Thread: Just exactly what is this?!?!?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by pharpsied View Post
    A square peg can fit in a round hole if you hit it with a hard enough hammer, but why?
    It seems to me that you are not making films...you are shooting video. To a hammer, all the world is a nail. We'll pound on this nail for 10 bit ProRes, balanced audio inputs, headphone jacks, even RAW if we care to go there, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member pharpsied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by mhood View Post
    It seems to me that you are not making films...you are shooting video. To a hammer, all the world is a nail. We'll pound on this nail for 10 bit ProRes, balanced audio inputs, headphone jacks, even RAW if we care to go there, etc.
    I don't understand.

    What I am saying is that I am a little confused about the re-purposing of this camera because I make narrative films and not just video and that's my purpose in getting a digital cinema camera. I don't know where you would get that I am shooting anything other than what I said I was.

    DSLR adapting I get.
    BMC adapting I didn't get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by pharpsied View Post
    I am a little confused about the re-purposing of this camera because I make narrative films and not just video and that's my purpose in getting a digital cinema camera. I don't know where you would get that I am shooting anything other than what I said I was.

    DSLR adapting I get.
    BMC adapting I didn't get.
    You'll make narrative VIDEO with the BMC of course. At its heart, it is a VIDEO camera and to use it's many strengths in the pursuit of VIDEO is not re-purposing the BMC any more than purposing it for the pursuit of "film". If you "get" adapting DSLR, then I don't understand why/how you could not understand adapting BMC...it's a much shorter stretch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    225
    Maybe I'm missing something...I don't quite understand how using this camera for anything other than narrative is re-purposing or adapting. To me, it seems perfectly suited to a lot of tasks. Lack of timecode and genlock seem to be the only limiting factors to me for certain applications (especially 3D). Otherwise, I don't see why it couldn't be easily used for narrative, corporate, events, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member pharpsied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    635
    Ohhhhh, it's a semantic argument. Like calling ourselves moviemakers instead of filmmakers because we won't be using film...
    I get that.
    I understand what you are saying.
    What if there was no ProRes or DNxHD, mhood? Would it be as strong to you? Subjectively? Would you still be here? Honestly?
    That's the crux of my position.
    The other codecs were admittedly a compromise and the latitude exceeds other cameras in the price range which means that the intended use of this RAW camera was "purposed for the pursuit of film," and the addition of other benefits doesn't change that but allows for additional uses. I wanted to know that this is primarily a digital cinema camera and want to use it for that purpose; My original post was an attempt to classify it to at least my self.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member pharpsied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something...I don't quite understand how using this camera for anything other than narrative is re-purposing or adapting. To me, it seems perfectly suited to a lot of tasks. Lack of timecode and genlock seem to be the only limiting factors to me for certain applications (especially 3D). Otherwise, I don't see why it couldn't be easily used for narrative, corporate, events, etc.
    Again, what if there was no other codecs in the camera? I am not saying that it can't be done. I am not saying that it shouldn't be done. I am just saying that if people are using a digital cinema camera for something other than digital cinema, what is it? That's not that hard to understand, I don't think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member pharpsied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Green View Post
    So let's be clear -- you CAN shoot ENG on a Red One, or on a BMC. It's just a lousy choice for that, and there are many products out there that would be infinitely better. Just like you could shoot ENG on a DSLR, but it's a terrible choice for it, any modern video camera would be a much better choice.

    In the early days of the Red, people tried to talk themselves into it being "the answer" for every possible task. It was never intended to be such. It was, and is, a raw digital cinema camera. Period. Could you shoot a wedding on it? Of course, but you'd have to be loony to want to, y'know?

    So that brings us to the BMC. What IS it? According to BMC, it's a RAW digital cinema camera. Full stop. That's what it's intended to be. They didn't even want to put ProRes/DNxHD on there, it's thanks to John's lobbying that we even have that.

    I think those who are going to get the most out of it, are those who are going to embrace it for what it is.

    I think those who are going to struggle the most with it, are those who are going to try to shoehorn it into being something it's not. And I suspect there are going to be a LOT of those people. People who are so swayed by the hype and the buzz that they'll refuse to even entertain or look at any alternative product. Is it going to be the case that an AF100 or FS700 or EX1 or HPX250 is the better choice for a lot of these people? Of course -- but they will refuse to hear it. And I don't really want to spend a lot of time fighting people over what they should use; I've learned that people will buy what they want to buy, whether it makes sense or not; they'll use what they want to use, whether it's a rational choice or not, etc. And they're free to do so. And when they run into the limitations and are totally frustrated, THAT'S when they finally open up to the concept that hey, maybe there's a better tool for the job out there...

    So, what is the BMC? A digital cinema camera for a raw workflow. That's what it's made to be, and if you're the type of shooter who shoots digital cinema (on a large scale, narrative features; on a smaller scale, high-budget television commercials) then the BMC is aimed at you. And if you're a shooter who needs quick turnaround time (like a low-budget commercial or corporate film producer, or a wedding shooter who has to deliver a same-day edit, etc) then the BMC is probably *not* the right choice for you, you'd probably be much better off with a comparably-priced AF100. And if you're a shooter who covers events, sports, conventions, news, etc., then the BMC is most definitely not designed for that purpose. Could you use it for those purposes? Sure, and you could also use a nickel as a screwdriver, and use a screwdriver as a chisel, and use a chisel as a screwdriver, and heck, I even saw someone trying to record a press conference on a 7D. You CAN do it, but why would you? Why not just use the right tool for the job?


    Perfect example. I used to do a ton of that work, and I'll tell you right now, IMO the AF100 is the infinitely better choice over the BMC for that type of work. Great images, tiny file sizes, 12 hour record times, lots of wide lens choices, image controls that can deliver a finished image right in-camera so no post grading necessary, etc... Kevin says they're currently using the EX1, which is a reasonable choice for that work, but no shallow DOF; the AF100 gives you all the good features of the EX1 for that work, but with shallow DOF, at a price that's within the same ballpark as the BMC. In my opinion, those kind of jobs absolutely wouldn't benefit from a raw workflow, and therefore, the BMC becomes the wrong choice for that job. Not that you couldn't do the job with the BMC, as you probably can, especially with ProRes, but -- why? Why jump through more hoops?

    And that isn't to sell an AF100 or an EX1 over a BMC, it's just to point out an example of why there are so many products on the market. The FS700 would be vastly more suitable for some jobs than a BMC would be. The PMW500 would be vastly suitable for some jobs than the FS700, BMC, or AF100 would be...

    All I'm saying is: embrace the BMC for what it is, and don't get caught up in the trap of trying to shoehorn it into a place where it doesn't really belong, just because it's the "hip hot buzzword" or it's "fashionable" or whatever. There are many fine products made by many manufacturers, and while there's no perfect camera out there, there are certainly some that are more suitable for certain jobs than others are, so think through what you need and what you're trying to do, and buy the product that best suits that need.
    This is, to me, the most intelligent take on this question. It makes sense. If you want to do something else, more power to you, but...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by pharpsied View Post
    Again, what if there was no other codecs in the camera? I am not saying that it can't be done. I am not saying that it shouldn't be done. I am just saying that if people are using a digital cinema camera for something other than digital cinema, what is it? That's not that hard to understand, I don't think.
    A rose by any other name...

    To me, it's a camera - that's about all the classification I need. Blackmagic calls it "Cinema Camera" but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, beyond that that might be their focus when it comes to features. People call the GH2 a DSLR, but it's not a single-lens reflex design. People call the Epic a Super-35mm camera, but it's sensor is 30mm wide, not 24.95mm.

    What if a movie made on this camera goes to film-out? Would you need to re-classify the camera because it's not being used for "digital" cinema?

    I just think the point is moot. The camera does what it does...what it's called doesn't really matter, I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member pharpsied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    A rose by any other name...

    To me, it's a camera - that's about all the classification I need. Blackmagic calls it "Cinema Camera" but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, beyond that that might be their focus when it comes to features. People call the GH2 a DSLR, but it's not a single-lens reflex design. People call the Epic a Super-35mm camera, but it's sensor is 30mm wide, not 24.95mm.

    What if a movie made on this camera goes to film-out? Would you need to re-classify the camera because it's not being used for "digital" cinema?

    I just think the point is moot. The camera does what it does...what it's called doesn't really matter, I think.
    If Blackmagic calls it a Cinema Camera because that is the focus of the features of the thing, how does it not mean anything to call it what they are building it as?
    Nevermind.
    You are right, it's moot.
    It's not what you call it; it's how you use it. That's what I was talking about, questioning.

    Oh, and that rose crack didn't work out well for either the Montagues or the Capulets!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by pharpsied View Post
    Oh, and that rose crack didn't work out well for either the Montagues or the Capulets!
    Yeah, well it was worth a try!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •