http://www.personal-view.com/faqs

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Remember that we have special pages about BlackMagic Cinema Camera in out Wiki now

http://www.personal-view.com/faqs

Feature highlights include:

13 stops of dynamic range
Large 2.5k sensor
Integrated solid state drive recorder (SSD)
Ability to capture CinemaDNG, RAW, ProRes and DNxHD files
Touchscreen for metadata entry
Compatibility with EF and F mou
SDI and Thunderbolt connectors
Includes a FULL copy of DaVinci Resolve and UltraScope software

First videos:

http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera

Full specs

Videos:

Links:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/

http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/

Reviews:

None yet

DouglasHorn

Does anyone know if it would be possible to use Canon FD lenses on the Blackmagic cinema camera? Typically you can't use FD lenses on a Canon EF mount without a quality-killing diopter. I believe this has something to do with the backplane distance. Is this the same with the BMCC or is it possible to create some kludge of adapters like EF -> Nikon, Nikon -> FD?

The BMCC is enticing, but I have quite an investment in glass and accessories and the ability to keep using them would be a big factor.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@DouglasHorn

I don't know how BMCC can be different. It is same as usual EF mount, you get either macro only or you need converter with glass.

bannedindv

Who has something worthwhile that they would like to shoot with the BMCC Tuesday in Los Angeles? send me a PM if you have something decent with a budget for lighting that won't kill me to be involved with.

Brian202020

@Vitaliy

Your specs on the first post are old. Active sensor size has changed and is currently posted on the website. Also the RAW resolution has also changed to 2400 x 1350, and this is not yet on the website.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Active sensor size has changed and is currently posted on the website. Also the RAW resolution has also changed to 2400 x 1350, and this is not yet on the website.

Interesting.

What was the reason for this changes?

Brian202020

No one from BMD has said for sure, but others and myself believe they were trying to limit aliasing and moire as much as possible by trying different combinations. We know the resolution changed because of the RAW footage released. They haven't updated the website to reflect that change tho yet.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@Brian202020

OK, I'll update the specs as soon as they start shipping official cameras to wide audience.

Brian202020

Like I said the new active sensor size is on the website tho. It got a little bigger at 15.81mm x 8.88mm.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

It got a little bigger at 15.81mm x 8.88mm.

I have issue with active sensor size becoming bigger and resolution becoming smaller.
Was the ruler defective first time or the second?

John_Farragut

Yes, very strange. Active sensor used is bigger, but RAW resolution is smaller? Does this make any sense? Have they put in a different sensor at the last minute, one with better specs or framerates? Or maybe the sensor they wanted is not available in quantity because of high demand. Seems strange to change it all of a sudden. The crop is moving towards FourThirds.

nomad

Maybe a different method of de-bayering?

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Maybe a different method of de-bayering?

LOL.

Brian202020

Here is a quote from Kristian Lam from the BMD forum who works for BMD.

"The RAW bayered image size is 2432 x 1366 which gets debayered to 2400 x 1350. There is a slight crop to get rid of the edges of the image because when you are debayering, the very boundary of the frame will not have enough surrounding information to be accurately debayered and will need to be discarded. This is a pretty standard procedure for debayering images.

The DNG has a DefaultCropSize tag which is explained as:

"Raw images often store extra pixels around the edges of the final image. These extra pixels help prevent interpolation artifacts near the edges of the final image. DefaultCropSize specifies the size of the final image area, in raw image coordinates (i.e., before the DefaultScale has been applied).""

http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15&start=70

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@Brian202020

In this case we do not need to change things, as DNG image is still 2432 x 1366, they just defined one of the parameters that help with DNG processing, cropping outer parts (that is really standard thing).

We just need to add that processed resolution is different.

DouglasHorn

@Vitaliy_Kiselev - I see two differences on the FD -> EF equation. First, the sensor size is smaller on the BMCC. Second the mount may accommodate recessing the FD lens the 2mm difference.

Brian202020

@Vitaliy

Yeah I saw her response last night so I posted it here. No need to change the finished resolution.

vicx

So I was looking at JB's DNG samples in Rawdigger and I'm trying to work out how he can have this dynamic range where a light bulb is not blowing out a lightshade but when you look at the histogram for the RAW data theres only 4096 levels of apparently linear data; and that does not seem enough for the sexy dynamic range that appears to be there during grading.

Another thing I found weird was some of the output from exiftool. Two tags: Black Level : 256 and White Level : 60074. The White Level value looks like a 16bit value but the RAW data is 12bit so perhaps this data is not linear. Around this time I was wondering what the linearization table listed in the exif data for BMCC DNGs was for so I went looking for the DNG specs and found an interesting resource here -> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm

And Barry mentions a linearization table in the spec. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm#linearizationtable

So I haven't read this anywhere but I think its possible that a lookup table in each DNG file is being used to adapt 16bit sensor values into 12bit values dynamically. I haven't tested this beyond opening up the table from two different files but there are 4095 values and they have different mins and maxes so there might be something there.

Bedtime for me but I just thought there might be other nerds interested. Pls add to the discussion if you know more.

Before I looked into this I was wondering if the GH3 with 10 or 12bit AVCHD could more or less match the BMCC for gradability. I'm not not so sure now because you need the DR to make use of the bits. If the GH3 comes with HDR well that might change things around again.

kicap

@htinla I think your idea is a really hit to the face for Apple. It will be a great product diversification!! Hope they are reading your comment here somehow.

htinla

@kicap Thanks for being in agreement. Indie filmmakers, film students, and enthusiasts already flock to Apple Stores for their computers, it just makes sense for them to sell this camera (this affordable cinema camera, to be exact - 'cuz it's not just another camcorder) alongside its post-production companion tools. Blackmagic, Apple....are you reading this?

ahbleza

I got this from a private FB group I have joined:

"I just received very disappointing information (in writing) from one of the leading Blackmagic distributors in Europe. BM is currently working on a shipment of 10 to 25 cameras for each country so that their distributors can at least send one Demo unit to their preferred dealers before IBC. Their will not be any models that can be sold to end customers because there are not enough cameras available before IBC. Maybe late September or beginning of October first models will be available for sale, but BM does not comment any request for information at this time."

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@ahbleza

Sounds quite bad.

nomad

Sounds like RED's beginnings :-(

But better than the situation with the Bolex …

bannedindv

Got my hands on this thing, and I feel that the image quality is awesome. Ergonomically...needs some help it's true - but in terms of image quality it rooooocks.