Pocket Cinema Camera "Blooming Sensor" 2

Raadgie wrote:
Hi, there JB. Rather explain to us how did you miss basically trouble with blooming sensor?

JB wrote:
My footage has been out for more than a couple of months with more than 500k of views last time I looked. When did you notice it ? I bet you didn't. I bet you didn't notice it until someone pointed it out to you. No one publicly noticed it till a few days ago.

JB.



1. No one is accusing you of anything. Only explain the how do you think that is possible.

2. Can you say anything else besides "We are still looking into this". What you professional view on the issue?

3. Sure, I had not noticed before, because even now I do not have a camera!
EDIT: Btw, when you did notice it?

MA.

My footage has been out for more than a couple of months with more than 500k of views last time I looked. When did you notice it ? I bet you didn't. I bet you didn't notice it until someone pointed it out to you. No one publicly noticed it till a few days ago.

JB.
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia

Hi John

I completely agree with what you said here. However I think the reason we are seeing it now is that for a good few months your footage was the only stuff out there in the wild, and now it is in more peoples hands, with different types of footage it is becoming more and more evident. Also we are now seeing specific footage that highlights the problem.

Your footage is what excited me about this crazy little camera enough for me to pre-order it. That coupled with the fact you are actually using it or considering using it in production. The blooming just wasn't as evident in your footage. Which shows that it can be worked around if you are careful, but for more extreme stuff, (shooting into banks of lights with talent in front for instance ) I can see it being a real problem.

Richard Squires
Broadcast Designer/Director
Melbourne Australia

It's not blooming, it's hard clipping in highlights. It's not film, it's digital. Just expose correctly.

It's not blooming, it's hard clipping in highlights. It's not film, it's digital. Just expose correctly.

You could be right...the last thing JB said (that I can remember) was that he is "unconvinced". I don't understand how you can expose for a night scene with a few lights in it (headlights, street lights, etc.) without specular highlights. Same for day shots I suppose. In fact, the only place to consistently have no specular highlights in your shots is a controlled set. I don't think that is what the Pocket Cam is for...I mean, controlled war zones????

It's not blooming, it's hard clipping in highlights. It's not film, it's digital. Just expose correctly.

You could be right...the last thing JB said (that I can remember) was that he is "unconvinced". I don't understand how you can expose for a night scene with a few lights in it (headlights, street lights, etc.) without specular highlights. Same for day shots I suppose. In fact, the only place to consistently have no specular highlights in your shots is a controlled set. I don't think that is what the Pocket Cam is for...I mean, controlled war zones????

When this topic hit (what else for bored people waiting on cameras to do) I went through a bunch of my existing footage from gh2 and from 7d. They all have that "blooming" in clipped highlights.
Currently I use gh2 (waiting in bm4k) and I always setup the exposure so my highlights are saved. For specular, well, I use some filtration to "glow" them so at least the edge is feathered in. Surely, if I have enough latitude with just 7 stops of dr on a hacked gh2 to avoid most of such issues through Ettr and the grade with denoise, it must be possible to work around this with 13 stops of bmpcc.
Frankly I think if there is an issue it's largely due to the way they map the gamma and highlight curves when recording to ProRes.

I don't have a BMPCC and don't have one on order, but judging from the demo footage I have seen, I do think the way the highlights are clipped looks like the blooming sensor issue that was present on the Fuji camera. It definitely doesn't look right.

It's not blooming, it's hard clipping in highlights. It's not film, it's digital. Just expose correctly.

You could be right...the last thing JB said (that I can remember) was that he is "unconvinced". I don't understand how you can expose for a night scene with a few lights in it (headlights, street lights, etc.) without specular highlights. Same for day shots I suppose. In fact, the only place to consistently have no specular highlights in your shots is a controlled set. I don't think that is what the Pocket Cam is for...I mean, controlled war zones????

When this topic hit (what else for bored people waiting on cameras to do) I went through a bunch of my existing footage from gh2 and from 7d. They all have that "blooming" in clipped highlights.
Currently I use gh2 (waiting in bm4k) and I always setup the exposure so my highlights are saved. For specular, well, I use some filtration to "glow" them so at least the edge is feathered in. Surely, if I have enough latitude with just 7 stops of dr on a hacked gh2 to avoid most of such issues through Ettr and the grade with denoise, it must be possible to work around this with 13 stops of bmpcc.
Frankly I think if there is an issue it's largely due to the way they map the gamma and highlight curves when recording to ProRes.

I do agree with what you say here in principle. It is evident in most if not all digital cameras to some degree. There is a thread on flickr that acknowledges this

http://www.flickr.com/groups/fuji_x10/discuss/72157629252110028/

One has always been told to expose for the highlights as if there's nothing there then you are screwed when it comes to correction later. With RAW you have far more leeway obviously, but if the highlight is baked in as in ProRes then one must make allowances. With a camera like this I would be more inclined to underexpose, unlike my GH2 which tends to muddy up the shadows even with the best hacks. It's then just a case of pulling up the mids/shadows. However I think with this amount of bloom/spill/clipping whatever we are calling it you would need to more aggressively underexpose to truly get rid of the problem, or sufficiently minimise it. Of course shooting into lights at night you are asking for it, but I have seen it occur on highlights of chrome bits of cars, sunlight reflecting on water, reflections in windows, in otherwise perfectly exposed shots.

Richard Squires
Broadcast Designer/Director
Melbourne Australia

I don't have a BMPCC and don't have one on order, but judging from the demo footage I have seen, I do think the way the highlights are clipped looks like the blooming sensor issue that was present on the Fuji camera. It definitely doesn't look right.

+1 That is my opinion. It looks incredibly similar.

My problem is not overexposure/clipping per se, but that overexposed areas of the image spill over into neighboring pixels which can lead to an image background writing over the foreground. This is a 1:1 crop from a still frame of footage that I just shot - and it hadn't been my intention at all to provoke the effect:

pocket-screengrab.png (114.57 KiB) Viewed 20371 times

still no word from BMD other then they are "looking into it"!
looking at what exactly? how many looks they have to give in order to for them to own to this camera.
yes, it has a really good image but it is CRIPPLED in the high lights section... how can it be 13 stops of dynamic range if you can't even risk any highlights in the background?
it is only $1000 you say... get a grip you say... well I work really hard to earn $1000 so I can spend that $1000 on a camera that looked promising on specs.
and besides, I am buying into the whole black magic design thing... they want to revolutionize the indie film world.
well,
you need to have loyal customers who believe in you and your product to do so.

My problem is not overexposure/clipping per se, but that overexposed areas of the image spill over into neighboring pixels which can lead to an image background writing over the foreground. This is a 1:1 crop from a still frame of footage that I just shot - and it hadn't been my intention at all to provoke the effect:

pocket-screengrab.png

This is a perfect example of the "sensor bloom" issue. The fact that the bloom obscures elements in the foreground is very poor in my opinion. Since you are one of the lucky few with one of the cameras would it be possible to show how far you have to under expose to get rid of or significantly reduce the problem? As if you have nothing better to do!

My hunch is you will have to very aggressively under expose to correct for these highlights.

It would at least quieten some of the noise around here about shooting correctly which I really don't think is the issue.

Richard Squires
Broadcast Designer/Director
Melbourne Australia

I think the issue could be a non-issue once we get cinemaDNG function happening in the camera - if it hasn't been fixed by then, then underexposing in RAW is affordable to reduce this clipping? just an idea.

My hunch is you will have to very aggressively under expose to correct for these highlights.

Aggressively or not, we can notice the guy stops down but could not get rid of the effect. Ok, it's a night scene, but in some way it shows that under exposing may not be the solution.

I think the issue could be a non-issue once we get cinemaDNG function happening in the camera - if it hasn't been fixed by then, then underexposing in RAW is affordable to reduce this clipping? just an idea.

It's a possible solution, agreed,but RAW means faster more expensive cards at a minimum + more disc space needed to store shot footage, and an extended workflow to get footage into an editable format. One of the selling points of this camera is ProRes 4:2:2 straight off the card.

My hunch is you will have to very aggressively under expose to correct for these highlights.

Aggressively or not, we can notice the guy stops down but could not get rid of the effect. Ok, it's a night scene, but in some way it shows that under exposing may not be the solution.

Thank you that answers my question perfectly. No amount of stopping down decreases the effect. Which also means this would happen if you were shooting RAW.

My hunch is you will have to very aggressively under expose to correct for these highlights.

Aggressively or not, we can notice the guy stops down but could not get rid of the effect. Ok, it's a night scene, but in some way it shows that under exposing may not be the solution.

Thank you that answers my question perfectly. No amount of stopping down decreases the effect. Which also means this would happen if you were shooting RAW.

Meanwhile, in daylight, the black hole in the middle of the sun disappeared after stopping down half-way, but I lost details in the shadows of foreground trees and it's not an acceptable solution. I'm among the chorus who says that of course this needs to be fixed together with the blooming sensor issue, though I'd put the black hole at a much higher priority (assuming it's unrelated).

Doesn't look as bad on these clips. What do you think?

I'd like to see how a bonfire would look like...

Doesn't look as bad on these clips. What do you think?

Once you see it, it's very hard not to be constantly aware of the highlights.

Screen Shot 2013-08-30 at 1.38.29 PM.jpg (323.85 KiB) Viewed 20243 times

Screen Shot 2013-08-30 at 1.39.03 PM.jpg (546.36 KiB) Viewed 20243 times

Seems like I am constantly bagging this camera, but the reality is I have one on pre-order and the sooner we hear from Blackmagic the better.

PS What's just incredibly sad is how bloody great the rest of the picture looks in that woodland scene!

Richard Squires
Broadcast Designer/Director
Melbourne Australia

We became orb hunters....

I realize this is a sensitive issue for both the customers and BMD but full transparency is the best and really only way to proceed here.

I would encourage BMD to be very honest and upfront here, if it's a hardware issue that I will have to send them my pocket camera (I can't wait to get it) to get the sensor either modified or replaced, then fine, no problem, just please say something more than "we are looking into it."

I don't need concrete answers here, how about just "hey our engineers have looked at the footage and suspect it might be X or Y. When we have a definitive answer we will contact our customers with a fix", but just give us some kind of "real" response.

Otherwise I'm going to get nervous, one thousand bucks might not be much to many people buying this camera as a "B" cam, but I don't have a lot of cash to throw around and this is going to be my A camera. Please BMD just re-assure us folks patiently waiting for our Pocket Cinema Cameras that no matter what the issue you will fix it (at no cost to us).

I realize this is a sensitive issue for both the customers and BMD but full transparency is the best and really only way to proceed here.

I would encourage BMD to be very honest and upfront here, if it's a hardware issue that I will have to send them my pocket camera (I can't wait to get it) to get the sensor either modified or replaced, then fine, no problem, just please say something more than "we are looking into it."

I don't need concrete answers here, how about just "hey our engineers have looked at the footage and suspect it might be X or Y. When we have a definitive answer we will contact our customers with a fix", but just give us some kind of "real" response.

Otherwise I'm going to get nervous, one thousand bucks might not be much to many people buying this camera as a "B" cam, but I don't have a lot of cash to throw around and this is going to be my A camera. Please BMD just re-assure us folks patiently waiting for our Pocket Cinema Cameras that no matter what the issue you will fix it (at no cost to us).

+1

These threads should tell BMD one very important thing... You shouldn't let such an important issue go un addressed. It will devolve into customer speculation and fear mongering. From a classic PR perspective BMD needs to take charge of the issue by getting out in front of it and talking frankly to it's customers.

A great example of this is the iPhone 4 signal issue. Steve Jobs and Apple addressed the issue immediately and were upfront and honest, and offered a reasonable fix for the issue. I personally think BMD is a great company that makes some amazing products, but they need a little help in the PR department

So if you are listening BMD... How about an open letter from someone in the company who can speak to this issue with some clarity. No big apologies or panicking necessary, just state what you believe the problem to be at this moment (well educated guesses are perfectly fine with me) and that the issue will be fixed ASAP and customers waiting for their cameras to ship have nothing to worry about.

I realize this is a sensitive issue for both the customers and BMD but full transparency is the best and really only way to proceed here.

I would encourage BMD to be very honest and upfront here, if it's a hardware issue that I will have to send them my pocket camera (I can't wait to get it) to get the sensor either modified or replaced, then fine, no problem, just please say something more than "we are looking into it."

I don't need concrete answers here, how about just "hey our engineers have looked at the footage and suspect it might be X or Y. When we have a definitive answer we will contact our customers with a fix", but just give us some kind of "real" response.

Otherwise I'm going to get nervous, one thousand bucks might not be much to many people buying this camera as a "B" cam, but I don't have a lot of cash to throw around and this is going to be my A camera. Please BMD just re-assure us folks patiently waiting for our Pocket Cinema Cameras that no matter what the issue you will fix it (at no cost to us).

+1

I am neither inclined towards a sensor blooming opinion or over-exposure opinion at this stage. I have received my camera this week but will only be able to start shooting this weekend (I've been waiting for adapters).

In comparison to most of these "examples" of sensor blooming, John Brawley's footage seem minimally affected (if at all) by this "issue". Take another look at his low-light Sydney video. I've been looking at it again last night and I was hard pressed to see any "real examples". Have a look at all the lights, camera flashes and so on that are NOT affected. Why is this so? If anyone can exhibit a firm fact on the matter, then please do.

I think some react rather harshly to the current state of the camera. It still has placenta on its meager form factor and I am hopeful BMD will sort it out. As is, the camera does afford some real unique capabilities to go unnoticed and in my mind the audio meter desire is something that is probably more important than the orbs, blobs, blooms being focused on. The night time footage from both the bmcc and the bmpcc are really impressive... orbs and all.

I think some react rather harshly to the current state of the camera. It still has placenta on its meager form factor and I am hopeful BMD will sort it out. As is, the camera does afford some real unique capabilities to go unnoticed and in my mind the audio meter desire is something that is probably more important than the orbs, blobs, blooms being focused on. The night time footage from both the bmcc and the bmpcc are really impressive... orbs and all.

How Phillip Bloom pointed the internal sound in camera is "thin". I think for clip or audio synchronization will good enough - with any external audio recorder device. But we need know how BMD will fix the sensor. I have already other stuff bought in thousand USD (include lenses, cards, bateries etc.).

2. Can you say anything else besides "We are still looking into this". What you professional view on the issue?

3. Sure, I had not noticed before, because even now I do not have a camera!
EDIT: Btw, when you did notice it?

I'm not BMD so I can't speak of what they are doing.

You hadn't noticed it in my footage.

No-one else publicly noticed it in my footage, or Hooks. And he even made his ProRes originals available for download.

No one else noticed it in the other ProRes clips I also made available for download.

I've also shot a lot more footage with the camera than what has been publicly released mostly in the course of shooting Puberty Blues series 2. There are many shots from this camera in the series, a TV series I've just wrapped on. The first 4 episodes have been delivered and they've all passed *very* stringent broadcast tech checks for broadcast as this is an Endemol show and they sell to territories worldwide and have the most stringent requirements on their deliverables of any show I've worked on.

I guess it's possible the way I work and shoot means that this trait isn't easily revealed. Most of the times it's pointed to in my footage I'm not sure I'm convinced (thats for you marc) that it's even qualifying. It's easy to point at blobs of light and say ahh ha, but I think it's barely there in my footage ASIDE from the later clip of my singer friend Sophie. When I first saw that clipping on her guitar I guessed it was just a regular specular highlight "flashing" as she moved her guitar around.

I certainly don't underexpose with this camera, which is NEVER going to be a fix for this kind of issue because you will always have small pints of hot light inn any material, day or night. It's life.

Without pre-empting or knowing anything of what BMD will say, I do believe this is a hard clipping issue and is probably more to do with how they map their highlights.

JB

I've also shot a lot more footage with the camera than what has been publicly released mostly in the course of shooting Puberty Blues series 2. There are many shots from this camera in the series, a TV series I've just wrapped on. The first 4 episodes have been delivered and they've all passed *very* stringent broadcast tech checks for broadcast as this is an Endemol show and they sell to territories worldwide and have the most stringent requirements on their deliverables of any show I've worked on.

Without pre-empting or knowing anything of what BMD will say, I do believe this is a hard clipping issue and is probably more to do with how they map their highlights.

JB

This is what slightly perplexes me about this. Obviously you are using it in real world situations and it is doing it's job. However there is no denying that in a lot of other footage we are seeing the over clipped/blooming highlights are there. I really hope this can be resolved.

Richard Squires
Broadcast Designer/Director
Melbourne Australia

This is what slightly perplexes me about this. Obviously you are using it in real world situations and it is doing it's job. However there is no denying that in a lot of other footage we are seeing the over clipped/blooming highlights are there. I really hope this can be resolved.

I guess this depends on your definition of "real world situations." I really don't see this camera having any problems with orbs on a professional set/location where all the lighting and blocking is tightly controlled. However I do think it will present challenges to anybody who tries to shoot uncontrolled lighting/blocking situations.

This is what slightly perplexes me about this. Obviously you are using it in real world situations and it is doing it's job. However there is no denying that in a lot of other footage we are seeing the over clipped/blooming highlights are there. I really hope this can be resolved.

I guess this depends on your definition of "real world situations." I really don't see this camera having any problems with orbs on a professional set/location where all the lighting and blocking is tightly controlled. However I do think it will present challenges to anybody who tries to shoot uncontrolled lighting/blocking situations.

All of the publicly available footage I released was shot in totally uncontrolled "real world" situations.

jb

This is what slightly perplexes me about this. Obviously you are using it in real world situations and it is doing it's job. However there is no denying that in a lot of other footage we are seeing the over clipped/blooming highlights are there. I really hope this can be resolved.

I guess this depends on your definition of "real world situations." I really don't see this camera having any problems with orbs on a professional set/location where all the lighting and blocking is tightly controlled. However I do think it will present challenges to anybody who tries to shoot uncontrolled lighting/blocking situations.

All of the publicly available footage I released was shot in totally uncontrolled "real world" situations.

jb

This camera is going to be used in "real world" situations more then controlled studio setups. To defend an issue by saying that no one noticed it before someone pointed it out is like saying to a professional photographer that it doesn't matter that a camera has dead pixels, no one will see them.
This blooming/orbing issue is really an issue, there is no denying that. As a professional I demand a certain standard of imagery and I can accept noise floors, small sensors and such for this camera price, but this orb issue is destroying highlights in an image, it's looking like **** really.

it appears in film and video mode both and If you know what could be there you will see it also on the display but not as strong in your footage later.

John,

Is it possible that the Alpha build camera you had didn't have the problem as seriously? Maybe they tweaked something along the line after you shot that, and caused a problem?

I just got my Pocket Camera yesterday and still haven't had a chance to shoot anything with it because of work. So I don't know first hand if this orb thing is really as big a problem as so many are making it out to be. So I'm not freaking out yet, until I have a real reason to...

Blackmagic has delayed shipping their cameras in the past because they weren't up to par in terms of image quality. And I know that they have fixed manufacturing defects in the original BMCC in the past when they learned that there was in fact a problem. So I'm sure Blackmagic will do everything they can to fix it and protect their reputation.

As the new kid on the block they really can't afford to let anything serious slide. Especially if it compromises their greatest selling point of IMAGE QUALITY. That one selling point is the thing that got so many of us on board even with the lack of some extremely basic functions in firmware.

Really a lot is riding on the success of this little camera. If people like me don't enjoy our Pocket Camera experience, and the customer service experience that goes along with it. Well then we might just cancel our Production Camera 4K orders.

But I don't want to do that. I have a massive amount of respect for what Blackmagic are trying to do. I appreciate it. I am grateful. And I don't want to see Blackmagic fail. As long as they show me support as a customer, I will return that support proudly.

Here is some footage that I found yesterday from Vimeo. This issue is really bad in these shots. Especially at 0:05, 0:07 and 0:14...

Let me try some numbers here: I'd say that 85% of all the footage we've seen so far does not exhibit any orb/bloom issue; in 10% the issue is barely visible and in about 5% it draws attention. One can have his own numbers for sure, but that's the way I see it. Of course if you will be shooting against a bank of lights, car lights in the night or a boat under direct sunlight you may have a problem. But it can be hard for other cameras as well. Although I believe there is a problem with the handling of highlights, I'm still in love with this little beast. Let's hope BMD can address it asap. If not, it will be up to each one decide whether buy it or not, or choose another tool for the specific job. I'll get mine for sure (hoping for a fix though).

This ungraded video has some of the blooming distortion which is actually not that disturbing. Way more disturbing were the 'black' artefacts in the light bulbs e.g. 00:47:17 and 00:56:07.....

Since you are one of the lucky few with one of the cameras would it be possible to show how far you have to under expose to get rid of or significantly reduce the problem? As if you have nothing better to do!

I did something else, namely a series of overexposures with a motif that exposes the effect very well - in order to see how many f-stops you need to overexpose for the effect to become visible:

(correct exposure)

(1 stop overexposure)

(2 stops)

(3 stops)

(4 stops)

(5 stops)

(6 stops)

The orbs become clearly visible from 2 stops overexposure on, and extreme from 4 stops overexposure on. So a fair compromise might be to not overexpose highlights by more than 3 stops. If you shoot in dusk, light has about 10 foot candles or 100 lux, a car light has about 2000 lux. That's a difference of about 4 f-stops (conservatively calculated). In other words: To avoid extreme orbs, you would need to underexpose the rest of the scene by at least 4 f-stops (losing 4 stops dynamic range).

Haven't BMD said they are looking into it, isn't that communication from the Company? Would you expect them to comment on the issue before they know what it is or have a solution?

Since you are one of the lucky few with one of the cameras would it be possible to show how far you have to under expose to get rid of or significantly reduce the problem? As if you have nothing better to do!

I did something else, namely a series of overexposures with a motif that exposes the effect very well - in order to see how many f-stops you need to overexpose for the effect to become visible:

The orbs become clearly visible from 2 stops overexposure on, and extreme from 4 stops overexposure on. So a fair compromise might be to not overexpose highlights by more than 3 stops. If you shoot in dusk, light has about 10 foot candles or 100 lux, a car light has about 2000 lux. That's a difference of about 4 f-stops (conservatively calculated). In other words: To avoid extreme orbs, you would need to underexpose the rest of the scene by at least 4 f-stops (losing 4 stops dynamic range).

Thanks for that. Not sure it's laid my fears to rest but good to hear your findings

To say: "Hey, you didn´t saw it before, why complaining now?" is not right. No one can see something, what he don´t know. But after enlightment we see more.

I opened a support case via blackmagicdesign.com/support
Support team is very reactive and friendly. I can highly recommend to everyone who met this issue to contact BMD support team directly. Instead of complaining about missing statements you can contact BMD by support form and from my experience you will get an answer soon. Not a quick solution (probably unfortunately not) For all guys who don't have a camera: relax and wait until the issue is solved.

SL

I understand those trying to defend BMD and if there's a company worth to support, I feel it's them, but this is a camera fault and it's not in BMD's interest to ship faulty products. It can be a software or a hardware issue and BMD's technicians should be able to break down the possible reasons as soon as they look at it.

Here is Fuji's official statement when they had the sensor blooming issue with the first batches of Fuji x10:

https://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/Ser ... tid=664262

Fuji indeed did change sensors. If it's a hardware issue it is in BMD's own interest to clearly communicate how they will proceed (bad news, good news - whatever) as soon as possible.

i agree ,

JB i have much respect for your work and agree maybe our attentions are drawn to this issue now.
however, stating that no one noticed it before etc with a what you all moaning about kind of tone is a bit silly. BMD promised us a camera with the same great image characteristics of the bmcc except for obvious things like res. I will applaud them for delivering mostly. but this sensor blooming thing is a long way from the characteristics of the bmcc's specular highlight rendition and wether it is an issue that occurs frequently or only in uncontrolled environments is kind of irrelevant. it is still an issue and is one that needs to be addressed by BMD if their customers are to trust them as a brand. they need to be open and honest about these things. just make an official statement reassuring their customers that it will be resolved at no cost to them, they dont need to know how they just need to reassure and if they find they can't deliver a resolution then we will be refunded so we can invest it into their camera that is free of this fault.

To say: "Hey, you didn´t saw it before, why complaining now?" is not right. No one can see something, what he don´t know. But after enlightment we see more.

+1 Thanks

I do recall JB's BMCC footage (the only BMCC footage available at the time) looking gr8 BEFORE the "dirty glass over the sensor" forced the infamous production shutdown.

I do recall JB's BMCC footage (the only BMCC footage available at the time) looking gr8 BEFORE the "dirty glass over the sensor" forced the infamous production shutdown.

so the point your making is bm should have ignored that and ignore this and continue to roll out units??!
come on!

Fuji indeed did change sensors. If it's a hardware issue it is in BMD's own interest to clearly communicate how they will proceed (bad news, good news - whatever) as soon as possible.

I suppose Fuji didn't changed the sensors within a week after issue was found?! Nor did they make any statement.

Blackmagic commented the next working day that they're looking into the problem.
Why accusing all the time of "no response" etc?!
It takes time to inspect and extensively test the camera, try different fixes, maybe sensor mods.
After that I'm sure they'll make statement, offer solution and so on.

But no, many guys expect probably a public diary with daily updates.
No company works that way!

I do recall JB's BMCC footage (the only BMCC footage available at the time) looking gr8 BEFORE the "dirty glass over the sensor" forced the infamous production shutdown.

Aha, I am new, so JB and this King of complementary colors called Hook (EDIT swapped Hood Hook ) are 1st who tested both BMD cameras for masses?

I do recall JB's BMCC footage (the only BMCC footage available at the time) looking gr8 BEFORE the "dirty glass over the sensor" forced the infamous production shutdown.

so the point your making is bm should have ignored that and ignore this and continue to roll out units??!
come on!

Wow! That's not my point at all. What the observation suggests is that JB gets very early cameras made by magic elves and delivered to him in the dead of night by dingos. His camera may not accurately reflect your typical production line unit.