts on Hollywood color work, sponsored by Portrait Displays International (the company that makes Calman calibration software).

Would love to see a before/after comparison, just to see if the effect was worth the effort. Felt great in cinema so probably was.

And surely not nearly the effort that Hoytema put around his monster Alexa 65 IR / Panavision 65mm film rig for 'NOPE'. The final look isn't that much different to other techniques (e.g. even 'Cast Away'), but the massive VFX that went into every shot might justify it. Idk.
https://beforesandafters.com/2022/08/31 ... himpanzee/


As for digital back to film:
Donald Glover's 'Guava Island' was supposed to be shot on 16mm but Cuba's import restrictions led the team to shoot on Alexa LF and then print back to 35mm Kodak 5219 to get a 16mm look and feel (16mm would add too much grain due to Alexa's own noise).

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8858104/?ref_=nm_knf_i3

https://filmmakermagazine.com/107422-we ... ywi0y-21pQ

FYI:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/nyre ... sContainer

Tarantino is the loudest evangelist for analog projection, but what if he's right? That digital projection is just big screen TV, in the unkindest sense?

A good friend of mine just made this. It premiered at the very film festival he works at.



What’s inferred in JPs article is the fact that bootleg copies of films, often collected by projectionists are the only reason some of the more obscure films made are even available.

The illusion of the “cloud” and streaming means we think there’s all this content, but really finding more obscure titles if harder and harder. They just aren’t out there to even watch. Even Blu-Ray is finding a niche for this reason…titles you can’t see any other way.

JB

A few can be found on Mubi.

The problems is that just like a real cloud, they move and disappear.

That’s a difference with having a physical copy.

JB

That's the sad truth, for sure!

John Brawley wrote:A good friend of mine just made this. It premiered at the very film festival he works at.

That's a great trailer John, I'd love to see the film too.

I grew up with film: I'm old enough to remember going to the cinema, as a small child in the 60s, awe struck by the silver screen. I had a Super 8 projector at 5 and later made my own films on the format. Then later still on Bolex H16s. I was a location recordist on Nagras and shot myself on BLs, SRs and Aatons. I cut my first films as a professional editor on 16/35mm. And all the while going to the cinema and never getting over the magic Xeon arc throwing light onto that screen of dreams.

But, a lot of it looked terrible. In the main, premiere, first run showings it would be glorious; by the time the battered, scratch dupes of dupes arrived at your average local Odeon, it looked less than stellar. I remember thinking why do films at home, on TV often look perfect (as opposed to TV drama) and yet in the cinema sometimes they would have, grain as big as golf balls, scratches, weave and bad sound. Not all of course. The best cinema experience I ever saw was the restored reissue of Hitchock's 50's masterpieces.

Digital theatrical Cinema has stagnated somewhat. The DCPs are very often only 2K and 4K is still rarer. The projector technology still lags behind the brightness of an arc through celluloid and the magic of that organic experience has somewhat been lost. Many cinemas are like sterile airport lounges, particularly in the Multiplexes, with no sense of occasion. Whereas once they were often veritable palaces with magical décor. It is possible to have a much better quality presentation at home and perhaps the best use of huge wall 8K TVs would be to show 'films on TV', at the cinema, rather than project them.

And yet I hope and believe that will all get better. I love the whole thing of DCPs. The ability that we can all have now to release a 'print' that way that doesn't cost £25K for one print. Although I admire Speilberg, Tarantino et al, I think they are wrong. In relation to the discussion above, I believe if you transfer to film, it is film, if you really want that. Cinema is still very much alive but it will unlikely ever return as the mass experience it once was. The Digital Cinema experience has to get back the sense of occasion the theatre once held; Film will not completely die but having the luxury to release a few 65/35mm real prints to select first run houses in Los Angeles and major cities, is fast becoming a vanity and rarity, open to very few major directors.

Huh, looks like Sony is gonna be announcing a new cinema camera next week: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news ... -next-week

I know Blackmagic isn't as big a company as Sony to make some many options, but I do love this idea of having multiple cameras for various purposes. So I'd love to see a series of Blackmagic Cameras all using the same sensors. So say URSA, URSA Mini, and URSA Micro type of series.

John Brawley wrote:The problems is that just like a real cloud, they move and disappear.

That’s a difference with having a physical copy.

JB

Golden words
Try to find mainstream movies like James Cameron’s The Abyss, or Ron Howard’s Cocoon on streaming, then are missing in action of right acquisition.
I’m strong fan of physical media to have a physical version of movie to avoid it to disappear or … to be disneyished… recently I saw Splash, old movies where Daryl Hanna is a mermeaid that save the life to a guy who grow like Tom Hanks. Disney plus version is altered, cutter of some scene and others censored where Hannah’s hair grow to cover her nudity in the ocean…
I discover be cause I had many version on vhs, dvd, but I see for the first time…
Streaming only mean missing movies, today not only less important movies but also mainstream movies shooted from big name like Cameron and Howard.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Marvelous discussion on this thread, one of the best discussions I've seen online in some time.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

rNeil H wrote:Marvelous discussion on this thread, one of the best discussions I've seen online in some time.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

It’s a dreams’ discussion
We cannot know about future, we spent time talking about good things
Ah ah ah


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

carlomacchiavello wrote:

John Brawley wrote:The problems is that just like a real cloud, they move and disappear.

That’s a difference with having a physical copy.

JB

Golden words
Try to find mainstream movies like James Cameron’s The Abyss, or Ron Howard’s Cocoon on streaming, then are missing in action of right acquisition.
I’m strong fan of physical media to have a physical version of movie to avoid it to disappear or … to be disneyished… recently I saw Splash, old movies where Daryl Hanna is a mermeaid that save the life to a guy who grow like Tom Hanks. Disney plus version is altered, cutter of some scene and others censored where Hannah’s hair grow to cover her nudity in the ocean…
I discover be cause I had many version on vhs, dvd, but I see for the first time…
Streaming only mean missing movies, today not only less important movies but also mainstream movies shooted from big name like Cameron and Howard.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I have still yet to find Touch of Evil Restoration Cut. The one done for Criterion where they used the 58-Page Memo from Orson Welles to restore the edit to the way he wished it to be. It’s a far superior cut of the movie. Hopefully one day they get that version in streaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

timbutt2 wrote:I have still yet to find Touch of Evil Restoration Cut.

Love that film! "Morning, Mr. Vargas" - the long take that took many takes, because that simple line kept getting fluffed at the end.

Here, the BFI puts out some fabulous quality Blu-Rays and more recently UHD Blu-rays. I bought a fairly good machine and have bought a few UHDs. Some of them are truly amazing quality. Some restorations are as they were never viewed when new. It's ironic that we can only see film at it's very best, through digital transfer of the original negatives. Love physical media and treasure my collection of UHD Hitchcock's.

Since we're way OT anyway, 'Touch of Evil' can be difficult to watch if you ask me --the directorial control being exerted, even in the studio cut over which Welles had no control, is suffocating. But if anyone wants an insight into the detail which a master of cinema like Welles brought to the work, check out his 58-page memo written after he viewed the studio cut (once!):

http://wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm

Am not sure the difference is as consequential as some claim, in either cut; it's still the same B-movie, for which there are no real expectations of perfection or dramatic consistency. The whole thing is still preposterous, whether or not it's internally consistent or every detail coheres. You either love it or hate it. And it was meant to play on a double-bill, meticulous though Welles was about it.

The really fascinating studio hack job was Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons", because the studio destroyed all the material that might have been used to reconstruct it. What's left is a series of disjointed scenes, brilliant in their own right, and with some stupendous blocking -- nobody could stage a scene like Welles -- that play like an abbreviated drama. You want to know where the rest of it is.

So cinema fanatics can only dream about what it might have been (the ideal situation!). When they previewed Welles' version for audiences in the 1940s half the audience said it was the greatest film they'd ever seen and the other that it was a total disaster. The studio went with the latter opinion, making drastic cuts and adding a few new scenes so badly written, blocked and staged Welles must have been horrified. 80 years later, the suits are still at it....

John Paines wrote:The really fascinating studio hack job was Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons", because the studio destroyed all the material that might have been used to reconstruct it. What's left is a series of disjointed scenes, brilliant in their own right, and with some stupendous blocking -- nobody could stage a scene like Welles -- that play like an abbreviated drama. You want to know where the rest of it is.

Orson Welles was a genius but also full of ego BS, a good deal of the time. Robert wise re-cut that and he was no slouch. The preview of Welles cut was pretty disastrous apparently.

While we're still on the subject; I was only introduced to the film via the Criterion Collection "Welles Cut" that was put together on DVD. The thing that struck me as impressive was another long shot that was so well orchestrated in the movie and most people barely notice it. They focus solely on the opening shot.

In fact, I think that the shot continues beyond this because the scene cuts away after this section and then when we return to the apartment the long shot continues. In addition there's another scene cut and then when we return a third time to the apartment the long shot continues. This goes with a story that Welles did a large section of the script in such a short span of time on the first day that he told the studio he was 2-3 days ahead of schedule after completion. I believe it was this scene. However, he quickly fell behind schedule again.

At first all was well on the set. Knowing there were studio spies on the set, Orson Welles planned his first day of shooting to start with two uncomplicated close-ups. He started work at 9 a.m. and had the first shot finished by 9:15. Then he got the second shot by 9:25. The studio spy was called off, so nobody noticed that the next shot wasn't completed until 7:40 p.m. Fortunately, that was a long take that covered 11 pages of script, so Welles ended his first day of shooting two days ahead of schedule.

I love the film as a study and as well as a film noir fan. Yes, Welles had an ego. But the man was pretty brilliant in his use of the cinematic language.

Steve Fishwick wrote:Robert wise re-cut that and he was no slouch. The preview of Welles cut was pretty disastrous apparently.

Robert Wise was a studio man who made studio movies. 'The Sound of Music'? You really want to compare him to Welles? And take his word over Welles'? Welles also wrote extensive notes on the studio cut of "Ambersons". If you read those notes I don't think you'd want to say Wise understood the film better than Welles did.

That studio preview had a wide divergence of opinion, as already noted. And even if it was a disaster. What does that really say? Wise never directed anything as accomplished as the [original] scenes of Amberson which survived the studio (and Robert Wise).

Have you ever seen, "Odds Against Tomorrow"?, "The Haunting", "West Side Story", need I go on. Welles was full of BS I tell you.

I don't care if Welles was full of BS in his public persona. He films are highly accomplished and innovative, far more so than Wise's. And yes, I've seen everything of consequence directed by Wise. If the movies themselves aren't sufficient, read Welles' memos on Touch of Evil and Ambersons, and then tell me he's a poseur or a dilettante.

John Paines wrote:He films are highly accomplished and innovative, far more so than Wise's.

Not all of his films John and that's your opinion. Greg Toland told him he could teach him everything about film in 2 weeks and that's why critics loved him, because they had never made a film either. He was his own worst enemy, with a monstrous ego. I love "Citizen Kane", "Macbeth", and "Touch Of Evil" and many more. But he is not top of my list of all time, for what it's worth

Some of my favorite Orson Welles films: Citizen Kane, The Stranger, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, and The Trial. I especially love the funhouse mirror finale of The Lady from Shanghai.

I'll also note that I love Carol Reed's The Third Man, which had a fantastic little performance from Orson Welles as Harry Lime.

Steve Fishwick wrote:Greg Toland told him he could teach him everything about film in 2 weeks and that's why critics loved him, because they had never made a film either. He was his own worst enemy, with a monstrous ego.

I don't see what his ego has to do with anything -- how many church mice make movies? -- and the critical esteem for Kane is so broad that your account can't begin to explain it.

He doesn't have to be your favorite filmmaker for the achievement to be obvious. And you don't even have to like his movies (I'm not sure I do) to admire them.

And yes, Orson Welles "stole" The Third Man -- and his influence was so strong, it took over the direction itself, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it. He also wrote much of his own part, and got the cuckoo clock line wrong (it wasn't invented in Switzerland).

John Paines wrote:And yes, Orson Welles "stole" The Third Man -- and his influence was so strong, it took over the direction itself, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it. He also wrote much of his own part, and got the cuckoo clock line wrong (it wasn't invented in Switzerland).

The Third Man was a very fine movie directed by Carol Reed. Yes Welles was, as ever larger than life, as Harry Lime, as an actor, but the fact you dismiss Reed and attribute the entire movie to Welles, suggests you've swallowed the pill, John, if you'll forgive me.

Citizen Kane has been esteemed largely by critics. It is without doubt a Tour de Force, but following your line, I would say that might have been down in a huge part to the brilliance of Greg Toland's innovative camerawork and the majestic writing brilliance of Herman J. Mankiewicz. Who Knows? We weren't there - we can only speak of what we like or don't.

The Third Man is a pretty Wellesian movie (I suspect Carol Reed admired him more than you do), and not always in the kindest sense. Even the conceit of the unseen manipulator/magician is Wellesian and which is much stronger in movie than in the Greene novella, where Harry Lime is a sordid uncharismatic figure.

But I think that's my last volley on this one.... And no, I haven't swallowed anything.

John Paines wrote:But I think that's my last volley on this one.... And no, I haven't swallowed anything.

Your volleys have been great John, and your film history knowledge is extensive It's good to spar gently occasionally about these things to realise what the tools we love are really for. I admire Welles very much, people have forgotten largely now, why he was so fantastically disruptive and it's all there in Kane. But there were also many many directors, working within the studio system who bent it to their will in amazing ways. And they've always interested me more. It wasn't until Cahiers Du Cinema coined the term auteur, that anyone took people like Hitchcock, Ford and Sirk seriously, other than jobbing crew. Thanks.

Back to camera announcements, this new Sony is exactly the same as the FX3 with the exception that it has an S35 sensor.

For $1795, this is much a good deal.

Ellory Yu wrote:Back to camera announcements, this new Sony is exactly the same as the FX3 with the exception that it has an S35 sensor.

For $1795, this is much a good deal.

Can I pay another $1000 to not use a Sony menu?

Jack Fairley wrote:Can I pay another $1000 to not use a Sony menu?

Features are good, but it's still only 10 bit....

JB

I have seen 2-3 sites and multiple youtube videos stating that this is a BMD killer. It will be an interesting discussion, however there is a big difference between 10-bit Sony codec and BRAW. However that's never the only criteria for buying a new camera.

I think it could still be very interesting as AF and IBIS is a big deal...

but 10 bit AND a codec that's problematic to work with....pretty big downsides...Typical Sony mentality though....

That's aside from what the actual pictures look like out of it of course...!

JB

I will say that I have 2 BMPCC 6k cameras and 3 Sony cameras ( A7sIII, FX3, and A1) I have found that they tend to match up well when grading them on the same timeline. I will also say that I tend to triple check my Sony settings as they cannot be changed later.

John Brawley wrote:but 10 bit AND a codec that's problematic to work with....pretty big downsides...

Yes, I would hugely prefer better in-camera recording options from Sony. In AMD CPU/NVidia GPU Windows land, I more or less need to transcode everything to ProRes with my M1 MBP.

Jack Fairley wrote:

John Brawley wrote:but 10 bit AND a codec that's problematic to work with....pretty big downsides...

Yes, I would hugely prefer better in-camera recording options from Sony. In AMD CPU/NVidia GPU Windows land, I more or less need to transcode everything to ProRes with my M1 MBP.

Ha, I do the same too. That’s a shortcoming of Sony’s. Aside from the 10-bit codec, feature/price - it’s a good deal especially for AF, IBIS as JB mentioned, and a good low light cam.

I read that it the HDMI output supports 16-bit raw video to select, separately available recorders. I wonder if it can write out BRAW or Prores RAW to a Atomos recorder. That would solve the 10 bit codec limitations.

I wish BMD will actually make a pocket or kind of box type form factor with similar features and with BRAW. I know that’s wishful thinking but I can at least wish.

Jack Fairley wrote:

John Brawley wrote:but 10 bit AND a codec that's problematic to work with....pretty big downsides...

Yes, I would hugely prefer better in-camera recording options from Sony. In AMD CPU/NVidia GPU Windows land, I more or less need to transcode everything to ProRes with my M1 MBP.

This is what Sony is recommending as the media for use in the FX30:

Sony 640GB CFexpress Type A TOUGH Memory Card $1248.00 USD
Max Write Speed: 700 MB/s

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... 2DB11AF4D1

Using the recommended media, the Sony FX30 records 4K UHD 60p XAVC S-I, MP4, H.264, Linear PCM at 600 Mbps (75 MB/s) at a cost of ((3600x75)= (270000/1,000,000)x((1000000/640000)x1248) $526.50 USD per hour!

They could have used a cheaper SSD drive like Blackmagic or the Panasonic GH6 now offers. Why are they marketing a companion CFexpress Type A card that can record at a speed of over 9x faster than what this camera is capable of?

John Brawley wrote:but 10 bit AND a codec that's problematic to work with....pretty big downsides...Typical Sony mentality though....JB

The reason John, Sony dominates the broadcast market, a far huger one than streaming or anything else, with once FS7s and now FX9s is because of 10bit 4:2:2 intraframes 50/100mbs codecs that meet minimum specs, yet offer huge shooting ratio storage advantages. Broadcast hardly ever works with raw and Prores takes up too much space - it's S-log, XAVC>Avid. BMD has nothing in this arena, even the H.264/5 on the UBG2 is only good for news, it is not considered broadcast quality. I am working currently for one of the largest independent media groups in the UK and they literally bought hundreds of FX9s.

Sony's philosophy too is like BMD, hook you into their world at a good pric and perhaps you'll step up to buy the better cameras, if you become pro. This is at a direct price point to compete with the Pockets, as well.

I don’t think Sony and BMD are the same here Steve.

One company offers the exact same codec at the same bit depth across every model, with the cost spread of $1295 to $6385. Same bit depth, same media and a cost ratio of 4.93 between the lowest and highest cost model.

Sony offer a plethora of different models, shooting different codecs and different bit depths at a far greater price spread with much different proprietary media. The cost ratio for a fx30 Vs A Venice 2 is 27.29. Just a 1tb Sony AXS card for a Venice 2 is $4000 if you can get one.

BMD don’t cripple a camera to get you into an eco system to hope leverage you into a higher need model for better specs. They just don’t think that way. It’s the same codec top to bottom and what changes is the form factor and with that the top frame rate and space requiring features like attachments and numbers of outputs.

JB

John Brawley wrote:BMD don’t cripple a camera to get you into an eco system to hope leverage you into a higher need model for better specs. They just don’t think that way. It’s the same codec top to bottom and what changes is the form factor and with that the top frame rate and space requiring features like attachments and numbers of outputs.

No, no, I wasn't suggesting that John. When you hear Grant Petty lay it out, which sure sounds sincere to me, BMD want to 'empower' you with tools at an affordable (and free) price to create and hopefully as you progress you will buy their hardware, that enables them and pays them to do this. As you say all the cameras, top to bottom work the same way, so that learning one means you can easily move up to the other. Sony are far less charitable much more corporate in their philosophy. I just meant there are parallels in how they cultivate loyalty, not the ethos behind it and why they have a hook in broadcast, with largely horrible post codecs.

It's personal and irrational but I hate Sony cameras, the look, the codec and the form factor, except for the classic ENG ones - they just don't inspire you the way humble BMD does. I wish deeply I worked with more BMD camera rushes than I do!

And all that hooha around the launch of this FX30 - you'd have thought it was the second coming - I was expecting some game changer, between the Venice and the FX9, not this wee thing

Steve Fishwick wrote:And all that hooha around the launch of this FX30 - you'd have thought it was the second coming - I was expecting some game changer, between the Venice and the FX9, not this wee thing

It's odd that they call the FX30 a "cinema camera" when it lacks basic features like shutter angle and accurate frame rate displays (23.98 is shown as 24). It's a marketing gimmic: the main market seems to be "content creators" for youtube as well as the broadcast market, but Sony touts it as a "cinema" camera to give it some mojo. I have to admit it's intersting to me for several reasons, mainly because almost any lens can be adapted to e-mount, APS-C is more attractive to me than full-frame, and it has decent low-light capabilities. And Sony has vastly improved their menus in recent models.