Flynn

I just don't see how they can stay a viable camera manufacturer selling $3-6000 cameras. On this forum alone, if a Pocket 2 was announced, between the regulars and the guests at least a hundred people will buy one (maybe more as I'm unsure of the board's readership) but how many will buy the Ursa Pro... maybe 5-10? There aren't enough professionals around to ignore the enthusiasts and stay in the game. The major companies will eat them alive in that market.

totally agree. and a flippy screen. id buy one for sure. so would a lot of other people

Forever I have been patiently waiting for Blackmagic to give us a sequel to the great story of 2013, where a man called Grant pioneered affordable RAW video for enthusiasts, DSLR shooters and consumers. A huge market. Since the BMCC and Pocket Cinema Camera however they have only focussed on pros. A big pity.
Read the full post

I knew this was going to happen. 
They didn't announce a new camera last year because they didn't want to screw up the shipping this time. They waited another year so it would be ready on announcement. 
That said, the Ursa Mini Pro is a serious piece of kit. Fantastic image with new body features that even betters much more expensive cameras as an all-round package. 
Not going to get distracted, got the FS5 and Inferno. That mini panel does have my attention for Slog colour grading! 
I'd love to see an Ursa Micro with the 4.6k sensor (or thereabouts) made for pistol grip gimbals and action shooting. 

They may make a little more in profit, but the Pocket must be their best selling camera... without question. Hell they were probably still making money off the Pocket when it sold for $500. 

Since they usually announce at NAB, they may have announced the Pro early, so the Pocket ii or BMCC ii doesn't steal any of its thunder. Or maybe they won't announce any camera at NAB and BM has given up on their original mission statement. 

Kept expecting Larry David to walk into frame...

Just look how close we are to continuous 5K RAW on this $2000 camera...
Read the full post here

Not seen the film...but it'll more likely be a streak filter (also cuts bokeh in middle) on select spherical shots when not using the Zeiss master anamorphics and Optimo lenses (if anamorphic range) that have been credited to the production. Looking at the trailer, many shots are pretty wide with deep DOF that leads me to think that you might have seen some streak filters being used on some spherical shots.
It's very common for spherical lens shots to be mixed into a 'scope' movies...sometimes with streak filters or CG flares added to help blend with neighbouring shots...but often people don't bother to do that. Oval aperture modified lenses less likely for mixing into a big budget production unless DP can afford that lens to be at a fixed aperture value (possible but unlikely). Could be employed for C/D/E-cam etc for certain setups where multiple cameras are rolling and there are not enough anamorphics to go round...for an action scene or stunt - so as to minimise loss if attached to a chase or crash camera and it gets killed in action.
I use oval aperture modified lenses for effects shots where I know I'm going to do 3D tracking for CG...this removes the funky lens distortion and time-consuming problems that tracking software can have with real (older) anamorphic lenses. When intercut with real anamorphic (and a bit of post lens distortion applied) the faux anamorphic looks perfectly acceptable. When a lens needs a flare, I try to avoid CG generated ones whenever I can...but rather shoot a pass of a real anamorphic flare against black and then retime/warp and track that pass into the plate whenever possible. In other situations I've also added oval bokeh in post when forced to shoot using a spherical aperture but needed an anamorphic look. Adding oval bokeh in post can be a time-consuming process but is possible...it can require a lot of roto work.

Some quick and initial tests with my new system:
5D III (ML RAW) - Bolex 16/32/1.5x - Rectilux Hardcore DNA
 
 
 

Only in the E mount, though they eventually plan on releasing them in the X mount- means Fuji is gonna get much more serious about video for their own cameras?
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02/22/fujinon-announce-new-fast-affordable-zooms-for-e-mount-mk-18-55-t2-9-and-mk-50-135-t2-9/
 
 

I love that third vid. Awesome music, awesome dog, great stuff. 

LMAO @ this. This was just a quick test video so I didn't invest much time looking for the perfect song to fit it. I agree that this was not the best choice but it ain't about the music anyway so..I chose this song since it was just a demo release that wouldn't bring me into trouble with copyright. 
Please don't insult the artist, James Fauntleroy, because he is a very talented songwriter behind many hits of Justin Timberlake, Beyoncé and more. 
I am aware of the shakiness, so I am looking for an affordable way to stabilize moving shots. maybe a monopod, yes. or a Gimbal.
THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK THO
TOOK SOME MORE TEST VIDEOS

I saw a film,
swore to myself it was shot on 16mm
nope it was shot on the red dragon.
(Dayveon)
Then I thought it was shot on zeiss ultraspeeds.
Nope it was Canon K35s, which I think are similar to Canon FD glass.
 
I saw another film,
swore to myself it was shot on the alexa,
nope it was shot on the c300 mark i
(motherland)
 
I was sitting 30 rows in the back, in the front, all over the place.
I couldn't tell anything
After all that,
after everything we do, and say,
at the end of the day,
none of us can tell.

Though question since I don't agree with your assessment of the advantages of Medium Format.
I still shoot film, both medium format and full frame (small picture). And I definitely don't use medium format to get faster films.
If anything I use the opposite. Thats why I kickstarter backed the modified Kodak Vison 50D from Cinestill.
A 56mm is till going to be a 56mm and nothing else. And if one likes the look of a 100mm one needs to use a 100mm. 
The DOF is identical on all formats but on the medium format you get more in the frame.

A good example is when I use a 17mm on APS-C. Its great for street photography with the deep DOF of a 17mm (on any format).
But I can fill the frame with a person without going as close as I would have had to do with FF. More like the distance of a 35mm on FF.
The problem is if I try to shoot a closeup of someone, then I dont get a look of a 35mm at all.
The person is all distorted with a huge head.
This is why medium and large format is nice and can't be simulated with equivalent lenses.
But I will test all this and this discussion is a never ending story so lets leave it for now.

If one only care about SDOF and firmly believe that a focal length can be changed with different sensor sizes. Then he/she can just settle with a 1" sensor like the RX100. Because with the "equivalent" theory thats just as good as FF, MF or large format. No difference at all.
But if one can see a difference between for example m4/3 and FF. Then he/she will see the same advantages and disadvantages between FF and MF.
And of course MF and LF.

When this thing was announced it totally blew my mind.
And I have been wanting one ever since the first time I read about it.
If you don’t know what this is all about just think of it as a Speedbooster.
But instead of turning an APS-C into Full Frame it turns a Full Frame into a Medium Format Camera.
And as you may know, medium format in digital is pricy to say the least.

I will have more info and go deeper into this later on, this is just my first impressions.
Opened the box literally just a few hours ago.

Its very sturdy and all metal. It balances well after putting on a hefty lens.

The lens I tested tonight was a 80mm f4 Macro. I have others but wanted to see some closeups to check sharpness.
Its much sharper than I expected. Sharp enough I guess...
Also Ive seen no excessive vignette. Any vignette in the samples are added in post.
I also added grain.
Portrait of GP

Closeup 

Selfie

Closest Focus

With vignette and grain.

Without vignette, still grain.

What lens do you have in mind? 
I had a Moller 19/1.5x and the AF worked flawlessly on the 70D.

Talking pure image quality, I'd say:
5D Raw
BMCC/BMPCC Raw
Digital Bolex
Nothing else in that range competes with those based on anything I've seen. Ergonomics / usability is a whole different matter. 

In addition to the suggestions above, you might consider a used camera:  the Digital Bolex; the Sony F3 (w/4:4:4 capability); the Sony FS700 (w/raw recorder); or a KiniMini refurb.
 
Also, I've heard good things about the DJI X5R.

BMCC or BMPC4k, depends.

Modify again by adding a negative diopter in side, better accurate focus at infinity, not so wide, measured view angle equals to about 24mm, but distortion improved.  Edge IQ might be not so good.  But still much better than 1.33x lens I used before.  Flares are funny.

samples now:
 

 
+10 achromat and two 0.6x wide angle adapters = much shorter travel between achromat and wide angle block = less vignetting, less breathing (but still there) + keeping infinity focus intact.
 
All the shots close focus to between 1 to 5 feet. Also built a wonky PVC housing, so while the elements are aligned better, they're still a little off.

Dear fellow forumers,
I would love to hear your opinions and techniques, how do you nail your focus with anamorphic lens. I'm shooting with GH4, and bought recentily a Bolex 1.5x anamorphot lens, since that I have experienced several issues and yet, I'm not sure with which device should I pull focus.
The issues I have found:
#1 PEAKING - Because of the baby mollers smaller size, there isn't coming through too much light, so the peaking isn't working very well. Same with autofocus (didn't tried yet, waiting for a native lens).
#2 FOCUS DISTANCE - Without a diopter, you can focus from 1,5-2m to infinity. The vintage lenses have nice, long focus barrel, but the distance between 2m and infinity is very small. Pulling focus without a proper follow focus or other device is a mess. 
#3 APERTURE - Some say, bolex is great when wide open. Personally, I found it too soft. The anamorphic lens completely changes the behaviour of your taking lens. 
 
How do you pull focus? What device are you using (i was thinking about purchasing a movofilms FF or aputures new DEC). Also what is the fastest aperture you use on set? Thanks! 
Cheers!
Alex

Thank you Flynn, thank you Jonpais, all excellent suggestions. For time being I decided to start with PL 42.5 prime, even though it is expensive by any standards ... but native, stabilized, fast with good bokeh. Another lens I am very tempting is Voight 17.5 or I'll try to get 50mm f/1.5 Nikkor AI to see what I can accomplish with. Based on my previous use of OM-D and bunch of Oly native lenses this time around I want to steer away from "generic" look ... Found this enlightening video if anyone is interesting  

Maybe on a 4:3 crop you feel less guilty of the crop, when reviewing your footage the 3.56:1 composition sometimes looks so great that you don't want to adhere to the cinema "standard", if the camera is doing it for you is as we say in México "eyes that don't see, heart that doesn't feel " (ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente) :D