TheRenaissanceMan

I'm not advocating for no growth. I'm advocating for growth in a direction other than resolution, because those areas are already more lacking than resolution is and matter more to overall IQ.

I sold TVs for two years, and conducted several tests with co-workers and customers. With a 55" screen, only 58% or so could tell which was which. Most consumers watch Youtube at reduced resolution to improve load times. Netflix still streams 99% of its content in 720p. More than half the customers I've dealt with still buy DVDs. Cable companies still provide mostly SD and 720p content. There's no 4K disk format available yet. We're years away from widespread gigabit internet, so streaming 4K is still a chore (hell, Netflix/Amazon Prime 1080p already shows compression problems). Now if you're watching a larger TV fairly close, 4K makes more sense. It makes sense for larger computer monitors. It also makes sense for projectors, although my 1080p DLP resolves just fine (sitting 9 feet from my 120" screen). Believe me, this is not driven by bottom-level consumers. 4K sets are driven by marketing machines. The 1080p OLED display in our store has been mistaken for 4K by almost every customer I've ever dealt with. Why? Great color depth, perfect black levels, great motion rendering, and 178 degree viewing angles. Unless you buy top of the line, which most consumers can't or won't do, LCDs still suffer from motion blur (best case scenario you're resolving 400 lines during moving shots), poor blacks, blooming (on sets with poor local dimming), limited color gamut, flashlighting, cloudy blacks, and poor viewing angles. If I had a choice between a 1080p OLED panel or a 4K LCD, I'd choose 1080p every time. Like I said: 4K is nice, but it's way at the bottom of the priorities list.

Impressive! Something's got to give, though...you can't have a huge aperture, small size, and great performance. Pick 2.

Media will certainly converge, but purpose-built devices will always outperform swiss army knives.

I suppose color is relative, and I wish I could love Canon color the way others seem to, but I've just gotten frustrated with its problem with red. From Art Adams: "A while back I tried to match a Canon C300 to an Alexa. I got close, but only because Alexa is generally the most color accurate camera I’ve worked with and matching any camera to it usually results in accurate color. The exception to this is red. Under tungsten light my new C300 settings looked pretty good, but under daylight the slightest hint of red in flesh tone skewed the toward magenta. This is a really ugly look for a face, so I discontinued use of those settings. (I did get a number of emails from satisfied customers, though.) Canon's reds are generally skewed a bit toward yellow. My theory is that skin imperfections that are normally red melt away when their color is shifted toward yellow, making them appear less red and more like flesh tone. Any attempt to "fix" this on the part of the user causes an overcorrection that pushes red toward blue, making imperfections stand out even more." I don't want to sit here like "sorry my eyes are so much better than yours," but...I like bold colors in my work, and orangey reds just don't play well to that. This shift in Canon's reds also smooshes (technical term) some shades of red/orange/pink into each other a bit, losing accuracy in that area of the vectorscope. For comparison, check out the Panasonic video at 1:51--the almost burgundy red on the left and all the tiny variations in the brighter red on the right. Look at 2:07, where each of those pinkish, purplish, and reddish folders are all distinctly different colors, and different again from the gentler reds on the wallpaper. That kind of subtle hue discrimination has been the trademark of Panasonic's pro-division cameras since the Varicam, and it gives the image a level of subtlety and realism that I've never seen from a hybrid camera until now. To me, there's no comparison. But YMMV.

I haven't used the camera, but I'd assume you use the real focal length: 50mm.

Diffraction's going to be the biggest issue. The 5DS already shows diffraction losses at f/8, so not only will you be pushing your lenses to their limit, but you'll also be shooting them at apertures no smaller than f/2-2.8. We're reaching the point of diminishing returns. SD to HD was a quantum leap in quality. HD to 4K was small but noticeable--more useful for post than anything. Most theaters still use 2K projectors, and almost all films are only mastered in 2K. Most DPs even consider 4K too much resolution to shoot people without using diffusion to offset the harshness. The Epic Dragon with its 6K resolution was crazy. Luckily, RED was smart enough to use a bit of diffusion in the filter stack and digital pipeline, so we still had enough detail to downsample or crop down for a nice crisp 4K delivery. They also touted it as a way to shoot world-class video and still simultaneously, but it hasn't really worked that way in practice due to the lack of flash support and the fact that good video and sharp stills require completely different shutter speeds. Besides, 4K was more than enough for magazine covers as it was. I don't see the point of 8K. To me, the resolution race is over. We have far, far more than we need. I can see one or two 8K cameras for special cases/effects; they'll be for resolution what the Phantom Flex is for slo-mo. But to act like this will be anything like the leap from SD to HD is asinine, because there's only so much detail the human eye can resolve. And guess what? We've already reached that point! At 8-12 feet (the average distance a viewer sits from their TV), the difference between 1080p and 4K is so insignificant that you're basically guessing as to which is which. Contrast ratio, motion rendering, and color gamut/accuracy will make a far bigger difference. In the theater, you're limited by the display resolution, ambient conditions, and how well the projector is maintained. My theater has all 4K projectors, but half of them have a misaligned color panel. Even if it's only off by a couple pixels, there goes your resolution advantage right there. So if home viewers can't resolve it and most theaters won't benefit, what is the value of higher-than-4K resolution? You have bigger file sizes, more cost in post, a more limited selection of suitable lenses, and a boost to your ego. What's the point? Manufacturers need to work on color, ease of use, workflow, heat management, bit depth/tonality, and compression. Resolution is at the bottom of the list. The Alexa's already proven it.

Fix the RS and give it a nice C100ish form factor with XLRs, and I see documentary/event shooters sprinting to buy it. It feels like the low-end market is obsessed with high ISO and full frame, so that's where I see this lower-end interchangeable-lens camcorder going. People slam that 12MP sensor as inadequate for stills anyway--might as well pack it in a video body. Give us that, and I wouldn't be disappointed. Hell, I'd even consider buying it, and I'm locked in with Mu43. Sorry, can't say I do. I've just talked to a few people here and on BMC User who said they use that workflow.

If they update the sensor with the new stacked architecture, it could conceivably fix the RS issue. Issues with weird colors and blue artifacting come from S-Gamut 1. Either use Sony LUTs/ACES to properly transform your footage to r709/P3, or just avoid using S-Gamut. The colors may still not be to your liking, but that's a whole separate issue--and much more easily tackled. I can't see them putting the F5/FS7 sensor in this camera. Maybe if they restricted it to 8-bit, but I think it's going to be full frame, and the A7R II sensor doesn't make sense in a camcorder.

Yeah, and the the same massive rolling shutter issues. Maybe it'll be an updated version of the A7S sensor with the new stacked sensor design for less RS and higher frame rates. I doubt strongly that this will be an 10-bit camera, so slo-mo will be a great way to differentiate it from the A7S. Internal 4K, but no 10-bit, no XAVC (stick with XAVC-S), and probably S-LOG 2 and S-Gamut 1. Give it internal NDs and XLRs, and it'd sell like gangbusters to the documentary crowd.

The color is too processed to tell the manufacturer, but DoF looks to be at least APS-C. Skin tones are actually pretty healthy-looking and the image has great, poppy detail. Not a lot of DR in the highlights, but colors roll off in saturation as they approach clip. I'm going to guess NX1 again, with a longish lens.

$350!? Sold!

I can't wait for more people to get their hands on this. We've been living vicariously through The Camera Store TV videos for too long.

The PIX-E5 also has the option to attach an XLR audio mixer, which makes it interesting for shooters who work with small crews in controlled conditions.

That's an interesting way to describe it. In terms of look, I'd say it has a detailed 4K image with a natural look to sharpness, silky smooth tonal transitions, and strong accurate colors. Skin tones look wonderful, but nothing at all like Canon--more neutral, accurate and (imo) cinematic without falling into Sony sterility. It's a very sexy image. The GH4+4K recorder combo is a beast! I can't think of anything else with this form factor that can match it on image quality or price:performance ratio.

Wow...some challenging conditions there, and the camera handles it beautifully. That DR, those colors (especially the reds and skin tones)...I'm amazed. It's like a completely different camera. The 8-bit is very good, but 10-bit V-LOG is a whole new league of image quality. *drools*

I mean, that's fair. All these letters and numbers are a lot to keep straight for non-obsessives. Hahaha It's so funny to hear what you decided, because I was just about to post that the GH4 was more of a compliment to the BMPCC than a replacement for it and that within the next month, I'll be buying a GH4 and 12-35 to go with my BMPCC and primes. Being able to share lenses between the two sold me as well. Congrats on the purchase, and keep us up to date with your experiences!

So the BMPCC has a 2.88x crop factor compared to full frame. What this means is that you'll have a wider depth of field than you would on APS-C or FF sensors, as well as a narrower field of view when using FF/APS-C glass. This means you have two main options when it comes to your lenses: 1. You can use a normal/generic speed booster to reduce that crop factor to 2x, which makes FF doable if you're not a huge on focal lengths wider than 40mm, or a BMPCC-specific speedbooster, which reduces the crop factor to 1.67, which makes the sensor effectively just smaller than APS-C. The advantages of this option are that you have a wider assortment of vintage and modern lenses to choose from, get a stop more light (or 1 2/3 with the BMPCC-specific booster), and can give you the look of a larger sensor (which some prefer). The disadvantages are large lenses (which can be unwieldy on the BMPCC), expense (powered speed boosters and BMPCC-specific models are pricey), and no IS/AF on non-electronic lenses (which may or may not matter to you). 2. Buy native Micro Four Thirds mount lenses. Because they're made with a 2x crop in mind, they offer much wider focal lengths that murder you way less on the crop factor. You can get a Panasonic 12-35 (35-100 FF equiv.) f/2.8 IS and have an amazing all-rounder for only $550 used, or the amazing SLR Magic 10mm t/2.1 for a 29mm FF equiv. that's built like a tank, completely manual, and razor sharp from max aperture. The advantages of this option are IS/AF on Panasonic/Olympus/Sigma lenses, much smaller lenses, cheaper lenses (depending what you buy), and better performance (again, depending--there are exceptions). The downsides are that they won't affect the sensor size/look or give you extra light and can't be used on larger formats if you ever decide to switch. I lean toward option 2, because I like the option to keep my package small (heh heh), because I can use the same lenses on my Panasonic/Olympus MFT cameras for video and stills, and because there's some incredible glass in the MFT stable that I couldn't bear to part with. It's usable. Not great, but usable. I ordered a sun hood for the LCD (like the one recommended on DrewNetwork), which is the cheapest option to improve visibility, but you could also pick up a low-end LCD loupe or external monitor if you're having trouble. Definitely give it a try before you buy any of that stuff though--I've shot a music video and a short doc without any of it and done just fine. Definitely give it a whirl for editing. I started on Premiere and planned to just color correct in Resolve, but I'm finding the Resolve 12 Beta to be more than enough NLE for me. It's a personal preference thing; you won't know unless you try. In terms of color tools, Resolve is the most comprehensive option available. It can look a little intimidating at first, but the tools are deceptively simple. I've had good luck just watching some simple Youtube tutorials and playing around with footage. You'll get the hang of it in no time.

You can always build up small camera with a cheap eBay rig and matte box if you want it to look more "serious." Also, I'm typing on my phone right now, so I'll keep this brief: the BMPCC is a very, very easy to use and grade. DaVinci Resolve 12 is free, and can handle RAW and ProRes without a sweat. Worst case, if you want a usable starting point, all you have to do is right click each clip and apply the BMD Film to Rec709 LUT, and boom--usable footage. I actually have a much easier time lighting, exposing, and grading BM footage compared to other cameras because of their huge DR and super robust codecs. The camera also requires a lot less accessories than people pretend. Realistically, you need a couple big SD cards ($100-200), a pile of batteries or external solution ($60-$120), and a lens. That's it. The other stuff can be nice, but it's by no means necessary. I'm a beginner as well (film school), and I'm finding the Blackmagic to be a powerful and straightforward tool to work and learn with. If you want more information, I highly recommend checking out Mattias Burling's and Drew Network's YouTube series. Both are extremely informative and do a lot to reduce the camera's intimidation factor. You can also feel free to message me. I'd be happy to answer any questions and even run tests, if I can find time.

S-LOG 3 and SGAMUT3.cine would make this camera a star. I don't think most people realize what a difference it makes in grading, but the color science with Sony's Type A LUT is very, very close to Alexa.

I just think we're not used to seeing strong, accurate reds in our digital footage. It's a tough color to nail--probably the toughest. But when done right, it results in really wonderful skin tones. I have no problem starting with a pre-existing LUT if it gives me results I like. All the Alexa LUT stuff I've seen has washed out mids, dull colors, and a yellow-green bias to skin tones. Those people look sick. The VLUT images, on the other hand, have been uniformly gorgeous. A bit punchy perhaps, but that's easy enough to tone down. The best part by far is the skin. Like the Varicam, it just makes people look amazing.

Nope. I recently bought a BMPCC and by experience running RAW files through Resolve is exactly as you described. Easy as pie, even on my very modest PC.

Some of these monitor-recorders are more compact than you'd think. If they came out with a 4K Blackmagic Video Assist, I'd buy it and never look back.

Hey Charles, have you tried the VLOG LUT from Panasonic's website? You may find you prefer the skin tones and tonality.

Also, the GH3 shot great stills and video years before the RX10.