New Camera and Mount Upcoming ?

Mistakes were made with the Ursa 12k. It should have debuted with with an all new formfactor body, should have Prores option and not call it a UMP12K.

Kinefinity has a horrible rolling shudder as well as sensor. It's really unusable when compared to other brands for the same price.

Yeah. I guess these high-end looking commercials shot handheld with a Kinefinity Mavo LF disproves your statement that the rolling shutter is unusable. Kinefinity cameras render beautiful cinematic images, period.

You should probably look at this video.

I love Blackmagic but the way I see the market there’s no existence for a low budget quality-oriented camera that still only uses EF and PL mounts. There’s no upgrade path so people will jump in on other similarly priced offerings.

I love Blackmagic but the way I see the market there’s no existence for a low budget quality-oriented camera that still only uses EF and PL mounts. There’s no upgrade path so people will jump in on other similarly priced offerings.

I sort of disagree. I'm all for keeping PL Mount. It's an industry standard. However, I'm more happy with Mirrorless Mounts that allow for a PL Mount to be attached with the correct lens data connections for LDS and /i Technology. Yet, the thing I love most about my Sony E Mount on my A7IV is that I can use the Fotodiox MD to E Mount Adapter to use my vintage Minolta lenses for stills. Just yesterday I used my Vivitar 135mm f2.8 MD for some shots, and the model loved the shots!

Kinefinity has a horrible rolling shudder as well as sensor. It's really unusable when compared to other brands for the same price.

Yeah. I guess these high-end looking commercials shot handheld with a Kinefinity Mavo LF disproves your statement that the rolling shutter is unusable. Kinefinity cameras render beautiful cinematic images, period.

You should probably look at this video.

The Kinefinity stuff is really interesting! I occasionally AC for a local studio that owns a few of them.
The IQ their DP achieves with it is quite stellar, and I love the form factor, etc.. it's a very strong contender all in all. However, I would be very hesitant to invest in one. I've been on multiple shoots with these guys were the Kine started acting funny and just wouldn't boot up...until it decided it would boot up. Very finicky OS. The DP also has fried two of them and had to send back to China for repair because someone plugged a cable in while camera was powered up. I know this can be an issue on other cameras with SDI ports, but this was next level. Like, flat out dead camera. It seems they do a lot right, but unless you can afford two of them for if one goes down, I personally wouldn't go that route at this time, cool as they are.

YMMV.
Best,
-Daniel

I said a few months that if you took the Kinefinity form and design and added a blackmagic sensor and software in it you would have the perfect camera.

Until that happens it's just not a camera to buy.

Blackmagic just announced 2 new studio cameras. The also have been releasing broadcast and live-production equipments. It seems to me that their focus has shifted towards that segment. Is that the end of their cinema cameras, I mean no more new cinema cameras anymore?

Hard to say about that. One thing I found interesting in the last 24 hours is that the creative content people who have a passion for Blackmagic cameras, and who created videos talking about their expectations before this last announcement have been radio silent since then. Same with some prominent members of this forum community.

It makes me wonder if they are actually testing something right now. Not a lot of wonder...but some.

The interchangeable sensor on the Big Ursa was a great idea, just not crazy about the size and formfactor. Its been nearly 10 years so maybe they can get it right now?

I think BM has nowhere to go with a new small camera. They can’t do better autofocus or IBIS, they’re already at resolution overkill with 6K, the body already has all the bells and whistles…

As another poster noted, the field has become crowded, and is dominated by products with tech features that Blackmagic just can’t develop, like high-end autofocus. I’m a little sad about it, but pivoting to different markets where they can compete is just good business.

I don’t need auto focus on a cine camera. I need one that is small box form factor that is easy to rig for different situations, more DR, pretty much what the pocket 6K pro has. I don’t even want the monitor other than a small one like the Komodo or ZCam for camera settings, and SDI and timecode too. A URSA micro pro 6 or 12k sensor at a $2K-3K price point will be of interest. I have no use for studio cameras but understand that BM may be pivoting to gain market share. I’m starting to look for other manufacturers who are getting on the bandwagon. ZCam is also gaining traction and making a lot of IQ improvements that it’s worth keeping one eye on where they will be next year.

Box camera....

If it was REALLY so in demand then why aren't there thousands of BGH1 cameras on sets everywhere? Good price. It's Netflix approved...!!

DONT ANSWER

Because it's a niche camera...Cinema cameras are a NICHE camera, and BOX / gimbal cameras are an even smaller subset of that small niche.

Komodo has been reasonably successfully but I bet POCKETS outsell them by more than 20:1

Those Z cams are popular sure, but pockets still outsell them by a HUGE margin.

Kinefininty don't seem to ever quite get there....

People keep saying the the 12K isn't successful, but I bet its numbers are consistent with its price point for a "cinema camera".

Most of the posters on this thread operate in a VERY NICHE very small corner of the market. Events, live casting, and broadcast are huge in comparison. We have one of two cameras on a film set...those users have double digit cameras for a pretty regular everyday "event".

It's just numbers....

JB

Komodo has been reasonably successfully but I bet POCKETS outsell them by more than 20:1

It's just numbers....

JB

My only pushback on your statement John is that you are looking at unit numbers and not cost of sales numbers. Of course POCKETS unit numbers are far greater that Komodo numbers however the sale and cost point of each camera is different. Because of that the profit margin is different as well. BMD is going after total number of units sold and is sacrificing price per unit sold to get, what may be the exact same profit margin RED gets on their lower sales per unit Komodo.

I think one of the points on this thread is not that BMD is choosing this pathway, it's that BMD not clearly talking to their customers about what their pathway is. There is a lot of muddy waters here and I think this latest announcement is starting to clear things up for many people that BMD has / is giving up on the $5,000 - $12,000 cinema camera arena and staying on the lower rung of the cinema camera line-ups. And in that area, at least over the last 18 months, Sony has been dominant with their A7sIII, FX3, and now their FX6 camera line-up's.

One last point. The potential of BRAW is not being met fully. Put BRAW in RED Komodo body, or Kinefinity body and you give customers an alternative. BMD is not offering an alternative right now.

We will probably never see a new cinema camera from Blackmagic ever again. It's over. When Blackmagic introduced their cinema cameras, there was nothing close in price point/image quality. Now there are so many great cameras with 422 10bit and the ability to record RAW externally, not to mention Nikon Z9 with internal RAW and RAW might me coming to new Nikon cameras. But RAW doesn't matter as much anymore.

I've owned every Blackmagic camera except a micro and the 12K. I love the company and the image their cameras produce. However I sold all my Blackmagic cameras lately and gone Sony. Except I own an Amira for super high end stuff and a Komodo, well, just because I feel like owning one.

The Blackmagic cameras are better image than Sony, but the FX6/FX3 combo is good enough and with AF, and clients can't tell the difference with the image quality. Plus, clients still don't recognize Blackmagic cameras, but they all know Sony. And in the last year, Sony cameras are ubiquitous.

BMD is doing the right thing by focusing on broadcast. I don't want to see a BOX camera from them with the same 6K sensor. This camera will not sell well. The only camera sensor I think would see and uptick in sales is if they put the 12K in a new box, with the ability to shoot ProRes too.

If BMD had released a version of the 6k with a swappable mount, I would have stuck with them.

Why are you all so pessimistic? BMD did not show a new cinema camera now, but I think they will introduce a new one this year.

I still don’t get the urgency to jump to a new camera. There is absolutely nothing holding me back with the currently available cameras. In reality with have already reached peak image quality for most of the work we do. If you know your tools you can now shoot super great images with almost any higher end camera from any manufacturer.

Why are you all so pessimistic? BMD did not show a new cinema camera now, but I think they will introduce a new one this year.

I still don’t get the urgency to jump to a new camera. There is absolutely nothing holding me back with the currently available cameras. In reality with have already reached peak image quality for most of the work we do. If you know your tools you can now shoot super great images with almost any higher end camera from any manufacturer.

Their choice to stick with EF for 6k cameras absolutely was holding me back. My choice of lenses was being severely hampered by their choice to not create a camera with a user swappable mount.

I cannot speak for everyone however my need has to do with virtual production. And while the Ursa 4.6 and 12K have the necessary inputs and quality for that need, it cannot work for me in other areas. I am very hesitant in spending $12,000 - $15,000 on two cameras that cannot be used in all areas. For me that's why a Komodo type form is what I am looking for.

All good valid points.
In the long run BMD will have to make some bold choices and create a newly designed camera model for the next decade.

Box camera....

If it was REALLY so in demand then why aren't there thousands of BGH1 cameras on sets everywhere? Good price. It's Netflix approved...!!

DONT ANSWER

Because it's a niche camera...Cinema cameras are a NICHE camera, and BOX / gimbal cameras are an even smaller subset of that small niche.

Komodo has been reasonably successfully but I bet POCKETS outsell them by more than 20:1

Those Z cams are popular sure, but pockets still outsell them by a HUGE margin.

Kinefininty don't seem to ever quite get there....

People keep saying the the 12K isn't successful, but I bet its numbers are consistent with its price point for a "cinema camera".

Most of the posters on this thread operate in a VERY NICHE very small corner of the market. Events, live casting, and broadcast are huge in comparison. We have one of two cameras on a film set...those users have double digit cameras for a pretty regular everyday "event".

It's just numbers....

JB

This! Right here! Agree!

The main reason 4 cameras might be used on a film set is an action feature film or television series where all the different angles are needed to capture a single moment difficult to do another take on. Things like stunt scenes, explosions, and big damage to sets. If you have to have a full reset of something like 10 hours before you can do another take then you have to use as many cameras in as many angles as possible to hopefully capture the action in the first take.

Most narrative dramas or comedies don’t need more than two cameras at a time getting scene coverage. And, in some instances one camera is all that is needed to capture the shot.

Another reason a film or television may need multiple cameras is multiple units shoot simultaneously. So B-Unit may be shooting closeup and inserts. C-Unit may be capturing plates and establishing shots. And finally D-Unit may be capturing VFX elements or miniatures. But this will only happen on major productions with a substantial budget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel that 12k Ursa is well ahead of the time for most users.

As Virtual set scene is starting to explode more and more users will be going back to Ursa 12K.

BMD tend to produce products well ahead of its time.

Doubled edged sword as it appeals to very few film camera fanatics and not the masses.

Not really sure what else is needed, cinema camera market is saturated.

I would love to see BMD come up with more virtual set solutions, LED displays, tracking systems etc.

Most narrative dramas or comedies don’t need more than two cameras at a time getting scene coverage. And, in some instances one camera is all that is needed to capture the shot.

So many narrative tv shows are shooting multi cameras these days. And not just 2 cameras.

You should probably look at this video.

Thanks for that link to the Undone review. In the beginning when he’s going over the buttons and various hand dwarf features, I’m quite impressed and eager to learn more. By the time he’s “done” with the review of the software implementation, I was impressed, but not in a good way. Sure it isn’t finished, but pretty polished commercials don’t really tell the whole story as you don’t know what it took to get there. That’s not to say it won’t be great someday, but not today.

So many narrative tv shows are shooting multi cameras these days. And not just 2 cameras.

It was Desilu Productions in the 50s that pioneered multiple Mitchell BNCs, for the I Love Lucy TV show, I believe. The technique involved exposing a marker on the side of the 35mm film, to record the multicam cut points. Since then it was very common to shoot many TV shows this way, since videotape and NTSC didn't travel very well for foreign sales to PAL countries.

It is true, to the point made before, I think here, that broadcast is a much bigger customer, generally of production equipment than even Hollywood, since the equipment costs the same whether you are making a 100 million dollar plus movie or a TV series and studio TV cameras with box lenses can cost many orders more than even top flight cinema equipment; and post usually involves far more seats than the average feature. However on very big movies the camera/production package can easily exceed the cost of any TV studio in it's totality and even though features are still essentially shot 'single' camera, there can many multiples of them for principle, 2nd unit, crash cam and VFX, not to mentioned massive rigging equipment needs.

[, there can many multiples of them for principle, 2nd unit, crash cam and VFX, not to mentioned massive rigging equipment needs.

Actually on both tv and features, they are shooting single scenes with multiple cameras at once. Even simple scenes. So they get multiple angles at once. Making it easier to edit.

Massive difference between broadcast and event work...think 10 cameras+...

Multicam drama is is rarely more than 3 cameras shooting at the same time on most scenes.

I say this as someone who shoots a lot of drama and the default is actually hiring two camera teams, not three, and it's usually an argument to have a full time third operator because producers default is to DAY PLAY the third camera (and fourth) as required.

On The Morning Show, the TV show within the show had four cameras shooting the show that pretends to be a morning show and us shooting the narrative drama used two cameras.

Unless it's a stunt or some special event within the narrative, then two is normal, three is becoming more common.

JB

Won't reply to all the Kinefinity posts (surprised there's so many!), but while there are flaws in their cameras, they're very rapidly iterating and improving on their hardware and software. Sleep on them at your peril, IMO. There is an absolutely huge market for, effectively, a poor man's Arri Alexa.

Good advice, Chris. Will watch for sample (unprocessed) footage as it comes available after the product launch.

I’ll be working on a feature later this year. The cameras have already been determined: Canon C300iii as A-Cam, C300ii as B-Cam, and C70 as C-Cam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I shoot and also direct feature and short indie films. Most of them are drama narratives, a few comedies. With comedic films that has multiple actors playing parts together we tend to shoot multicam, maybe 3 to 4 cameras because of the spontaneity of the act and we want not only to catch different angles but the comedic response of the multiple actors in the scene. For dramas, we usually shoot most with one camera, two at most when we need the additional angle and for betting continuity and coverage.

Making it easier to edit.

Since my core craft has been editing for many years, I can say that is not true. If you cut a multicam broadcast, it's principal 'editing' has already been done by the vision mixer. You then edit it down, improve shots from the isos, remove bad moves, etc.etc.. Drama is normally marked up for editing on the script, with lines to the left, showing the coverage of that angle within the scene i.e. master shot, mcu, cu etc. etc. Multiple camera angle coverage in drama, that was not shot as a 'live' event (e.g. soaps) does not make editing 'easier' and may present blocking, lighting and set issues, at the time of shooting too. They might help the spontaneous needs of performance, or speed up each setup, perhaps but they will not make 'editing easier', or necessarily quicker since a good and professional drama editor would not require that.

Yes, my recent multicam theatrical shoot with sixteen audio tracks was significantly more than twice the work in post. Let’s agree multicam makes for a better edit, not an easier edit.

Yes, my recent multicam theatrical shoot with sixteen audio tracks was significantly more than twice the work in post. Let’s agree multicam makes for a better edit, not an easier edit.

I have found it so much easier to edit my films when shooting with at least two cameras.
Continuity of movement when switching between angles is such a nice thing to have.

I have found it so much easier to edit my films when shooting with at least two cameras.
Continuity of movement when switching between angles is such a nice thing to have.[/quote]
I agree. If you have a script supervisor that knows the ropes, that individual can do a lot of good with continuity even when shooting with one camera.

I'll note that the advantage using multiple cameras for continuity between cuts is amazing. However, it doesn't mean that you won't have an instance where you'll cut to a different take where the actor may have delivered the line slightly differently and could physically have moved. So yes, a Script Supervisor is pivotal, and a great one is worth their payday.

I've even done Steadicam shots with a B-Camera off to the side to get the actor when they landed at a certain spot so that we could cut to the B-Cam and then allow for lights reposition for the next Steadicam move through a space since we were limited on lighting gear and the room in the shooting space. So, multiple cameras can be very helpful.

I think the most important thing now is for Blackmagic to focus on creating a universal sensor inside multiple bodies ecosystem. So like the Pocket 6K Sensor ended up in the Pocket Pro, Pocket G2, Broadcast G2, and now the new Studio 6K, I'd love for the 12K sensor to make it to a new updated URSA Mini Pro and an URSA Micro.

Sometimes you need the B-Cam or C-Cam to be smaller and easier to hide. But having the exact same sensor across the board is a wonderful thing.

I'm excited to see what Blackmagic does. They've had a good amount of time. They are going to surprise us. I'm only regretting having no credit card room from a lot of other recent purchases. But nonetheless I'll fully support it and eventually upgrade if it hits all the points that I want and need to justify the upgrade.

Anecdotally, and just one more opinion of many, I've said before that I would have considered the 12k even at it's original ~10k price point if it had been in a more suitable form factor. I just cannot invest in another pocket or Ursa style body based on the immense amount of trouble I've had with rigging it for a variety of jobs. I simply need an all rounder body, but can't stand the thought of supporting RED by buying a Komodo. Something about the Sony stuff rubs me the wrong way too. Maybe just seeing all these youtube influencer DP's acting like it's something revolutionary when to me it just seems like Sony has only just now generally caught up to BM? I also don't understand the FX3 pricing model.
Anyhow, YMMV, but I would quickly use my B+H credit card to upgrade to a box format 12k, or something similar.

What's funny is a lot of people have asked for or speculated about better IQ or features like global shutter, etc... Those would be nice, but the cameras I own from BM already look amazing and have a lot of life left in them to keep pace with current state of camera capture. But what would make my life more enjoyable, and produce better work is a body style that I can actually use without having to go crazy trying to get it rigged. Ronin M? Own it, doesn't work. Pocket is too wide to even fit, Ursa is a joke on it. Ronin RS3 Pro? Own it. Barely maybe kind of works with the pocket, but not like it should. Balancing that wide camera is so tricky with any kind of kit on it.. Letus Helix Pro? Own it..it Supposedly works and definitely is capable of heavy payloads, but I've never been able to get that thing to fly without serious, wobble. Spent a ton of time trying to tune that thing, but it's just not working for me. I've spent probably close to 10 grand trying to get these cameras to fly on a gimbal reliably. I can appreciate the irony that I could have simply bought a more suitable camera for gimbal use. But am I wrong for wanting to stay in the BM ecosystem when I do have to use a gimbal? I suppose I should have given up on gimbals long ago and just learned how to pilot a Steadicam. But such is life, and not all my gear purchases have been wise ones haha!

What a long and pointless opine this has become! I'm still using these cameras to work and to create solid images. So I can't complain. I just hope that if BM isn't finished in the cine/low end cine camera world that they would spend the money on body redesign. I believe in the BM team and I am so fascinated by Grant Petty and his philosophy! I can get behind him. To one day have to migrate to some soulless, giant camera company would make me a bit sad tbh.

Best,
-Daniel

Right now the Komodo is the cinema cam to beat. The IPP2 post pipeline is mature and it works well within most if not all NLEs. 6K for 6K, only a decade late. Still it has its shortcomings, most notably lack of HDMI and the full sensor 40fps raw limit.

I still believe the UMPG2 is BM's best all rounder. A 6K version of the Fairchild sensor with an L-Mount could be a Komodo killer.

If you put it in perspective, Red's patent theft is the best thing that could have happened to BM cinema cameras. Braw is by far their most interesting IP and its integration within Resolve is seamless. The 12k is neat but you're basically shooting 8K for 4K. Braw only is a strategic business decision that maybe works because BM owns Resolve. Then again the 12K isn't exactly flying of the shelves so...

Good Luck

Again, I would have stayed with Blackmagic. I wanted to stay with Blackmagic. But the EF mount made impossible for me to move up from the 4k.

I wouldn't be able to use my Voigtlanders. Or several of the available Anamorphic lenses.

… Continuity of movement when switching between angles is such a nice thing to have.

If the blocking is defined in a way that suits both angles, it works. But if the blocking is set for the A camera, the B camera angle may or may not look good. Movement of actors will look different from different angles. You may need to edit carefully to match the sizes of characters or their placement in the frame. Great if you find it easier with two cameras, I still feel it’s more work for a better result. With only one camera, pickup shots essentially become the B camera and there you need good continuity.

Right now the Komodo is the cinema cam to beat.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Alexa / Venice first surely.

Komodo is neat, but it's very niche. I find you can't really push it much past ISO 800, it's really more like 400 and even then the DR is limited compared to others. Yeah, the GS is nice, but as you mentioned, the sensor is windowed pretty quick once you go above 24fps and I personally find the small screen on top useless.

But am I wrong for wanting to stay in the BM ecosystem when I do have to use a gimbal? I suppose I should have given up on gimbals long ago and just learned how to pilot a Steadicam. But such is life, and not all my gear purchases have been wise ones haha!

Sounds like actually flying on a gimbal is the ONLY thing that you are wanting different?

Again, I would have stayed with Blackmagic. I wanted to stay with Blackmagic. But the EF mount made impossible for me to move up from the 4k.

The problem is that BMD don't have access to anything else in a 135 format mount. L mount is *maybe* possible, but they'd be negotiating that still I imagine. What other mount can they use if not EF for a 135 format mount?

… Continuity of movement when switching between angles is such a nice thing to have.

If the blocking is defined in a way that suits both angles, it works. But if the blocking is set for the A camera, the B camera angle may or may not look good.

So we're philosophically talking about shooting on the same axis, like shooting a medium and a closeup at the same time) or cross shooting where you shoot both sides of a scene at the same time.

The advantage of cross shooting is intra take continuity AND you can generally overlap dialogue for more naturalism. It also means if you ad-lib you have both sides.

In both cases a third camera can do a profile. If you're really clever you can do swingles where the profile is panning between the two actors on a cross shoot.

Shooting down the same axis of action is the much much more common. Most cinematographers would rather cut off one arm than cross shoot because it typically heavily compromises the lighting.

JB

Right now the Komodo is the cinema cam to beat.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Alexa / Venice first surely.

I agree that the Alexa / Venice are the top cameras out there however the price point is way past many individuals. I wish I could afford one of them, it would solve a lot of my problems. I cannot speak for the OP but I think they were speaking in the sub-$13,000 camera price range. The rankings I have based on form factor, image, and all around use ( narrative, doc, virtual production ) are really limited because you need genlock for virtual production.

Red Komodo
Blackmagic Ursa G2 / 12K
Kinefinity ( only if the new sensor fixes all their issues )

If you don't need genlock then the Sony FX6 or FX3 is a great combination.

Let BMD come out with a different form factor and I think it's another game changer for them. However if they miss this NAB window then I feel they will be left behind in the cinema camera marketplace and it will take many years to catch back up.

Anecdotally, and just one more opinion of many, I've said before that I would have considered the 12k even at it's original ~10k price point if it had been in a more suitable form factor. I just cannot invest in another pocket or Ursa style body based on the immense amount of trouble I've had with rigging it for a variety of jobs. I simply need an all rounder body, but can't stand the thought of supporting RED by buying a Komodo. Something about the Sony stuff rubs me the wrong way too. Maybe just seeing all these youtube influencer DP's acting like it's something revolutionary when to me it just seems like Sony has only just now generally caught up to BM? I also don't understand the FX3 pricing model.
Anyhow, YMMV, but I would quickly use my B+H credit card to upgrade to a box format 12k, or something similar.

What's funny is a lot of people have asked for or speculated about better IQ or features like global shutter, etc... Those would be nice, but the cameras I own from BM already look amazing and have a lot of life left in them to keep pace with current state of camera capture. But what would make my life more enjoyable, and produce better work is a body style that I can actually use without having to go crazy trying to get it rigged. Ronin M? Own it, doesn't work. Pocket is too wide to even fit, Ursa is a joke on it. Ronin RS3 Pro? Own it. Barely maybe kind of works with the pocket, but not like it should. Balancing that wide camera is so tricky with any kind of kit on it.. Letus Helix Pro? Own it..it Supposedly works and definitely is capable of heavy payloads, but I've never been able to get that thing to fly without serious, wobble. Spent a ton of time trying to tune that thing, but it's just not working for me. I've spent probably close to 10 grand trying to get these cameras to fly on a gimbal reliably. I can appreciate the irony that I could have simply bought a more suitable camera for gimbal use. But am I wrong for wanting to stay in the BM ecosystem when I do have to use a gimbal? I suppose I should have given up on gimbals long ago and just learned how to pilot a Steadicam. But such is life, and not all my gear purchases have been wise ones haha!

What a long and pointless opine this has become! I'm still using these cameras to work and to create solid images. So I can't complain. I just hope that if BM isn't finished in the cine/low end cine camera world that they would spend the money on body redesign. I believe in the BM team and I am so fascinated by Grant Petty and his philosophy! I can get behind him. To one day have to migrate to some soulless, giant camera company would make me a bit sad tbh.

Best,
-Daniel

sounds like you just want a camera to plop onto a gimbal. I never had an issue with my 4k/6ks on the Ronin-S and used it plenty without issues. Add the smallrig offset plate to the RoninS for the Pockets and for my Ursa G2 we used a Crane 3s Pro with the extension arm.

You don't have to rig any current camera to the extent you're talking about. Nowadays I shoot with a Gemini and Komodo mostly and have only 2 setups each. Minimal and Full Production, and there's not a crazy weight difference between them either. I find the small box form factor of the Komodo is more a hinder than a convenience for me since I mostly shoot narrative, which definitely requires way more rigging, which is why the Komodo barely comes off the Gimbal unless a 2-cam setup is needed.

… So we're philosophically talking about shooting on the same axis, like shooting a medium and a closeup at the same time) or cross shooting where you shoot both sides of a scene at the same time.

The advantage of cross shooting is intra take continuity AND you can generally overlap dialogue for more naturalism. It also means if you ad-lib you have both sides.

In both cases a third camera can do a profile. If you're really clever you can do swingles where the profile is panning between the two actors on a cross shoot.

Shooting down the same axis of action is the much much more common. Most cinematographers would rather cut off one arm than cross shoot because it typically heavily compromises the lighting.

JB

Thanks for those comments, John. My conclusions were based on camera A and camera B being on a different axis. Sometimes B was marred by the blocking compared to the A camera. Sometimes A was marred compared to B as the actors moved about. In the edit, I tried to use the shot that best showed the actors’ expressions, even when the lighting may have been better on the other angle. One of the challenges shooting live theatre.

Again, I would have stayed with Blackmagic. I wanted to stay with Blackmagic. But the EF mount made impossible for me to move up from the 4k.

The problem is that BMD don't have access to anything else in a 135 format mount. L mount is *maybe* possible, but they'd be negotiating that still I imagine. What other mount can they use if not EF for a 135 format mount?

JB

I'll add PL/LPL can cover 135 format. Most PL glass is made for S35, but a good amount also has VV coverage. And, VV is close enough to 135.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Alexa / Venice first surely.

Pardon me for speaking so loosely. Of course Arri is the top dog, I was speaking to the sub 10K "Blackmagic" tier of camera.

Shooting down the same axis of action is the much much more common. Most cinematographers would rather cut off one arm than cross shoot because it typically heavily compromises the lighting.

I've tried to cross shoot multicam narrative on a couple occasions and compromise is what we kept coming up against. It would take 3 times as long to get the lighting to a place where we could shoot both directions and not contaminate the shot with stands or the mic boom. I imagine that on a soundstage with big lights and a grid it might be a little easier but that was largely outside our budget.

Good Luck

For me Komodo is not top dog for sub $10k cameras because its high frame rates IQ sucks. Would need to get another camera that can do nice high frame rate to complement with for my need.
C70, UMPG2, UMP12K are still contenders for best sub $10k crown even with the lack of decent AF and lack of modern mount option short commings in these BMD cameras.

Sounds like actually flying on a gimbal is the ONLY thing that you are wanting different?
JB

sounds like you just want a camera to plop onto a gimbal. I never had an issue with my 4k/6ks on the Ronin-S and used it plenty without issues. Add the smallrig offset plate to the RoninS for the Pockets and for my Ursa G2 we used a Crane 3s Pro with the extension arm.

You don't have to rig any current camera to the extent you're talking about. Nowadays I shoot with a Gemini and Komodo mostly and have only 2 setups each. Minimal and Full Production, and there's not a crazy weight difference between them either. I find the small box form factor of the Komodo is more a hinder than a convenience for me since I mostly shoot narrative, which definitely requires way more rigging, which is why the Komodo barely comes off the Gimbal unless a 2-cam setup is needed.

Yes, the dramatic box form factor gripe in my last post does seem to really come down to gimbal in most cases (although I'm sure I could think of additional reasons). I am glad to hear you have had good success with flying your pockets on Gimbals!

Perhaps the problem is my lensing. I'm using SLR Magic APO Microprimes, which make the setup very front heavy and puts the front to back balance in a weird place. But the biggest mechanical shake I get is from the gimbal motors struggling to keep the camera balanced left to right without setting the motor strength so high that it's rigid and mechanical, or jittery. I don't love the idea of having to use a pancake lens, or really any lens simply because it's the only thing that will fly. That's a bit "precious" of me, but having choices like lensing not be slave to the gimbal is important to me. I've noticed with many people who are able to get the pocket to fly well, that they often have the camera very stripped down. No real cage to speak of, no mini mattebox, no side-grip or top handle, no large focus motors, no 15mm rod baseplates, etc...Stripping down to this level would just take way too long on a typical shoot day for the work I do.

Of course, I definitely have to strip mine down a bit as well when I do fly my pocket on the rs3, due to the trouble balancing otherwise. I suppose that in my ideal world, I could literally leave the camera built the same way for tripod, gimbal, shoulder, ez rig, etc...the DJI 4D has tried to do this very thing in a weird sort of way. Their philosophy on how a camera should be chameleon like in different rigging scenarios is something I can appreciate.

All in all, these are minor gripes, but they are the things that would make my life so much easier that I would be willing to spend money on it.

Best,
-Daniel

All my gimbal issues using long Anamorphic lenses dissapeard when I replaced my BMPCC4k cameras with a zcam f6, and also a Panasonic s1h.

Shooting down the same axis of action is the much much more common. Most cinematographers would rather cut off one arm than cross shoot because it typically heavily compromises the lighting.

As John rightly points out, trying to block a scene out for different angles at the same time, may compromise lighting. TV multicam tends to use mostly high key lighting from above for this reason - it is difficult to be more creative with many cameras simultaneously. Continuity editing is not difficult, even when it less than perfect. Look at most any feature and you will see examples of no continuity between shots, if you go through them slowly. A good editor will make it seamless anyway, by choosing the right points and angle. You tend to use a point that will pass the movement, carried behind the drama, as it were. As I say, using multiple cameras to shoot a scene, seems to me more about getting through setups more efficiently, rather than helping an editor in post, since it would be the same amount work creatively either way there. As I should say TV multicam post editing can be very intense and longwinded too and I have done quite a few recently - you may be surprised to know, 4-5 weeks per 1 hour show!

All my gimbal issues using long Anamorphic lenses and heavy primes disappeared when I replaced my gimbals with a real gimbal, the Ronin 2.

I really hope gimbals go away. I see bad gimbal work all the time in many many shows.

I say this as a reluctant owner of three of them, but I tend to use them as remote heads.

JB