I'll go against the status quo and argue the BMDD will allow you to compete against the big boys. But, not over a feature length film. How about a teaser? trailer? A short? You can probably last a minute or two against Manny Pacquiao before he'd wear you down. But I'm thinking a lot here at PV could be golden for 30 seconds on screen before getting decked.

@jrd, wrote - [This isn't to say interesting work can't be done without money and resources. But it's not as if nobody has ever tried filmmaking on the cheap. It's understood that no actual or would-be filmmaker wants to invest money and months (or maybe years) of work in a project shot on a crap camera. But with impoverished productions, it really doesn't matter in end what you shoot with, as long as the images are visible, because you're not going to get what you want, no matter what camera you use....]

"It doesn't matter what you shoot with" just sounds too pessimistic. I don't think I could agree with that at all. You're making a definitive statement that a film maker won't be able to get what they want in terms of image from this camera or any cam because of the rest of the production chain and equipment etc.? How can you possibly make such a statement without knowing what the film maker is actually trying to achieve?

Money is always a huge part of commercial success. but how do you know that everyone is only concerned with commercial success. That doesn't mean that the BMCC isn't going to be a worthwhile tool for an indie film maker. Also there are varying degrees of success and it's not always about making it to major release. I can't understand what you're point is in regards to this new camera and how it can help low budget to no budget films to look better. I hope you're not around to tell kids there's no point in dreaming just cuz the odds are against them ever realizing those dreams. WTF!

@jrd

Doesn't even need to be said, but here, have an Internet.

Hell yeah to that post.

@Aria

"You won't be constrained by the cost, availability or anything else for that matter if you can get the look you want and don't have to worry about the cost of rental, that a plus."

The trouble here is, "the look you want" depends far less on the camera, than production values which only money can buy. If you have few or no resources beyond the camera, it won't matter much which camera you're using. Nobody is going to watch the film simply because it has more resolution and DR than the same stuff shot with a GH2 or a 5d III.

As Oedipax notes, the arts are not a democracy, but it gets worse, because movies aren't a meritocracy either! Without money, you have to forget the traditional aesthetic, based in classical painting. And you're unlikely to get great performances. The better the script, the worse it could turn out.

This isn't to say interesting work can't be done without money and resources. But it's not as if nobody has ever tried filmmaking on the cheap. It's understood that no actual or would-be filmmaker wants to invest money and months (or maybe years) of work in a project shot on a crap camera. But with impoverished productions, it really doesn't matter in end what you shoot with, as long as the images are visible, because you're not going to get what you want, no matter what camera you use....

A cheaper typewriter doesn't turn everyone into William Faulkner, no. Like anything, most of what will be shot on these cameras will probably be mediocre tripe that never sees the light of day. And people thought lightweight 16mm cameras and Nagras were the revolution, back in the 1960s... so there is always some new technology around the corner that people want to think finally 'democratizes' filmmaking. But art is not a democracy (thank goodness!) :)

@RRRR

Well, those productions wouldn't rent Arri anyway. What I'm saying is that just changing the camera doesn't do much really but change the look itself, and possibly how much light you do or do not.

So the movie may or may not look slightly better, you may or may not get into an interestingly tight spot to shoot, but it has no effect on low budgets because they are low budget by nature.

That low budget that could only afford a DSLR and no ser design can still only afford a DSLR and no set design.

And I understand no budget vey very well. I speak the language fluently. Haha. More so than I'd like too.

I shoot both, have been apart of both, will probably always shoot both because I like either production level.

What it changes for me, someone that can shoot high end at will, is having the same confidence in the tool that I have in said high end formats. That way I can focus on everything that really matters when trying to create.

I love the gh2 but having to worry about an ISo bug, not doing this and that... To me, it doesn't instill the kind of confidence you need as a shooter going into a project, especially an ultra no budget one. Just me though.

Anyway. Not trying to dash hopes or crush dreams but once dslrs hit people were already given The holy grail. Notice how very few no names and no-budgeteers used the tool to go big and go far.

@kholi

Having worked with a lot of low budget stuff; I can say this camera will make a difference. The rental fees of an Arri alone for a well-planned short would pay for the BMD, and in relation to the overall budgets for such productions it leaves a lot more for having the dedication of skilled people involved.

That said, I would not expect the same conditions if I happened to live in California.. I understand your'e involved in the industry in a completely different way, or should I say; a completely different industry. "Competing with the big boys" for me, would mean a f.i. a feature that has good success on international level.. You are completely correct that the brand of the camera has very little to do with success though..

However, I can fully see the BMD cam allowing for a completely different aesthetic tool to do minimal budget projects, over longer periods of time (feature length productions).

Long time lurker but felt I had to add to this discussion.

I've been working in the biz for over 25 years now, film, video, broadcast television. Have seen a lot of changes through the years.

The BMCC is not a revolution, it is an evolution. First of it's kind. It is not a high end production camera nor is it in the dlsr camp. It is something that stradles the fence between the two. There is not point in trying to fit it into one camp or another. It is unique and will change how many of us shoot and what we are capable of.

A gamechanger...

@kholi

By the way, could you explain unreliable SATA connectors?

I mean real physical connectors for 2.5" SATA drives. Get one and look at them, and also to connectors on other side.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Experience with Black Magic products says otherwise. The HyperDeck is pretty damned stout, and cheap is not one of the words I would use to describe it. Owning and having used several of the companies hardware solutions, I expect it to be built just as tough.

And, well, Davinci is pretty much THE post workflow for finishing Alexa, so not sure how they could not have had the that thought in their mind. Maybe that's just me though.

@Vitaliy_kiselev

Yeah, I did remove it, because I didn't read fully before responding and saw that I was being redundant with what John posted. Actually didn't expect anyone to respond so fast, sorry about that.

I am trying to understand what you're getting at and I think I do, and I actually do not disagree that most of the cameras sold will not be on Alexa or RED shoots as B, C, or D Cam. I think the overall movement was more like:

We wanted to offer a camera that compliments Alexa (13.5 stops--or more, of actual DR, very film-like image and motion, choice of workflow from raw to Log-like ProRes acquisition, already installed Davinci workflow) and RED (similar, just not as much DR and a harder post workflow) while doing away with the idiosyncrasies of DSLRs (aliasing, moire, lack of DR, colorimetrics, shoddy compression schemes, lack of serious I/O, etc).

In this light, if what's on paper matches what the camera producers, ESPECIALLY the 13 stops of usable DR, they will succeed hands down, and again, enjoy what may be household saturation of their already popular finishing suite.

I do know for a fact that the story and every other aspect of the process of setting up shots are major factors to the success of a film. This argument isn't about that. You think we believe that we'll make Hollywood level films just cuz we have a certain camera. Let's not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum. I don't believe anyone that is really doing this is that naive!!!

The thing is that the BMCC does offer options at a price point that has not existed. Things users will be able to do with the acquired shots that you couldn't do on this level for a camera film makers can own and have with them at all times and long enough to really learn and get a mastery of. I don't understand this posture some of you are taking to pour water on the spirit of those who see an new opportunity here with this camera. It's a phenomenon that seems to happen any time there are a group of people that get enthusiastic about something. It happened with DSLRs in general, happened with RED, GH2 and now it rears it's ugly head here and the camera hasn't even come out yet. The Anti BMCC crowd is already forming.

Explain to me how this camera won't be a big boost to the indie film maker, allowing them to get a more filmic look provided they have the skills to get that done with the right tools. I don't get it. Why should it be any harder with this camera than an Alexa, RED or F3 etc.? I do know that if I had access to an Alexa all day every day that i'd be able to learn a lot just from being able to shoot with it and work with the footage. I'm doing that now with DSLR. I learn something new every day. I did the same things with more affordable high quality Audio equipment over the years. It's the same thing.