BMCC6K Facts and Findings

Omar, is the entire 3200 ISO range too noisy? I record at 1250 ISO and 1600 ISO and may apply noise reduction for my final
Deliverable using the BMPCC4K.

If only ISO 3200 and above are too noisy, it might be an acceptable workaround to shoot ISO 1600 and adjust in post if needed. Pushing a stop should be tolerable.

But I agree this reduced performance in the higher ISO range is difficult to understand given it’s not like Sony hasn’t done this before! How do much fatter pixels fail to deliver in the higher range?

What alternatives might BMD go to in their next camera if it’s not their proprietary RGBWWW sensor?

With consumer televisions there is the competition between LG and Samsung. LG OLED appeared to be the ‘best’ for several years, but now Samsung Quantum Dot OLED may have usurped them. Any serious competition for Sony in the prosumer and indie world? Oh, ya, I forgot for a moment, all real indie shooters use RED or ARRI to demonstrate their professionalism (or they won’t get funding for their project).

No Doubt
The BMCC6K is a desirable and capable cinema camera. I expect it will sell well as the early adopters begin to show their films shot with the camera. Getting the most out of any camera requires experience and a host of other production and post production factors. It will happen.

Also there are two BIG problems with these dynamic range tests. Cameras with internal noise reduction generally score way better because of the artificially clean shadows.

Could you share any links to reviews that take that into account?

Omar, is the entire 3200 ISO range too noisy? I record at 1250 ISO and 1600 ISO and may apply noise reduction for my final
Deliverable using the BMPCC4K.

If only ISO 3200 and above are too noisy, it might be an acceptable workaround to shoot ISO 1600 and adjust in post if needed. Pushing a stop should be tolerable.

Yes, the entire image is noisy, and appeared when I increased exposure in RAW tab. Even NR couldn’t salvage the image. That said, take my words with a grain of salt as I’m still learning and not experienced. Moreover, I depend on natural/ambient light when I shoot, I don’t use any additional lighting sources. I’m going to reshoot the same site tomorrow and post some results here.

I’ll shoot in 3200 and lower to compare the results.

Thanks it would be great to see ISO 3200 down to ISO 1250 and then ISO 400 as the ideal comparison. Can be extremely brief video.

Thanks it would be great to see ISO 3200 down to ISO 1250 and then ISO 400 as the ideal comparison. Can be extremely brief video.

Sure!

I forgot to mention that I shot Open Gate / Q0. I will do the same tomorrow unless you want me to test different resolutions/codecs. Let me know, Rick

What's happened is that the underlying assumptions about the relationship of light gathering to pixel size are being challenged, and if false, should have been false all along. Clearly with the BMCC6K it's noise, either not filtered or added, inherent to the sensor or in the processing pipeline.

There is certain folly in what IMATEST is attempting to achieve, putting a hard number to data points obscured by noisey contamination. It's folly for two reasons. We have to choose the level of acceptable RMS noise but also have to navigate the minefield of unseen NR techniques put in place by the manufacturer to misdirect us. There's also a third component of folly, our own insistence of relying on such a number, one hard number to rule them all.

We use these numbers to pick winners and losers. Would we judge art, sculpture, oil paintings this way? What we should be demanding is to see the tiff images themselves, the captures of the light box patches, like we used to before we gave it over to the machine scorekeeping. The only thing relevant is how many patches *you* count from the tiff image of the light boxes. The latitude photos are much more informative of what you should expect than any of the numerics. Let the eyes have it.

With proper exposure and a little NR, the BMCC6k upper ISO range is totally useable in real world scenarios. Especially on a 4k timeline.

Its looks as though BMD has put its effort on ISO 400 but neglected ISO 3200. Its almost undone all of the positive we see in this camera. To say it is embarrassing to see this in 2023 pushing 2024 is an understatement.

Here are some tests. All were shot in 30fps / 180deg. Links contain BRAW video + proxy + sidecar.

Open Gate:
- ISO 400
https://we.tl/t-p3OuBxE1xx

- ISO 1600
https://we.tl/t-eueSTXByig

- ISO 3200
https://we.tl/t-f9dE6vjpHM

6K DCI
- ISO 400 / 1600 / 3200
https://we.tl/t-e9v7buGR3C

6K 2.4:1
- ISO 400 / 1600 / 3200
https://we.tl/t-rJto63nBO9

4K DCI
- ISO 400 / 1600 / 3200
https://we.tl/t-NdbOZjjzBC

CineD is upfront about using the same methodology for all cameras to allow comparisons of what the cameras produce regardless of the unseen layers that most manufacturers include without an ability for the user to turn them off.

When BMD introduced the BMCC 2.5K in 2012, you know they were both brave and proud to offer a camera that gave use close to what the sensor registers with image processing to just fit in the new CinemaDNG raw codec. It also had fat pixels but no dual ISO capability. I really felt the fat pixels of the BMCC6K would really let the dual ISO range shine and my BMPCC4K would become a laughing stock. Well thankfully I was wrong on both counts so I’m content with my current tools and look forward to tomorrow.

Now it might be apparent in the BMCC6K, that most adopters of this sensor will continue to apply their layered image processing that includes heavier noise reduction so the sensor looks its ‘best’ at any ISO.

BMD is continuing to allow the user to apply ‘corrections’ in post according to each editor’s taste. I sometimes apply noise reduction after I think I’ve done all other edits and corrections. That’s not a reason to say I’m disappointed. I’m far more disturbed by the ubiquitous yet awful stage lighting than by adding noise reduction. Even that I try to correct in post.

So CineD was likely as disappointed as anyone that their review found a concern with the ISO 3200 range. They’re not about to alter their comparison to show what can be produced in post, what latitude is possible in the right hands. That speaks to the myth that a camera determines how beautiful or effective the movie looks when that’s only what a neophyte might say. Whether it’s Red or Arri or BMD, it’s the whole production and post process that determines the look. Of course it’s really nice to have a good starting point like Arri and the Venice 2. But BMD is close at a fraction of the cost with some finessing. Someday I expect to buy another BMD camera.

An interesting perspective:

The BMCC 6K Review—A Deceptively Simple and Beautiful Tool
I shot a short film with the BMCC 6K and found the joy in making movies.

https://nofilmschool.com/bmcc-6k-review

Thanks, Dan. That article certainly highlights the benefits of the BMCC6K and also goes back to reference the appeal of the BMCC.

An interesting perspective:

The BMCC 6K Review—A Deceptively Simple and Beautiful Tool
I shot a short film with the BMCC 6K and found the joy in making movies.

https://nofilmschool.com/bmcc-6k-review

Here's the one issue I have with the full-frame sensor, and it's more of a difficulty than an issue. Your focus will be razor-thin at anything below f/4. Even at f/5.6, getting perfect focus is challenging.

The focus assist features on the BMCC 6K are good, but when dealing with a thin focus area, you'll still miss the mark on occasion, especially when you're handheld.

I second that. Nailing focus is tricky, that’s why I step aperture down to get more DOF.

Hey folks, I have not been following the BMCC6K camera as I am still happy with my BMPCC6K and URSA Mini Pro G2 combination. However, just recently I've been putting some attention to the BMCC6K with an interest in purchasing one. Reading this thread is eye opening with good discussions. Being that it is a fairly recent camera, I started to check out what's out there for sale used as, IMO, gives a bit of insight on how a camera retain its value. This is the part that is troubling. The BMPCC6K goes for $2600 USD new. However, there are a number of them sold used for around $1500~$1800 with low mileage. I even saw 3 that are, according to the seller, less than 20 hours of use. That is fairly new assuming that it was not mishandled. I wonder if there is also a correlation of the facts and findings here that are cause of heartburn to novice users to buys the camera and ultimately find it of no use or good to them - hence selling it back out and cut their losses. Or is this really emblematic of issues like the old days of BM cameras? IDK that's why I'm asking and researching before I put my dime on it.

I can't tell you what is best for Ellory, just what I would do if I was considering it with your concerns. I'd buy one of the used ones for the $1500-1800, and I wouldn't fret about why it's listed for sale.

In a related instance, I know that Canon RF mount lenses are potentially better, but the impact they have had on the secondary markets for used EF mount lenses has made the latter quite attractive, so I have been collecting all of the focal lengths and designs I have wanted at steep discounts on the secondary market. So far with careful shopping, all my selections have been rewarding, and I am happy with all of them. Of course, for my U12K, I shoot everything with the shoulder mount so I buy only optically stabilized lenses. It limits the choices but all the ranges are covered and work great, Sigma and Canon alike. For my Pocket 6K, the non-stabilized choices are a good option for work even more portable with the internal gyro stabilization.

In my experience with the BMCC6K FF, I conclude that this camera loves light. Exposing to the right as far as practically possible will yield better results. For instance I've found that instead of exposing at ISO 400 for what I would usually regard as the correct exposure for the scene, I've found that shooting at 1250 ISO at the same shutter and aperture making the scene look too bright (but not overexposed), will provide less noise when the exposure is reduced to the same level as the ISO 400 shot in the camera raw panel.

In general I think that 1250 ISO pushed to the right and reduced in post will provide better results from a noise standpoint than 400 ISO exposed at the right levels for the scene. If you have enough light to push ISO 400 to the right then there are also gains to be had when dropping exposure in post.

I hope that makes sense!?

In my experience with the BMCC6K FF, I conclude that this camera loves light. Exposing to the right as far as practically possible will yield better results. For instance I've found that instead of exposing at ISO 400 for what I would usually regard as the correct exposure for the scene, I've found that shooting at 1250 ISO at the same shutter and aperture making the scene look too bright (but not overexposed), will provide less noise when the exposure is reduced to the same level as the ISO 400 shot in the camera raw panel.

In general I think that 1250 ISO pushed to the right and reduced in post will provide better results from a noise standpoint than 400 ISO exposed at the right levels for the scene. If you have enough light to push ISO 400 to the right then there are also gains to be had when dropping exposure in post.

I hope that makes sense!?

I am always a fan of exposing properly, but I think people are vastly overstating the noise on this camera. I have underexposed both low and high ISO ranges by about two stops in run-n-gun situations and recovered both easily with a bit of noise reduction. It’s a non-issue in real-world scenarios.

People seem to read what they want to read.

It's hardly a thumbs down.

"The new Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K shows a solid performance in the lab test."

"Latitude is also in the middle ground, nothing special, but better than some recent cameras like the Panasonic LUMIX S5II or the Canon EOS R5 C."

"lab test results for the new full-frame BMCC6K are sort of “copy & paste” from the APS-C sized BMPCC6K and 6K Pro. Hence, a bigger sensor, but everything else is similar."

"In the rolling shutter department, it falls behind compared to most recent consumer full-frame cameras, whereas in the dynamic range department, it is on a similar level, at least for the lower native ISO. The higher native ISO is sort of a problem child; I would stay away from it if possible."

RS and Higher ISO is the only truly negative finding.

JB

I don't fully agree with you John. The problem with the BMCC is that it is marketed as a proper cinema camera. The camera's that CineD compared it with are at best prosumer hybrid camera's. So the expectation from a user perspective is that the BMCC would at least be better in the image quality department than those camera's. The tests show that it is clearly not, mostly comparable or worse. To me it is completely logical that most people would see the CineD test as negative.

The problem with the BMCC is that it is marketed as a proper cinema camera. The camera's that CineD compared it with are at best prosumer hybrid camera's. So the expectation from a user perspective is that the BMCC would at least be better in the image quality department than those camera's

You could also interpret 'cinema camera' as a camera meant to be used in controlled lighting. The BMCC 6k seems to shine when it gets a lot of light and within the definition of making 'cinema', you are meant to provide it and not just run n' gun.

Second, those may be 'prosumer hybrid cameras' but it's the same sensor in many of them as the BMCC 6K. The trade-off BMD chose seems to be to get better color out of it at low ISO (plenty light) but worse noise at high ISO (not enough light). That sounds like a reasonable priority for a 'cinema camera' to me.

The issue with the categorization of a 'cinema camera' though is that the vast majority of BMCC 6K buyers aren't making cinema

The issue with the categorization of a 'cinema camera' though is that the vast majority of BMCC 6K buyers aren't making cinema

Who pinged me?

When focus is nailed combined with adequate exposure, the image quality is superb. Out-of-focus shadows would suffer noise. It will become visible when exposure is increased post-production.

With cinematic lighting, one shouldn't need to up exposure in post. Quite to the contrary.
How do you think the event shooting was done for Apple with the main theme "black"?

With cinematic lighting, one shouldn't need to up exposure in post. Quite to the contrary.
How do you think the event shooting was done for Apple with the main theme "black"?

It is all about proper lighting.

When I shoot inside houses, I depend on sun and ambient lights. Using extra lighting isn't an option for me now, although it is a necessity.

I think working with available and practical light can be very cinematic if done right (time of day, arrangement and choice of practicals, blocking ect), but not all camera/lens combos are meant for it.

Alexa's noise e.g. has always been kind of aesthetic, so it wasn't a problem to introduce some and Arri's colors remain nice when underexposed.

In my experience with the BMCC6K FF… 1250 ISO pushed to the right and reduced in post will provide better results from a noise standpoint than 400 ISO exposed at the right levels for the scene. If you have enough light to push ISO 400 to the right then there are also gains to be had when dropping exposure…

Interesting conclusion, basically exposing correctly for 400 and then effectively opening the aperture about 1 ½ stops as you select the higher ISO range so you are changing how the camera sensor behaves. Not intuitively obvious. I’ll need to test this on my BMPCC4K too. I wish I had read your post before last night’s theatrical shoot to ‘experiment’ with the novel approach. Then again, testing first is the prudent approach.

Interesting conclusion, basically exposing correctly for 400 and then effectively opening the aperture about 1 ½ stops as you select the higher ISO range so you are changing how the camera sensor behaves. Not intuitively obvious. I’ll need to test this on my BMPCC4K too. I wish I had read your post before last night’s theatrical shoot to ‘experiment’ with the novel approach. Then again, testing first is the prudent approach.

Rick, I had the same reaction as you, but wonder if it meant going to the second sensor tier? Doesn't the 3200 ISO tier begin at 1250?

Yes, if you figure your ‘correct’ aperture exposure is determined based on ISO 400 in the camera, let’s say it’s T5.6 to which you manually set the lens. Then with no other change, you select ISO 1250, in the ISO 3200 range, leaving the lens untouched, then exposure is going to behave as though you were shooting something like T3.5 in terms of the illumination of the image as the higher ISO range boosts the image. I haven’t played with this yet, but that’s my expectation.

Taylor from Cine Dailies on the BMCC 6K FF (with the NiSi Athena primes):

You could also interpret 'cinema camera' as a camera meant to be used in controlled lighting. The BMCC 6k seems to shine when it gets a lot of light and within the definition of making 'cinema', you are meant to provide it and not just run n' gun.

Second, those may be 'prosumer hybrid cameras' but it's the same sensor in many of them as the BMCC 6K. The trade-off BMD chose seems to be to get better color out of it at low ISO (plenty light) but worse noise at high ISO (not enough light). That sounds like a reasonable priority for a 'cinema camera' to me.

The issue with the categorization of a 'cinema camera' though is that the vast majority of BMCC 6K buyers aren't making cinema

I understand what you are saying but even in controlled lighting the BMCC isn't marginally better than most of those hybrid camera's. To contrary it's even worse in some departments. Which I think is a bit of a let down.

Personally I found the footage from most of these hybrids needs a lot more work than the Pocket 6Ks and 6K FF, both color correction and grading.

Yes, the entire image is noisy, and appeared when I increased exposure in RAW tab. Even NR couldn’t salvage the image. That said, take my words with a grain of salt as I’m still learning and not experienced. Moreover, I depend on natural/ambient light when I shoot, I don’t use any additional lighting sources. I’m going to reshoot the same site tomorrow and post some results here.

I’ll shoot in 3200 and lower to compare the results.

Could black shading calibration like RED be the answer, something BMD cameras don't have?

Yes, the entire image is noisy, and appeared when I increased exposure in RAW tab. Even NR couldn’t salvage the image. That said, take my words with a grain of salt as I’m still learning and not experienced. Moreover, I depend on natural/ambient light when I shoot, I don’t use any additional lighting sources. I’m going to reshoot the same site tomorrow and post some results here.

I’ll shoot in 3200 and lower to compare the results.

Could black shading calibration like RED be the answer, something BMD cameras don't have?

Never heard of it. I will look it up; might be a solution. Thank you Simon.

That would only help with fixed pattern noise. I understood that the BMC 6K is plagued by dynamic noise.

In my experience with the BMCC6K FF, I conclude that this camera loves light. Exposing to the right as far as practically possible will yield better results. For instance I've found that instead of exposing at ISO 400 for what I would usually regard as the correct exposure for the scene, I've found that shooting at 1250 ISO at the same shutter and aperture making the scene look too bright (but not overexposed), will provide less noise when the exposure is reduced to the same level as the ISO 400 shot in the camera raw panel.

In general I think that 1250 ISO pushed to the right and reduced in post will provide better results from a noise standpoint than 400 ISO exposed at the right levels for the scene. If you have enough light to push ISO 400 to the right then there are also gains to be had when dropping exposure in post.

I hope that makes sense!?

Here is an example that I threw together:

Nice comparison, plenty of scenes to compare. You can get a sense of the differences in image quality

Yes, the entire image is noisy, and appeared when I increased exposure in RAW tab. Even NR couldn’t salvage the image. That said, take my words with a grain of salt as I’m still learning and not experienced. Moreover, I depend on natural/ambient light when I shoot, I don’t use any additional lighting sources. I’m going to reshoot the same site tomorrow and post some results here.

I’ll shoot in 3200 and lower to compare the results.

Could black shading calibration like RED be the answer, something BMD cameras don't have?

The BMCC6K has a pixel calibration feature in the setup menu, which works in the same way as other camera's black shading setting as far as I can tell.

Exactly.

Of course it has black shading.

Just like an Alexa which also doest have a user black shading.

JB

Here's some shots from CC6kFF with an SLR Magic 32mm APO Microprime.
I used a Metabones PL to L Mount and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/8 (to help bloom the lights a bit)
this was all handheld @ 1250 ISO, T2.4-T4
I also used Film Unlimited to add some texture. NR was used, as one should with this environment, but the node was dialed in at 50%. So nothing I wouldn't do to any other camera. I truly think this camera looks great. The noise pattern is definitely different than the rest of the BMD line up, and it's a little harder to clean up, but @ 400 ISO it is truly fantastic. When pushed to 1250, it still holds up.
Granted, I haven't tried to film a wedding reception with no light but the dance floor, so there's a possibility it might break, but really, that's a lot for any scenario.

All in all, I'm keeping it and happy with my choice. The "full frame look" does help make images pop a bit more and I LOVE seeing my APOs in all their character.

Zoo Lights at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
1.95.2_1.95.2 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.92.1_1.92.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.87.1_1.87.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.71.2_1.71.2 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.64.1_1.64.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.56.1_1.56.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.40.1_1.40.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.25.1_1.25.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.20.1_1.20.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

1.12.1_1.12.1 by Adam Langdon, on Flickr

Hi.
I'm looking at the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens (L-Mount). This lens is APS-C. I wanted to know if this lens will work with BMCC6K? 4K DCI has a crop size of approximately 1.5, so shooting in 4K I think everything will be fine. But if you shoot in 6K, will there be a vignette? Please write what you think if you use this lens on a BMCC6K?

Hi there,

the BMCC is my first camera from blackmagic I own (having used the URSA and various bmpcc in the past rented or borrowed). I wanted to get away from Sony (owning the a7s and shot on the fx6 and others) and this is very subjective to say but there was always something to the colors I found that was not quite right for what I was doing. I was stuck with Sony because coming from the analog photography and super 8 world I love to adapt old lenses from m42 , pl-mount, m-mount, etc.... The new L-mount on the BMCC was therefore the main reason for my purchase. I would have been happy with a super35 sensor as well, but testing my super35 lenses in super35 mode at the moment and it looks very good! I adapted via a C7adapters L-mount to Pl-mount which is shimmable. It works great, no wobble, I had these adapters before on my Sonys and was very happy with the sturdiness and overall quality. For solving the "ND-Problem" I was looking into the mofage adapters, but unfortunately they wouldnt work with my older PL-mount lenses, as they perturbe too deep into the adapter, so the nd filter and the lens would collide. I went with the Tilta Mirage Matte Box with the vari nd for now and just started testing. It is fun and feels like a solid option, but I cannot say anything yet about the optical quality of the nd.
being spoiled by the low light capabilities of the Sonys I will have to adapt and see how to shoot low light situations and therefore I am looking into one or two additional fast lenses just for that purpose. As the camera has no stabilizer I was also wondering: which photo zoom lens (24-70mm) has a good stabilizer working on the Camera? Does a Lens stabilizer "get in the way" if I like to apply later gyro stabilisation in post? Does it render the gyro data unusable when I apply another method of stabilisation in the lens? Has anybody tried this yet?

The L mount a FF has been the main plus points. The Canon FD for me was perfect with this camera. Nice colour and no need for diffuser filter.

I'm now looking for anamorphic lens probably a Great Joy. It seems the 1.8x crop factor is only good for S35 mode but I thought they were FF lenses?

I'm now looking for anamorphic lens probably a Great Joy. It seems the 1.8x crop factor is only good for S35 mode but I thought they were FF lenses?

The 85mm is the only one that covers full frame without a vignette, iirc.

I really like the 1.8x Great Joy lenses but stuff like the above makes them a poor choice to buy as a complete set. Take it from someone who owns them! The good thing is that affordable anamorphic looks like it's here to stay, so there are options now, and more later - if you're willing to wait.

Here is footage of my film where ALEXA with FD SSC lens was pushed to the limit both in shadows and in the highlights, graded in ARRIRAW 2.8k in resolve 18.6, lit for ISO 800 if anyone wants to compare with FX3 and BMCC 6K.

Hence, even ALEXA can’t really do that well past ISO 1250 in low light scenes, without heavy NR.

Note, footage was also keyed out (delta keyer) of blue screen inside the Unreal Engine set, so all highlights and shadows should be judged from the actor’s image only. Warning : Some strong language.

I have seen some stunning footage online of deep blacks and really strong colour separation out of new BMCC6K just recently on YouTube. (IT NEEDS LIGHT )

Why oh why couldn't they have made the BMCC6K full frame in a box camera form factor? I would have bought it like its hot. I really hope their next camera is box form factor.

Why oh why couldn't they have made the BMCC6K full frame in a box camera form factor? I would have bought it like its hot. I really hope their next camera is box form factor.

Be cause not sell enough. If they can sell enough, they do it.
Most of people moan about box shape but I saw too much box shaped cameras on used market from regretted users that understand these are only for special use, and for everyday work is not comfortable.
Ps is not my supposition, I asked them

If you need box cameras the world is full of ZCam, Canon, Red box shaped cam.
Blackmagic Design do the chooses about design of internal structure, cpu, that not allow easily to put ff sensor and their cpu in a small box, they need cooling and energy, and you cannot do Easley in a small place without high costs. See Red, I used first Reds and warming was ones of big problems of it.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

See Red, I used first Reds and warming was ones of big problems of it.

Oh yes, and noise!

Why oh why couldn't they have made the BMCC6K full frame in a box camera form factor? I would have bought it like its hot. I really hope their next camera is box form factor.

Be cause not sell enough. If they can sell enough, they do it.
Most of people moan about box shape but I saw too much box shaped cameras on used market from regretted users that understand these are only for special use, and for everyday work is not comfortable.
Ps is not my supposition, I asked them

If you need box cameras the world is full of ZCam, Canon, Red box shaped cam.
Blackmagic Design do the chooses about design of internal structure, cpu, that not allow easily to put ff sensor and their cpu in a small box, they need cooling and energy, and you cannot do Easley in a small place without high costs. See Red, I used first Reds and warming was ones of big problems of it.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

If BMD gone back with a BMCC OG formfactor case made of metal again and add a V mount to the back with top mount using their Video Assist that would solve a few things.

Does a Lens stabilizer "get in the way" if I like to apply later gyro stabilisation in post? Does it render the gyro data unusable when I apply another method of stabilisation in the lens?

Turning on optical image stabilization in the lens disables gyro data.
And well, this is logical: gyro data captures camera movements, not the movements of the image projected onto the sensor.

Does a Lens stabilizer "get in the way" if I like to apply later gyro stabilisation in post? Does it render the gyro data unusable when I apply another method of stabilisation in the lens?

Turning on optical image stabilization in the lens disables gyro data.
And well, this is logical: gyro data captures camera movements, not the movements of the image projected onto the sensor.

It would be nice if there was at least an option to enable gyro stabilization along with lens stabilization so the end user can decide if the net result is good or not. Simply graying it out seems like an odd choice, it’s not like the gyro data isn’t there.

But the gyro data is based on camera movement. If the lens movements aren't the same as the camera, the gyro data is wrong. OIS is independent of gyro. There is no reason to let the user get trapped into an uncorrectable mistake. This is very different than IBIS which coordinates OIS with gyro. This can't happen on BMCC6K because OIS movements are not shared with the camera body. The choice you have is a good one, to choose OIS or gyro, and to have some kind of stabilization possible with every lens. My U12K doesn't have gyro enabled, but the combination of lens OIS with post stabilization in Resolve works well because the cropping still leaves a residual oversampled 8K image, and Resolve has the image itself to work with, whereas the camera is not analyzing the realtime image, just recording it.

But the gyro data is based on camera movement. If the lens movements aren't the same as the camera, the gyro data is wrong. OIS is independent of gyro. There is no reason to let the user get trapped into an uncorrectable mistake. This is very different than IBIS which coordinates OIS with gyro. This can't happen on BMCC6K because OIS movements are not shared with the camera body. The choice you have is a good one, to choose OIS or gyro, and to have some kind of stabilization possible with every lens. My U12K doesn't have gyro enabled, but the combination of lens OIS with post stabilization in Resolve works well because the cropping still leaves a residual oversampled 8K image, and Resolve has the image itself to work with, whereas the camera is not analyzing the realtime image, just recording it.

I’m well aware of the potential drawbacks of having both stabilization methods impacting the final image, I would just like to be able to choose for myself—especially where gyro can possibly help correct rolling shutter even if not correcting anything else (which is pretty much how I use gyro stabilization anyway).