Panny's engineers actually said in a published interview that they were working on a global shutter sensor for the GH2 - but then management decided they wanted to sell 3D TVs instead, so those resources were diverted to their lousy 3D m43 lens.

Something was clearly lost in translation. Global shutter had been very heavy topic on rumor sites constantly mentioned that it come in GH2, GH3, etc Of course, it is all complete bullshit. And even your mentioned engineers perfectly know consequences of global shutter. Btw, can we have a link to this interview?

Kind of on topic about RAW shooting (as the camera will have RAW soon)

You may choose how to roll highlights up until a channel clips, at that point it is up to the hardware and "type" of RAW (since RED labels REDCODE RAW, CinemaDNG, etc.) you're working with. You can't save everything, even with a truly linear RAW format.

So, for myself and most people, it's vital that overexposed/clipped areas are still pleasant at the base. Spat ad nauseam around the internet, it's why Alexa is still king of digital formats.

Your majesty, it all goes to case why a $2000 RAW + ProRes shooting camera from the Big Dinosaur that is Sony (to name one) is not a choice, to me, compared to a BMD camera (your injected controversy) because I don't respect Sony's sensor technology at any price point and after nearly fifteen years waiting for them to adequately address this niche I'm done with them, even if they did what I don't believe they'll do because I've worked for them as well and seen their culture from the inside.

My problem is that I haven't seen anything from the pocket yet that blows the GH2/3 out of the water. I know what it does on paper, and people who have the camera dig the image but there is something funky about the tests coming out. I don't see the sharpness, and even the color isn't head and shoulders over the Lumixes. I know this is common for people, attached to their cameras, to say when a new camera comes out, but I think it's more than that.

I do see the difference with the bigger Blackmagic cameras, and were my needs slightly different, would have bought a micro 4/3 mount one, already. (I need an active mount, I need to be able to work fast in corporate environments, and my little indie feature is mostly shot in very rough conditions away from power and hard drives...somehow I don't see myself balancing a BMC over the side of an indian canoe racing down a river and having to carry a pile of SSDs...)

The point is though, even on Vimeo, the BMC is clearly putting out a superior image to DSLRs. I can see it instantly. I can't see that with the pocket. It's certainly got a look, maybe it even looks like 16mm, but I guess there is quite a bit of 16mm footage I would rather my footage didn't look like. Add the issues people are having with the pocket beyond image quality, and I haven't pulled the trigger.

Which is kind of too bad because I like what Blackmagic is doing, and I do hope they survive as a camera maker and slay some giants, or at least shake their composure. Only problem on that front is I'd say Blackmagic seems to care about the indie filmmaker community simply by virtue of the products they put out, but with the rollout and communications they have, they are sometimes shaky on that front as well.

I guess we'll see how things play out. I jumped for joy when the pocket was announced, and I follow this thread and the BMC forums religiously. I am always an early adopter. Except with Blackmagic. Hopefully I'm not missing the boat.

IMO it's the sensor size and overall ProRes softness that's throwing it off. The camera's image is pretty much the same as the 2.5K, but I think it's slightly cleaner (noise) and the color seems to be slightly better to me. The only difference is the sensor size and the overall "softer" image.

As a GH2 fan (I put them on quite a number of shoots, the feature film 2 Guns that was in theaters recently had some GH2s I hacked on it, so did an NBC show) there's no way it's competing in the image arena on any other level than sensor size. Now, that's easy to say, hard to show.

When using a camera in situations that you've experienced before with another, that's when it becomes apparent.

But, when RAW is here, and the new ProRes updates, I believe a lot of opinions will change swiftly.

There are many compromises if you want a camera that's functionally sound, but image quality is not one of them. =]

EDIT HERE: @gl_

Sharpness is before the sensor as well. People are using some really soft glass/old glass, it certainly isn't helping the case. Also, I find the Panasonic Lumix lenses unpleasant in several areas, and people are using those for IS.

I'm a big fan of the Sigma 18-35 (clearly), Cinema Glass (obviously haha), have had these on the camera since and the combination brings out sharpness in spades.

@kholi yes, good point.

Did a music video shoot tonight. Bmc, bmpcc, gh2, controlled but contrasty lighting. I´ll check results tomorrow and compare, but the pocket cam felt great and it will be interesting to see how the gh2 fares against the other in this case.

@_gl thank you, and I understand how it works, it's just I've only been seeing the 'lousy stuff' from the pocket, (it's not really that bad, just not seeing the usual mix of really good and mediocre as we have with other cameras)

@kholi thank you for the detailed reply as well. I have wondered about some of the glass being used with everyone experimenting with old 16mm stuff. I suspect it is indeed the combo of sensor size and 'overall prores softness' that is throwing me right now. I do understand that in specific scenarios, I'd probably find the increased dynamic range for one very obvious over a Lumix, I'm merely stating that the usual thing that will get me not caring about the other issues with a camera is a head and shoulders increase in image quality, which is crystal clear on a BMC, but not as apparent on the little guy, despite knowing it's technically better. You know all three cameras perhaps better than anyone, and perhaps with the updates I'll pick one up.

i think some has to do with the limited supply and the possibility that enthisiaists happened to get their hands on it first, not really knowing where to start with the flat image.

I know myself when I first played with my footage I wasn't overly impressed. Image was soft. I've never used resolve before either. But the more I play with it and the more familiar I am with the workflow, boy do I really like what I see. I think people coming from dslr footage where they expect to see sharp image from the get go, will get abit of a shock. But the thing is you can really push the sharpening on the pocket footage and it doesn't look artificial, it still keeps that organic look that it has. Well thats my experience/opinion with it so far. I've just grabbed a second body to replace my gh3 as the second camera angle for consistency in look.

I was looking at the official BlackMagic web site for the BMPCC here: -> http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

They have a section with three pictures, supposedly illustrating the wide dynamic range, compared with a DSLR. To my untrained eye, however, I think they are lying. The first image very clearly shows strong sunlight coming in, especially blowing out the windows, floor and part of the cupboard -- but the other two shots (shot with the BMPCC) don't show those highlights at all. To me, this is misleading, bordering on false advertising.

In reality, while the first image is clearly a DSLR, I think they also flagged the sunlight, i.e. they cheated. What do y'all think?

@ahbleza I believe this has been discussed earlier in this same thread.. Yes, the lighting is clearly different. Yes, that is misleading, and if the camera doesn't perform similarly in the real world, that's bad.. But they are nothing more than tiny illustration thumbnails used for advertising, I really don't see the big deal.. No one is going to buy a camera based solely on those three tiny photos..

All advertising is about perspective and illusion. Depends on your paradigm. What is lying, or not lying?