Black Magic Designs have made a video camera just for Bob Gross.
How about that !
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/16/blackmagic-announces-blackmagic-cinema-camera
Franco

At first I thought, "What the heck is this about?"

Then I read the review. Interesting. 13 stops of dynamic range.

However, three grand is not an amount of money that I throw around lightly.

I'm not sure what a Thunderbolt connection is.

--B.G.--

three grand is not an amount of money that I throw around lightly

Yes, from a guy that uses L lenses...

Seriously , this one has great potential for pro movie stuff at an initial low cost if you already have the right lenses.
That RAW video file capture looks promising as it is done on a large (for movie stuff) 16x14mm sensor.
(I assume the focal length will be around 2.2 times your 35mm , so a 70-210mm will give you a 150-460mm angle of view)

The Thunderbolt is the only new connection in that (it is a faster version of Fire Wire/USB 3 i/o device) from Intel and supported by both Apple and Windows.
(the rest are standard BNC/ jacks and even a LANC (Sony/Canon) remote control)
Of course it will capture a massive amount of data so I see a computer upgrade (or at least a card/device that takes Thunderbolt)

Theoretically it will not have some of the problems of video with a digital SLR such as limited capture duration ,battery life and rolling shutter as well as offering RAW uncompressed files.
But I am guessing...


Not one to jump in right now but you should keep an eye on this development...
Franco

Actually, I have only one L lens, and one other lens cost four times as much as the L.

This camera body looks interesting for anybody who wants to do some serious video work with a fairly normal Canon lens. However, I can't even put myself into that category. I never shot any video at all until June 2010, and the total time of all video clips went to maybe two hours. So, that is not exactly my specialty.

It would be interesting to have a body with a X2.2 factor in it and then add on my long lens. Great for wildlife video.

Nothing is being said about the battery/power supply. That tends to mean bad things. Especially with cryogenic cooling at the sensor.

For the time being, I think I will keep my hands on DSLR video.

--B.G.--

Its video is 2540 or some such, its not 4k video as I understand it so, why bother? You can't project it except with a very special projector. Downsample it to 1080p I guess.

13 stops, yea who is counting the dynamic range? This from DXO?

Yup, stick with a DSLR/mirrorless for video.

4k video comes down to Cameras in general, I will grab one. Always thought 1080p was way too little. Anyone doing a slid show all know this when one projects this content onto a screen for showing pictures/video. In this respect, film is still superior to digital, though with 4k video even this aspect will disappear finally, or at least be negated severely.

I can't wait for affordable 4k video... That and if someone will finally start selling us LCD/Plasma screen for computers/TV that will have this resolution. Technology exists. That danged uesless 16:9 ratio that everyone is selling now coupled with 1080p ug... We can still keep 16:9 ratio if the pixel count of screens goes to 4k instead of 1080p like it is today allowing document shrinking since we would then have enough pixels.

in actuality, the 4k battle is kind of misleading. check this out - http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

i will say the BMD camera is pretty impressive, represents legitimate groundbreaking work as far as video goes. CinemaRAW is a huge deal, especially at that price point.

if they offered it in m43 mount, i'd probably sell my car to pick one up...

Good article Dan.
I have tried, and failed, many times to explain that numbers don't tell the full story.
For example I think it is funny how many translate HD into "quality" when in fact it is simply an amount.
If I have a bucket of beer I have a lot more than a bottle but not necessarily a better beer...
BTW, at least on paper, that "2k" should be more than good enough for TV work...
Franco

Edited by Franco on 04/23/2012 19:17:09 MDT.

Yes, the ability to get RAW output is great if you are a professional...

If you have a billion hours to spend converting and getting optimal quality from your video creating batch file algorithms or to 'save' a blown out highlight, get rid of motion blur etc.

Who is going to watch your video of mountains? You and maybe a family member or two when you come home and then it will sit in a drawer collecting dust never to see the light of day again. If you are super ambitious you will edit/post it on yourtube, vimeo etc for the unwashed hoards. Of course the quality still doesn't come through on such mediums. Are you going to "pop" this video in and watch a bunch of ground shots and jumpy wiggly video of mountains/forests/streams? No. If you want true video, you gotta carry more gear so folks don't get sea sick watching. This mean "steady cam" apparatus generally speaking, or severe editing.

Pictures on the other hand can be put on the wall and left there for a hundred years. Likewise if we finally get 4k video we can grab the still frames we wish for screen saver or to be printed and hung on a wall. 2.5k video cannot or at best very small prints.

Yes, RAW is great. In fact in video its even more important than in a regular camera as the dynamic lighting changes widely and rapidly causing far more blown highlights or too dark scenes. It still requires a boat load of time to use this ability though.