Kino

I only mention it because I am very close to cancelling my Scarlet-W order and going with the C500 and Odyssey 7Q+ instead. I absolutely love the C500 image and with the recent price drop, I think it's a much more attractive setup for me (and a little cheaper). I just have to look more into rigging options for hand-held use. For some reason, the Canon engineers removed the hand grip when implementing the 4K output into the C300 body. I've been researching the C500 recorder options for a while and have read about problems and quirks with other recorders. For example, Jonathan mentioned using the C500 with the Atomos. According to what I've read, unlike the Odyssey, the Atomos cannot record the 120fps RAW signal from the C500. That's why I mentioned to Jonathan that he should know the exact combination of the recorder he wants to use and confirm that all the functions are enabled with that recorder. Of course, it's great to hear about your problem-free experience with the Odyssey. With the RAW upgrade package, it is a $2700 recorder so it better work without a hitch!

https://***URL removed***/news/5855300360/sony-announces-alpha-99-mark-ii "The a99 II can capture 4K at 100Mbps (using XAVC S) with full sensor read-out and no pixel binning. A Super 35 option is also available, with 1.8x oversampling. A 'Slow and Quick' mode lets users jump between 1 and 120 fps at the push of a button. All of the capture tools you'd expect are available, including zebra patterns, time code, S-Log2 and S-Log3 profiles and 4:2:2 output over HDMI." The XAVCS internal is a shame, but necessary because Intraframe would probably be impossible in a body that is much smaller than a Canon 1D series. At least there is HDMI clean out. The 4K downres from 8K makes it sound like a Sony F65 for your pocket!

I would cross out the Scarlet-W right away. You are looking at $15K minimum to get up and running and the waiting time is very long. I know because I ordered many months ago and I'm still near the back of the queue with no allocation in sight. Moreover, the RED cameras are not ideal for documentary, have very poor on-board sound options, and would introduce a steep learning curve for someone who shoots primarily with a Sony A7RII. I would also stay away from the C500 + RAW recorder option unless you have used this exact combination before and know all the quirks involved. There are simply too many things that can go wrong here. In addition, adding the recorder means that you lose the hand-held advantages of the Canon bodies, so it really defeats their purpose for me. If you can afford the C300 II, and you don't need 4K HFR, I would definitely choose that option. Otherwise, the FS7 is also an excellent choice and has much better slow motion than the C300 II. You can't go wrong with either one of those. Best of luck!

I think we should also mention that, in the hands of a real pro like Canon's own Brent Ramsey, the C300 II is capable of stunning internal 4K: It's amazing to think that this was shot in the camera's internal XF-AVC 10 bit 4:2:2 (YCC). Canon always gets the best possible colors, skin tones, and DR out of any 8-bit or 10-bit codec. There are many RAW cameras that don't deliver this type of 4K image quality. Here is a useful article about image processing in the C300 II: http://www.thedithouse.com/on-set-data-management-transcoding-dailies-systems/canon-digital-slr-workflows/ Unfortunately, a lot of the C300 II 4K footage available online does not do justice to the camera's full potential.

Internal. It's right there in the C300 II menu. And, yes, it is really gorgeous!

The winning bid was $6,000, which sounds unreal! The owner must have been really desperate to sell. The Sony F5 is one of the reasons why the C300 II could not really compete at $16K (the other reasons are the FS7 at $8K and Canon's own C100 II and C300, of course). 16 bit RAW vs. 10 bit 4:2:2 (with YCC color space) is not much of a competition. Unfortunately, the best mode for the C300 II is the 2K 12 bit RGB 4:4:4 (similar to the C500): It's a shame they can't make that available for 4K internal, since it would make for an incredible camera. Dogtown, if you are going to the $10-15K market, and you want a cinema camera as opposed to a doc/ENG/event cam, you should definitely check out a used Epic (MX sensor). They are still producing some of the best footage in this segment:

The C500 produces beautiful, filmic imagery and is outstanding in low-light compared with most cinema cameras. Musicbed used to shoot their "Artist Spotlight" series on the C500 (before they switched to RED) and there are some really nice examples of 4K and HD footage there. You should definitely check out their Vimeo channel: I'm sure you've seen the Hurlbut C500 tests, so I'm not going to post them here. As demonstrated in those tests, the DR in 4K mode is lacking compared with the best of the modern cinema cameras. But I don't think the more limited DR takes away from the overall image quality, considering that the C500 has a smooth and pleasing highlight roll-off (as visible in the above clips). Shooting in the 12-bit 2K RGB 4:4:4 mode also yields DR benefits in addition to numerous advantages in color grading, as seen in Human Voice: Here is yet another kind of 4K look or grade from the camera that is punchier than the Musicbed shorts (set to a fitting Schubert piece we've heard before on the Barry Lyndon sound track): Meanwhile, an example of HFR (up to 120fps) can be found on the documentary Why We Ride, which was shot on the C500: For $7K plus the $2K Odyssey, it makes for a great package and is competitive with other cameras in its price range, so long as you don't mind carrying the camera and the recorder everywhere you go. If you're only shooting events/docs, I would just pay a few thousand more for the C300 II as it has the DPAF and records 4K internally. The C300 II also has a newer sensor and better C-Log options for an expanded DR in 4K.

Well, I thought we were past the personal attacks, but I guess you just can't help yourself. Indeed, some people never learn or "wise up." I'm not calling the UM 4.6K "off-the-shelf," as you already assured me that it is not. It is custom designed and exclusive to BMD. Fair enough. The Fairchild sensor, on the other hand, is listed as available to the public and is by definition "off-the-shelf." I never said ASICs are related to sensor design, but they are part of the image processing chain, which I wrote about back on page 6 of this thread: "It appears that BMD has to involve third parties like Fairchild in sensor design, suggesting that they don't have the same mastery that RED currently has. This lack of expertise may lead to problems such as we have seen with magenta-gate, considering how the sensor and its integration into the surrounding circuitry and the larger image processing chain would have to be designed with absolute precision." http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=6 You apparently forgot to read this part. My point is simply that when you design all the components in-house and have demonstrated expertise in sensors and image processors, it is easier to avoid such problems in the first place and to diagnose and repair problems as they come up. RED had numerous mishaps in their 10-year history, as you well know. BMD is just starting out and has to go through a similar learning curve as with any company that is new to designing cameras. That's about it. ARRI, RED, Canon and Sony all have numerous patents relating to their cameras. BMD needs to complete its patent applications, which I cited above, in order to put them is the same category. They are surely aiming for just that kind of recognition after designing an advanced camera like the UM 4.6K. At least, I would hope so.

I own and have used the BMPC-4K. Nowhere do I make any claims about using the 4.6K, which I don't own. I have discussed on this forum my experience with the BMPC-4K but never anything else. As for the UM reviewers and the magenta problems, I've seen a lot of evidence of flawed units posted online by individuals well-known to the community on BM Forum and bmcuser. I've also looked at camera files that were made available. What I don't accept are the examples of "magenta" with suspicious parameters such as f16 or beyond, where all digital cameras look very poor and display noticeable color shifts. For a scholarly analysis of the magenta issue (if there is such a thing), I would have to take samples myself from dozens of cameras, if that is what you mean. I would also have to have access to BMD internal files on the matter.

Well, I suggested that very possibility on page 6: “And, yes, it is entirely possible that BMD contracted Fairchild for the 4.6K with an arrangement to create two versions of the sensor: one for BMD and one off-the-shelf version.” http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=6 To which John responded with the following on page 7: "Of course you are trying to perhaps have me confirm a technology partner of BM, when you know full well I'd never be able to disclose that without breaking an NDA, but I can assure you, the sensor used in the UM4.6K is not an ‘off the shelf sensor’, nor is it one that you can just go order from whomever you think the vendor is. I know this because of actual personal involvement with its development. Please explain how I can have that so wrong and your version be more correct?” http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=7 I think that is best explanation anyone could give on the status of the 4.6K sensor and it's a lot more than I expected. Let’s just leave it at that because we can’t ask John to say anything more. He has already been generous enough on these matters with all that he has told us here. Anything more and legal teams will be descending on this forum and watching everything that he says. I personally don't want to see that. Moreover, this is why I prefaced that section with "Let's say for the sake of argument . . . " In other words, in a hypothetical scenario where BMD designed the sensor and owns the patents/licenses . . . Ultimately, the only thing that is going to solve this is the patents, which I am sure will be forthcoming from those involved (if they have not already been filed)

That combination is actually the essence of the term "Blind Peer Review," which is what gives scholarly journals all over the world their credibility. Otherwise, reviewers would be tempted only to accept articles by their close associates. It's the substance of the argument that matters, not the identity of the writer. But, certainly, there are different protocols for a forum and I can understand why you say that. A casual discussion is different from a journal.

The Fairchild 4.6K is "off-the-shelf" in that it is available to the general public. John has stated that the Ursa Mini 4.6K sensor is not "off-the-shelf." It is of course possible there are two versions, one for BMD and one for Fairchild, as I noted a few pages ago. John also maintains that BMD has designed the sensor, which is fine. I believe him and I even cited the lapsed BMD patent application that may be relevant. We will have to wait and see when they file those applications again. That's the only way to know for sure.

John, You have a very selective memory when forming your arguments about what I’ve written. And speaking of diversion, your latest tactic is to cut-and-paste some posts out of context and out of a timeline that went on for months as we waited for the Ursa Mini 4.6K’s release. These bmcuser posts from 9-12 months ago also have nothing to do with the current topic of BMD’s design patents or its quality control. Moreover, anyone can be quoted out of context: “You're looking pretty silly. You're inferring a conspiracy theory that those that have shot with an Ursa Mini are hiding its flaws until...it get released...and....we all get found out ?...” http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page140 That was what you wrote on January 14, 2016. This is after some had already noted the magenta problem in the beta footage and had been ridiculed and attacked on bmcuser. An NDA that prevents you from reporting the magenta publicly is one thing, but deriding and discrediting those who saw the magenta problem early on is another. And guess who leads those online attack parties on the BMD dissenters, John. Who are the ringleaders when the wagons are circled? I guess RED has had them, so it’s okay for BMD to do the same now, right? I thought you guys were better than them. So yeah, you’re right John, the 4.6K was released and everything was “fine,” which is why they had so many returned units and great reviews. I’m not even sure how long the magenta thread is on bmcuser: it probably requires its own server it’s so huge (much of it is silly, of course, like people shooting at f16 and wondering what went wrong with the image quality, but there are some real issues there otherwise). In my case, there were important reasons why I started to see better results from the 4.6K footage. Let me remind you since you obviously forgot. Here is what I posted back in January as we saw the first RAW footage: “Speaking of appreciation, I will be the first to say that the Mötley Crüe footage was absolutely gorgeous and some of the best that we have seen so far, along with the dancer video. Both were reportedly shot in RAW, so I am not surprised that we are finally seeing the full potential of the 4.6k sensor unleashed in terms of DR, shadow detail, highlight roll-off, and color science.” http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K&p=192053#post192053 I changed my views on the 4.6k as the first RAW was finally released. To accuse me of “back-flipping” only makes you sound like a politician trying to discredit his rival for office. Our host Andrew has done a complete 180 degree on the Canon 1DX II, from downplaying the camera on this forum to stating that he wants to buy one after releasing his new C-Log picture profile. I’m very surprised, but there is nothing wrong with that. I’m very happy for Andrew and I hope he enjoys the 1DX II, because it looks like an awesome machine. People change their views all the time as new footage is revealed and new aspects of a camera are made functional. I think such evolution is something to celebrate, not ridicule. As a matter of fact, the 4.6K ProRes beta footage had not impressed me so much. With the RAW, I could see a lot more potential, better colors, and closer to the advertised DR. A lot of forum members also noted an improvement in the footage. I was not the only one who thought the camera was finally living up to its potential for “prime time.” There was then (near) universal acclaim. As for the Xyla discussion, I thought we all decided that it was pointless, since it just went in circles with no end in sight: “The. Lights. Are. On. There's no way you shoot that chart with the lights on. It totally invalidates the test. For real. JB.” http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page140 Here was my response: “These men generously went to the trouble of setting up a Xyla test, capturing an image, and displaying it on Resolve. Then they started to move things around and turned on a light. By the time of the photo, the Xyla image is already a captured file on Resolve, while the chart has been moved out of the way. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. There is no reason for them to capture an image and view it in Resolve if it is taken when the light is on since you would not see a damn thing with that spotlight on it! You would not get any kind of Xyla image at all, and certainly not the one displayed on the monitor. When I said that we may be looking at a legitimate Xyla test and waveform in the Resolve file, everything went crazy here because it doesn't match what people want to see.” http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page145 You then asked about the identity of the person in the photograph. I was the only one who responded with the answer: “The gentleman in the Xyla photo is a world-renowned cinematographer, Affonso Beato, from Brazil (he is at the computer). He shot Almodóvar's All About My Mother (1999) among other films in his incredibly long and distinguished career. I'm sure he had nothing to do with the Facebook post being pulled as he is not affiliated with BMD. It is more likely that BMD has a problem with a Xyla image from a pre-production camera out in the wild before the camera is finished.” http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page149 You forgot to mention that part didn’t you when you said the following: “He didn't know the image WAS an independent source, namely the individual ASC technical committee members facebook page, but whatever...” Now let’s brush aside your ad hominem tactics and selective quoting from a year ago (because anyone can play that game), and get to the meat of the matter. I asked if you could point to any of BMD’s design patents on the 4.6K and here was your response: “Anyway, last I heard patents weren't the only way to protect IP. In fact, the most enduring way is to keep it secret...like Coke and Colonel Sanders do. Having or not having a patent is indicative of nothing at all. Once again, a very old fashioned out of date view about how IP is protected. Of course you are trying to perhaps have me confirm a technology partner of BM, when you know full well I'd never be able to disclose that without breaking an NDA, but I can assure you, the sensor used in the UM4.6K is not an "off the shelf sensor", nor is it one that you can just go order from whomever you think the vendor is. I know this because of actual personal involvement with its development. Please explain how I can have that so wrong and your version be more correct?” Fine John, let’s say for the sake of argument that it is not the Fairchild 4.6K sensor and was designed by BMD with no significant help from anyone else. Do you really believe that sensors and camera components are not necessarily patented nowadays and that it is simply sufficient to keep everything a secret like the flavor in Coca Cola? I would respectfully disagree. A $10 million sensor is not like a soda flavor or chicken recipe. Electronic devices and cameras involve numerous patents to make certain functions possible, as you well know. You posted no link to patents or evidence that BMD had any. But it is easy to find out that they do make patent applications, at least for the entirety of the camera. Here is an example of Blackmagic Design patent files I found with a search at the Australian Patent Office: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/quickSearch.do?queryString=blackmagic&resultsPerPage= Interestingly enough, they are listed as “lapsed” for “renaming” suggesting that the company is going to renew the patent application for a camera originally filed on April 10, 2015. The camera is not named or described in any detail (we may speculate that it could be the Ursa Mini). There is also no mention of the sensor, but the application is very brief and simply for reference purposes. So BMD does make patent applications like I would expect them to, but has not secured the 4.6K patents as of yet, at least not with IP Australia. I would also note that camera patents are not always filed right away. BMD may be in the process of filing its 4.6K sensor patents, if they are in no way owned by Fairchild or any of their possible sensor partners. To write that history, I would need access to BMD’s internal company files, which is the only way for me to publish an article on that topic. That’s the way these things work. And, yes, there are different standards for what goes into a peer-reviewed academic paper and what I write on here as a Blackmagic camera user and former post-production expert with “opinions” about the quality of BMD’s cameras. As both a peer reviewer and writer of scholarly papers on film history and film technology, I’m well aware of the differences. It’s very tedious archival work to write on studios or camera companies and I assure you it has almost nothing to do with putting this stuff into Google. I’ve spent more than a decade in various archives going through internal company records to write such original studio histories, including on the history of cinematography and camera technology. “Does he even know what an ASIC is I wonder? Does he know that not all cameras use ASICs? Does he think that using an ASIC is the only way to make a camera, as Sony and RED apparently do, which of course means that Arriflex have no idea how to make a camera or design a their own sensor? Or Panasonic or Canon for that matter.” I never said that all cameras use ASICs. But image processors often use ASICs, as they are “application specific.” There are a few other options to the use of ASICs in image processing, but they are all very similar. More to the point, you are now just splitting semantic hairs, as what Land is saying in that quote is that RED designs its own image processors and sensors, which is largely correct. Here is an FCC teardown of a RED Epic-X that demonstrates exactly what Land is referring to when he claims that RED designs its own ASICs, which in this case are the Image Signal Processors or ISPs: http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/113331-red-epic-x-5k-camera-tear-down/5 Where you can fault Land is that he should have included Panasonic as part of “this market” since they also design their own image processors and sensors for cinema cameras. Canon’s image processors, the DIGIC series, are well known, but they use third-party components. Land should have also used the term “image processor” instead of ASIC, as not everyone who is reading the article will make the connection with this esoteric term. Indeed, I addressed RED’s mastery of the entire sensor and image processor chain on page 6 above, in case anyone was confused as to the function of ASICs. Did you miss that part as well? As I also stated above, of the cinema camera manufacturers only Canon, Panasonic, and Sony can do everything from sensor design to fabrication in-house, since these companies have their own plants. Samsung also has sensor fabrication plants, but it doesn’t make cinema cameras. Toshiba used to make sensors as well, but recently sold its plants to Sony. Is there currently a difference between BMD and the other cinema camera manufacturers when it comes to expertise in camera design? Based on the available evidence on patents, it would appear so. ARRI, Sony, Canon, and RED all have numerous patents relating to their cameras. We can list them here and their significance if you think that would help. BMD’s camera patents are perhaps forthcoming, as I demonstrated above. BMD’s camera division is also very new and it will take them a few years to file patents and have those approved. It can be a long process. I’m not an advocate for any company (well, except for BMD—see below) and I am mostly brand agnostic. You took an off-the-cuff remark that was really an aside and tried to turn it into the basis of a whole tirade, just because someone dared to criticize BMD’s quality control or its experience in designing cameras. You also came on this thread and forum out of the blue, like Superman coming out of the sky to rescue a stranded cat. Once here, you launched into a personal attack on me (“idiot,” “doesn’t know sh**”). Such a hostile approach doesn’t do you or me any favors (and, I admit, I also went over the line in response to your attack by using the “snake oil merchant” moniker: that was uncalled for on my part and I apologize). You are obviously very passionate about BMD as someone who has contributed input to their products and you have done your best to ensure their success. Moreover, Blackmagic’s continued innovation can actually be important for independents everywhere. It has already forced Sony and RED to respond by offering more and more features at lower prices. They have my respect in this regard, as was already noted above. But next time when you are quoting me, you might want to look at all those instances where I defended Blackmagic for all the good things they have done, including what I wrote here before you even posted on this thread. Never mind all the times I’ve introduced students to BMD cameras and told them about the amazing price/value of BMD RAW cameras for their first investment during or after film school. Yes, I’m also guilty of “peddling” BMD’s products but I always lay out the advantages and the disadvantages whenever possible. “It's very usual for camera manufacturers to partner with companies making sensors to also spin off the development costs to amortise them for other uses. I bet you can't name me another sensor company that has done this after developing a sensor that never came to market.” There are likely a few candidates. Hmm . . . is there multiple-choice on this exam, Professor Brawley? Based on that description alone, I would have to go with the Kodak CCD sensor that was adapted for the Ikonoskop and later the Digital Bolex. Okay, sorry for the length, but there was a lot of material. Let’s just try to keep things civil and respectful from now on.

Speaking of "sideways arguments," John, instead of addressing the issue of whether BMD contracted Fairchild to design the 4.6K sensor, you have resorted to another sideways debate on whether I know what ASICs are and how that relates to sensor and camera design. You then suggest that I consulted Google when forming my arguments and that I’m otherwise an “idiot” for accusing BMD for not designing their own sensor. If BMD designed the sensor instead of hiring Fairchild, where are BMD’s patents and why does Fairchild hold the rights to a sensor with the exact same specs and release date? It is easy to disprove your claims by demanding the patent documents or looking at the facts. But you don’t like facts. You like to hurl insults and use distraction and straw man arguments (e.g., ASICs), which simply display a lack of reason, logic and tact. It is also too easy to question your neutrality and credibility on the issue when you are so closely associated with BMD. But let me also give you some advice as you have no idea who you’re talking with here. You’re simply out of your depth on this one. I choose to remain anonymous here because people in my line of work don’t generally come on camera forums. In fact, they almost never do. That’s not because we have no expertise on film technology, cameras, film history, or the film industry. Rather, the opposite extreme is true. You might say that I’m a little bit of a “Professor” or “Dr.” on these things. Do you know what happens when you put my real name (hint: it's not "Kino”) into a Google search? As a matter of fact, aside from my industry credits from the 1990s and 2000s, you get a list of peer-reviewed academic publications on the film industry and the history of film technology and cinematography. Even your local university library contains academic journals with articles I've written on several of these topics. You might want to read some of those academic film journals before throwing the material back into my face on film cameras or technology. In short, I don't cite Google, but Google cites me and sells my book on the Hollywood studio system on Google Play. It's also available on Amazon.com and Amazon.com.au for your convenience as well as on iTunes, Barnes and Noble and the rest, not to mention from numerous university libraries and hardcover distributors around the world. Now I suggest to you that you conduct yourself with respect towards others online, no matter who they are or how you may agree or disagree with them. And this is not about insulting people you don’t know or who unbeknownst to you may have doctorates in film or media or years of experience and accumulated knowledge, but simply a matter of decency towards all the forum participants. And, please, cut out the snake oil merchant show. If you want to reduce yourself to peddling camera products on these forums, at least provide an ethics statement so people know what your exact relationship is to BMD. It's just a sad spectacle, in any case.

Land claims that RED is the only cinema camera company other than Sony that designs its own sensors and ASICs (integrated circuits). He makes no claims about where the sensors are fabricated. Of the cinema camera manufacturers, only Sony, Canon and Panasonic have their own sensor fabrication plants and have the potential to do everything in-house. Like BMD, RED would have to "outsource" the fabrication itself, which involves many steps, including the wafers from a semiconductor plant and the various other components that are then attached. The finished sensor just doesn't come from one place or even one factory. It's an elaborate process that is almost always outsourced for companies like RED and BMD. The difference is that RED designs their own sensors and boards and those are exclusive to them. You can't buy off-the-shelf versions of the Dragon sensor made by Fairchild or any other semiconductor company. It appears that BMD has to involve third parties like Fairchild in sensor design, suggesting that they don't have the same mastery that RED currently has. This lack of expertise may lead to problems such as we have seen with magenta-gate, considering how the sensor and its integration into the surrounding circuitry and the larger image processing chain would have to be designed with absolute precision. Perhaps they will get there eventually, such that they will have custom designed sensors that are exclusive to their products and not sold simultaneously as off-the-shelf sensors as with the Fairchild/BMD 4.6K. At that point, I would expect better quality control, which was the entire basis of our discussion. And, yes, it is entirely possible that BMD contracted Fairchild for the 4.6K with an arrangement to create two versions of the sensor: one for BMD and one off-the-shelf version. But the fact that they have to go to Fairchild would be proof that they did not design the 4.6K sensor on their own and do not hold the exclusive license or the patents involved.

From the Kinefinity owners I've read about or heard from, it seems that they have excellent customer service. They are also an honest company and tell their customers the truth, which is a great relief after what has happened with that other budget camera manufacturer. Distribution issues aside, I have much more faith in Kinefinity than any other camera manufacturer in that price range and I'm sure the 5K version will be along shortly. The Apple ProRes certification is also really difficult to obtain, so maybe they will push that to a future firmware update. Of course, everyone has to make a decision that meets his or her needs, budget, and production time constraints. If you require a camera right away, well then the Terra 5K is obviously not for you. In my case, I'm sitting on the Scarlet-W order/deposit whose allocation date is unknown but likely in early 2017 at the slow rate that Dragon production is going these days. This is despite the fact that I ordered months ago. In which case, the Terra 5K is not a bad proposition, considering that the only other (new) 5K camera in this market is going to require the same kind of waiting period or more if you ordered one today.

Yes, the 5K has improved rolling shutter over the 6K, which is exactly the same as the Kinemax 6K. I corrected the sentence above in case it was vague or unclear.

The Kinefinity rep at NAB claimed that the Terra 5K version will have a "dual gain" sensor (for an expanded DR) as well as an improved rolling shutter mode in contrast with the 6K, which has the same specs as the Kinemax 6K. He made it very clear that the 6K version will perform exactly the same as the existing Kinemax 6K: A lot of the Kinemax shooters seem to love the golden 3K that is for sure. Here is a very useful review of the Kinemax 6K by someone who owns and operates the camera for a living: To me, 5K is absolutely the perfect resolution as 6K simply results in little visual improvement at the price of much larger file sizes and storage requirements. Just ask some of the RED Dragon shooters. Meanwhile, the improvements with DR and rolling shutter performance make the 5K a much better option in those areas. If I can only see some footage soon, I will consider cancelling my Scarlet-W order and moving to the Terra 5K. It has an amazing feature set and is almost too good to be true.

Nice, but where have I seen this type of modular design before? Recall that the Kinemax 6K has the worst rolling shutter of any cinema camera unless you shoot in the 4K "sport mode," which then defeats the purpose of buying a 6K camera. So I'm not sure I would go for the 6K version. The Terra 5K, however, has the potential to be the best value in this price range, with the switchable global shutter and a 5K ProRes option. 5K also makes a lot more sense than the oddball 4.6K resolution in its competitors the Raven and Ursa Mini when considering the advantages gained in debayering for 4K delivery.

So it's just a coincidence that the BMD 4.6k sensor and the Fairchild 4.6k sensor have exactly the same specs and were released at the same time, right down to the switchable global/rolling shutter we were originally promised in the Ursa Mini? Having said that, there have been no statements from either company on where these sensors came from. BMD reps have claimed in interviews that the company spent $10 million developing the sensor, but that tells us nothing about what its relationship is to the Fairchild sensor that came out in 2015. And no one said you would get the same results if you put the same sensor into different cameras as there are so many other important components that contribute to the camera's image quality. The point was simply that BMD uses off-the-shelf sensor technology in contrast with RED and the electronics conglomerates. In fact, their CEO, Jarred Land, makes this claim about RED's sensors and boards: "We are the only company other than Sony in this market that designs both our own ASICs and sensors, so we can leverage yields in the manufacturing process to accommodate an array of products in different price points that all share the same DNA." http://nofilmschool.com/2016/02/red-scarlet-w-5k-camera-shipping Essentially, you are arguing against his position, which I have simply restated here.

When they announced the C500 with the 1DC in April 2012, the existing 1DX was not marketed as a video camera. The 1DX II is very different and suggests that they want to sell as many as those 4K machines to P. Bloom and his "cats" before coming out with a new C camera. Now whether it's going to be a 1DC II or a C200 is not so clear. What is clear is that the C line is going to have a huge gap between the C100 II ($4K) and the C300 II ($12K) and I'm sure they are eventually going to fill it with a new release perhaps in 2017 or 2018. That is all pending on Canon discontinuing the 1DC ($5K), the C300 ($7K), and the C500 ($7K). So far, they continue to sell all those at retail and I don't see Canon moving quickly to fill in that price bracket. They are conservative and move like snails.

There are two issues here, one of which you have alluded to in your post. BMD's volume is much higher, but its price point is exponentially lower than RED. Consequently, BMD is a victim of its own success when it comes to these online complaints. It's the ultimate paradox: they offer professional grade tools at consumer and prosumer prices. As a result of mass producing what are otherwise high-end tools for professionals, they have to deal with all kinds of people complaining that something doesn't work right. After all, these CDNG RAW files are not easy to work with and are seriously beefy files! RED doesn't face the same online attacks because its products are not mass produced and are aimed mostly at professionals. When problems occur, their users are more likely to get in touch with RED directly than take to the forums.

I'm not sure I agree that RED's problems are "brushed under the rug." At least, that's not what I've seen with recent issues. The Raven problems I've listed here, in addition to a few others (e.g., overheating, black shading, stuck pixels), are reported and discussed extensively on Reduser. In fact, the black sun problem was apparently fixed through firmware very soon after it was reported. That was a case of RED responding in lighting time to a known problem. As for the OLPF flares that I posted above, there is currently no solution to that as it cannot be fixed through firmware (the Raven has a fixed OLPF unlike the other RED cameras). You just have to avoid shooting at small apertures while aiming at the sun. As we all know, there is no such thing as a perfect camera and you should know the strengths and weaknesses of your system so that you can avoid the latter.

Indeed, a lot of the so-called magenta examples on the forums are suspicious to me. They shoot a white wall at f/16 or some ungodly aperture, push the saturation to over 100% in post, and then complain that there is something wrong with the Ursa 4.6k sensor as opposed to their own test methods! Of course, if you do this with any camera, you are not going to get a good result. It's such a waste of time and it takes attention away from those units that may have real problems. As for the price/performance of BMD cameras, there is no argument from me. They are simply the best in their price range as I've stated above. Where else can you buy a $3K camera with 4K 12 bit RAW, 2 XLRs, an LCD, SDI out, a global shutter, and a Resolve USB key valued at $1000? It's a crazy good deal!

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see much magenta in the same way as some of the more blatant 4.6k examples. There are magenta claims on the 4.6k that are just not credible and require pushing the footage in post to reveal some anomaly, which is otherwise not visible. I'm not talking about that type of suspect activity that would show up any camera! Is there a slight color shift to the Sunday Afternoon image? It does look like it, but I'm not seeing any obvious magenta corners or sides. I know from REDuser that the guy who shot this didn't have any ND or IR filters and shot at very small apertures (f16/f22). Perhaps that has something to do with it. That is also a good reason not to shoot the 4.6k or any camera at extreme apertures, as color shifts will occur. I can't believe some people think it is a good idea to shoot footage at those apertures. The result will never be pretty for color or detail and sharpness.