Personal View site logo
BlackMagic: Official $2,995 raw cinema camera topic
  • 1156 Replies sorted by
  • No, I mean this part:

    John: I've already been using the camera in my own work. It's complimented the Alexa's I've been using on a TV series I'm doing now very nicely. And that's the way to think of this camera. It compliments cameras like RED and Alexa.

    =P

    And this:

    @Aria BMD very much wanted to give 5D users a better alternative to line skipped highly compressed HD video. That's what they are going for. To make this camera a better 5D and a complimentary camera to bigger cameras like the Alexa or RED.

  • @kholi

    Yep, his thoughts are not very logical with the part I cited.

    And as I said, most of the BM cameras purchased (about 70-80%) won't compliment Alexa or RED despite this claims.
    Alexa and RED market is very limited.

  • @jrd @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    I totally agree that the camera is merely a tool, in a much larger picture. Junk in, junk out. I get it. But I'm saying someone who actually has a really great idea / story to tell, and is able to pull together the resources, they could potentially do it on the cheap, with the camera technology that's right around the corner. If Robert Rodriguez had had this camera, he could have pocketed close to $7k, when he shot El Mariachi. Obviously, if I'm shooting a feature or project with a significant budget, camera rental cost wouldn't really be that much of a consideration. It's also a great tool to learn a professional camera workflow.

    Good ideas don't necessarily cost a ton to produce, and these future cameras give us even more power. Music recording is a great example of good ideas that can cost next to to nothing and can be produced in a bedroom, and still compete with major label, multi million dollar recordings and sound great.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Most of the camera purchased may not be put on Alexa and RED shoots, but they are clearly aiming for the high goal and reaping the benefits of the low end goal, which are the likes of shooters that want this kind of power for next to nothing. What it actually gets USED for is a different story, it still doesn't change what goal they had in mind.

    I think I get what you're saying, but from my perspective John's comments are completely logical.

  • 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.

  • @modernhuman

    Music recording is a great example of good ideas that can cost next to to nothing and can be produced in a bedroom, and still compete with major label, multi million dollar recordings and sound great.

    Do not share your idea about music producing. Especially part claiming that it can be done for cheap and somehow magically become popular and bring money.

    @kholi

    Most of the camera purchased may not be put on Alexa and RED shoots, but they are clearly aiming for the high goal and reaping the benefits of the low end goal, which are the likes of shooters that want this kind of power for next to nothing.

    Now I do not fully get the position as it became very fuzzy. Plus tried to remove your post with original position. I put it back as I clearly see thing that I made bold.

  • @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.

  • @kholi

    I am even not sure that they had Alexa in mind, John had but not sure about them.

    Looking at interviews they worked with Apple and from design, menus, audio connectors, cheap plastic "designer" covers, usage of unreliable SATA connectors it is not good compliment to big cameras in the field.

  • @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.

  • By the way, could you explain unreliable SATA connectors? Maybe something I didn't know.

    Been using SSD's in the field ritually since the RED SSD module was available for RED ONE/M-X.

    More reliable than the previous option, that's for sure.

  • @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.

  • @aria

    "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.? "

    Making a mature, persuasive dramatic illusion with an Alexa, a Red or a F3 is very expensive proposition, even if you get the camera for nothing. That process will be no less expensive with a BMD.

    When Zacuto does its annual "shoot-outs", cameras with vastly different costs and specs can produce results very similar on-screen, even for a trained audience of DPs. Why? Because each camera enjoys exactly the same production resources. If, however, you devoted the resources typically available on Alexa network TV shows, and the resources typically available to owners of the Gh2, the results would not be flattering to the GH2. And we're not even talking about the costs of drama -- just image.

    "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. "

    It could be the best script (or the most commercial one) ever written, but in the movie business, it's worthless without money. There are so few actual writers writing scripts that a fundamental truth has gotten lost: that film is actually a very awkward story-telling medium. Very few scenarios work well on screen, and they settled into genres well before 1920.

    With rare exceptions, you need elaborate production values to conceal the defects and offer viewers the kinds of pleasures they've come to expect from either art-house or commercial cinema. And you can't do this on a shoe-string, unless you've got a VERY unusual approach -- the sort of thing which happens maybe once every 10 or 20 years, and which doesn't depend for success on the camera used. It could be pixelvision, 16mm, DV, Gh2 or IMAX.

  • 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...

  • I can't even figure out what this is going to change? Why is this a game changer at all?

    @jdr's post is pretty much spot on.

    "Compete with the big boys" and "game changer" are both very silly things to say. You can't compete with "big boys" until you have big boy money, cameras don't change the fact that you can't afford to build a huge set, or hire serious talent in front of and behind said camera.

  • @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).

  • In my case, I am one of the people as vitally says who have been aspiring to FS100 .. I'll have this instead

  • @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.

  • Indie film is what most of us are talking about right? What is all this talk about matching a major big budget release blow for blow? I don't understand the point that you guys are trying to make at all. There are so many levels between the high end and the indie that I don't understand what the hell you guys are going on about. If you want to do an Indie full length, Short Narrative or Documentary this is a plus for someone that will be able to film whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. 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.

    I live in a city that is small but has many more opportunities to film without getting permission if you can do it unobtrusively. You have to be available at strange times and sometimes the opportunity pops up with very little notice.

    Anyway there have been artfully done films that didn't follow the normal production paths you guys are talking about. There is more than one way to get it done and creative thinkers find those ways every day. IMO this camera will help in that process.

  • 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!) :)

  • But to @Aria's point, I think the DSLRs have certainly made an impact on filmmaking here in the U.S. and abroad. In Europe you have Godard using the 5D for parts of Film Socialisme, Philippe Grandrieux using it for his documentary on Masao Adachi, Monte Hellman (an American original with a European bent) shooting the 5D for all of Road to Nowhere, Nicolas Klotz using one for Low Life, etc.

    And then all the U.S. indies (the dreaded term: mumblecore), shooting films that generally play SXSW or Sundance and might or make not make it much further beyond that, but it's all DSLR now whereas it was uglier DV a few years ago (with one or two exceptions insisting on film). Only Lena Dunham, with Tiny Furniture, really had much breakout success if you care about that sort of thing. Not sure what Girls is shot on, but it hardly matters.

  • @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....

  • @Takumar Couldn't have said it better, right on the money...

  • @jrd

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

    Hell yeah to that post.

  • My final thoughts.. if this camera fits your bill & your creative needs go for it. I think we need to stop debating and use whatever tools that we own, just create beautiful moving images. I'm proud to own a GH2 & I love it!!!!!!! thanks to all your hard work @Vitaliy_Kiselev / Patch developers.

  • @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!

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions