KnightsFan

That's not my point at all. Ideally a class will provide the best equipment possible. It's just not feasible for many film programs to have enough "higher end" cameras for large classes. Having high fidelity cameras doesn't hinder an instructor from teaching or grading composition and lighting, and narrative if the class covers that.
Meh, it's not that I really care since I'm not getting one of these either way, I just think that there's disproportionate dislike towards EF mounts, compared to what's actually useful. It feels like car snobs talking about how stick shifts are marginally better when most consumers just want to drive from point A to B.

@tupp
By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus. Some lenses don't work at all. Adapters between different manufacturers will always have that risk. RF to EF is much safer, since the same company could make firmware updates on both ends to fix bugs that they missed in testing.
I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses. I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic.
As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it. Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost. How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF? If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing.  The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter.
 
 
Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras.  For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility).  Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts.  Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount.
 
Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations?
 
Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body --  looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance.  Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench.  If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside.
 
Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount.  If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount.
 
However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary.  Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users?
 
Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts.  Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:

There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible.
And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure. The chances of me ever needing a different mount are vanishingly small. Given the option, I'd probably go with a shallower flange for the exclusive reason of boosting to FF, if I ever wanted to. I'm just saying it's not a deal breaker since I'm 99.9% going to using EF anyway.
Yeah true, absolute beginner classes will be handing out fixed lens camcorders, not Blackmagics. But an intro to cinematography class, or anything beyond the "Intro to Film & Video" lecture definitely could. I worked on 4(?) undergrad/grad thesis films in the past 5 years that used blackmagic cameras, and every one of them would have had an easier time with the P6K compared to the 2.5k's and Ursa minis that we did use.
I'm not sure it's useful either to first learn about front filters, batteries, rigs, and rigamarole. It's not necessary to learning the art of filmmaking, and it's certainly something that can be taught if there is an interest. It's like asking screenwriting students to start out with typewriters.

In my opinion, this looks like an absolutely wonderful camera for people who want good images without complex rigs. Most of us here are very tech minded and love adapters, and external rig parts, but I don't think this style camera is aimed at us. No adapters, no front-of-lens ND filters, no rigged batteries (if you use the grip), no external monitor or recorder. I'm sure many schools will be buying these. Simple enough for intro classes, don't need to teach students how to rig it up just to use it, but still makes great images.
IBIS would make it more handheld-friendly in some cases, sure, but would also increase cost. I suspect IBIS requires more engineering, R&D, and QC than any feature Blackmagic has. Add IBIS and the price goes up. For any planned shoot, a gimbal does a better job anyway. Even a wide set of handles with good balance makes up for it.

A decent test would be to shoot a scene in as high quality as you can, like uncompressed raw, and then export a 10 bit and 8 bit version with roughly matching codec and size from that Raw master, and compare those results. If you really want to isolate 10 vs 8 bit, export uncompressed videos with those bit depths. You will most likely see the biggest difference in scenes with smooth gradients in the shadow, particularly with big color grades such as incorrect white balancing, or underexposed scenes.
Maybe I'll do some tests later today.

I did do a quick test. My process was to film a white wall as a 4k Raw clip, which I processed into a 4:2:2 10 bit uncompressed file. I then used ffmpeg to process the uncompressed video into two different clips with the only difference being the bit depth. I used 420 color and crf 16 on both. The two files both ended up roughly the same size. (8 bit is 3,515 KB, 10 bit is 3,127 KB).
I applied a fairly extreme amount of gain, and white balance adjustment equally to all clips. I've included a 100% crop of the uncompressed, 10 bit, and 8 bit files. As you can see, the 8 bit has significantly more ugly banding than the 10 bit.
As you can see, the 8 bit has some nasty banding that is not present in the 10 bit version. This is of course an extreme example to show a relatively small difference, but also it does get perceptually worse in motion rather than still frames. Also note that the PNG files themselves are 8 bit (which would match a typical delivery). The banding you see is from the color grading, as all 3 versions have been quantized down to 8 bit upon rendering.
Moreover, the 10 bit is actually a 10% smaller file. I find 10 bit HEVC is consistently a smaller file size than 8 bit for better quality. The real benefit of more accurate sampling is that it allows more accurate processing throughout, from compression to coloring.
On an related note, both the HEVC clips have lost all the grain and detail compared to uncompressed, which is very unfortunate. However, they are 1% of the file size so I can't complain too much!



 
 
Edit: just look at the file names to see which pic is which

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.

I'm glad you're bringing attention to this, @Andrew Reid, as everyone should at least be aware of who is tracking them and why. I have two Firefox addons, one is uBlock Origin for blocking ads, and the other is Blur for blocking trackers. I can confirm that the EOSHD main site has those two Google trackers (which Blur blocks), and the forum has 0. Blur blocks 9 trackers on SonyAlphaRumors even after opting out of cookies, and 67 ads are blocked.
It's worth pointing out that even if you are okay with being tracked, the richest companies and people in the world make their money off analysis of your data. It's worth considering whether you want to freely donate your data (which YOU pay for with electricity and internet bills!) to the wealthiest people on earth.

New blog post:
https://www.eoshd.com/news/which-camera-websites-spy-on-you-each-site-ranked-for-privacy-and-trackers-in-safari-14/

Z-cam just released a firmware update for all of their cameras.
 
All resolution and frame rate combinations now support ProRes 422 recording (except C8K 2.4:1).
Added 5K 60fps recording on E2-F6.
ProRes proxy records in separate files.
Preview & in camera playback with 3D LUT banding issue fixed.
External SSD recording through USB performance improved.

Now I can do Prores 422 on my S6 at 4k 100fps. That is pretty awesome IMHO. I wish Panasonic would get in on the Prores game. 

Yes.  That is why I said this:
 

@kye isn't talking about undercranking though, right? He's talking about slowing down 24 fps. Speaking of Wong Kar Wai, didn't he use used the effect kye is talking about in Chungking Express? It's a nice effect for some scenes. I feel like it's used more for "impact" in action scenes as opposed to the "cool factor" or "rhythm" of normal slow motion, if that makes any sense.
Long ago on my GH3 I did that trick with the shutter speed, but a lot of digital cameras don't let you lower the shutter below the frame rate. The Z Cam E2 can shoot any integer frame rate from 1 up to the max, and as a bonus the shutter angle setting always behaves correctly. I did some "retro" tests with 16mm crop mode and a few C mount 16mm lenses, in 15 fps.

I think that Wong Kar Wai was kind of the king of undercranking. (Thinking of "As Tears Go By" and "Days of Being Wild" in particular... not sure if he used it up as much n his later works though).
 
Can we undercrank with digital cameras??? I think on my S1 I can shoot at 24fps but then have a shutter speed of 1/12th of a second. Will have to try it. I'm such a sucker for late 80's Hong Kong Cinema. 

I'll give my personal thoughts on each brand, one by one:

Zaxcom:
The Nova is a very new product, I see almost no chance of a "Nova 2.0" coming out this year. 
Deva 24 is a little older than Nova, but also their highest end product which thus has a longer life cycle, I see it as unlikely there will be a Deva release in 2021. 
Could Zaxcom release a product which is between Nova & Deva 24, or below Nova? I doubt it. 

Sound Devices:
The 8 Series is their latest range, I don't see any chance whatsoever they'll be ending the 8 Series in 2021 and replacing it with something newer. No chance at all. 
Could the 8 Series be added to??? Is there space to squeeze in a product in between an 833/888/Scorpio? Nope, I don't think so. (but then again, I've been surprised before, when the 888 came out in between the 833 & Scorpio)
Could an 8 Series recorder come out below an 833 or above a Scorpio?? Seems unlikely. Scorpio is already their most expensive ever product, and if they released a product below the 833 that might put it too close in price to a MixPre10 underneath it? (but hey, perhaps I might be wrong, and a "Sound Devices 811" will come out? A mini sized 833, with 1x XLR + 3x TA3F all for say just US$2.5K??  I doubt it, but that's an example of how an odd ball product which might come out and surprise us) 
Now as for the MixPre series, all bets are off here, as Sound Devices has been putting out new updates and variants to this at a furious pace in recent years. As while I "guess" they will not bring out any new MixPres in 2021, I'd also not be surprised either if one (or more!) gets announced. 

Sonosax:
Their SX-R4+ has been around for a while, time for an update? But then again,  Sonosax is an extremely small company, and it is to be expected their products will have long life cycles between updates. 

Aaton:
Cantar X3 came out in 2014 (and the Cantar Mini in 2017). You'd think that after 7 years that perhaps an update is coming? But not necessarily, the X3 still seems to be very popular, you never hear of anybody leaving X3 for something "better/newer" and the X3 is still attracting new users to the platform. Plus as a high end premium product (it is after all the most expensive field recorder there is) we can expect that it will have long life for its product cycle. Perhaps next year we might get a hint from Aaton that the "X4" is under development?? Maybe. But I'm not expecting a new field recorder to be released by Aaton this year. 

Nagra:
Nagra Seven came out waaaay back in 2013, surely it is time for an update? Nagra VI is even older from 2008!
But no, won't expect an update to these in 2021. Nagra has more or less abandoned the film market, as they're focused instead now on the high-end audiophile market. Verdict: Nagra is AWOL.

Tascam:
The DR680mk2 & DR701D are now both looking totally outclassed in the budget end of the market once the Zoom F8 came out. 
And the Tascam HS-P82 is from 2009! Was a nice machine, but looooong overdue for an update. 
While I'd like to dream that Tascam will bring out a product in the mid range as an update to the HS-P82, and new low end product which is competitive in the new "Zoom F8 Era", I don't see any sign of life from Tascam that they'll do that. In 2021 I expect Tascam to be AWOL. 

Roland:
Take everything I just said about Tascam, and appeal an extra heavy dose of skepticism and pessimism. 
As nope, I do not at all expect an update from Roland to their R4 Pro or R44. 
Am definitely expecting Roland to be AWOL in 2021. 

Fostex:
Take everything I just said about Roland, and times it by ten. 
Fostex will be AWOL in 2021. 

Zoom:
The Zoom F8n came out in 2018, but that's wasn't a major revolutionary update to the F8 but rather a half step refresh midway through the F8's life cycle. 
The Zoom F6 came out in 2019. 
2020 didn't see anything from Zoom in the F Series (unless you count their mini bodypack recorders as part of their "F Series", which technically they are), thus could we see a new product in 2021? I think perhaps so. As these are products which could see a faster refresh cycle, there won't be an F6n in 2021 (as the F6 is the newest), but more likely a replacement to the F8 series.... a "Zoom F9"?? As the F8 is the oldest, and the F8n was a minor refresh. Personally I'd love to at least see a Zoom F4n, an F4 with a few tweaks (such as pro line level outputs, ditching EXH-6 for inputs 5 & 6 instead using 2x TA3F, further UI tweaks, adding bluetooth, USB keyboard without needing FRC-8, etc). But it seems Zoom believes the F6 is the true replacement for the F4 (which is not true at all!), thus I'm not counting on an "F4n" arriving. But something like a "Zoom F8n Pro / F9 / F10 / etc" seems reasonably likely in 2021

RØDE/Deity/Saramonic/BlackmagicDesign/AJA/"Unknown"/Etc:
This heading is for all of those wild card unknowns from companies which have never before made a field recorder for the film industry.
Such as, could 2021 be the year we see a "Chinese F8" field recorder? A low low priced field recorder like the F8, but from a Chinese brand. I doubt it, but we've already seen a couple of Chinese companies dip the edges of their toe into the water with Saramonic (their Saramonic SR-VRM1 & SR-Q2M) & Deity (with their Deity BP-TRX) making mini recorders, thus is a bigger field recorder next? Again, I doubt it, but this is an example of the kind of "surprise" we might see in 2021. Likewise, Blackmagic Design already makes video recorders (with their range of Blackmagic Video Assist recorders), is an audio recorder next? I doubt it, but who knows. Likewise with that other Australian company: RØDE. What might RØDE have planned? They're an audio focused company, will they surprise us with an audio recorder? And while on the topic of BMD, what about their competitor AJA? They've build video recorders too, might AJA surprise us? I doubt it, who knows though. 
As I bet 2021 will have a surprise from us, most likely from some unknown left field company which I haven't even mentioned yet. But of those that I mentioned, perhaps most likely (or rather "least unlikely" is a better way to describe it) would be Rode or Saramonic in my wild guess of an opinion? But if Rode did this, it would be a product unashamedly aimed at the YouTubers/videographers. And the Saranomic field recorder would be dirt cheap yet surely also be a huge steaming heap of sh*t (but perhaps after a few generations would evolve into a "not terrible" product). 
 
 

Thus in brief summary, I'm not expecting many major field recorder announcements in 2021, aside from "a Zoom F10" plus maaaaaaybe a MixPre and quite likely some kind of left field announcement none of us are even expecting. 

We just finished our cinematography reel from some of our favourite images that we have filmed over the past years. Some of the images were captured in the magic of the moment and some were staged with lights etc... SEE YA 2020!
 
 

It will be great if they ever get the Fusion integration right. As it stands now its an endless source of frustration. I'm always waiting for things to cache and the performance is terrible, simple things like Fusion titles cause the whole program to stutter, anything changes above or below a Fusion comp and the caching starts all over again..etc. etc. I think by DR20 they will have it where it needs to be. The rest of the program is already fantastic.

Sadly that is true across the spectrum of various interests, for instance ramps/jwsound are not what they were in their heydays, because of Facebook groups instead. I do worry that a decade or two in the future, none of those Facebook groups will be anywhere near as searchable as eoshd/ramps/jwsound/dvxuser/etc are

Netflix's requirements is not only about having a minimum fidelity to the image, or even making it strictly easier in post, but having a standard workflow. They need to be able to send any one of their productions to any one of their post houses and have it be immediately workable, and that if that team gets shifted to a different project midway through, they can send that half done project to another post house and have them pick it up immediately, no questions. They've decided that TC is a mandatory element to their workflow, from capture through post. To be honest, if I were Netflix, I would specify a lot more of the technical and metadata requirements for my productions just to ensure that every piece is compatible across their entire billion dollar post workflow.
On a much smaller scale we do the same thing at my work (outside the film industry). If the designer for one project is out sick and the client needs a change, other people on the team have to be able to open it up and immediately know how to make the change. We adopt standards, some of them because it's the easiest way, some picked randomly just to make sure we're all on the same page.

We can thank the Netflix gods for making 2020 the year which every cinema camera (even the entry level ones) got released with timecode functionality! 
 
Yup, and I'm a fan of the DR60D! (I momentarily had a DR60Dmk1 before I upgraded to a Sound Devices 552 fairly quickly, and the DR60Dmk2 is even a bit better than the mk1)
I think at that price point, the Tascam DR60D is the best there is. (which is another reason why I'm so mad at Tascam for falling behind the times and not releasing anything in recent years!! As they've shown so much potential in the past)

Yet even so, it is very hard to recommend strongly the Tascam DR60Dmk2, when for only a little bit more money you can get a Zoom F6/F4/F8 or Sound Devices MixPre3/6 which are going to be so so so so sooooo much better. 

It is VERY annoying giving money away when you have the primary function available and one part of the chain is not cooperative. The day has 24 hours, and we all try avoiding wrestling in post. Waveform matching has been good for me but when it lets you down it takes too much time to get a decent result.
The mixpre II is unbelievable after owning a tascam 60d ii. The sound is so clean you cannot believe it.  In a somewhat controlled environment the 24bit mode is all you need really, Its limiters are analogue as well and they work great.  I will test the 32 bit mode during the holidays.For run and gun and small crews that do not necessarily have great sound skills the 32 bit could be useful. I got it a couple of days ago so all my tests have been rudimentary . I believe it is well worth its money although I initially was very mindful of its price . I do not really think an independent film maker needs more and if he does need it, he will have the budget to hire a professional sound engineer anyways..  It is a great bit of kit. Very clean sound . The mke 600 sounds great and it made even the ntg2 sound better than I was used to. Before that, with the Tascam, izotope was my friend..

You're welcome!
You can send a mix from the MixPre to one channel on the XT3, and LTC to the other. Or potentially send a mix from the Mix Pre to the XT3 and HDMI TC the other direction.
I wouldn't say the wrong way. It's better than nothing, but it is a workaround compared to pro cameras that have proper timecode functionality. I would explore the HDMI side and see if that gets you where you need to be, and otherwise take some time to work out the workflow sending TC via audio. Once you have to down, it's not difficult, but there's so little information about it that it is indeed difficult to figure out how to make it work. Most people seem to be either pros and cameras with proper TC, or don't use it at all.

Even if the MixPre can do this, it's not advisable. The purpose of timecode is tgetting that time stamp into metadata, and LTC on an audio track is just a workaround to do it. The only reason you'd want LTC in an audio track is if you A) can't put it in metadata, like on DSLR's, or B) need stretch and warp the audio to compensate for drift during the takes which I haven't ever personally seen anyone do, though it is technically possible.
Wireless LTC is the simplest way in my opinion, but Imake sure you have scratch audio. My last big project with an XT3, I used a 3.5mm splitter, and ran LTC into one audio channel and used a $6 mic for scratch audio in the other. I used wireless lav transmitters to carry LTC from my Zoom F4 to the XT3.
I am not sure if they are compatible, but it seems worth a test to me. See the answer below, jamming the timecode via HDMI might be a good combination of cheap/easy if the drift is acceptable for your work.
If you are writing LTC into an audio track, then yes, it needs to be constantly connected.
If you are jamming the internal clock to an external source, then typically, no, once you disconnect the timecode source then the internal clock takes over from that same place. That means it is subject to drift once they are disconnected, and you would have to be sure that both are in free run. Definitely do some tests with the devices you own to see how much drift you're dealing with, whether the clock stops when the device is turned off, or other model-specific "gotchas."
I'm not sure, I use Resolve exclusively. However it is possible to use 3rd party software to update the file's timecode metadata, which is what I do. I don't know of any ready-made solutions as I wrote the one that I use, but it's a simple ffmpeg command batched across all my files. In my opinion this is a better solution than doing it in your NLE, since the metadata will be ready for use in any software.

I do understand the power of standards. From that point of view I get it that TC is necessary. Thanks for explaining it to me!