ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 1 month ago - Kays Alatrakchi

I agree with Andrew. There is color information in ProRes HQ that you don't have in H.264 codecs. If you have lots of possible VFX or compositing shots, this could be a real problem. When it comes to final grading, ProRes will also give you a more robust base to work from where more compressed codecs will break down fairly quickly. IMHO, the C100 is nothing more than a glorified 5D3 with a (slightly) more ergonomic body. For some reason many DP's have bought one thinking that it was a C300 or C500 "lite" but I don't think the specs reflect that. A better choice IMHO would be a Blackmagic 4K or even a Blackmagic Pocket Camera with the new EF Speedbooster which will give you near S35 field of view with a considerably more robust data format. Other options would be the RED Scarlet.

11 years, 1 month ago - Peter Ward

The C100 is way sharper than the 5D3. I've used it a bunch and like it a lot.

If you can wait, the Sony A7S would be my first choice--I recently helped a friend shoot some test and was blown away (virtually no aliasing at HD; extremely good dynamic range). The GH4 is another strong contender if low-light isn't an issue.

Ultimately it boils down to what your DP is going to do their best work shooting on--that person will be a much bigger determinate of quality than the camera at the end of the day.

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

Adrian?

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

Hi Adrian,

If you're shooting a fiction - that's not in a doc style or meant to look lower quality - the simple answer is no, it's not good enough. It simply doesn't stand up either in a big screen test or even a small-screen cinematic look. I've seen my own work shot on the C300 and screened on a big screen and even that camera doesn't really give you a cinematic look. It's pretty good TV, but that's about as far as I'd go.

The larger question here is - in my mind - why are you even thinking about shooting a feature on the C100?
When's the last time you watched a fiction feature that was shot on a camera like that? Or a DSLR, or even the Blackmagic (and please tell me if you have). What reach will your feature have? Even if you have 20K to spend on getting this feature shot and edited (which is nothing), what are you then going to do with it? It simply isn't going to make it into the cinemas, and decent festivals don't generally accept what are essentially no-budget features (and there are plenty made in the UK every year by Shooting People members). My assumption is you will put it online, but is that what you really want?

Is it seriously worth spending the money on this? Why not spend 10K on a fantastic short, or 20K on two?! If you have the skill to make a feature then you're more likely to get proper backing off the back of good shorts. A friend of mine is shooting his first feature this autumn. It's low budget - £300k - but he made some increasingly impressive shorts and and managed to get this kind of cash together for a feature that will likely make it to cinemas.

I know I've gone off the point here, sorry...

11 years, 1 month ago - Kays Alatrakchi

Jamie, it all depends. First of all, if I could I'd shoot everything on an Alexa, and I would own one so that I could shoot all of my family vacation videos on one too. Having said that, I don't think the Blackmagic Cinema Camera (either the 2.5k, the 4k or even the pocket) are "NO GOOD" as you say. It all depends on your needs, and resources.

Ironically, I'm about to be involved in a feature film with plenty of resources for Alexas and which instead decided to shoot on two BM Pocket cameras. This is a multi-million dollar feature with name actors and the camera decision was purely a creative/artistic one. Nobody in the production, including the very financiers who are putting up the money are questioning this decision, not even the very experienced DP. Now, if you're patient and willing to wait until the end of August, I'll let you know how it all turned out.

11 years, 1 month ago - Peter Domankiewicz

Hi Adrian

My advice would be not to get too bogged down in technical discussions. There are many good low-cost camera options now and it comes down to what aesthetically pleases you and what is affordable within your budget. All of the options discussed here are at least a match for shooting on Super 16 and therefore more than suitable. For me there were massive, crucial advantages in owning the shooting kit outright rather than hiring, which totally outweighed considerations of absolute quality. On the other hand, if you get a DP on board who brings their own Alexa, you're laughing...

11 years, 1 month ago - Tim Fok

Interesting to hear other people's views, I have the complete opposite view to you Kays!

I think the C100 is a fantastic camera, different level to 5D mark iii.

I own both, and the C100 enters a different league with its audio, focus/exposure assist, battery/card management and image.

I regularly use it alongside the C300 (c100 with a ninja) and they match really well.

I'd put the blackmagic cameras in a more similar league to DSLRs. Both are a faff to shoot with, both battery and card hungry, both terrible audio, both have they're image quirks. Main difference for video is that the BM cameras shoot superior images.

It very much depends on the type of feature you're shooting. If you're applying heavy grades, VFX then perhaps not. If you're shooting small crew, run and gun and know how to utilise natural light well, then perhaps it's the right camera.

The C100 won't ask anything from you, it's incredibly easier to shoot with, batteries and cards last all day and very discreet. The in-built codec also holds up much better than most anticipate.

There's better images out there though, you'll get a more filmic look with others. Just depends on your budget, and with budget taking into account all accounts with a camera choice. Do you need extra hands on shoot to offload/charge batteries. do you need extra hard drives to keep up with data. do you have a powerful enough system to handle the rushes?

11 years, 1 month ago - Robin Schmidt

Jamie's absolutely right. If you were really ballsy you could pick up an Arri sr2 package for less than the cost of a c100 (to own) and do any number of deals on stock. That would really get a crew pulling for you. Having shot a low
Budget feature on a minimal schedule anything that slows you down or prevents you shooting is death. Halfway through the shoot when the initial
Enthusiasm has run out and you're surviving by the skin of your teeth, having a camera that's easy to use for the camera department makes a big difference. For us it was an alexa. Yes it delivers great images, yes it's the current digital daddy but ac's love it because they an rig it and set it in Jo time at all.

Ultimately all these posts always highlight the same problem - there aren't enough good producers to go round. All these problems can be addressed by having a dynamite deal maker in your team. Directors tend not to be that, and if that's what they're spending their time doing then he creative will suffer.

I always say 'invest in relationships, not kit', cameras are a tricky investment these days but good people are gold dust.

11 years, 1 month ago - Andrew Morgan

AVCHD isn't great for post - chromakeying in particular is unpleasant - I shot a mix of AVCHD and ProRes HQ (on a Ninja) for my feature and the ProRes is by *far* more forgiving for grading.

11 years, 1 month ago - Kays Alatrakchi

I think it's very interesting to hear the differing opinions on cameras. What I believe separates the various takes is whether you are more of a production or a post-production focused person. I fall in the post camp, so to me considerations about ergonomics, XLR inputs or battery life are not as critical as the image quality, bit depth and information that I can use and mangle in post. From my perspective, I wish all cameras shot in uncompressed 10bit or above raw formats, so I would rather work with a Blackmagic Pocket Camera's raw output than a C300 Pro Res or (sigh) a GH-4's crappy 4:2:0 H.264 4K footage any day of the week. Tracking, keying, and color grading are simply better with uncompressed 4:4:4 12bit images than they are otherwise, if you speak with professional colorist or VFX artist I don't think you'll get much argument about the benefits of working with raw uncompressed. So you have to determine what type of movie you are going to shoot, and most importantly what will need to happen in post, and work your way backwards to determine what camera will best be suited for your needs.

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

Strictly speaking Kays, whether you're a production or a post person is pretty irrelevant. You can't afford to be one over the other. The assumption if you're making a film - especially a feature - is that both/all those bases are covered by able, skilled people, and both have the resources they need to do their job as well as the budget affords.

You're right that you need to consider what post you will be doing and to a certain extent work backwords, but still, Blackmagic Pocket Camera's raw is still NO GOOD for a feature you want to actually do anything with. Compare its raw to the Alexa's ARRI RAW. Which would you rather have? Because - like I said - if you have 5k to BUY a camera, you can get a good deal on the Alexa for a few weeks to get your film shot to feature standard. Plus you get a much better DoP and better crew all round.

Adrian - would be good to get some response from you as the question-putter? What are your thoughts?

11 years, 1 month ago - Nathan Blair

I'm in complete agreement with Tim here.

I have to add that compared to a lot of the DSLR cameras I've worked with, the C100 is much sharper, with WAY better color control settings.

People have shot features on various DSLR cameras, people have even shot features on VHS tape! So overall, I would just recommend working with a camera you feel most comfortable shooting with, but also one that can live up to your specific needs for your film.

As others have said, if you're worried about a lot of color grading or VFX, use an external recorder of choice and you'll be all right. Workflows like RED and Arri Raw are great, but you really don't always need all that information, and at times a larger cinema camera can sort of get in your way if you're not used to working with it.

The only remaining fault with this camera would be lack of overcranking, as your only option would be to shoot at 60i, conform it in post and deinterlace... definitely not ideal.

I own the C100 and have worked with C300s along side it. Both cameras use the same sensor, with the two main differences being that the C300 has a timecode input and a slightly better bit rate. Comparing it to the 5D, I'm definitely in favor of the C100's image.

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

When it comes to shooting a feature, the considerations are much more than what camera you're going to shoot on. Camera hire cost is a fraction of the budget on a longer shoot like this - for a 4 or 5 week hire, once you factor in lenses, accessories and lighting you are barely even paying for the camera - even if that camera's the Alexa.

As a DoP I own my own kit Peter, but if I were shooting a feature I wouldn't expect the production to rent my camera from me. In some ways I wouldn't even want them to, as I could get more from renting it out onto various smaller jobs over those 4 or 5 weeks than I could for what the production would force me to accept for it.

Even on a low-budget shoot you'll likely pay more for your sound recordist with their kit than you will to hire a RED. Plus, the quality of crew you're going to get when they see you're shooting on the C100 or a DSLR - for a feature - rapidly plummets.

I would come back to my other point - what can you realistically do with a no-budget feature shot on a DSLR or equivalent? Is buying a camera the right place to spend the money? If you have 5k for a C100 kit you can get a good deal on a top notch cinema camera for the same money, and you have a much better product at the end of it.

11 years, 1 month ago - Jamie Kennerley

Of course - I'd love to see how it turns out. And you're right that these are all a mixture of technical, creative and narrative choices. But the point I think I'm trying to make is that you won't get Alexa-style quality from the BMPCC, despite its RAW capability. We know that.

A multi-million dollar film choosing to shoot on those cameras is also not aiming for an Alexa-quality picture. They obviously have narrative reasons for doing so. Rush was shot on about 10 different kinds of cameras, from Alexa's all the way down to Go-Pros, and the reasons for that are so clear from watching the film.

But, if your intention is to get the best quality - and I suppose I mean by that the most cinematic, or most emulating 35mm - picture for your budget (as I only presume is Adrian's intention here) then whatever budget he has to buy a C100 is much better spent on hiring an Alexa, or an F55, or a RED.