Savannah Miller

That's because there's two ways to handle IR Pollution. Hard IR cut or gentle. Gentle gives you an more accurate color at the expense of needing to use IRND filters.  ARRI uses gentle IR cut and so did RED up until their newer cameras. Blackmagic used gentle IR cut but it's a little too weak so you sometimes may see IR cut without even using ND filters.  Blackmagic is either lazy or for whatever reason they haven't bothered to source a better IR filter. Because blackmagic uses a softer IR cut you end up having to screw on your own which defeats the purpose of using smooth IR cut in the first place. A lot of blackmagic's early camera choices were inferior copies of what ARRI was doing and a few of them have stuck throughout all their cameras.

That's because there's two ways to handle IR Pollution. Hard IR cut or gentle. Gentle gives you an more accurate color at the expense of needing to use IRND filters.  ARRI uses gentle IR cut and so did RED up until their newer cameras. Blackmagic used gentle IR cut but it's a little too weak so you sometimes may see IR cut without even using ND filters.  Blackmagic is either lazy or for whatever reason they haven't bothered to source a better IR filter. Because blackmagic uses a softer IR cut you end up having to screw on your own which defeats the purpose of using smooth IR cut in the first place. A lot of blackmagic's early camera choices were inferior copies of what ARRI was doing and a few of them have stuck throughout all their cameras.

Blackmagic's IR pollution is not a color science issue and it's not a complicated issue at all. The IR filter they use over the sensor (it is the same one in all models) does not do a strong IR cutoff so that you get more "pure" color. As you add ND filter and use full spectrum IRND ones, in theory you shouldn't get IR pollution.

The reason you get some is IRND are not perfect and the blackmagic IR cut filter is a touch too weak. Also in most scenarios without ND the IR pollution is fine but under strong hot lighting like tungsten, IR can show up even without ND.  Blackmagic is very stubborn on this issue and it's something you have to accept. They won't change.

One other issue is that the speedbooster manufacturers and others have claimed that the glass that blackmagic uses for their IR cut is too thin and creates focusing and Chromatic aberration problems as well. That's why ever blackmagic camera with a speedbooster has always had to have a custom designed one.

A lot of BM users rock IR cut for every shot or even use internal IR cut replacements like the rawlite OLPF.

Blackmagic's IR pollution is not a color science issue and it's not a complicated issue at all. The IR filter they use over the sensor (it is the same one in all models) does not do a strong IR cutoff so that you get more "pure" color. As you add ND filter and use full spectrum IRND ones, in theory you shouldn't get IR pollution.

The reason you get some is IRND are not perfect and the blackmagic IR cut filter is a touch too weak. Also in most scenarios without ND the IR pollution is fine but under strong hot lighting like tungsten, IR can show up even without ND.  Blackmagic is very stubborn on this issue and it's something you have to accept. They won't change.

One other issue is that the speedbooster manufacturers and others have claimed that the glass that blackmagic uses for their IR cut is too thin and creates focusing and Chromatic aberration problems as well. That's why ever blackmagic camera with a speedbooster has always had to have a custom designed one.

A lot of BM users rock IR cut for every shot or even use internal IR cut replacements like the rawlite OLPF.

Blackmagic's IR pollution is not a color science issue and it's not a complicated issue at all. The IR filter they use over the sensor (it is the same one in all models) does not do a strong IR cutoff so that you get more "pure" color. As you add ND filter and use full spectrum IRND ones, in theory you shouldn't get IR pollution.

The reason you get some is IRND are not perfect and the blackmagic IR cut filter is a touch too weak. Also in most scenarios without ND the IR pollution is fine but under strong hot lighting like tungsten, IR can show up even without ND.  Blackmagic is very stubborn on this issue and it's something you have to accept. They won't change.

One other issue is that the speedbooster manufacturers and others have claimed that the glass that blackmagic uses for their IR cut is too thin and creates focusing and Chromatic aberration problems as well. That's why ever blackmagic camera with a speedbooster has always had to have a custom designed one.

A lot of BM users rock IR cut for every shot or even use internal IR cut replacements like the rawlite OLPF.

Blackmagic's IR pollution is not a color science issue and it's not a complicated issue at all. The IR filter they use over the sensor (it is the same one in all models) does not do a strong IR cutoff so that you get more "pure" color. As you add ND filter and use full spectrum IRND ones, in theory you shouldn't get IR pollution.

The reason you get some is IRND are not perfect and the blackmagic IR cut filter is a touch too weak. Also in most scenarios without ND the IR pollution is fine but under strong hot lighting like tungsten, IR can show up even without ND.  Blackmagic is very stubborn on this issue and it's something you have to accept. They won't change.

One other issue is that the speedbooster manufacturers and others have claimed that the glass that blackmagic uses for their IR cut is too thin and creates focusing and Chromatic aberration problems as well. That's why ever blackmagic camera with a speedbooster has always had to have a custom designed one.

A lot of BM users rock IR cut for every shot or even use internal IR cut replacements like the rawlite OLPF.

I disagree.  Kinefinity released the Terra 4K for $4000+ and then Blackmagic turned around and released a BETTER camera (Pocket 4K) for $1295 with more features and better codecs/color science (Blackmagic RAW future update).  I wouldn't be surprised once the MAVO LF comes out that Blackmagic is already making a better camera with the same sensor for half the cost.  The new BRAW codec makes it possible for Blackmagic to now do higher resolutions such as 6K without the need for heavy storage.  The new sensor profiling they do siginificantly reduces Aliasing/Moire as well as Fixed Pattern noise so they can get a significant dynamic range increase over competitors using the same sensor.  Kinefinity cameras are too expensive for a small manufacturer, because at that price point you can now buy other well-established camera brands like RED, CANON, and even Blackmagic.
On top of that, Ursa Mini Pro is practically a more usable camera for professional production because it matches much closer to the industry standard Arri Alexa and has a very good color science.  
MAVO LF looks like a really good camera but they need to drop their price to around $8000 to be competitive with other mid-range priced cameras because Kinefinity is not a well-established brand yet.  I would be very worried if Blackmagic is also designing a camera with this sensor.  Since the Ursa Mini Pro used a custom-designed sensor t hat cost millions of dollars to develop, the camera was priced at $6000.  Since this Sony sensor would be "off the shelf," Blackmagic could easily price the camera at $4000 in an UMP body since they don't care about market segmentation. 

I disagree.  Kinefinity released the Terra 4K for $4000+ and then Blackmagic turned around and released a BETTER camera (Pocket 4K) for $1295 with more features and better codecs/color science (Blackmagic RAW future update).  I wouldn't be surprised once the MAVO LF comes out that Blackmagic is already making a better camera with the same sensor for half the cost.  The new BRAW codec makes it possible for Blackmagic to now do higher resolutions such as 6K without the need for heavy storage.  The new sensor profiling they do siginificantly reduces Aliasing/Moire as well as Fixed Pattern noise so they can get a significant dynamic range increase over competitors using the same sensor.  Kinefinity cameras are too expensive for a small manufacturer, because at that price point you can now buy other well-established camera brands like RED, CANON, and even Blackmagic.
On top of that, Ursa Mini Pro is practically a more usable camera for professional production because it matches much closer to the industry standard Arri Alexa and has a very good color science.  
MAVO LF looks like a really good camera but they need to drop their price to around $8000 to be competitive with other mid-range priced cameras because Kinefinity is not a well-established brand yet.  I would be very worried if Blackmagic is also designing a camera with this sensor.  Since the Ursa Mini Pro used a custom-designed sensor t hat cost millions of dollars to develop, the camera was priced at $6000.  Since this Sony sensor would be "off the shelf," Blackmagic could easily price the camera at $4000 in an UMP body since they don't care about market segmentation. 

I don't think that's true.   A lot of blackmagic cameras have exposed holes, but all of the stuff that is vital to the camera (FGPA, Sensor, etc.) are sealed from dust/weather, etc.
 
I do think that the Pocket 4K is a better option for professional cinema use, but for everyday users I don't think Blackmagic cameras are ideal.  Autofocus, IBIS, rotating screen, etc. are huge features that will greatly benefit the average user more than raw will.
 
If another brand of mirrorless camera would incorporate the BRAW codec then there would be very little reason to buy a Blackmagic cam anymore.

I don't think that's true.   A lot of blackmagic cameras have exposed holes, but all of the stuff that is vital to the camera (FGPA, Sensor, etc.) are sealed from dust/weather, etc.
 
I do think that the Pocket 4K is a better option for professional cinema use, but for everyday users I don't think Blackmagic cameras are ideal.  Autofocus, IBIS, rotating screen, etc. are huge features that will greatly benefit the average user more than raw will.
 
If another brand of mirrorless camera would incorporate the BRAW codec then there would be very little reason to buy a Blackmagic cam anymore.

I don't think that's true.   A lot of blackmagic cameras have exposed holes, but all of the stuff that is vital to the camera (FGPA, Sensor, etc.) are sealed from dust/weather, etc.
 
I do think that the Pocket 4K is a better option for professional cinema use, but for everyday users I don't think Blackmagic cameras are ideal.  Autofocus, IBIS, rotating screen, etc. are huge features that will greatly benefit the average user more than raw will.
 
If another brand of mirrorless camera would incorporate the BRAW codec then there would be very little reason to buy a Blackmagic cam anymore.

That logic is wrong.  It's more like you expected a synth but you are getting a synth with more controls.  You can still make the familiar sounds of the old synth but it's a better starting place if you don't want a specifically defined "sound."

I think the color is just more accurate with the new Pocket 4K.  In the past the footage had more of a look to it, and now the color is better so you have to do that yourself.  Putting a heavy "look" on something makes it hard to judge the performance of the camera, so Blackmagic chose the route of grading it themselves and making sure it accurately represented the camera.
 
A lot of the Kinefinity Terra footage (especially Phillip Bloom's stuff) is hard to judge the color science of the camera due to haphazard and heavy grading.  I have no idea if Kinefinity cameras produce nice images because all of the graded material is very artistic.

LP-E6 canon battery is almost the same size as Panasonic batteries, but not sure if it has the same juice.  

Blackmagic cameras use FGPA which is a less optimized board compared to an ASIC and requires more power.  It has an advantage of shorter production cycles especially in lower volume cameras because you can easily make last-minute adjustments if you want to add more features.  ASICs is very locked in as they are expensive to manufacture.
They use solid state peltier cooling to handle the heat distribution and that uses a lot of power.  I don't know if other cameras use that but it does make a difference.
I don't think type of compression plays a big part in heat, it's mainly the sensor.
 
 
Blackmagic is not very experienced in building DSLR form-factor cameras yet, in what is only their second attempt they produced a camera at half the price of the GH5s that will likely be a serious rival in image quality.  I think Blackmagic made the right compromises to get it at the price it is.

LP-E6 canon battery is almost the same size as Panasonic batteries, but not sure if it has the same juice.  

Blackmagic cameras use FGPA which is a less optimized board compared to an ASIC and requires more power.  It has an advantage of shorter production cycles especially in lower volume cameras because you can easily make last-minute adjustments if you want to add more features.  ASICs is very locked in as they are expensive to manufacture.
They use solid state peltier cooling to handle the heat distribution and that uses a lot of power.  I don't know if other cameras use that but it does make a difference.
I don't think type of compression plays a big part in heat, it's mainly the sensor.
 
 
Blackmagic is not very experienced in building DSLR form-factor cameras yet, in what is only their second attempt they produced a camera at half the price of the GH5s that will likely be a serious rival in image quality.  I think Blackmagic made the right compromises to get it at the price it is.

LP-E6 canon battery is almost the same size as Panasonic batteries, but not sure if it has the same juice.  

Blackmagic cameras use FGPA which is a less optimized board compared to an ASIC and requires more power.  It has an advantage of shorter production cycles especially in lower volume cameras because you can easily make last-minute adjustments if you want to add more features.  ASICs is very locked in as they are expensive to manufacture.
They use solid state peltier cooling to handle the heat distribution and that uses a lot of power.  I don't know if other cameras use that but it does make a difference.
I don't think type of compression plays a big part in heat, it's mainly the sensor.
 
 
Blackmagic is not very experienced in building DSLR form-factor cameras yet, in what is only their second attempt they produced a camera at half the price of the GH5s that will likely be a serious rival in image quality.  I think Blackmagic made the right compromises to get it at the price it is.

LP-E6 canon battery is almost the same size as Panasonic batteries, but not sure if it has the same juice.  

Blackmagic cameras use FGPA which is a less optimized board compared to an ASIC and requires more power.  It has an advantage of shorter production cycles especially in lower volume cameras because you can easily make last-minute adjustments if you want to add more features.  ASICs is very locked in as they are expensive to manufacture.
They use solid state peltier cooling to handle the heat distribution and that uses a lot of power.  I don't know if other cameras use that but it does make a difference.
I don't think type of compression plays a big part in heat, it's mainly the sensor.
 
 
Blackmagic is not very experienced in building DSLR form-factor cameras yet, in what is only their second attempt they produced a camera at half the price of the GH5s that will likely be a serious rival in image quality.  I think Blackmagic made the right compromises to get it at the price it is.

Thanks for the "welcomes".
I (and others at BMD) have been following this thread (and threads elsewhere) so we're aware of what people are discussing and asking but in general we don't/can't comment on a lot of things before release sorry.
We appreciate the support and are working hard to deliver the best we can offer you all.

Yeah but the idea that they will match completely just because they're gen4 is probably not true.  RED cameras cost 10x more than Blackmagic and have higher sensor rejection rates, yet their cameras do not match.

Yeah but the idea that they will match completely just because they're gen4 is probably not true.  RED cameras cost 10x more than Blackmagic and have higher sensor rejection rates, yet their cameras do not match.

What I'm saying is there's a reason people shoot everything on the Alexa.  It really is a better camera.

To be fair if you emailed kinefinity and told them you were interested in shooting a major network TV on their cameras they would give you 8 bodies and all the support in the world.

C200 has "15 stops" of dynamic range but that's a manufacturer claim.  Blackmagic at least in my view is a bit more realistic with their dynamic range claims and Ursa Mini has about a 1 stop advantage over the c200.
Like JB mentioned.  No prores, no timecode, etc.  It's like canon knew exactly what to do to make this camera not useful to professional shooters and crews so that you'll buy their better cameras..
Ursa Mini Pro has minor compromises, but it clearly shows the difference between an affordable camera built with market-segmentation in mind and a camera that is built with no limitations.

C200 is a crippled camera.  No timecode, no Prores, only a "Raw Lite" codec that varies between 12 and 10-bit depending on framerates.  Canon again did their sneaky business to remove any features that would prevent higher-end clients from ever wanting to use the camera.  For single shooters it's not a bad camera.
Dynamic range of the C200 is less than the Blackmagic too.

So that guy claiming to shoot at 400 ISO gives you a cleaner more malleable image.  Yes, although he doesn't do a good job of explaining WHY it gives you a cleaner and more malleable image.

The Ursa Mini Pro is always running at 800 ISO and that's the only real ISO setting.  Period.  All of the other ISO settings are "fake" similar to the extended ISO ranges found on a lot of dslr cameras.  So, when you expose for 400 ISO it's the equivalent of overexposing by 1 stop at 800 ISO and pushing it down in the grade.  If you convert your prores film gamut into xyz linear (bypassing the bias of the log curve) and gain the image, you get the same result as changing exposure/iso in the raw controls.  When you do that, you get 1 extra stop of shadow detail due to overexposing and you lose one in the highlights.  Also one of the side effects of exposing for 400 ISO is that you can push the image up to 1 stop in post and still get the no significant increase in noise level because you would now be back at the native ISO of 800.  So in run/gun scenarios, 400ISO gives you a safety net to accidentally underexpose by up to 1 stop with no consequences.  It's a lot harder to tell if an image is underexposed rather than overexposed and clearly clipped.