No new cameras?

I want this to be the company we thought it to be, not to treat us like this. No pocket micro, studio head upgrades, no new mini 4k replacement/upgrade and price reduction to at most $1995, and $2500-$2995 for the mini 4.6k.

We wait to see what will be announced at the cinegear expo, but this expo is really the future where they should be releasing more video work cameras.

The new cameras for the first part of this year have already been announced, the Ursa Mini Pro, which has BluTooth support was announced, and the new Studio cameras (old cameras less the battery) were previously announced. This year's NAB is more about Live Production and Post Production systems.

Perhaps there will be additional new cameras later this year.
Cheers

Thanks. I suspect at cinegear. But I'm waiting to see the new Panasonic and JVC now.

Also it's a lot easier to release a new camera when you only make and support one or two other cameras. BM is a much different camera company than it was four years ago.

I want this to be the company we thought it to be, not to treat us like this.

Goodness, there were so many posts begging BMD not to do any new cameras...now they're in trouble for not doing new cameras !

JB

Agreed, their range is to big. As I suspected, they eliminated the oldest by the look of it, but a lot more need to go. One Eng/Cinema camera, except a big full featured one that takes Eng equipment. One 4k handheld cheap, maybe one head targeting 4k and one 2k, but maybe the same as micro versions (or in a craft like modular camera system, plug into a recording back with controls and which can have a screen, and be used as a recorder controller for other cameras and action cameras. But the fullhd can be done better on the 4k camera. So, now we have a 4k modular and another handheld, which could again both be the same. So that's a large Eng, which could simply be a modular mini inside a new case. So that could simply be a modular mini core which can be put in a compact Eng case or a large case for accessories and extras batteries, and a modular micro that can be put with two backs which act as recorder controllers for other cameras. Now, this modular camera and recorder could go into the eng cases, meaning one camera. With all the studio cameras, you cvoukd do the same, same, backs and modular cameras So, one camera and many backs could replace all e cameras. In real life, you probably would want three different modular camera heads with three different sensor format sizes, and one work and one cutting edge resolution. The Eng module should be separate all in PC he performance unit with separate heads.

So that is three heads, s16, s35 and other, maybe more (1/1.2/3rds, medium format) with 4kp50/60 to 8kp50/60 resolution, three micro backs for handheld and action like use, one without LCD for POV/drone. Maybe a bigger handheld body version. Two production camera backs. There you go three cameras do everything. By separating the camera head, backs and bodies BM can upgrade them independently. People wait to see the new BM priority interface head, and slot it into the existing back it body until it dies. If they see a new back or body with priority BM interface, they like they can swap it in place of the old one and keep the head until it dies, or see a better one they like. Very environmentally friendly. Cost effective. Not like the module systems of craft and Red, these are modules of minimal complete functionality. The module for POV use has all he needed functionality to use as POV, the back modules have all the needed functionality to make a complete functional camera of the module type, not a separate recording module, a sound module, a interface module, a storage module, a control module, a lcd module, a handle module, and a battery module. Very inefficient an costly to set up and manufacture separately as separate modules, uncompetitive. Each functionally complete module/body would have is own flash configuration and software chip that auto loads interface software as required. But what do I know, I'm only one of the original guys who kicked the low end digital cinema camera industry off, as with a number of things in the industry?

I want this to be the company we thought it to be, not to treat us like this.

Goodness, there were so many posts begging BMD not to do any new cameras...now they're in trouble for not doing new cameras !

JB

John, we usually get self interested people that don't want new cameras in order to make them feel better about the ones they already bought, but the real need is to do an efficient number of cameras and features which are great or better than they have been, for the camera's use. They have often been in trouble for not producing better versions of cameras that needed it, wouldn't you agree John?

I don't see how modular camera systems can work out. In theory it is great to make things upgrade-able, but in reality it is very complicated. There is a reason why all modular smartphone projects failed.
And that BMD even after 2 years have not delivered the turret upgrade for the URSA because of technical problems, just proves this point.

With a modular design you have to kind of predict what the future holds in upcoming sensor, memory, cpu and storage technology. There are so many variables with the possibility to break your hardware design when trying to fit in a hardware upgrade, because you can only design for existing and ready documented technology.

You have to design a much, much faster processing board than necessary for 1st gen. That needs more power, faster data paths, faster I/O ports. For example CFast2.0 is already at its transfer limit, standards of the successor CFexpress have not yet been published - so you can't design for it.

. For example CFast2.0 is already at its transfer limit, standards of the successor CFexpress have not yet been published - so you can't design for it.

The URSA did make some steps towards this - it uses a SATA3 BUS instead of the SATA2 that Cfast is designed for, so if CFast did release a card that kept the same form factor but used a faster bus then the URSA could handle it. You can't predict everything but you can make some bets.

The URSA did make some steps towards this - it uses a SATA3 BUS instead of the SATA2 that Cfast is designed for, so if CFast did release a card that kept the same form factor but used a faster bus then the URSA could handle it. You can't predict everything but you can make some bets.

Sorry, but CFast2.0 was always designed for using SATA3.
-> see their press release from 2012 http://www.compactflash.org/assets/docs ... 120918.pdf

And CFexpress will use PCIe Gen3 and NVM - so no luck with SATA3.

The URSA did make some steps towards this - it uses a SATA3 BUS instead of the SATA2 that Cfast is designed for, so if CFast did release a card that kept the same form factor but used a faster bus then the URSA could handle it. You can't predict everything but you can make some bets.

Sorry, but CFast2.0 was always designed for using SATA3.
-> see their press release from 2012 http://www.compactflash.org/assets/docs ... 120918.pdf

And CFexpress will use PCIe Gen3 and NVM - so no luck with SATA3.

Might be my mistake then, I thought they'd designed one SATA generation ahead. Can't remember where I got it from. I never liked the choice of CFast over SSDs.

Lets be real. If BM did what they did the last few NABs and announced a new camera you would get mad at them for being available in 'july' which would be more like december/january of next year. I'd rather them wait until the product is ready, then announce it. Like they did with the ursa mini pro.

Lets be real. If BM did what they did the last few NABs and announced a new camera you would get mad at them for being available in 'july' which would be more like december/january of next year. I'd rather them wait until the product is ready, then announce it. Like they did with the ursa mini pro.

I think this was Blackmagic's best NAB yet. As an URSA owner I'm annoyed that they've discontinued it and the turret, but I'm glad they're finally starting to get focused, so I have greater faith in buying from them in the future.

Updates to the duplicator and video assist 4K are most welcome. I think they still have some work to do in unifying their product lineup (e.g. the Smartview Duo has the greatest tally indicators, including an indicator for recording, but none of their film cameras can output that signal, nor can the Smartview receive it over SDI) but they're finally starting to realise that focusing on a smaller range of products is a better idea than half-assing too many SKUs. Their focus on Apple-like marketing implies that all their products are tightly integrated, which is not currently the case.

I also think they should focus more on the studio cameras. If they're serious about capturing web broadcasters, which seems to be the case, then these cameras are a seriously missed opportunities.

The pocket camera is only viable if its under US$1k, and it won't be at 4K. It captures the market of normal, amateur consumers who want professional video quality. The BMCC and BMPC at DSLR pricepoints were also ideal I thought, but if they want to focus on the professional market, more power to them. I think BM's biggest strength though is able to appeal to non-professionals with professional-grade equipment.

I don't see how modular camera systems can work out. In theory it is great to make things upgrade-able, but in reality it is very complicated. There is a reason why all modular smartphone projects failed.
And that BMD even after 2 years have not delivered the turret upgrade for the URSA because of technical problems, just proves this point.

With a modular design you have to kind of predict what the future holds in upcoming sensor, memory, cpu and storage technology. There are so many variables with the possibility to break your hardware design when trying to fit in a hardware upgrade, because you can only design for existing and ready documented technology.

You have to design a much, much faster processing board than necessary for 1st gen. That needs more power, faster data paths, faster I/O ports. For example CFast2.0 is already at its transfer limit, standards of the successor CFexpress have not yet been published - so you can't design for it.

Robert, what I described was the bare minimum number of modules, a passive camera head and a backend/body unit, hardly what you are objecting to. What does change is sensors, but you still record at x resolurion in x quality. Virtually none of what you said about interfacing applies. Interfacing at high speeds between modules is not difficult, and even common. Interfacing has more than enough for major upgrades cheaply. Red eco system is a good example of the many module alternatives, and they have successfully sold them. If you ever do want a sensor that is too much fur the back end, say 8k 200 fps, then it is time to upgrade the back end.

The phone stuff failed for its own issues, it was a good idea, but in reality modules should include more features as practical, and things like cameras could be on modules in phones (and sometimes are internally).. So, fewer modules.

Wayne, Sony used a "modular" approach to its ENG cameras in the 1990's, a digital camera head with sensor and lens mount, and interchangeable backend, which you could select a recorder from BetaCam, DVCam or as tape was already in its last year's, a tapless (ended up being g DVD recorder) recording unit, and a studio backend, with CCU connectors and Studio monitor. Sony dropped the camera before the so,I'd state recording g back ever became available. Changing backs was not a quick proceeding, required tools, but allowed small operations to use a camera between Studio and ENG style filed shooting. The "big" guys didn't buy in, getting purpose built cameras instead, which were more compact, that the modular approach allowed.

So I agree with Robert, while this looks good in paper, it is not great in reality. BM comes close to this concept with the Micro cameras, which you can look at as a "camera head" and add your own bits to makeup a camera. The Ursa upgradeable Turret concept, which would be needed in your type of modular design, also failed in the end.
Cheers

Additionally, a modular camera approach made more sense, when camera technology was moving slower and cameras were very expensive, like in the 90s. But the big issue is, a modular approach camera is going to end up bigger, than a purpose built camera setup. Like the Ursa vs a Ursa Mini. Cinema and ENG cameras while having some overlap, also have a very different shooting requirement and formfactor.
Trying to make one camera to do both results in a compromise to both requirements.

Today, camera prices are so much lower, one can get dedicated camera setups, one for ENG/Doc shooting and another for Cine on set shooting situations, instead of trying to make one camera do both. Also, the workflow for both is vastly different. One requires fast turnaround and minimal workflow, the other a slower, more deliberate approach with lots of post production requirements.
Cheers

Reading between the lines, I think the announcement of the ready-to-ship URSA Mini Pro just a few weeks before NAB 2017 is a bellwether of what is the new BMD modus operandi: camera announcements when the camera is production ready. No more best estimates of shipping in "July" followed by month's of delays. Much more professional approach now. I've no idea if there's a camera announcement coming in June, and that's the way of the new world order that we need to embrace. In time, we shall be glad that the frustration level is reduced. No more deer caught in the headlights. No more analysis paralysis. No more fairy tales.

A new camera purchasing decision tree: See exactly what is does. So do I need that? And do I have the budget? If yes, proceed to checkout.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And that's the way it used to be...
Cheers

Denny et al: I see my post here was reiterating what you said in the "no more pocket" thread. I had not read that thread before posting here. We are saying the same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I want this to be the company we thought it to be, not to treat us like this.

Goodness, there were so many posts begging BMD not to do any new cameras...now they're in trouble for not doing new cameras !

JB

John, we usually get self interested people that don't want new cameras in order to make them feel better about the ones they already bought, but the real need is to do an efficient number of cameras and features which are great or better than they have been, for the camera's use. They have often been in trouble for not producing better versions of cameras that needed it, wouldn't you agree John?

There's a difference between making cameras "better" and doing impossible feature requests.

Mostly I see ignorance about what is and isn't possible. Right now there's bitching about the pocket camera because its greatest sin is that it's only 1920. And yet I can't think of any other camera that yet matches its features for size and footprint. High DR, 12 bit raw and ProRes internally recorded.

JB

Spot on John, the Pocket camera and Micro Cinema camera have no equal in the marketplace for the images they can produce. And that is what a camera is all about, producing great images!

Yes Rick, yes we are. Before BM came on the scene, when you went camera shopping, you looked at the cameras that were in production, not what was in R&D, compared the features, workflow, and image results. Then you picked one, and took it home. We have come full circle back to this approach, pick a camera from what is being shipped. Do not worry about what is coming next, get a camera that fullfils your requirements today. The camera cost today, is so low compaired to a few years ago for the features available, you do not have to worry about buying a camera for the long haul... And that is the rest of the story!
Cheers

.

There's a difference between making cameras "better" and doing impossible feature requests.

Mostly I see ignorance about what is and isn't possible. Right now there's bitching about the pocket camera because its greatest sin is that it's only 1920. And yet I can't think of any other camera that yet matches its features for size and footprint. High DR, 12 bit raw and ProRes internally recorded.
JB

Totally agree. People are absolutely ridiculous. The worst kind of customer, and then probably want it for $499. Then as soon as the specs are released would be on the forum with the "Blackmagic Pocket v3 feature Requests" post.

Wayne, Sony used a "modular" approach to its ENG cameras in the 1990's, a digital camera head with sensor and lens mount, and interchangeable backend, which you could select a recorder from BetaCam, DVCam or as tape was already in its last year's, a tapless (ended up being g DVD recorder) recording unit, and a studio backend, with CCU connectors and Studio monitor. Sony dropped the camera before the so,I'd state recording g back ever became available. Changing backs was not a quick proceeding, required tools, but allowed small operations to use a camera between Studio and ENG style filed shooting. The "big" guys didn't buy in, getting purpose built cameras instead, which were more compact, that the modular approach allowed.

So I agree with Robert, while this looks good in paper, it is not great in reality. BM comes close to this concept with the Micro cameras, which you can look at as a "camera head" and add your own bits to makeup a camera. The Ursa upgradeable Turret concept, which would be needed in your type of modular design, also failed in the end.
Cheers

Denny, How does that at all disprove the success of the Red modular system. Whatever Sony failed in is irrelevant, only why they failed? They are going to tell high end guys that can afford multiple cameras, that they have to fiddle around dismantling cameras swapping modules with tool sets, packing and carting them away to the field, then reversing the process, don't you think that maybe the reason they failed to get them interested? You realise, I'm talking about a minimal modular system, for poorer people, that they basically never dismantle until they upgrade the sensor or other, and are back up in less than a minute, that is basically plug and play, self configurable, using simple very high speed bus technology that far exceeds the bandwidth requirements of even 8k, cheaply, even natively plug and play busses? Also how can you think a modular system needs to be much larger than a custom camera, at all? Don't you think the busses and the thin walls between them, are so thin that they can possibly fit in the same body size today? You do realise, that modular concepts are actually more useful wen technology is changing rapidly, rather than slowly, to keep up to date rather replace everything each year? You realise that cheap commodity bus technology already greatly exceeds 8k sensor requirements, even 16k shortly, even 32k is doable (though not desirable, that can cone in a new version in 3-6 years time when cheaper. Soon 100gb/s per parallel optical line is coming, and optical can work in the terra bits persecond? Real stuff. So a lot of that stuff is not going to be much of an issue to most people.

It is all kiss principle.

Business wise, there is a major benefit in reducing production cost to revenue ratio.

Denny, How does that at all disprove the success of the Red modular system.

Umm, the fact that the DXL was made ? (Many functions are integrated)

The newly released Alexa SXT Wireless ? (Many functions integrated)

Craft camera ? Whoops.....

RED are really going away from the true modular system haven't they ? I'd suggest Sony (F55 / F5) and Panasonic Varicam etc) are the modular style cameras now. Even the C series Canons once you add the stuff you need to shoot. Most stuff is also built into the RED while it still retains it's BOX shape for no real purpose.

Modular cameras don't work in my view because they end up being a horrible camera to actually use. You know, when you have to hand hold them and they have a bunch of extra boxes handing off the, things that have to be powered and cabled.

I saw a guy with a C series canon shooting EPK yesterday and it looked like the most difficult and in-elegant awkward camera build to operate and hand hold. It had all manner of audio and extra monitoring stuff fitted. Yet there he was running around, the lens center a good 15 centimeters above his eye, squinting at a monitor craning his neck UP to look at it and try and pick focus. No fecking way is that setup getting you good shots or endurance. Totally inflexible.

I prefer a more seamless and elegant approach. A camera that doesn't build a thousand miles long once you add all those modules that's totally unwieldy and unbalanced.

RED cameras have always been a pig to hand hold. Maybe that kind of human interface function doesn't matter to some, but operating a camera is as much a performance as what the actors are doing.

JB

operating a camera is as much a performance as what the actors are doing.

Yup.

Blackmagic doesn't just make cameras; they make hundreds of different products. They rebuilt Resolve from scratch, ya know. They are very, very busy.

Why do they have to announce a new camera at NAB every year? Why? Because you want them to? What would that even accomplish? Ursa Mini Pro is a gigantic announcement; so big they made it long before NAB...and it's already out. Despite the rule of thumb that you don't buy anything before NAB, there were a lot of people who bought UMP before NAB.

Blackmagic announces new cameras at NAB? Disappointment. Blackmagic doesn't announce new cameras at NAB? Disappointment. ?!?! I don't get it.

This self-entitlement thing has to stop. It's disgusting.

John, we usually get self interested people that don't want new cameras in order to make them feel better about the ones they already bought, but the real need is to do an efficient number of cameras and features which are great or better than they have been, for the camera's use. They have often been in trouble for not producing better versions of cameras that needed it, wouldn't you agree John?

There's a difference between making cameras "better" and doing impossible feature requests.

Mostly I see ignorance about what is and isn't possible. Right now there's bitching about the pocket camera because its greatest sin is that it's only 1920. And yet I can't think of any other camera that yet matches its features for size and footprint. High DR, 12 bit raw and ProRes internally recorded.

JB

John, I work on this side of the industry, you and ALL detractors here don't. I know people that do the imaginary impossible, every day, because it is the doable, and already done. But these people are likely all way better than anybody that works at BM, maybe even Red, it comes with them being the BEST in the world, so you have to take what the others say with a pinch of salt. We all have complimentary skills, but they don't have certain skills.

I have an nearly 10 year old sub $100 dollar 60p camera that probably not so much off of the pocket in terms of internal picture performance in daylight (has HDR on sensor), just needs redesigned software, body, physical controls and storage interface, and for $40 more it could do a reasonable job. The bigger sensor and fullhd is not worth much more, there will be cheaper still cameras around with good internally, even the Nikon J1 that contains a chipset that rips 4k p60 off the chip. Or my like $33 new fullhd p25 cameras chipset (I didn't mention because the sensor is likely not what I consider that good). But for business reasons they didn't add these cheaper options (plus 10 years ago the storage situation was not as good). You may say, but they don't do pro compression, you don't really need to do so anymore to get fullhd or less. Rose compression circuits can be done cheaper as well. These cameras often carry worlds best on market technologies, just not in the versions we want with compression.

Then we see the credit card sized embedded Nvidia board worth 8k pixel data rates, which are designed on cheap technology to be cheap (probably for $200 and up product), likely more powerful than what BM has done in previous cameras, in their class, worlds best again, but still less efficient than those other chipsets I mentioned. John, you only really know BM, who have done great things, and many hats off to Grant and his team, really appreciated
But don't you think those people know what they are doing?

I was offered the sort of job you are doing for BM, by another camera company years ago, because I knew my stuff enough. I dealt with a number of engineers concerning camera stuff, as part of the process. I have seen things, and heard of actual behind the door things, various engineers can't imagine, but are there.

I was offered the sort of job you are doing for BM, by another camera company years ago, because I knew my stuff enough. I

Wayne.

I don't work for Blackmagic design. Please retract the assertion.

Im a working cinematographer. I've been in Dallas for nearly 6 months on a TV series. I was in Vancouver shooting a TV movie of the week in the second half of last year.

Blackmagic send me cameras to test, and when I'm allowed to, I discuss what I am allowed to share.

I do this because I like their products, I use them in my everyday work, and I happen to know many of the team well. They're friends.

The only payment I get is that I usually get to keep the cameras they send me to test. Often there are pre-production prototypes that have many more issues that the ones reported here.

I'm very upfront about who I am and what I get.

Unless you want to get really really specific about EXACTLY who you are, you can keep the insinuations to yourself and I'd ask you not smear me publicly. It's unprofessional and not very nice.

We can talk about the issues till the cows come home but why make it personal. I'm pretty sure any semi regular reader of these forums knows who I am, understands my relationship to Blackmagic and other manufacturers and knows that I speak from not an engineer's point of view, but from an actual real world user of these products who also has a little understanding of some of the business decisions BMD might make.

JB

EDIT. In the interest of full disclosure, I am also an "Olympus Visionary". In this role I have also been invited at their expense to visit their factories and consult with their engineering team. I was offered a payment for this role, but instead chose to only have my expenses covered, along with some equipment to keep once I've tried it. They also pay costs for shoots (but not me) when I try new products out for them.

Also Wayne, I was discussing ENG/Doc type cameras not Studio Cinema cameras. Cinema cameras, like Red could be more modular, as a Cine camera is built up and placed on a tripod, etc. But even then, making it too many boxes, as John pointed out, is counter productive. The market is going away from modular type cameras, even in the still photography market. Compare the new digital medium format cameras to their film counterpart, less parts, the film/digital backs are not removed anymore. New cameras are moving to a body/sensor/recorder in one unit, you add the lens, viewfinder choice and grip or shoulder kit and go shoot. Time on a production is money my friend, and cameras can produce enough issues, with out adding more.

A camera does not cost what it used to, today cameras are built for a 4-6 year average life span, then replaced by the next generation, while still using the same lenses. Camera makers that tried to cling on to the old modular approach, like a Rollei, died, along with their cameras, and Rollei made a great camera.

Time to move on...
Cheers

Denny, How does that at all disprove the success of the Red modular system.

Umm, the fact that the DXL was made ? (Many functions are integrated)

The newly released Alexa SXT Wireless ? (Many functions integrated)

Craft camera ? Whoops.....

RED are really going away from the true modular system haven't they ? I'd suggest Sony (F55 / F5) and Panasonic Varicam etc) are the modular style cameras now. Even the C series Canons once you add the stuff you need to shoot. Most stuff is also built into the RED while it still retains it's BOX shape for no real purpose.

Modular cameras don't work in my view because they end up being a horrible camera to actually use. You know, when you have to hand hold them and they have a bunch of extra boxes handing off the, things that have to be powered and cabled.

I saw a guy with a C series canon shooting EPK yesterday and it looked like the most difficult and in-elegant awkward camera build to operate and hand hold. It had all manner of audio and extra monitoring stuff fitted. Yet there he was running around, the lens center a good 15 centimeters above his eye, squinting at a monitor craning his neck UP to look at it and try and pick focus. No fecking way is that setup getting you good shots or endurance. Totally inflexible.

I prefer a more seamless and elegant approach. A camera that doesn't build a thousand miles long once you add all those modules that's totally unwieldy and unbalanced.

RED cameras have always been a pig to hand hold. Maybe that kind of human interface function doesn't matter to some, but operating a camera is as much a performance as what the actors are doing.

JB

John, they still did it, trawling in craft, doesn't disprove a thing does it? I totally agree with you, I said from day one. A real waste of time. More profit to be made from integrating everything and selling more cameras at higher price, than splitting up expensive too set up and run low runs bleeding the purchaser. That's why I only suggested the absolute minimum amount of common sense practical modules that integrate related functions. Basically, mostly a replaceable head that is sellable as a pov on it's own, and wit an Ursa like machine, rate sensor head, and the internal back end in a body. When you put it like that, what are we objecting too? That is almost a standard camera.

But Wayne, this approach would make the camera much more exeonisve, like Red was, once you added up all the bits to build up a camera. Building a modular camera also costs more to make. When I started out, you bought a Pro camera and planned to use it for at least 10 years, some lasted 20. You paid a lot more for that camera, I had to take out a loan to get my first real pro camera, which was a modular type camera BTW, a Graflex XL. Today you buy a camera, and you are lucky to get 3-4 years out of it, but it costs less also, and does more.

Also, as BM found out with the Ursa, this approach of replaceable sensor units to upgrade a camera "body module" does not always work, the sensor and the video processor boards need to be a intergrated unit, along with the required cooling system. You can not always guess what the next sensor is going to require to work properly, and build that in a camera today -- I think this is the main flaw in building a modular digital camera, the sensor unit would need to include the cooling, video processing boards, its own power board, and everything else the sensor requires to work, including the human interface (switches, knobs ...) What is left is a lens Turret assembly, recording unit, viewfinder, battery mount, etc. What you have is a Sony DCX type ENG camera or the Previous Red Cinema modular camera. I see no cost saving here, only added complexity in camera design and manufacturing. Anyone buying these today -- I do not think so.
Cheers

There's a difference between making cameras "better" and doing impossible feature requests.

Mostly I see ignorance about what is and isn't possible. Right now there's bitching about the pocket camera because its greatest sin is that it's only 1920. And yet I can't think of any other camera that yet matches its features for size and footprint. High DR, 12 bit raw and ProRes internally recorded.

JB

You kinda have a point at this moment, but to be fair when you look at a camera like the Sony RX100M5, which has amazing continuous focus, Records in UHD 24 and 30 FPS, does log, and produces it's UHD image from a 6K sensor, 4:2:2 10 bit HDMI out, and much, much more for 1K$. Claiming it's impossible doesn't quite match up to reality.

Yes, to record Prores requires an external recorder, yes, there is no RAW, yes it has an attached zoom, yes you have have to rig it, to make it do that. But you have to rig the PCC to make it work a lot of the times as well.

Granted Sony has it's own sensor pipeline and foundry, so it's not fair to hold BM to the same standard. So maybe it's impossible for BM to make such a camera, but technically at this moment in time there are proof of concept commercial cameras that indicate that it could be done.

I was offered the sort of job you are doing for BM, by another camera company years ago, because I knew my stuff enough. I

Wayne.

I don't work for Blackmagic design. Please retract the assertion.

Im a working cinematographer. I've been in Dallas for nearly 6 months on a TV series. I was in Vancouver shooting a TV movie of the week in the second half of last year.

Blackmagic send me cameras to test, and when I'm allowed to, I discuss what I am allowed to share.

I do this because I like their products, I use them in my everyday work, and I happen to know many of the team well. They're friends.

The only payment I get is that I usually get to keep the cameras they send me to test. Often there are pre-production prototypes that have many more issues that the ones reported here.

I'm very upfront about who I am and what I get.

Unless you want to get really really specific about EXACTLY who you are, you can keep the insinuations to yourself and I'd ask you not smear me publicly. It's unprofessional and not very nice.

Sorry John. I know you are not a paid employee of BM, but I was offered to do the same sort of thing that you do, say your sort of effort rather than work.

An awful lot of people own me an apology, big apologies. People that come around and smear me with error (to be polite) every time I talk real.ality, continually wearing me, and separately disrespect of truth, and logic (which is a hard to understand value to be concerned about) are not really appreciated to a high degree. I can just put up with more than most people, and like people. Their reality might not be my reality, but to an extent my reality, is their reality. It is all very personal in my direction, that I mostly just ignore and stick up for my friends, good, better, fairness, logical truth and reality (just chuck me in a pen with some skeptics .

BM will do more, the question is when and how much. In 2D standard field of view quality 4kp50+ 16 bit plus, 16/5,stop+, visually lossless is the level objective to reach for pro video. In stills 8k+ 2D SFOV is the objective, in reality a street build board needs to be up to 2400dpi per inch. These are practical acceptable upper professional levels of performance. Forgive my enthusiasm John.

As usual, I am here very late, at nearly 3am, after sending several hours answering the latest batch of on/questions when I wanted to be asleep several hours ago, and ave to go to the gold coast to catch up with friends. If only most employees had that much dedication, can you imagine the camera they would design.

John, I am actually using my names.

Anyway John, beers and cheers the next time we meet I wish?

Wayne.

Denny, I'm getting some sleep, I suggest you get some kip too.

Go back and read my post, you will find I'm taking about something really different from wat you say I'm saying. It is not much difference in size and price once drone right. Just because Ursa had issues, doesn't mean it couldn't be done different and work. You notice I split the interfaces revision period based on when the technology becomes cheaper, and when more is needed as the market progresses to the holographic sensors. Also, the cooling issue with sensors is not universal, and shouldn't be included as a concern. A lot of still cameras have 4k+ resolutions and can ingress without this level coif issue, try mostly use Sony cameras on the bigger sizes. This is taking raw uncompressed data and compressing the stuff out of it better than a lot of PC's. Also, the design used inside, it can all be done differently, and simpler. Red went through this too circuit wise (they have low temperature sensor already), and I imagine BM has the same aims to a really lower energy circuit (frankly I would hunt for off the shelf parts to keep costs down. There are alternative red rocket like parts out there).

True Wayne, I was just looking at what is selling in the market place. As with all new technology, it is hard to guess what will and will not sell -- consumers are a fickle lot. Go get some sleep my friend.
Cheere

Could be worse. BMD could be removing basic video tools from their latest camera like Sony did with the a9.

Meanwhile I'm enjoying shooting raw on my BMPCC, and might even purchase the Studio version of Resolve now they've reduced the price.

I'm back, still run off my feet. But Christopher, I'm truly enthusiastic about resolve, and look forwards to the full edition if everything works out. I've been waiting for somebody to get their act together and accelerate the full workflow chain, so I can descent performance on a sub $5k system. I'm glad BM was the one to deliver.