Kino

Ed, you can watch the C500 in action in the current IMAX film, A Beautiful Planet, which was shot entirely on the C500 (and the 1DC for time-lapse):
There is also an interesting article in American Cinematographer on why they chose the C500's uncompressed 4K RAW over other cinema cameras that they tested:
http://www.theasc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AC-A-Beautiful-Planet.pdf

Ed, you can watch the C500 in action in the current IMAX film, A Beautiful Planet, which was shot entirely on the C500 (and the 1DC for time-lapse):
There is also an interesting article in American Cinematographer on why they chose the C500's uncompressed 4K RAW over other cinema cameras that they tested:
http://www.theasc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AC-A-Beautiful-Planet.pdf

Yes, ISO and WB are set or "baked-in" to a certain degree, as seen in Canon's white paper: 

Of course, WB can be easily manipulated in the RMF files in post as with any RAW format. As for ISO, like the Panasonic Varicam, the C500 employs analog gain control (as Policar already mentioned on page one of the thread). Combined with its noise performance, this allows for outstanding low-light abilities for a cinema camera.
I'm not here to defend Canon's, Sony's, RED's or any other manufacturer's definition of "RAW." I would only point out that Canon's Cinema RAW offers some unique features:

Compared with conventional approaches, this image processing chain results in improvements and advantages in the following areas relevant to the four color data streams: color separation, demosaicing, resolution, and anti-aliasing. This is why some have noted that the C500's 4K resolves a very high level of detail per pixel (something that is also true of the C300 II).
Moreover, like ARRIRAW, Canon Cinema RAW reaches an insanely high data rate. In fact, a Canon RMF file delivers more data per frame (over 11 MB) than almost any other 4K RAW format with the exception of ARRIRAW in open gate, which matches Canon’s data rate of 11 MB per frame, but at a lower resolution than 4K.
For these reasons, and despite fixing ISO at the time of shooting, Canon RAW is a formidable format that was apparently designed as the antithesis to Redcode, which has relatively low data rates, no analog gain, poor ISO/noise performance, and high compression in the green color channels. In this way, you can think of Canon RAW as diametrically opposed to Redcode. The latter has its own advantages of course in terms of reducing storage and unlocking 5K, 6K and 8K recording in a very portable camera package and easily manageable RAW format for editing. Nevertheless, I would say that RED has a lot more to answer for than Canon when it comes to defining its format as "RAW," considering how much sensor data is discarded in Redcode compression.
 

I do not see the C500 support as particularly high on the Atomos agenda. I could be wrong, but the Inferno is simply the wrong device for capturing C500 footage in all its different output modes, even with the two SDI connectors. They may get there someday, but it's a huge gamble to assume that everything is coming in future upgrades. DVXuser is one place to look for how the C500 works or doesn't work with Atomos recorders. The Odyssey may be a bitter pill for some, but it is one you have to take to work with the C500.
The extra fee for the RAW license is unfortunate, I agree. Of course, without the license you can still shoot the camera in 4K ProRes (up to 30p) and 2K 12 bit RGB 4:4:4, which upscales incredibly well to 4K as both are derived from the same 4 x 2K lattices I mentioned above. Compare 4K and 2K (here only at 10 bit) starting at 1:57 in this test by Hurlbut:
Aside from the Human Voice trailer I linked above, here are some other examples of 2K 12 bit RGB 4:4:4 (shown in HD without upscaling):
 
 
 
There are many more of those lens tests from Cooke Optics using the C500's 2K RGB mode on Vimeo. Cooke also has some slow motion examples shot in 60fps (10 bit RGB) and 120fps (10 bit YCC) and recorded on the Codex.
The Odyssey for its part records onto Samsung 850 EVO drives that cost $320 for 1TB or you can go for the Samsung 850 PRO 1TB at $420 (or any of the 850 Pro line that are smaller and cheaper). That will give you one hour of 4K RAW at 24p, 2.5 hours of 4K ProRes 4:2:2 HQ, or 5.5 hours of 4K ProRes 4:2:2 LT. In terms of cost per GB, I would say that is a very competitive price when compared with RED mini-mags or CF 2.0 cards, for example. You can also take your SSD, stick it into a drive bay, and start editing right away.
I do agree that the battery solution is not ideal, but the optional battery adapter on the back works with Canon C300/C500 batteries and gives you around 1.5 to 2 hours of continuous recording from everything I have read. It's a much lighter solution than attaching a V-lock on rails. You would be carrying the same battery that the camera uses, so I think it is an ideal setup in that sense. You can also mount the recorder to the camera in numerous ways depending on if you want to go with rails or not.

While most people associate the C500 with famous American DPs like Hurlbut or Jeff Cronenweth, we should not forget to mention the C500 work shot by CML founder Geoff Boyle, BSC:
It's impressive to read that this was all shot with EF glass. Here are some of Boyle's lens tests using the C500:
http://www.cinematography.net/CML-CMIR-Lens-Tests.html
His over and under exposure results as part of the 2015 CML camera tests are also available:
http://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/C500-uwe-2015.html
There is a wealth of useful info there on the camera, especially with regard to the differences in overexposure when dealing with tungsten vs. daylight. Unfortunately, the 5,000 ISO test of the two low-light champs, the C500 and the Varicam, is no longer available through the online link.

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!

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 don't think anyone is surprised. Anyone, whether pro or beginner, will produce better looking color with the Canon.
Here's a couple stills from a recent project. Not exactly beauty lighting like above, but the first interview I lit with 1x1 panel through a 5/1 and a handheld battery LED for backlight. The second is natural light. Super quick setup, works for doc work. I would imagine ARRIs through some diffusion in a studio setting will produce skin like the ones above.
I'm actually editing some F5 footage right now. The C300 looks better in worse lighting. You have to try harder to get a better image with the sony cameras, whether that be in lighting/color correct etc. The canon nails it. 

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

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.

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.

The 1D cameras are not mass produced and sold in the millions like iPhones or iPads. 1D cameras are marketed to photo and video professionals and "prosumers" with sales only in the thousands. One can and should have different expectations about consumer products that retail for $800 and professional products that retail for $8000 and come with a greater level of customer support. With so much competition in the $5000-10,000 4K video camera sector, Canon has really fallen behind and lost many customers to Sony, BMD, and even RED.
But, of course, as I mentioned Canon doesn't care about what we want or expect. They are a massive electronics conglomerate with a bottom line to meet for every quarter and very conservative ideas about market segmentation and product development. It they thought that providing affordable 4K cameras with the necessary features was part of that they would have already brought such cameras to market and not a C300 II for $16K.

"21st century"? Actually these trends started decades ago. And no one is saying Apple doesn't do it, but Sony and Canon were around long before Apple. At least with the iPhone, the most expensive and latest model, the 6S Plus, has all the best features. Not so with Canon and Sony on the 1DX II and A7SII, respectively, so the comparison doesn't hold in this case. Apple doesn't make you buy two different versions of the same thing just to have the different features and iPhones don't cost $6,000-8,000.
As for my suggestion to wait for the 1DC II as the perfect marriage of the two 1D lines, this was intended for a forum member who doesn't like either the 1DC or the 1DX II.
Personally, I would be very happy to shoot with the 1DC just as it is today. In fact, I was disappointed when Canon announced a higher resolution for the new 1DX II sensor since it meant a reduction in the size of the photosites and an accompanying loss in signal-to-noise performance on the new generation. Perhaps this is why the test above showed more noise in the 1DX II image. While technologically more advanced in terms of video features (DPAF, 4K60p), the 1DX II is a downgrade from the 1DC in terms of DR, color gamut (in addition to greater DR, C-Log also provides a wider and richer color gamut for grading), and noise performance. It's a shame that Canon made these compromises with the 1DX II just to protect the Cinema EOS line.

Surely, Sony isn't "crazy enough" to sell old sensor technology (A7SII) at almost the same price as newer and much better sensor technology (A7RII)? But, yes, they are just that "crazy" because they have mastered the art of incremental product advancement. The A7RII has internal 4K, BSI, and IBIS, all of which was missing on the A7S. This newer model, the A7SII, has S-Log3, which the A7RII is lacking, thus providing a slight advantage to the newer camera in one particular area even though the A7RII offers a much higher resolution and is far more advanced in terms of sensor tech (sound familiar?). 
Canon has the exact same strategy here with the 1DC and 1DX lines, except that, unlike Sony, Canon charges a premium for everything (e.g., $16K for the C300 II vs. $10K for a Sony FS7/XDCA combo with the same features). They will alternate which camera gets the latest technological advancement so as to get you to buy the next one, while holding out some features to make the last one still relevant.
So, yes, the Japanese electronic conglomerates are crazy cats who do whatever they can to get you to buy as many models of a product that are available because each one is lacking what the other provides or what the next version will provide.

The lower production cost on the 1DX II enables a much cheaper 1DC II priced closer to the 1DX II. That is the "game changer" for the 1DC line. They are sister cameras after all and everything the 1DC II would need from a hardware perspective is already in the 1DX II body, with its amazing heat management, processing power, and recording data rate.
You do realize that your 1DX II is capable of recording at the same data rate (100 MB/s) as the RED Raven and Scarlet-W cameras. That is simply incredible for a DSLR. I cannot imagine Canon would give up the chance for a 1DC II with everything that can be done with the technical masterpiece that is the 1DX II platform.
The only major differences between the cameras will be C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and Cinema EOS support. They could possibly add a higher bit depth but I doubt it for the reasons I stated above. The unlimited recording time also might not be possible because of the EU taxes and the need to keep the price as low as possible.
As for my current camera, the BMPC-4K, I don't like it at all. The rig that is required to provide power is cumbersome and doesn't play nicely with my equipment, including the slider, the stabilizer, and everything else. The rear screen is also useless here in the California sun so you need to add monitoring as well. Moreover, the RAW CinemaDNG files are far too massive at 12 GB/minute and very difficult to grade and edit with on most computers. The 1DC would solve all my problems in terms of portability, ease of use for production and post-production, and weather sealing for dusty or wet environments.

I expect Canon to keep the 1DC model around and to release updates just like any other camera model that they currently have in production. Of course, Canon may want to discontinue the 1DC entirely and bring out a C200/C100 III with internal 4K so as to compete more effectively with the Sony FS7 in that $8,000 price range. That is certainly possible.
The 1DC II is pure speculation at this point, but seems likely to me based on the several important factors: 
1) intentionally withheld cinema features on the 1DX II
2) lower production/retail cost on the 1DX II ($6,000) vs. the original 1DC ($12,000)
3) product cycle extension: as the 1DX II sales dry up Canon will look to maximize yields on the 1DX II platform
4) incremental feature advancement: 1DX > 1DC > 1DX II > 1DC II
As for 10 bit internal, that may require a fan, which is not really possible on these weather-sealed bodies. They would also have to add another codec or redesign MJPEG using the new JPEG 9 standard, which allows for up to 12 bit processing. That may be too much to ask from Canon. If we do see a 1DC II, it will likely be identical to the 1DX II to keep the costs down, but it will add those missing cinema features.

Wholly color gamut Batman! Whenever someone complains about 8 bit color, point them to 01:45-02:40 of this video.
Only Canon can make 8 bit color look more rich and accurate than 12 bit color from competing cameras. Bravo to the filmmaker as well as the engineers behind this camera.

I agree that in the footage we have seen thus far, the 1DX II has much more contrast and has nowhere near the same highlight roll-off as the 1DC. At the end of the day, I don't care about Xyla tests as much so I have no idea why the DR is exactly the same here: the 1DC just has a very different and much more appealing look to me. As you suggest, the results may be due to a flawed testing methodology.
I just want to see 1DX II footage that demonstrates the DR results in this Cinema5d test because I'm not seeing it in the 1DX II videos. Perhaps it has to do with the way the DR is distributed in the 1DX II since it does not have the same DR as the 1DC in the highlights. C-Log is also able to access RAW sensor data in a way that Technicolor Cinestyle does not, so there should be a significant difference between them as there is on the 1DC itself, where neutral and Log show about 3-4 stops of DR difference. This difference is especially evident in the highlights:
 

I thought that C-Log must be shot at ISO 400 or above to avoid banding on the 1DC. ISO 800 was probably chosen for what they thought may be the best performance, but it does seem slightly odd considering the fact that they had to use different apertures. As for the rolling shutter, they claim the 1DX II achieves an incredible number: 14ms.
I do agree that the Xyla test is questionable considering everything we have seen from these two cameras. It also does not demonstrate the highlight roll-off of the cameras and is more informative for what is going on in the shadows (where C-Log is also preserving more color information based on other tests we have discussed here). And, yes, of course, Cinestyle is no real substitute for C-Log on the 1DC for reasons I have already stated (no access to RAW sensor data like C-Log).
However, we should also not forget that filmmakers like Abraham Joffe have shot beautiful footage on the 1DC without using C-Log:
In fact, Joffe has stated that he prefers shooting the 1DC using the picture profile settings and not C-Log:
http://www.untitledfilms.com.au/2013/11/shoot-edit-deliver-4k-now/
You can check out all his 1DC films including the National Geographic TV series, Tales By Light, to get an idea of what is possible outside of C-Log:
 
Now if I owned a 1DC, I'm sure I would use C-Log for most situations, but it doesn't mean that great results are not possible without it or that it is ideal for every lighting condition. C-Log or not, the 1DC is just a magical camera.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.