@RRRR

it's been stated many times by BMD on their forum as well as John stating it on this forum and others that the BMCC and BMPCC sensors are different yet are in the same family.

The more DR you have the easier it is to expose. So generally it would be easier to expose with the black magic camera than most camera. Looking at the last two footage the DR doesn't look that great, but not knowing how it was shot, I expect it is more of a user issue than the camera.

You may have seen my test with underexposed color charts in this thread. DSC charts are standardized, so you can calculate the number of stops. Sorry, no Stouffer (or, even better, Xyla) here. Judging the lower end for 'acceptable' noise is always a bit subjective, but yes, I'd rate it at 13.

Problem with over-exposure is this: every electronic camera clips hard, and you'd always want to avoid that for scene objects which are important. So you'd expose just as far to the highlights as possible, to stay away from the noise floor. That's the ETTR rule. If you want to pull back some clouds in a pretty sky, it's no problem with this camera. We've all seen it with the BMCC, and it should be no issue with the pocket either.

BUT: A direct beam into the camera at night or a reflection of the sun on chrome or glass can be so strong that you'd want to over-expose it not to sacrifice too much in the shadows (even with 13 stops). In such a situation the "orbs" are a serious problem. In particular for this camera! Who is shooting mainly under controlled lighting has that much gear around, he/she doesn't care if it's a heavier BMCC without the issue. Those who'd care to get a BMPCC would be doc shooters who'd like to be covered in tricky hi-con situations they can't influence. So, if it's a general issue with the BMPCC, that's not good at all!

And this proves the validity (for BM) of BM's often criticized policy of avoiding a mass recall by releasing only a small batch of test cameras before committing to mass production. We are the beta test. HMMMM

I wonder if expectations here aren't a bit excessive. There is no "professional" market for a $995 motion picture camera. Those actually engaged in for-profit moviemaking, industrial, commercial or feature, aren't looking for a $995 camera. A gainfully employed professional might buy it, for any number of reasons, but wouldn't expect to rely on it.

So who desperately wants this camera? From all appearances, it's either hobbyists or people not gainfully making movies but who dream of doing so on the cheap. And if you demand to work on the cheap, you live with a host of limitations, including orbs.

Does this mean that BM can't or shouldn't fix it? No. But, to coin a phrase, you get what you pay for. Bringing professional standards to amateur-priced technology may not make a whole lot of sense.

@jrd I strongly disagree, maybe you are right that "professionals" will not rely on this camera only, however that is no excuse to either deliberately cripple a camera like Panasonic and Nikon are doing this at times, nor is it an excuse to have serious unnecessary flaws in your technology; this regardless of who the user is.

Why to exclude amateurs from professional technical standards if the technology is available and can be commercialized, it contributes to general progress and this can be seen in many globalized fields.

It does not make the amateur a professional, but it often contributes to having more fun.

You guys all seem to be missing the point in my opinion. ITS A CINEMA CAMERA...that for me means....IDK CINEMA not shooting in ambient "uncontrolled" light and filming bushes and yes dare I say "Documentaries"(of course I control light when I shoot those too)...

Point is....."CINEMA CAMERA"---so show me theatrical story driven footage footage shot in a cinema style with controlled conditions...that's the real test.Even PBs stuff-who I happen to like-- is all ambient light running/floating around London's weird spaceship skytram thingy.. I say orbs -Shmorbs... (learn how to expose and shoot) -It sucks that allot of the people that have this camera already dont have any real world experience with creating theatrical productions.

Sorry guys but I do not follow you on this. Please d not shoot on the pianist :)

I understand that "Cinema" means controlled light but... it doesn't means that I cannot shot real life scenes. If I need to shoot traffic in night condition should I care that all headlights are shut off?

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/139239#Comment_139239

That frame seems correctly exposed to me. And also a scene like the video with the rotating fans, there's no way to correctly expose them.

PS I shot mainly underwater and Nauticam already produced a BMCC housing and its' preparing a BMPCC housing. Seeing that kind of "white orbs" there's no way to get a decent shot underwater even if you are James Cameron. And James Cameron doesn't buy a BMPCC (probably) :) Seeing that white orbs I'm thinking to my underwater shots with the GH2. In a lot of situation would be impossible to bring home some result, no matter of your skill. It's common underwater that a diver points a light toward you... moreover one of the most common and beautiful shots are purposely done pointing the camera against the sun. There's a tons of tutorial on how to get perfect "sunburst":

http://goo.gl/1SdPOE

Just imagine one of that with the current bmpcc problem.

@LongJohnSilver If you need to shoot traffic in night condition you should do that in a studio and with lower wattage car bulbs, like proper CINEMA MOVIES are shot with CINEMA CAMERAS.

Irony aside.
I really like the image that comes out of the BMPCC and as a non-pro low-budget filmmaker I'd really want it to be my next upgrade from the lovely GH2. But since in my productions I can control exposure but can't control, for example, traffic lights, this orb issue is kind of problematic.

The level of hysteria over this in just a handful of days is kind of strange.

I imagine most of you wouldn't have bought a DVX100, HVX200, Genesis, F35, or nearly any good CCD based camera for the same price as what a Pocket Cam costs today... with the vertical smear problem and all that every single one of those cameras has/had.

Any bright light in frame creating a vertical line across the entire image is a far worse problem than round highlights... and still each of those cameras have helmed their own motion picture release, with the problem easily spotted throughout the runtime.

Edit: and if you're too new to know what I'm talking about, just google: CCD SMEAR

@philiplipetz You're a moron. It DOES mean that. Its not called Black Magic Pocket Videographer Casual Halfwit Camera. ______________ IT MAY BE CHEAP.....but ITS A PRO CAMERA...which means its intended for.....wait for it.... Pros.

@Shian You're just THE man.

@shian I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But I don't think it's really a proper comparison considering technology, and our accompanying expectations, are growing exponentially – not in a flat timeline or even a linear rate.

So, this is the beginning, but I think we're not too far from cameras in this price range that should be expected to perform.

It's obvious, we went on what BM told us. 'Image a little less resolved but otherwise basically identical to BMCC'. People who put their money down expected that.

I won't buy it with the orbs. I shoot almost exclusively natural light, and nighttime. What use is dynamic range if highlights have none? And hey, if you shoot under perfectly controlled lighting conditions, what do you need DR for?