Thank you, thank you. I'm here every second Tuesday after the full moon, and on Fridays, except for when it is raining. Gotta shower sometime . . .

@appyinau, shooting 4k for a 2k finish has substantial quality benefits, yes. Plus you have all that extra resolution for stabilization and punch-ins etc.

@B3guy

ROTFLMFO!!!

Thanx Vitaliy, I had allucinations or it wasn't there two hours ago?

B3 your humor does not go unappreciated. made me smile, anyway.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev, yes I did note the irony about the new BMD Compressed RAW cams and the uproar by RED over Sony. It's the reason why that just made no sense. You can't stop the march of progress. All you can do is make sure you make compelling products and try to develop customer loyalty and a product ecosystem that people believe in and invest in cuz it works better than the competition. I thought RED had succeeded in doing that for the most part. They have their own niche carved out and lots of fairly loyal customers. No need to sue, just innovate.

Or like cows . . . wait. Hang, on, I had an analogy for this . . . Chicken or the? Nah, it's gone.

@appyinau when you walk in the theater, chances are you sitting down in front of a screen that is being projected at 2k - A 2k image of something shot at 4K. Downrezzing always gives great fine detail. Acquire high, present low.

It's just like buy low - sell high, only different.

Yes i know there are 4k monitors/TV out. My question still stands. If i have (as most of the planet has at the moment) a 2k tv and i play 4k video, will it be any better than a 2k video.

Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question. If the camera is 4k , then surely i need a 4k TV to see the full 4k, unless i intend to produce for the cinema, am i not just wasting my money (and patience waiting for my NLE to catch up).

@ghkqn

For wides, will need the Pany 7-14mm.

I didnt find a satifying solution with ND filters

@shian

I have high doubts. BMCC sensor also had global shutter mode and 60p mode, but they never allowed it and never did it.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/120275#Comment_120275

For those who think I'm insane to request those specs. Let's take a piece by piece approach to it.

A Mac Mini can house and run a quad core 2.3Ghz machine. It is approximately 8 inches square, so we make a 8" Cubed body and mount a 4K (mysterium style) sensor at the front. Let's say for good measure we put 2 Mac Mini's inside. More than enough processing power to pull the image off the chip and write it to media. WAY MORE, but let's just say there's 2 in there for the sake of argument and between them, they pull the image off the sensor, processes the signal, and write compressed images to an SSD drive mounted on the side, export the signal to the various monitor ports, process display LUTS, and run the firmware, etc. [this thing is way overpowered BTW]

2 Mac Mini's retail for $1000 each, but everybody knows Apple has at least a 100% markup, so let's say they cost $500 each to make - we need $1000 for all the processing power in our new 8 core massively powerful camera.

An M-X sensor (If RED was offering to upgrade the RED ONE for $5000, then maybe the sensor costs $3000 tops to make and install.) so we'll call it $3,000 but it's probably closer to $2500.

I seriously doubt the body, lens mount, SSD cradle, and I/O + power ports are going to cost $1000 per unit to mass produce, but lets just say they do.

Total cost of new 4K system - $5000, but in reality; manufactured in bulk - it could probably be made for around $2000-$2500. Factor in an additional cost per unit for encoder licenses, R&D and programming of $1500.

$3500-$4000 in hard costs. Marketing a product like this isn't very hard to do. Announcements like the ones they are making at NAB are costing them chump change, and are a MASSIVE Marketing coup. So marketing costs aren't really an issue when you make stunning anouncements that go viral in mere minutes.

Why am I insane to ask for it for around $8000? I'm pretty sure all 4K Cinema Cams cost somewhere around this range to manufacture. So why sell for five figures? Two reasons: staggeringly inefficient overhead in companies like Sony and Canon. And arrogance and Greed on the part of RED and Arri. [There's a lot of this at Sony and Canon too BTW]

They could easily offer these cams for under 10K. The first company to do it [likely BMD] will set the world afire, as people stop dreaming of owning an Alexa or Epic, and max out their credit cards, or ask their bank or their parents for loans, and in some cases sell their cars to plop down the cash to own one.

Now I realize that building a camera of this type is not as simple as my example, if it were, we'd all be building our own. But in terms of cost. It's not insane of me to expect a camera with those specs to be made, and delivered at that price point within the next year or so. I think BMD is the company to do it. They have the support system in place to make such camera a huge win for them without the overly-inflated profit margin. they are already sustained by their current model. A modest profit from their camera line is gravy compared to steering the enitre film and video community away from the current gatekeepers and into their wheelhouse.