Blackmagic Camera Update Feb 17

[KnightsFan]

@tupp

By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus. Some lenses don't work at all. Adapters between different manufacturers will always have that risk. RF to EF is much safer, since the same company could make firmware updates on both ends to fix bugs that they missed in testing.

I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses. I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic.

As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it. Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost. How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF? If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

[kye]

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Yeah true, absolute beginner classes will be handing out fixed lens camcorders, not Blackmagics. But an intro to cinematography class, or anything beyond the "Intro to Film & Video" lecture definitely could. I worked on 4(?) undergrad/grad thesis films in the past 5 years that used blackmagic cameras, and every one of them would have had an easier time with the P6K compared to the 2.5k's and Ursa minis that we did use.

Totally agree, they should be restricting classes to camcorders in order to teach story, narrative, lighting, composition, and things that make good movies and TV.

Youtube is busy teaching people everything about film-making that doesn't matter, like how to make 'cinematic' videos, when unfortunately all that does is train people to make videos that are sequences of epic B-roll that have no real content.

The presence of the latter makes the former even more important!

[mercer]

It's a manufacturing supply thing. The majority of their cameras already use the EF mount. Their molds are designed for this. They sell their cameras for a lot less than their competitors, for similar, or better features, they aren't going to change now and lose the little money they make on each camera.

Not to mention, they've decided to market their cameras to a larger demographic than just cinema and the majority of those other people use EF lenses, or lenses that easily adapt to the EF mount.

[independent]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:37 PM, IronFilm said:

It's killed the C70, only reasons to get a C70 now are:
1) autofocus
2) desire for a shall mirrorless mount (damn you BMD, give us a MFT Mount! Or even E Mount)
3) belief in the magical "Canon color science"
4) irrational hatred of BMD (we know many of those people exist!)

(as for DR, am always ultra skeptical about manufacturer claims, have we seen a head to head shoot out in a controlled manner between a C70 and P6K? As for battery life, once you slap a V Mount on it, this hardly matters)

Do I detect sarcasm? It would be sarcasm if I wrote it! ha

  

Yes, but the C200 is known for having a bad old sensor in it. 
No surprises there that it out performs the C200.

what are you talking about?

[independent]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Will have to take your word for it that the C70 has greater dynamic range, but can the C70 shoot at 12,800 iso clean like the A7S III?  Also, isn't the C70 a Super35 camera?

 

God forbid unsubstantiated opinions!

GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable. Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3.

As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70. 

That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.

 

[independent]

As a former pocket 6k owner, I loved that camera. That image can go head-to-head with any camera today. All these upgrades are incredible for $500 more. Lack of autofocus does hurt it relative to the competition. But if you shoot anamorphic, this is the cheapest way to get the best image. 

[KnightsFan]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Totally agree, they should be restricting classes to camcorders in order to teach story, narrative, lighting, composition, and things that make good movies and TV.

That's not my point at all. Ideally a class will provide the best equipment possible. It's just not feasible for many film programs to have enough "higher end" cameras for large classes. Having high fidelity cameras doesn't hinder an instructor from teaching or grading composition and lighting, and narrative if the class covers that.

Meh, it's not that I really care since I'm not getting one of these either way, I just think that there's disproportionate dislike towards EF mounts, compared to what's actually useful. It feels like car snobs talking about how stick shifts are marginally better when most consumers just want to drive from point A to B.

[tupp]

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus

Okay, but why would the quality of the BM protocols for EF lenses differ if they merely used an extra set of wiping contacts in the circuit?  Furthermore, if BM bypassed the wiping contacts on the shallow mount by using a ribbon cable connector directly to the EF-mount (as I suggested), how would it adversely affect BM's existing EF protocols?

 

 

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses.

The shallow mount doesn't really matter in regards to maintaining the quality of BM's EF protocols, as the contacts on the shallow mount can be bypassed, if necessary.  The camera would be an EF-centric camera with a default, bolted-on EF adapter.  The shallow mount merely enables one to mechanically adapt a huge variety of lenses that would not be possible with a permanent EF mount.

 

 

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic.

About that, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about "licensing" lens mounts, especially the Sony E-mount.  Many insisted that Sony "would never allow" any camera manufacturer to use their mount.  Lo and behold, other camera manufacturers are using the E-mount along with its electronic protocols.

 

Here is the likely scenario that allows one manufacturer to use another manufacturer's lens mount -- you can't patent a bayonet mount.  Such mounts have existed for over 100 years, and, unless you can modify it with something novel, you will probably not be able to get a utility patent.

 

It is doubtful that one could even get a design patent on a bayonet mount, as changing the width of a tab or the throat diameter doesn't really amount to any design novelty.  Furthermore, the claims would have to give very specific and precise dimensions, which would make it easy for another manufacturer to merely copy and change by a millimeter to get around such a patent.

 

If there is anything that can be protected or licensed with a lens mount, it would be the electronic protocols, which might qualify as software or a "method."  Software can be both copyrighted and patented, but I can't imagine that software IP would apply to a lens mount.

 

If you do a search, I doubt that you will find a separate patent for the EF, RF, E, Z, M4/3 and L mounts.  There might be some claims included a larger camera or lens patent that involve protocols/methods communicated through the contacts of a lens mount, but they would need to be novel in some way, which is unlikely.

 

 

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it.

How does a camera manufacturer making a default adapter for EF differ from a camera manufacturer making interchangeable lens mounts for a camera?

 

 

 

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost.

The camera would be an EF camera by default, with a hidden shallower mount.  Or, the camera would merely have interchangeable lens mounts that defaulted to the EF mount/protocols.  It's already been done by Red, Kinefinity, Sony and machine vision manufacturers, and enough units are being sold.

 

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF?

I think that if they sold it with an L mount with a calibrated, solid EF adapter that is undetectable, they would have sold the same amount.

 

Again, they could have also sold it with a shallow interchangeable lens mount system (just like Red and others) that defaulted to EF, and they would have sold the same number of cameras.  BM has already release cameras with interchangeable mounts -- the system just needs to allow for shallower mounts.

 

It's all

very simple.

 

 

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

Again, the shallow mount would not matter to the EF users, as the camera would be an EF default camera with a hidden shallow mount (or with a shallow interchangeable mount system).

 

Sony likely can't prevent anyone from using the E bayonet mount, even if they wanted to do so.

[tupp]

3 hours ago, independent said:

God forbid unsubstantiated opinions!

Okay.  The A7S III has more dynamic range than the C70.

 

 

3 hours ago, independent said:

GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable.

That video is over 40 minutes long (and it was produced by an equipment dealer).  Please give a link cued to the specific section regarding iso, or please give an appropriate time code.

 

 

3 hours ago, independent said:

Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3.

Please link examples of heavy artifacts in the A7S III that appear above 12,800 iso.

 

 

3 hours ago, independent said:

As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70. 

In that Gerald Undone video, I didn't see a comparison of the DR of the A7S III along with the C70.  Also, I don't agree with with his reasoning on why the C70 supposedly has better capture dynamic range.

 

Please link the CineD comparison.

 

 

3 hours ago, independent said:

That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.

Well, yes, that is an advantage of a Super35/APS-C camera with a shallow mount, but doesn't the A7S III have a crop mode?

[tupp]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

It's a manufacturing supply thing. The majority of their cameras already use the EF mount.  Their molds are designed for this.

They likely retool for each new camera body, but no doubt there are shared components.

 

The BM CEO once commented that people want the EF mount, but I don't think that is the real reason why BM hasn't used a shallow mount nor a shallow interchangeable mount.

 

 

4 hours ago, mercer said:

They sell their cameras for a lot less than their competitors, for similar, or better features, they aren't going to change now and lose the little money they make on each camera.

BM already has already had interchangeable mounts, but they just weren't shallow enough.  If they would just offer such an interchangeable mount system that would allow E, EF-M, M4/3, L, Z, and RF mounts, then whole worlds of lenses and special adapters would be available for their Super35 cameras.

 

 

4 hours ago, mercer said:

Not to mention, they've decided to market their cameras to a larger demographic than just cinema and the majority of those other people use EF lenses, or lenses that easily adapt to the EF mount.

As I have repeatedly stated, shallower mounts and/or interchangeable lens mounts do not preclude a camera with a default EF mount, nor would shallower mounts inhibit EF lens performance.

 

By the way, if I had to buy a camera with a permanent EF mount, the first one that I would consider would be a 5D III with ML.

[kye]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

It's a manufacturing supply thing. The majority of their cameras already use the EF mount. Their molds are designed for this. They sell their cameras for a lot less than their competitors, for similar, or better features, they aren't going to change now and lose the little money they make on each camera.

Not to mention, they've decided to market their cameras to a larger demographic than just cinema and the majority of those other people use EF lenses, or lenses that easily adapt to the EF mount.

Yeah, all the discussions I've read about people buying lens sets to rent out where either talking about EF and PL so that seems to be where the industry is at.

[SteveV4D]

Since I have EF lenses, I am delighted it has an EF mount.  All these other mounts is why I struggle to upgrade to fullframe.  It means choosing between RF, L or E or any others.  I prefer to avoid adaptors if I can.  Having so much invested in MFT only for Panasonic to cut their MFT almost dead in favour of FF makes me reluctant to invest totally too much in 1 system.  Didn't Canon have a M series of lenses too. 

At least with EF lenses, there is plenty of them and at good 2nd hand prices too.  Even the C70 has an adaptor to use them.  The future should be cameras with interchangeable mounts, so you're not limited to just one system.  

[Thpriest]

I don't know if has been noted or not but can the camera record 6K in Prores? That would be another importante factor if it is really a "Pro" line. Same with Raw in 4K.

[SteveV4D]

1 hour ago, Thpriest said:

I don't know if has been noted or not but can the camera record 6K in Prores? That would be another importante factor if it is really a "Pro" line. Same with Raw in 4K.

No, ProRes is limited to 4K crop.  To get 6K you need to use BRAW.  Just like the original Pocket 6K.  It's a limitation, but for me a minor one.  The URSA 12K to my knowledge only records on BRAW.   I guess we are not yet in the position to have that sensor which can do full sensor lower resolution such as 8K and 4K in a Pocket size body.

[Thpriest]

3 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

No, ProRes is limited to 4K crop.  To get 6K you need to use BRAW. 

That's a shame because using raw for quick turnover projects could become a problem.

[SteveV4D]

3 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

That's a shame because using raw for quick turnover projects could become a problem.

Not for me.  Try to not think of it as RAW.  It's closer in some ways more to ProRes than genuine RAW.  Yes you have access to Davinci RAW controls, but unless you're changing ISO and White balance, you can handle the file quite easily as you would ProRes.  

The only issue of course would be if you used another programme other than Davinci, though Premiere supports BRAW.  Given you get the Davinci software included, it's only an issue if you wish to make it so and not use the free Profesional software.

[Thpriest]

3 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

The only issue of course would be if you used another programme other than Davinci, though Premiere supports BRAW.  

I use FCPX, Premiere and Resolve but I much prefer FCPX for any quick turnover stuff. It's just a really slick experience. I dislike Premiere and I'm only really starting out with Resolve but it seems quite good but just overkill for most of my jobs.

[SteveV4D]

11 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

I use FCPX, Premiere and Resolve but I much prefer FCPX for any quick turnover stuff. It's just a really slick experience. I dislike Premiere and I'm only really starting out with Resolve but it seems quite good but just overkill for most of my jobs.

Resolve is overkill.  How?  You don't have to use all of it you know.  There's a cut page for basic edits and quick turn around thats very good.  I've delivered same day 10 min videos at Weddings with BRAW much faster in Davinci than I did with Premiere and H264 files.  I agree initially it can look complicated, but that's not true once you're familiar with it.  

[Thpriest]

I just love how FCPX's timeline works for quick stuff. Just personal choice.

[SteveV4D]

8 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

I just love how FCPX's timeline works for quick stuff. Just personal choice.

Well if you don't want BRAW, or to use Davinci for much of your work, I wouldn't advise you to pick up this camera.  Thankfully there are other choices, which will work better for your needs.  C70 for instance.  Its more designed  for quick turn around jobs.