Blackmagic Cinema Camera rumour of revised camera in 2013 with active MFT mount

[Andrew Reid]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Cinema_Camera_MFT1.jpg[/img]

The Blackmagic Cinema Camera hasn't shipped in volume yet but already there is talk of quite an extensively revised camera according to my good friend [url="http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-new-blackmagic-camera-with-full-electronic-support-coming-2013/"]43Rumors[/url]. If this is true (and I stress - IF!!) then I have mixed feelings because I think it is WAY too soon to be doing a 'Blackmagic Cinema Camera V1.5' in early 2013, effectively making your existing cameras obsolete before they have even shipped.

[Bruno]

If that is true it wouldn't be too early for an update, it would be too late, since those are basic and rather obvious requests that they've been ignoring since the beginning. Not listening to your possible customers when finishing any product so you can use that information to fine tune your product is bad business behavior, as any good product manager will tell you.

[TC]

Well, those changes would be most welcome, of course. But it would be a PR blunder of monumental proportions. Particularly as those who pre-ordered have been waiting for up to 6 months already.

[Tzedekh]

While I think that an active-MFT version is inevitable (provided, of course, that any model of the camera ever ships in quantity), I'm highly suspicious of the 43 Rumors article's FT4 classification ("61-80% chance the rumor is correct"). The author says he received "multiple mails from different sources" but never describes those sources as reliable, and he concludes that the "rumor based on 'non-facts.'" Yet it has received the second highest reliability rating.

Logic dictates that the timing of the alleged new model's release -- "early 2013" -- is strange. It was more than a month ago that BMD announced a tentative December release of the passive-MFT version. But the original EF version is months behind schedule, and BMD has said those orders would be filled first. That will likely push release of the MFT model into at least early 2013. Why bother even releasing a passive-mount version when the active-mount one is right on its heels? Wouldn't that piss off a lot of buyers, especially if it also had "phantom XLR, larger capacity battery and an external battery mount, . . . an improved RAW coded [sic] and a slightly different design"? Even if it cost somewhat more (e.g., $3,500-$4,000), buyers of the first two models would be justifiably angry. And although it's possible BMD could announce in early 2013 and release later that year, I assume that by now they've learned their lesson. Most likely they wouldn't announce a new camera until they were just about ready to ship.

The only way this would make sense would be if BMD bagged the passive-MFT version and went straight to the active mount. They'll have additional development time, given how far behind schedule the EF model is.

[TC]

"Improved RAW coded" sounds suspicious, not just because of the typo. It is quite difficult to "improve" raw. It is exactly what it says it is - the raw data from the camera. You could compress it to make you hard discs go further, but I wouldn't really call that an improvement.

[Bruno]

Codecs can always be improved, even raw. This one is based on an open source raw format, so it can be constantly updated, and that might improve performance in many ways, so it can always be an improvement.
If this rumour is true, I doubt a passive MFT mount will ever come out, they're probably trying to get these features into the camera for when the MFT version is finally released.

[Tzedekh]

[quote name='TC' timestamp='1349875780' post='19558']
"Improved RAW coded" sounds suspicious, not just because of the typo. It is quite difficult to "improve" raw. It is exactly what it says it is - the raw data from the camera. You could compress it to make you hard discs go further, but I wouldn't really call that an improvement.
[/quote]

It's possible that they've finally licensed CineForm RAW, which has a number of compression levels, including uncompressed. Considering that Adobe doesn't appear to be motivated to improve CinemaDNG support in Premier Pro and CineForm RAW is already supported, addition of the latter to the BMC's codecs would be a wise move.

[tony wilson]

der black majick man from atlantis or delmonte or aussistrayla said i shud give him cash monies for a camra he called it a cash advance.
6 monts lata he was sad and sed he had a problam wid der glass windows.
den he said how about puttin sum monies down for a new new camra for next year even better dan der old one from dis year dats broken and nobody has got

i go for a bath wid me ducky he exists when i squeeze him he go squeek

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6_d22aMqZs&feature=related[/media]

[Xiong]

[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1349909062' post='19583']
der black majick man from atlantis or delmonte or aussistrayla said i shud give him cash monies for a camra he called it a cash advance.
6 monts lata he was sad and sed he had a problam wid der glass windows.
den he said how about puttin sum monies down for a new new camra for next year even better dan der old one from dis year dats broken and nobody has got

i go for a bath wid me ducky he exists when i squeeze him he go squeek

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6_d22aMqZs&feature=related[/media]
[/quote]

That hurt my head reading it..

[Germy1979]

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1349948933' post='19596']


That hurt my head reading it..
[/quote]

No one stopped to think, "why are all these muppets in my tub?!... Why are all these people lookin at my balllllz!?....... Oscar you filthy muthaf-cka it's about time you took a bath!.... You can stay."