Thanks @peternap! I am sure you will find great use for the BMPC.

There was a time when we even shot on VHS for broadcast (in some places). It seems to be the more technology has evolved, the more people have caught on the evolution without quite understanding the purpose of it. Toys have become more compact, they now pack hellavalot of power in a small package - just look at the iphone. But if technology has improved by leaps and bounds, storytelling hasn't. Hollywood has produced more re-runs in the last 10 years than it has any other time in its history. It has also remade films from Asia, capitalising on the films' profitability. Celluloid maybe dead, but has digital techno really taken storytelling as a craft to new heights (not talking about VFX here)?

More slight OT here.

Thing is, not everyone is using these cameras in same way. In some cases technological features become essential for creating images needed to tell the visual story or represent reality as intended by film creators.

One might need best possible chroma key for compositing - you won't get that with 28Mbps H.264, but raw and ProRes will do much better. One might need to shoot landscapes that have very high DR - shooting with HDR sensor in raw format will help. In a documentary or sports report, one might need to represent reality as well as possible within media limits - 48/50/60 fps create more convincing feeling of "being there" than 24/25/30 fps. One might need very fast framerate for slow motion or good timelapse features to show things from outside normal human perspective. And so on.

As for quality of Hollywood storytelling, just look away from mainstream and there are more interesting things going on. Bigger problem is perhaps that there are too many films released all around, more than one has time to watch in a lifetime. And we're writing this thread because of intentions of making even more, heh.

Maybe even the limits of medium itself are beginning to show. Maybe next really big thing will be a medium through which one can experience all kind of otherness completely as one's own reality. Video games can already go deeper than films in that regard, whatever comes after them will be even more groundbreaking.

@neokoo said, "As for quality of Hollywood storytelling, just look away from mainstream and there are more interesting things going on. Bigger problem is perhaps that there are too many films released all around, more than one has time to watch in a lifetime. And we're writing this thread because of intentions of making even more, heh."

1. If you find indies interesting, it's most likely not because of the cameras they use, but the quality of storytelling. I cite a recent case in point, Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color." It's such a narrative feast that after a while, you forget about the technology behind the film. Good filmmaking should make the filmmaker's craft/tool invisible.

2. We should shoot all kinds of stuff, but I agree we don't have all the time to view all of it. And not all of it is worth viewing.

3. At the end of the day, no matter how you push technology, it's meant to be the filmmaker's slave. The converse would spell tragedy.

@jimmykorea,

Since I assume you're korean, given yr nick, you shd have heard of Park Chan-wook. Dont ask me what he's made, if you don't know by now, what a shame. Not too long ago, he's shot a film using a set of iphones, am not sure if the end product's entirely a pile of shit. We can agree to disagree, but let's not be condescending when we profess little knowledge in a certain thing.

Indie simply means outside the studio system, and it's a term that's been used to describe filmmakers who operate outside this system (some may prefer to see themselves as having fallen through the cracks) So either you're funded by the system, or you're on yr own, hence indie. I wouldn't cite something like "criticwire" as an authority on this matter.

And within indie itself, there are subcategories - pp who have backers, and those who have not.

Which one are you?

@vicharris I doubt he meant exactly what you wrote.

If you want to make VFX -based narrative film, or storyless pure cinema that relies on special tech, or whatever other kind of film which relies on some technological capability that iPhone doesn't have, you won't be able do it well with an iPhone. You can do some great stuff with an iPhone no doubt, but only if your visual storytelling needs fit within limits of what is possible with an iPhone. Same goes for current G/GH series - you can do much with them, but there are some limits...

Here we come back to BMPCC - it's another step in empowering those filmmakers who can't afford Red or Alexa or whatever, but need high DR, ProRes or raw.

@kazuo, I agree on all points, though it is debatable what story means for a visual medium. Dramatic storytelling and theater tradition vs. storyless pure cinema, stuff like that...

As non-mainstream I mean not only the usual low budget indie stuff but all that gets made around the world that does not have multinational theatrical release and advertising campaigns and such. Including "made for TV" productions.

BTW, is it correct to call the recent wave of pure cinema (timelapse & other special techniques) web shortfilms "indie"? I like some of those as well, even though many are more like "tech demos" than intentional films. In any case, they're one example of filmmaker being very dependent on camera and rig technology to realize shots he/she needs.

If I understand @jimmykorea correctly, he's only saying that if there's no money for the camera, there's also no money for cast, crew, locations, insurance, food, transportation, etc. So unless you can make a great movie without professional cast and crew, convincing locations, etc., a great cheap camera doesn't solve much.

As for Park Chung-wook (re:@kazuo), it's unlikely he had an iphone budget, even if he used iphones. This was one of the more infuriating frauds surrounding the "Dogme" movement: the cameras may have been cheap, but the productions weren't. "The Celebration" employed the best actors and crew in Denmark, not folks who answered a Craigslist ad and worked for nothing.

So dare we say it? No matter how cheap and how good the cameras get, moviemaking still costs a lot of money. Consider that for more than 40 years, you could shoot a 90 minute S16mm feature film at a ratio of about 10:1 for $20,000 or less in stock and lab costs. If that was the only barrier to making great cinema, where are all the $20K masterpieces from the last 40 years?

Still not buying it. Horrible, uneducated comment as usual. Back to BMPCC stuff :)

ANYWAY.... let's talk about native lenses. I realize that many of you here don't really recommend using the Panadonic 7-14mm. But, based on my experience many micro four thirds shooters praise this lens so much. May I know why the 7-14mm doesnt really get that many attention among the future pocket owners?

Because the BMPCC has no distortion correction (oops, you beat me on that). Plus, no manual focus. Oh, and quite slow, when there are native S-16 lenses with 10mm 1.4.

If you can live with that, it's a great lens.

Yes, but the 16mm sensor size means its taking more from the center of the lens so distortion might not be as big of a problem as some are anticipating. A bigger problem is for handheld because I don't think it has OIS, correct me if I'm wrong. Granted the wide angle won't be as critical, but I think it will still be a factor.

Yes, but again you are taking more from the center of the lens. I actually love the lumix lenses for this camera because of the very reasons I hate them for the GH series. The fact that the s16 sensors takes from the center more reduces the amount of detectable distortion and the razor sharpness of the lumix lenses that often do look to videoish on the GH seems to pair perfectly with the BMPC which has no in camera sharpening. Plus they are cheap in price as this camera is, making for a terrific combo that will add quality to indies that hasn't been seen since we were using actual film stock (almost).

Take a look at Brawley's first video shot with the 12-35mm and see if you notice a lot of barrel distortion. I don't.

I'll see if I can post some footage with the converter later this week, but there is a short film somewhere on here about an alcoholic who wrecks his car and kill himself, don't remember the title, but it uses the combo of the 14mm with converter and looks quite nice. I also signed up for the pocket cam as soon as it was available at B and H so I should be at the top of the list for getting one. I'll shoot test shots with all my lenses lumix and nikon both as soon as it is in my hands.