BMD FF camera NAB 2014

Despite what some people are saying S35 being the gold standard of filmmaking everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. If BMD really want to surprise us again in NAB 2014 with another budget camera punching above its weight.

Let's get the current cameras out first shall we?

Despite what some people are saying S35 being the gold standard of filmmaking everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. If BMD really want to surprise us again in NAB 2014 with another budget camera punching above its weight.

People who've been shooting on FF DSLRs want a FF sensor, certainly before and around their transference to non DSLR cameras.

This is however a LONG way from everyone.

The reason for the FF desire is that the DSLR that introduced the DSLR movie craze was FF and gave a number of things like shallow depth of field that they associated with cinema, in relation to all the video cameras on the market in the price range at the time.

A FF camera is not out of the question, but a S35 sensor will give most of the advantages of a FF sensor (over small sensors) and so is not quite the driving force it may appear.

Despite what some people are saying S35 being the gold standard of filmmaking everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. If BMD really want to surprise us again in NAB 2014 with another budget camera punching above its weight.

People who've been shooting on FF DSLRs want a FF sensor, certainly before and around their transference to non DSLR cameras.

This is however a LONG way from everyone.

The reason for the FF desire is that the DSLR that introduced the DSLR movie craze was FF and gave a number of things like shallow depth of field that they associated with cinema, in relation to all the video cameras on the market in the price range at the time.

A FF camera is not out of the question, but a S35 sensor will give most of the advantages of a FF sensor (over small sensors) and so is not quite the driving force it may appear.

Times are changing. What we have is something that started in dSLR had implication for video camera development. Just because S35 has been the gold standard it does not mean the industry had to stick with it. Sensor size is only 50% of deciding shallow DOF, the other 50% is down to the lens. People want to push DOF when they needed it and I'm sure most practical pros would want more of that at their disposal.

Despite what some people are saying S35 being the gold standard of filmmaking everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. If BMD really want to surprise us again in NAB 2014 with another budget camera punching above its weight.

People who've been shooting on FF DSLRs want a FF sensor, certainly before and around their transference to non DSLR cameras.

This is however a LONG way from everyone.

The reason for the FF desire is that the DSLR that introduced the DSLR movie craze was FF and gave a number of things like shallow depth of field that they associated with cinema, in relation to all the video cameras on the market in the price range at the time.

A FF camera is not out of the question, but a S35 sensor will give most of the advantages of a FF sensor (over small sensors) and so is not quite the driving force it may appear.

Times are changing. What we have is something that started in dSLR had implication for video camera development. Just because S35 has been the gold standard it does not mean the industry had to stick with it. Sensor size is only 50% of deciding shallow DOF, the other 50% is down to the lens. People want to push DOF when they needed it and I'm sure most practical pros would want more of that at their disposal.

Nothing you've said however suggests that FF35 is likely to be adopted over S35. If anything its a argument for 65mm or 70mm, RED has mooted cameras of larger sizes.

Times changing can work against the DSLR revolutions championing of FF35 as well as for it.

When will this "FF" obsession go away? I thought the RAW hoo-ha would overtake it. I guess not. No one shot "FF" video until the 5dii came along.

You're talking about a stills format in video production. It's not needed.

Can't wait till all these DSLR shooters have forgotten about their 5Ds.

I don't like FF for video/cine.

When will this "FF" obsession go away? I thought the RAW hoo-ha would overtake it. I guess not. No one shot "FF" video until the 5dii came along.

The sad truth is that the majority of the people buying cameras and using them to shoot video are more interested in specs than in art. They're going to find something to complain about, and they invariably assume that their camera of choice must be the gold standard, much like how many photographers thought that HDRI was something developed specifically for photography, when in fact it was developed for 3D rendering, and as the technology matured people started finding other applications for it.

... everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR ...

No they don't. Certainly not most professional shooters (people who get paid to shoot video).

There are a hundred things more important to video production than is the "full frame" (135 format) sensor size. In fact, because it's so difficult to keep 135 format video in focus when there's subject/camera motion, it's a very significant drawback.

Instead of mostly-useless gimmicks like 135-format sensor size, I hope BMD soon makes it possible to shoot frame rates higher than 30fps on their camera(s), either by eventually updating the BMPC-4K camera, or in some new camera yet to be announced.

Heck, audio VU meters or just a simple red dot audio peaking indicator would be 100 times more useful to shooting pro video than is a 135-format sensor!
-

No they don't. Certainly not most professional shooters (people who get paid to shoot video).

That's the caveat - the ones who most want a full 35mm frame are the ones who aren't doing any video production or cinematography. The ones who are actually doing cinematography aren't bothered by the sensor size, they just work with it. BMD nailed it on picture quality, and if the compromise I have to make for that picture quality is a small sensor, then that's how it goes. Now if only they'd ship the cameras that we've been waiting for since BEFORE NAB, never mind the ones that they announced and haven't started shipping yet...

Getting the camera is currently a lot more important than getting VU meters. I can work around the crappy audio UI on the BMCC by taking advantage of my preamp, and when I need high end sound quality to match the picture quality of the BMCC, I'll be looking at Zaxcom or Sound Devices or Sonosax or the like, not hoping for BMD to take their focus off of the camera itself.

Things like higher frame rates would be nice, but nowhere close to being deal breakers for me, and based on how many preorders they've gotten, it's not a deal breaker for many.

RAW Medium format is the future. PhaseOne will be shooting RAW video soon. :-p

RAW Medium format is the future. PhaseOne will be shooting RAW video soon. :-p

That would be... interesting. 65mm digital sensors... cameras that make Arri Alexas look cheap

I wouldn't say no one is after FF. Rather, what I would say is that while the FF DoF has it's place it's not as helpful or necessary as, say, being able to hit focus. Which, as most people use FF for it's low-light capabilities, becomes pretty problematic pretty quickly. Hell, even holding focus on S16mm is difficult if you're shooting WFO.

Granted, the 135mm frame size (FF) opens up a lot of stills glass for use, especially on the wide, it also has the problem of rendering null and void millions of dollars worth of cine-glass which many people are quite fond of, and have a huge investment in-- which is nothing to sneeze at or quickly discount.

...everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. .

You might ask some focus pullers, what they are thinking about your statement

Really, I know about zero people in the industry that want a FF sensor.
It doesn't help anything and you need more light. When they where shooting "House MD" with it, it drove the whole crew nuts. There is no special "look" to it, it's just more DOF, which is about the last thing someone cares about, who comes from S35 or even S16.

...everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. .

You might ask some focus pullers, what they are thinking about your statement

Really, I know about zero people in the industry that want a FF sensor.
It doesn't help anything and you need more light. When they where shooting "House MD" with it, it drove the whole crew nuts. There is no special "look" to it, it's just more DOF, which is about the last thing someone cares about, who comes from S35 or even S16.

LOL, I do not envy the AC who had to pull focus on Nolan's 65mm shoots. Noooo thank youuuuuu.

Ok, I understand the DoF offered by the FF sensor (well the utterly abused shallow DoF everyone seemed to fall in love with) but the overzealous proponents of the 135 format almost sound off as if such DoF was impossible with other formats. What? No one bothered moving the camera, or repositioned the subjects being shot?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the 5d has done for video, but its a tool and it has its place. The most tangible advantage to the 135 format is the ability to achieve extreme wide angles, which is an aesthetic that I'm not too drawn towards. Even then, there have never been any situations where a shot would've been impossible without a 5d. For me anyways. Sometimes it's easier to just take a few steps back.

Tamerlin wrote :

The sad truth is that the majority of the people buying cameras and using them to shoot video are more interested in specs than in art.

If that was the case then no one would be using DSLRs... they have horrible compression, poor DR and bad aliasing, amongst other issues. I think it's more a case of "mine's bigger than yours".

innerspark wrote :

well the utterly abused shallow DoF everyone seemed to fall in love with

Ergh... people think that if they shower shallow depth of field on absolutely every shot... that their project will be amazing and all shall bow before them ... it's like they've never watched a film. Videos involving the continuous and unending onslaught of shallow depth of field are more and more feeling like the new handycam look.

If that was the case then no one would be using DSLRs... they have horrible compression, poor DR and bad aliasing, amongst other issues. I think it's more a case of "mine's bigger than yours".

Most of the spec hounds only see the sensor resolution and don't pay much attention to little details like that.

Ergh... people think that if they shower shallow depth of field on absolutely every shot... that their project will be amazing and all shall bow before them ... it's like they've never watched a film. Videos involving the continuous and unending onslaught of shallow depth of field are more and more feeling like the new handycam look.

I've seen posts on other forums where people claim that films are typically shot at f/2.8...

...everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. .

You might ask some focus pullers, what they are thinking about your statement

Really, I know about zero people in the industry that want a FF sensor.
It doesn't help anything and you need more light. When they where shooting "House MD" with it, it drove the whole crew nuts. There is no special "look" to it, it's just more DOF, which is about the last thing someone cares about, who comes from S35 or even S16.

I don´t want it for sure The thing is that with shorter DOF you can have a hard time splitting focus and sometimes that´s needed.

...everyone want FF size sensor as seen in dSLR. .

You might ask some focus pullers, what they are thinking about your statement

Really, I know about zero people in the industry that want a FF sensor.
It doesn't help anything and you need more light. When they where shooting "House MD" with it, it drove the whole crew nuts. There is no special "look" to it, it's just more DOF, which is about the last thing someone cares about, who comes from S35 or even S16.

I would venture to say that the majority of full frame advocates don't use AC's. probably a large number who don't even know that focus puller is a job. Or if they do, they probably think its dumb. I'm only basing this conclusion on the millions of 5D videos on YouTube that constantly hunt for focus.

For certain situations, hunting for focus adds something. For most things, it's just a distraction. Pulling clean and sharp is already challenging enough on a s35 sensor. No need for full frame for cinema. If your image is boring on a s35 camera but looks awesome on a ff camera, then the sensor size is not the problem or the solution.

probably a large number who don't even know that focus puller is a job. Or if they do, they probably think its dumb.

One of my classmates thinks a focus puller is a device. He's an arrogant pompous ---, so I didn't bother to correct him.

Just going to echo the sentiments in here.

FF is for the most part a marketing gimmick, it does alter the image etc but it'd more be used to give DSLR video fans an erection. I see it enough on other forums (OCAU's photography section) where people are quick to imply full frame is the ultimate tool in photography. It's great, for some but it's not the silver bullet 5D fans make it out to be. Shooting with full frame wont instantly turn your home movies into cinematic masterpieces. At this point I don't see much point in FF video outside of what the DSLR world brings to the table. I figure if FF is that important to your video jump on a 5D.

What I'm looking forward to from BMD is more in the realm of a BMPCC that can run 60p (but I don't NEED it) or perhaps releasing their own line of adapters for their cameras so you can order some like a BMCC MFT with a PL adapter straight up and once it arrives you just chuck on your glass and go to town. Kit lens options would be handy for the BMPCC too.

There's a ton of things that can be done to the camera line up to make them better. FF isn't one.

There's a ton of things that can be done to the camera line up to make them better. FF isn't one.

The main one is making them available. They seem to have forgotten about that part. Cameras are useless if they aren't in the hands of the cinematographers.

That said, since the mythical MFT mount cameras can use nearly any lens out there, lenses aren't a limitation.

Full frame is nice, but hardly critical, and not having "full frame" is hardly a deal breaker. Most people I know who complain about things like that use them as excuses to never actually do anything except find something more to complain about so that they have a perpetual excuse to not do anything.

The main one is making them available. They seem to have forgotten about that part. Cameras are useless if they aren't in the hands of the cinematographers.

That said, since the mythical MFT mount cameras can use nearly any lens out there, lenses aren't a limitation.

Full frame is nice, but hardly critical, and not having "full frame" is hardly a deal breaker. Most people I know who complain about things like that use them as excuses to never actually do anything except find something more to complain about so that they have a perpetual excuse to not do anything.

I was actually surprised by this thread. I didn't think Full Frame was something anyone in the video world cared about.

If BMD released a FF camera I'd put $100 down to say they'd find something else that needs to be done. Some people just can't be pleased.

I was actually surprised by this thread. I didn't think Full Frame was something anyone in the video world cared about.

If BMD released a FF camera I'd put $100 down to say they'd find something else that needs to be done. Some people just can't be pleased.

Of course. They want to have an excuse to not create art so that they can avoid admitting that they're clueless. I've met lots of people who do constantly go after the next upgrade, pretty much as soon as they get the current one, focusing primarily on what it's missing. I've seen people like that go through version after version, upgrade after upgrade, and for years accomplish nothing beyond the complaining, and blaming limitations in the equipment/software/etc for their inability to create things with it.

RAW Medium format is the future. PhaseOne will be shooting RAW video soon. :-p

That would be... interesting. 65mm digital sensors... cameras that make Arri Alexas look cheap

It's already been done...for a few years now.

http://www.visionresearch.com/uploads/D ... m%2065.pdf



jb

RAW Medium format is the future. PhaseOne will be shooting RAW video soon. :-p

That would be... interesting. 65mm digital sensors... cameras that make Arri Alexas look cheap

It's already been done...for a few years now.

http://www.visionresearch.com/uploads/D ... m%2065.pdf



jb

The URL you posted doesn't work, but that's still cool Not in my price range by far, but some day hopefully I'll actually need something like that for a film project

Pulling clean and sharp is already challenging enough on a s35 sensor.

Last feature was on s35 (celluloid) many times at T1.4 without the help of a HD-IVS and I certainly got challenged every now and then. On film you want to use a larger negative to get a cleaner image with less visable grain, on digital I don´t really see the same advantages but then I´m a focus puller and not a DOP.

Shooting wide open T1,5 is like shooting T2,8 on 65mm, which is larger then FF. s35mm has never been true 35mm. The only camera that really shoots professional video close to FF is the Red Epic and with the Dragon 6K = 30.7mm x 15.8mm.

I personally like the look of 65mm film. The immersion you get with the DOF on a 24mm lens shot at T2.0 is quite remarkable and if you see that on a large screen then I don't know how anyone could say it looks bad.

As I see it, whenever there's a request like this, there's always a negative response. I wonder why it is like this. Then I realise that people being negative about something like this might be people who invested a lot in inferior technology who would like everything to slow down or stop so they don't have to re-invest in everything again.

If some of you point out that "it is not needed", then you are only speaking for yourself or out of your fear for change. I have long dreamed of a 65mm digital format that is affordable. The 5D mark II was very interesting in that the full frame 35mm gave a feel close to 65mm film. I like the look it gives me, I know that it is the preferable choice for my vision of movies I like to make. If others like increased DOF and the s16mm look, then who am I to say no to that?

All this negative "talk" is pure bs. Of course it would be good to have a FF BMD camera, just make one, it would be awesome for everyone. Why is anyone even considering anything else?

on digital I don´t really see the same advantages but then I´m a focus puller and not a DOP.

The same applies to digital, you get less noise and for digital that is a much more needed thing then less grain for film. As for pulling focus, as I said, working with 65mm at T2.8 is like working at T1.5 on 35mm.
Also, you get a wider FOV without loosing the DOF of the current lens, it's a different look, it's not all about DOF.

Shooting wide open T1,5 is like shooting T2,8 on 65mm, which is larger then FF. s35mm has never been true 35mm. The only camera that really shoots professional video close to FF is the Red Epic and with the Dragon 6K = 30.7mm x 15.8mm.

I personally like the look of 65mm film. The immersion you get with the DOF on a 24mm lens shot at T2.0 is quite remarkable and if you see that on a large screen then I don't know how anyone could say it looks bad.

As I see it, whenever there's a request like this, there's always a negative response. I wonder why it is like this. Then I realise that people being negative about something like this might be people who invested a lot in inferior technology who would like everything to slow down or stop so they don't have to re-invest in everything again.

If some of you point out that "it is not needed", then you are only speaking for yourself or out of your fear for change. I have long dreamed of a 65mm digital format that is affordable. The 5D mark II was very interesting in that the full frame 35mm gave a feel close to 65mm film. I like the look it gives me, I know that it is the preferable choice for my vision of movies I like to make. If others like increased DOF and the s16mm look, then who am I to say no to that?

All this negative "talk" is pure bs. Of course it would be good to have a FF BMD camera, just make one, it would be awesome for everyone. Why is anyone even considering anything else?

on digital I don´t really see the same advantages but then I´m a focus puller and not a DOP.

The same applies to digital, you get less noise and for digital that is a much more needed thing then less grain for film. As for pulling focus, as I said, working with 65mm at T2.8 is like working at T1.5 on 35mm.
Also, you get a wider FOV without loosing the DOF of the current lens, it's a different look, it's not all about DOF.

You've posted a large post complaining about people who don't see reasons for the adoption of FF35 as a movie format, but most of your reasoning supports the argument. FF35 isn't needed for the cinema/video world, 65mm or similar digital that provides the benefits that the FF35 people want, without the compromises that a format that looks a bit like s35 and a bit like 65 may bring.

Roughly FF35 size has already been tried in cinema a few times, but didn't really last. FF35 isn't really a new size, it's one that under a different name has been tried a few times and didn't really catch on.

A FF35 camera may well sell but it will likely become a niche. A major reason for FF35 becoming popular was that it was a lot closer to the S35 'look' that many wanted without the costs that most places charged for cameras with that size of sensor. If S35 is available why take the imitation? Then there's the sizes of lenses, the vast majority designed to cover S35 or S16 or even the 65 and 70mm formats. New lenses are all very well but cutting yourself off from such a depth of lenses is a bold move, in many ways limiting your creative choices.


Your assertion that people are being negative about this as they have inferior tech is flawed, the tech is pretty much the same and FF35 isn't different enough from S35 for anyone to lose work if someone else has a FF35 camera and they have a S35.

In short a FF35 camera would be nice but there are probably many other improvements that development would be better spent on; frame rates, genlock. It's certainly not the be all and end all of cinema/video cameras. I'd prefer BMD and others like RED looked at a 65mm or similar camera in their respective price ranges than FF35.

Tamerlin wrote :

The sad truth is that the majority of the people buying cameras and using them to shoot video are more interested in specs than in art.

If that was the case then no one would be using DSLRs... they have horrible compression, poor DR and bad aliasing, amongst other issues. I think it's more a case of "mine's bigger than yours".

innerspark wrote :

well the utterly abused shallow DoF everyone seemed to fall in love with

Ergh... people think that if they shower shallow depth of field on absolutely every shot... that their project will be amazing and all shall bow before them ... it's like they've never watched a film. Videos involving the continuous and unending onslaught of shallow depth of field are more and more feeling like the new handycam look.

Those without knowledge (ie, experience) will rely on specs and the manufacturers exploit this.

When DSLRs first came on the scene some 12 years ago, the internet was flooded with image of cats shot with very shallow DOF. It's a "style" that was unavailable to the "enthusiast" shooter without spending $$$ on expensive glass. DSLR video is the same...they will grow out of it.

The point of sensor size for me is the limitation of wide angle. However, having said that I realize there is a precedence in film making, that film historically has not being presented in as wide a format as stills. Not many films were shot at (the 35 equivalent) 14mm.

So while, at first, it feels like I'm losing the ability to shoot as wide as I'm used to...I really don't need to be that wide for motion work anyway.

IMO, S35 is a sweet spot for film/video production. FF is a stills format that isn't needed.

Hi guyz.

There are a couple of small things people seem to be forgetting here.

1) People should learn to use their/ a camera to it's full advantage first. No matter the sensor size.

2) People are producing amazing images with iPhones and sensors in them are pretty tiny.

3) People like what they like but camera companies should please the majority/ target audience.

4) FF DSLRs don't actually shoot FF video anyway because they're 16/24/32 MP chips or whatever, 4k is only 8.8MP 1080 is only just over 2MP. Point is, that's a hell of alot of sensor that isn't being used. It's kinda comparing f-stop and t-number.

5) BMCC sensor is actually better off than FF in terms of size because BMCC is (15.81x8.88mm) divided by the number of active 'pixels' (2432x1366)= 0.0065x0.0065mm. That's the size of each pixel.
5D mkii (FF)= 0.0064mm
BMPC (S35 @4k)= 0.0055mm
And actually BMPCC (S16 @1080p)= 0.0065mm and that's much smaller than FF but yet thd surface area to capture information is bigger.

However numbers are numbers, Frame sizes are Frame sizes, Bananas are Bananas. They serve a purpose and are good at what they're designed for.

My point is, doesn't matter what the sensor size is, a cine camera will always outperform a stills camera in moving image because that's what it's desinged for (within same generation/ range). And I'm not just talkng about picture quality alone, also native res. support & FPS & RAW capabilities, codecs, cooling, ergonomics etc.

Sorry for essay! Lol. ; )

Happy Filmmaking!

I think the whole full-frame argument stems from the fact that they think it will save them on lenses (as you theoretically need less wide-angle lenses and can shoot without Ultra-Wide angle lenses). I find that the only people who defending the 5D's are Film Students, and as film students generally stick to 1 or 2 lenses (usually a 24mm and a 50mm and maybe a kit lens), and ignore the codec they are using to record on...

Nah, it's mor like with cars. If you don't have a fullsize you feel handicapped.

I think the whole full-frame argument stems from the fact that they think it will save them on lenses (as you theoretically need less wide-angle lenses and can shoot without Ultra-Wide angle lenses). I find that the only people who defending the 5D's are Film Students, and as film students generally stick to 1 or 2 lenses (usually a 24mm and a 50mm and maybe a kit lens), and ignore the codec they are using to record on...

So true. It's not about sensor size. It's everything put together, and codecs/ Bitrates are VERY important. You just want a nice looking image and/ or a picture you can do alot with.

And also, I know it's not always possible, but just back off the subject a little bit. Framing done. : )

I think the whole full-frame argument stems from the fact that they think it will save them on lenses (as you theoretically need less wide-angle lenses and can shoot without Ultra-Wide angle lenses). I find that the only people who defending the 5D's are Film Students, and as film students generally stick to 1 or 2 lenses (usually a 24mm and a 50mm and maybe a kit lens), and ignore the codec they are using to record on...

Most people who think that you can't use a Super 16 to make films because the sensor is "too small" are the sorts who also think that the only thing the DP does is provide a camera to the production.

In other words, people more interested in earning business based on the specs of their gear rather than their skills as film makers...