Bruno

They said July for both cameras, but then again they only just started shipping the first MFT versions of the original camera... It will be quite bad for their reputation if they don't deliver on time again.   The 4K camera, assuming the quality is up there with their first camera, is still an amazing option, I don't think I'd get a 5D3 instead if they were both out. You can always just shoot 1080p Prores on the 4K camera, which is very useful.

  Is that any slower than converting 21Gb worth of h264 footage to prores? Because that's what everyone has been doing for the past 3 or 4 years for much worse results, and it hasn't stop anyone! :)

  You're right, there's been come confusion and different people from Blackmagic have said different things. That explains how they can write to SD cards then.

Pocket Camera and 4k camera for sure.   The other 2 models are redundant at the moment, as I see it, since the EF mount was always a bad choice and the MFT mount still has a weird sized sensor, not allowing for most 16mm cine lenses, and why on earth is it passive? The Pocket camera addresses all these issues, plus it uses standard SD cards and cheap batteries. Another issue is the uncompressed raw, which was addressed by the 4k camera.   Also, the price is too close to the 4k model for them to be a good choice at all, maybe slightly cheaper at $2500 they would make a bit more sense... I feel like they listened to their clients and fixed all the main issues of the original camera on the 4K and the Pocket Camera, but the original Cinema Camera is still as lacking as it was before. Now if they only could add audio meters and a file manager...   Something I was thinking about though, how can they record uncompressed raw into the SD card on the Pocket Camera? Isn't that impossible at the moment on the 5D3? Is the problem in the 5D3 the SD card controller speed or is it the SD cards' speed in general?   Whatever happens though, Blackmagic should add compressed raw to ALL their cameras asap, that's a huge flaw in both the CC and the Pocket Camera at the moment. There's been some contradictory talk of this but nothing clear so far...   Anyway, who here will be able to resist the $995 Pocket Cam? :)       They say that it's a sensor with the same technology but not the same exact sensor, so maybe you should wait and see before having an opinion. The question is still how long you must wait...

This is great, does it output compressed CinemaDNG files?

Great stuff! Now when can we get an RX100 hack with a c-mount and raw? :)

http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS-1D_C.aspx?type=important&faqtcmuri=tcm:13-1052896   "Customers who wish to update EOS-1D C to Firmware Version 1.2.0 are requested to bring their cameras to our authorised service facilities."   Someone doesn't want someone to have access to their firmware upgrade files... :)  

  It's as handy for high end as it is for low end. Low end filmmaking doesn't have to look any worse than high end filmmaking, it's about telling different stories, having different budgets, different artistic statements and aesthetic choices, but both have the right to use footage that looks as good as it gets. Right now raw is as good as it gets.   Are these DSLR raw hacks as they stand the solution? No way. Are they important? You bet. If your problem was with these cameras' limited raw ability, I could understand, but if your problem is with raw itself, then you're aiming low on your $100-150k/year videos.   Raw presents a cumbersome workflow for independent filmmakers, but guess what, it also does it for high end filmmakers. If they could just use prores files and give you the same quality I'm sure they would.   The way forward is to accept this and work on improved raw workflows that will eventually make everyone's life easier, instead of dismissing it like you're doing.   Not ready to use it? Fine. Scared because you don't really understand it? Understandable. But none of those make it any less valid or significant.

  From Andrew's post from a few days ago, they already did.

Look for focal reducers, there's loads of them on eBay and other places, maybe some will work on the cameras you mention?

  I don't own any of those, but I would assume a lot of it is, since they use the same codecs, stabilizing options, etc.

Seriously, why would you use a hacked old camera that shoots below 1080p res when working with a client? This is great news and very interesting as a curiosity, but that would be a quick way to lose a paying client.

  You understand these two things don't go very well together, right? :) Why don't you just do it yourself???

RED gives you that kind of compression in raw, but you still need to use lower res proxies to edit it. The mentioned solution is not about having files larger than 4gb, it's about having the camera create a new file automatically before reaching the limit, those files could later on be merged seamlessly. Some cameras already do this. Magic Lantern already does this with h264 files and their 12 minutes limit, even though in that case there's a few frames dropped in the process.

It's not only bullshit, it's also how most, if not all, of the (digital workflow) movies you ever watched were edited. Editors work with lower res files, often ugly looking with timecode and sequence/shot info printed on top. Once they have a picture lock, they replace only the used clips with the high res raw versions, and that's what you use for grading. Technology might catch up soon, but in the meantime editing raw files is cumbersome and hurts your editing workflow more than it helps.

RED raw footage comes with quicktime proxies at different resolutions, you can edit them pretty much on any computer, and still be referencing the original raw files, it's a different thing, but definitely a paradigm worth adapting to the "indie" raw workflow. Computers have come a long way, but editing raw is still not quite there, especially at 4k. Grading all the footage and transcoding before editing is also not an ideal workflow, as most of the grading should depend on continuity.

  Let me take a wild guess here... you own a 5Dmk3! :)

  That's pretty cool, but the way I see it, it wouldn't help much as it would still have to be encoded to a file and then reencoded again by youtube... It feels a bit too much like digital noise, and less like film grain, but it would be great if youtube and vimeo could add this as a realtime playback option (defined by the author), so you'd upload a clean version, and then choose a realtime playback "film grain stock" that wouldn't make the life harder on the h264 encoding process.   Film grain is great to add texture, fix banding issues, or even in more extreme uses for aesthetic preference. Using x264 allows you to get a better h264 file, but then again, you still have no control over how youtube reencodes the footage. I'm sure there's a few encoding settings that will produce better results, and that's exactly what I'm trying to find out here.

  "No permission to watch the video".         Most of the time... That's not an excuse to be a random asshole anyway. I know what I'm talking about most of the time, so what? What is he talking about though?

I seriously don't get your attitude, I'm merely putting this out there for discussion, I didn't try to impose any conclusions of my own, neither have I neglected any of yours, why are you being an asshole?   I did read your posts and agreed to much of it, not sure what's annoying you so much in what I'm saying... If you think this is a non issue, move along, but I (and probably others) would appreciate it if we could learn some more on how to improve the quality of the work we present to an audience.

  It's been what, a week or two? It's still an alpha, I wouldn't rule out a version that is totally useable under any shooting conditions in the (very) near future.

  From that same article: "You can noticeably improve the quality of your video on YouTube by using a sophisticated, scene aware, denoising filter prior to uploading."

  I agree, many film trailers look great on youtube, they also go through a much more thorough (and probably expensive) mastering process. The issue here is that I can also produce a good looking h264 file, my difficulty is maintaining that quality after toutube reencodes it.     I don't know what you mean by that. BBC won't shoot on 16mm any more for HD contents, and the reason for that was the resulting poor quality from encoding grainy footage, as in the statement I quoted.   I didn't say they're rightly doing so, I know Walking Dead looks great when streamed on my TV, so does Californication, I just said that's what they did.   Once again, I'm just trying to find the best way to use film grain at this day and age, where most of the audience is watching content online, I'm not speaking against using grain.

My point was only to illustrate that the BBC also agreed that film grain and h264 don't go that well together.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/4026025/deja-view-my-favorite-movie-star-trek-vs-star-wars