I can't find any other cameras that use a sensor the size of this one. So is this is a custom made sensor? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just buy an APS that is already being mass produced? For such a small sensor the dynamic range, if true, is impressive. I was just looking at DXO Mark and the new Canon G1X, which has a somewhat bigger sensor, only scored 10.8 in terms of dynamic range.
Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...
- Thread starter Mickey G
- Start date
I meant more so, at the very end of his response, he clearly says "we wanted this camera to be accessible to a lot of people, it costs 2,999.99, we think that's accessible."
That translates to "We wanted to make a camera that was affordable to fill this niche, and have all of this cool stuff for filmmakers to utilize."
I'd be very surprised if this is a custom made sensor. It may actually be a Sony sensor. I haven't done any hunting on any other camera having the same overall sensor size.
You also have to consider how much larger the camera may have to be to hold onto all of these great options, along with an S35 eye and brain. Where do you get a touch screen to match? How does machining it work now?
There's a lot that we don't see, just saying "put in a 35mm sensor" doesn't really work out. Haha. I mean, I know you know this, but that should be the first thought in everyone's head.
Jade Lane
Active member
Yes, please. Perfect ratio 1.18:1 (2592 x 2192) for 2X anamorphic (suddenly it's 5K). I wonder if sensor is capable of 24fps in full un-cropped square mode. Or is it more like 17fps... But they could do smaller near-square AOI then - for higher fps.
Sage
Well-known member
That would be neat.
This would make a lot of sense. Maybe the newest Olympus camera? The one that was supposed to be the "Gh2 killer"?
plasmasmp
Well-known member
Samples from the 25mm/17mm navitar .95 http://www.mu-43.com/f40/navitar-25mm-f0-95-c-mount-13888/
Not really a great lens. The 17mm is just a wide angle adapter on the front.
Not really a great lens. The 17mm is just a wide angle adapter on the front.
thanks,
I didnt really look at the specs too carefully on it. The idea of a Bolex didnt float my boat off the bat. I noticed Phillip
Bloom seemed to rave about it. Im way not as big a camera buff as the top dudes here. I tend to follow the best opinions on these sites - hence I own a 7D. But I AM in the market for a new camera -- so this BMD news is phenom - where do I pre Order?!
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
If it's a bayer pattern, which it probably is, then you are correct, the actual resolution will be less than the pixel count. However, you get to control how that downsample happens, and possibly the debayer algorithm used if it is truly raw, then you get at least the advantage of doing what you want with the sensor data and not having to live with how the internal algorithms decide to do it. Or, which is great, you CAN use the internal algorithms if you need, mostly for fast turn around. Best of both worlds.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
The sensor is the most difficult part of making a camera and not one that typically comes easy for any company. Companies like Sony, Canon and Panasonic spend massive amounts of RD money on getting their sensors to a decent balance. BM is an amazing company but they do not make sensors, yet. They have to rely on what is out there as a third party option. They can't just call up Canon and ask to use one of their sensors. S35mm sensors are not the sort of thing you find a lot of on the open market. Well at least sensors that will be sold to a third party.
In the end however sensor size doesn't matter nearly as much as dynamic range and raw quality. In most situations people being consumers and pros are going to notice a clean deep range image more then they would depth of field or higher then 2.5k resolution. I think the sensor BM picked is just about right for the price point and offers the least amount of compromises for the price point. About the only negative I could see in terms of the sensor is the lack of higher then 30p framerates. Even then for most that just means a creative shooting option hit instead of an actual production needed feature.
Both the GH1 and GH2 have proved over and over how much better they can look then many larger sensor cameras. Yes you have to be a bit more careful with your lens options but that is something many of us M43 users have learned to deal with with very little grief. We not get as much depth of field control but honestly that has almost become the lens flare or cross dissolve of today's indie users. So many use it as a creative crutch to make their footage stand out instead of using it as a subtle tool to compose shots. With fast enough glass or decent use of ND filters I rarely have a problem. Yes I would have preferred the BM camera to use M43 but again BM couldn't just make their own M43 sensor or find one for sale at Best Buy. So they did the next best thing and find one they could adapt to be close to M43 while still offering what people really want. High dynamic range with raw recording.
Once you see raw video from this camera compared to highly compressed crushed video from a larger sensor you will see how in the never ending balance to camera design BM decided to tip the scale in one direction and really focus on hitting that area hard, really hard. It's like living with crushed jpegs for years and shooting raw stills for the first time.
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
true which is why it is nice that it can record 2.5k. Keep in mind this rule is also true for any single chip camera including DSLR's. The only reason we don't notice it as much is because those sensors have a lot of pixels and the raw image gets down sampled. The positive tradeoff however is hopefully better low light since each pixel on the chip is larger and no more moire or aliasing since they use the whole sensor. There is always a tradeoff with sensor design. By the time you shoot 2.5k and downsample to 1920x1080 you should bring back a lot of detail. Will it be as detailed as a 3 chip 1080p camera? Maybe not but I don't even think RED down converted to HD is as detailed as a 3 chip HD camera either. Of course they could have double the resolution of the chips to compensate for bayer but then low light would have taken a massive hit. See, always a tradeoff in the sensor game. It is like an evil scale that is impossible to find a perfect balance with.
Here's a question. The metadata option is really cool and something that I appreciate. Is there a section in the metadata for lens info, such as focal length, aperture, distance from lens, height, etc. All this stuff will be very useful for us in the vfx industry/green screen shoots. If they dont have it, can someone please request it that is at NAB? It would be easier if we had a section for this in the metadata rather than just putting it in the keyword box.
Cheers
Cheers
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, first thing I'd say is, I'm pretty glad I canceled my Digital Bolex pledge... :thumbsup:
I guess I'd say a lot of what most other folks have said -- it's the fulfillment of "3k for $3k" except it's "2.5k for $3k". It's an established company making it, although yeah, it's blackmagic, they're not exactly known for cameras, but so what, and the exciting thing is that they already have working versions running. It's not a vaporware announcement, it's real.
Specs that are most interesting are a raw output through a (someday) common interface (thunderbolt) and the most awesome part (to me at least) is that they have three different and accessible recording formats on top of just a raw output. They have ProRes, and DNxHD, and CinemaDNG. I was really surprised when I saw that, I thought it was going to be just a camera head with a raw port (more like the DBolex) but it supports ready-to-edit files too. That's a major plus for this.
And the price is the sweet spot. Y'know, it's been puzzling me, when did everyone all of a sudden decide that $9,000 or $14,000 or $16,000 cameras were affordable? This is a forum that was built on DVX100 and HVX200 users, and we laughed at and mocked Canon when they dared to introduce a $8,995 HDV camcorder, remember? Yet it sounds like everyone's saying "Well, I'm getting the $14,000 F3" and "I'm getting a $15,000 Scarlet" and "I'm getting the $9,000 FS700"... last I knew, the economy was still a disaster and yet everyone's talking about these (face it) really expensive cameras, so it's been a bit puzzling...
... but it sure starts to make sense when you see the reception that the DBolex got, and now the BlackMagic is getting. THIS is the price point that lots and lots of our members can afford, and it's a really startling featureset for such an affordable price.
And I like how they use an oversampling sensor, if you have to use a Bayer pattern you need higher res to make a good quality final output, so 2600 pixels should deliver a robust detailed 1080p or even 2k image. That was one thing that was a little disappointing about the Digital Bolex, that it would end up with images not really any sharper than an HVX200. This unit should (depending on software processing) be able to deliver a nicely high resolution 1080p image.
But then, after thinking about it for a little while, I started to hit on a few things that make me confident in my assessment that there's no free lunch. As I looked at it, I started to get pretty annoyed that it won't work FOR ME. For lots of you, maybe, but with just a minor design change it could have been perfect, but it isn't, and that's annoying because I want it to be perfect. The first thing that irked me to no end is: Canon EF mount? Seriously? I know it's great news for all of you with Canon lenses, but man, that's lousy news for those of us with PL lenses. You cannot adapt PL prime lenses to an EF body. So yeah, forget my $30,000 worth of Compact Primes, they just won't fit. Who makes a "cinema camera" that can't use cinema lenses? Grrr. But I should be able to use my ZFs, so not all is lost. Then there's the sensor size, I'm curious how people are really going to react to it being smaller than the GH2 and AF100. So many people insist that "S35 is the standard" and "full frame is magical", and this unit's sensor is about halfway between S16 and m43. Still a decent sized sensor, and I have no problem with it, but after a year of badgering about how the AF100's sensor is "too small" (even though it's huge, 4x bigger than a 2/3" camera) now this new BM comes out and it's a decent amount smaller still. So take that for what it's worth. But then the next thing that makes me grind my teeth a little is that they made it with a non-interchangeable and non-adaptable lens mount so all my m43 glass (which would easily cover the BM's smaller sensor) cannot possibly be used. And neither can my S16 glass. Why? Why make a fixed mount that juts two inches out of the body, which is all basically wasted space? Sigh. And the sensor's in an odd size, being halfway between S16 and m43. If it was S16 size, we could use S16 glass, but it's bigger than S16, so no S16 lenses will work. Won't make any difference to a lot of you who don't have S16 glass, but it's annoying to have a delightful 17-70 T2.2 Angenieux cinema zoom that can't be used, but it's soooo close.
And 1/4" inputs is just silly. Now, that's one of the things that bothers me the least, but yeah, come on, you got it so right with the SDI (thank heavens for that) but then you put 1/4" jacks. Huh? Again, not a big deal, just a curious decision.
Finally (and again, not a problem for many of you) but what's with the Mac-centric-ness? I'm not a Mac user, but they choose a drive format that cannot be used on Windows without having to buy a program, which for your own system is okay but what if you have to deliver footage to someone else? Meh.
It's difficult to get answers from the BlackMagic guys at the booth because a) the booth is incredibly swamped, and b) the people working the booth don't actually know the proper answers. They didn't know the sensor size, they contradict the brochure by saying it's only EF mount, etc. I think Stephen and Luis are supposed to get an interview with (hopefully) someone fairly high up who knows the real answers and I look forward to them.
The pluses on this thing are pretty huge. The negatives are a short list, and probably all eminently forgiveable considering the price tag; I hate that it's EF mount, to me (who has no Canon lenses) that's one of the most restrictive mounts they could have chosen, and I wish it was more open to use with the world's Windows computers. Of course, to our many Mac users who own Canon glass, they'll see these gripes as pluses, so hey, more power to you.
Am I a buyer? Probably. But first-day hysteria is never a good time to make a decision. Remember how the original Hyperdeck Shuttle thread went? People were absolutely over-the-moon ga-ga for it, and then by the second day they were all "wait, this won't work for me at all..." and very shortly thereafter there was a Hyperdeck Shuttle 2.0 that fixed most of the issues. So maybe they'll have the opportunity to address a couple of the gripes, but the guy at the booth did tell me they were "shipping in July" so maybe I'll grab one, maybe I'll wait for the version 2.0 with (fingers crossed) interchangeable lens mounts...
Overall, though, very impressed, very surprised, and bravo to them for thinking outside the box and just building what sooooo many people have been asking for.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You should be able to get a pretty nicely resolved 1080p from a 2.5k-wide sensor. Maybe, depending on your demosaic algorithm, you might be able to get a solid 2k out of it. Not too shabby at all, and I applaud them for choosing a somewhat oversampling sensor so that it could deliver a well-resolved 2k or 1080p image in common production/delivery formats.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I think it's probably what they call a 1.25" (or Five Fourths) sensor.
BINGO!!!!! This is one of the COOLEST things in this development. These Peeps are PROVEN in our industry, yet they don't have ANYTHING to lose. I've whined about Nikon not playing their hand to the fullest (from the "get go"), nice to see someone play their hand TO THE MAX!