Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 5:09 pm

Aaron Swann wrote:Wayne, foolishness? You mean reality; a state in which you are unfamiliar with...


There's no point engaging with his irrelevant posts that contribute zero to the craft of cinematography and are usually grandstanding about his own capabilities, interspersed with his hurt feelings about being called out. I think he just desperately wants to be part of the conversation.

Lee, there are many reasons why old firmware might not be able to be opened up to all. Licensing (hello apple) for example might be a reason you can't just open up a firmware to all. If BMD haven't designed it to be open, then it might be difficult to unpack the firmware to be open.

I'm sure if you or others find a way around this then all power to you. But there was a pretty big effort a few years ago and no one really got very far with it.

Posted, like most of my posts about BMD, as someone who actually has first hand experience with the BMD engineering team, aka I ASKED THE GUYS THAT KNOW that don't answer on these forums.....

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1074
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 10:04 pm

It's always so good to read your wise and informative posts on the forum JB.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 10:55 pm

@JB

...Licensing (hello apple)...


The codec (Apple/Prores) in the BMD firmware is IP core (only one of many modules for the FPGA architecture). According to Xilinx, for example, "IBEX" (Japan) provides the apple proses codec IP core. If BM would release the firmware, then it is also possible without touching this IP core, i.e. disconnecting it from others, just like different languages for BM Video Assist, that are in a separate *.bin file.........

But BMD just doesn't want that and that's nothing new. Take a look at BMD Fusion and the plugin developers such as the well known "Krokodove". viewtopic.php?f=32&t=73389 BMD doesn't seem to care and that's a big mistake because many people switch to other alternatives (e.g Adobe/AfterEffects).

BMD then only offers something "half free", from which they benefit in part themselves (see BRAW).

If BMD gives up the separate fusion (so don't develop Fusion 9> further) because BMD thinks it would be better to "squeeze everything in one" because they have so "easier" to use other GPU engines, then it will be all the easier for some to switch to Adobe.
I'm sorry. I can't deny saying what many BMD fusion and camera customers don't dare say, but simply turn their backs ...
Last edited by lee4ever on Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:01 pm

How about this.

You can write a ProRes file using Resolve.

You can’t make a camera that records in ProRes without a liscence agreement from Apple. For each and every single version even if they use the same hardware.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:08 pm

John Brawley wrote:You can’t make a camera that records in ProRes without a liscence agreement from Apple. For each and every single version even if they use the same hardware.


See: If BM would release the firmware codes, then it is also possible without touching (ProRes) IP core, i.e. disconnecting it from others, just like different languages for BM Video Assist, that are in a separate *.bin file.........
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:10 pm

lee4ever wrote:
John Brawley wrote:You can’t make a camera that records in ProRes without a liscence agreement from Apple. For each and every single version even if they use the same hardware.


See: If BM would release the firmware, then it is also possible without touching IP core, i.e. disconnecting it from others, just like different languages for BM Video Assist, that are in a separate *.bin file.........


I guess you do know better.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1074
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:20 pm

The best we can do is to just totally ignore the trolls. Replying to their nonsense only feeds them.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:28 pm

That's not a diatribe! But something that many here do not dare to say. It's not bad to say that there's a way to release the code...
ProRes IP core is just ONE "part of the puzzle". The puzzle part, can remain closed separately.

I'm beginning to wonder whether this is all just trolling in an attempt to make Blackmagic look bad,

That's not correct. BMD isn't bad. But not free of criticism! Can you understand that?
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 25, 2019 11:35 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:The best we can do is to just totally ignore the trolls. Replying to their nonsense only feeds them.


no objective reasoning except insult. I can do without disskusion with you.
Offline
User avatar

Steve Holmlund

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:30 pm
  • Location: Montara, California

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 12:27 am

lee4ever wrote:
Jamie LeJeune wrote:The best we can do is to just totally ignore the trolls. Replying to their nonsense only feeds them.


no objective reasoning except insult. I can do without disskusion with you.


If I may...

I could be mistaken but I think in the early pages of this thread some folks did try to offer objective reasoning. When it's perceived to be ignored/disregarded (multiple times), then folks start to wonder if we've wandered into troll territory.

You only need a couple people to take this thread to 10+ pages and that's entirely within your rights. But it won't change the fact that you're disregarding sound technical and business reasons why your post doesn't make much sense, at least for BMD.

I think you would have been better served to title the original post "Why did BM give up on the BMPCC form factor?" or something like that. Even then, the premise would be arguable.

But perhaps as BMD matures as a camera supplier, they will start to offer more models that are closer in price and feature set. I have posted before that I thought a same-size successor to the OG at 2.5K would be fine but largely for data size reasons. 4K CDNG takes a beast of a computer to do anything with. But BMD had BRAW in the works and I can see now that my view was very limited, at least from their business perspective.

Again, far be it from me to slow you down. But I think you've made your point.

There was a commedienne and ventriloquist in the U.S. a few years ago named Shari Lewis. She and her puppet Lambchop had a song. It went something like this:

"It is the song that never ends.
Oh it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started singin' it not knowin' what it was
And they'll continue singin' it forever just because
It is the song that never ends..."

Cheers!
Steve Holmlund
Hobbyist
BMPCC, vintage Rokkor lenses, Olympus 12-40, Panasonic 100-300 II
i7 8700k / GTX 1080
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 12:40 am

@SH
Read more. No objective and factual arguments, but repeating arguments based on conjecture. So there is no evidence that 0.2>0.8w causes so much heat that BMPCC reproduces a bad image.

Against this assumption I gave birth to several proofs and yet it is repeatedly ignored, with trolling insults in between etc.

I'd better give up. Because every second is more valuable to me than arguing. Life is too beautiful to waste it here.

And thanks again to Steven.

Peace
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 1:12 am

John Brawley wrote:There's no point engaging with his irrelevant posts that contribute zero to the craft of cinematography and are usually grandstanding about his own capabilities, interspersed with his hurt feelings about being called out. I think he just desperately wants to be part of the conversation.


John, you admitted to following me around last time. These people are stalking and trolling me and Lee. I am not having wishful thinking, if there is a way, there is a way, if not, then not, this is what I have always said and the only safe opinion to have to explore truth. Some maybe a bit overly positive about it, but that doesn't validate the tirade of irrational negativity launched against them. They contribute little but provoking negativity trying to repeatedly blow things up in order to get their will over Lee, rather than leave Lee etc to it, apologise and go away. Look I left the Elphel and Axiom camera bunch too it, because they were heading down a wrong path, and look how they went. Maybe they will get their less than $10k 4k camera out one day, meanwhile people are using a $1.295k Pocket 4k. So many things wrong there. But you don't see me rudely going on in their forums like these people here. This us the truth, and I leave them to it. Once they have the reasoning then it's up to them. The people in these threads are showing a lot of psychological issues, and even transference where they accuse others of doing or being what they themselves are, transferring their feelings, and then irrationally accusing the other person who isn't doing it. The accusation of irrational emotive people as they are rational and the others who are rational, must be the irrational ones. It's very demonic.

They also are missing elephants as to why this is likely not going get done. One, nobody is volunteering to do it (I have my own stuff on, as I answered before, and it's not something I see as beneficial past Pocket owners and their customers) and two some things said are technically a bit optimistic and unproven, which is getting glanced over in all the laser focused harassment.

Now, you are mistaken about me. My focus is on what us more correct, and yes it's a reputation benefiting position to have. But I'd rather suffer bad reputation then support incorrect things. For me, the truth is more important. Now, yes I have done and seen more than most, and climbed a mountain. So, I don't have nothing to think and slinging mud up hill doesn't help.

But don't you think, these posts against me, and Lee to some extent, are just grandstanding? The ones that want to grandstand, and they initiate a lot of posts trying to put us under, think it must be about grandstanding and transfer their emotion, when it was about truth first.

Now, your comments to Lee, I'm happy are reasonable. Except, yes, prores doesn't need to be changed in order to do a lot of things which don't require FPGA redesign. The power to them.

If you read the threads, nobody has actually offered any technical proof against, let alone proof of great efforts, only some little disassembly posts which doesn't prove. Often only opinionated grandstanding rants over Lee, and anybody that defends him (telling). They have been on him for a while, poor fellow.

Your opinion about their engineers opinion is noted, but I have been trying to find the video where they describe why it isn't possible in order to ascertain if their is a way around the issues. Look, and this purely is somebody again trying to reason, but if you stand on a mountain you are already up there. Engineers have opinions, often getting into simplicity. When I went to uni with one of the better engineers in the country, who is invited to present at conferences abroad, I called out a few of his simplistic opinions. It's amazing what they think is right, just as a rationalised presumption, rather than something actually rational, and it turns out wrong. You watch them and they can't get it, because their minds have rationalised to the faulty presumption, which stops them from further deeper thinking. Now, he is familiar with me, and volunteers I am the smartest person he knows, and that includes a lot of top people. I get compliments from other engineers too. So, yes, I would like to verify your opinion of the engineers opinion, because opinion handed around and down doesn't necessarily mean it's final. With all the stuff I have seen and done, opinion doesn't usually cut it anymore. I am not 20.

You will notice, I don't demand that 50fps is possible or impossible like people around here. Again, as I said, I just say it has to be examined to determine if there is a way around it (if at all), the only safe rational opinion to have.


@All

But can point out something some of these people are doing, which might escape others attention. The game they are playing is to provoke the other person into defending themselves repeatedly, thinking that the more they get the person defending themselves to write the better they themselves look and feel, and the worse the other person looks, in response to their own agency of control. But in reality when a rational person reads it, they see rationally written responses to irrational deceptive attacks (and some revelation on the attackers motives), and the attackers dig a hole for themselves.

The only way to read what I write, is rationally. If read emotionally, say in pecking order, or very biased viewpoint, it will appear irrational to them.

Do you want to stand with such?

Now respect I give plenty of, but it is something to be earned after lost.

Australian Image wrote:The definition of insanity: https://tinyurl.com/yd8lvwny


Is you guys repeatedly coming in here and trolling the subject.

Australian Image wrote:Given this never-ending diatribe against everything to do with Blackmagic, I fail to understand how anyone could continue to think that Blackmagic would have one iota of interest in providing said people with any form of support for their wishful thinking.

I'm beginning to wonder whether this is all just trolling in an attempt to make Blackmagic look bad, given that the discussion has now veered into bagging the BMPCC4k as well. These carpetbaggers seem to have no real interest in producing video whatsoever; they would be comfortably at home in the DPReview forums where this crap is bread and butter to all too many.


That is trolling and you guys have been doing the carpet bagging.

If nobody stirs the tea, the leaves will settle. But you guys have had too many spoons in the cup. The threads would have gone quiet without all the "carpet bagging".

Jamie LeJeune wrote:The best we can do is to just totally ignore the trolls. Replying to their nonsense only feeds them.


Jamie, that sounds like Trolling.

Jamie LeJeune wrote:It's always so good to read your wise and informative posts on the forum JB.


Trolling again?
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Steve Holmlund

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:30 pm
  • Location: Montara, California

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 2:59 am

Australian Image wrote:
Steve Holmlund wrote:There was a commedienne and ventriloquist in the U.S. a few years ago named Shari Lewis.


A few years ago? I remember her from when I was a kid, loved the comedy that she did.


Sorry, “few decades ago...”

S.
Steve Holmlund
Hobbyist
BMPCC, vintage Rokkor lenses, Olympus 12-40, Panasonic 100-300 II
i7 8700k / GTX 1080
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 3:36 am

lee4ever wrote:That's not a diatribe! But something that many here do not dare to say. It's not bad to say that there's a way to release the code...
ProRes IP core is just ONE "part of the puzzle". The puzzle part, can remain closed separately.

I'm beginning to wonder whether this is all just trolling in an attempt to make Blackmagic look bad,

That's not correct. BMD isn't bad. But not free of criticism! Can you understand that?


Nobody has said anything extravagant I hope, but just relevant things which others have been blown out of proportion by others. To suggest this mildness is trolling, is a sign of trolling.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 4:29 am

Steve Holmlund wrote:
lee4ever wrote:no objective reasoning except insult. I can do without disskusion with you.


If I may...

I could be mistaken but I think in the early pages of this thread some folks did try to offer objective reasoning. When it's perceived to be ignored/disregarded (multiple times), then folks start to wonder if we've wandered into troll territory.

You only need a couple people to take this thread to 10+ pages and that's entirely within your rights. But it won't change the fact that you're disregarding sound technical and business reasons why your post doesn't make much sense, at least for BMD.

I think you would have been better served to title the original post "Why did BM give up on the BMPCC form factor?" or something like that. Even then, the premise would be arguable.

But perhaps as BMD matures as a camera supplier, they will start to offer more models that are closer in price and feature set. I have posted before that I thought a same-size successor to the OG at 2.5K would be fine but largely for data size reasons. 4K CDNG takes a beast of a computer to do anything with. But BMD had BRAW in the works and I can see now that my view was very limited, at least from their business perspective.


Steve, if I may. This is a continuation from another thread. So people trolling their have moved here along with others who regularly troll anything they have a gisse against. A handful on the entire forum, and it seems every forum has these people to keep truly rational people away, and pick on positive people. So, it probably helps to read over there, and the last post was Lee getting me to come over here. I however, question why start up another thread negative biased trolling busybodies are going pile into and jump over you. Except to answer the trolls, untrue and undeserved reputation imputations, there is not much left to be said. There us not a 'couple' several.

Now objective reasoning, by definition, excludes people offering limited opinion as full proof, particularly when flawed. That is the point, but their pride won't let them think they are wrong. So, I don't think many 'conclusive' opinions offered were really as conclusive as those offering then thought, and not really backed up. It would be negligent to think they were. But wreckers here to "kill, steal and destroy, " trying to continually get people to defend themselves, a trolling tactic, is not very helpful.


Now, as you say, there has been some ignoring going on, insisting, and demanding, from both sides, which I pointed out. But mainly on the side opposing Lee, but both sides have got to look at it. I'm getting mixed up about what the thread topic was, this is being going on for so long. Insisting some things, like 60fps is doable, without the final proof, is not conducive to avoiding comeback replies.

Just because somebody says something passed along, or rationalises something doesn't make it right, or part right. That us not his objectivity works. It requires work before you can tick every box.

As far as Lee's camera modification wishes, It's up to people to present real evidence of what they say, and move on. Lee has, in the other thread, but virtually only Lee, and that only part evidence. Then it requires work to get to implement it.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1954
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 4:40 am

Lee. The only thing to do with people trying to trash your thread, is to report their posts where they actually do it irrationally, biasedly and obviously, to give certain examples. There is a little icon there. I rarely report a post, but I'm reasonably thick skinned, and as long as I say what is right, it doesn't matter so much others wrongness. We are all learning, and as much as one gives opportunity to learn, with some it doesn't seem to matter (they are the ones that argue the most it seems).
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 8:44 am

lee4ever wrote:That's not a diatribe! But something that many here do not dare to say.


At the risk of entertaining your warped view further.....
"do not dare to say"?

I had my BMPCC for years and enjoyed using it, despite it having several short comings. I made films, not test videos, for my (music) business.
I've had my BMPCC4K for about a month and have made two short films, and very happy with the results.
The videos I make are within the normal operating tolerances of the camera. I don't need extra this or that, or to see if I can push it to it's limits. Although I'm very, very happy Braw is pending.
In short, I think a large amount of people are using BM gear, getting on with life and very happy with the results.
If not, then they are probably using a GH5, or a Sony or a Red.
This idea that many people 'dare not' criticise BMD is just bolony. It's just you on a personal power trip claiming you know better than some people who know the technical facts.
Chris Whitten
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 12:10 pm

John Brawley wrote:
Aaron Swann wrote:Wayne, foolishness? You mean reality; a state in which you are unfamiliar with...


Posted, like most of my posts about BMD, as someone who actually has first hand experience with the BMD engineering team, aka I ASKED THE GUYS THAT KNOW that don't answer on these forums.....

JB


In other words, let say, BMD engineering team at least should know and take in account posts of any kind of camera issues reports and discussions. No reply at all. But this forum is supported by BM as one of feedback channel. And that's good thing in any case.

Refer to original item of discussion about 50-60fps for bmpcc. If any technically minded persons with proper education and experience ( in an other branches of science and engineering) have interest ( may be only theoretical) to discuss some points of BM engineering of one camera. I do not understand why so many other people say "it is not possible only, because it is not possible". I did not find here any reasonable argumentation why bmpcc can not run at 50-60fps. I personally do not need this (may be 2.5K at the beginning to be a better option), but for me it's a point to find a truth. That's why I support Lee and Wayne. And as experimental physicist I know that there is nothing impossible. I think that BM knows well every points about possibilities of bmpcc inside circuit. Is it down clocked version of Micro or not? I think that it should be the same chipset circuit only from production expenses point of view. Why so many people are not able to accept this as only one point of view, I can not understand.

Refer to BMD engineering team I have been inside of my bmpcc (fixing HDMI port. Why BM do not put any additional fixing support at this point it's a big Q to engineering and testing team) and should say have been surprised by engineering of cooling system (simple one bridge in closed body covered with rubber (all heating is going inside of the body(?). It may be much better design at absolutely no cost. That is the matter of fact. (have experience in cooling in the past semiconductor lasers samples in experiments and engineering of scientific instruments).

All this discussions around original bmpcc mean only one thing that BM may be should think about new 16mm cinema camera with the same form factor. Not top pro (as BMPCC4K with 5" monitor etc) but sufficient for advanced users. And this camera may be as popular as og bmpcc. That's main point of this discussion for me (without any trolling of any person here).
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 954
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 2:46 pm

Dear Aki Lee aka lee4ever

I still admire your courage but you really have to learn when to walk away from a fight.

You will live a longer and happier life.
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 4:47 pm

Valery Axenov wrote: I did not find here any reasonable argumentation why bmpcc can not run at 50-60fps.


Just like I can't see any reasonable argument that it can ?

Valery Axenov wrote: Is it down clocked version of Micro or not? I think that it should be the same chipset circuit only from production expenses point of view. Why so many people are not able to accept this as only one point of view, I can not understand.


The micro inside is a different camera.

I don't accept many of the statements here because I'm a cinematographer that personally knows the engineering team. You may be an experimental physicist playing with camera designing, I test drive cameras for a living.

I am restricted by NDA on how much I can say, but I do know that your argument falls apart once you know that BMD design and make their own circuits / boards in-house, they have the pick and place machines, they make almost everything from scratch because it means they can do things very quickly and they are easier to protect from IP infringement, and they can very quickly make modifications because they aren't stuck with large batches of stock items.

I gave a few examples of why it might not be possible to unpack the firmware. You aspiring camera designers give the same theories that we've seen over many many years on this forum. You're not the first to imagine bigger or better.

So some of us that have as equal an understanding of the limitations of camera design as an experimental physicist does about camera design also get tired of being told "yes it can".

You only have to look at a certain 4K sensor with it's special extended DR modes that were listed on the spec sheet from the manufacturer. Several companies made cameras with that sensor and not a single one of them used those modes. That's because the image quality was SO COMPROMISED it wasn't worth developing those modes into the finished camera. Yet experts, just like you guys think you all are, line up to point at a spec sheet and say yes it can, like BMD have't already thought of it and tested or dismissed it.

Yeah you get annoyed because you perceive some fanboi is raining on your unicron homebrew camera. I'd be SO HAPPY for someone to prove me wrong and do it. Really I would love for it to happen. But there's a reason it probably hasn't don't you think ?

JB

-https://www.eoshd.com/2013/04/more-details-on-global-shutter-and-possible-blackmagic-sensor-supplier-cmosis/
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 7:03 pm

John Brawley wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote: I did not find here any reasonable argumentation why bmpcc can not run at 50-60fps.


Just like I can't see any reasonable argument that it can ?

Valery Axenov wrote: Is it down clocked version of Micro or not? I think that it should be the same chipset circuit only from production expenses point of view. Why so many people are not able to accept this as only one point of view, I can not understand.


The micro inside is a different camera.

I don't accept many of the statements here because I'm a cinematographer that personally knows the engineering team. You may be an experimental physicist playing with camera designing, I test drive cameras for a living.


So, I understand, that you know for sure that Micro based and operate in principal with absolutely new circuit with new chipsets inside. That BM changed, let say, controller that responsible for recording data to SD card etc. So this information may close all discussions here.

ps If BM have it own circuit production machines why they do not improve hdmi port support and forget about simple electric circuit protection of the same port? Only one element with no cost. I say this only because understand that we all live in real world.
Last edited by Valery Axenov on Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10853
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 26, 2019 8:16 pm

Every ca era is a compromise of what is possible vs with what will give the desired results. No one csmera is going to per perfect for every job or camera operator. That is why we have choices, and the manufacturers also have choices between quality, finished camera size, cost considerations, and production work flow.

What a lot of cameras do internally, noise reduction, ISO/gain control, etc, BM has put into Resolve instead, allowing their cameras to capture the best quality image they can produce. Getting the best image results from a given sensor, may require compromises in how the sensor is implemented in the camera. In the case of the original Pocket camera, with its limited case size and limited sensor cooling, restricting it to a made frame rate of 30fps, was necessary to keep an image of the same quality, as the BMCC 2.5K, which was the design/engineering team goal, as JB pointed out. BMD’s goal (Per it’s CEO) is to produce cameras with the best image quality possible, at the lowest price possible. ;)

So the BMPCC and BMMCC are done deal, and it not likely to change. Time to move on... :roll:
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 3:08 am

Leon Benzakein wrote:I still admire your courage but you really have to learn when to walk away from a fight.


Okay, I get it, you don't want me to end the fight? :) The fight is = search for objective answer and the possibility to unlock 48,50 or 60fps :) And that hasn't happened yet. Denny Smith for example repeats himself again and again with the same, so he writes:

Denny Smith wrote:Getting the best image results from a given sensor, may require compromises in how the sensor is implemented in the camera. In the case of the original Pocket camera, with its limited case size and limited sensor cooling, restricting it to a made frame rate of 30fps, was necessary to keep an image of the same quality, as the BMCC 2.5K, which was the design/engineering team goal, as JB pointed out. BMD’s goal (Per it’s CEO) is to produce cameras with the best image quality possible, at the lowest price possible.


Of course, engineers are only people who also make mistakes and that is what they should admit themselves instead of others doing it, like e.g.:

Valery Axenov wrote:Refer to BMD engineering team I have been inside of my bmpcc (fixing HDMI port. Why BM do not put any additional fixing support at this point it's a big Q to engineering and testing team) and should say have been surprised by engineering of cooling system (simple one bridge in closed body covered with rubber (all heating is going inside of the body(?). It may be much better design at absolutely no cost. That is the matter of fact.


Man Valery! :) You're right! Thanks for that. :)

Remove the rubber and you will see a better picture by about 2-5%.

You can see this when you put the cap on the lens and take a black (RAW/DNG) picture. In Resolve you make the exposure high. At the top of the image, it is less reddish than before with the rubber. With rubber, is more reddish in the upper area. This means that the sensor (with rubber) in the upper part of the image, is particularly hot.

In summer, when the sun is shining... you will probably have 10-20% less heat with the BMPCC if you remove the rubber. My grandma said every time the sun was shining and I wanted a black t-shirt: " Oh dear child, you better put on a white t-shirt because black make even hotter".

Of course, the engineers didn't think of my grandmother, but of "Black"-Magic, therefore "Black"-rubber with nice BMD writing on it. Yeah, it looks nice, but it contradicts Denny Smith's convictions. So with rubber you don't get "best picture result" but worse results. Without rubber the sensor is cooler and has a cleaner IQ. So it's a design flaw if BMD has made the decision to glue the rubber to the side where the heat sink is located to dissipate the heat?

I removed the rubber And I leave my BMPCC now so always in the MovCam Cage.
The results: less reddish layer/noise over the sensor = the sensor is cooler/it is cleaner. Tested with 5 and 10 minutes of recording...compared a DNG file from BMPCC with black rubber and a DNG file without rubber.

BMD made the PCB and worked on the design...und make all in BMD Case. And there were some mistakes, like HDMI Port or "Black" rubber on the side, where the heat is removed.

Besides, it is normal that the internal microphone makes poor recording when the microphone is more than half covered with rubber.

That's the truth, that's the reality.

Everything is not so bad, they see, the customers find a solution to make it better. If BMD would release the codes for the firmware (or at least tips on how to open the firmware), we would also do a little better with the firmware.

Denny Smith wrote:So the BMPCC and BMMCC are done deal, and it not likely to change. Time to move on...

I move on. The BMPCC is doing an amazing job. It would be nice if she could also do 48.50 or 60fps. But BMD doesn't want to unlock this for BMPCC lovers. Although, technically, that's possible. Now that cooling is better (without BLACK-rubber), it's all the more likely. 8-)
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 11:19 am

Still, you've had a good outing over several pages. People have entertained your views and answered politely, until they felt they were ignored or brushed aside.
Funny thing to me is how you list all the things you don't like about the original Pocket, then claim it's a much better camera than the new 4K one.
Chris Whitten
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 11:57 am

Chris Whitten wrote:Still, you've had a good outing over several pages. People have entertained your views and answered politely, until they felt they were ignored or brushed aside.

I don't understand what you're saying exactly?

Funny thing to me is how you list all the things you don't like about the original Pocket, then claim it's a much better camera than the new 4K one.


I like the original BMPCC. And may I not say that with the rubber, the BMPCC gets hotter and the (mic) sound worse? Do I have to like the new 4K? No. I (personally) have a bad experience with the new BMPCC4K.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 1:27 pm

You've made your point repeatedly over four pages. You can't say you haven't had a fair hearing.
That's the end of it, unless you think you are going to progress your claim the more you repeat it.
^^ That's what I'm saying - put another way^^
Chris Whitten
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10853
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 7:25 pm

Fade to Black... and Cut!
:mrgreen:
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2086
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 7:39 pm

lee4ever wrote: But BMD doesn't want to unlock this for BMPCC lovers.


You say that.

You make a claim...one that you can't substantiate by the way.

You make this claim because you've read the spec sheet of the sensor and think it can be done. That BMD are actively making a CHOICE not to do it. Not just that it can't be done by they are CHOOSING not to do it. That's also your inference.

But what if it can't be done ? How do you ACTUALLY know ? Because you opened your camera up took some rubber off it, read a spec sheet for what you think is the right sensor. That's how you know ?

That's fundamentally the argument right ?

You say it can be done.

A bunch of other people say otherwise.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 9:08 pm

)) To finalize this theoretical discussion I think that next time I will open my bmpcc and check what we have inside refer to chipsets and controllers tech.data (and again all this information to be easily available in service factory repair manual).

I need to open my camera sooner or later in any case because BM do not use any screw fixing material for top and bottom 1/4" metal mounts of my camera. Last time I forgot to fix loose screws of top 1/4 metal mount. If not to fix it later it may damage electric circuit of motherboard. That's to be the best idea from any points of view, I think.)
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 9:59 pm

@Valery Axenov

BMPCC has:

1. 2GB DDR3, this one -> https://www.skhynix.com/products.view.d ... &vseq=1639
(More images per second can be buffered than the MBit/s of DNG, ProRes combined...)

2. HighSpeed USB Microcontroller "cy7c68013a" -> https://www.cypress.com/documentation/d ... -fx2lp-usb
(serves only for transfer to flash memory...)

3. FL256SAIH20 [BGA24] 256MB CYPRESS Spansion Flash Memory -> https://www.cypress.com/
(the chip probably contains the firmware. There is also enough space for the new BMD OS and the old OS together. :) )

4. Spartan 6 XC6SLX75 https://www.xilinx.com/support/document ... /ds162.pdf

...
...

As you can see, it contains chips that are still currently on the market and are also used in modern technology. :) It can process more than 100fps. But the sCMOS can handle 100fps.

Fast enough for 48,50 or 60fps! People who tell something else don't stick to the manufacturer's data and always spread the same without proving it. My information is not false information, it is based on the technical data of the manufacturer (Fairchild, Xilinix, Skhynix etc.)
They do not want to believe that there are manufacturers who deliberately limit the old in order to be able to sell the new with new possibilities. And not everyone likes this directive (neither do I). I (and many others) have left Sony because of it.
And we should be allowed to say that. It is we who feed these manufacturers, and we expect them to be fair to us.

I just can't support this! But I love the IQ of BMPCC. 8-)
Last edited by lee4ever on Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 10:39 pm

You already admitted the BMPCC didn't get an update loooong before anyone thought of the BMPCC4K. So how you can say the BMPCC was deliberately held back in order to sell the BMPCC4K is ridiculous. And another of your increasingly wild accusations at BMD.
In case you hadn't noticed, the BMPCC4K has sold bucket loads (as did the original pocket). They had no need to hold back features to secure sales of the newer version.

You started out seeming too make a couple of semi reasonable questions or requests about the BMPCC. As your posts have gone on, it's just become a one man crusade to put people off the company.
Chris Whitten
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 10:54 pm

)) I was sure from the beginning that nobody will invent two bicycles at the same time for the one deal. BM added to Micro one additional port, red diode, hdmi port power circuit protection (not to forget), fan plus new form factor for circuit board. That's all. Filmware inside from tech.point of view should be the same with only blocked parts of not used software.

That's the only way in real world to release a new camera (in new body only (Micro)) at the same low price. What BM do for us. Many people here disagree with this obvious fact.

Selling copies of the same thing, open high end functions of the same product with some delay it is only a good reasonable marketing strategy.
Last edited by Valery Axenov on Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 267
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 27, 2019 11:04 pm

Chris Whitten wrote:You already admitted the BMPCC didn't get an update loooong before anyone thought of the BMPCC4K. So how you can say the BMPCC was deliberately held back in order to sell the BMPCC4K.



Where do you read this? I've never written it that way before. But to point out BMMCC (which most likely contains the same chipsets), that's correct.

They understand the negative, I and many others see it as positive to be allowed to say it and to defend oneself against it. It's humanly understandable.

There are people like you where the truth/facts are not really important, they just believe in Santa Claus like children and get angry later when they realize that there is no Santa Claus ;)

Accept and respect that not everyone has to be like you. There are people who have technical understanding and knowledge...

You see, there are people who open BMPCC and review the inner life. One finds out that the same information spread over and over again, is not correct. Who then stands there as not correct?

To help us understand each other better, a good example is Apple:
Apple said then that the new iOS would technically not work on the iPhone 4. And what happened? :) Right, the "little" people have proven that it works. It was spread all over the world. What do you think, what triggered it?

What do you think will happen when some hack the BMPCC and provide 60fps? No, I think the new BMMCC will continue to be sold as a small action camera. Differently at that time with the iPhone, many have not bought the new iPhone after it became known that the new iOS also works with iPhone 4.

Is this illegal? No! it is human nature....
Offline

BMD Web Engineering

Blackmagic Design

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:58 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 28, 2019 12:00 am

This thread has run its course and is therefore being locked.
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kays Alatrakchi and 15 guests