Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Black Magic: Official $1,995 raw cinema camera topic, series 2
  • 1111 Replies sorted by
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    The hard part of making a m4/3 mount is actually the pins. Not just the software. To make an active version, you wouldn't have seen one till April next year, even if it was passive and pins in place but not active.

    My understanding is that firmware upgrades will be free.


  • is it me or is this footage noisy as hell, i downloaded the 1 gig+ file and looked at it in premiere @ 1:1 and it's making me think we don't have it so bad with the gh2 after all:

  • r there any hacked gh2 vs bmcc vids out there? side by side comparisons?

  • @woodybrando

    Its quite timely that you've asked about noise in relation to the two cameras. I have always thought the noise in hacked GH2 footage is organic enough to pass off as grain when blown up on a big screen. I like the hacked GH2 because the noise particles are "refined". Panasonic seems to have removed the noise-signal ratio with the GH3, judging from available footage so far, that's all good. But the video I feel now comes across as too sleek, and clean. It's more clinical than film-like.

    Likewise, the noise in BMCC may not be a bad thing. If you blow the footage up, per chance it might look like grain. Unless we are talking about artifacts and pixelation.

  • @johnbrawley. Just preordered the BMC MFT and I am really excited about it. I am ok with the passive mount, since I own a lot of manual glass.

    Still, having the possibility to put a stabilized lens on it, would be a HUGE benefit. BM would definitely give their MFT version sales another boost, if people knew that there would be a way to "activate" the mount via firmware or even hardware upgrade at some point in the future.

  • These days you can't always assume that people are shooting with cinematic projection in mind. It's just as likely you could be targeting a tablet or laptop screen or even a mobile phone.

    The film grain look? I don't assume that the same aesthetic that looks good projected on a screen, or on a large TV in the living room works just as well when viewed on 1080p tablet or Retina display half a meter away. Personally I am finding that when I watch video at arms length or closer I see EVERYTHING. When I am watching stuff up close I don't want to see noise, I want to see detail.

    I think the BMCC and it's RAW workflow offers amazing levels of detail. It can deliver an image that has detail, color and as far as noise is concerned, it seems that existing RAW tools already do an amazing job cleaning noise and controlling sharpness and softness in the image.

    I would agree that the GH3 with its clean AVC-100 will appeal to a different type of shooter. Perhaps this kind ->

    I see the GH3 and BMCC as amazing camera packages that are not necessarily competing with each other.

  • @Tobsen

    To be totally clear, there is no way this mount can be activated later to be an active m4/3.

    As nice an idea as it is to simply have the pins in there for later, that wasn't something that can be done quickly. It would have taken many more months to do.


  • that wasn't something that can be done quickly. It would have taken many more months to do.

    But it is very good idea to press engineers a bit more and try to do it.

    Also it is very good idea to consider E Mount as the only mount, as cheap electronic Chinese E Mount to EOS adapters are available. m43 manual lenses can be also mounted using cheap adapters. So, it can be all in one version.

    So, may be, after all, m43 was not so good solution.

  • Yes, but again. It's not as simple as just "putting in some pins"......


  • It's not as simple as just "putting in some pins"......

    I understand that it is not such simple, but it is not thing that must be done from scratch, as BM has EF version.

  • Actually it's like starting from scratch. Apparently the m4/3 pins are very difficult and have to be done very precisely.

  • Actually it's like starting from scratch.

    I am sure if you ask engineeres they'll tell you that it is not.

    Apparently the m4/3 pins are very difficult and have to be done very precisely.

    And EF pins are produced some extreme imprecise approach? :-)

  • @johnbrawley I know that you cannot simply "activate" a passive mount. What I was trying to say is that BMD should really try to allow ANY kind of upgrade to get some functions of Panny lenses working. Like the image stabilization. How? I am not an electrical engineer, but I hope they can think of something. It would be great if they could release the cam with some preps to get it working in the future. It feels like that BMD is listening pretty well to what customers want, so hopefully they find a way to address this issue as well somehow.

  • Personally, I'm on John's side here. I don't see any problems with the passive mount at all. Blackmagic wanted to get a m4/3 version out as soon as possible, and it's up to the customer to decide whether he wants to buy it or not. If someone doesn't need an active mount or simply doesn't want to wait for it, then it's a great offer. Everyone else will have to wait for the active version.

    I don't know, I think it's totally okay if Blackmagic needs the time. I don't blame them.

  • @Tobsen it's called BM Cinema Camera. I doubt wether the market of µ43 IS lenses makes much sense of spending big efforts of implementation. I agree that Sony E would have been a good solution but that ment to rely on Chinese adapter maufacturer

  • I appreciate if I can mount all my manual glass – some adapted heritage lenses and some µFT like Voigts – pretty soon. I'll even try some Super-16 Arri/Zeiss PL-mounts which have been on the shelf for years to see how bad they vignette …

    I think we can't have it all: short time span and great price point.

    Why not shoot ASAP and resell if in a year it comes with a full electronic mount? If you want "Obsolescence Obsolete" you may need the dough for a RED.

  • @peaceonearth Thanks for the reminder... still, it doesn't mean you have to exclude certain beneficial features that could be adopted with this system. IS is on thing that is surely not needed for most stuff, but knowing you could use it...great thing.

    Again, I ordered the cam, because it suits my needs and the glass I own. Passive mount works for me just fine. In my opinion though, having an active m43 mount at some point would add a lot of benefits for customers- even to a "cinema" cam.

    Just my two cents without wanting to be complain (wasn't supposed to sound like it).

  • @Tobsen

    It's a passive mount. To make it active it would have to have pins...which it doesn't have.

    Maybe they will do an active one later. That will be a different version for sure. So count on active and IS only with EF mount. Otherwise make the most of passive.

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev They had a bit longer to work on the EF version. Right now they're busy with getting the first one out the door.

  • @Johnbrawley "To make an active version, you wouldn't have seen one till April next year..."

    John I think most people would gladly wait until April for this.

  • I'll just be happy if they can get the passive version released in December (in significant quantities of course).

  • @brian202020 - I doubt that the word "most" would apply to that statement. The longer I wait, the more $ I would miss out on making. nope, I came from the film world. I am used to manual as are a lot of other people out there.

  • Plus, a lens which has an IS optimized for stills can show some nasty effects when moving the camera.

    There must be a reason why even Canon has not activated auto-iris and -focus on the C300. Or look at the discussions over at where quite a few people are disappointed with auto-focus with Canon glass on a RED. The list goes on, like disappointment with the aperture's behavior on the expensive Panny zoom over here.

  • @nomad

    I find all this "disappointments" really funny. Aspecially fun it'll be after mechanical FFs and manual aperture rings will vanish quite soon.

    Nothing is bad about AF, as it can just save your time and money, even if you just use it for prefocus, and this is especially important in small production teams.

  • I agree completely on the latter, it can be very helpful to nail focus in a pinch.

    As much as I value your comments, I dare to disagree on FF, as long it's scenic production. Automatics still have a long way to go until they can compete with the aesthetic sensitivity of a real good focus-puller. Admittedly, most low-budget productions can't pay him/her. OTOH, low-budget is all about hidden talent.

    If you have the money, you don't care for a BMCC (or GH2), but go for one of the big three – with all manual PL glass.

    Docu is different, but it might be a safer bet to go for the EF-mount then, since it can be upgraded by firmware.