really missed - if not the VX1000 and PD150 - the DVX100 (first 24P!) all actually digital ;) the DVX100 Forum ran by Jarred Land was the space where not only the HVX came to life, but in some way the Red one too! thanks for this great review though
I have the bmcc 2.5k and any camera have impressed me than this camera I have worked two times with the bmpcc 6k,sometimes with the Sony a7iv, many times with the a6400, the a7iii...am still loving the bmcc 2.5k.
IDK what this video was about really. You say it's not about cameras like the F900, but then put a $18k Red and $60k Alexa on the list. The F900/panavised version is by far, the most influential camera, followed by the Thomson Viper and F32, F23 and Genesis that came out right after. It took the filmmakers experimenting with that tech, to push out products like the ones described. Red was an unmitigated failure when it first launched, every shoot that used the Red One was regretting it. It seemed like built-in ND and XLR were the most critical things, but putting the 5D as the most influential camera, which has neither of those two things. Really? If you left all the professional products off the list and stuck with sub $5k cameras, then yes... I would say his list is accurate minus those pro cameras. However, the moment you include ONE pro camera, you have to include them all. You have to start looking at the boat load of Sony cameras that shot the first big movies to be shot on digital. You have to look at films like Star Wars Episode II and III (Episode I was shot on film), you have to look at "Collateral" you have to look at "Spy Kids 2", you have to look at "Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow" then of course "Che" which was the first movie shot on Red. If you look at the history of real digital cinema, these films wrote the book. They wrote the narrative and without them, the smaller cameras would never have happened.
Our context in the the video was 'the most influential cameras and their impact on camera technology over the last 20 years'. The list is focused on what was feasible at the time of launch for an owner-operator to afford. Cameras that were initially over $100,000 when first launched weren't really feasible for the majority of shooters, not even to finance, so I set the bar generally under that threshold. Thanks for the thoughts, I don't disagree.
I’m pretty sure Phantom Menace was shot on 35mm celluloid… and the next movie was the one shot on earth digital cameras. Which is why Phantom looks so much better, and the next 2 look so sh!tty
