maxmizer

IBIS doesn't really make since for a big camera like that. The only things that could improve to make it an excellent camera would be a new menu system, DPAF, and (maybe) higher frame rates at 4K.

I enjoyed the guys delivery and attitude! As nice as the piece and idea is, the title's a bit misleading in a way. It isn't a comparison of 8-bit and 10-bit abstractly, it's just a comparison of two Sonys.
Take some 10-bit ProRes out of an Arri Amira for example, I've run that up against 16-bit Red Raw from an MX sensor and the Arri is better and grades far more nicely in real-world situation (IE not purposefully smashing it to get banding).
Or indeed 8-bit AVCHD from a C100 vs 8-bit anything else! The C100 has an amazing compression pipeline. But dip-depth is just one piece of the puzzle. There's bitrate and chroma subsampling too. Plus the sensor, AD conversion, gain stages, colour response and profiles, gamuts.... blah blah...
I like that he talks about not transcoding 8-bit stuff. I've been saying it a lot, people waste masses of hard disk, thinking that transcoding 8-bit stuff to huge files is worth it.
For my two cents, I also I grade things non stop as part of my living, and I hate most Slog and Sony cam colour with a passion. I wish I didn't though, as the cameras are cheap and high-spec.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here so your "hammering" verb is fairly relevant in this case ... I don't actually want an E-mount or M43 on the Ursa, I meerly used it as an example of how a mount could technically be better than using a stock m43 mount. I don't expect that BM will do it and I understand it requires a lot of work, it was just a suggestion (which I know some people here would also like to see), if no one can understand this properly I don't really know what to say. 

Good day. 

Only upgrade it needs is +10bit prores

There is also a third model which I think Sony has taken (it's also quite a new approach). Don't you think Sony delivers features but a lot of the time they're not 100% reliable like on Canikons? They're unreliable to the point that some people after initial OHs and WOWs switch back. The third model is based around Lean startup method in which you intentionally release lower quality products in order to improve them later on.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_startup). The idea is to get a "good enough" product on the market ASAP and improve it over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_startup#Minimum_viable_product). This way you can release cutting edge technologies earlier and more often, cut the costs (less testing time etc) and get feedback from customers earlier. The downsides we all know, don't we ;)? We're all unpaid beta testers all the time in a way. There is also something called split testing in which "different versions of a product are offered to customers at the same time" - sounds familiar, doesn't it? 
It'll be interesting to see which model will come out first in the end, though!

And 35 stops of DR. And Redcode. And ice cream. Such a shame.
( )

pick a set of old lenses : Minoltas, Russian M42 lenses, Konicas, Fuji AX, Contax, Canon FDs, ... and the convenient adapter and you'll be able to get a 35,50,85 set for less than 200€  
(I use minoltas on my mirorless and russian lenses on my dslr myself) 
Any information about what you plan to shoot would be helpfull to help you btw

Very nice article. I wish that if we were discussing  motion picture production we'd consider crop factors in terms of the 1.85 ratio cropped out of a vertical piece of 35mm film--ie., the "S35" crop that most people consider "full frame" when shooting movies. There are exceptions, of course, with VistaVision, and newer big sensors. Still, it seems more appropriate to me to look at, for instance, what lens you need to use on a GH4 versus what lens you'd use on an FS100 for the same shot. For many years I shot 16mm and then 2/3" chip broadcast cameras. A 25mm lens for me was reasonably close to "normal." When doing still photography with the old Nikon, a 50mm was "normal." And with the Hasselblad, the 80mm was "normal." When shooting with the FS100, I've found I use the 35mm old Nikkor as my "normal" lens, and use the same lens for the same situation on the GH4 with Speedbooster.

I don't recall anybody shooting video or film a few years ago ever comparing lens focal lengths to still camera lenses, until the DSLR revolution came along. It would be nice to revise our thinking and leave the "full frame" still camera out of the equation when talking about crop factors for movie production.

Frankly we do not understand this talk about 1080 ...
downscale 4K to 1080 ..
simple

There are two type of Speed Classes that matter for a SD Card.
Bus Speed and Video Speed (Minimum Sequential Write). UHS-II is Bus Speed and for video that means nothing, as for video, there are some standards, U3 means 30MB/s, the new Standards are V30 (30MB/s), V60 (60MB/s) and V90 (90MB/s). So far, there is no card with V60 or V90, so although there are cards capable of sustaining more than 30MB/s, I assume that if they could guarantee 480mbps or 720mbps, they would say so. Which is also weird since ProRes 4K 10-bit 422 should be more than 720mbps, so who knows?

It's easy to forget sometimes that we're still only living through the very dawn of computing and digital technology. Just like a caveman with a flintlock, our great grandchildren will take things for granted that would seem like magic to us now.

Definitely something to keep in mind. Thanks. I travel around quite a bit for business. Wish I'd known this when I was in Venice a couple of times this summer. Usually my schedule is pretty tight without much room to go roam around, but this summer I actually had some time to explore. Although... I had only checked the 50mm (the standard focal length I like a lot) that was quite cheap. It didn't quite imagine some of the others hitting a pricepoint of 4515,- EUR till I saw that them listed at that Italian retailer (for those kinda prices that's as well proper Zeiss CP.2, Canon CN-E and Schneider Xenon FF level, although those being very chunky lenses still of course and only the most expensive PrimeCircle is around that pricepoint, the others are still quite a bit cheaper (like the 50, I guess nifty too)). Currently I have the Veydra Mini Primes (at Kickstarter price), which serve me well and are at a pricepoint that kinda makes sense for the level I'm at (hence 'Filmrookie' below my nickname). But maybe in the future, doing more legit projects, when I need a set of lenses to cover bigger sensor cameras, but are still kinda cute in size... these definitly will fit the bill. Also. They have some great other stuff going on there with cages, matteboxes and other accessoires. All 'made in the Europe'! Nice.

Anyway, I think that you do not live far (Vienna) by Lookcircle Via della Libertà 1/A - 22012 Cernobbio (Como) - Italy  ... I also think that if you want you can go and see them ... for Italy distributor is here in Padua. http://www.ramaidea.it/it/

Neat! Grazie! Looks like his are customs as well. You know, normally companies ask 500% of the actual worth because it's a cinema line-up. These are 30% more expensive modded out and are stunning!

Hi
LookCircle:  ask him!
https://vimeo.com/user447706
http://www.filippochiesa.eu/

When I had the FS700 I used a Speedbooster which made it close to full frame. That's one of the things I loved about that camera. I would love for Blackmagic to make an E Mount Ursa Mini, even though we all know it won't happen.

Neither RED nor ARRI make their own sensors. They have them outsourced and made to their specifications. Just like BM do with their 4.6k sensor. 
BM make their own circuit boards.  They don't outsource them.  Then make them from scratch.  They make the physical bodies themselves.  They rely on commodity items for the chips and screens but they manufacture more than most other companies in house.  They have an active policy of not outsourcing.  
You're just guessing or making things up when pass mis-informed opinion as fact.   Maybe think about qualifying your guesses next time so those reading will understand that you're guessing or making something up.
How does anyone know what the margins are for Blackmagic ? A company that don't tend to outsource but do tend to keep as much as they can in-house.  Just like the first post that posited that few would sell when thousands have already been sold. It's just guessing at best, and most are way off.
They're doing fine.  Compare them to AJA and the Cion.  Similar sized company to BM, they made a camera based on the same sensor package, but one that was considered to be the much better camera.  Look how well that went for them.  Why is it that Cion failed ? Everyone who was a "pro" breathed a sigh of relief that a "real" camera would be made and yet...
Axiom ? That was going to show everyone how an open source market/ ML style approach would make a camera right ? Show those Blackmagic clowns how to do a camera OS.  Look how grindingly slow that's been going because Canon didn't do all the heavy lifting on the sensor front end.
or DB ? Why did they fail ? Again, they have an apparently loyal following and unique features.
Again it failed. 
Panavison have failed at least twice to launch a new camera to replace the Genesis.
Dalsa, who everyone forgets made the first 4K cinema camera have gone out of making cameras.  
Aaton went bust trying to make a digital cinema camera.
Ikonoscope went bust using the same DB sensor.
You armchair quarterbacks are all posting guesses but you actually have no idea what it actually takes to make a camera from scratch.  I sure don't but I know that after seeing Blackmagic do it up close for the last few years it's way more complex and intricate than I ever imagined. I know that when I ask about a feature or aspect that I like or don't like of the engineering team they've spent a long time already thinking about it or trying to get past the hurdle. 
Making and developing cameras is a very expensive game and there's no way it would be some kind of loss leader.  It's just way too expensive.
At least they're still in the game and offering choices.  They continue to innovate, and I think if you look at their first efforts, compared to now, they obviously listen to what their customers want even if it doesn't appear to be so.  
They have certainly hit some pretty big bumps in the road too but they are still here and trying to compete with the big boys, something a lot of others have failed to do.
I find the "qc" issue hasn't hit me.  I guess I'm lucky or maybe I don't expect to have my camera working or repairable after dropping it but in years of using all the BM cameras I have on commercial and paying jobs, I've not run into most of the problems that are cited as being their weakness. I mean honestly the camera doesn't overheat and yet it's constantly written as a problem on review sites or in the mythology.  
In the early days of RED they had to educate their users about how to get the most from their cameras and how to shoot RAW.  
I think BM need to do the same thing because you still get people who have no idea about a RAW workflow stumbling into using RAW for the first time after having only shot 8bit 4:2:0 previously.  
This community more than "pros" is where BM cameras do the most for filmmakers.  Which other big box company gives you ProRes or even 10bit ?
JB
 
 
 

They share general sensors, and camera software between lots of those cameras. 

Which helps reduce the R&D costs per camera by a significant amount. 

A good next step would be if they did a base mount (such as Sony FZ or Kinefinity sub-PL mount) as a common mount across their cameras. 
As I blogged about here:
http://ironfilm.co.nz/what-if-kinefinitys-kinemount-became-a-universal-cinema-mount/
 
What he means is the other companies do that as well.

Producing great color with the a7s II isn't that hard,
You need great grading skills though.
This was shot using slog 2 + slog 3.gamut (saturation to max and sharpness to -7), so most of the 8 bit range is kept, while still having a nice rolloff.
Skintones were very hard to correct (completely green, thanks to the leaves). But results are great, achieved a really colorful look. Didn't use any LUT.
 Was shot in London, Epping Forest.
 

Celtx has a storyboarding app called Celtx Shot. 

I do kinda get his point though. There's always people that are going to complain that equipment is too expensive for them. Ok, we get it. He can't buy the 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S lens and 400 USD is a stretch too. What I don't understand is... if that's not your ballpark... then don't look at it and complain about it. That's unproductive. And what I also get is that stuff just costs money, from a designing and engineering perspective. If you want something that's brand new and any good, there's probably some money involved to make it. That's just how it works. Complaining about something that's already fairly priced might be regarded disrespectful to the ones making 'em, although I wouldn't really go as far as saying it's disrespectful to the art in any way, except from the fact that everybody is dealing with the fact something is a certain price and they either sacrifice somethings to get the funds or just forget about it already.
I love cars, especially the fast and exotic ones. Yet you won't see me complain that a McLaren is too expensive. Or even the Audi RS5. If it's not in my ballpark, I'll just have to look at other stuff that gets me from A to B. Can't afford a car, like... any car? Look at public transport! Can't do that either? Take a bike or go on foot! I mean... you want a cheap f/1.4? Get a 25mm APS-C covering C-mount lens from AliExpress/eBay or something already. Or a nice vintage piece of quality glass. Sure I agree. Budget forces perspective, a new way of thinking and resourcefulness. But you've got to explore that. You can't just sit around moping. Be creative with what you've got on focus your energy on the right things. That's all.

Yes, shotonwhat is just some guy in his underpants updating it all.  I think he gave up at some point.  
I mean Star Wars Rougue One, the Reverent, San Andreas, the Avengers, it's an endless list of films that shoot on the alexa.

well I went to see Bourne last weekend and the cuts are so fast and the camera is moving so much that you have no idea what camera is what on the big screen , there are no shots that jump out as being bad or not fitting with the previous Alexa footage , it works they did a good job , now on most major films they are using what ever camera suits each shot / set up...... Bond Spectre was the same Film and Digital combined and multiple camera and formats Anamorphic , Spherical Alexa 65 and 35 all made it into Spectre

As I mentioned 'Not saying that this is the case here' - meaning that I'm not countering claims in this thread, or particularly in the linked article but rather when circulated and discussed elsewhere - where the headlines often orientate around how crucial a particular 'affordable' camera model Is overstated in its use on a well known production, often with sponsor links to purchase said camera in a B&H link. It's all marketing that some people buy in to and before you know it, a regurgitated twisting of the facts pop up on forums as 'fact'. Act of Valor is a good case in point...the indie filmmaker buzz around the 5Dmkii use in that film was completely disproportionate to the use of celluloid.
In a nutshell, an article highlighting a product used on a film's production (during its marketing period) should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is most likely going to be a glowing review, when accompanied with promotional stills from said film.
The BM cameras are obviously a great fit for modern production use, especially since shooting compressed raw gives a very comparative quality to even the highest end cinema cameras. They can deliver fantastic images in the right hands. Saying that, at least one of the BM shots in the Bourne trailer sticks out like a sore thumb to my eyes.
Spotting differences in image (even when intercut quickly) is subjective however, if the story is engaging enough no viewer (no matter how camera savvy) should notice any difference...or even care if they do. If it works in concert with surrounding imagery/context...great! 
I love to read and hear about big budget productions using affordable or 'prosumer' gear in achieving creative results, I'm all for it...especially if it enables more dynamic stunts and effects to be captured 'in-camera' safely. But you almost only ever hear the positive quotes and accounts from DP's- which makes my cynical side presume marketing is at play. They should really be directly asking the poor guy or girl who has to match these cameras in the Di or the AC who lost a take due to corrupt media from a camera that was subjected to too much vibration.
But as stated earlier, it's getting a whole lot easier thanks to affordable compact cameras that can shoot raw like the BM models. To this point, the linked article is valid and fairly interesting, just wish more people read past the headlines a bit more and question why we even need to be told this anymore....most of us know that many modern 'prosumer' or 'affordable' cameras are being used in this way. Just as WW2 era wind-up 35mm Eymo's used to be the 'affordable' camera that could be used in dynamic ways, exactly as these modern digital cameras are being deployed.

Yeah - this is why I went for the Shogun flame. Single price, cheaper than the 7Q+ from the get-go, and comes with everything you need to get shooting (minus SSD, but I had one from my original Shogun, and it takes standard SSDs).
7Q+ the base price is for monitor only, which means you then have to tack on the cost of SSD, codec licensing, battery plate, batteries, charger(s), D-tap and/or 12v Lemo cables, sunhood,  etc.
The sale price at the moment is not bad, but you can easily add $1000+ to it quite quickly