Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Black Magic Design Cinema Camera - update

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Rasberry said:
The BMCC is repackaging multiple technologies that BMD already had in house. Off the shelf sensor and hardware for the most part. Must say the image quality is looking pretty good for 2k/1080p at the price of a DSLR. From an interview the development time for the BMCC is more like three years.

I think the Digital Bolex will be a more practical and flexible all around field camera for a bit more money.

Everything about Scarlet was pretty much ground up custom hardware from sensor to ASICS. The camera was working, the lens killed it as it would not hold focus on zoom according to Jarred. I would have been very happy with a simple PL mount version.
Click to expand...

David, you might have seen this - http://nikitapavlov.com/blog/digital-bolex-d16-vs-blackmagic-cinema-camera-comparison-table/
 
Joseph Podlesnik said:
David, you might have seen this - http://nikitapavlov.com/blog/digital-bolex-d16-vs-blackmagic-cinema-camera-comparison-table/
Click to expand...

Yep. For me the Bolex is a more practical choice as I have a cabinet full of vintage 16mm cine glass along with still lenses, Minolta Rokkors. I can use them all on the Bolex with different mounts and adapters.
This is a creative hobby cam for me. Don't need the video codecs, I'm interested in shooting and experimenting with raw footage. Multiple formats and frame rates up to 90fps.
Also looking forward to hand cranking footage with the nifty crank feature.
For handheld shooting without adding an external rig the handle with record trigger is a decent ergonomic option. I have shot old Bell and Howells and Bolexes with similar setup. One hand for the camera, one for the lens Nice minimalist rig.
 
For me it's a love/hate situation.

I love the concept and hate that it will inevitably hurt Scarlet rental market even being the plastic toy with bad ergonoimics as it is.
 
Rejoice fanboys! Getting the others to start using a RAW workflow is good for RED ultimately.
 
I really struggle with these inbetween chip sizes!!

You have got to have a really strong alternative proposition to deviate (i supose theirs is simply the price) . If the BMs chip was slighly smaller and had a PL option it would have become home for the 10000s of s16 lenses out there... As it is not sure why I'd even look at it..

maybe it is just me?
 
Michael Lindsay said:
I really struggle with these inbetween chip sizes!!

You have got to have a really strong alternative proposition to deviate (i supose theirs is simply the price) . If the BMs chip was slighly smaller and had a PL option it would have become home for the 10000s of s16 lenses out there... As it is not sure why I'd even look at it..

maybe it is just me?
Click to expand...

Right on the money IMO. BMCC is neither fish nor fowl. Smallish sensor but without the advantages of fast compact optics, especially fast broad range zooms, like a true S16 or 16mm format .
 
I for one have been looking into this as well. I am a huge fan of Red and bought into the 3K for 3K. Even when the 3K price jumped to around 6K I was willing to go all in with Red. Neither of those cameras ever came to be, not because of Red not wanting to release them. But let's remember the earthquake and nuclear disaster that happened in Japan. I still would like to buy a Scarlet but at just under 16K it is simply out of my price range for the time being. It seems now there is a camera that is "almost" available that meets the promise of 3K, or "2.5K" for 3K. It doesn't have the same high frame rates as Red, Arri, Phantom and the like, but it is good for those of us in the market that have that one project and wants to shoot it with the same high dynamic range in a raw format as the "BIG BOYS."
 
I feel like shooting RAW with the BMC is being thrown around too whimsically. Its a terabyte an hour for uncompressed RAW. Are people really gonna deal with those file sizes? Everybody is going to shoot 220mb baked log.
 
Ryan Emanuel said:
I feel like shooting RAW with the BMC is being thrown around too whimsically. Its a terabyte an hour for uncompressed RAW. Are people really gonna deal with those file sizes? Everybody is going to shoot 220mb baked log.
Click to expand...

I am looking at my pocket and I can deal with a 12-15TB raid as opposed to a $25000 camera package. So I am much more comfortable with the large file sizes when looking at the money I would have to spend on the camera system. I am planning for a VERY LOW BUDGET production I am funding myself. So it is a no-brainer for me. My entire budget would be around 10K. So the camera would also be an investment for other projects.
 
Joe G. said:
"As it is not sure why I'd even look at it.."

Because it has higher dynamic range than your scarlet and/or epic without HDRx on. Because it's undeniably a value for the money, and because the images look very filmic. That's quite enough for me to "even look at it."
Click to expand...

It has higher dynamic range? I thought Scarlet/Epic was 13.5 and BM was 13.
 
Easy fix : transcode the RAW DNG files directly from SSD to Cineform RAW .movs at speeds faster than real time, saving disk space by a factor of 5 .
Choose any one of five debayer methods to edit in real time without rocket card.

I have Scarlets, but am eager to test this cheap camera as well.

Ryan Emanuel said:
I feel like shooting RAW with the BMC is being thrown around too whimsically. Its a terabyte an hour for uncompressed RAW. Are people really gonna deal with those file sizes? Everybody is going to shoot 220mb baked log.
Click to expand...
 
Ryan Emanuel said:
I feel like shooting RAW with the BMC is being thrown around too whimsically. Its a terabyte an hour for uncompressed RAW. Are people really gonna deal with those file sizes? Everybody is going to shoot 220mb baked log.
Click to expand...

That's a $100 hard drive for backup these days. Cheap media.
 
We will see how it stands up to other digital cinema cameras when it has some features/commercials backing it up. Until then we will have to deal with hordes of people that shoot nothing but BMC tests and VS. videos posted all over my favorite websites. I just spent $1,200 on an external raid drive for a film I'm working on. Apparently that would hold one days footage before I had to get another drive, and it seems like a dumb move to transcode and dump the original files. Keeping source files on that little guy is going to get expensive....

That said, I'll still probably pick one up. It's too cheap not to check out... Right?
 
I'll bite : Why is it dumb to transcode to Cineform RAW , exactly ?

Drew Baird said:
We will see how it stands up to other digital cinema cameras when it has some features/commercials backing it up. Until then we will have to deal with hordes of people that shoot nothing but BMC tests and VS. videos posted all over my favorite websites. I just spent $1,200 on an external raid drive for a film I'm working on. Apparently that would hold one days footage before I had to get another drive, and it seems like a dumb move to transcode and dump the original files. Keeping source files on that little guy is going to get expensive....

That said, I'll still probably pick one up. It's too cheap not to check out... Right?
Click to expand...
 
Les Dittert said:
I'll bite : Why is it dumb to transcode to Cineform RAW , exactly ?
Click to expand...

That's not the part I consider dumb. Actually, I would do the exact same thing for editing. It's the throwing away of the source files that doesn't catch my fancy. It may be fine for your workflow, but I NEVER get rid of the source files after transcoding until the project is completed. I've been burned before, so perhaps I'm paranoid but everything I do is backed up from the beginning, which has saved me tens of thousands over the years from avoiding disasters when drives go out or files are corrupt.
 
OK, so the solution is to transcode the whole SSD when it's removed from the camera.
All takes.
Remember, the transcoding would actually be faster than a copy to a single Sata drive, because of the 5X data size reduction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top