maxmizer

Make it 40... to me this camera doesn’t even exist. 
Eventually we’ll have footage from John Brawley or Frank Glencairn or Noam Kroll and the footage will look amazing. More people will love it but a few will find something wrong with it...
Eventually card info will be released, and more people will complain.
Eventually AF tests will show up comparing this camera to the PDAF of the a6500 and more people will complain.
Eventually low light tests will show up comparing this camera with the GH5s or the a7sii and more people will complain.
At the end, when it’s released, a bunch of people will complain because they hate that they have to use an IR Cut filter and they will complain that they only get 45-60 minutes of battery life and that they wish it had IBIS...
And eventually the usual suspects will be the only people that have the camera and the footage will be absolutely gorgeous.
The End.

jasper loves the forest

" Show me some cinematic looking footage shot with this camera"
-  shows cinematic footage shot with the camera
"They could make any camera look good"
Yeah we all know that the skills of those shooting are the most important factor in terms of end result. But you asked for cinematic footage from the camera ??
One of those skills though is also choosing a camera / lens package.
There have been Zeiss super 16 format Superspeeds as long as the 35mm format ones have existed.  They're great and actually pretty cheap.  Mostly in AB or PL m ount which can be easily adapted to MFT.
Unfortunately at this price there are many users that are new to filmmaking, or maybe see filmmaking as a hobby.  Blackmagic are exposing many users to a RAW or even high DR LOG workflow for the first time.  I see people slapping on LUTs designed for other cameras, not bothering to grade or even learn Resolve turning out half arsed results.
But.
If you're willing to step up YOUR game, willing to LEARN how to grade within this workflow, the camera will not hold you back.  The codec will not get in your way. 
It won't guarantee success either, you still have to be able to light, make nice frames and have a plan.  But you won't hit a ceiling with the camera very quickly in terms of image fidelity.
JB
 
 
 

"The sensor has about 11 megapixels according to the specification and is a Micro Four Thirds format (sensor size 17.3x13mm which means 4:3 aspect ratio). The specification says that only “10.28 Megapixels are active”, making the resolution about 3704×2778 if it’s 4:3. So the individual photo-sites must be about 4.7μm square, about the same as a conventional 3-sensor HDTV camera. Alan found that neither of these sets of dimensions was enough for 4096×2160 recording unless his assumptions are over-simplifications – which seems likely from the measurements above.
...
The camera achieves HD Tier 1 because of the sensor size, while smaller than the preferred 1” size, is greater than the minimum-acceptable 2⁄3” size. The wording of R.118 is not completely consistent on this because testing is required whatever the sensor size, but the camera passes the tests anyway.
... 
It is also important for users to know that they can obtain more dynamic range shooting in the HLG or CineLike-D picture profiles than V-LogL. In saying that, V-LogL and HLG have a lot more dynamic range in the stops allocated above middle grey than CineLike-D. The amount of stops isn’t as important as where they are located above or below middle grey. Just because Cinelike-D has more DR than V-LogL doesn’t mean it’s a better picture profile to shoot in."
 
 
The edifice of his research itself is wayyyyyyy off.
It is NOT a 4/3 ratio sensor, and this is NOT the aspect ratio for 10.23 MP.
They Are actually these:
3680 x 2760 (10.2 MP, 4:3),
3840 x 2560 (9.8 MP, 3:2),
4016 x 2256 (9.1 MP, 16:9),
2752 x 2752 (7.6 MP, 1:1),
2592 x 1944 (5.0 MP, 4:3),
2736 x 1824 (5.0 MP, 3:2),
2816 x 1584 (4.5 MP, 16:9),
1936 x 1936 (3.7 MP, 1:1),
1824 x 1368 (2.5 MP, 4:3),
1920 x 1280 (2.5 MP, 3:2),
1920 x 1080 (2.1 MP, 16:9),
1360 x 1360 (1.8 MP, 1:1),
3328 x 2496 (8.3 MP, 4:3),
3504 x 2336 (8.2 MP, 3:2),
3840 x 2160 (8.3 MP, 16:9),
2880 x 2880 (8.3 MP, 1:1)
 
I am guessing the GH5s could have about 1/5 stop more dynamic range than the GH5 for raw, and less than that for video.
Also, I doubt ANY camera can do 14.6 Stops in a 10-bit codec. I doubt even the highest grade ProRes 10-bit will reach 14.6 Stops. As a matter of fact, after this review, I am curious as to how many Stops of Dynamic Range the Alexas and REDs Achieve on their ProRes Codecs. 
Also, if this sensor were So Capable, Blackmagic would have advertised the 14.6 stops as the USP, above the Dual Native ISO.
Also he says Cinelike-D has more dynamic range than Vlog. How?
Take this review with a ping of salt. Or something stronger. 

ok well i think the issues you may have had with the video you posted and perhaps others had way more to do with the grading quality than inherent cinematic or anti-cinematic properties of the camera. it also makes a big difference if you're shooting RAW.   let's not forget about lenses, those zeiss super speeds s16 are a great pairing but it's worth noting the full prime kit will cost you 5-10 times the price of the camera! but cine glass will take you a long way towards achieving.. cinematic footage. In the end what makes BMD cams special and different from the hybrids is ProRes/RAW, no OLP filter, no NR/Sharpening, Film/Log profile, color science. Basically the ingredients you'll find in much more expensive cinema cams. 

I think what makes film and retro games popular are specifically the flaws and artifacts. 
To that extent, I think it's more likely that old point and shoots, cell phone cameras, vapor wave, Simpson wave, anything really really technically bad but with its charms will become associated more with a classic digital look.
A band I knew in college used to be into the idea of how heavy generation mp3 compression was the millennial's equivalent to vinyl hiss (though it looks like millennials gravitated to vinyl hiss, so maybe it's the next generation that will gravitate to low quality mp3s). 
I agree still cameras haven't progressed that much since Nikon introduced the D90, and even video is leveling off now.
But I think the "classic" look will be associated with the bad, not the good.

Why have you settled for dslr full frame given that you accept that you might get “better quality” elsewhere?
I’m certainly not trying to persuade you to change your mind - full frame certainly is a valid option - but before you commit I would suggest that you know why you’ve dismissed the BM Pocket 1 (for example - there are plenty of other options. I think older Panasonic’s might work for you too although I have no experience of them). Of course you don’t need to convince me or anyone one else here of your decision but challenge yourself! 
Once you’ve considered the alternatives and know why you’ve ruled them out then you’ll have the optimum solution for you.
Enjoy whatever you end up with!

Finally! A thread for the new Blackmagic camera, where we can discuss facts and review's about the camera. Oh wait...

It is not "crazy", it is the most common situation, at least in my field.
Current corporate job, we have the common trio of EF lenses (18-200) and I have to change a lot of dozens of times per working day and that is the least of my concerns.
We have a car full of equipment and just 1 (me) and a half (DoP) people to do all the carrying, setting up, sound, using the cameras e.t.c same story in TV, and documentaries, live events e.t.c
Directors and producers do not carry anything -hardly themselves, and have no clue what focal length they want, so better to have a couple of zooms, instead of 5 primes!
I seriously looking forward to have a camera and 2 lenses combo for my next setup, hopefully parfocal with AF and a zoom rocker, not see it happen though.

Ha! no, worries, just imagine how we feel when we pay the prices here. 
1.295USD is 1.050euros by the way, so you get the point, it is even worst!
That applies to Japanese and Korean products too, much more expensive in Europe, Chinese are similar I guess.

maybe it does not depend on Davinci, but on your computer ...
if I were you I would try to download the latest free version !!!

Here is a funny take:
 

sure that this camera is ugly

There are two main ways sensor size can affect the maximum resolution:
1)  The ability of a lens to resolve finer details than the distance between two neighboring pixels. 
 --> There are plenty of lenses that support far higher resolution than 4K so that's not a limit
2)  The ability of pixels to collect enough light. 
 --> Current m43 sensors with large pixels offer  ~13stops of dynamic range and excellent color information. 
So in short, in that article just suggesting that for 4K someone needs a LF sensor, is plain wrong and marketing bulshit. 
In general systems are far more limited by their processing pipeline than optics/sensor performance, and that's why offering RAW is such a big deal.

I am an indie filmmaker, I shot my first feature on Sony HVR-FZ 1, back in 2009 and a year later Canon 5D disrupted the market. We toiled hard to get over harsh video look and deep DOF of HVR Z1 and then 5D made us look like fools. Even though many known filmmakers appreciated the screenplay, but harsh video look was stumbling block. Then every other indie filmmaker was coming out with "cinematic" 5D, 7D footage and our film looked amateurish. That got me started with DSLR and understanding them.
I was shooting Panasonic GH2 till last year and finally I got GH5. I was absolutely loved it. I though 10 bit is new standard for indie filmmakers now, especially those who can't afford raw. Just few months later Panasonic released GH5S, which is even more suited for my work. I didn't need IBIS more than low light capabilities. I was anyways juggling between between GH2 and rented A7SII and then GH5 and A7SII. When I heard they already had GH5s in mind even before the launch of GH5, I felt cheated. Panasonic like any other camera manufacturer was trying to exploit market. I am Panasonic fanboy since Panasonic DVX100 days.
And then comes BPCC 4K, it gives 12 bit raw, which even Panasonic EVA 1 can't deliver. If it has same or similar sensor as GH5s, I don't need A7Sii. I hardly go over 10,000 ISO even on AS7sii. And it is cheap. It will force Camera manufactures to reduce price on cameras like Canon C200, EVA 1, Sony F7 and F5. IMO Raw will be new indie film-making standard, if not already and 10 bit will be new prosumer standard. It may have lots of issues, but I won't shooting another indie on anything less than 12 bit raw. If budget permits I will go for C200 or even better. But in worst case scenario there is always BPCC 4k to fall back upon. Point is BPCC 4k will disrupt the indie film-making landscape just as Canon 5D did back then. 

I'm getting déja vu from the XH1 thread.. where every page was getting polluted by GH5 defense talk. 
i kindly suggest to jonpais not to get so personally affected by GH5 criticism.. let's face it the camera jus isn't as unanimous as it was a year half ago. times gonna change. that being said no need to feel threatened if you're still enjoying its output..

uncompressed Raw actually requires less processing power.   no need to debater and to compress.

My experience in the past with BM products is to not preorder, and wait till they start shipping. You'll be able to find a small retailer on ebay selling them that no-one preordered from and have it before most people.

It’s patently offensive to use the term “retarded” as an insult. Even in hillbilly states like Ohio. 
And I’ll put my 5 posts of criticsm up against your 1,903 posts of rambling nonsense any day. Another bored retiree, clogging the site with incoherent Fox level rants when the rest of us just want to learn how to get the most out of prosumer video cameras. 
I’ll say it again. Andrew, it’s time to put this site down and get on with your life. It was once a thriving source of GH hacking info but as Panasonic cameras have become so good that hacking is no longer needed, the brain drain has left you wth these two bored retirees shaking their fists at clouds and talking uninformed nonsense about motion cadence and cinema lenses. Because when you’re just a hobbyist shooting furtive 20 second videos of Vietnamese women in grocery stores, you need clickless aperture. 

It makes no sense

We've hit the point where there is NO excuse for not shooting cinematic footage with even a $1000 camera. Everything from now on will just be nitpicking features to make things easier/quicker/efficient.

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais
The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often.
Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range).
I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting."
But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me.
And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR.
So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed."
Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots.
What would have made it look more cinematic???
Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not):
- gelling your key light
- shallower depth of field
- epic sounding background music
- using a diffusion filter
- more base makeup on the talent
- stronger grading of the footage
- adding film grain
- adding audio from the environment.
~~~~~~~
Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

My feeling is that there is an element to which the 'filmic look' gets confused with dynamic range. For instance, we tend to associate 'log' footage with both 'high dynamic range' and the 'filmic look'.
Log footage is 'low contrast' and 'low saturation' irrespective of how much dynamic range is actually in the scene. And we associate low contrast and low saturation with a filmic look.
If you take a look at Jon's footage, you can see it doesnt contain a lot of stops of dynamic range (see histogram) and even the orange shirt is pretty desaturated (see color wheel).

haha! i still poke my head in here to see what's going on, but I've been cutting a special for HBO since the first of the year that's been keeping me busy. we just delivered it yesterday and am looking forward to finding some time to shoot. In mid-january I was the cinematographer on a short performance piece. EVA1, contax-zeiss 35mm f/1.4 modded with an internal 2x oval aperture.

Also, we've been prepping for the release of our latest feature (I didn't direct this one) shot on two GH4s.
 

The theory is that its this one.
Based on the specs, it would add up.
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/new_pro/may_2017/imx294cjk_e.html
It is also used in astronomy cameras as well so there does in theory exist a way to make your own very ghetto 4K raw C mount camera system by attaching it to a high end windows tablet. As the module is quite small, it wouldn't be too dissimilar conceptually to what is being shown on this thread attaching the RX0 to an Atomos. Not dissimilar prices either.
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi-294mc-usb-30-colour-camera.html
Someone has done a video here