Re: Blackmagic URSA revolutionizes on set workflow
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:31 am
perroneford wrote:The primary problem with the MFT sensor (and thus the MFT mount) was that with a sensor that small, it was nearly impossible to get wide angle lenses with the quality of the Nikon and Canon offerings. People wanted to mount their Nikon and other full frame glass onto the M43 version of the Pocket camera and other M43 cameras and still get a reasonable wide angle. These adapters do that nicely. The added benefit of the speed increase is nice in some cases, but really overkill if you are already using good prime or zoom lenses. The BMPC eliminates the "wide angle" problem because it is already a large sensor, and wide angle lenses are plentiful for it's sensor size. Does this make sense?
Sure, that makes sense -- if that's what you want. But so does giving people the option of a smaller sensor if they want one. Some people may actually prefer the deeper focus possibilities. Most people are looking for bokeh these days, but I really don't see how offering multiple options hurts anyone. One person above posted that they were hoping a smaller sensor would be available as an option (in addition to the Super 35 sensor), because it allows for more than one use of the same camera! I agree with that. I think that's an interesting idea.
I am also still not convinced that adapters that allow the use of Nikon lenses on EF mounts are perfectly fine for infinity focus. I am not an expert on flange mismatches, but the research I've done indicates infinity focus is "allowable" but not guaranteed.
Regardless, I have NO idea why ANYONE would object to a version of the camera with a native Nikon mount. Red has made cameras with native Nikon mounts. Good for them.
Frankly, since this camera is designed to allow more than one type of sensor and more than one type of mount, I don't know what possible objection anyone could have for offering more options.
TOPIC CHANGE --
I have already mentioned my dissatisfaction as a Windows user that Avid is dragging its feet to enable a DNx4K codec. As far as I can tell, the problem really has nothing to do with technical issues developing the codec. They simply have no incentive apparently to release approval of that codec at settings which allow increasing quality levels to match 4K workflows of production. In Resolve Lite and Vegas and Avid and most other software programs, you cannot output anything over the "hard" button 1080P HD settings (highest currently DNxHD 220 10 bit). But programs like After Effects CS4 actually have a "Custom" setting for the frame size. This allows the user to actually "set" the output to 4K (or more!) with the DNxHD codec... Most people are probably unaware of this. But you can create a DNx file at that size.
The problem is that there is currently a "glass ceiling" so-to-speak on the compression settings at 220 10 bit quality -- and four times as much 2D information is present in 4K as everyone knows. We can reasonably deduce that simply allowing a commensurate increase with regard to the rendering settings by allowing quadrupling of the size of Mb per frame would likely allow the proper quality levels, which in turn would allow the finishing of shows to pass professional levels for QC and industry standard, contractual deliverables requirements, while at the same time clearly maintaining desirable efficiencies over uncompressed files. "Hard" button presets to simply allow greater size output would not even require new compression schemes. No one at Avid has given me a credible answer for why they are holding out on this. Even hard button 4K presets with the lower quality Mb per frame would be better than what we have now.