shijan

[quote author=RichST link=topic=596.msg4835#msg4835 date=1335636142]
I don't know if this has been asked before or not, but how is the camera getting its compressed 1920x1080 modes? Do we know if it's doing it by cropping off the sides or is it by scanning the same area as the 2.4K raw output and then downscaling?
[/quote] seems its a BM secret

same story as usual - aliasing, noise, low dynamic range and compression :)

hood is not a solution for glare screen, but protection antiglare sheet may help

one more disadvantage - camera has glossy screen :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t07XqdHMr0Q&feature=player_embedded#hd=1&hd=1

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4701#msg4701 date=1335384082]
[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4700#msg4700 date=1335382441]... this 3D fantasy is surely going to impress kids than their frequent tv programs, and it's not like the parents of these kids are going to complain or know jack about the stuff talked about in this forum.  i mean its 'the hobbit' who cares.
[/quote]

If the sets look cheap? There are even TV series these days that have big production value. Shot on film or at least with perfect lighting (sometimes daring) and grading. There are scripts that are much better than those of average cinema films (i.e. [i]Boardwalk Empire[/i], many HBO productions).

If there is no exciting content, there should at least be sophisticated looking adventure. If the sets look cheap ...
[/quote]

as for me 99..9999% of films looks cheap and sh--ty in terms of art and human soul and mind evolution. they can be professional, cool graded, 3d, 480 fps with lot of expensive stuff, their scripts can be calculated by milliseconds, but they are filmed to make people dumb and happy. and of corse to make money.

here what else i think about motion blur - this effect is natural not only for film, its natural eye effect too (try to shake by hand over your fixed eyes and you will see some kind motion blur) and i believe in theory that the magic 24 fps look is happen because this frame rate can produce near the same amount of motion blur as human eye in same light conditions.
and regarding sharpness there is some limit too i believe, but it is not so determined because various people have very different sharpness of their eyes.

i'm also disappointed that films more and more became like video games :(

[quote author=leftedit link=topic=625.msg4606#msg4606 date=1335261973]
great... BAE systems? the bastards who build military equipment to kill millions of human beings? WTF
[/quote] thats why its called black magic

i made a little test: graded log jpeg in a camera raw with some sharpening applied. http://cl.ly/G4VB

[quote author=garypayton link=topic=613.msg4571#msg4571 date=1335188040]
for people that owns a HACKINTOSH without Thunderbolt what do you suggest? An external box for SSDs? It will take years to move the footage to the computer...
any suggestions?
[/quote]
Hackintosh with eSATAIII or USB 3.0 dock station for SSD drive is a way to go

BTW anyone notice the upper port cap marked as REMOTE? Is it means that we can hope for some kind of additional external phisycal buttons for camera control?
[img]http://www.blackmagic-design.com/media/3769177/connections.jpg[/img]

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=613.msg4504#msg4504 date=1335085262]
The $2k digital Bolex already has 720p 60fps and it is the only feature of any significant it has over the BM.
[/quote]

when you people understand that cameras with those Kodak CCD sensors are totally wrong way to go?
http://vimeo.com/40504149

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=596.msg4468#msg4468 date=1334994719]
So who has ordered a BM cinema camera?
[/quote]
not so fast, there is so many time till july, and there is another more interesting camera project will be announced very soon... i hope so  ;)

not sure that someone can do S35 for 4.5K in near future because bigger sensors are waaay more expensive.

[quote author=moebius22 link=topic=613.msg4399#msg4399 date=1334886943]
The internal battery is wrong headed and a problem.
[/quote]
as so as they left option for external battery, internal battery more like half-wrong solution.

BTW 2.5k@24fps  dng raw its about 106 MB/second or 6.3 GB/min or 378 GB/hour

[quote author=Rinaldo link=topic=613.msg4379#msg4379 date=1334871920]
What I don't understand is WHY THE HELL they included that bizarre tube for the lens mount, instead of making a lot shorter lens-to-sensor distance, allowing us to use MUCH MORE avalilable lenses.... WHY WHY?!?!??  :-[
When will the TUBELESS version be available??
[/quote]
because with tube and big canon lens it looks cooler for customers :) imagine same camera pictures with small panasonic or c-mount lens and this wide camera body with display became visually very gigantic and disproportionately.
i also afraid about few else things:
how usable will be push to touch screen and especially to upper physical buttons with attached sun hood?
how usable it will be always monitoring video through the layer of fingerprints fat on display?
other cons are:
as it was said before - no physical buttons for shutter speed, iso and wb - its bad (they can easily put them instead those unnecessary play-stop forward-backward buttons)
no usb 3.0 and no hdmi - its bad too.
16 mm lenses are too small to cover sensor and cannot be attached
micro 4/3 lenses are too big to cover sensor correctly and also can not be attached before they release version with proper mount.
2.5k dng image files are huge and raw workflow is not so fast as it really can be.

i find some original stills here http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/ and they are look a little better then vimeo samples

[quote author=robbie75vr link=topic=596.msg4093#msg4093 date=1334623964]
[quote author=shijan link=topic=596.msg4092#msg4092 date=1334623869]
looking to flares from lights again and again and believe that it is another CCD sensor inside ((. but maybe its only my imagination.
[/quote]
Does flare change from cdd to cmos ? isn't just a matter of lens?
[/quote]
lens is lens and it also produce flares, but CCD sensors have so called vertical smear effect

looking to flares from lights again and again and believe that it is another CCD sensor inside ((. but maybe its only my imagination.

same here. footage not sharp but has a pretty organic look as for me.
interesting which sensor inside camera and is it uses rolling or global shutter.

anyone knows the password for those test videos from this camera? http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera

$9k - its only camera head. to capture images you need purchase additional recorder for $16k [url=http://www.zgc.com/s/p/sinacam-hdc1bsaab.html]http://www.zgc.com/s/p/sinacam-hdc1bsaab.html[/url]

yes seems its more and more offtopic discussion, sorry if its my blame. i don't tried to be critic, i just want to tell that there is huge a difference in dynamic range and in highlights handling. and i really try to understand for myself why it happens.
just for test here is ungraded Alexa footage:
[url=http://vimeo.com/28826534]16mm CineGrain over Alexa Samples[/url]

yea! really cool design!

Shijan, could you please tell me in which of the videos specifically you see overexposure/too little detail in the highlights or low dynamic range?
[/quote]

Hello! For example here on the stones or test chart highlights [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGxkEHuxgRE#ws]sinaCAM ungraded video 1080p[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg3MpAYu4_k#ws]actionconcept sinaCAM Chart Test[/url] even in extended range mode trees looks almost black and dull sky with clouds time after time blows highlights a little. But i really don't know is it fault of processing, or kodak sensors or ccd sensors at all which can't smooth highlights in correct way, or is it some magic low level sensor turning settings which can be done in secret test laboratolies. For example Si-2k camera or common DSLRs also have this problem but all those white holes in the sky looks softer, maybe its cmos sensor nature maybe not. Compare it all to Alexa or Scarlett or even NEX 7 and the difference become more than visible. [url=http://vimeo.com/28786762]BLOODROP (HD 2D)[/url] From other side all those look is unique in its own way, and like it or hate it people must decide independently.

[quote author=cameraboy link=topic=402.msg2563#msg2563 date=1331818073]

what is wrong with this image...
nice analog look...
[url=https://vimeo.com/30039857]https://vimeo.com/30039857[/url]
[/quote]
wrong is that all white things there looks like self illuminated materials. and its all because sensor low dynamic range. also the trick is that analog film handle highlights in very cool and smooth way but can't see many details in the shadows, and the digital sensors (especially ccd ones) can see many details in the shadows but usually blows highlights in very roughly way.
BTW you can see same problem with SinaCam footage which also use those Kodak CCD sensor [url=http://www.sinacam.eu/media/]http://www.sinacam.eu/media/[/url]