Leaderboard

Thanks Don! It's an exciting time for Chris and I!

" Show me some cinematic looking footage shot with this camera" - shows cinematic footage shot with the camera "They could make any camera look good" Yeah we all know that the skills of those shooting are the most important factor in terms of end result. But you asked for cinematic footage from the camera ?? One of those skills though is also choosing a camera / lens package. There have been Zeiss super 16 format Superspeeds as long as the 35mm format ones have existed. They're great and actually pretty cheap. Mostly in AB or PL m ount which can be easily adapted to MFT. Unfortunately at this price there are many users that are new to filmmaking, or maybe see filmmaking as a hobby. Blackmagic are exposing many users to a RAW or even high DR LOG workflow for the first time. I see people slapping on LUTs designed for other cameras, not bothering to grade or even learn Resolve turning out half arsed results. But. If you're willing to step up YOUR game, willing to LEARN how to grade within this workflow, the camera will not hold you back. The codec will not get in your way. It won't guarantee success either, you still have to be able to light, make nice frames and have a plan. But you won't hit a ceiling with the camera very quickly in terms of image fidelity. JB

ok well i think the issues you may have had with the video you posted and perhaps others had way more to do with the grading quality than inherent cinematic or anti-cinematic properties of the camera. it also makes a big difference if you're shooting RAW. let's not forget about lenses, those zeiss super speeds s16 are a great pairing but it's worth noting the full prime kit will cost you 5-10 times the price of the camera! but cine glass will take you a long way towards achieving.. cinematic footage. In the end what makes BMD cams special and different from the hybrids is ProRes/RAW, no OLP filter, no NR/Sharpening, Film/Log profile, color science. Basically the ingredients you'll find in much more expensive cinema cams.

why are we comparing footage from a FHD camera released 5 years ago with a S16 size sensor to an upcoming camera that shoots 4K with brand new M4/3 size sensor, 4th generation color science and featuring dual native ISO? the only thing the original pocket & the upcoming pocket 4K share in common is the "pocket" moniker and even that is misleading imo. if anything the IQ will be closer to a GH5S without NR/Sharpening, and with BMDs Film/Log profile, color science & pro res / raw recording support.

Like the image or not, Jon... it’s way more cinematic than any comparably priced camera... especially if you got in on the $500 Sale. The obvious issue with this specific video is the lack of IR Filter and that he slapped on an M31 LUT on top of it. The beauty of the Pocket/Micro is that it can look however you like. Throw on one of those Veydras or Leicas you like so much and you can have a crisp modern look. Throw on a cheap lens and you can have a soft vintage look. It’s a different type of filmmaking... the entire process almost feels visceral. You really should go out and buy one, or a Micro... they’ll be selling for cheap real soon. I saw a barely used Micro go for less than $500. After you shoot a little Raw or ProRes HQ with it... you will be hooked.

Hi! An update. Now I ordered lots of stuff (and waiting for it to arrive) This is what I got (incl freightcosts): 5DII with battery grip - 660€ - not the cheapest one but seemed to be well treated and in good condition, got it down from 800€, 17 000 shutter count Three Nikkor ais lenses (and a Nikon f301) 24mm f/2.8, 55mm micro f/2.0, 85mm f/2.8 - 310€ One ritzgear 52mm ND-filter 36€ One Komputerbay 128GB 1066x cf-card - 103€ three lens adapters (no brand china) ~25€ One SanDisk ImageMate Pro USB 3.0 Multi-Card Reader SDDR-489 - 27€ Total about 1161€ Figured to get an external hard drive aswell, but I think I will start off with the storage I got at the moment. The 5DII got a little bit more expensive than I had thought to pay but otherwise I'm quite pleased with what Ive got within this budget. fingers crossed everything will work alright. Hope all is well with you people / Erik

Got the speedbooster for my M50, now I can have FF look in a compact setup and Canon colour, and 4K is now super 35mm instead of super 16mm look.

I wouldnt be very optimistic about the long term income prospects for stock video Take this site... https://www.shutterstock.com/ Look at the stock video rates - typically US$79 for a 1080p clip and US$199 for 4k - sounds like a good business right? Then take a look at the stock photo rates on the same site. A US$29 monthly fee gets you 10 images or US$2.9 an image. And if you want a lot of images a month, you can get them for as little as 27cents an image. Essentially stock photo prices have fallen by over 95% in the past 15 years (with the democratisation of photography). I know of 3 photographers who 15 years ago were working full time on stock photography (for Getty) and say they were making a very good living. Now they make almost nothing. My guess is that video is probably half way through that democratisation process (which basically ends with everyone having decent video, video af, stabilisation on their cameras.) And it is pretty likely stock video prices will fall pretty rapidly.

IIRC the fashion is to have shallow depth of field but the killer technique with Sony users (no front-facing screen there either!) is to extend your arm out with fingers pointed up and focus on them, as when holding the camera that's the same focus distance as hand to your face.. :D In reply to the above and also in general, we're in (yet another) situation where worlds collide. World #1 is people who shoot RAW and see the camera as a tiny cinema camera. In this sense SDI > HDMI and professional standards > consumer standards. World #2 is people who want the 'best' ILC camera for under $2000. In this sense, HDMI > SDI, consumer standards > professional standards, and front-facing buttons/screens/etc are nice features to have. Neither world is wrong, it's just that before the DSLR revolution and YouTube these two worlds had never touched before. Now they're in full collision mode. Camera companies are trying to make products that appeal to both worlds and failing to connect, and both worlds look each other up and down then go back to whispering in separate groups like 10-year-olds in the school-yard. In a decade we'll have worked out how big the market for online video is, how many people it can sustain at the various levels of quality, and what products make sense. At the moment it's a mess, where the 'best vlogging camera' debate includes your phone, the RX100, the Canon M50, the Sony A7III, and the Pocket 2. Any application that includes tools as varied as that lineup should indicate that we still haven't worked out what the hell is going on yet.

I got a new copy of the Fujinon-TV 12.5mm 1.4 after unsuccessfully trying to modify my first copy (it was only $15 so whatever). This one works perfectly without needing modification. These grabs are shot wife open on the bmpcc. It's a bit soft and glows, but it could be used effectively with the right scene. It looks better at f2, and really nice at f2.8. My step dad, who co-owns a metal shop, is going to bring some handheld grinding tools from his shop to modify my Fuji 25mm and 50mm lenses. If it works, I'll shoot a test comparing my Fujis to my Cosmicar and Canon TV-16 lenses.

yeah we need a line of cases that say like HAZARDOUS MATERIALS or WARNING SUPER AIDS or something

That goes without saying.

Yeah I’m pretty sure he used just ProRes HQ... he seems to have a colorist and obviously those super speeds didn’t hurt. I think Arri had some S16mm super speeds back in the day that can be adapted and they aren’t horribly priced.

Yeah it really is. And this was shot in ProRes... stunning. To be honest, I am a little bummed out by the Pocket II. It seems too mainstream to me. Like it’s neither here nor there. I much rather would have had them build on the original Pocket/Micro but with a 2.5K image. Until we see footage, it’s all conjecture, but I could see myself scooping up another Micro for cheap and be happy with FF Raw from my 5D3 and S16 ProRes from a BMMCC. With that being said, BM does have to be commended for the price point/features of the Pocket II.

I saw your samples from the Lenses section of the 105mm... and just as I suspected, they look great. Idk, I see everybody’s point with a new mount... I just don’t know if I completely agree. When you see how tiny the D3400 is, I just don’t know if I buy that the old mount would be too big for mirrorless. I guess the question for us is, will the F/G lenses be good enough for some sort of PDAF video focus. They seem to work fine for stills. Honestly, I don’t know why I did either. This is one of my problems with forums, sometimes I just enjoy the back and forth. 1. It’s entertaining 2. I enjoy learning through debate. 3. I need a hobby to distract me from my hobby.

I wanted to post this but since you originally found it, I didn’t want to step on your toes. As I said before, if someone had told me this was shot on an Alexa, I don’t know if I would have questioned it.

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

I'm going to harass you now like I do with anyone who has old manual glass and a Sony mirrorless and beg you to buy the TechArt AF adapter and tell us what its like They were so slow they'd have tortoise tutting and tapping his watch at them. Nope, they are still performing as well as new ones that would cost you literally 10 times the price. And are about half the size. Even if you do have to turn the turny thing yourself to focus them.

Phantom 4 Professional.

While F mount will be convenient for all the people that have Nikon lenses, and for Nikon to make sure there is a large selection of lenses already for their new camera, I find it unlikely for two reasons: 1. It unnecessarily increases the size of the camera. Both due to dead space in the camera and because it cannot reduce the size of the wideangle lenses. 2. Camera companies make a lot of money from lenses, so I doubt they will miss on a huge opportunity to sell a ton with a new mount. More fun than a Canon 4000D

If this is true, then it’s quite possible the entry level models may have this new X mount and the pro FF will retain the traditional F mount? I was waiting for my GF yesterday and had a minute or two to look at the camera section at Target... it was bleak, but they did have a Nikon D3400 on display. I was surprised to see it has the Flat Profile. And the kit lens’ VR was rock steady, with a great little zoom ring... seemed sharp and clean too. At $300, not a bad little pocket camera. The damn thing was TINY too. So if their entry level mirrorless cameras can offer the Flat Profile, zebras, and focus peaking on an aps-c sensor... even at 1080p... they’ll have a little winner in my books. Hell, I may go out and buy a D3400 for some inconspicuous shooting... it looks like a lot of fun.

I vaguely remember something about the 128GB Komputerbay causing some issues, the 64GB cards work fine though... so you may want to research that to verify. Otherwise, you look like you have a nice little set up. Have fun with it!!! @deatrier

She popped right up like a trooper and didn’t miss a beat though... good on her! So, I assume I have to load the picture profile before I change the firmware to ML, right? I used ML on the EOS-M years ago to test Raw, but wasn’t a fan of it on that camera. The bitrate hike may be perfect though. I think the EOS-M already had a slightly higher bitrate than the other Canon cameras of its time, anyway. Yeah, I’m really just looking for a little more wiggle room. The grades on your website show you can do a lot with it... more than enough. Cinestyle is a bit much, but I always liked Marvels. Definitely looking forward to testing them yours and Marvels... if my stupid job would slow down for a few minutes. Was that the C-Mount Tevidon 25mm or the M42 25mm? Either way, wicked look.

Sorry for the late reply. Been out of town! Yeah, laughed my ass off too when she hit the ground :D. Thanks, bud. These little cams have got so much to offer that it's a shame they're discarded like some kind of antique relic from the past. I personally find them more enjoyable and more satisfying to use Yep, I used Magic Lantern. My personal setting is 1.3x bitrate. I've found this is to be the best balance between image quality/file sizes for my needs. I don't see the point in creating big file sizes for minimal difference in quality (especially if uploading to YT, Vimeo etc). My profile isn't intended to be compared with Cinestyle or Marvel. For me it was more of a case of trying to create something like a -6 contrast option with a smoother transition between shadows and highlights. Pushing the 8bit codec in these Canons just produces muddy/noises images that I personally think is not very pleasing to look at. You'll def see the difference between Prolost and my profile. It's def worth checking out if you're looking for a little more wiggle room in your image. -- B Thanks. I used a Carl Zeiss 25mm prime lens. Ask away, man. I have nothing to hide! -- B

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.... And visicious. I wouldn't really tap holes in the side of my camera. I'll stop now.... It's late.

I decided to use it to shoot a press conference the other day. Suffice to say there was a fair degree of incredulity amongst my younger fellow shooters at the sight of someone using a manual lens thats older than they are!

Ah so the P4K does have IBIS! (In Built Instant Stick)

I'm ordering a job lot of this in time for September if anyone wants in ?

I think you'd only edit from the original if you're really time pressed. I've opened the file off the SSD from my Atomos to start grading an interview while it's copying to other drives, but would never do any actual editing or work on a full project that way. Here's some more info from BM, the focusing idea sounds interesting.

After some experience with the actual camera, people will adjust their expectations. At first I thought, yes, I want to plug in the actual recording media (SSD) and start editing. Really? Is that a good idea? Had this been a good idea if a fast 2TB SSD cost $10 and I didn't have to re-use it? I think not. All at once the whole flimsy-USB-epoxy-third-party-clamp discussion sounds a bit absurd. And then, my NLE lets me start editing from any source right away anyway. For camera formatted SDHC cards it wisely forces me to make a background-copy. To a big HDD raid, a bottomless pit! But the costs for 4k 60p RAW on CFast cards, and how many I needed for that! But what about 4k 24p? What if I realize I don't need RAW over ProRes? BMs ProRes implementation is very good. Even Phillip Bloom found ProRes LT to be visually indistinguishable from ProResHQ in the classic Pocket. Almost 2 hours UHD @24p would fit on a 256 GB card, roughly an hour in ProResHQ (or ProRes Raw, should that make it into the P4k until fall). Do some vloggers need their faces in front of their carefully lit desktop still-life be recorded with more? There are twerps everywhere, and I guess once a camera offers THE BEST, it'd be infra dig to use any other option.

According to the sticker on the card, this one will just about manage, and is also the cheapest I can find... Whether it actually holds up is another story though: https://www.integralmemory.com/product/ultimapro-x2-cfast-2.0-memory-card

Quick and dirty test comparing my 12.5mm c-mount lenses. For my taste, the Fuji wins.

Thats what I thought when the camera was first announced too.

Its unfortunately very common and is actually at its most prevalent on what you would think was the safe side of the fence which is in the accredited areas themselves. Its only happened to me once (touch wood) at a final in Berlin a couple of years ago when one of the stewards stole my iPhone off the top of my peli case while I was shooting the trophy lift over the other side of the pitch. Funnily enough, it caused me far more of a problem than if he'd took a camera because it had my boarding pass for my flight home on it, it was the GPS for me to drive back to Leipzig because that's where I'd flown in from etc etc I have quite a few of those dividers and use them for turning an Ikea rucksack into a camera bag but also for quickly packing real camera bags as I swap between different capacity ones so its easier to keep certain lens combos in the dividers all the time and transfer them in one go.

Nice, hope it works out! I'm looking for a bi-color option tho, and now that I think about it, I really don't want to have to be mixing LED brands.

SOLD

Would I complain about having to use an adapter? I'd be a bit of a hypocrite I suppose if I did as I routinely use Nikon's teleconverters for work without any issues. They lock tight and any balance issues they cause are offset by them mainly in my case being used on lenses that need monopod support anyway. Would I be thrilled in having to do that on ALL my lenses ? Probably not but I'd be FAR less thrilled having to rebuy the rest of my core lens set in this speculated new mount, especially as I'd have to take a hit on selling lenses that were now part of a 'dead' system. Canon FD lenses are not cheap because of their optical quality and this would be the same situation. The price of the "upgrade" to a Nikon mirrorless system with a new mount and to remain native would be prohibitively expensive. The f2.8 zooms and long primes are not suddenly going to get significantly smaller and cheaper because they are in this new mount. So, if they do a mirrorless that doesn't have an adapter that has "as native" performance for existing lenses then they will have a problem retaining existing users when their current DSLRs are ready to be replaced. And the issue that they also face is that with cameras like the D5, the D500 and the D850 etc the rabid upgrade cycle isn't exactly what it was 10 years ago. We are at a point with those cameras where its only going to be wear and tear - not performance - that prompts you to upgrade. The double edged sword there for Nikon is they have not only produced cameras with great image quality but also some serious robustness! With every week that passes, the other systems seem to be getting more and more lens options. There will come a point where all Nikon have left to bargain with are the fast long primes and the legacy stuff. In the case of the former that's just a niche within a niche and I believe Sigma will step into the breach there and in the latter, well, lenses you've already sold won't pay the bills. Having said all that..... There is a couple of opportunities here for Nikon to make things both smoother for existing owners and actually make it very appealing. The first is to have the option for the mount to be user interchangeable as per RED, Ursa, Kinefinity etc so that we wouldn't have the two points of failure potential and the wear issue using an adapter. If its actually connected to the body rather than the new mount then that will keep everyone happy. For my, and I suspect many others, usage I think we'll be going out to shoot with lenses that are in one mount or the other. For anyone who would want the flexibility of quick change as they will be going out with 3 new mount and 1 old mount lens then Nikon can still do a regular tube type converter. The second thing they can do is make one of those mount options also encompass a speed booster. The option of shooting video in Super35 with fast primes that are now even faster and still have full AF? Yes please. Ditto they could also utilise the extra space to produce an electronic ND version of the mount. If they see supporting the old mount in terms of it being an opportunity rather than a duty/hindrance then they could have a monster on their hands. It could be the true hybrid that, thus far has eluded everyone. Obviously if they come out with something that's 5 grand with two plastic kit lenses and 3 slow primes with an adapter for legacy lenses that weighs more than an anvil and offers just enough AF to not be sued under the trade descriptions act then they can fuck right off

Ok back to the subject here is a review from Chris and Jordan for DPReview! DPReview is lucky to have them. Congrats to @Jordan Drake

"The sensor has about 11 megapixels according to the specification and is a Micro Four Thirds format (sensor size 17.3x13mm which means 4:3 aspect ratio). The specification says that only “10.28 Megapixels are active”, making the resolution about 3704×2778 if it’s 4:3. So the individual photo-sites must be about 4.7μm square, about the same as a conventional 3-sensor HDTV camera. Alan found that neither of these sets of dimensions was enough for 4096×2160 recording unless his assumptions are over-simplifications – which seems likely from the measurements above. ... The camera achieves HD Tier 1 because of the sensor size, while smaller than the preferred 1” size, is greater than the minimum-acceptable 2⁄3” size. The wording of R.118 is not completely consistent on this because testing is required whatever the sensor size, but the camera passes the tests anyway. ... It is also important for users to know that they can obtain more dynamic range shooting in the HLG or CineLike-D picture profiles than V-LogL. In saying that, V-LogL and HLG have a lot more dynamic range in the stops allocated above middle grey than CineLike-D. The amount of stops isn’t as important as where they are located above or below middle grey. Just because Cinelike-D has more DR than V-LogL doesn’t mean it’s a better picture profile to shoot in." The edifice of his research itself is wayyyyyyy off. It is NOT a 4/3 ratio sensor, and this is NOT the aspect ratio for 10.23 MP. They Are actually these: 3680 x 2760 (10.2 MP, 4:3), 3840 x 2560 (9.8 MP, 3:2), 4016 x 2256 (9.1 MP, 16:9), 2752 x 2752 (7.6 MP, 1:1), 2592 x 1944 (5.0 MP, 4:3), 2736 x 1824 (5.0 MP, 3:2), 2816 x 1584 (4.5 MP, 16:9), 1936 x 1936 (3.7 MP, 1:1), 1824 x 1368 (2.5 MP, 4:3), 1920 x 1280 (2.5 MP, 3:2), 1920 x 1080 (2.1 MP, 16:9), 1360 x 1360 (1.8 MP, 1:1), 3328 x 2496 (8.3 MP, 4:3), 3504 x 2336 (8.2 MP, 3:2), 3840 x 2160 (8.3 MP, 16:9), 2880 x 2880 (8.3 MP, 1:1) I am guessing the GH5s could have about 1/5 stop more dynamic range than the GH5 for raw, and less than that for video. Also, I doubt ANY camera can do 14.6 Stops in a 10-bit codec. I doubt even the highest grade ProRes 10-bit will reach 14.6 Stops. As a matter of fact, after this review, I am curious as to how many Stops of Dynamic Range the Alexas and REDs Achieve on their ProRes Codecs. Also, if this sensor were So Capable, Blackmagic would have advertised the 14.6 stops as the USP, above the Dual Native ISO. Also he says Cinelike-D has more dynamic range than Vlog. How? Take this review with a ping of salt. Or something stronger.

Looks good, and on an eos-m. 'scuse my asking, what lens used?

Haha, when she fell I almost pissed myself. Good stuff, Boz. I love how you are using these cameras from yesteryear in your films... very inspiring!!! I am going to mess around with my eos-m next week. Did you use ML with this short? I want to experiment with the 3x Bitrate and Crop mode. Your profile looks great. So expect a donation. Have you compared your profile to others like Cinestyle or Marvels? I always used Prolost Flat in the past and found it pretty good, so since your profile is based on that but takes it further is very intriguing.

Mistika VR is the best.

Im using yi4k+ cameras with 220 lens. I print my own rig. It works well and the IPD is 6.2cm. The only problem is dont have manual control on cameras. I can get 5k 60fps final video. Im trying Zcam E1with izugar lens but only shoot in 30fps and trying other solutions now.. Have any light?

Because his budget isn't realistic for having anything workable? What's the point of a hacked 5d if he won't be able to afford any decent lenses, storage or a monitor to see what he is doing? He would be much better served by something like a g7 with a speedbooster. Nobody was being condescending or rude, there is no problem.