DJI Pro Cinema Camera Announcement 20 October

[herein2020]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I think we're mostly talking about the same things, but the terminology is letting us down.  Sadly, I find that the level of knowledge out there about cameras is woefully inadequate, which means that things are actually named incorrectly (or at least misleadingly), which then gets in the way of even knowledgeable people talking.

The "bounce" I'm talking about isn't when the IBIS hits its limits, its when the person can't do the ninja walk and the vertical height of the camera goes up and down.

Anyway, this isn't a camera aimed at people who shoot handheld relying on IBIS, this is a camera for people who shoot with a gimbal attached to a z-axis stabiliser.

So I am back to my original statement....you did say the exact same thing that I said....IBIS is great for small camera movements....not great for larger ones or walking. Also, you first said you were talking about parallax errors caused by the IBIS then you went to Z axis instability....two different things caused by two different sources of instability.

Regardless, in the grand scheme of things we both agree this is for shooters who shoot mostly gimbal stabilized. 

[kye]

10 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

So I am back to my original statement....you did say the exact same thing that I said....IBIS is great for small camera movements....not great for larger ones or walking. Also, you first said you were talking about parallax errors caused by the IBIS then you went to Z axis instability....two different things caused by two different sources of instability.

Regardless, in the grand scheme of things we both agree this is for shooters who shoot mostly gimbal stabilized. 

Well, mostly for shooters who stabilise the location of the camera, which a gimbal doesn't do, and people who like to move the camera and shoot with only a gimbal for stabilisation also don't do.

ie, it's much more for Hollywood style controlled sets than event or documentary style shooters, although they could certainly benefit from using it.

It's a bit pricey though - the base package is over $7K on B&H, putting it out of the reach of most gimbal-only shooters.

[kye]

I guess what I'm saying is, it's a CINEMA camera.  Therefore, VIDEO shooters will fail to understand what it's for, why it's so expensive, and that it wasn't designed for them.  

....Just like every other cinema camera released that was either the size or cost of a DSLR 😂😂😂

[IronFilm]

14 hours ago, ntblowz said:

That LIDAR Waveform focus asset is quite awesome, way more advanced than peaking for manual focus.

It's like leaping forward from histograms to waveforms for exposure! A biiiiiiig improvement. 

To make a waveform analogy for the waveforms 🤣

[A_Urquhart]

26 minutes ago, kye said:

I guess what I'm saying is, it's a CINEMA camera.  Therefore, VIDEO shooters will fail to understand what it's for, why it's so expensive, and that it wasn't designed for them.  

 

Yep!

I don’t think the price would be considered expensive for what you get. 
let’s compare : 

- full frame camera body that records in ProRes or 6K RAW . Shall we compare it to Z Cam E2 F6? That’s $4000USD

- Ronin 2 gimbal $900

- Tilta float system (for stabilizing 4th axis) $1800

-5” 1000nit monitor (Shinobi) $300

- Lidar system (the one for RS2 is $200 but this looks much better) $200

So around $7200 for the above which is a much clumsier, bulkier setup. And  you would need to spend much more than that to get everything to interface so I’m going lean on this setup by not including things like ND filters as the 4D has internal)

The D4 6k is 7199 and it’s a much more complete and easy to use package. The biggest issue really is because it’s an all in one design, if you have an issue with the gimbal that means your camera is unusable as well and vice versa. Also, cameras date quicker than gimbals but it looks as you can replace the camera and gimbal assembly on these pretty easily so hopefully when dji release a new 12k (😝) sensor you can update just it and the gimbal assembly. 

 

[Matins 2]

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I think you nailed it by calling it 'elegant'.  So simple, especially colouring the face-detect with green, but very powerful.  I can imagine future updates having another colour for the other faces detected in the scene and showing them as well, which would be great for focus pulls during dialogue scenes.

Yup, when I saw that green I went wow. 
But it is even better than you think, because do you see that green line too? And the yellow line. That's the focus plane of the lens itself, makes it so easy a baby could align those two lines together. (ok, am joking.... as there is a certain art to it. Plus you need to anticipate moves, not be reacting to the image)

And having the waveform data presented as well, helps gives you insights for when the camera gets it "wrong" and you need to be a bit further in front / behind of where the calculated line is. 

1 hour ago, kye said:

What do you think of the ergonomics and image?  Do you think that there would be people willing to use this on a set that could afford a cine camera and a gimbal / steadicam?

I have no idea how DJI is regarded at the ARRI level of film-making.  I'm assuming that if you wanted to fly an Alexa Mini or Komodo you'd be using one of the high-end DJI drones?

They need to make this be A Cam standard. 

If you're shooting on an ARRI Mini / RED V-RAPTOR / Sony VENICE / etc as A Cam, why on earth would you want to use a DJI Ronin 4D as the B Cam for say 20% of the shots? You wouldn't! All of those other cameras are perfectly easy to rig up for a gimbal, they won't even mind having a second camera fully dedicated to that. 

Thus the Ronin 4D will only be used for very niche usages. 

But this is what I expect will happen next: DJI will release a DJI Inspire 3 for the X9. And they'll release a non-gimbal system that heavily supports the X9 camera, so it can be used with massive PL lenses or anamorphics. That will be "the X9 in A Cam form factor". 

Now the math changes, and it becomes much much more interesting. An X9 camera that can quickly swap from being your A Cam, to Ronin 4D, to Inspire 3? Hell yeah! 

The only remaining questions are: can the X9 be premium reliability? (don't be another RED, be another ARRI) Can the X9 have a premium experience? (no random crippling / "gotchas", don't be like Canon) Does X9 have the premium image quality? (can it compete with ARRI?) Does DJI give premium support? (don't be Blackmagic, be ARRI)

if it ticks off all of those checkboxes, then yup, it could be the next #1 A Cam for Hollywood. But you could say that about anything. Those are some high targets!

 

What are the answers to those questions? Will take a while to find out all those answers, the answers are not discovered quickly. And I am definitely not the right person to answer those questions either. (neither are any of the YouTube "reviews" uploaded today! None of those have even 10% of the expertise level to answer those questions definitively)

 

[A_Urquhart]

25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

Thus the Ronin 4D will only be used for very niche usages. 
 

 

There is a huge market that sits between high end cinema and DSLRs on RS2 Gimbals. The 4D will be perfect for that market.  It’s not niche. 
 

Again, the Lidar waveform is the feature I’m most excited about. I do a mix of operating and Focus Pulling probably around 30/70 respectively and this Lidar waveform is what I have asked other companies for.

DJI’s implementation looks amazing so I’d love for them to release a professional follow focus system based on this technology but with a hand unit that is more in line with ones from Arri, Preston or TeradekRT rather than the dinky systems dji has released in the past. 

[IronFilm]

8 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

There is a huge market that sits between high end cinema and DSLRs on RS2 Gimbals. The 4D will be perfect for that market.  It’s not niche. 

I agree, but I was answering the very different question of: "Where will the DJI Ronin 4D fit in the high end? (where ARRI is situated)"

And in that specific situation, then I think the Ronin 4D will only find very niche usages. And won't be a mainstream A Cam (not even 5% of this particular market) unless DJI brings out those alternative (non-Ronin) systems for it, and addresses those questions I asked at the end. 

If DJI doesn't achieve that, that's ok. They didn't price the Ronin 4D high enough to be at that price point of the market, plus this is just their first go at it. 

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Well, mostly for shooters who stabilise the location of the camera, which a gimbal doesn't do, and people who like to move the camera and shoot with only a gimbal for stabilisation also don't do.

ie, it's much more for Hollywood style controlled sets than event or documentary style shooters, although they could certainly benefit from using it.

It's a bit pricey though - the base package is over $7K on B&H, putting it out of the reach of most gimbal-only shooters.

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

I guess what I'm saying is, it's a CINEMA camera.  Therefore, VIDEO shooters will fail to understand what it's for, why it's so expensive, and that it wasn't designed for them.  

....Just like every other cinema camera released that was either the size or cost of a DSLR 😂😂😂

 

No idea what such distinction means...

No idea either what Nouvelle Vague filmmakers or Tonino Guerra, I personally heard from his own voice to call (to mirrorless devices or consumer camcorders then) the future of cinema to "these Japanese cameras", would have to add on topic... ; )

But something I know though ; )) thanks to God there are shooters who make art without the need of hefty paraphernalia such 4.67Kg is... to just show off "filmmaking" skills for making Marvel movies... LOL :- )

[kye]

3 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Yep!

I don’t think the price would be considered expensive for what you get. 
let’s compare : 

- full frame camera body that records in ProRes or 6K RAW . Shall we compare it to Z Cam E2 F6? That’s $4000USD

- Ronin 2 gimbal $900

- Tilta float system (for stabilizing 4th axis) $1800

-5” 1000nit monitor (Shinobi) $300

- Lidar system (the one for RS2 is $200 but this looks much better) $200

So around $7200 for the above which is a much clumsier, bulkier setup. And  you would need to spend much more than that to get everything to interface so I’m going lean on this setup by not including things like ND filters as the 4D has internal)

The D4 6k is 7199 and it’s a much more complete and easy to use package. The biggest issue really is because it’s an all in one design, if you have an issue with the gimbal that means your camera is unusable as well and vice versa. Also, cameras date quicker than gimbals but it looks as you can replace the camera and gimbal assembly on these pretty easily so hopefully when dji release a new 12k (😝) sensor you can update just it and the gimbal assembly. 

Interesting comparison, that it arrives at a similar total price.  

I completely agree that it's the modularity that will be the key - as @IronFilm said that if you can just take the camera module from an A-Cam style setup and put it on the D4 for a gimbal+Z setup and then onto a drone then it would be a pretty smooth workflow.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yup, when I saw that green I went wow. 
But it is even better than you think, because do you see that green line too? And the yellow line. That's the focus plane of the lens itself, makes it so easy a baby could align those two lines together. (ok, am joking.... as there is a certain art to it. Plus you need to anticipate moves, not be reacting to the image)

And having the waveform data presented as well, helps gives you insights for when the camera gets it "wrong" and you need to be a bit further in front / behind of where the calculated line is. 

They need to make this be A Cam standard. 

If you're shooting on an ARRI Mini / RED V-RAPTOR / Sony VENICE / etc as A Cam, why on earth would you want to use a DJI Ronin 4D as the B Cam for say 20% of the shots? You wouldn't! All of those other cameras are perfectly easy to rig up for a gimbal, they won't even mind having a second camera fully dedicated to that. 

Thus the Ronin 4D will only be used for very niche usages. 

But this is what I expect will happen next: DJI will release a DJI Inspire 3 for the X9. And they'll release a non-gimbal system that heavily supports the X9 camera, so it can be used with massive PL lenses or anamorphics. That will be "the X9 in A Cam form factor". 

Now the math changes, and it becomes much much more interesting. An X9 camera that can quickly swap from being your A Cam, to Ronin 4D, to Inspire 3? Hell yeah! 

The only remaining questions are: can the X9 be premium reliability? (don't be another RED, be another ARRI) Can the X9 have a premium experience? (no random crippling / "gotchas", don't be like Canon) Does X9 have the premium image quality? (can it compete with ARRI?) Does DJI give premium support? (don't be Blackmagic, be ARRI)

if it ticks off all of those checkboxes, then yup, it could be the next #1 A Cam for Hollywood. But you could say that about anything. Those are some high targets!

 

What are the answers to those questions? Will take a while to find out all those answers, the answers are not discovered quickly. And I am definitely not the right person to answer those questions either. (neither are any of the YouTube "reviews" uploaded today! None of those have even 10% of the expertise level to answer those questions definitively)

 

Good points about having to offer an A-Cam option, and the various points around the total experience including reliability and servicing etc.  

DJI is becoming quite mature in terms of being a hardware / software tech company so that's in their favour, but having a large and professional-grade service network is a different kettle of fish.  I do wonder if they have one for their high-end drones.  DJI have items that approach the $10K mark in B&H, although there are two other manufacturers that go up to $30K so maybe DJI haven't yet had to setup a first-class service network.

They do have a new drone listed there, it has no price but it's in the list between the $10K and $12K items (sorted by price) and it lists "Compatible with Zenmuse Cameras" so I think that model might be the drone platform for this line of cameras.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1560814-REG/dji_matrice_300_commercial_quadcopter.html

In terms of not crippling their products, like Canon do, I think the 4D is a pretty big statement that they're not doing that!

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

No idea what such distinction means...

No idea either what Nouvelle Vague filmmakers or Tonino Guerra, I personally heard from his own voice to call (to mirrorless devices or consumer camcorders then) the future of cinema to "these Japanese cameras", would have to add on topic... ; )

But something I know though ; )) thanks to God there are shooters who make art without the need of hefty paraphernalia such 4.67Kg is... to just show off "filmmaking" skills for making Marvel movies... LOL :- )

There are many subtle differences between cinema cameras and video cameras.  These typically stem from the fundamental assumptions that when shooting cinema, you will alter the environment to suit the camera, whereas when shooting video, the camera must be able to work with a given environment.  ie, controlled vs uncontrolled sets.

Some examples:

• Cinema cameras typically don't have in-built stabilisation as it's assumed they will be rigged out, which is reasonable because you're likely to have complete control over the set.  
  Video cameras are out there in the world, dealing with whatever comes, so frequently offer stabilised sensors and work with stabilised lenses.
   
• Cinema cameras typically aren't designed to have good performance at a wide ISO range.  This is because the environment can be lit to suit the ISO of the camera.  The exception to this is when shooting outside in-build NDs are often used.  Cinema cameras very rarely have fast shutter speeds.  
  Video cameras are expected to fit in with the outside world, which means handling low light situations with good high-ISO performance.  Internal NDs aren't as common as many video shooters don't care about shutter speed and so video cameras are designed with fast shutters to be able to properly expose with a wide aperture in full-sun.
   
• Cinema cameras typically aren't designed to be all-in-one, they are designed to be rigged, and to be modular.  This is because the size and weight and appearance of the camera isn't of much concern on a controlled set.  As such, cinema cameras often don't use internal batteries (or if they do they are only designed to keep the camera powered up during battery changes on the external power source), often don't record audio natively (or do via a sound module that will accept XLRs and provide phantom power), and often don't have an articulating screen, or any screen at all.
  Video cameras are designed to be all-in-one, they are designed to function independently and aren't typically designed to accept many modular elements.  As such, they use internal batteries and may not even be able to be powered externally, will always record audio (some only support in-built microphones and others offer 3.5mm audio jacks, with only a few offering XLR or pro connections), will have a screen or EVF or both (of varying standard of articulation).

There are other differences, but these are the main ones that come to mind.

Yes, you can use a video camera on a controlled set to make something that ends up in the cinema.  Yes, you can take a cinema camera and use it out in the uncontrolled world.  However, there are limits...
Video cameras can't always be made to do everything that a cinema camera can do, and image quality is often sacrificed for ease-of-use, whereas a cinema camera is all about the image because the camera is sometimes little more than a sensor in a box.
Cinema cameras can probably be made to do everything that a video camera can do, but they can't do it quickly, conveniently, easily, practically, or simply.  Therefore, there are situations that can't practically be filmed because they happen too fast.  Situations that can't be practically filmed because the camera is too much of an imposition on the environment, being too large, conspicuous, require too much management and too many people.

This is why when the Blackmagic Pocket CINEMA Camera was released, the video shooters complained about it lacking a bright screen, longer battery life, good internal audio quality, etc.   That's why when the Blackmagic Pocket CINEMA Camera 4K was released, the video shooters complained about the same things again, only they also complained it wasn't pocketable anymore.  Same with BMPCC 6K and 6K Pro.  

This is why I had real trouble getting good images from my XC10 in run-n-gun situations.  I treated it like a video camera expecting it to cater to my needs, whereas it expected me to cater to its needs.  Thus, I was greeted with poor image quality.  This is why when I changed from XC10 to the GH5, my results improved drastically.  It's not that the XC10 was a worse camera, but that I expected a CINEMA camera to work well in a VIDEO situation, and surprise surprise, it didn't. 

[Emanuel]

Yes, there are.

But, the substantial differences are not even about the shooters behind or back to the camera...

The key differences are all about the ideas and the way the people going with cameras are able to produce ; )

That's where form factor has a role to play : )

As much as budget. Expensive stuff won't necessarily make a film better. Neither money.

 

EAG :- )

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

One more thing that DJI got a lot of manufacturers on the wrong foot: built in NDs.

Lot of others lying saying "we did not put internal NDs because there is no room for it" - meaning "if you want internal NDs, pay a lot more".

DJI inserted internal NDs in a minuscule camera with a VERY shallow mount. Liars exposed.

Lots of outside the box thinking in this camera.

[Trek of Joy]

17 hours ago, kye said:

I completely disagree.  Unless it's got poor IQ (which we haven't seen yet) or you're talking about brand anxiety and status on set, it's actually a superior option in many cases, because its competitor is not a shoulder rig, it's competition is a ronin / easyrig combo because it has a z-axis stabiliser:

or perhaps even a ronin / steadicam, depending on how easy it is to do big vertical moves:

Amusingly, Hollywood seems to be voting against you, as the default approach for high-end cinema appears to be stabilised unless otherwise required, rather than the other way around, which seems to be your preference.

I find that one of the fastest ways to make footage look amateur is to have the cameras location (not rotation) shake.  ie, IBIS and gimbals stabilise the cameras rotation so the image doesn't move around, but the cameras position often shakes giving that terrible effect of having the background stay stable and the items in the foreground shake due to the parallax error.  

Hollywood doesn't do parallax shake because the camera is on sticks / crane / slider which controls the cameras location, or on the shoulder of someone standing still which provides more rotational movement than location movement, or on a steadicam where the cameras location is very fluidly controlled.  The only exception is when "hand held" was in the brief, in which case it's appropriate.

I film exclusively hand-held for all my projects using IBIS, which is appropriate to their aesthetic, but I try and avoid moving the camera at all while filming to avoid the shaky parallax error.

Tragically, this level of innovation is not remarkable.  In any other tech sector, this would be normal.  The only reason this stands out is because the rest of the industry is lazy and complacent.  I include companies like Panasonic in this comment.  

The industry has lowered our expectations dramatically to the point where the only ones we actually complain about (eg, Canon) are, when compared to other tech sectors, positively comatose.

Imagine an app developer coming out with a big release - "here's version 48 or our app - it's got 25% more resolution than v47 but as usual the 16 most significant issues are unchanged, just like every other release since the first version of our app over a decade ago".  The camera industry will get eaten by tech companies eventually, and it can't happen soon enough TBH!

Yes, the micro incremental updates we get helps to make this look pretty amazing. It’s certainly disruptive and makes some of the offerings from Sony and Canon look like a joke. I always like to see someone trying to raise the bar, it forces the lazy giants to unlock more of the potential from the next camera. But that’s also the forced upgrade path, which also sucks.

cheers 

chris

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

One more thing that DJI got a lot of manufacturers on the wrong foot: built in NDs.

Lot of others lying saying "we did not put internal NDs because there is no room for it" - meaning "if you want internal NDs, pay a lot more".

DJI inserted internal NDs in a minuscule camera with a VERY shallow mount. Liars exposed.

Lots of outside the box thinking in this camera.

Internal ND filters are so mainstream, it is time for those last hold outs to give in and get NDs!

All these have NDs: ARRI Mini, Varicam LT, URSA Mini Pro, Sony VENICE, RED Ranger, etc

[herein2020]

On 10/21/2021 at 7:13 PM, IronFilm said:

Internal ND filters are so mainstream, it is time for those last hold outs to give in and get NDs!

All these have NDs: ARRI Mini, Varicam LT, URSA Mini Pro, Sony VENICE, RED Ranger, etc

I still wonder why we do not see more E ND filters, does Sony have a patent on that?

[ntblowz]

5 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I still wonder why we do not see more E ND filters, does Sony have a patent on that?

Dunno about that, but lot of carrier airplanes have build in ND on the window ..

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 10/21/2021 at 8:13 PM, IronFilm said:

Internal ND filters are so mainstream, it is time for those last hold outs to give in and get NDs!

All these have NDs: ARRI Mini, Varicam LT, URSA Mini Pro, Sony VENICE, RED Ranger, etc

Indeed. I was talking in lower prices, Panasonic S1 line, Canon R5/6, Sony A7S III...always when people ask for internal NDs in this price range, the answer is "it is impossíble because the cameras are smaller than flagships and there is no room for an internal ND".

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

"it is impossíble because the cameras are smaller than flagships and there is no room for an internal ND".

Well, we've always known that is false. For a long long long time we've had cameras with NDs that have mirrorless mounts: such as the Sony FS700 and Panasonic AF100. And many many more since then: Canon C70, VENICE, FS7, etc