@Peter123456, thanks for doing that audio test. I've been using an Olympus LS7 to do off-board audio, but after your test it makes sense to also run it live into the cam for backup and not having to mess with syncing a separate file in post when the audio isn't super-crucial. It's far better than the built-in mic either way.

Hi, what firmware was this on? If you can reproduce it again please let me know and the steps to do so, or contact one of our support offices (which ever is closest to you).

@_gl,did you think the audio sounded good on the bmpcc in my test? I detected a constant hiss at every setting I tested. (Hmm... I wonder what 100% line in would have been like.) That hiss was gone when I recorded the same setup on a zoom h1. By the way, oddly, the best setting for the h1 for minimum noise is 37 out of 100.

@_gl - There are no known reproducible issues with RAW on 2.0 that we're aware of. Again, if you know or hear of anything please let us know. :-)

BMPCC kit offer - $995

Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera Kit with LUMIX G VARIO 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 Lens + battery and 64Gb SD card - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021120-REG/blackmagic_design_pocket_cinema_camera_and.html

My conclusion after nearly two years with the BMPCC:

If you want even close to accurate color, you must shoot raw and process the DNG files using 3rd-party software. Davinci Resolve does not decode DNG files accurately, and the BMDFilm color space is useless, being proprietary and unspecified. If you've played around with the Pocket's DNG files in Adobe Lightroom, you know how much better of a job it does. But the workflow in Lightroom is impractical for video.

So I've built an ACES workflow for Sony Vegas Pro using dcraw to decode the DNG files: http://www.jbalazer.com/aces-in-sony-vegas

For all that effort, the humble hacked GH2 with its ACES IDT delivers better images more easily than the Pocket. The Pocket's large dynamic range and high quality recording are wasted on a camera with poor color accuracy and poor tools for adjusting the exposure.

@Trumpetman I've been using a GH2 for projects, but was interested in the Pocket when it came out, but I never came across good looking work from it, probably because it cost too much(with all needed stuff) so I didn't follow it for too long. As price is coming down for Pocket, I'm interested in maybe trying it. If by chance you have some links to some of the nicer films/videos shot with the Pocket, I'd definitely be interested in checking those out. I'm okay with using GH2, but if dynamic range and other benefits of Pocket can be had with keeping color accuracy, I'd definitely check it out and try. Thanks.

Here's a cool article about Ben Davis where he talks a lot (over half the article) about enjoying using Pocket Cameras on the latest Avengers movie:

http://www.studiodaily.com/2015/05/dp-ben-davis-avengers-age-ultron/

the gh2 also takes pictures. I've used it for years and it's been great with the patches. But the only reason I still have it is the hybrid bit. Otherwise, pocket all the way.

RAW wins. More important than anything else. The lcd is awful. You must use separate sound device. Battery is too short, you have to carry lots of cards. You need to learn how to grade it.

And... RAW wins.

Theres a great price drop for the SanDisk 64gb 95mb/s cards now. :)

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/press/release/20150528-01

The Blackmagic cameras are basically Davinci Resolve cameras. They're great if you like to push and pull on the colors to get interesting artistic effects. There's a lot of gradation in the recorded images.

But let's not say color science and Blackmagic in the same breath, because the cameras and Resolve stink for color science. The colors are not accurate. You won't get a true-to-life image without a lot of manipulation, and I don't mean the basic exposure compensation and color balancing that all raw images need. When I balance for white, the greys turn blue and skin looks wrong. You can't balance the colors and get the whole image to look right. You need to go and adjust every little part of the image differently. That's just not how I like to work. I like to start with accurate color, and if I want some kind of artistic color effect, I'll add it on top.

Color science is a real thing. Light spectra excite neurons in your eyes, and your brain interprets the signals. Human perception of color is subjective, but measurable. Lots of studies have been done to quantify and model human perception of color. For a camera to have accurate color, it must be created to approximate those models, and that's exactly what most cameras do. Blackmagic has taken a much different approach, with emphasis on tools to manipulate color, and not on color accuracy. I contend that a better camera does both, not just one or the other.