This also changes everything!!!

[Shawn Miller]

[Morten Ranmar] “Just a shame the sensor is actually smaller than four-thirds.”

By a few millimeters, yes (17.8×10 vs 15.6×8.8) but still larger than
Super 16. Honestly, I think the ability to shoot in CinemaDNG is a much bigger deal than the sensor size. But that’s just my opinion. 🙂

[Morten Ranmar] ” This makes most Canon lenses unusable…”

Why is that? A smaller sensor means that more lenses will cover it not fewer… plus, the camera comes with a choice of EF or F-Mount.

Shawn

[Morten]

A smaller sensor size limits the choices of wide angles.

– No Parking Production –

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS5.5, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid…. and FCPX on trial

[Shawn Miller]

[Morten Ranmar] “A smaller sensor size limits the choices of wide angles.”

Sorry, I don’t follow. How does a smaller sensor limit the choices for wide angle lenses? A 14mm lens designed for FF (stills) or S35 or even MFT will still cover a smaller sensor or film format… the FOV will be more narrow, but it will still work. Am I missing something?

Shawn

[Steve Connor]

I think he’s talking about the magnification factor, the lens will still work it just won’t be that wide.

Steve Connor
“FCPX Professional”
Adrenalin Television

[Eric Mc guire]

If only the jello bug of the rolling shutter was limited. This looks like an extraordinary camera.

[Monty Wentzel]

The sensor is to small it will be a telescope view…

Monty

[Bob Woodhead]

With the target market this is (I think) intended for, an external 12V source wouldn’t be a big deal. You’ll likely be on rails anyway.

[Hector Berrebi]

[Jim Giberti] “Over sampled, 1080p, at 4:4:4: Pro Res able to edit and finish immediately in FCP or PP is simply brilliant.
“

well… only PR 422 HQ actually 🙂

the thing that most people sort of miss on this camera is the sensor
its a rather small micro 4/3
and it currently takes cannon EF lenses (and Zeiss ZF which is practically the same but more expensive)

these lenses are made for larger sensors… resulting in a world of crop factors, i’d say X2 and up

and not to be a RED advocate. but RAW DNG is not necessarily a good choice. having a well written, intelligent compression like R3D, and a talented team that keeps developing the compression makes a difference

RAW DNG… at 2.5 K is about 300MBs… (if i’m not all wrong about it)

i was told by BM guys that it will get over-cranking for slomo, but not on DNG, on PR and DNX

it looks interesting… but still needs much testing

Hector Berrebi
prePost Consulting

[Chris Kenny]

[Hector berrebi] “RAW DNG… at 2.5 K is about 300MBs… (if i’m not all wrong about it)”

2432 * 1366 pixels * 12 bits = 39865344 bits per frame, or 4.98 MB per frame (decimal megabytes). The tech specs page confirms this number. That’s 120 MB/s @ 24p. High, but significantly more manageable than 300 MB/s.

I do always wonder why these systems don’t at least use mathematically lossless compression, which would get files ~40% smaller with no impact on the data being recorded. The CinemaDNG spec says it supports internal lossless compression. Maybe there’s not enough onboard processing power?

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Shawn Miller] “Sorry, I don’t follow. How does a smaller sensor limit the choices for wide angle lenses? A 14mm lens designed for FF (stills) or S35 or even MFT will still cover a smaller sensor or film format… the FOV will be more narrow, but it will still work. Am I missing something? “

It with cover, yeah, but as you say FoV will be more narrow. It’s going to be hard to get very wide on this camera. Although Tokina makes as well-reviewed 11-16 2.8 zoom for APS-C that might help. (Canon makes a 10-22 for APS-C, but it’s f/3.5-4.5, too slow in my opinion.)

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.