andrgl

It's a very competitive price point for: Internal 8-bit 422 1080p602160p30Built in NDXLR inSDI outMFT mountAll in an shoulder/ENG friendly package.

Ninja 2 Cost: USD$395 (reduced from $695) Input: HDMI Display: 4.3” 800x480 Records: 1080p30 10-bit 4:2:2 Full list of technical specifications. Video Assist Cost: USD$495 Input: HDMI and SDI Display: 5.0” 1920x1080 Records: 1080p60 10-bit 4:2:2 Full list of technical specifications. Samurai/Ninja Blade Cost: USD$795 (reduced from $995) Input: HDMI or SDI (not both) Display: 5.0” 1280x720 Records: 1080p30 10-bit 4:2:2 Samurai technical specifications. Ninja technical specifications. Price Drop Source: News Shooter

Anyone have the youtube video of the gimbal test? Cars use LIDAR. If this uses LIDAR that's crazy impressive. (I can't see it the unit, so it must be small.) Edit: That's what it looks like. I would've thought they'd use an ultrasonic sensor array. But he mentions it's wireless and can move, which means the system is crazy fast and precise.

I am a huge fan of your style. Love what you can do with a BMPCC.

​That was cg. Reflection shows no evidence of cameras, tripods, jibs, etc.

​Even if it output 60 frames, what benefit would that be? You'd still have 24 frames of actual motion.

I hate to do this but: boring framing, most shots felt lifelessly static, lighting/colour wasn't used effectively to separate foreground from background elements. The epitome of 'video' production. The grading was exceptionally bad, basic, flat: boring. The C300 II was fantastic though. Super clean with great dynamic range.

The Micro doubles as good lens mount cap.

​Which gives it a range between: 30 to 60 fps. I wonder if dynamic range is affected by changing from rolling to global shutter. This is exactly the camera I wanted after the Alexa Mini was announced. I'm not worthy Blackmagic.

​Andrew, can you spare us mere mortals a few dng stills? Looking forward to your follow up article, thanks for looking into kine for us.

Cheaper for a reason, these clones are inferior optically: http://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3548321

Source: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=66581&p=425881 Irrefutable proof that the Cinema Camera and Pocket Cinema Camera produce the best picture under $2000. Lighting and composition are the cornerstones to producing filmic work. So is grading. 13 stops of RAW is an incredible canvas and medium to work with. The counter arguments to these cameras are so laughable. It all comes down to effort. These cameras are "hard" to work with because they take just a little more time to work with. What's ironic is that producing filmic works always takes a little more effort. If you're not constantly chasing for that extra little bit, you're producing schlock. If a camera makes X easy, then you should be tackling Y. No camera should let you settle. This work isn't easy.

Don't ever, ever buy electronics or glass overseas. Returning items is next to impossible. I've ordered hundreds of things at this point and never had a problem. Also: Chinese vendors seem to consistently under report the value of an item, as if to prevent the buyer from having to pay duties, what a mysteriously bizarre phenomenon....................

How are most cameras doing their encoding: FPGA or ASIC? That's something to consider. I'd wager most cameras use ASIC chips, though I could be wrong. Plus reprogramming an FPGA would probably be too risky for a manufacturer to consider.

My smartphone absolutely CRUSHES blacks and comically oversaturates the display. I second sunyata's advice. Grade for your, hopefully calibrated and therefore neutral, reference monitor (or unfortunately your client's.) When you've delivered don't worry about it any longer because you cannot control how all that time you spent color correcting and grading will seem utterly wasted. Overscan makes me loathe all the work I do trying to make my work seem symmetrical. But noticing how badly the WB is off on a display still elicits a response from me: sadness. I hope I get older soon, I've noticed the more wisdom you have the less you give a shit about stuff outside your control.

Take a look at that picture again. Notice two different ISOs? Production Camera and Cinema Camera have entirely different sensors. The 4K sensor is shit. 4K at the cost of worse DR and shadows with FPN. It's why the Cinema Camera is still so popular. The Pocket and Cinema Camera have the exact same sensor in different bodies. PC outputs 1080, CC outputs 1350. Anyway, my point to the OP was that there are products available in his price range capable of a cinematic picture. I'm not saying the BMPCC or BMCC is the best choice, but easy doesn't necessarily equate to better. An iPhone 6 Plus or Lumia 1020 are the easiest, yet it doesn't make them the best choice, why? Because we arbitrarily draw the line with our opinions... it doesn't have X, Y, Z, so it's not as good. If I was studying film making, I'd want to work with a product and medium that will translate into real world experience and land me a job. If a camera forces me to grade, expose and light carefully... isn't that a great tool? It teaches you to slow the fuck down and pay attention to what you're doing. A DSLR allows you to fast forward and gloss over the small decisions that determine what your product looks like. If a 5D3 wasn't so tricky at first to shoot RAW and was in his price range, I'd be suggesting that camera over the Blackmagic ones. Alphonzo, you have to be better then your peers. And usually that means having to work harder. Put that time in now, while you have time to learn (time at school and age.) Choose a camera that will out of the gate make your work different.

​I use it on paid gigs: product videography and real estate. Do you own any of the Blackmagic cameras? Have you used one for more than a few days? Blackholes have been fixed since before early 2014: http://www.eoshd.com/2013/09/blackmagic-fix-black-hole-white-orbs-new-firmware-sensor-calibration/ Again, all hand held video, for a paid gig: https://vimeo.com/44653311 Totally wrong about ISO too, here it is, straight from the manual...

​Zero problems handheld shooting. No cage, just the camera and a lens. This is ProRes too with a single node grade (basically nonthing): https://vimeo.com/44653311 Audio is fine: http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17695#p168461 My original question stands: why shouldn't he use an iPhone? It has more features and can be edited directly on the phone. It's easier than using a Panasonic DSLR. If anyone thinks I'm being argumentative, consider this: I'm not knocking the GH2/GH3 with wrong information. I'm straight up saying the BMCC and BMPCC will produce a better image than the GH2 and GH3 (4:2:0 vs RAW).

​lol what support gear? You mean a lens and storage? Like with any other DSLR? Plus. why stop at a GH2? You can shoot and edit directly on a phone.... I heard a rumour that, in ancient times, 15 years ago, people were taught cinematography on... film. *shudder* Easy = mediocre. I thought this guy was studying film-making, not TV production.

Film-making? Get a Blackmagic Cinema Camera. You can get them used for under 1500 USD. Just watch out for broken SDI-out. If you want something smaller or cheaper, get the Pocket. These aren't run and gun DSLR cameras. (Though the learning curve really isn't that steep.) BUT they give you infinite control over your final image. They give you a chance to make your product better then your competitors. Isn't that crazy? For less money you get something better that no one else will be able to copy. Cinema Camera: https://vimeo.com/9005890 7D: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMJ2UJI4onI The 7D footage isn't graded, the BMCC is. They're both well composed pictures, but to me the BMCC footage is more cinematic. I'm not a diehard Blackmagic fanboy, but they offer the cheapest cameras and the easiest workflows for shooting "digital" negatives which allow you the highest control of the look of your picture. One last point. When you shoot RAW video you can set the white balance when you edit. Think about that.

Technical point: sharpness can be faked with higher contrast. Unbiased opinion: contrast should, as mentioned above, be used to create a look and ultimately a feeling for the shot. Nonsensical opinion: Burnt highlights and crushed blacks equal shitty cinematography.

​Maybe primitive was the wrong word to use. I agree ACR has great features that are way more accessible. Resolve is overwhelming but incredibly powerful. It's also becoming easier to use with each update. Thanks for the blog post.

​ Holy god damn f*cking shit. This man operates a forum and even replies on it?!?!?!?!111one Thanks infinitely Ed. I had zero clue he had a forum.

​Resolve Lite is free. (Exactly the same features as the regular version, minus noise reduction and some 3D stuff.)Adobe Camera Raw is absolutely primitive. Think about it: you're grading a single frame in ACR. In Resolve you're able to grade the entire sequence. Practice using Resolve a few minutes a day.

Love the grade Ed. I absolutely fucking hated the colours in your A7S vs BMPCC video. Nice to see someone not crush the shit out of the blacks with NX1 footage. Lots of color tone without having to fake sharpness with contrast. Thanks for posting this. Oh and yeah, dat rolling shutter. 1080 is a huge improvement.