Comments on: Blackmagic Releases Firmware 1.1 for Cinema Camera, Adds DNxHD and Image Stabilization

By: MFT or EF Blackmagic Cinema Camera? Philip Bloom Weighs in and Reviews the Micro 4/3 BMCC - NoFilmSchool

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 03:18:33 +0000

[...] review of the EF mount version of the camera (Blackmagic addressed some of the initial concerns in firmware V1.1 and firmware V1.2, like DNxHD, on-screen aperture display, and universal hard drive support with [...]

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:15:32 +0000

Wait, so is this from the camera or the lens? will the mft have image stability when its available ?

By: Daniel Mimura

Daniel Mimura — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 03:05:39 +0000

Lens based image stabilization is terrible…it’s for stills (and daddycams). The DSLR amateur world has made people think it’s okay and should be used for motion picture cameras.

I can’t stand trying to keep a precise frame with the gyros (or electronic equivalent or whatever) trying to fight me as the frame creeps around. Use a good fluid head. Or…don’t try to handhold something that’s too telephoto.

By: Daniel Mimura

Daniel Mimura — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 02:57:26 +0000

Wow…you guys must be fun to be around at a party…

“…actually…”

By: steve

steve — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:41:48 +0000

I don’t know if you guys have seen one of the cameras. I live in Melbourne, Australia and Video Guys have one in a glass display case. It looks good. Surprisingly bigger than I thought. Quite substantial looking. Definitely brought a smile to my dial.

By: Marion

Marion — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:39:53 +0000

A flashbanding test for when shooting at a concert or “flash” happy occasion. Thanks

By: Blackmagic Design Releases Firmware Update 1.1 for Cinema Camera | CineTechnica

Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:47:14 +0000

[...] as well as an increased number of shutter angles. Joe Marine over at NoFilmSchool rounded up some test videos of the new firmware that show a comparison of Blackmagic camera footage with and without the image [...]

By: Nathan Carr

Nathan Carr — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:44:14 +0000

so? mic up your tallent, boom them, or capture with an H4n. Nobody spends 3k and another few grand on lenses to use “internal audio.”

By: Raphael

Raphael — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:02:37 +0000

I give up…

By: Joe Marine

Joe Marine — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:01:43 +0000

Yes, it’s just short hand, I understand the difference between the two, but many use 1.3x or so anamorphic adapters on 16:9 sensors, which actually give you closer to 2.35 than 2.39, like the Panasonic LA7200, which is a 1.33x squeeze.

By: Stephen van Vuuren

Stephen van Vuuren — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:53:22 +0000

There was no digital anamorphic films in theaters prior to 1970 when the projector gate aspect was adjusted from roughly 2.35 to roughly 2.39. However, it was not a true standard as all sorts of other sizes existed – literally dozens. Plus projectors, film stock, projector gates are mechanical and slight variances were normal.

However, it in digital, which is all that is relevant here, 2.35 is wrong. It is precisely 2048 x 858 for 2K and 4096 x 1716 for 4K. I make DCPs for filmmakers and people get this wrong all the time because they use 2.35.

By: sean

sean — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:19:38 +0000

wow…that camera is picking up a LOT of noise from the IS motor!!

Still nice to have though! ;)

By: Raphael

Raphael — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:09:45 +0000

Actually 2.35 was the standard till the 70s and from then onward 2.39, it had nothing to do with whether it was shot on film or digital. Besides “2.35″ is more of a familiar term rather than accurate term, we say “4K” all the time yet it’s not exactly 4000 lines of pixels, you catch my drift. It’s more of a nickname, it’s not like we don’t know the accurate information, we still just generalize. C-47 anyone?

By: Stephen van Vuuren

Stephen van Vuuren — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:51:31 +0000

No aperture display for Canon EOS lenses yet?

2.35 is not actually the aspect ratio for standard anamorphic – it’s 2.39 for “scope”. In film, the exact number were not important but for DCP release it’s critical to get exact sizes right to avoid visual artifacts, scaling, cropping or black boxes in the image area.

By: palisady

palisady — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:12:19 +0000

roger that

By: Gabe

Gabe — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:54:47 +0000

Test ProRes Log on the BMCC as well as raw DNG. I suspect ProRes Log will be most practical to shoot overall. Would love to see Log from the BMCC next to a frame from the Epic using Redcolor3 and Redlogfilm.

By: palisady

palisady — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:19:21 +0000

I’m going to have BMCC next week with Epic and NEX 5n on hand, anything any of you would like to see as comparison? I’m planing to do dynamic range, contrast, and skin tone and possibly low light.
I’ll have CP.2s on hand and some FD glass for NEX 5n.
I only have NEX 5n , because I’m currently experimenting with it as a ultra lowcost DSLR shotter. I will attempt to get as close with it to the big guys as possible.

By: Robert Anthony

Robert Anthony — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:43:50 +0000

“Does the power of the image stabilization sway anyone who changed their order from the EF to the MFT mount Cinema Camera?”

Yes, I had decided to get the MFT version, but the recent IS support update has swayed me back to the EF mount because having Stabilization is huge in so many situations from run-n-gun to events etc …

By: Raphael

Raphael — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:25:48 +0000

Whoever said anything about the lens communicating with the camera? There are Metabone models that allow you to control iris on the adapter, or something connected to the adapter, rather than the camera. Don’t put words in my mouth mate. Not to mention that that’s beside the point, the point is that there aren’t nearly enough lenses with IS to make me change back to EF for that reason alone.

By: Joe Marine

Joe Marine — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:37:20 +0000

Just a few misplaced letters :)