NAB 2018: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I think they would be the same weight at least as the AM is CF boxed. Have you weighted them both with battery and monitor? I also think the the AM has the MDR built in so that will save some weight and bulk as well...

 

[Misha Engel]

I refuse to spend any money on BMD's cameras until they start integrating OLPFs. Dealing with aliasing and moire is not something anyone should have to do in 2018. I'll be keeping an eye on this tomorrow...

Don't try to find a high-end stills camera these days with an optical low pass filter.

 

[John Brawley]

I think they would be the same weight at least as the AM is CF boxed. Have you weighted them both with battery and monitor? I also think the the AM has the MDR built in so that will save some weight and bulk as well...

You may think what you like.

I have weighed them.

The built in MDR is only if you use the Arri follow focus system. I like using it when I can, but nobody in the US wants to use them because they all love their Preston's. The Alexa Mini does tend to have range issues when using their own WCU system, so I can understand that. I'm also not the kind of DP that imposes a follow focus system on a focus puller that doesn't know or isn't used to the WCU 4 system.

Body only they both weigh about 5 pounds. It's the only point they are close in weight.

The ursa is a tiny bit smaller without it's side handle.

But the Ursa has it's screen built in already, it's side handle on board and the battery is easily integrated on the back.

Once you add a monitor for operating, a battery to an Alexa mini and you ALSO have to add the cage or infrastructure to mount those accessories and the difference very quickly changes by a lot more than on an Ursa mini. And unless you're using the EVF monitor (which is terrible) you have plug the thing in to change a lot of settings in the camera. Or use the WCU4. Or an Ipad. There's nowhere on an Alexa to rig anything to BECAUSE the body is CF. The Ursa has threads on top and bottom, so it's easy to do a custom single rod for a motor for example, straight into the body without having to add a cage. Or have the other bits off board in a backpack but tethered. Again, not a great solution for agile hand held work.

Rigged and ready to shoot an Ursa mini can be held in one hand. I haven't found a way to do that with an Alexa mini because the rigging you have to add makes it both larger, heavier and less agile to operate.

JB

 

[C. Burkhart]

Actually these days, I use a Ursa Mini more often than an Alexa, unless some of my clients really demand it.

Also some clients want/need 4k, so the normal Alexas are off the table for those jobs, and the Ursa (or sometimes a RED) are in.

Having said that - on a personal, more artsy-fartsy note: the image of the Alexa sensor has on top of every thing - a special and very subtile kind of magic, hard to describe (like the magic of Cooke primes) that I just love. It's nothing techie, more like something you feel, when you look at it.

Thanks for the response Frank. Still interested in that workflow that you spoke of, if you ever have the chance to describe it.
My feeling about the Alexa is that it is not right for every job either, actually. Actually I think it can look quite muddy in certain parts of the spectrum.
What I like about it is best described in a way that people usually talk about shadows, but flipped.
People often say what they like best about some cams is how much they "can dig into the shadows for information".
What I find with the Alexa is that I can "dig into the highlights" in a way that I can do with almost no other cam.
It somehow manages to retain a distribution of values and dimensionality if I need to pull down the highlights which still surprises me sometimes.
I like being able to save people's butts because of this cam. They think it's me, but sometimes really it's just the cam ! Good insurance.

I get the artsy fartsy part too. Having been a fashion photographer for 20 years and then filmmaker, grading puts food on the table, but I am as likely to enjoy footage from strange sources as the conventional tools. Truly enjoyed Tangerine for example...lots of terrific artifacts used to the filmmaker's advantage. Great.

And of course, I am more for Cookes than Master primes. Even own a Cooke 20-100 which just keeps giving for my personal work. Then own another 40-50 lenses from the vintage photo world because there are so many special things you can do with them once you begin playing. The lens which cuts best with my Cooke ? A 50/1.4 Pentax Super Takumar with it's slightly radioactive yellow tint from the 60's, which I picked up for $60...so instead of popping on an S4i, sometimes I just use that instead because it's so small...

Anyhow I could go on, but won't bore everyone here...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Don't try to find a high-end stills camera these days with an optical low pass filter.

High-end stills cameras are in much higher resolution where lens serves as OLPF.
And they are not used to capture acting performance for a 6 meter projected face. Same approach for cinema and stills doesn't work.

Ursa Minor has a high quality sensor and recording. Texture is not cinema.

 

[Misha Engel]

High-end stills cameras are in much higher resolution where lens serves as OLPF.
And they are not used to capture acting performance for a 6 meter projected face. Same approach for cinema and stills doesn't work.

Ursa Minor has a high quality sensor and recording. Texture is not cinema.

Yes sure, the RED MONSTRO has a lot lower resolution than the Nikon D5 and the otus 85 serves as an OLPF.
No they are not, they are used for among others, 30 meter billboards.

Don't know that one, a cat is not a dog.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Considering the sense in explaining.
Considered.

 

[John Brawley]

High-end stills cameras are in much higher resolution

This is true

where lens serves as OLPF.

This part makes no real sense to me.

Higher resolution sensors tend to mitigate the need for an OLPF, irrespective of the lens used. Ipso Facto, higher resolution cameras and high end stills cameras tend to have higher performing lenses that I would think would be MORE likely to be problematic with images that would benefit from an OLPF, rather than mitigating them.

In my experience vintage lenses or high performance modern lenses don't tend to have as much to do with mitigating moire or aliasing issues as much as subject selection, shot selection, focal length selection and shooting aperture. I doubt any lens choice would make moire go away unless it was focal length, where it was focussed or what aperture it was shooting.

There are also at least two vendors of OLPF filters for the Ursa Mini and other BMD cameras if one decides that an OLPF is a must.

http://rawlite.com/

and

http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/bm/um.html

No affiliation.

JB

 

[Alex.Mitchell]

I’m just gonna repost what I mentioned last time we discussed this John:





In the clip above the 8K RED looks softer than the 4.6K Ursa Mini.

Does it though? Even if we could compare an 8K camera to a 4.6K camera in a 1080p web video, the data seems pretty clear to me; Helium is nearly out-resolving any lens you throw on it, so if you see soft 8K footage it's probably not because of the OLPF. To wit, I just downloaded those EXRs from Geoff’s shootout and none of that aliasing/moiré is in the Helium imagery. Here's what the Scarlet, C200, UMP, and Helium actually look like...

Of course the Scarlet’s appropriately filtered image is the softest but aliasing has been adequately controlled to my eye. Moreover, I have to enlarge the Scarlet’s image here by 1100% to be affected by the “softness” whereas the UMP false colour jumps out pretty harshly when viewed normally, and the C200’s OLPF isn’t doing itself many favours either, IMO. Not like the UMP doesn't have a lot of fantastic features that advocate for it, but this is obviously one of its Achille's Heels.

10 times out of 10 I’ll take the softer image so that I never have to play Rainbow Roulette when I shoot on set. You mentioned near the end of your post that you’ve only had to deal with aliasing twice in your career, and all I can say is that I have definitely not been that lucky and neither have many of my colleagues. I personally think OLPFs are a no-brainer, and until pixel density reaches the point where they become unnecessary I refuse to use a camera without one. Call me crazy, but I feel like we’re at a point in sensor design where we do not need to chase the perception of sharpness at the expense of contamination. Maybe that makes me a heretic though?

OLPF's are highly problematic.

Are they though? Other than “softness”—which feels more like an uncharitable way of describing a sensor that is resolving the maximum amount of detail it can without introducing aliasing—what “problems” are caused by properly designed OLPFs that aren’t also caused by the sensor stack or sensor design in general? I feel like the problem with OLPFs, if you can call it that, is that a great many end users don’t understand sensor design/signal processing well enough to know what they can reasonably expect from a digital imaging system.

 Just for my edification, what problem did RED have with their OLPFs? The only problem I remember was when they claimed that Dragon would be a stop and a half faster than Mysterium-X, which they had to walk back on after release and had to further walk back on after implementing the STH OLPF. Unless we’re thinking of different things, that doesn’t really strike me as an OLPF problem as much as a messaging problem.

The imaging trend in stills photography is to not have an OLPF at all.

There are absolutely stills cameras without OLPFs, but they can get away with that because those sensors are, typically, much denser than 4K S35 sensors. The BMD 4.6K sensor has a density of 33,000 px/mm^2, whereas the E-M1 Mk.2 you mentioned has roughly 90,600 px/mm^2. There does come a point where an OLPF becomes unnecessary but we’re absolutely not there with S35 4K sensors; not by a long shot.

BMD have made it possible to fit an OLPF optionally later.

Mm, that isn’t how it feels but I’m open to changing my interpretation. To me, the difference between how RED is approaching this and how BMD is approaching this is that the sensor stack in RED cameras from the Epic Dragon forward are expressly designed to be user serviceable. BMD made the call—for what are probably solid logistical, financial, and engineering reasons—not to include an OLPF in their sensor stack, and a cottage industry of warranty-voiding OLPF installation kits has sprung up over the years. One company is officially sanctioning OLPF replacements and the other isn’t, unless there’s a policy on these I’m not aware of.

Again, I just can't see advocating against OLPFs on the current crop of 4K S35/2K S16 sensors. Yes, we all want more detail but the way to do that is by increasing the sampling frequency, not by introducing image artifacts. As for the debayering stuff, I'm gonna have to come back to that when I'm not so exhausted.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, to throw in a little extra on the BMD image comparison, I happened to be looking on Mosaic Engineering’s site to see if they might have finally started lowering the price on the VAF-5D2B aliasing filter for the Canon 5D Mark II (they haven’t, still $400!) and I saw an ad for a new filter for the Ursa Mini/Pro to combat aliasing and moire issues that I haven’t really heard about with those cameras. So, even though the Ursa Mini Pro is on my camera radar, I’ll unfortunately now have to factor in the need to buy one of these filters and, hopefully, that won’t be the case with the Pocket 4K, we’ll have to see. In any case, I’m really excited to check it out tomorrow at NAB!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Higher resolution sensors tend to mitigate the need for an OLPF, irrespective of the lens used.

Because:

a) aliasing/moiré is reaching limit of practical visibility
b) at 40MP level of spatial quantization EVERY lens serves as a OLPF to some extent

Ipso Facto, higher resolution cameras and high end stills cameras tend to have higher performing lenses that I would think would be MORE likely to be problematic with images that would benefit from an OLPF, rather than mitigating them.

Higher performing lens is more likely to stress missing OLPF problem.
For either technical properties or aesthetic feel.

There are also at least two vendors of OLPF filters for the Ursa Mini and other BMD cameras if one decides that an OLPF is a must.

It is marketed as "cinema camera", not as "medical analysis/herd monitoring/product analysis" etc camera. And humans are not robots, hence intuitively drawn to more natural things. And there is this special blend of human called actress, able to manifest and transfer emotion down to utmost detail and consequently (or as a prerequisite) having the utmost sensibility to detail. Of herself on a cinema screen especially.

So for a cinema screen and humans on it and watching it, for a capturing device marketed with "cinema" term, yes - OLPF is a must.
Out of the box.

 

[C. Burkhart]

Because different cameras offer different advantages to the physicality of the shooting situation. It's not about post or what workflow you use.

It's about what shots you can get.

I can get shots with smaller cameras that I can't get with bigger cameras like an Alexa Mini.

Just like there's plenty of situations where the Ursa is the wrong camera to use in a scene.

I understand you're a post guy ? Maybe you're only dealing with the end result.

I'm the guy that has to physically fold myself into a car or a small toilet cubicle or hold a camera above a surgical field. If we spent enough time and money, sure we can jam the principal production camera in there. Or I can pick up a much smaller camera that gives me in almost all situations a visually indistinguishable result from the principal camera ofen enabling unique shots and make the call sheet. I've been getting away with it for years before I used Blackmagic's cameras.

I come up with a look for a show. Then I shoot with lots of different cameras, always attempting to be consistent and match the look across the board. It's not about matching one camera to another. It's about having different cameras match an overall visual tone for the show. There's a difference there as WELL you should know if you're background is in colour correction.

My current show has Alexa, Alexa Mini, Ursa Mini PRO, Micro, EM1 Mark 2 and the DJI X7. They all have their caveats.

I also use smaller cameras like the UMP in situations I like to call "visual jazz" where the operating is more spontaneous, responding to actor performance and movement. In the same way actors improvise, I can do the same thing with camera composition. It's fast. It's highly reactive. It's incredibly sympathetic to actor performance. It gives unique and unconventional coverage. All GREAT reasons to use a camera.

So great that directors start to ASK for a pass of this style once exposed to it. It's not the camera itself per se, it's HOW it's operated.

When I have a smaller and lighter camera, I can do this in a more spontaneous and reactive way.

I like to practice camera agnosticism. I also like to get unique shots. And I can't always use one camera to do everything. So I use lots of cameras.

Here's a picture of me shooting in this physically more agile style with a RED EPIC from a few years ago. Look how small the camera is.

RED is somewhat heavy for this work, and that's why there's no transmitter, no follow focus. They add bulk and weight.

Now it's this, but I've added an MDR, motor and a transmitter and it's STILL lighter than the RED EPIC was.

Look at the second picture. It has a macro lens on it. There's no way I could hand hold an Alexa mini for as long as I can hold a UMP in that position, starting in super close on the surgery field and then be able to transition to a crouch looking up at the surgeon.

I don't freaking care so much about the camera, as I do about getting the shot. But if I have a camera that better matches the principal production camera that let's me get this style of operating, then I'll do it. I could maybe do a lot of what I want using a canon C series. But I find I can't get the Canon's to match the show look as well as I need. Mostly because of their crappy bit depth limiting codec.

I also use Blackmagic Micros for an even more extreme version of this. I just finished a medical series where we talked about getting a periscope or a skater scope for getting shots inside the surgery field. Instead I used a Micro Cinema Camera to get the shots much much faster and still got shots I couldn't have gotten with a clumbersome periscope rig because I could use my arms to boom up to the surgeon's eyeball, and then walk around the surgeon to the over of the other surgeon in the space of a second and a half.

I struggle more with a micro to match to the look of a show, but it looks freaking great for the DRAMA of the story so that's what I've been using to shoot surgery. Who cares if the DR is blown more easily and it's harder to match the mixed colours.

When you make specific comments that absolutely imply the Ursa Mini 4.6K isn't able to match an Alexa and when you decry the thin negative with colour problems, I'm going to beg to differ and point to these shows where the percentage of Ursa mini shows caries from 20-30% of the finished episodes.

My response to not being able to use these cameras alongside an Alexa is about 70 hours of network and cable TV where I did exactly that.

You're 100% wrong when you allege that my Ursa bodies are somehow cherry picked. I've called you on this before and you continue to say it. It's a cheap shot and doesn't speak well to your own beliefs if you keep using it in your arguments.

The only way you can tell which are Ursa Mini shots in the above shows are because I just told you what visual style the shots are. I recall challenging you and posting a bunch of stills and asked you to tell me which were Ursa Mini from Queen of the south and if I recall you didn't take up the challenge.

I know they aren't the same camera.

I don't think you understand that I don't shoot the Ursa Mini (or whatever camera) because it matches an Alexa. I shoot them because I can get shots with it I can't get with an Alexa, and I can make it match the look of the show I'm doing.

Otherwise as you say, why wouldn't I just shoot with an Ursa full time.

JB

Hi John,
I appreciate the lengthy reply and your reasoning, even if my post was directed to Frank rather than yourself . There is a lot of good stuff in there, so let me take a while to digest it.

I totally understand the issue of the physicality of the camera and the importance of using whatever tool gives you the ability to get the shot or the freedom to pursue your vision. That makes a lot more sense in terms of tools than getting stuck on one particular kind of codec or output. I also feel that most cameras these days can be matched closely enough that once a visual style has been determined its not so hard to get there. In fact that is a lot of what I do. There are limits of course, but generally speaking if someone is controlling their sets, who really needs 16 stops of DR anyhow ? I myself have no problem matching my old F3's shot in FullHD SLOG to an Alexa in RAW, both look great and the F3 is what 8-9 years old ? There is something to be said for big pixels, rather than big resolution.

I have more difficulties with RED, depending on the generation of the cam, but I believe we share similar views on this. Skin tones can be hugely problematic on some of the older generation cams. I think Monstro is a big step forward, but I am not sure the market will embrace it at it's current price point. I like what Panavision has done to work with it's color palette and to provide a production solid body. I personally believe that Monstro should be integrated into all of their cameras across the board the way the Alev functions for Arri. It would help to create a strong base to reshape their brand.

In terms of the "thin" aspect to the UMP, I have already blathered on about it here and elsewhere, and I still feel that there is an issue. Especially when saturation begins to be added, there are a lot of color distortions that happen and it is very difficult to pull it away from a certain kind of look. You might like that look, I don't know. The thing I don't think you get is that you have the advantage of productions behind you which enable enough degree of control in terms of lighting,etc, as well as enough experience to keep the camera in it's sweet spot. Most cams these days function well in their sweet spot. They are virtually indistinguishable from each other once graded.

My concern is not with what is happening in a well controlled environment from a seasoned pro.

My concern is what happens when stepping out of this zone. A lot of these guys running around with their "Baby Alexa's" dont have the resources or the experience that you do to properly light a scene, and I see it quickly. I don't think a BM cam is anywhere near as forgiving as many other offering out there now. My feeling is that some of the BM cams have a pretty narrow range of tolerance before things go wonky and have a lot of issues in the spectrum, especially if they are underexposed for instance. There is no way that they have the latitude of underexposure or overexposure that the Arri cams do, which I can correct quite easily back to normal from sometimes as much as 3 stops under. It is also a constant fight for me to keep footage from BM from becoming "colorized" when this kind of thing happens. Not sure if you know what I am getting at, but rather than saturating up correctly, they feel like a painted image rather than a bright natural one. It is a very fragile balance that can be quite time consuming.

No I didn’t do your stills test. Because for me it’s a waste of time. Stills tell me nothing about how something was shot and how many power windows/corrections it took to get there. I spend a lot of time matching shots from different cams. That’s not so hard from pro productions. And it really says nothing about the lattitude of an Alexa vs an UMP for me. Which is where the difference in price point really shows. I don’t get FPN from an Alexa when pulling from an underexposed image. Just don’t.

I have said it before too, I am actually always secretly hoping that BM can up it's game. Nothing would please me more than to actually go and put some money down myself on one that I believe in at the terrific price point that BM always has. HOWEVER, the number of quality control issues and degree of time it takes before so many issues seem to have been dealt with is abhorrent to me. But hope springs eternal and I follow every new announcement from them...

(continued)

 

[C. Burkhart]

Response to John (continued from above)...

At the risk of boring other members here, and airing our dirty laundry again. (Sorry folks, hope it’s at least entertaining).

Ok, you say that your cams have not been cherry picked for you by the company, and I believe you. You tell me that I am taking cheap shots. But speaking of cheap shots, I distinctly remember the level of naysaying, denial, conspiracy theories and even character assassination that many of the members of that other forum had when several very valid DP's spoke of a variety of sensor issues. I watched how their entire credibility was called into question merely because they were pointing out things that as experienced image makers they knew were not on and which I have seen with my own eyes. And I watched how this went unchecked by the moderators there. I myself have been on the receiving end of it, and it's not pretty.

I also watched how BH's entire review system was called into question and if I am not mistaken I watched you participate in it, as if some vast conspiracy had been set up to castrate the young upstart Blackmagic camera company by a horde of hacker review critics. And yet, I myself as a colorist have met countless DP's who have been burned in one way or another on a shoot with their BM's cams. Or who have had to return a particular model for replacement two, three, even four times. And I am here to tell you that those reviews were probably honest. I have had an experienced BH rep that I have known for two decades tell me that the number of returns on BM products is tenfold compared to other manufacturer's. Further, I see posts like this from seasoned pro's on a quite regular basis about, so I don't think my point of view is very left field:

The two main things that have kept me from considering BMD cameras:

1. Reliability. Without this, nothing else matters. Cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, RED, Arri just work. They all work. Almost all of the time. BMD, I have a few colleagues, one in particular, who shot their first low budget feature on a BMD camera. He lost probably five years of his life expectancy from stress when his first BMD camera crashed and burned the second day of production, BMD overnighted them another, it crashed and burned the same day, then the third BMD camera worked but had a major audio issue with noise and static, etc. He vowed, "Never again" will he use a BMD camera and he hasn't, he has gone up in the world and rents Arri now. Same with IR pollution, weird colors and a bunch of other growing pain issues that frequently crop up on BMD cameras, these are things that will make pros NOT buy your camera. But the camera has to work, every time.

2. Low light ability - Doesn't need to be a low light monster, but the bar has moved. When a $2,500.00 GH5S shoots very usable and good looking ISO 6400, with a M43 sized imager no less, there is literally no excuse for a S35 sized imager camera to fall apart at ISO 800.

Other than these two issues, I was tempted by the Ursa Mini Pro, great camera.

So when I tell you that I too am tempted by an Ursa Mini Pro, but as the guy on the receiving end of images that often need to be fixed or repaired, that I feel there is an issue, let's just say that it's not helpful to be told once again that it is because I don't properly understand the workflow in an application that I have been using since before it was an application and when it was still a box under a table or because "who am I anyway?”, and “how come we can't find more about me as a professional colorist?”, when doing a search on the internet. Those for me feel kind of like cheap shots too. Hear what I am saying ?

I don’t want to end this post on a negative note however, because ultimately it’s just plain silly and because you have given a lot of time and thought in your responses. I have a ton of respect for guys who folds themselves into a car with a camera that resembles an Medusa’s head of wires or who spend impossibly long days in an operating block as a location, trying to achieve something special, aesthetic and personalised for a media starved public, who mostly can’t tell the difference because they are busy preparing lemon chicken and baked ziti.

The cost in terms of personal relationships and stress is considerable. It takes a heck of a lot of dedication and staying power.

I respect your work, because contrary to many of my colleagues I still occasionally do that kind of work too (though less often), and I know what it takes. I will shoot a feature in Cameroun this year with an Albino child in the midst of a dark skinned population in places where you cannot count on electricity and jungle areas where the contrast levels can easily exceed any cameras capacity to retain information and the camera often needs to be moving on top of all of this ! The level of technical and artistic challenge is humbling.

End of the day, I believe that the reason DP's should be hired is based on their capacity to have a vision for a project, a personal artistic style, the ability to be good leaders and for the kind of tone they create on the set. It should never be about the camera they are using, or worse yet, the camera they own.

Who cares whether one camera is better than another in 2018? In 2021 it will just be another set of cameras with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Camera agnostic is about the healthiest place one can be today when it comes to being a visual artist, rather than just a technician, and that is one place where we definitely agree with each other, in spades.

Respect where respect is due.

Cheers,
CB

 

[Zeb B]

Anyone have a Specs link?

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Click on thumbnails to enlarge.

Posted by Frank Glencairn on BMCuser.
Super 16 4K 60 internal raw external flip screen.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Because:

a) aliasing/moiré is reaching limit of practical visibility
b) at 40MP level of spatial quantization EVERY lens serves as a OLPF to some extent



Higher performing lens is more likely to stress missing OLPF problem.
For either technical properties or aesthetic feel.



It is marketed as "cinema camera", not as "medical analysis/herd monitoring/product analysis" etc camera. And humans are not robots, hence intuitively drawn to more natural things. And there is this special blend of human called actress, able to manifest and transfer emotion down to utmost detail and consequently (or as a prerequisite) having the utmost sensibility to detail. Of herself on a cinema screen especially.

So for a cinema screen and humans on it and watching it, for a capturing device marketed with "cinema" term, yes - OLPF is a must.
Out of the box.

Don't argue with Hrvoje John, he likes to argue. :smiley:

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Click on thumbnails to enlarge.

Posted by Frank Glencairn on BMCuser.
Super 16 4K 60 internal raw external flip screen.

Specs Stefan, not specks on the image. :smiley: Once again, we hope that wasn't shot with another pocket.

Good show. So this Barrie's down possibilities. It could be a recessed head, and those are likely fins related to cooling. So, it might be an aptina related sensor, but with that cooling it could be a hotter sensor. But it could be 60fps+ Aptiba rejected. The best technology is available custom order from some of these places, verses standard parts on the website.

Don't like the look of it.

 

[Misha Engel]

There are also at least two vendors of OLPF filters for the Ursa Mini and other BMD cameras if one decides that an OLPF is a must.

http://rawlite.com/

and

http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/bm/um.html

No affiliation.

JB

Good tip, thanks.

 

[Billy Jim]

12:30 PM EST

 

[Billy Jim]

$999 & $1299 prices rumored

available in September 2018 for $1,295.00 (includes a copy of Davinci Studio software)

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera