Andrew Reid

The colour science is at least 80% done in post when you shoot LOG... and 99% when you shoot RAW! The colour science is in Resolve and can be applied to any camera with a capable enough codec! What we need to know are things like - - Dynamic range in LOG and RAW - Noise in shadows - High ISO performance - 8bit vs 10bit And the job of the grading is to get the colour to match perfectly between the two cameras being tested. I still have no idea how the GH5S and Pocket 4K really compare in dynamic range, noise and bit depth.

Nice Berlin model that is for sure They look pretty similar to me and the BMD LUT comparison saw the GH5S come out ahead due to the better exposed skintones, but then that is more a comment on the LUT than the camera. I like the slightly higher black point in the Pocket 4K close-up shot of the eyes... But again that is just grading. I'm still waiting to see a demonstration of the actual image quality advantages of the Pocket 4K's RAW codec rather than just pretty pictures, so I'll be sure to check out Slashcam's next article. Should be quite revealing.

Has anyone figured this out yet... Now we have Content ID and record labels automatically get streaming revenue from YouTube when a song is used, are video-artists basically allowed to use any music track they like over videos for non-commercial use on YouTube? (Yes I am aware the video is demonetised) Just want to be clear that the musician / label is getting paid for streaming, therefore it's legal usage?

Looks great, even compressed for Vimeo. And I bet it was a stress free shoot as well. Tiny camera with a pancake lens and a boat ride, created some really lovely stuff here. I wish more people would drop their C300 rigs and 'go auteur'

I can guarantee the moment we get the miracle that is full frame 4K/60p, we will want medium format 4K/120p

I'd say RAW or LOG has as much mojo as you're prepared to give it in post, unless the sensor is an absolute dog and the quality just isn't there. I'm not too concerned about the image quality with the Pocket 4K. It's the other aspects around it that concern me... reliability, battery life, ergonomics, autofocus, availability, so on... In fact the biggest concern has nothing to do with Blackmagic. They're a great company. The concern is the competition. X-T3, A7 III, EOS R, Z6, Z7, X-H1, Panasonic S1, GH5S, GH5, list is almost endless. I think to myself, how often am I going to pick up the Pocket 4K which is basically a box with a sensor and RAW, over something that does it ALL and high resolution stills as well. There is a stills mode on the Pocket 4K and the resolution is a big step up from the 2K on the original, but it's no Z7 or S1R!! It's a one trick pony. RAW / codec. The rest, I could have designed better myself.

If we assume the most probably outcome, it's that the Z7 4K looks like the D850 and the Z6 4K looks like the A7 III. The Z7 4K in full frame mode is excellent, same as my D850. A tiny bit of aliasing on very high contrast diagonal edges, but that is to be expected going 46MP down to 4K. There are no real issues, honestly, same as D850 which I loved. It's detailed, it's cinematic, it's got a ton of dynamic range and a nice codec, with great colour science. Rolling shutter is well controlled. Switch to APS-C mode and it is supersampled from 5K, just like the D850 and the A7R III. In full frame it is slightly superior to the A7R III, slightly smoother looking and less aliasing. Now the Z6 we are told by Nikon is full pixel readout in full frame (like A7 III) but the APS-C mode has to be upscaled from something like 3K, again same as A7 III. So the Z7 is going to have the better APS-C 4K, and the Z6 will have a MARGINALLY better full frame 4K image assuming it does indeed ape the A7 III's full pixel readout (6K to 4K). Until the Z6 actually arrives, we won't know for sure, and there may be issues we're not yet aware of or Nikon might decide to take features out, or reduce their potency. On paper, the specs look fine, but the devil might be in the detail. If it works out as expected, the Z6 is going to be a big fat bargain, and preferable to the A7 III taken as a body in isolation... Once you start talking lenses, adapters, etc. Then it gets more complicated.

Alexa vs S-LOG! Well of course! Let's try and stick to options in the same price range. I suppose it depends on how much colour grading you need to do. Isolating skin tones, VFX work, that kind of thing - well, RAW is going to be a nice advantage for you there. Needs must! No absolutely not against it, not sure what gave you this idea, but the number of full frame cameras has increased dramatically, so unless a smaller sensor camera can have other advantages not found on a full frame camera, I can see a point where 'generally' people will choose the larger sensor, and crop if they need the look of a smaller one (i.e. deep DOF). Also it is hard to get sharp corners at infinity focus on a focal reducer. For a lot of stuff, this doesn't matter - but for the rare occasion where you want a corner to corner sharp landscape shot at infinity focus, you're probably going to want a native prime lens. No it's not a waste for you, by the sounds of it. I'm not an expert on your workflow or projects though, so that's just an assumption. For me, I know I can get very nice results from an A7R III or any 8bit camera, and that 10bit or RAW is only a significant upgrade if it's going to be made use of. There really does need to be more 10bit vs 8bit video comparisons out there under a range of shooting situations and grades. I have compared RAW to 8bit H.264 before on EOSHD and for some shots, when pushed, the difference was obvious to the advantage of RAW, but the 8bit H.264 I was comparing it to was pretty basic 1080p back on the 5D Mark III. Then I did a comparison between Magic Lantern 14bit RAW and the A7S S-LOG 2, where the A7S came out on an even keel in terms of the end result with a normal grade, in Resolve, on a wide range of shots in natural light. No VFX work though. No treatment of skin tones differently to the rest of the image, so what worked for me might not work for you. I'm going to make some more up-to-date comparisons, and would have done already if I could get hold of a Pocket 4K but it's still a complete mystery to me.

Interesting run down of those cameras. How close would you say the C200's image is to the 1D X Mark II. I have heard they are VERY much the same, in fact the 1D X II might have the edge with the higher bitrates in MJPEG 4K.

No need to worry about a harsh high contrast look with the Nikon Z7 flat profile. It's very smooth. With a LUT, it's up to you what the contrast is. So I don't really understand the debate?!

Can I make a small request. If you see a post you want to comment on and it has, like 6 massive images, do us all a favour - don't quote, just reply under it and mention the username. We don't need to scroll through 20 of the same images on one page, thanks!

Yes, it's not good news on that front. It's a shame as the image is actually very pretty. Review coming soon.

The Pocket 4K has a lot of interesting features, of course, but somebody needs to do a proper comparison of 8bit, 10bit, ProRes, LOG, RAW, etc. Because the image quality is closer between them than people realise, when it comes to the end-result. I've had Blackmagic cameras in the past, and it's fun pulling around a raw file in Resolve and seeing all that dynamic range on demand, but then I have also had a lot of enjoyment out of 8bit S-LOG and Canon LOG too. Seeing how silky smooth, noise-less the shadows are in low light from a full frame sensor, being able to fluidly play it back and slap on a LUT over Canon 1D C footage - wow - you wouldn't know THAT was 8bit. Instantly nice colour and dynamic range. Same with Hybrid LOG Gamma from an A7 III, or V-LOG with the GH5 and F-LOG on an X-T3. Even the EOS R, for all its faults, has an amazing ALL-I codec with film-like colour - and it's 8bit. We are trading a lot of things on the Pocket 4K for that RAW codec. 10bit too, but others offer that now, so it's not unique to Blackmagic. Out goes a large sensor, out goes decent video AF, out goes IBIS, out goes articulated screen, battery life, high quality body, weather sealing and more besides. So it is important not to over hype it, as some have been doing on this thread. I have nothing against the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, but it has to be seen objectively. I do have a little bit of annoyance pent up at the company, for their lame availability and non-support of EOSHD despite the tons of work I have done over the years to bring people's knowledge up to speed on their cameras and Resolve, but I am not going to let that influence the review once I finally get one. Still no luck on that front BTW.

EOSHD TV in 2 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHAd3jwZy0

Yeah well backlit, underexposed faces will do that. It's not the camera's fault is it?! It's the cinematographers job. I think maybe we have so much technology now, we expect the camera to fix everything, rather than getting it right ourselves in terms of the light and grade.

Pretty confident the Z6 sensor works in a similar way to the A7 III, but I prefer Nikon's colour science and higher bitrate codec to that camera, so for the same price as the A7 III along with the better ergonomics, it's a good choice... going to be more attractive than Sony for a lot of people. Now, if only they would release the damn thing in the shops. What we shouldn't get too hung up on is the pixel binning, vs 1:1 readout, vs supersampling. I am not sold on a "sharp" 4K image. As long as it doesn't have a moire & aliasing problem, I'm fine with the amount of detail I get across a very broad range of 4K cameras. I don't mind that the EOS R is on the soft side. It actually helps it when downsampled on YouTube, or on someone's 1080p laptop screen or TV. A sharp Sony A6500 image tends to get GH2-syndrome and people say it looks too digital, because the downsampling of a streaming browser player creates nasty aliasing and a fatiguing image from that sharp detailed 4K file. That's not nice. With the EOS R, the image is soft to pixel peep, but nice to actually WATCH in the real world. In fact I am warming to it having seen the images, it's not all about specs. We engage emotionally with images when we watch a film. We don't count the pixels. However when we try to qualify the quality of an image from a camera, in a review, we DO count the pixels! It's a strange paradox, a disconnect between how we actually need the image to be on screen, and how we think we need it to be.

You're imagining that I'm afraid. The 6D II has a lot of aliasing going on, a lot of moire. It's a step back from the 5D Mark III, which had this under control. What you perceive as more 'sharpness' is due to false detail. The Canon body you want for the best 1080p is actually the 5DS, believe it or not. I don't know what footage you've been watching, with undisclosed amounts of digital sharpening applied in post and different shots revealing different perceived amounts of detail but if you look at a chart you will see the truth. It goes 5D3 and 5D4 pretty much identical, 5D4 maybe a bit more digital sharpening applied but same 'real' detail as 5D3, that is to say not much, then step up to 5DS and A7S (full pixel readout). Really though? For me the 1080-look stands out a mile as dated, low-fi. If that suits the intentions of the documentary then ok, maybe it's about being minimalist, anti-technology, anti-4K. Getting back down with nature, or whatever. The content in that trailer is great, but it's not a piece of amazing cinematography - nothing unique or special about that look at all. For me that trailer is just not cinema. At this blog we have spent the past 7 years trying to get closer to film, not closer to 2009 Digital. In 4K however, sharpness is a different story. Canon's 4K is soft as well, but here is where I don't care. I find a more natural, softer per-pixel detail and contrast in 4K beneficial to how cinematic the overall picture looks. If it is too sharply detailed like the Sony A6500, you can end up with quite a fatiguing image on the big screen. You can see that the GH5S and NX1 clearly have the "technically" superior fine detail levels. But the 1D X II / 5D IV / EOS R have a mojo to their un-sharpened images which helps make detail look more natural when downscales to fit a 1080p TV or projector, NOT pixel peeped, i.e. viewed normally full-screen.

Wait for the full review and I will show both side by side. I have a 5D Mark III and EOS R so nothing to stop a good old 1080p comparison, like it's 2009. I also have a 5D Mark II. When the III came out, people complained it wasn't more detailed than the 2009 camera 10 years later, I can't believe we're still having the same fucking discussion.

Well, I am sure it will sell well. It's not like it has any competition or anything ?

Yes. I have a professional obligation to my readers. It's a shame you don't show any professional duty to the person hosting your comments, by the way.

How am I "easily swayed" exactly, smarty pants? And don't think I didn't notice the veiled "not a major player" insult. Unless you can also write a camera blog that has 450,000 visits per month, I don't really think you're quite yet in the position to call someone a bit player ?

No, I have the camera sitting right in front of me right now. Let me just show you how to grade it. In fact I'll have a book on it ready by 9am tomorrow!

You can scale down raw as well. Raw can be pixel binned. How do you think Magic Lantern 1080p raw is possible from a 22MP sensor? Raw can even be multi-frame composites like on the Google Pixel 3. You need to realise that raw video exists on every camera that shoots compressed video. It sits there in the frame buffer, before being sent for processing.

I haven't got a fucking camera, genius boy!

The problem with tests like these is they may as well be a review of the tester's grading skills. Ever since RAW and LOG first came out we have had the same issue - are we watching badly graded footage or is the camera to blame?