[Rick Lang]

Sorry I forgot to post after Dave Jenkins confirmed that QuickTime does display pixel-for-pixel video. So if you open a HD video and display it at actual size, it does use 1920×1080 pixels on the screen out of the 2880×1800 available pixels. A screen grab of the contents will result in a capture of 1920×1080 pixels. Hopefully you already saw this posted in a couple if other recent threads.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Jeremy:
“It looks crazy (and probably pricey!)!”

But aren’t those very words one way to describe the Mac Pro? 8^)

Sounds like it could be a fit. I didn’t pay too much attention frankly to the articke’s emphasis on supercomputing use as it wouldn’t surprise me to see this trickle down to something like the Mac Pro or whatever Tim Cook is really working on that he can’t tell you except to confirm it’s coming.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Jason and Douglas, please go back and look at the latest posts from Dave and me in this thread:
https://mobi.creativecow.net/thread/335/37515

Thanks to Dave’s efforts, it’s good news: you can screen grab a QuickTime window playing 1920×1080 HD video and it will capture a 1920×1080 HD-sized image. Finally got an answer and the COW provided the answer before anyone in the Apple Discussions Macbook Pro forum. I’ll answer the question on Apple Discussions. Happy Father’s Day.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Dave:
“If I capture the desktop the size is 2880 x 1800
If I open a video in QT 1920 x 1080 it show up edge to edge of the screen as 1440 x 810
If I record the screen in QT the size is 1440 x 900
If I do a screen grab it captures a 1920 x 1080 image at 1920 x 1080

This is with the Display set to Best for Retina display”

Thank you so much, Dave. So it is possible via the screen grab to get the pixel-for-pixel capture of the defined size of the video! Interesting that you did this with Best for Retina too. So no need to use the optional virtual screen with the virtual 1829×1080. It’s certainly good news and I imagine if people chose to use the virtual screen of 1829×1080, the result will be the same for the screen capture. Actually once people understand when pixel doubling applies and when it does not, it will be useful to have these options. Your grab of the desktop showing 2880×1800 is correct of course because all the virtual screens really use the same physical dimensions of the actual display 2880×1800. It’s important that defining a HD-sized video window in QuickTime for example can give one HD screen captures.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Dave Jenkins has posted feedback using Quicktime on the new machine and it appears to be good news. I’ve asked him if he could capture a frame from the Quicktime playback to see if it’s 1920×1080 or 3840×2160 pixels.

Here’s the other thread discussing this:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/37515

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Thanks for the note re Quicktime on the Macbook Pro Retina display, Dave. (I miss visiting Santa Barbara!)

So it looks like QT doesn’t pixel-double the contents when you want it to play actual size. That’s good news. If you have the time, it would be interesting to pause a playback while in actual size and then capture the window contents to see the pixel dimensions. Want to try that with a HD video? I’m hoping then the capture from QT’s frame would indicate a 1920×1080 image and not 3840×2160 pixels!

In my earlier post to Tapio to which you were responding, I just saw i neglected to copy the thread that I asked Tapio to review! The joys of using the iPhone to work in a forum where everything is so awkward to view. Here’s the missing thread:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/37157

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Tapio, I’ve been holding my breath for two days waiting for someone who has used Quicktime on the new MacBook Pro with Retina display. You’re the first I’ve seen mention it. Would you be so kind to review this thread and respond to my last comment there near the bottom of the thread re QuickTime? Thank you so much fir your help.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Sunil:
“What is this “rolling shutter” issue with BMD cinema camera?”

Excellent explanation in Wikipedia so read that. It is something to be aware of when shooting motion and some cameras show less rolling shutter than others. Some have observed a jello effect when moving the camera but it is nit too severe on the BDCC apparently.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

[Sunil Sanjan] “I read that BMD is better than:5Dmk2, GH2 and fs100 ? Can anyone explain the difference ?
“

You need to read the manufacturer’s online product information and judge which is better related to your own needs and priorities. Each camera can have it’s strengths and weaknesses related to your needs.

[Sunil Sanjan] “If Cant afford scarlet or EPIC or a C300, Can go for BMD ? means these are yet better than BMD if price is not a issue?
“

Probably true if price was no object but if you like your quality to be acquired with relative ease and simplicity, the BMCC is best.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that Arri Alexa has same sensor as BMD ? Is it True? What difference it will make for Arri Alexa ?
“

Not true.

[Sunil Sanjan] “I read it is faster to use than a h.264 style camera, because you’re shooting native ProRes and the files can be used right away without the messy transcoding steps. Is it good option to use file directly ? What difference it makes if Prores is not used beside time and messy steps ?
“

Messy steps? Be serious! You use ProRes or DNxHD or RAW for higher quality than H.264, but if you’re final output (e.g. web video) doesn’t require the quality, then certainly the BMCC is not the camera you want.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that When you’re shooting RAW, every frame is a DNG image file. That means you can open them in Photoshop, and presumably everything else ADOBE like After Effects. What is major advantage of this ?
“

Well, being able to work with a single DNG file from the video stream can have many creative uses as well as allowing you to Photoshop an image easily that you could use for promotion of the video.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that can shoot RAW and get everything, or you can shoot Pro Res and get either a LOG image that gets you almost everything, or a REC709 that gets you pretty great looking pictures that can be used right out of the camera. Does this mean need not to work on these pictures ?
“

No, you still need to work on the video in all areas of creating a logged, edited, graded, finished product regardless of the quality of the codec.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that SSD’s are reliable, relatively cheap for the performance they offer and they are very readily available. As a consumer item, their costs are on a constant downward trajectory too. What are other Pros and cons of SSD ?
“

Pro: non-proprietary, large capacity for long recording sessions, quiet operation, reliable until it breaks, if certified by vendor for their device/camera/product will work like a charm with very high transfer rates, not tied to a vendors proprietary and potentially expensive media, etc.
Con:moderately expensive, expensive if it breaks, doesn’t provide permanent backup like tape does, if not certified by a vendor for their product will be a gamble you don’t want to lose, etc.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that Sensor Size very similar to the NIKON 1 which is 13.2 x 8.8. BMD is 15.6 x 8.8 (15.6 sounds like Diagonal). Does this difference makes any major impact ?
“

Not major, but can impact the focal length of lenses you prefer to use as the field-of-view is different.

[Sunil Sanjan] “This means sensor size Closer to m4/3 ? Right?
“

Close is irrelevant at this point as micro four-thirds mount lenses won’t be supported in the BMCC.

[Sunil Sanjan] “It means we can use wide m4/3 lenses. What are the wide m4/3 lenses avaibale in market which will suit best for BMD ?
“

See previous response.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that the sigma 8-16mm ef-s mount rectilinear lens will give you about 18-37mm (35mm equivalent coverage) This is based on a 2.3x crop factor I’ve read elsewhere. Not sure if that’s accurate. How far is this true ?
“

That’s the generally accepted crop factor rounded to one decimal point. Remember you should purchase a lens compatible with the Canon EF (or Zeiss ZE) mount.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that the Canon 10-22 EF-S zoom translates to 15mm-33mm on the BMD. How far is this true ?
“

Not true as far as I know as that crop factor would only be 1.5. If I recall correctly, 1.5 is the crop factor for Nikon’s version of the AFS-C sensor, 1.6 is the Canon AFS-C sensor crop factor. I could be wrong as I’ve only used a full-frame Nikon. The EF-S lens’ focal length assumes a 35mm full-frame camera. Do the math with the true crop factor in the previous comment.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Read that 16mm Lenses won’t cover the sensor size? Still doubt on this point ? If so why?
“

If you mean a lens specifically limited to emulate 16mm film in a digital sensor, the focus circle will be too small to cover the larger sensor on the BMCC. Not to mention the lens won’t mount on the BMCC.

[Sunil Sanjan] “Also what about Audio quality on this BMD camera? What are audio options for BMD ?
“

Audio quality depends on many factors. Audio 1/4” jack inputs support balanced mics or line-in (no phantom power though) or use a built-in mono microphone. Monitor sound levels with headphones. The camera supports 24-bit four-channel audio at 48kHz via SDI out. Review the specs:
https://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/techspecs/

[Sunil Sanjan] “It will be great if you guys explain these points.
“

My pleasure, hope I’ve been accurate. Here’s a link to a great creative community dedicated to the BMCC. You can read thousands of messages about this eagerly-anticipated, stunning and revolutionary camera:
https://www.bmcuser.com/

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB

[Rick Lang]

Looking at the screen captures in the AnandTech galleries for the Macbook Pro Retina, it does look like it’s capturing pixel-doubled data. I took the screen capture for the 1280×800 option and at actual size displayed on my 27” iMac, the image filled my screen for the width and exceeded by height (iMac at 2560×1440). That is still understandable in the sense that the Retina screen has 2880×1800 physical pixels. What surprised me was when I looked at the screen capture for the 1920×1080 option on the Retina display. On my iMac I could only see a portion of the screen because it appeared the screen capture was 3840×2160 pixels; that’s more than the physical pixels on the Retina display! This conclusion was also supported by a post in Apple’s Discussion forum on the Macbook Pro, which said all screen captures are pixel doubled the virtual screen size defined in System Preferences/Display panel. So that 1920×1080 is pixel-doubled internally in the graphic chips to 3840×2160 and then scaled back to fit the 2880×1800 physical limitation of the Retina display. Now it’s all making sense what Apple’s doing.

Still individual applications like Aperture and Final Cut Pro X 10.0.5 are not being pixel-doubled when they are displaying the photo or video imagery. That stuff is true pixel-for-pixel if you select to display the graphic as ‘actual size’ within those applications. I think I can rest now… been reading this stuff for many hours. And in spite of all that reading on one has mentioned how Quicktime behaves… hope it’s like Aperture and FCPX but eerie no one cares. I did read that Apple’s Preview application is also ‘Retina ready’ and it’s graphic imagery is also pixel-for-pixel. I’ll post later when I learn about Quicktime.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB