The Blackmagic LF Camera - Is Full Frame ever coming?

If they can find a 36x24mm sensor that will do 50/60p at full res without crop then it may be viable as a BM product. To minimise moiré and aliasing without an OLPF it would need to be a 24mp+ sensor...

A new full frame 6K sensor with 15 stops dynamic range using 6 micron photosites and RGB CFA might obviate the need for an OLPF and fulfill current demand for 4K deliverables.

But more likely full frame 16K using 2.2 micron photosites and RGBWWW CFA to maximize their investment and prowess with their 12K concepts serving both 8K and 4K markets.

I also like to keep in mind that the "LF standard", the Arri Mini LF, has a sensor readout time of 7.2ms, while the 12k @ 8k has a readout of 7.8ms. I know it's been said before about how difficult it is to create a LF-sized sensor that passes quality control, and yet it still needs a good and proper readout time to compete with the demands of spec-hungry consumers.

Good point to consider, Adam. A 6K full frame is going to have a better chance of a quicker readout than the 16K full frame and that’s important to many.

Then again 6K global shutter would sacrifice some dynamic range but might be 13 stops and that may be compelling.

Again, the main reason I have said 16K Full Frame/VistaVision is because I'm doing the math off the 12K sensor Blackmagic has already math. Even JB has backed up my math.

However, I would be fine with a lower resolution Full Frame/VistaVision sensor. Something in the 6K or 8K range is acceptable. However, again, using the 16K that I mentioned above you could still shoot full sensor at 8K just like with the 12K. So, nothing is stopping anyone from shooting lower resolution full sensor with that new 12K design.

For me the main reason I'd want Full Frame/VistaVision is because then you can do a proper Anamorphic Window in the sensor area to cover 35mm 2X Anamorphic. The flaw of the current S35 sensors BMD uses is that they are 16x9 (1.89:1 for the 12K) without additional height for the Anamorphic option. Arri for example crops the height to achieve the 16:9 S35 frame. You can still crop to a DCI or UHD S35 from the Full Frame/VistaVision sensor. So, nothing will stop you from using S35 glass.

The last reason I'm fine with a Full Frame/VistaVision upgrade is because I do have Prime Lenses in PL that cover the sensor area. It would only be the Cinema Zoom Lenses I'd want to upgrade. Sadly the DZOFilm Catta Ace are the most affordable Cinema Zooms, and they don't have a wide 16-35 option yet. I can use the Primes yes, but if using Zooms I'd want to have a wide option because even in Full Frame/VistaVision I'm sure I'd love to shoot at 25mm a lot of the time.

Actually lenses, especially zooms are a big problem in CINEMA style lenses.

While there are 135 format zooms around, very few of them are good cinema lenses. If you look at cinema lens makers, there Arne't a lot of great options for zooms. Most are also quite slow, and very large physically.

S35 zooms are so much easier to deal with and there are many many more options currently.

JB

There’s always the Fujinon Premista T2.9 28-100mm $42,900 and its supporting zooms 80-250 $43,900 and 19-45mm $49,900. Another option could be the Zeiss T2.9 28-80mm $21,945 Compact Zoom.

At that upper price range, some primes will knock your socks off such as ARRI Signature Primes $162,420 per 6 lens set. However there are budget prime large format alternatives that are reasonable for a set. Zooms for large format are the challenge if you want a true Cine lens with minimal distortion, constant aperture, minimal breathing, controlled flares, pretty bokeh, etc.

If I bought a large format camera from BMD, I’d be resigned to using budget primes such as the SLR Magic APO primes which are good value for 4K. And I’m happy with mirrorless Super 16 2K/HD for current clients.

Arri for example crops the height to achieve the 16:9 S35 frame. You can still crop to a DCI or UHD S35 from the Full Frame/VistaVision sensor. So, nothing will stop you from using S35 glass.

Just bear in mind that Arri priortises photosite size (8 microns) and therefore sensitivity, over pure resolution and achieves FF and 65mm by 'stitching' together the Alev III sensor. So Amira, Super35mm 3.4K and 1 Alev, Alexa LF, 4.5k and 2 x Alevs and Alexa 65, 6.5K and 3 Alevs. Nobody would complain about the lack of resolution from an Arri and perhaps the purity of the images coming from those sensor combos is in part down to those big pixels.

Furthermore you can have 12,288 x 5112, 8192 x 3408 (12K);6144 x 2560 (BMPCC 6K/Pro) and 4608 x 1920 (UMP 4.6K), 2:4:1, without resorting to big, expensive anamorphic lenses; all of which greatly exceed the resolution of UHD streaming and DCP presentations, where the image is always simply cropped anyway.

The way things are, I will have to wait for about ten years before there is a large enough population of LF BM cameras being bowled over in tripod falls for me to patch one together out of several carcasses for future use. It is either that or I need to go seriously after the Lotto. Then again, the Hart breed has never prospered at games of chance but like the lemmings from the cliff, that does not stop us from trying.

Arri for example crops the height to achieve the 16:9 S35 frame. You can still crop to a DCI or UHD S35 from the Full Frame/VistaVision sensor. So, nothing will stop you from using S35 glass.

Just bear in mind that Arri priortises photosite size (8 microns) and therefore sensitivity, over pure resolution and achieves FF and 65mm by 'stitching' together the Alev III sensor. So Amira, Super35mm 3.4K and 1 Alev, Alexa LF, 4.5k and 2 x Alevs and Alexa 65, 6.5K and 3 Alevs. Nobody would complain about the lack of resolution from an Arri and perhaps the purity of the images coming from those sensor combos is in part down to those big pixels.

Furthermore you can have 12,288 x 5112, 8192 x 3408 (12K);6144 x 2560 (BMPCC 6K/Pro) and 4608 x 1920 (UMP 4.6K), 2:4:1, without resorting to big, expensive anamorphic lenses; all of which greatly exceed the resolution of UHD streaming and DCP presentations, where the image is always simply cropped anyway.

Naturally, you can shoot spherical 2.4:1 Window. Or Crop to 2.4:1 in post. Many famous and popular films have done that for years. And, many filmmakers have opted to do such. Lord of the Rings is a perfect example, and those are very successful and popular movies.

However, for those of us who do want to use Anamorphic glass it would be nice to get the most out of it by making it closer to the experience of shooting 4-perf 35mm film. Arri does this well. And, that's all I'm asking.

In fact, if Blackmagic updated a new URSA Mini Pro 12K Generation 2 with a 12K by 10K sensor for Anamorphic then that would be fine by me. It would give everyone what they want with regards to Anamorphic and still keeping S35 options available. It wouldn't be Full Frame/VistaVision, but it would still give great options. And, with other body improvements then it could be very idea.

However, for those of us who do want to use Anamorphic glass it would be nice to get the most out of it by making it closer to the experience of shooting 4-perf 35mm film. Arri does this well. And, that's all I'm asking.

I hear you Tim but I don't think the majority of BMD's camera customers are in a position to regularly use such lenses and I was just pointing out that FF and beyond is not necessarily bound to resolution or the need for anamorphic to shoot scope. Plus making a good FF sensor for digital filmmaking may involve more than just increasing the size, as Arri's method implies, Red too if I'm not mistaken. I remember the early problems with the lowly JVC HD101 and it's 'split screen', which apparently has not altogether gone away:

tinyurl.com/56npjfn2

I might add you keep mentioning VistaVision, a format I love too. But they only ever used spherical lenses and the base recommendation was to crop to 1:85. It was simply a way to get the highest quality negative from a 35mm film for reduction printing, which is not analogous directly with digital sensors as we know.

The way things are, I will have to wait for about ten years before there is a large enough population of LF BM cameras being bowled over in tripod falls for me to patch one together out of several carcasses for future use. It is either that or I need to go seriously after the Lotto. Then again, the Hart breed has never prospered at games of chance but like the lemmings from the cliff, that does not stop us from trying.

Robert I don't see you as a vulture, lurking over the carcasses of dead Ursas but the alarming occasional brittleness of their magnesium alloy casting, I have been shown in this thread and others, makes me fear you may not have to wait so long.

Good one!

Steve Fishwick. In regards the vulture remark, I immediately concocted this vision of me being parked on a dead tree waiting for an Ursa to fall down, kick and roll over a few times, then expire on the barren desert plains. Dead and broken Ursa cameras do not seem to be offering on eBay lately.

A few folk like me may have been doing the same thing, mixing and matching or have given up and kept their moribund camera as a bookshelf monument. Either that or the G2 and onwards have been improved and have a greater will to endure and survive.

I was strangely reminded of the CD of "The Lion King" live show playback. I have listened to it driving down to Serpentine this past few weeks helping to build an aeroplane. The amount of filming I do these days does not justify going into hock for a new camera.

I am also a bit of a mad inventor and rescuer of broken things, a $700 Ursa Mini 4.6K. The broken donor Mini Pro cost nearly the same so it is only an illusory win when the value of my worktime is added. Another was a $900 Holden Crewcab which had laid down for the previous owner.

As for the casework and internal frame, there is potential for fatal injury to the Ursa camera family. The Sony FX1/Z1 and JVC GY-HD*** cameras were also built similarly and could be damaged by violent events.

BM may lightly restyle the Ursa Mini/Mini Pro platform with a more robust eagle-claw reinforcement across the upper and lower vents with at least two longitudinal ties, keep the upper and lower spines to maintain commonality of all existing accessories and tether the free ends of the heatsink radiators.

Adding webs and extra screws to tie the front structure to the side covers would be enough to offload some heavy lens loads and shock loads from the existing internal frame.

The existing tapered portions of the side covers are style pretties which stiffen the side covers a little but add nothing structurally through not being tied at the very front to the lens mount support castwork

I have been publicly nagging about those items a few times so hopefully BM's R & D takes the hint. I have no complaint about the actual castwork and build quality. Wrangling the layout to fit all those permanently connected PCBs and ribbon cables in there while keeping it all compact would have given me a headache but somebody did it well.

I would like to see them revise that USB pathway to the SSD. The older more robust BNC sockets were sensible but might not have stacked up electronically for higher data rates.

That right hand side cover could well lose that troublesome rosette which breaks the case in, extend the bulge for the rear and front socket to accommodate a dock for M2 SSDs nice and close to the main guts of the system and eliminate the possum carrier on the back altogether.

If need be, the rosette could be remounted on the new right side cover but my personal preference would be to see it gone and rely on the rosette on the bottom plate/shoulder pad which is a more comfortable grip closer in feel to an ENG camera.

That will do me.

APRIL FOOLS JOKE!!!

Exclusive footage from the new BLACKMAGIC LF CAMERA:

The classic Rickroll. Had to do it. Too much fun not to.

Steve Fishwick. In regards the vulture remark, I immediately concocted this vision of me being parked on a dead tree waiting for an Ursa to fall down, kick and roll over a few times, then expire on the barren desert plains. Dead and broken Ursa cameras do not seem to be offering on eBay lately.

More Magpie than vulture, Robert - and I always salute a magpie.

Steve Fishwick.

Alas I know the magpies well. - "KRAARKK-YIK-YIK-YIK-YIK". C'mon gang. Here is some poor hapless sod on his way to the bus to swoop on. He could do with some therapeutic stress to enliven his day."

A resident colony lives nearby. About ten years ago here, they suffered a severe disruption and disappeared except for a few rejected stragglers we called "the losers" which moved about on the ground in tight thickets in the garden like fleas on a dog.

The suspect was rat poisons after a buildup of rats and mice one year. The numbers slowly recovered again. The colony boundaries and territorial calls changed so I think the original colonies around here were decimated and outsiders moved in.

The "losers" took to the air and formed their own colony and didn't have a clue. They built in a low branch directly over the road. The blast from exhaust stacks of passing trucks would startle their chicks out of the nest.

As a kid, I used to gather a gobbet of saliva in the roof of my mouth and whistle the territorial calls of neighbouring colonies. That would set them off stropping their beaks and flying off for gang fights.

Rob, OG URSA is practically a cult camera now for a few reasons.

A lot of users new to Steadicam use them to practice because they are the same weight as an Arri Alexa. Actually a smidge lighter but everyone still thought this camera was too “heavy”.

Anyhow, it’s used a lot now in those training scenarios where it’s usually not even recording. Also for remote head or hand help operator training.

For example

https://instagram.com/steadicamlessons? ... =copy_link

JB

Rob, OG URSA is practically a cult camera now for a few reasons.

Interesting John - It's almost nostalgic. BMD have always been a disrupter and although the OG Ursa was an ungainly start, it led to much better forms. I think unlike Sony, Canon and Panasonic and the pro-summer elements of FS7s, C300s and EVAs, BMD took their cues from Arri in designing the developing Ursa body (IDX/AB power, V-lock/15mm rail and rosettes, for example), the Broadcast particularly follows the flexibility of the Amira, at a bargain price, of course. I hope and imagine that BMD can only build upon this successful form factor, if they introduce a FF Ursa - perhaps along the lines of Alexa LF, to compliment their 'Amira' like mini?

Alas I know the magpies well. - "KRAARKK-YIK-YIK-YIK-YIK".

Robert, we have a pair of Magpies in our garden, fortunately, since there was a time I would see only one of them, everywhere and have to salute the blighters, all the time. One day there was a hell of noise outside my window and I saw one of them come to the defence of another bird being attacked by a sparrow hawk, so maybe they are really the good guys

Looks like the idea is gaining momentum.

https://ymcinema.com/2022/03/30/large-f ... ce-of-s35/

That's just marketing BS. Everything you can do with large format can be done with an s35. You just have to match it with the right lens, position the camera to obtain corresponding distance and angle, etc.

Unless you are doing super big budget production, it doesn't really matter.

There's a new flavor of the month:

YOSSY MENDELOVICH wrote:

"Large Format Look": There’s No Such Thing!
This is a comparison between Super 35 and a very large sensor size. We chose to show this as a continuation to our previous article about the possible obsolesces of S35 sensors. After watching the test carefully, we think that S35 has a huge future, and it’s far from being an obsolete format.
...Shallower DOF (Depth of Field) is not achieved by bigger sensor sizes, but due to the longer focal length that this large sensor needs, in order to frame the same object compared to S35.
...A larger sensor forces a filmmaker to change the distance of the camera to a subject or use longer lenses to produce similar fields of view to a smaller sensor. It’s that change in focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject that affects depth of field by making it shallower.
...“A larger sensor has the advantage of providing a higher native resolution while still being able to remain a comparatively large pixel size. This may lead to a better low light performance with a higher spatial frequency noise that looks finer-grained and more subtle. In terms of perspective, the image isn’t influenced by either the format size or focal length like it’s often assumed."

"Large Format Look": There’s No Such Thing!

https://ymcinema.com/2022/04/04/large-f ... uch-thing/

YOSSY MENDELOVICH wrote:

"Large Format Look": There’s No Such Thing!

While I guess I don't have anything against articles like this—especially when they are well made and supported with clear examples, they are kind of pointless.

It's a situation where everyone is right, sort of.

"I love large sensor imagery" (yeah, I know what you mean—it's awesome)
"There is no such things as large sensor imagery" (yeah, I know, you're exactly right)

While you can technically match various formats, it might take moving the camera, changing the lens and the aperture and so on. When people say they love "large format", they mostly refer to the differences between formats that they see BEFORE any compensations have been made. It's more or less a simplification, or abstraction of something more complex.

"I shoot raw, and to protect the highlights, I prefer shooting at high ISO".

Well, high ISO never saved a single highlight out there. But setting your camera to ISO1600, then looking at your over exposed image and THEN stopping down the aperture, or adding filtration sure will let less light hit the sensor.

People can spend lots of time focusing in on one side of the argument and then argue that side to death, certain that THEY are right.

It's a situation where everyone is right, sort of.

Well, sort of, but there *are* factual claims at hand here -- claims for FF which are not supportable, as in the James Laxton/Mitch Gross discussion cited above. I have yet to see the evangelists of the format concede that they can get identical images from any number of other formats with minor accommodations.

Same with ISO 1000 after that thoroughly misleading youtube video from John Hess. Folks were ready to fight to the death over all the imaginary highlights they were preserving in their Florida real estate videos thanks to a magic number.

While you can technically match various formats, it might take moving the camera,

Nope. That it the one thing it won't take. Matching large format to s35 to involves choosing a different lens + aperture + ND while NOT moving the camera because camera placement relative to the scene is the one variable that actually changes the perspective of the image. And that's what all of the "large format has a unique look" crowd continue to miss — camera placement is what controls perspective, not sensor size.

Nope. That is the one thing it won't take.

Thanks, Jamie, you're right.

You're quoting the sloppy follow-up to my two contradictory statements where I try to catch the issue at hand in one over-arching statement. Another way to put it would be:

"You can match large and small formats, but that is typically not what happens."

I believe cameras end up being moved, and people don't normally stop down their large format glass "for it to be easily matched". Lots of people shot FF wide open, and. think you'll run out of lenses to use on smaller formats.

This is at least my gut feeling. Looking at the lens selection people typically use for various cameras, I believe there is a lot of overlap where perspective and blur circles are similar. But I also strongly suspect there are quite a bit of range/aperture combos that are readily available in FF mounts that you can't easily replicate in MFT or smaller mounts. I don't have any expertise or interest in this, however, so I wouldn't know where the break-point lies.

I'm not in the "the formats are different camp", though, so I don't want to end up defending that position.

Is there a range of lenses, for let's say MFT, out there that covers the equivalence of a set of FF T1.5 primes?

If BM did make a 36x24 sensor camera I guarantee the following complaints;
I can't use my S35 cine lenses on it without cropping in and suffering lower resolution, higher noise etc
Why did BM waste money on this when they should have put it into updating the P6 S35 sensor for better DR, less rolling shutter etc
Why no IBS like I can get on my full frame Mirrorless camera
Why can't I use my L mount, E mount R mount lenses
I hate having to stop down more to get the same DOF as my S35 sensor and loosing shots in lower light situations
AF is terrible now I have even less DOF to cover up any errors
Lenses for 36x24 are all mainly from legacy 35mm stills and suffer from focus breathing and vignetting at wider apertures
Etc, Etc.....

Well, to end the discussion once and for all (just in case you didn't see this):

arri.jpg (358.56 KiB) Viewed 15662 times

Was that the same 1st April launch date as the one about round TV's?

Even smarter would be a concave sensor - lenses would be a lot easier to make and design

Even smarter would be a concave sensor - lenses would be a lot easier to make and design

like this?
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-big-sony-medium-format-system-talk-53-5mmx40mm-sensor-with-150-and-200mp-lots-of-f-1-7-primes-and-very-expensive/

So, the Eye sensor?

Well said Robert.

Just gonna add this here:
http://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/LargeFormatMisconceptions.html

i agree to the theory, but i disagree when taking "independent filmmakers reality" into account. But first of all: I dont feel betrayed by BMD, the build great cameras which i love to use.

Sidenote: I think ProRes RAW is not supported because thatt would also support sales of Atomos, whose recorder technology "maybe" stolen from BMD since Jeromy Young worked for BMD in the past connected to the Video Assist Line. So it may be a policital/emotional decision to not support PRAW.

I guess i also understand the "issue" the OP i having, because i maybe share some of it.

Its simple: if you want to create different looks you need different lenses. The most affordable options in this regard are "vintage" photo optics made for 35mm. The bad thing about those old lenses is the availability of fast, high quality wide-angle lenses and they arent extraordinary sharp aswell.

So cropping (which s35 does) into old glass is like zooming into badness. And for some lenses (like my beloved distagon 28 mm F2) you lose the "feel" of the lens. So i would need something like a vintage 18mm F1.4 to match the "look" which doesnt exist of is way out of my budget.

If s35 would have been the standard for photography as long as 35mm was and all those old glass would have been calculated for s35, i guess it would be the other way around.

The problem with the article is, that it just stays in theory with theoretical sensor sizes and theoretical focal length and f-stops that would compensate any difference in sensor size.

thats why iam using a magic booster with my UMP G2 which kinda solved this for me.

If s35 would have been the standard for photography as long as 35mm was and all those old glass would have been calculated for s35, i guess it would be the other way around.

Rick, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't really negate what Yedlin is saying, it only holds true for you, if you'll forgive me, because you have many vintage still FF lenses, that may perform poorly with Super 35. And many people I dare say are in the same position but for others, who may be new to filmmaking and didn't come from stills, it would be unquestionably cheaper to buy faster better quality new cinema lenses in Super 35 than it would in FF, regardless of the perceived aesthetics over one format or the other, that can be accommodated with slight modifications for a similar look.

I guarantee you people everywhere will be here again in a couple of years saying that the 65mm format is so much more 'cinematic' than FF. Gear anxiety gets in the way of telling stories and making films today, with what we already have, and is fed by a legion, I feel, of YouTubers whose only cinematic productions consist of the very uTube videos we are watching. Scrub that last bit Fishwick, it sounds cynical

Not cynical, simply the truth, Steve.

But regarding FF photographic lenses on S-35, it depends. Some of the old wides actually have a softer area between the center and the edges. This is not always a bad thing. It'll give you softer corners on S-35, which may focus attention to the center. But when you don't want that, a lens like the Sigma 18-35mm is the solution.

But then, this weakness is by far not true for all vintage glass. Some are really good in the center and mid-area and fall off to the corners, so you'll use the best part on S-35.

There may be other technical reasons why a larger sensor size has benefits for a particular camera design or rig. But a unique "look" of the image vs a smaller s35 sensor size is not one of them.

Thank you for posting that, even though it's pretty basic knowledge.

I used to shoot on a 4x5 (and therefore still find the reference to VistaVision as "large format" to be pretty ridiculous), and for a while shot with a 35mm camera along side the 4x5, so I got to compare the two formats pretty directly. And from 4x5 to 35mm the difference in image size is HUGE -- since the 4x5 film has 17x area of the 35mm film/sensor.

Yet if you take a shot with the 4x5 and say a 135mm lens, then pop the camera off and put the 35mm camera on there with a 135mm lens and then crop the image from the 4x5 to match, you can't actually see a difference, other than from the imprecision of matching them up, and the fact that a Rodenstock 135mm lens isn't identical to a Nikon or Sigma 135mm lens, etc.

If s35 would have been the standard for photography as long as 35mm was and all those old glass would have been calculated for s35, i guess it would be the other way around.

Rick, I understand what you're saying but it doesn't really negate what Yedlin is saying, it only holds true for you, if you'll forgive me, because you have many vintage still FF lenses, that may perform poorly with Super 35. And many people I dare say are in the same position but for others, who may be new to filmmaking and didn't come from stills, it would be unquestionably cheaper to buy faster better quality new cinema lenses in Super 35 than it would in FF, regardless of the perceived aesthetics over one format or the other, that can be accommodated with slight modifications for a similar look.

I guarantee you people everywhere will be here again in a couple of years saying that the 65mm format is so much more 'cinematic' than FF. Gear anxiety gets in the way of telling stories and making films today, with what we already have, and is fed by a legion, I feel, of YouTubers whose only cinematic productions consist of the very uTube videos we are watching. Scrub that last bit Fishwick, it sounds cynical

Iam not coming from stills and i know a lot of people new to film who love vintage glass. And which cinema glass are you refering to? And do you have a cheap and fast s35 equivalent to a 15mm F2.8, or the full frame 14mm F1.8 i also love to use? Iam eager to learn about those lenses.

And please dont - just dont consider the 18-35mm an equivalent for vintage glass.

i think the lesson here is, that there is no such thing as a generally "best" format. There are just choices for a particular look or workflow one likes to produce, considering the budget one has.

And yes, i wouldnt refuse to work with an alexa 65 And i love to shoot with my OG s16 BMPCC aswell

DOF is the same for any given aperture at any given f stop, regardless of sensor size - only the AOV changes - 80mm has the same DOF at f2 always, yes you have to move the small sensor back a long ways, but it's just the same shot, if you do.

That isn't true, actually; moving the camera back is actually what gives you the distance compression that so many people wrongly associate with a longer lens. What they fail to understand is that the longer lens (or in this case the sensor crop) forces you to move the camera back farther from the subject to achieve the same subject size, which lowers the proportional distance to what's behind the subject. The correct way to match shots would be to use a wider lens and match depth of field by matching aperture.

And change the aperture at the same AOV between FF and Super35 and you can get the same effect too. Why is one considered more 'cinematic' than the other then? Did Super 8 look like video?

It's all marketing for people who are selling gear and coming along for the ride in order to get hired, instead of selling their talents and offering their gear as a value add.

When VistaVision was introduced, very shallow depth of field was seen as a potential problem with the new format. Paramount specifically recommended shooting at f5.6, which was a smaller aperture than normal for standard 35mm, to alleviate and match the smaller gauge.

Yeah, and it's even more extreme when you go with a format like 4x5, because to achieve the same framing at a given distance as with a 200mm lens on a 35mm, you need more than a 720mm lens... and that much magnification also magnifies the circles of confusion.

Anyway, I am very sure BMD will introduce a FF camera soon - it's a market fad that can't be ignored.

I don't know about the "soon" part, due to the multi-year design cycles involved, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. And I wonder if the fact that Intel now owns a sensor manufacturer (Tower Semi) that it will scale up that side of its business and maybe make larger sensors more economical through scale economies?

Who knows.

I recently saw an Alexa Mini LF for sale used with a couple of accessories... for $98K USD.

Arri prices their LF cameras with a pretty heft price tag. So the lower cost Full Frame Cinema Cameras we need to look at come from RED (Raptor for $24.5K USD), Sony, and Canon. You could mention ZCam and Kinifity Edge, but those technically don't have the same market penetration as the other brands yet.

Sony offers FX3 ($3.9K USD), FX6 ($6K USD), FX9 ($11K USD), Venice 1 ($42K USD), Venice ($60K USD) as their cinema camera lineup in Full Frame.

Canon offers the C500 ($16K USD) and C700 ($33K USD) as their Full Frame Cinema Cameras. Yes, they do offer that hybrid camera the EOS R C ($4.5K USD), but that's less full cinema only like the other Canon Cameras I mentioned.

All those prices are body alone without accessories or important gear to make camera work.

Using Sony the most comparable pricing models to what we could see from Blackmagic Design for a Full Frame URSA Mini and URSA Micro comes to the FX6 and FX3 models. So that means $6K for the URSA Mini Full Frame, and $4K for the URSA Micro Full Frame.

But as you'll see all the other "Cinema Cameras" from every other major manufacturer carries a hefty price tag for the Full Frame sensor size. All I am trying to convey is that cinema cameras have been S35 for a long enough time that the transition to Full Frame comes with a bigger price tag.

Sony offers FX3 ($3.9K USD), FX6 ($6K USD), FX9 ($11K USD), Venice 1 ($42K USD), Venice ($60K USD) as their cinema camera lineup in Full Frame.

Greig Fraser, who won this year's Oscar for cinematography, is using the Sony FX3 for an entire feature length movie with director Gareth Edwards, who he shot "Rogue One" for. See YouTube link below. The new movie is called "True Love". This a big budget movie with big name actors. If the FX3 is good enough for Hollywood features, then what's the point competing in the space anymore for Blackmagic. Obviously autofocus is the next big thing in high end cameras, look at Komodo and Raptor with their primitive, yet evolving phase detect system. I don't think that BMD has the resources and money to invest in all the AI and camera processing required for sophisticated auto focus. Will cinema camera consumers want AF for their new cameras? The FX3, which I own is great, and the new Canon R5C shows promise. Even if BMD releases a new camera this year, not sure if I'll get it. So many choices nowadays, when the FX3 and R5C are good enough.

Go to about 38:05, this is where he talks about FX3.

Arri prices their LF cameras with a pretty heft price tag.

They're pretty clearly priced based on their primary clientele being rental houses rather than owner/operators, which makes perfect sense for Arri.

But as you'll see all the other "Cinema Cameras" from every other major manufacturer carries a hefty price tag for the Full Frame sensor size. All I am trying to convey is that cinema cameras have been S35 for a long enough time that the transition to Full Frame comes with a bigger price tag.

True, it's $6000 for a Super 35 Komodo, and $25,000 for a V-Raptor, though there are definitely other differences that account for the difference in price as well, part of that is to add value in order to justify the price premium over something like a Mavo Edge 8K, which has a higher resolution (45 megapixels in open gate) sensor.

That said, while a large sensor camera would be nice, it's certainly not critical. After all, Roger Deakins got his first Academy for a film he shot on Super35 Alexas, not LFs with their medium format sensors.

Greig Fraser, who won this year's Oscar for cinematography, is using the Sony FX3 for an entire feature length movie…

Why? He doesn’t answer the obvious question that wasn’t asked in the Podcast.

Greig Fraser, who won this year's Oscar for cinematography, is using the Sony FX3 for an entire feature length movie with director Gareth Edwards ...So many choices nowadays, when the FX3 and R5C are good enough.

The only response to this is, any number of cameras today produce image quality which is "good enough" for a theatrical presentation, and even more produce images which general audiences will accept without protest. This has been true for years. But so what? If this big budget production really wants to fool with this point and shoot sized camera in Thailand, nobody's stopping them, but you have to ask: what's the point? Conversely, owning a fx3 won't do much for a movie if there's no budget for it.

The only reason the DP offers is "high ISO", presumably meaning it's good in low light. But. really, there's nothing better suited to a full-blown production than the fx3? Hard to believe, unless they have other reasons -- including marketing.

As to whether BMD can survive without effective AF on the order of Canon or Sony, who knows..... In the end, digital cameras look destined to become commodity items, like computer gear. Then again, judging from recent threads here, there are some who want to endlessly litigate computer gear as well, so maybe there's no end to it.

That isn't true, actually; moving the camera back is actually what gives you the distance compression that so many people wrongly associate with a longer lens. What they fail to understand is that the longer lens (or in this case the sensor crop) forces you to move the camera back farther from the subject to achieve the same subject size, which lowers the proportional distance to what's behind the subject. The correct way to match shots would be to use a wider lens and match depth of field by matching aperture.

I'm sorry but what I said about DOF is true as a matter of physics. The same f stop (as opposed to T-stop) at the same focal length is identical everywhere, producing identical DOF. Different size sensors take a different crop of it only and hence produce a different angle of view. If you have a 1/3" sensor and have to move it back so far to get the same AOV as a FF sensor then yes I understand your 'distance compression' but the difference between a Super 35 and FF sensor would be far less obvious.

Where some of the confusion may arise is from the acceptable circle of confusion:

Wikipedia:
“The depth of field can be calculated based on focal length, distance to subject, the acceptable circle of confusion size, and aperture.”

The acceptable size of the circle relates to how much the image will be enlarged. Think of the print media that is presented to the viewer. The print media may be an 8”x10” photo from a 8”x10” view camera. Or it may be an 8”x10” print from Super16 sensor. The depth of field likely will appear differently.

In a depth of field app, it’s common to define your camera for the convenience of the user but it’s crucial to define the circle of confusion you are applying for that camera.

Yep Rick, that's right about the circle of conf. In fact the lens focus is at a plane, except a) distortion in the lens causes that plane to also distort; b) the sensor resolution is less than the lens and clips the resolution so as to be flat from in front of to behind the plane a bit. From this plane of focus the image softens (differently for different lenses) along some curve to a point at which it reaches the circle of confusion [CoC] size (in front and behind the plane.) The CoC is calculated from several factors including the photo-site density of the sensor. I would even go as far as saying that there is also a certain amount of personal subjectivity to the DOF as some don't agree with what a calculated CoC gives (think it is too sharp or not enough sharp.) More important than the CoC is the way in which the lens image changes from the max sharpness to max blur.

Greig Fraser, who won this year's Oscar for cinematography, is using the Sony FX3 for an entire feature length movie…

Why? He doesn’t answer the obvious question that wasn’t asked in the Podcast.

I'm with you. I love the FX3, but for high end work what's the point? To start with, it has a terrible HDMI lag even when plugged straight in and no LUT out from camera. That means rigging is required for the most basic monitoring. The only thing I can think of is that the director shot his indy feature "Monsters" with a Sony PMW-EX3, a DOF adapter, and old Nikkor primes. Maybe he likes the challenge of slumming it. He also likes to do his own operating. Much easier to do your own handheld with a little camera than an Alexa LF full size 35 pound beast. I can attest that if you operate a full size Alexa it's a back breaking exhausting job that takes all your concentration and energy. Can't direct and operate, impossible

The CoC is calculated from several factors including the photo-site density of the sensor.

The circle of confusion is an optical property, so the size of photo sites doesn't affect it. Partly because it can't.

[/quote]
I would even go as far as saying that there is also a certain amount of personal subjectivity to the DOF as some don't agree with what a calculated CoC gives (think it is too sharp or not enough sharp.) More important than the CoC is the way in which the lens image changes from the max sharpness to max blur.[/quote]

There's no subjectivity whatsoever to the circle of confusion itself, where subjectivity enters the equation is at what point does does the CoC become undesirable. That varies based on personal preference and and also for different styles of shot.

For an f/64 style shot the threshold for an unacceptable CoC is a LOT smaller than for a soft, dreamy, high key portrait, for example.

I'm sorry but what I said about DOF is true as a matter of physics. The same f stop (as opposed to T-stop) at the same focal length is identical everywhere, producing identical DOF.

Which is obviously not what I was referring to, so...

Which is obviously not what I was referring to, so...

And yet that is the particular quote, in full, you referenced and so I thought you meant it all untrue. My apologies Rakesh, we are at cross purposes then.

I thought it might be interesting to show two shots:

One Vertigo, VistaVision, probably 50mm, favoured by Hitchcock and maybe @ f5.6, preferred by Paramount

ernies-restaurant.jpg (274.65 KiB) Viewed 16143 times

The other, Leaving Las Vegas, Super 16mm, no idea but obviously telephoto with the distance compression Rakesh mentined

leaving.jpg (80.48 KiB) Viewed 16143 times

I know which looks nicer to me but DOF can't account for it, nor format size. It's debatable if one is more cinematic than the other, again only for me.

If I may, I think Rakesh is talking about the perspective changes which occur when moving the camera with the idea of retaining the same FOV, as in the discussion of how to replicate the image from a large sensor camera on a smaller one (change the lens, don't move the camera). T

The perspective change is illustrated nicely (and famously!) by this clip, staring at around :27, in which the two figures remain the same size, but the backyard shifts alarmingly as the camera moves and zooms at the same time to keep them that way:

Funnily enough John, that shot (track in/zoom out) first appeared in Vertigo, copied by movie brats ever since