canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS Bodies - For Video => Topic started by: HurtinMinorKey on November 14, 2012, 08:40:47 AM

Title: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on November 14, 2012, 08:40:47 AM
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9186/blackmagic-cinema-camera-review (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9186/blackmagic-cinema-camera-review)

Interesting comparison of the BMC with the 5D3.  The BMC really shows a huge improvement in highlight gradation. Plus with RAW you can get the perfect exposure every time.  The big downfall appears to be the workflow, as it is very GPU intensive.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Rofflesaurrr on November 14, 2012, 09:14:47 AM
I don't see any reason to choose a 5D3 over the BMCC for video. It doesn't even compare. It's a great camera at an even better price point. It records direct to SSD, so that has to be factored into price if you don't already own some. SSD prices have come down a lot in the past year or two. However, if you use anything less then 120 or 240gb SSDs, you're going to be changing them out like magazines.

For editing, you're going to want a SSD or fast RAID 0 system to work with those files. A fast single or dual processor will speed things up, but isn't required. GPU speed can help if you are using a hardware accelerated NLE like Premiere Pro. My dual Xeon workstation has no problem editing 4k REDCODE RAW footage with a $100 nVidia Quadro card.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: AprilForever on November 14, 2012, 09:17:28 AM
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9186/blackmagic-cinema-camera-review (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9186/blackmagic-cinema-camera-review)

Interesting comparison of the BMC with the 5D3.  The BMC really shows a huge improvement in highlight gradation. Plus with RAW you can get the perfect exposure every time.  The big downfall appears to be the workflow, as it is very GPU intensive.

Competition is epic! Neat how they use the Canon mount...
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: asmundma on November 17, 2012, 11:01:15 AM
Depends what you want do.....   Cropfactor is 2,6 (or some thing in that range). Its not a point and shoot camra, riquires a rig. And files are huge (the raw).  If you want to grade using their applicatioon, you have to have a decent machine and a lot of storage ...... 
I want to have a camra that shoot both stills and video... Were not there yet undortunatly as Canon is down scaling video in their Slrs, to be able to sell c100..c300. Etc.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: JasonATL on November 17, 2012, 02:52:34 PM
I don't think that asmundma was intentionally providing incorrect information. But, for others that might read this and somehow rely on it, let's clear up some of the things that are stated as facts and, as such, are completely false.

Depends what you want do.....   Cropfactor is 2,6 (or some thing in that range).
Crop factor is 2.3
http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?13-Crop-Factor-Lens-Database (http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?13-Crop-Factor-Lens-Database)

Quote
Its not a point and shoot camra, riquires a rig.
The form factor of the BMCC appears to allow handholding quite well.
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/handheld-with-a-bmcc-behind-the-scenes-with-puberty-blues/ (http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/handheld-with-a-bmcc-behind-the-scenes-with-puberty-blues/)

Quote
And files are huge (the raw).  If you want to grade using their applicatioon, you have to have a decent machine and a lot of storage ...... 
You can choose to shoot in raw or compressed (ProResHQ or DNxHD). Raw is about 5 MB per frame, whereas the compressed options (ProRes HQ 4:2:2 or DNxHD 4:2:2) are about 220 Mbps. Yes, this is larger than most DSLR footage. With Magic Lantern, I can get about close to 200 Mbps from my Canon 600D, but it isn't 4:2:2. So, I find the file size concerns to be puzzling, since I actually try to get a less compressed image.

DaVinci Resolve is "their application". I currently use Resolve Lite on my nearly 2-year old Windows PC with a modest graphics card (GTX 560 Ti). I can edit the the BMCC raw files at full speed and resolution. As for storage, if you shoot compressed, the storage requirements are about 5x what you need for DSLR footage. But, it isn't a cost without benefit. You get a less compressed image with better color resolution. It should be noted that the full version of Resolve normally sells for nearly USD 1000 on its own, but comes bundled with the BMCC for free.

Again, the ProResHQ or DNxHD files can be graded and used in most NLE packages without the need to use Resolve.
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/ (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/)

I personally hope that Canon views the BMCC as serious competition and takes steps to provide more value (i.e., lower prices) in either their Cxxx cinema cameras or better video images in the DSLRs. I agree with asmundma that it is nice to have stills capability along with video. Plus, I still love the video image out of the Canon DSLRs, but look forward to adding a BMCC to the mix. I'm looking forward to Canon's HDMI update to the 5D3 and I doubt I'll give up on using the DSLRs even after I have a BMCC.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: asmundma on November 19, 2012, 09:39:24 AM
Thanks JasonATL for correcting my fast and somewhat incorrect reply. I tested Resove on a MAcBook Pro 2011 with i7 with Tumderbolt drive. Seems as Windows is better with a grafic card for this app, may the newes macs will be better.
Of cource you "can" handeld BMCC, but i think most people would agree that a c100, c300 is better. If you follow P. Blooms South Africa tour, you got the same message.
And you need a pretty wide lense with that crop facor to shoot wide. ( yea i know there are some alternatives)
I may buy such a camra, but it somewhat dangerous only to look at dynamic range, etc.
Agree that Canon needs to open up for high quality video.  The "best" camra for me would be the 1D C, but man, it costs a fourtune.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Axilrod on November 19, 2012, 10:16:26 AM
Aside from the sensor size, it's pretty much killing the 5D3 in every aspect.  The 5D3 is great if you want a hybrid stills/video camera but for straight up video the BMCC is amazing.  I have one on order, will probably keep my 5D3 still but couldn't pass up on 2.5K Raw for $3k.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Axilrod on November 19, 2012, 01:20:20 PM
This is the comparison that sold me on it: Comparing the Cinema Camera & 5D Mk III on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/49875510)
I'd recommend downloading the original file, it's much easier to see the differences that way. 

There is an MFT version coming out in a few months, I'm wondering if that would be a better option since all the lenses are optimized for a small sensor. 
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: JasonATL on November 19, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Aside from the sensor size, it's pretty much killing the 5D3 in every aspect.  The 5D3 is great if you want a hybrid stills/video camera but for straight up video the BMCC is amazing.  I have one on order, will probably keep my 5D3 still but couldn't pass up on 2.5K Raw for $3k.

Axilrod: Me, too. Although, I was late to the game and only ordered my BMCC in September. I fear that I am in for a long wait. Having said that, I don't think it will cause me to never use my 5D3 or even 600D. I am still quite happy with the image from those cameras in many situations. I still love the DSLR look. Of course, my view might change when I have the BMCC!
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Axilrod on November 21, 2012, 11:44:36 AM
Aside from the sensor size, it's pretty much killing the 5D3 in every aspect.  The 5D3 is great if you want a hybrid stills/video camera but for straight up video the BMCC is amazing.  I have one on order, will probably keep my 5D3 still but couldn't pass up on 2.5K Raw for $3k.

Axilrod: Me, too. Although, I was late to the game and only ordered my BMCC in September. I fear that I am in for a long wait. Having said that, I don't think it will cause me to never use my 5D3 or even 600D. I am still quite happy with the image from those cameras in many situations. I still love the DSLR look. Of course, my view might change when I have the BMCC!

I agree, the 5D3 still has it's purpose.  I talked to the guys at Showcase and they said that they have 25 preorders as of a couple weeks ago, so yeah I'm sure there will be a wait.  I'm wondering if it would be worth waiting on the MTF version, since those lenses are designed for a smaller sensor in the first place. 

What I'm really hoping is that they put this sensor in the an S35 version: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9240/could-this-be-the-perfect-sensor-for-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera-mark-ii (http://www.eoshd.com/content/9240/could-this-be-the-perfect-sensor-for-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera-mark-ii)
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: sandymandy on November 21, 2012, 12:35:57 PM
5d3 video looked really crappy in comparison. If u do mostly video i think better get the Cinema cam.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Drizzt321 on November 21, 2012, 01:20:01 PM
Thanks JasonATL for correcting my fast and somewhat incorrect reply. I tested Resove on a MAcBook Pro 2011 with i7 with Tumderbolt drive. Seems as Windows is better with a grafic card for this app, may the newes macs will be better.
Of cource you "can" handeld BMCC, but i think most people would agree that a c100, c300 is better. If you follow P. Blooms South Africa tour, you got the same message.
And you need a pretty wide lense with that crop facor to shoot wide. ( yea i know there are some alternatives)
I may buy such a camra, but it somewhat dangerous only to look at dynamic range, etc.
Agree that Canon needs to open up for high quality video.  The "best" camra for me would be the 1D C, but man, it costs a fourtune.

It might be that you don't have an Nvidia GPU. I haven't researched it, but it appears from what I read in the review Resolve uses CUDA, which is Nvidia specific, although OpenCL is quite similar and can theoretically run across ATI or Nvidia without much trouble, there may be certain reasons why they don't/can't easily use OpenCL rather than CUDA. That likely is a big reason why you didn't have good performance on your Macbook.

Besides, it's a laptop. You're expecting amazing performance out of a laptop? And remember, just because it's a Thunderbolt drive, doesn't mean it's fast. It could still be a bog standard 7200 RPM mechanical disk there. If it was a quality SSD, that's different of course, but otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be all that much faster than the one in the Macbook.

I also think the point is that what you get for the price is fantastic, and at least arguably on par with some of the much more expensive options such as the 1DC/Red/C100/C300. Those are at least 3-4 times expensive, BEFORE you start adding in lenses, rig, recording media, etc. For the young film maker without a decent budget (even for rentals), the BMCC is much more affordable. I think that's one of the reasons the 5d2 was so amazing back in the day is because you could get a pretty good quality for, relatively, quite inexpensive with relatively inexpensive lenses. And Canon has, since then, mostly fallen by the wayside due to their attempt to push the video DSLR up into the more expensive higher margin area. Which is exactly the opposite of what the 5d2 was, and is why they are losing a lot of mindshare from what I've been hearing (I'm out here in LA, have a few friends in the industry). BMCC seems to be around the same price point, compatible with the same lenses (depending on the version you get of course), and gives you a ton more than anything Canon, and possibly most other cinema camera manufacturers, give you at a similar price point.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Policar on November 21, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
5d3 video looked really crappy in comparison. If u do mostly video i think better get the Cinema cam.

What the 5D has in its favor is that it's incredibly easy to use and durable. The BMCC is more of a studio camera. I can take my 5D out in the rain and use cheap $20 per 32gb SD cards and ergonomically it's great. The batteries are tiny and last quite a while. Lens compatibility is amazing. Low light is incredible; the availability of 24mm f1.4 (UWA equivalent to 16mm on super16) for cheap and 10000 ISO is remarkable. Image quality is not.

There are ways to push the image quality closer (sharpen a bit in post, use HTP when appropriate), but if you shoot exclusively in studio and don't need UWA lenses or a lot of speed, the BMCC has its merits. But trade offs either way.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: meli on November 21, 2012, 01:56:41 PM
There is alot of talk about canon falling behind in sensor tech and (in combination with high pricing & competition) losing market but i think this is where Canon shot themselves in the foot and lost a huge market.

They basically failed to capitalize on the revolution 5d2 brought on the market and instead of pursuing that market they took a conservative and wrong based approach. The 5d2 boom on the video market wasnt about having a dslr form factor with okay IQ and definitely not for 10k+. It was about great IQ - interchangeable lens system on a 2k-4k price range.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: thelebaron on November 21, 2012, 04:00:22 PM
I dont think canon are that behind, but they just chose to cripple the 5d's video in comparison to the c300/1dc and even 1dx, and it will come back to bite them as the bmc rolls into the market. also their pricing for their cinema line is exorbitantly high for most of those who bought into the 5d2 revolution
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on November 22, 2012, 10:58:12 PM
It's all about using raw to manipulate the the exposure curve. You can get the same end result with an 8 bit camera, but the set lighting has to be perfect. 
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Policar on November 22, 2012, 11:12:49 PM
It's all about using raw to manipulate the the exposure curve. You can get the same end result with an 8 bit camera, but the set lighting has to be perfect.

Simply untrue. First of all, everything isn't on a set. This argument holds no weight for location photography, particularly exteriors.

Secondly, on any set in which practical light sources play a significant factor, they will blow out to a greater or lesser extent on cameras with more or less DR. But you want your subjects lit so they are not underexposed. It's a tricky balance. And your light will be shaped differently if you use lights off-frame (not always a possibility, either) to fix your exposure so you can't just do that.

There are reasons that "digital cinema" came to prominence much later than dSLRs did and why only the Alexa (with dual gain paths) has really proved a viable replacement. Highlight headroom is crucial with motion picture film, much more so than with still cameras (for which you can use strobes and dodge and burn or shoot multiple exposures more easily or just wait for the right light, whereas films must be shot fast).

Yours is a bold statement to make. Either somewhat ignorant or extremely hubristic, imo.

That said, the 5D has enough DR for most work. Just because it's only very good for very cheap doesn't mean everyone's entitled to great for just a little more. The BMCC might be great with DR, but sensor size, usability in post and on set, etc. is terrible from the perspective of anyone except the hobbiest who shoots test charts or the small production company that runs a very small, tight ship and only really does one style of work (studio short form).

The Alexa blows them all away and you can shoot on it as you would shoot on film and it's an affordable rental. So thankfully there's that.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on November 23, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
^You didn't really respond to my point. Here's an example: with the the BMC you can underexpose in bright sunlight and then bring out the detail in the shadows, thanks to raw. On the 5D3, if you don't want to blow out the highlights, you are stuck with unusable shadow detail. So it's not just about the total DR of the sensor, but what your codec allows you to do with the DR in post.

My point was that using RAW can compensate for bad lighting situations in a way that 8-bit cameras can't. Do you disagree, or was there just a misunderstanding?

Another way of stating my point is, you can't boil down a full 12-stops (in the case of the 5d3) of usable detail in an 8 bit codec.



Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Policar on November 23, 2012, 12:45:26 PM
Another way of stating my point is, you can't boil down a full 12-stops (in the case of the 5d3) of usable detail in an 8 bit codec.

That's true, and the 5D's capture codec is quite bad even relative to prores. A superior 8 bit codec could do pretty well, but the 5D's does not do great.

I'm just saying all the lighting in the world can't truly compensate for superior DR, particularly in exteriors or when practicals are used.

Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on November 23, 2012, 01:36:31 PM
I'm just saying all the lighting in the world can't truly compensate for superior DR, particularly in exteriors or when practicals are used.

As a practical matter, I agree. But as a matter of theory i wonder, if someone could have complete control over the light, couldn't they bake the same "cake" as you would get from doing a film to digital transfer?  Film has 15 stops DR, but even that get's compressed to 8 bit color when being viewed digitally.

So logically there must be some 8-bit input(5D3 with perfect lighting) that creates the same digital projection as film.  It's all about creating the perception of DR. Which film does naturally.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Axilrod on November 23, 2012, 02:26:37 PM
The Alexa blows them all away and you can shoot on it as you would shoot on film and it's an affordable rental. So thankfully there's that.

Since when is $1500/day an "affordable rental?"
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on November 23, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
I'm just saying all the lighting in the world can't truly compensate for superior DR, particularly in exteriors or when practicals are used.

As a practical matter, I agree. But as a matter of theory i wonder, if someone could have complete control over the light, couldn't they bake the same "cake" as you would get from doing a film to digital transfer?  Film has 15 stops DR, but even that get's compressed to 8 bit color when being viewed digitally.

So logically there must be some 8-bit input(5D3 with perfect lighting) that creates the same digital projection(projection as in mathematical projection) as film.  It's all about creating the perception of DR. Which film does naturally. 
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: asmundma on November 25, 2012, 08:26:47 AM
Thanks JasonATL for correcting my fast and somewhat incorrect reply. I tested Resove on a MAcBook Pro 2011 with i7 with Tumderbolt drive. Seems as Windows is better with a grafic card for this app, may the newes macs will be better.
Of cource you "can" handeld BMCC, but i think most people would agree that a c100, c300 is better. If you follow P. Blooms South Africa tour, you got the same message.
And you need a pretty wide lense with that crop facor to shoot wide. ( yea i know there are some alternatives)
I may buy such a camra, but it somewhat dangerous only to look at dynamic range, etc.
Agree that Canon needs to open up for high quality video.  The "best" camra for me would be the 1D C, but man, it costs a fourtune.

It might be that you don't have an Nvidia GPU. I haven't researched it, but it appears from what I read in the review Resolve uses CUDA, which is Nvidia specific, although OpenCL is quite similar and can theoretically run across ATI or Nvidia without much trouble, there may be certain reasons why they don't/can't easily use OpenCL rather than CUDA. That likely is a big reason why you didn't have good performance on your Macbook.

Besides, it's a laptop. You're expecting amazing performance out of a laptop? And remember, just because it's a Thunderbolt drive, doesn't mean it's fast. It could still be a bog standard 7200 RPM mechanical disk there. If it was a quality SSD, that's different of course, but otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be all that much faster than the one in the Macbook.

I also think the point is that what you get for the price is fantastic, and at least arguably on par with some of the much more expensive options such as the 1DC/Red/C100/C300. Those are at least 3-4 times expensive, BEFORE you start adding in lenses, rig, recording media, etc. For the young film maker without a decent budget (even for rentals), the BMCC is much more affordable. I think that's one of the reasons the 5d2 was so amazing back in the day is because you could get a pretty good quality for, relatively, quite inexpensive with relatively inexpensive lenses. And Canon has, since then, mostly fallen by the wayside due to their attempt to push the video DSLR up into the more expensive higher margin area. Which is exactly the opposite of what the 5d2 was, and is why they are losing a lot of mindshare from what I've been hearing (I'm out here in LA, have a few friends in the industry). BMCC seems to be around the same price point, compatible with the same lenses (depending on the version you get of course), and gives you a ton more than anything Canon, and possibly most other cinema camera manufacturers, give you at a similar price point.


Hi
Ok, the tunderbolt drive has two disks 7200rpm, i am using a RAID setup so it@s able to store on both. So the disk controller shares the load, it´s very fast and for FCPX is now problem at all, excellent performance
There is a GPU and its detected by DaVinci Resolve (ATI 6750M). The is also a CUDA driver in the system panel, not sure if this is effective as its ATI card.
However video play back is very sluggish and normally it can not play 24fps in Resolve, even before you start to add colour correction in the nodes.  The cpu is 2,3 (i7) GHz and 8G of memory.
Can anybody shade some light what would be necessary on a MAC, or explain why this is crapy.

EDIT :  I just upgraded the CUDA driver and performance inceased a lot, so that seems the main reason.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Policar on November 25, 2012, 05:22:32 PM
I'm just saying all the lighting in the world can't truly compensate for superior DR, particularly in exteriors or when practicals are used.

As a practical matter, I agree. But as a matter of theory i wonder, if someone could have complete control over the light, couldn't they bake the same "cake" as you would get from doing a film to digital transfer?  Film has 15 stops DR, but even that get's compressed to 8 bit color when being viewed digitally.

So logically there must be some 8-bit input(5D3 with perfect lighting) that creates the same digital projection as film.  It's all about creating the perception of DR. Which film does naturally.

It's not possible to control light like that. When the light source (a practical, a window, even a white tabletop that bounces light and also receives it) is in frame there's a set ratio between the source's brightness and the light it projects on a given subject at a given distance. Change the source's brightness and you change how much it lights the subject. Let's simplify this and say it's a one-light set up. If the ratio between the source that's in frame and the object it hits is higher than the DR of the sensor, you can't capture the subject and the source without under or overexposing one to the point you lose detail.

If you're in a studio you can compensate with off-camera lights, reflectors, etc. but those will change the shape of the light, not just the ratio.

So you can light (very carefully) to simulate high DR and might even get very good results. But you'll never get the same shape to the light, no matter how you light and manipulate in post.

Tree of Life could not have been shot on digital. Except maybe the Alexa. High DR lets you light with fewer sources, less fill, etc. and provides a better look not just in terms of roll-off but in terms of shape. That said dSLR have gobs of DR relative to video a few years back and most good DPs could shoot footage that looks as good as their Alexa or Red footage except for sharpness (and the Alexa rolls of highlights better than either).
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: Drizzt321 on November 26, 2012, 03:18:14 PM
Thanks JasonATL for correcting my fast and somewhat incorrect reply. I tested Resove on a MAcBook Pro 2011 with i7 with Tumderbolt drive. Seems as Windows is better with a grafic card for this app, may the newes macs will be better.
Of cource you "can" handeld BMCC, but i think most people would agree that a c100, c300 is better. If you follow P. Blooms South Africa tour, you got the same message.
And you need a pretty wide lense with that crop facor to shoot wide. ( yea i know there are some alternatives)
I may buy such a camra, but it somewhat dangerous only to look at dynamic range, etc.
Agree that Canon needs to open up for high quality video.  The "best" camra for me would be the 1D C, but man, it costs a fourtune.

It might be that you don't have an Nvidia GPU. I haven't researched it, but it appears from what I read in the review Resolve uses CUDA, which is Nvidia specific, although OpenCL is quite similar and can theoretically run across ATI or Nvidia without much trouble, there may be certain reasons why they don't/can't easily use OpenCL rather than CUDA. That likely is a big reason why you didn't have good performance on your Macbook.

Besides, it's a laptop. You're expecting amazing performance out of a laptop? And remember, just because it's a Thunderbolt drive, doesn't mean it's fast. It could still be a bog standard 7200 RPM mechanical disk there. If it was a quality SSD, that's different of course, but otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be all that much faster than the one in the Macbook.

I also think the point is that what you get for the price is fantastic, and at least arguably on par with some of the much more expensive options such as the 1DC/Red/C100/C300. Those are at least 3-4 times expensive, BEFORE you start adding in lenses, rig, recording media, etc. For the young film maker without a decent budget (even for rentals), the BMCC is much more affordable. I think that's one of the reasons the 5d2 was so amazing back in the day is because you could get a pretty good quality for, relatively, quite inexpensive with relatively inexpensive lenses. And Canon has, since then, mostly fallen by the wayside due to their attempt to push the video DSLR up into the more expensive higher margin area. Which is exactly the opposite of what the 5d2 was, and is why they are losing a lot of mindshare from what I've been hearing (I'm out here in LA, have a few friends in the industry). BMCC seems to be around the same price point, compatible with the same lenses (depending on the version you get of course), and gives you a ton more than anything Canon, and possibly most other cinema camera manufacturers, give you at a similar price point.


Hi
Ok, the tunderbolt drive has two disks 7200rpm, i am using a RAID setup so it@s able to store on both. So the disk controller shares the load, it´s very fast and for FCPX is now problem at all, excellent performance
There is a GPU and its detected by DaVinci Resolve (ATI 6750M). The is also a CUDA driver in the system panel, not sure if this is effective as its ATI card.
However video play back is very sluggish and normally it can not play 24fps in Resolve, even before you start to add colour correction in the nodes.  The cpu is 2,3 (i7) GHz and 8G of memory.
Can anybody shade some light what would be necessary on a MAC, or explain why this is crapy.

EDIT :  I just upgraded the CUDA driver and performance inceased a lot, so that seems the main reason.

Yea, drivers can really make a big difference sometimes.

Beyond that, it's 2 disks in RAID0? That will give you some speedup, but I hope you have that data backed up properly elsewhere. If one of those disks dies, you lose everything on that array. You can probably get all the sequential read/write speed you need out of most modern mechanical disks, but I image you'd be doing a good amount of random reads, which RAID0 would help some, but really a good SSD will give you much better performance. Leaving aside any number crunching, which it sounds like was the problem, which is entirely up to the CPU/GPU.
Title: Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on December 14, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
BMC with a $40 lens and anamorphic adapter.

Blackmagic Cinema Camera ♥ Anamorphic on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/55559016)

Look at the highlight detail on the lights. Say hello to the power of RAW.