Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
First feature film: BMCC or the GH3?
  • azza_actazza_act

    Hey guys, well I'm close to making a decision on weather to upgrade from the GH3 to the BMCC. It's going to cost me around $6500 to do so... I love the look of the blackmagic but I'm just a little nervous that it might be over kill for our first feature film. And that money could go into lights and/ set design. Our film will likely have a $20,000 budget. I've been making short films for 4 years now and we are just about to finish the 2nd draft of the feature film script, and move into preproduction shortly after. We are planning to start filming in 4 months. After 4 years of shooting with the GHx cameras , I have all of the equipment and lenses to suit the panasonic eco-system. So we have all the kit right now to shoot the film on the GH3 if we wanted to. I use all of this equipment for work too: weddings, real estate videos and showreels. So I can't just sell it all in order to get the blackmagic. I'll have to have both systems. Plus, if I was going to getting the bmcc, it would be the EF version so as to have IS. There will be a lot of handheld shooting and quick setups at different locations. So I guess my question is: is the bmcc worth the extra cost for a first time feature film or should I put those resources somewhere else and use the GH3? Cheers Aaron

  • 65 Replies sorted by
  • vicharrisvicharris

    Why would the BMCC cost you $6500? Do you have any MFT glass? This camera is really easy to shoot handheld with a rig IMO. You just have to follow the normal rules of a film camera.

    If you're asking if it's worth the money, all I have to say is wait till you get in post. Then the money slips away. Period.

    I think it cost me $3000 to go from my GH2 cameras to my BMCC but I went with the mft version. You can shoot all prores and still be light years ahead of the GH cameras.

  • azza_actazza_act

    @vicharris hi, I have noktor 17.5mm, 25mm and canon FD 50mm. Would these be fine for handheld? I just heard that there's heaps of rolling shutter with the bmcc.

  • azza_actazza_act

    And what are you doing about power?

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @azza_act

    I wouldn't go beyond 17.5 handheld.

  • JBV_CINEJBV_CINE

    Add the 12mm sir magic and some forms of long lens like a 85mm Samyang or a long legacy lens and you have an amazing bmcc/gh3 set up. Rolling shutter is only as bad as you let it be... No worse then a dslr in fact I find it less then a 7d. You will not regret your decision and if you going pro res route Kingston and or San disk ssds in 120gb and 240gb are silly cheap for the price to data ratio

  • JBV_CINEJBV_CINE

    And maybe a 35mm Samyang that is a goto kind of headshot lens for me well a mix between that and a 25

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    I'll be in dissonance here, but in your place I'll choose to use tools you know good already. Get more skill shooting with rigs, steadicams in similar to your film set restrictions instead. And focus on more important stuff.

    Yep, you'll have less DR, and some restrictions in grading, but it is not super important really.

  • kavadnikavadni

    @azza_act.

    The only things I bought (had to buy) to switch from GH2 to a BMCC MFT were:

    Tokina 11-16 - My widest MFT (or adaptable) lens was the Panny 14mm ($469)
    Atomos HD-SDI -> HDMI converter ($300)
    A few cables ($200)

    The other thing I bought (but didn't have to) was a Viewfactor cage and top handle

    In the past, I had tried to buy only fully manual lenses, and I already have a V-Mount Battery solution. I can see how it could total $3K if you need to lens up, especially if your wanting the IS.

    There are a few things I want/need to make my life easier, I would suggest hire/borrow one for a few days and see what you need as you bolt it to your existing rig/s.

  • Chris74Chris74

    why don't you rent one. Will be around 50 Euro/day and most of them charge only 4 days/week. Of course, depends on how long production you have.

  • astrabanastraban

    seriously the tool is the last thing to worry about when you want to shoot a good story. scoot location (ie gasoline) find great comedian and make them happy (food+$ when possible) bring them on shoot location (gasoline+food) and don't rush on set (time - yours and others - is the most expensive tool). if for a specific shot you need huge DR you can rent a cam a day or two for it. but with that budget happy people (comedians and tech crew : sound and lights) are the most valuable "tools". A quarter of the budget in a cam is not wise for me. All that, considering you have a good story in the 1st place. ;)

  • ahblezaahbleza

    I made the investment in a BMCC, after having shot exclusively with the GH2 for a few years. I'm pleased I did, but this is the minimum I found necessary:

    • Cage for BMCC for mounting stuff
    • Rails for matte box
    • Matte box
    • External battery (I use Switronix)
    • SDI to HDMI converter
    • HDMI monitor (I already had Zacuto EVF)
    • Bigger tripod (for all weight of extra stuff)
    • 2 x SanDisk 480 GB SSD
    • SSD adapter
    • Bigger Mac system for editing raw

    If you don't intend to buy all this, then just use GH3, and invest in stuff that will improve quality of the movie, such as set design, better costumes, great makeup, and most of all, LIGHTING.

  • kazuokazuo

    If you already have a good set of glass that covers the requisite focal range, and a GH3, I would advise you to invest your money in art direction. Alot of people think cinematography is most important in film production (evident in these online forums) but I beg to differ.

    The most crucial elements that will make or break your film are story (script) and direction (including art direction). How many times have we seen films that boast of nice lighting and angles but cant tell us anything? And how many times have we cringed at films in which the props look like they already exist on location, and have been hijacked for convenience?

    So many things to pay for, so many priorities, only a fool would think filmmaking is child's play (and there are people who think like that).

  • azza_actazza_act

    Thanks everyone for there input

  • vicharrisvicharris

    Yeah, I'll have to agree in the end with putting it back into production. Lighting, food and GOOD sound!!!!!! Get a good sound guy!!!!! :)

  • TheNewDealTheNewDeal

    I find me quoting Robert Rodriguez often. "Every film maker has 20 bad movies in them. Best thing you can do is get them out of you." (Or something like that.)

    Every week I see people spend big money on average or terrible films. They truly think its their tools. Find a story. Plan it out. Actors. Sets. Angles. Props. Basic sound. Shoot it. Cut it. Mix it. Publish it. Do it again. Trust me. Once you've done that about five times, you will be shocked how much your product has improved, with no difference in gear. You will soon find people more talented and experienced than you in certain specialties, doing whatever they can to help you, and often bringing their own better gear than you can afford.

    Plan. Shoot. Edit. Mix. Distribute.

    Every project I've ever worked on (40 years) I've had regrets and limitations. They are my best teachers. Do something right now with what you have, even if its just a cell phone camera. Because the most important lessons you learn, and skills you will build, are from the many mistakes you will make when working with people. Not planning. Not communicating. Not motivating. Make your human and creative mistakes for free, and spend your first money on pizza for your "crew" that helps you. You will be surprised how they will support you and your vision, even on a cell phone.

    Film making is not about gear. It's about vision, communicating that vision, team building, and motivating, motivating, motivating. Make those mistakes now for free, and learn from your human mistakes. Soon you will be shooting with the benefit of others highly focused talents and others money. And that's where the real fun begins.

  • kingmixerkingmixer

    Yes, what vicharris said – SOUND. Once you get into the GH3 and above territory with camera bodies, the differences in the end product become less and less notable. While if you put that money towards sound... well, an audience will notice if you don't.

    Even if you already have a sound guy and his/her gear, use it to buy access to locations that aren't next to freeways, airports, etc.

  • jrdjrd

    You're asking an impossible question, because unless you know exactly what you're going to do with the money saved, and how exactly that will improve the film's prospects or make it better, who can answer?

    Consider also that a $200,000 film usually doesn't have any better chance than a $20,000 one: the money difference isn't enough to be decisive in the movie business. People don't get 10x better production value or 10x better performances or 10x better script for $200,000. They just make a bigger disaster.

    However, for your own satisfaction -- audiences don't care -- you may find the footage is more relightable (and salvageable) in post, with the BMCC. What that's worth only you can decide.

  • shianshian

    I'd only use the GH3 as a doorstop - so I think it goes without saying.

  • DouglasHornDouglasHorn

    I'm with VK. Use the tools you know and are skilled with. A new camera will come with new problems that you don't want to discover on the set.

    Yesterday I was in a color grading suite finishing a short film I make on my GH2 and FD lenses. It looks beautiful. Probably better than my first two feature films in distribution. So if you want to be REALLY contrarian, my advice would be to sell your GH3, buy a GH2 off eBay and put all that extra money toward a good DP, gaffer, PD, locations, actors, whatever. Once the camera is adequate, that's the stuff that really counts.

  • matt_gh2matt_gh2

    I'd say if you're getting great images with the GH3 that you like, stay with that for all the reasons mentioned. If you don't like the images coming out of the GH3, get something else, whether it's a BMCC or a GH2 or whatever. If you're only 4 months away from shooting, you could possibly get up to speed on a new camera, but if you really have the GH3 mastered and are getting great images from it, I would go with that. As you can imagine, once you get onto set, you really want all your camera/technical stuff fully mastered to minimize problems and maximize your team's ability to focus on the scenes themselves. (If you really love the BMCC look, perhaps you could rent one if that's an option, and do some test shooting, which will maybe give you a feel for the difference in looks.) Best of luck with your film shoot.

  • lolololo

    invest on production values rather than a new camera, just find a style that suits you with the gh3 (learning the limitations), a style that is coherent with the story you are telling, if you find a way to do this then you are gaining more by investing in the art of the movie rather than raw, 2.5k ain´t that different than 1080p, but a well crafted set is a lot diferent than a cheaper one, and on the normal spectator it would have a much bigger impact... more dynamic range and more color depth doesn´t improve the universe that you want to create.

  • lolololo

    and also think about the blair witch proyect, cloverfield, or no (even though those are extreme examples, just to clearly ilustrate my point), those movies worked with the audience even though the image wasn´t perfect (in technical ways), but the camera style supported the story behind, also in the same line of thinking, you can play with the image to extremes if they support the story somehow, but the audio must always be perfect, otherwise the audience will reject the movie

  • vicharrisvicharris

    Audio is king!!

  • TheNewDealTheNewDeal

    We were telling stories for years with audio, before pictures got their act together.

    Many experienced film makers argue that the four most important people in a feature are the writer, the boom operator, the audio recordist, the mixer. After all, the story is told in the center speaker. Everything else is just supporting that story...

    Invest in preproduction. It's the biggest return on investment. Pay the actors one day labor to do a table read. Have your sound crew record it. Have your DP record it with three camera and clap/slate it. Then go back and edit the recordings into your draft movie script, with spacing and maybe add still shots to present locations. That's a only a one day production investment. Do that well and people will be itching to help you make the real movie, and you can shoot a far better movie in much less time, at much lower price. (And if you finish your preproduction and you "have no movie, no story", you just saved a lot of money. And you will have one more bad movie out of you without losing all your savings.)

    Film making is about climbing ladders. Multiple ladders in real time. With a team climbing with you. It's story telling. You just need enough dynamic range and resolution to get the audience to understand the script.

  • jfilmmakerjfilmmaker

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev What steadi-cam rig you like best for indicated budget?

Add a Comment