IMHO, “looking” at the Blackmagic Cinema Camera’s current audio performance in isolation, Blackmagic Design has fallen short of reasonable expectations.
According to its specs, the BMCC hardware appears to be capable of recording “48 kHz and 24 bit” audio, has balanced audio inputs, and is switchable between mic & line level audio signals. If true, this means the camera is capable of recording audio that should sound fairly good, especially from line-level sources.
In actual practice, although this is somewhat true when using a BMCC with line-level audio sources, it’s definitely not true when working with mic-level sources.
I use Sennheiser ME66 & ME64 microphones with a variety of video cameras. Though not the best-sounding mics available, they’re quite popular, and when used properly can deliver results easily good enough for many professional applications. These mics can be self-powered (using a AA battery) or they can use external phantom power (such as from a camera or preamp), and they have much higher than average output levels — they are relatively “loud” mics (which is a good thing).
However, when directly connected to a BMCC (without an external preamp), the resulting sound isn’t very good compared to using them with most other cameras, including cameras that cost a fraction of the BMCC.
The following video is an example of what my ME64 sounds like when directly connected to my several-year-old Panasonic GH2 “DSLR”, which cost me less than 1/3 of the BMCC’s $3K price:
http://vimeo.com/53976124
Not perfect, but quite usable.
I don’t own a BMCC yet and I don’t have a sample video online that demonstrates what the ME64 & ME66 mics sound like when directly connected to a BMCC. However, I tested these mics with a BMCC I had on loan for a few days, and believe me, it didn’t sound anywhere near as good as a GH2 or any other pro or prosumer video camera I’ve ever used these mics with. In my informal tests with the BMCC running firmware 1.2, the ME66 & ME64 (and also my Sennheiser wireless mics) sounded so bad (noisy! awful! terrible!) when directly connected to the BMCC (without aid of a preamp) I decided I couldn’t use them that way, at all.
Instead, I used my ME64 mic with my old SoundDevices MixPre preamp together with the line-level settings on the BMCC, and got the following result (see my notes on the Vimeo page for more info):
http://vimeo.com/59554240
I think the results are quite good — not perfect, but completely usable for many professional applications. Based on what I’ve heard others achieve using various preamps (@ mic or line level), similar or better results are possible even when using preamps that cost far less than the MixPre (or current model MixPre-D), such as those from JuicedLink.
Going forward I hope BMD updates the audio portion of the camera firmware ASAP to “get out of the way” of what the BMCC hardware appears to be capable of.
Among other things, I think the low-frequency roll-off (hi-pass) filtering BMD added to the current version 1.3 BMCC firmware was a mistake, because BMD applied it to all BMCC audio, including audio from external audio inputs. The previous v1.2 firmware had other issues, but at least it didn’t feature an always-on hi-pass filter. BMD might have added the hi-pass filter to make audio from the camera’s built-in internal mic more usable (to reduce handling & fan noise), but it’s completely inappropriate for this hi-pass filtering to be always applied when using an externally-connected audio source.
Chris Hocking and others describe BMCC audio issues when using firmware 1.2 & 1.3 in a detailed thread on BMD’s forum.
Although I’d love it if BMD would please, please add audio level/VU meters displayed full-time on the BMCC LCD, I’d settle for a possibly simpler-to-implement “audio peaking” display, perhaps as simple as a small icon or dot that alternates between green & red to show when audio is either OK or clipping. That, combined with monitoring with good headphones, should be enough to get good, distortion-free audio recordings.
I don’t expect the BMCC’s mic-level performance to be as good as most standalone pro audio gear, but I do expect it to be at least as good as an old GH2. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect BMD can adjust the BMCC firmware so that using it with a good self-powered mic (or other self-powered mic-level audio source) without a preamp can result in good-quality audio recordings. But I could be wrong; maybe the current BMCC hardware can’t do it.
-
Having said all that, let me go back to what I said at the beginning: “Looking at the BMCC’s current audio performance in isolation” …
What if we take a step back, and look at the bigger picture?
Given the BMCC’s considerable (awesome!) video capabilities, and the amazing software BMD includes with it, I actually don’t have a problem paying an additional few hundred dollars or so to add an external audio preamp to a BMCC kit if that’s what it takes to also record high-quality audio.
The way I look at it, the BMCC is an incredible value “as-is”, and for the user to have to add a few hundred dollars to its kit cost (buying a preamp to get really good audio) doesn’t really reduce its overall value all that much.
Yes, I definitely think BMD should fix the remaining firmware audio issues ASAP, but changing the actual camera hardware design — such as adding built-in high-quality mic transformers — is probably never going to happen to the currently-shipping or currently-announced BMD cameras. Hopefully BMD will do that in some future, unannounced camera, but at this point the hardware specs for the current BMD cameras (BMCC-EF, BMCC-MTF, BMPCC, and BMPC-4K) are pretty much set in stone.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for BMD to expect users to add an external preamp for high-quality in-camera sound recording. But I also think it’s reasonable for users to expect that the BMCC should be capable of recording at least good-quality mic-level audio without an external preamp, too.
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words & videos only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
My >45 year old Nikkor (Nikon) “F” lenses that I use with modern video cameras were originally designed for use with full-frame 135-format still photography SLR cameras. Because these lenses were designed to “cover” the relatively large size of 135-format stills film, they can be used with pretty much any size digital video camera sensor.
I currently use Fotodiox “Pro” lens mount adapters to mount my old Nikkor lenses on various video cameras, each of which have different lens mounts, including Micro Four Thirds (Panasonic), E (Sony), and EF (Canon & Blackmagic). I’ve heard good things about RedRock EF adapters, which might be stronger than the Fotodiox version, so I hope to try one soon. There are a wide variety of lens mount adapters available from many manufacturers.
My old Nikkors are fully manual and don’t feature any modern conveniences. Everything about these lenses is manual: Focus and aperture are adjusted using purely mechanical rings on the lens barrel, and my lenses are fixed focal length “primes”, not variable focal length “zooms”. These lenses have no electrical connections to communicate with a camera. Most modern video cameras include focus and exposure aids (such as focus magnify or peaking, and exposure zebra display), so it’s relatively easy to adjust these lenses quickly and accurately.
Old Nikkors generally aren’t as sharp or contrasty as modern lenses, but I’ve learned to appreciate their look. They add a slight glow to highlights, and their slight softness is especially pleasing when shooting close-ups of people’s faces. Their softness may also slightly reduce the aliasing and moire artifacts that some modern digital cameras suffer from.
I currently own Nikkor primes with the following focal lengths: 24mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm, all f2.8 or faster.
Setting the lens aperture wide-open or nearly so results in relatively shallow depth of field. For example, I can keep the subject in sharp focus while causing the foreground or background to be out of focus. Or, I can also stop-down the aperture to yield deep DOF with more of the scene in sharp focus from front to back. In general, zoom lenses with maximum apertures of f2.8 or faster are more expensive than old, used prime lenses.
Some newer Nikkor lenses don’t have an aperture ring on the lens barrel itself. There are Nikkor “G”-type lens mount adapters which have a built-in lever/control to enable adjusting aperture on these lenses.
One odd feature of all Nikkor/Nikon lenses is that their focus ring spins in the opposite direction compared to lenses made by other manufacturers. Not usually a big deal, but something to be aware of.
You might find the following sites helpful for researching classic Nikkor lenses:
I usually buy used lenses from KEH.com because they have an enormous inventory, a very useful “grading” (condition) rating system, reasonable prices, excellent customer service, and a no-questions-asked inspection period and return policy.
Info resources for old Nikkor lenses:
http://www.kehblog.com/2011/10/nikon-lenses-non-ai-ai-ai-s-and-aid.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/index.htm
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
Note: The field of view obtained with a lens will vary depending on a camera’s sensor size. For example, a 24mm lens on a GH3 (MFT) will have the FOV of a 48mm lens on a 135-format camera such as a Canon 5DM3. Refer to ProLost’s sensor size diagram and Abel’s FOV Comparator.
-
Video examples:
The video below was shot using my old Nikkor prime lenses mounted on a Panasonic GH2 MFT DSLR camera:
-
The video below was shot using my old Nikkor prime lenses mounted on a Blackmagic Cinema Camera-EF:
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words & videos only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
If I was only considering owning one video camera, and if I’d primarily use fully-manual native Micro Four Thirds or S16 film camera lenses, and if I didn’t have the budget for a much more expensive camera such as the recently-announced $3,995 Blackmagic Production Camera 4K, then I’d definitely consider getting the recently-announced $995 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for myself. There’s a lot to like about the BMPCC (see below)!
However, for my own use, the $1,295 Panasonic GH3 seems like it’ll be a better fit as a 2nd/spare/”B” 1080p video camera for use with the BMPC-4K I have on pre-order and other cameras I frequently use, such as the Sony FS100.
Not because the BMPCC won’t be a beautiful thing — it probably will be when it ships “July 2013″ — but mostly because my “electronic” Micro Four Thirds lenses (and old fully-manual Nikkor F 135-format lenses) I already use with my old GH2 are a better match for the wider field of view of the true MFT-size sensor in the GH3 vs. the BMPCC’s much smaller S16-size sensor (see ProLost’s sensor size diagram and Abel’s FOV Comparator).
Other reasons why the GH3 makes more sense for me as a 2nd/spare/”B” camera than the BMPCC:
- The GH3 features 1080p at up to 60 fps, which I’d use for slow motion in a 24p or 30p editing timeline. The BMPCC’s maximum frame rate is 30p.
- The GH3 does in-camera lens distortion correction, which the BMPCC reportedly does not. As a result, Panasonic Lumix-brand lenses will look less-distorted and have less chromatic aberrations on the GH3.
- The GH3 (like the BMPCC) has an active (electronic) Micro Four Thirds lens mount. An active MFT mount can be used with an extremely large variety of lenses, manual & electronic, new and old. The GH3′s active MFT lens mount supports both image stabilization and auto-focus with lenses that have these features (the BMPCC only supports lens IS).
- The GH3 has a built-in electronic viewfinder and an articulating LCD. The BMPCC only has a fixed LCD. EVFs are worth their weight in gold, especially when shooting in bright sunshine. And a swivel-LCD is extremely useful & convenient.
- GH3 1080p footage looks really quite good. Perhaps in some ways not as good as BMPCC 1080p footage (see below), and definitely not as good as footage from some more-expensive video cameras such as the original Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K, but GH3 video & audio has proven itself to be quite good enough for personal and certain professional video use. Because the BMPCC’s sensor is 1080p — a fraction of the res of the GH3′s sensor — GH3 video may be noticeably sharper-looking than BMPCC footage. However, we need to see more sample footage from the BMPCC to know for sure. To see hundreds of samples of GH3 footage, do a search on Vimeo.com
- The GH3 is also a very good digital stills camera (imagine that!), and its weather-sealed body is a good feature for the rainy climate where I live.
-
Of course, the BMPCC has some tremendously important features, too, such as:
- Like the GH3, the BMPCC has an active (electronic) Micro Four Thirds lens mount, so it can use the same lenses as a GH3, although the BMPCC’s FOV is quite a bit narrower. Like the GH3, the BMPCC’s active MFT lens mount supports image stabilization with lenses that have IS. Note: Unlike the GH3, the BMPCC doesn’t support auto-focus.
- The BMPCC will have noticeably better dynamic range (13-stops!) compared to the GH3, which has about 1/2 – 2/3 as much DR.
- The BMPCC’s 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes HQ and 12-bit lossless compressed 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG recording codecs make possible super-clean and super-flexible video. The GH3 AVCHD codec is only 8-bit 4:2:0 and is recorded at a fraction of the data rates of the BMPCC’s codecs. There’s info about sample BMPCC footage here.
- Because of the codecs it uses, BMPCC colors will be more accurate, and BMPCC video will have fewer artifacts such as macro-blocking and gradient-banding. BMPCC footage will also be easier to cleanly color-correct and chromakey in post.
Note: The BMPCC’s high-quality codecs will require using relatively fast, expensive, large-capacity SD cards, whereas the GH3′s less-capable codecs work fine using slower, lower-capacity, less-expensive SD cards. There’s no free lunch.
Both the GH3 and BMPCC feature headphone jacks, inputs for external microphones and external power, and “clean” HDMI live video outputs for monitoring or external recording. It’s likely the BMPCC’s HDMI live output will be 10-bit 4:2:2 (vs. the GH3′s 8-bit 4:2:? HDMI live output), but the BMPCC isn’t shipping yet, so we don’t know how the HDMI video quality actually compares. Both cameras can use removable, rechargeable, non-proprietary batteries. The GH3 features on-screen audio VU level meters during recording; it’s unknown if the BMPCC will include VU meters, but current BMD camera firmware unfortunately does not!
I hope to use a GH3 as a 2nd/spare or “B” camera for use with Blackmagic’s new Production Camera 4K (which I have on pre-order), mostly for the GH3′s slo-mo capability. Shot carefully, GH3 1080p footage can probably be intercut just fine with BMPC-4K (or other camera) footage in a 1080p or lower resolution edit.
As always, there isn’t 1 perfect camera that’s ideal for every production, shooting style, budget, or schedule.
Cheers.
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
As I’ve mentioned before, I had a Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K (the original ”EF” lens mount version) on pre-order since April 2012.
By mid-February 2013, a couple of months before the NAB Expo in mid-April, the BMCC-EF hadn’t arrived yet, so I switched my pre-order to the BMCC-MFT model, the version with a Micro Four Thirds lens mount announced in late 2012, which hasn’t even started shipping yet.
One of the many reasons I switched my pre-order from BMCC-EF to BMCC-MFT was to buy myself some time just in case Blackmagic Design announced a new camera at NAB 2013. It was only a hunch on my part that BMD might do so, but it proved to be a lucky guess.
As soon as the new Blackmagic Production Camera 4K was announced at NAB 2013, I switched my pre-order again.
Pre-release sample video footage from the new BMPC-4K camera hasn’t been released yet. When sample footage is eventually released, if I don’t like the way it looks — or if the camera still isn’t shipping more than a month or so after its announced “late July 2013″ timeframe — I may get a BMCC-MFT instead. In the meantime, I’ll continue shooting with other cameras such as the Sony FS100, Panasonic GH2, and so forth.
About the BMPC-4K:
BMD announced at NAB 2013 that the BMPC-4K camera will initially ship with 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes HQ 4K and 1080p recording capability (with Film/log or Video/Rec.709 gamma), and that its new lossless compressed 4K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG recording feature might not be ready when the cam first ships. If the lossless compressed RAW feature becomes available after first ship, BMD says it’ll be part of a free firmware update. BMD hasn’t announced yet what exact data rate its new compressed RAW CinemaDNG format will be recorded at.
Since the BMPC-4K camera isn’t finished, BMD and people close to its development (such as John Brawley) haven’t released sample footage or announced complete, definitive performance info about it yet. BMD’s published specs for the BMPC-4K claim it has 12 stops of dynamic range, 1 stop less than the BMCC. JB has said the BMPC-4K may be less sensitive (have a lower native ISO) compared to the original BMCC’s native 800 ISO, but also that it’s too early to say for sure. Native ISO is the setting at which a camera records its “best” balance of high dynamic range and low noise. BMD is still tweaking the new camera, so stay tuned.
I’m OK with the BMPC-4K having slightly less DR & sensitivity than the BMCC, if in fact that ends up being true. For me, the BMPC-4K’s new features (4K & 1080p ProRes HQ, global shutter, plus 4K compressed RAW when available) will be well worth the extra $1K and the additional wait for delivery compared to the now-shipping BMCC — if sample BMPC-4K footage looks good and the camera ships “soon”.
Because 4K ProRes HQ will be recorded as 10-bit 4:2:2 with either “Film” (log) or “Video” (Rec.709) gamma at up to 884 megabits/sec, the quality will likely be quite good — fantastic actually — compared to the vast majority of other camcorders, which usually record only 8-bit 4:2:0 at a fraction of that data rate. The BMPC-4K will record about 2 hours of 4K ProRes HQ footage on a ~500GB SSD.
In my informal tests, there’s no significant performance penalty working with ProRes HQ 4K vs. 1080p size files. For example, my 3 yr. old MacBook Pro 17″ can easily edit & composite at least 4 concurrent ProRes HQ 4K streams from a single 7200 rpm SATA-3 hard drive via eSATA-3 in FCP7. Mac & Windows users with newer hardware, software and faster I/O (such as USB-3 & Thunderbolt) should have no issues handling ProRes HQ 4K files.
The BMPC-4K’s global shutter sensor — unlike the rolling shutter sensor in most CMOS cameras — will have no “jello” artifacts, and no partial-frame flash-band exposure artifacts. So, for example, camera/subject motion or vibration won’t cause the video to, well, look like jello, and vertical lines (such as while panning across buildings/lightpoles, passing vehicles, etc.) won’t become slanted lines, and still camera strobe flashes (such as during weddings, events, etc.) won’t cause ugly white horizontal streaks across the video frame.
In a previous post I describe my current thinking about how I plan to “rig” my BMPC-4K for hand-held and tripod shooting.
Why shoot 4K?
I’ll probably shoot 4K ProRes HQ “Film” gamma most of the time. Of course, if a client or project requires it I’ll shoot 1080p ProRes HQ (@ up to 220 megabits/sec) instead, but otherwise 4K ProRes HQ Film will be normal shooting mode.
The BMPC-4K’s extra resolution in 4K recording mode should make it possible to get a very high-quality 1080p finish, and while doing so, have the flexibility to crop/zoom shots in post. So, for example, a medium wide shot can also be used to obtain a medium shot in post, or a medium close-up can also be used to obtain a CU in post, without objectionable digital artifacts. Whereas 1080p footage can usually only be scaled to about 110% or so before artifacts make the blow-up unusable, 4K footage in a 1080p editing timeline can be cropped 25%-50% or more and still look very good.
Any noise in the 4K video will become less-objectionable (smaller/tighter) after down-scaling to 1080p. And 4K files will probably enable cleaner chromakeying, and also cleaner compositing of titles, graphics, and 3D effects.
Global shutter will also be helpful when doing image stabilization (IS) in post, because editing software IS processing will operate more efficiently and accurately.
Relatively speaking, 4K ProRes HQ files don’t take up much room on 4TB 7,200 rpm SATA-3 hard drives, which these days cost less than $185 and can store about 10 hours of ProRes HQ 4K footage. ProRes HQ 1080p files require about 1/4 as much storage compared to ProRes HQ 4K files. Note: Big files can take a long time to copy and back-up, so that’s something to be aware of and plan for!
Although I’m comfortable shooting with relatively “small” size sensors such as 2/3″ and Micro Four Thirds — and the one in the original BMCC which is between those two — I’m happy the sensor in the BMPC-4K is a larger S35 (APS-C) size, similar to standard motion picture film. The S35 field of view makes it a bit easier to get wider shots in smaller locations, when you can’t always “step back”. See ProLost’s sensor size diagram and Abel’s FOV Comparator.
I think shooting 4K ProRes HQ “all the time” will make a lot of sense, unless of course you need to immediately hand-off 1080p footage to a client who requires it. That’s cool; the BMPC-4K camera will also shoot 1080p, too, so no worries.
4K files might have a longer useful life — maybe — in the “4K future” which appears to be headed our way. Because technology continuously changes & improves, “future proofing” is perhaps over-sold. In a sense, one’s always behind, even if you try to stay a step ahead, because the technological goal posts keep changing. However, several years from now it may be an easier “sell” to use 4K footage (shot today) than to use 1080p or 2K footage. Even though well-shot 1080p, 2K, or 2.5K footage can be up-scaled to 4K — and can look really good if handled properly — well-shot 4K footage may look better in some ways, and just as importantly it may be easier to convince others that old 4K footage is not “out-of-date”. Unknowable.
As for shooting RAW video vs. ProRes, I say “go for it” if you have computer hardware & software capable of handling RAW video. Myself, I may use 12-bit RAW for especially challenging shots that might otherwise tax the industrial-strength capabilities of 10-bit ProRes HQ. In a year or so, when I have a new, faster computer and dirt-cheap, super-mega-terabyte storage, I might shoot RAW all the time. But for most things I shoot now, RAW isn’t necessary. It’s great that BMD’s cameras can do it whenever needed.
None of the above negates the fact that the original BMCC has slightly better DR, probably better sensitivity, uncompressed 12-bit 2.5K RAW (and 1080p ProRes), and costs $1,000 less than the new BMPC-4K camera. The BMCC’s 2.5K RAW files can be up-scaled quite nicely to 4K if needed. Whether BMCC 2.5K RAW video will always look as good or better than 4K video from a BMPC-4K, it’s too soon to say.
These are some of the reasons why I’ve decided to get a BMPC-4K instead of any other ~$4,000 camcorder. You may have reasons for choosing a different camera. That’s cool. It’s all good.
There isn’t 1 perfect camera that’s ideal for every production, shooting style, budget, or schedule.
Cheers.
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
John Brawley has now posted the first Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 1080p sample footage on his blog.
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/footage-in-your-pocket/
-
Two weeks ago at the NAB Expo, Rick Young posted a demo/walkthrough about the BMPCC:
[Updated 4/13/13]
I’ve decided which Blackmagic Design camera to buy. I’ve had a BMCC-MFT ($2,995 US) on pre-order for months, and I also pre-ordered their new, top-of-the-line BMPC-4K ($3,995) camera the day after it was announced at this week’s NAB 2013 expo. However, I’m only going to buy one of them.
Today I canceled my BMCC-MFT pre-order. I’m keeping the BMPC-4K pre-order (it’s a no-deposit, no-obligation pre-order).
I figure by the time the BMPC-4K cameras are ready (or near-ready) to start shipping (BMD says “by the end of July 2013″), the BMCC-MFT might be available off-the-shelf or nearly so. If I change my mind about the BMPC-4K then, I’ll get a BMCC-MFT instead.
My favorite BMPC-4K features: Aside from the BMPC-4K camera’s sensor being 4K (3840 x 2160 pixels), I really like that it has a global shutter — no more rolling shutter “jello” or flash-band artifacts! — and its APS-C (~S35) size sensor is wider than the BMCC (~1.6 vs. ~2.3 crop factor). Oh, and that the BMPC-4K sells for only $4,000 US!
My least-favorite BMPC-4K features: I wish the BMPC-4K had a Sony “E” lens mount instead of Canon “EF”, because E mount can be adapted to a wider range of other lens mounts, including F, PL, EF, and so forth, and for compatibility with adapters such as the magical Metabones Speed Booster. And, the BMPC-4K has a “missing” feature: No 60p for slow motion (its maximum frame rate is 30p; although 30p slowed-down to 24p can look quite nice).
I assume BMD chose to use the same EF mount as the original BMCC camera to speed the BMPC-4K to market and keep its cost down. I can live with that. I plan to get RedRock Nikon-to-EF lens adapters for my set of old manual Nikkor prime lenses, and I’ll probably buy a wide-ish f2.8 EF zoom.
As long as the BMPC-4K’s video quality proves to be generally very good, it’s OK with me if it ends up having slightly less DR & sensitivity than the BMCC. This is mostly a moot point for brightly-lit scenes. For dimly-lit scenes, I own & rent lights, and I know how to use them. Alternatively, fast lenses such as the new, well-reviewed Sigma 35mm f1.4 (on my wish-list, if it’s compatible with the new camera; see: EF lens compatibility with the BMCC) are plenty sharp & fast enough for most dimly-lit locations.
I actually like the form factor & other features shared by BMCC and BMPC-4K cameras, such as their 5″ touchscreen, built-in battery, balanced audio inputs, HD-SDI output, headphone & external power connectors, machined metal housing with multiple 1/4″-20 mounting points, etc. Although the BMCC-MFT is adaptable to more lenses, and is a tad lighter & smaller than the BMCC-EF or BMPC-4K, the latter camera’s other attributes are worth the extra $1K US to me.
I’m interested in seeing BMPC-4K sample footage ASAP, but especially near its ship time when the cam is fully-baked. Unless of course early pre-production BMPC-4K footage looks spectacular. However, if early pre-production BMPC-4K footage looks so-so, I’ll wait until it’s closer to shipping to see if it improves or not.
Having decided on the BMPC-4K, I thought it’d be a good idea to play around a bit with some 4K ProRes HQ files to see if my computer & software can handle it:
For most projects I’ll use the camera’s compressed 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes HQ video more than its “lossless compressed” 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG files, and the BMPC-4K may not even ship with CinemaDNG enabled at first. 4K ProRes HQ is awesome, and will do me just fine.
I have a 3 year old MacBook Pro 17″ w. 2.66 GHz i7 CPU, 8GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GT 330M gpu; w. eSATA-3 ExpressCard I/O, 9TB of external 7200rpm SATA-3 HDD storage, but no Thunderbolt. I currently use FCP7 for editing, and I have a free copy of Davinci Resolve Lite 9.1.
I did a simple test using Resolve & FCP7 to up-convert several of John Brawley’s 24 fps BMCC 2.5K uncompressed RAW CinemaDNG sample files to 4K ProRes HQ Quicktime files. The resulting 4K files have a data rate of about 650 megabits/sec, which is about right, since the target data rate for 4K ProRes HQ @ 24 fps is 707 mb/s. At its maximum frame rate of 30fps, the BMPC-4K will record about 2 hours of 4K ProRes HQ footage on a ~500GB SSD. For storage, note that 4TB 7200rpm SATA-3 hard drives cost about $185 each.
I imported these 4K ProRes HQ files into FCP7, and they play smoothly in real-time, with no dropped frames. I did some basic editing & color correcting with them, including 4 composited layers (four 4K streams playing concurrently), and that all works fine, too. I wasn’t really surprised since Macs usually have no trouble playing ProRes files, but this was the first time I’ve used 4K ProRes HQ files. Sweet!
Since I tend to “hold onto” gear for a relatively long time, I think the BMPC-4K camera will make sense for me. I’ll use it near-term primarily for creating 1080p projects, and over time use its 4K capability more and more as projects are able to benefit from it or require it. As is commonly the case today with footage from existing 4K cams, I’ll sometimes use 4K footage to crop or resize to high-quality 1080p, and acquire 4K footage for 4K distribution as opportunities arise. If the camera’s 4K ProRes HQ acquisition looks good (using the cam’s “Film”/log and “Video”/Rec.709 recording gammas) compared to the compressed RAW CinemaDNG (which may require more storage), I’ll shoot 4K ProRes HQ most of the time, even for 1080p delivery. Depending on the project, I may also use the BMPC-4K to shoot 1080p ProRes HQ fairly often. We’ll see.
As always, there isn’t one, single perfect camera ideally suited to every production, budget, schedule, and shooting style.
The BMPC-4K will be a good match for most of the video I anticipate shooting for the next few years. For productions that may require other capabilities (such as 60p slow-motion, etc.), there are suitable rental cams readily available in my town. In a pinch, even 60p HD footage from a Panasonic GH3 can look quite good.
So, for me, the BMPC-4K is it … unless I change my mind again. 
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
Here’s my current thinking in reaction to the new Blackmagic Design Production Camera 4K and the Pocket Cinema Camera (1080p) cameras announced at this week’s NAB Expo:
I currently have on pre-order both an original BMD Cinema Camera 2.5K (the Micro Four Thirds version), and the new Production Camera 4K. As of today neither is actually shipping. I’ll only buy one or the other, but I haven’t decide which yet. As for the little PCC, I may consider getting one of those, too. More on all that in a later post.
Cinematographer John Brawley has written an excellent article about the new cameras, illustrated with many photos.
Meanwhile …
Look at BMD’s entire product line, not just their cameras. My observation is that BMD appears to think in terms of 12-month product cycles, plus or minus a few months. They’ve been doing this for years.
About every year, BMD replaces existing products with new versions. Not every product, every year, because the starting dates for each are different. But on average, BMD seems to replace products with new versions every year or so.
BMD loves announcing new products and projected availability dates months before they’re ready to ship. Both of these seem intuitively crazy to me — because of the confusion it causes for their current customers, and the effect it has on sales of their existing products (some of which are in short supply or late) — but perhaps there’s a method to their madness. For better or worse, marketing and publicity are different now than before the internet, and “buzz” carries more weight than ever. Obviously it’s mostly working for BMD since they appear to be a very profitable business.
If any of the above is correct, and it might not be, then looking ahead one can assume the pattern will continue, more or less.
In the case of video cameras, specifically the PC-4K model, it’s inevitable that within ~12 months BMD will announce a similar ~4K-ish, s35-ish size sensor version that records RAW-ish video but increase the frame rates to >60 FPS for ~$4K. All these numbers might be somewhat high or low, but seem in the ballpark considering current trends. The “headline” incremental change will be the higher frame rate — the current PC-4K tops out at 30fps — and possibly the price.
In a similar time frame, BMD will probably also announce new Pocket Cinema Camera(s), probably 2 versions: One with higher specs than today’s model, for ~$1K, and another with specs similar to today’s version for <$1K.
One question is whether the similar models they announced yesterday at NAB will actually be readily available by the time of next year’s announcements. If they are, that’s welcome, rapid change, but if not maybe BMD will need to evaluate the wisdom of their approach. We’ll see.
I don’t think any of the above are reasons not to buy a camera from BMD today if you actually have a reason to own one. If you get paid to use a camera, it’ll pay for itself relatively quickly. If you’re using it primarily for one “big” short film or whatever, even the price of the BMPC-4K is the definition of low-budget. And, if you can rent instead buy, depending on your shooting schedule your cost may or may not be less than buying a cam.
And, if you already own a BMD or other camera, it’s not “obsolete” if you’re able to get good use out of it, or if your clients are still throwing money in your direction for using it. Be happy! Work that thing!
The only thing unique about any of this is how rapidly BMD “turns-over” their products, how relatively inexpensive their products are, and how long they take to bring them to market after publicly announcing them — especially compared to “traditional” camera manufacturers. This combination is unusual, and not necessarily a good thing. But there it is.
However, this could be the new normal for video cameras. Or, it may turn out to be the beginning of the end of BMD. It may or may not be sustainable, but it’s far too early to say.
“4K” is the buzzword this year, but in a short few years it’ll seem like old hat, as SD (and to a much lesser extent, HD) does today. The merry-go-round ain’t going to stay stuck spinning at 4K or 3D “speed” for long, and some manufacturers will decide which and how frequently they bring products to market accordingly.
Bottom line: Get used to buying a new camera every year or two, if you’re not already doing it.
There’s no guarantee of success; it’s all a risk. Same as it ever was.
But wait: There’s more.
-
My list of related links, short films, and resources for Blackmagic Design cameras.
-
For my words only: ©2013 Peter J. DeCrescenzo. All rights reserved. http://www.peterdv.com
Note: I don’t receive income or remuneration for this blog, or for products seen or mentioned here. Advertisements on the page have nothing to do with me. The ads support WordPress, the publisher.
