Xiong

I am overflowing with glee.

I played with the 12MP JPEG in ACR- highlights are clipped and not recoverable- DR looks similar to 5D3 in that shot. Noise cleaned up OK using ACR tools, however image then looked over-processed (Neat Video would work better along with temporal NR).
 
I shot a clip with the GH4 at ISO 1600 and lit it with a single LED (iPhone 5S). After Neat Video NR and bringing up the levels in post, it looks pretty good compared to the A7S examples so far. I would expect the A7S to do better in any case, however if Neat Video is needed in both cases and the final results look similar, the A7S's utility over the GH4 in low light would then be lessened. The FS700, especially with SpeedBooster is pretty good in low light, all the way up to ISO6400 (still needs NR in post at that level).
 
So far most of the A7S demo shots have been with locked off (tripod) or very low camera motion. It would be helpful to see typical handheld (with and without a rig) shots. While it would be nice to have a 5D3 replacement at 50Mbps (vs. 5D3 RAW at ~64GB per 12min), I almost pre-ordered the A7S but am holding off until it's released and actual end-user videos are posted. Also curious about the A7S XLR audio attachment (release date and cost).

looks good - even more choice for 4k on the horizon

Glenn, not unexpected to be frustrated with a user interface after 1 day of use.
 
I've been using Premiere for 10 years and it still has annoyances ;)
 
But you get used to it believe me... I like it...Straight forward and quick. It's FCPX I couldn't get my head around. Maybe I'll try again one day.

Yeah stills are APS-C quality from the GH4 but without that flappy mirror or the silly optical eye glass thing from 1890!
 
Sensor has a very fine noise in the raw files which is very film like, and ISO 6400 is perfectly usable. I also find the electronic shutter very nice, and once you go back to mechanical shutter on other mirrorless cameras, that feels really dated somehow.
 
Sharpness is outstanding... no AA filter blurriness at 1:1 so the 16MP is easily a match for the 22MP on full frame cameras like the 5D Mark III.
In particular all the things that make the GH4 useful for video like the live view system, articulated screen and EVF are just as helpful for stills. I find I shoot better with it than a DSLR, it helps composition to have the DOF preview with the EVF and the tillable screen for low angles.
 
AF is amazing on this beast too... better than a Nikon D4 in most cases actually...
 
You can't say that about live-view AF on a DSLR haha!

Nice review Andrew! The GH4 deserves the positive feedback after Panasonic listened to filmmakers and delivered what was asked for at a reasonable price!
 
I've been looking for a camera to supplement or replace the 5D3 for video for a long time. The first attempt was the FS700 + SpeedBooster. The idea was find a camera which has true 1920x1080 resolution and full frame compatibility with my Canon lenses. At the time I had not studied the math and physics and wanted to maintain the mystical and oft-hyped FF "look". You mentioned "
5D Mark II and III raw from full frame sensor a formidable cinematic look vs the smaller sensor in the GH4".  The "formidable cinematic look" is a myth. Perhaps a better way to say is that the full frame format has more affordable and flexible options for shallow depth of field- as that is all it really offers in absolute terms of sensor size. Canon's color science is still a formidable challenge. In low light, the GH4 has a nicer noise pattern. 5D3 RAW has some fixed pattern noise and the general noise itself gets downright ugly in low light. The newer GH4 does a better job with noise once it shows up. If I find the time I'll post tests comparing the 5D3 RAW with the Canon 50mm 1.4 at F2 to the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F.95 at .95 (same as the 5D3 at 50mm F1.9 per the math here (which isn't anything new; I finally took a look at it after the Northrup video was posted on EOSHD: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ).
 
The GH4 looks fantastic straight out of the camera when set up and lit correctly. This is something I find valuable and useful. 14-bit 5D3 RAW offers far more options in post, especially when using ACR vs. the comparatively fragile GH4. The RAW workflow might be called "Really Awful Workflow" due to the extra time and storage requirements. That said, for some shots and projects, the extra work is worth it.
 
Regarding GH4 10-bit luma and 444 for 4K scaled to 1080p: the 444 is real, the 10-bit luma is not in practice. 10-bit color processing doesn't take place in the GH4 unless 10-bit 422 is enabled for HDMI output, otherwise processing for video is 8-bit.  In order for the 10-bit luma to be real, we'd have to do special encoding in the camera which we could then recover in post (while reducing luma resolution 4x). Otherwise we're just getting a nice, useful, low-pass filtered, noise reduced luma in the same way as the C100/C300.
 
When comparing to the Sony A7S- the example A7S videos appear to produce excellent, detailed, color accurate, high-dynamic range footage straight from the camera. The bitrate is only 50Mbit/s, however as we've seen with 100Mbit/s GH4 4K, which is 4x the pixel data(!), these bitrates are OK as long as motion is smooth. Even the 24Mbit/s FS700 footage compares very well when the motion is smooth. As many of us have noted, even with large, cheap storage, efficiency is important in the long haul.
 
As I'm sure future tests will show, 50Mbit/s A7S in-camera 1080p will compare very well to the GH4 4K scaled to 1080p in post. The A7S appears to have a dynamic range advantage, and the color science so far is very competitive, even against 5D3 RAW. The GH4 with fast micro 4/3 lenses has a size/portability/stealth advantage. In the event 4K material is needed (vs. 1080p scaled in post), the GH4 has the advantage (including reframing in post). Neither camera 'wins'- they have complementary features. The A7S compared to the 5D3 RAW- that's another matter: the A7S will best 5D3 RAW in resolution, detail, dynamic range, and workflow. What remains to be seen is final color science (rolling shutter will likely be a wash between the two).

That was very stupid. Form factor matters alot, theres a reason why its been the way it has for so long, not because it "looks" cool. It works, you hold a dslr and then you hold an old film camera or the equivalent shape. You will instantly notice the stability and comfort, along with the ability to use your other hands to do more things.
 
Think of it this way, sure small is great, but there a reason why people have to rig it up, and guess what shape seems to work so well: Over the shoulder. A Progression to a more suitable design is great, it doesnt take away from their previous design either, if this doesnt work for you then check out the prior models.

you know Im a Panasonic fan as they just work and are small and light
 
but some jobs / projects / companies need this type of camera
 
I hope this is the start of an evolution of Black Magic cameras thay follow this style as it has a proven pedegree in film and broadcast

Im pleased Andrew as they are now going in the right direction with this camera , the first 3 had a 'unique' form factor
we desigened and built a rig for the first camera they sent me one early on to work with so I could shoot with it on my shoulder with a Cineroid EVF ,
 
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/180-tecnoir-blackmagic-anamorphic-cinema-rig-lores/
 
 
this new camera is following the form factor of the big boys and yes you will still need to add bits but they are making something very cheap compared to the big boys and this hopefully will be the way forward for Blackmagic evolutions of this camera now they are on the right path
 
this camera COULD be the big seller as they have addressed all the design issue of the previous models

thats what real cameras look like , they are square , boxy and sit on your shoulder,  all 16mm film cameras I ever used where like that, Aaton and Arri
 
'>
 
for me Im quite excited about this camera it has good form factor and on paper loooks great

I don't understand the incredible backlash here.  No offense intended, but this piece reads like Andrew did in fact get fired from a job due to not changing the battery or media in a BMCC on time.
 
Blackmagic gets 10x the criticism it derseves and about 1/4 the praise.  Yes, they should have addressed their firmware issues before launching 2 new cameras at NAB.  Yes, their customers are fair to expect support first for their cameras.
 
But put it into perspective people.  You can shoot incredible digital cinema with the three cameras they already had out.  Whether the lack of in-camera card formatting or lack of time code, etc. are flaws that are so big to render the cameras not worth your money/time/etc.-- that's for you to decide.
 
But I can handle the unaddreseds firmware issues in order to get the stunning imaging these cameras provide.  If Blackmagic didn't offer these cameras, how much would you have to pay to get similar quality imaging out of another camera today, or a year ago?
 
Also, if it wasn't for Blackmagic's innovation, I don't think we'd be seeing Sony, Panasonic and others making the moves they are right now.  Their cameras and video cameras would liekly be crippled and less capable.  That's how those compannies make money-- not by taking big risks (like the a7s) that potentially kills off their big money makers (like the FS-100, FS-700, etc.).
 
Quotes like:
 
"Their existing Cinema and Pocket Camera user base is lost. It’s over."
 
"[BM] completely turns its back on [its] existing indie filmmaking user base."
 
"[The] trend is to go smaller and lighter. This goes in complete opposite direction."  (BM has done nothing but buck the trend with their cameras.)
 
"It smacks of greed to go after the production market before you have even satisfied the indie crowd."  (Greed? Just take a look at the Sony/Canon/Nikon financials as well as their business practices-- you might change your mind.)
 
These quotes are not just someone's rather venomous opinion- but they do harm to the very companies and interests we should be looking out for as artists/hobbyists/filmmakers who desire immense quality at a relatively tiny price.
 
Just chill y'all.  Blackmagic shoud've adressed the firmware issues first, but don't overlook the incredible thech they're trying to bring us at very low prices (or declare their effort failed and futile).  Nor should you be taking for granted the innovation they are driving.  (In other words, stop throwing the babay out with the bathwater.)
 
 
T

I disagree that BMD has abandonded the indie filmmaker. They're just offering a wider selection. Nowhere have they said that they're giving up on the smaller cams. Firmware updates could be coming, but at the end of the day I would gladly paid $1000 for the pocket cam even if there were guaranteed no firmware updates.

This, right here. Blackmagic just took a dump on everything offered by the competition that's north of $6500. I mean, I have to essentially factor in a 1080p monitor, an audio field recorder and a v-mount battery solution if I compare the URSA to anything else. Add to that the (likely) ability to upgrade my sensor . . . wow. URSA is a heavy woman, but she sure as heck ain't lacking.

Ursa's an interesting proposition. It's size doesn't bother me for most productions I work (episodic, commercials, features and docs). It's back heavy so it'll balance on my shoulder nicely. But they should've recessed the bottom more to accommodate a low profile/low CG shoulder pad (see Amira). I do think the 10" screen will come in handy for evaluating a 4k image. But if they're targeting studio style production, they should have made it swappable to the left or right side. The last thing I need is an AC breathing down my back. If a cameraman were behind the design, it'd be EVF on operator's side and large monitor on the "dumb" side. Now AC/Director would have a nice big screen while the operator can zone out alone with an EVF.
 
Also on the shoulder I wouldn't be using a 10" screen three inches from my face, instead an EVF. But for most productions, I find the 10" screen would come in handy. It's one less piece of gack to be dangling from some kind of arm or rigging. The shoots I work, we're flinging cameras around on incredibly packed schedules and monitor mounts eventually come out of adjustment, waste time and add to frustration. 
 
I do find the swappable chip a smart consideration for future proofing, given that there will be a better chip in less than two years. They took a page from Red handbook. Also, the ability to go HDMI with another camera could have advantages for shooting in cramped quarters (car mounts, elevators, closets, etc) - a more budget friendly approach than Alexa M.
 
Regarding the gripes about size, when you put everything on a camera you need to operate in a pro environment you either end up with something the size of an Alexa, F55 or a rigged out frankencam or rigged out Epic. The all in one approach is simple and fast to set up. I started in film many years back and while I don't miss it, I do miss the simplicity of some of the better designs (Aaton, why have you forsaken us?).
 
At 6500.00 you can't bitch too hard. And I love anyone that takes a broadside at RED. It's biggest limitation to large productions adopting it is the 12 stop dynamic range and middling sensitivity. I recently did a spot on the 4k BMC and while I loved the over all color imagery, its highlight limitations (especially against skies and windows) made me wishing I had an Arri chip. I actually prefer aspects of the BMCPC over the BMC 4k image. Highlight clipping is the difference between doubling the output on your lighting package or walking lights way too close to bring up the fill or gelling windows. It's the main reason why despite the rental price, most indies in NYC seem to be shooting Alexa (and perhaps Dragon later). It saves you money and time elsewhere. On the budget end, the extra DR is what has me still loving the 5D3 hack and not so much the images of the GH4 (Panasonic rep on Zacuto interview pegs it at about 11 stops and change). 
 
In all I was hoping for someone to introduce a mini camera (GH4 or Pocket cam size), with a log style LUT, 13 + DR, large sensor and Pro rez. Hopefully the Chinese are listening.

People make real films with Arri Alexas and Red Epics
this has a similar form factor and very good specs so I do really think indie film makers will jump all over this
 
is it is very very cheap !
Black Magic have seen what people want and designed a great product that film makers will want -
 
This camera is aimed quite squarely at film makers - I want one!!

Geeze, lay off it a bit. Everyone's rather polarized here. We haven't seen jack squat out of most of these cameras, GH4 and A7s included. 
 
1. Just because the GH4 does 4K and is a lightweight Mirrorless doesn't mean there's no place for a 7.5KG camera.
 
2. This new URSA, as Andy Lee pointed out, ticks an awful lot of boxes, even if it is heavy. 
 
3. It ditches that darned awful BMCC form factor.
 
4. I see physical buttons, thank the Lord.
 
Let's not condone or condemn a thing until all this has been tested in the field.

spec wise it ticks all the boxes
super 35mm size sensor 4k and global shutter in a usable body form like an Alexa -
what more do you want
Blackmagic have listened to all the feedback off their other 3 cameras
 
indie film makers will jump all over this - superb!!

Did you really read the article? The answers are all there.

Select ProRes 444 in your Premiere timeline settings and don't edit in native H.264.
 
Export in ProRes 422 Proxy.
 
Simples :)

He just means that if you're going to add an effect that introduces a lot of activity to your image (like film grain) in post-production, you need to convert your video to a codec that can handle all that "new" motion information.  
 
A codec like H.264 can't compensate for all that new visual activity, because the data rate is too minimal, so it "crushes" those details and makes them mushy.
 
Thus, he changes his format from from the camera, H.264, to ProRes444 and then edits with that converted footage.
 
Essentially ProRes444 is a big wide pipe and data flows through it easily.  H.264 is a thin garden hose and can only handle so much data before it starts to fail under pressure.

Can't wait to see some test footage of this mysterious camera and your Cooke lens in action.

Andrew, I think you're overlooking engineering issues that are pulling the market apart, between DLSR for photos, and cameras for video.
 
A DSLR is designed to use a large sensor to get the richest color from wide angle lenses on up.  The physical constraints of diffraction and focal length cannot be marketed away.  In other words, an APS-C sized and above sensor will provide the  high resolution still photographs, better than any smaller sensor, from MFTs on down (in 4:3) aspect.
 
What that means, of course, is that you must skip sensor lines to maintain the same focal length (EDIT: 5D3 samples whole sensor to avoid this; electronic requirements may be expensive).  So DSLRs are primarily high resolution photo cameras.  If they don't skip lines they have to use crop mode which increase focal length.  Then you can get moire-less video, but again, at the cost of focal length and you put the lens under great resolving strain.
 
Yes, the MFT cameras do great video, but mostly because they use small sensors that don't skip lines and are optimized for video.  As photo cameras they are not as good as large sensor cameras, mostly because of physics (of light and sensor design).  No professional photographer would pick an MFT camera over a full-frame.  
 
I'm with you in spirit on the article.  But I think you have to temper expectations with some engineering realities.
 
I spend every day working on my 50D RAW (which you turned me onto) and an EOS-M.  The real question is whether manufacturers believe there is a market in high color depth, dynamic range in consumer equipment.  I believe there is.  I hope there is!

I noticed the presence -albeit slightly- of aliasing in the corners of the blocks.
Oh well, I guess we can't have everything...

1. Yes. Look to Hot Rod Cameras or Ceicio 7 on eBay for the adapter
 
2. Active mount has advantage of being compatible with all mFT glass that has electronic aperture control or fly-by-wire manual focus or stabilisation. None of the Lumix or Olympus lenses work on the passive mount. Only SLR Magic and Voigtlander manual stuff without electronic contacts work on it.

I think the price was too close to the 4K camera...
 
The 4k camera offers not only increased resolution, but also a s35 sensor size (very welcome) and compressed raw (much more manageable files), two serious downsides to the original camera, so I guess that with price tags of $3k vs $4k, the "old" camera would not seem that appealing anymore. The new price tag separates it into a different segment and now the 3 different models all have their own place in the market. Definitely $2k is a great price, even $2500 would have been great!
 
For owners bitching about the price drop, they need to know this is what happens, it's how it goes! People keep complaining that camera makers are not giving them all they could, keeping features out and inflating prices with tiny updates, but when someone has the balls to make a price cut like this and actually offer the technology as cheap as they possibly can, then their own personal interests come up and they quickly point the finger and feel ripped off. It's evolution, deal with it!
 
I also don't think this affects the Pocket camera, I never saw them as competing products, if anything, the pocket camera is still a better choice, as the sensor size matches the mount better, you can use 16mm glass, you get an active mount and you get compressed raw.
 
Now they just need to add compressed raw to the BMCC.
(Audio levels on ALL camera models would be great too, but it seems to be asking for too much, they'll probably release a 6k camera for $500 before that happens :)  )