This is the type of feedback i was looking for! Thanks for your input.
About #6) I know that the web does compress the footage pretty badly, making it seem pointless to shoot in 2k, but in all the comparison footage between this camera in 2k and others in 1080p, the Bmcc looked leaps and bounds better. Even with the web compression. We have a 3930k cpu and a gtx 760 so i dont think it will be a really big problem in post.
About #2) You don't think that at 24mm the bmcc would be very wide? I knew that the Bm had some crop factor but i did'nt know it was gonna be that bad. What would you think about switching out the 50mm 1.2 for the 14mm 1.4 from canon? Wide shots are definitely important for What were doing. What lenses would you personally pick for interviewing?
About #
Well were shooting with a white background, so led's would work perfectly, I'm not sure that they would light the interviewee very pleasantly though. They'd probably make him look pale, right? Leds are definitely something im looking into, ill check out the ones you recommended. Also, is it bad to mix tungsten with LED? I was thinking about getting a Leds to light up the backround and also the interviewee's hair, while using tungsten to light up the interviewee, making him look a little bit more natural colored.
About #5) Yah i guess i definitely need to look into sound more. I thought a really high end boom would suffice, but i guess not.
Thanks a lot for your help man, especially on those LEDS
I'm going to keep out of the audio discussion. Other people like Alcove are more qualified, but I think I can help you a lot on the visual/camera aspect.
#6) Yes, the Blackmagic looks better when you resize 2K down to 1080 cause you're squeezing all those pixels into a smaller output format. However, I guess most comparisons you have seen are BMC vs DSLR. DSLR's are very soft, but if you compare Blackmagic 1080p against Canon C300 1080p, you will find that they are equal, if not the C300 a bit sharper, because it has a 4K sensor that only delivers 1080p, thus giving you ultimate sharpness. You can shoot with the Blackmagic, i am not trying to tear you away from it. It's a great camera if you are aware of it's limitations! For what you are doing, I would go with a Super 35mm camcorder. Be it FS100, C100, C300, F5, F55. (The last 3 far over budget). It's all up to you, but also consider storing footage. How many drives do you need to buy to store a days worth of footage? CinemaDNG from the Blackmagic camera takes up a lot of space, so buy plenty of drives or build a RAID system. (I built a 16TB Raid-5 System with Thunderbolt for about 1000-1200 bucks).
#2) No, a 24mm will not be sufficient. The Blackmagic has a "Crop Factor" of 2.4 for Canon EF Lenses that are designed for full frame. Your field of view will be a lot narrower. Your 24-70mm will become a 57-168mm. Every focal length you multiply by 2.4. Your 50mm lens will become a 120mm lens which is a very nice focal length, but not really what you're after! Look into buying a MFT Blackmagic and MFT lenses. These lenses are designed for this sensor and will enable you to buy lenses that actually are the advertised focal length on your camera. This is another reason I am thinking Super 35mm chip like FS100 for example. A 24mm is still a decent wide. Buy a metabones EF- E Mount adapter and you got a nice all round lens with the Canon 24-70mm.
#
I am not sure why you think LED's can't light an interviewee pleasantly. I think LED's can do a great job in lighting interviews beautifully. All you need to know is how to diffuse and control them. Oh, and buy the right LED lights. Jax_Rox is saying LED's have nasty colour spikes, low output and spread which I tend to agree and also disagree with. Solution: Buy the right LED lights. F&V K4000 panels are very cheap, have strong output, great colour accuracy and good spread. There's a reason that I use them on all my TV shoots for BBC and similar TV Channels. I just came off a 3 day BBC documentary shoot and all I used for Interviews was 1 F&V K4000 LED panel and a small compact Z180 for a hair light. I do recommend using a "milk"/diffusion filter though, to take harsh, multiple and spotty shadows away, that LED's produce. If you buy high CRI LED's, there is no reason that your interviews will look ugly. I do prefer lighting interviews with LED's, simply because my interviewees are a lot more comfortable as LED's don't emit heat. Yes, Tungsten lights deliver perfect colour accuracy, at CRI=100, but great LED's go anywhere from CRI 85 - CRI 95, which is good enough! Think about the benefits. No heat, low power draw (You can even use batteries) and quick setup. You can buy daylight and bi-color versions that vary between tungsten and daylight (3200 - 5600K).
One last thing: LED technology has advanced a lot. Colour accuracy is getting much better and output higher. Reconsider your judgement of LED's and do some research. They won't replace tungstens or HMI units, they are a mere addition to a light kit. I do love em and embrace them on most shoots, just because of their benefits they offer. Can't go wrong with high output, good colour accuracy and battery powered in my opinion! A friend of mine, who is the Director of Photography of "24", "Dallas", "Nashville" and "Shameless" as well as other TV series swears by LED's. He uses them a lot!
