Considering they can't get the EF mount out the door on time I find this highly unlikely timing. Either Blackmagic are extremely stupid or this rumour is a pile of shit, hmmm I wonder which...

It is simple, this guys have no sources conserning Black Magic.

So, this is like broken phone. We are talking about active mount option it moves to other places and slightly later rumor sites come with amazing rumor news :-)

Looks amazing.

Yes sorry, 220 is 30p, 180 is 25p, and 175 is 24p.

Looking at the detail this camera resolves has got me thinking. How much is the camera asking for in terms of resolving power from a full frame lens?

When filming RAW it's asking for 2.5K through a window in the lens smaller than a GH2.

I don't know the maths behind it but let's say you extrapolate that sensor, taking that pixel per inch/mm ratio and scale it up so that the sensor was being projected onto by the whole full frame lens, what would the resolution be?

I hope it's not asking too much of a tiny window in our old manual primes.

Okay, here goes...

The resolution of the sensor is 2432 x 1366. This is a total of 3,322,112 pixels.

The sensor size is 15.81mm x 8.88mm. This is an area of 140.3928mm squared.

Dividing the pixels over the area of the sensor there are 23662.97987 pixels per square mm

Taking the size of a full frame sensor which is 35.9mm x 24mm. This is an area of 861.6mm squared.

861.6 / 140.3928 means that full frame has a sensor area 6.137066858 times bigger than the BMC.

So... 6.137066858 x the 3,322,122 pixels of the BMC comes out to a total of 20,388,023.45 pixels.

So effectively if the BMC was full frame it would be about 20 megapixels and our old manual lenses should be able to handle that.... phew

@brain202020

Still feels good to figure it out. Great, good old AIS glass is still going strong.

Some superb footage by Philip Bloom

@qwerty123 how so?

Yes, I want to know more about the low-light capability of the BMMC. This could be its weakness?

Just take a look at the nighttime shots on Marco Solorio's video. It's no FS100, but it does pretty well.

Yea, the Blackmagic Cam is actually cleaner at 1600iso... it's just that the FS100 goes higher. I'd consider it a pretty good low-light cinema cam. Sure, something like the 5DIII can go up to clean 3200iso... but it's 8-bit low-res image with no detail and flexibility... the image isn't up to par to begin with, so who cares about the performance at ANY iso?

I've kind of just stopped watching the reviews from the "popular" guys. It's clear that while they're not being "payed" by companies like canon, per se, they'll stop getting support if they were to show the BMCC in a better light than something like the C300. It's pretty clear when you watch a few of the reviews how they'll "talk-around" the areas where the BMCC is clearly beating canon's "cinema" cams...

It's better to just making your own calls these days in the era of "camera-review celebrities". Politics are at play, no matter what anyone tells you.

Yea, that was a great review. I was only talking about reviews from the "famous" reviewers... everyone knows who they are. These lesser known production teams (like OneRiver Media) still have the ability to perform direct un-biased side-by-side reviews. The "most popular" BMCC reviews I've seen have just been hidden-commercials for the C300.

Some superb footage by Philip Bloom

what do you think is superb at this footage? What is special which could not have been done with another camera? Artefake are horrible, see the guys neck at 5:00 . Just my 2 cts

@peaceonearth DR is special. Artefacts aren't from the cam but from Vimeo.