Bruno

The crop factor is not less, they're just not comparing it to full frame, they're stating the crop factor compared to super 35 or micro 4/3, depending on the situation. My advice is don't worry about it, it's filmmaking, not maths, treat it like a super 16mm camera and you'll be fine.

That wouldn't work unless you had another lens in there somewhere, which is kind of what the speed booster does. BMD did nothing to change the FOV crop, the numbers in that image were the relationship between the Pocket camera sensor and a normal Micro 4/3 sensor, whereas usually the crop is determined against a full frame sensor. It's a very misleading chart, but then again so is comparing sensors to full frame, since the cinema standard should be Super35.

Check out the Fujinon zoom TV lenses too, there's some cheap and fast ones out there with great picture quality. I think one of the advantages of the pocket camera is size, so using small 16mm lenses would be better than huge DSLR lenses with adapters. If you're willing to spend a bit more, you might be able to find a proper cinema lens, like a zeiss, schneider or canon cine zoom for as low as $1000, and seriously, that's probably all you'd need.

There's a great 5.9mm by Angenieux!

The 4k camera shoots compressed raw in both 4k and HD, and the same for prores. 4k compressed raw might actually produce smaller files than the current BMCC uncompressed raw files.

The reason they chose to use wide lenses on Poter was not because of the kids, it was to show more if the sets. Jean Pierre Jeunet is usually even more extreme, check out Alien Resurection, Amelie or Delicatessen. If you compare a 21mm with a 50mm, of course the 21mm will look more distorted, but it doesn't mean it will take you out of the movie because of it, especially when most of the movie uses wider lenses, it's an aesthetic option like so many others.

Of course it's a stylistic choice, but the "distorted" result is very relative. The Harry Potter movies were mostly shot with lenses from 15mm to 25mm and I don't see anyone complaining that the faces were distorted.

  True. I've said this before, but I've worked with many high end Super 35mm film scans and they don't look sharp, not at all. They probably compare to a Canon 5Dmk3 in terms of sharpness at most, and they're often sharpened in post.   That softness is an important part of film's aesthetic. We don't necessarily have to mimic film with digital, digital is a different look, and should be taken advantage of for what it is, but many people focus on the wrong aspects IMO.

Look for Angenieux, Switar, Zeiss, Canon...

There's plenty of movies out there shot around the 21mm focal length and faces look just fine, I wouldn't worry about it, I you wanna go close, then to close.

The Pocket Cinema Camera is an amazing product, and the same way the form factor might be used to its advantage, it can also become a downside for many types of shooting.   I don't think these 2 cameras are competing cameras, I think they complement each other very well.   The Digital Bolex "is" a much more solid 16mm solution, the global shutter alone puts it in a different league IMO, but being able to use it together with the Pocket Cinema Camera and share lenses with it, IMO makes it an even more valuable product.   Now once the Digital Bolex starts selling them, bringing the price down a bit would help, it's too close to the 4K BMD camera as it stands.   And another thing, DB needs to get some sort of compressed raw codec in there.

It's the sensor top specs, so it's likely you won't get that much dynamic range, even when shooting raw. Prores should be even less, but both should be pretty good anyway.

  A little less sharp could also be a good thing, more film like and less prone to aliasing. :)

  IMO compressed codec is an advantage, not a disadvantage. So is global shutter. And 4k.   The BMCC is known to drop frames during uncompressed raw shooting at 2.5k, so imagine shooting uncompressed 4k, it might not even be possible with current media read/write speeds, not at this price range and size.   Shooting raw doesn't mean you don't have to still try to get the best exposure, lighting etc, and if you're roughly in the ball park, compressed raw will give you more than enough to work with in post.   Actually, I'd like to see a comparison between both, hopefully they bring compressed raw to the BMCC as well and we'll be able to compare.

When you get 25 of those files per second it becomes more of a curse than a blessing :)   As I said before, RED users don't seem to be complaining about it, they have different amounts of compression to choose from though. The same way I'm more than happy to lose 1 stop in order to have global shutter, I'm more than willing to lose some subtle information in order to get manageable file sizes. Video compression has come a long way, and we're not talking about 8 bit H264 compression here.   Most people already complained about the raw file sizes of the BMCC, including dropped frames in most drives, having to deal with the same uncompressed raw format at 4k would be insane.   Some of the issues are described here: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/12-things-think-about-blackmagic-cinema-camera/

  Yes, most likely information your eyes wouldn't see anyway. Remember that RED is also lossy compressed raw, that's not a bad thing at all, it's much better than having to deal with uncompressed formats, especially at 4k!

  Seriously, cancel the MFT preorder now and sell the EF BMCC as soon as you receive the 4k camera.   BMD should have an upgrade path for everyone who's waiting for a BMCC, and people who ordered this should be pressing them in that direction, you should try to change your BMCC MFT pre order into a 4k one.   The original BMCC kind of became instantly obsolete with the announcement of these cameras. The EF mount was always the wrong one for that sensor size, the uncompressed raw format was always the wrong one for independent shooters and the MFT mount is passive when even the Pocket camera is now offering an active mount. Either they come up with a quick makeover for the BMCC to solve these issues and bring them up to par with the new offerings or they might as well discontinue it.   At the same time, I hope they're also improving the software/firmware features that were lacking.

"The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K is housed in the same chassis as our current Blackmagic Cinema Camera so all the third party accessories that have been developed will fit perfectly. It features an EF compatible lens mount as the sensor in this camera is way too large physically, to fit in a MFT lens mount."   This confirms my previous observation, having the same case keeps costs down and won't present such a big problem when most people cancel their original BMCC orders. They should have a good upgrade path in place btw.

  RED is compressed raw and the theaters are filled with VFX blockbusters shot with them :)

It's different things, even if 4k TVs hadn't been invented yet, there's clear advantages to shooting in 4k resolution.

I haven't compared both, but isn't the case of the Production camera exactly the same as the Cinema Camera? This might explain why they kept the form factor, to keep costs down and maybe to be able to use the thousands of camera cases they must have waiting for sensors. I had many critiques for their first camera, especially because they didn't listen to the community and "released" an inferior product despite everyone complaining about the same issues, but seriously, with the new one I have no problem at all. 4k and global shutter are huge selling points IMO. I don't think it makes any sense to keep selling the Cinema Camera though, they should just focus on delivering these ones now. The Cinema Camera was too much trouble for them, and just lost most if not all of its appeal. If they keep it in their lineup, a proper firmware upgrade with all the missing features and compressed raw is an absolute must have. And of course, this time they HAVE to deliver.

  Close to Micro 4/3 I'd say.

  The spec list says there's an audio input...

  M43 lenses would probably not cover an S35 sensor.

Now seriously, how can one possibly not get at least one of each?