cantsin

Have a look at DisplayCAL, formerly known as dispcalGUI. It's Open Source monitor calibration software, extremely sophisticated, extremely thorough in its measuring, works with most color meters on the market (including devices that no longer have vendor driver support such as the Spyder3), runs on Mac OS X, Windows and Linux and provides the basis for a fully color-calibrated workflow for operating system and applications. It even supports calibration of external monitors connected to Decklink cards via Resolve. It's vastly superior to the software that comes bundled with color meters on the market.

For really good travel videos shot with the Blackmagic Pocket, check out Gunther Machu's work: IMHO, there is no other camera this size that comes close in video image quality. However: The Pocket is not a convenient travel camera, since you need to have IR cut filters in front of the lens, need to carry more batteries (and have opportunity to charge them), need to carry higher capacity SD cards (although 256 Sandisk Extreme Pros are now much more affordable at around 150 Euro, and will hold about 1 hour CinemaDNG footage or 150 minutes ProRes HQ), need to have external audio recording equipment (unless you use the Ohrwurm2 mic), and have a very limited choice of stabilized lenses (only Panasonic MFT zooms with no real wide-angle coverage on the BMPCC) and can't shoot handheld without a stabilizer/rig. An LX100 or Olympus EM (with its uniquely good in-body stabilization) clearly beats it in terms of shooting convenience.

No. You can only speedboost/focal reduce lenses with a longer flange distance to a mount with a shorter flange distance - i.e., typically, DSLR lenses to a mirrorless mount. Otherwise, there's simply no physical room for the Speed Booster glass.

Seems you have infrared pollution on your footage (this is why the image looks brownish). Strong recommendation: get IR cut filters for your lens. You should always use them when you shoot with the BM Pocket.

Not good, See the last frames of this: https://vimeo.com/129370475 (best download the 1080p file if you have a Vimeo account.) Dynamic range isn't quite up to contemporary standards either, see 0:08/0:16 of that video.

You are out of your mind. And, by the way, what you write is not covered by free speech in the country (Germany) where you live but counts as a civil offense of libel, with a court fine between $500-$1500 and a call to order by the Federal Board of Press. I won't take you to court, but please delete either your posting or my account. I also advise you to seek psychological counsel - this is not meant as a pejorative, but well-meaning advice.

AFAIK the ETC mode enlarges the picture 240%, or if you think in full frame-equivalent focal lengths, a crop factor of 4.8 (2*2.4). That means that the Meteor turns into a tele zoom with a full frame-equivalent focal length of 82-330mm. The problem is that you will only use the center part of a lens that isn't very sharp even in 16mm mode. It would be better to combine it with a 4K Panasonic camera and do the crop in post.

Why would you want to shoot video with a photo camera that was designed to shoot stills? Just get a video camera! (Just saying...) EDIT: Present-day A9 chips are as fast as top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo CPUs in 2007, and still faster than entry-level laptop CPUs today. Smartphones and tablets have become absolutely adequate for creative work if you don't run heavy-duty stuff like color grading and 3D animation on them. There's no reason why a tablet along with a bluetooth keyboard (and some clever snapping/convertible mechanism like in the Yoga or the new iPad Pro) shouldn't be used as laptop replacement. The division between an iPad Air and a MacBook Air has more to do with marketing and sales than with engineering or usability.

Technically, yes, but not on the level of user experience and applications. You can't take an iPhone or iPad, connect it to a keyboard and monitor, and it turns into a Mac with the full Mac OS X experience (so that your iPad doubles as a Macbook Air and Mac Mini). This is what Windows can now do, and what Ubuntu has been working on, too. Here you exactly get the limitations of today's corporate mindset at Apple. Apple, as a hardware and gadget company, wants to sell you the iPhone and the iPad and the Mac, and has no interest in you buying only one device that can do all at once. Just like Canon and Sony don't want their DSLR/A7 mirrorless camera to double as a Cinema EOS or FS camera because they want to protect their higher-end hardware sales. - Unlike Apple, Microsoft and Ubuntu don't live from hardware sales and therefore don't need to restrict their product R&D in the same way that Apple does. I don't like Microsoft at all, but it deserves credit where credit is due.

Sorry, but the "no" is grammatically ambiguous in the reply above. Can you clarify?

"The fact it takes a 4K Ultra HD signal and down-convertsit to beautiful oversampled clean 10bit 1080p ProRes is fantastic." Is this 100% confirmed? Does it really downsample the 8bit 4k signal of, for example, an A7s to full 10bit, and not just 8bit + two zeros? And does it use a good oversampling algorithm?

Back to the original subject of the thread: Andrew has a point that Canon cameras produce more pleasing/aesthetically appealing color than Sony (and Panasonic and Samsung, for that matter). But I don't believe that this has to do anything with sensor tech respectively color gamuts. After all, Nikon produces pleasing color, too, but uses Sony sensors. We shouldn't forget that 8bit video - i.e. the signal recorded by Sony A7 cameras, most Canon C-series cameras, Samsung NX1 and Panasonic GH4 internally - represents only a fraction of the sensor's color information. In the case of 14bit sensor signals, 8bit video only contains 1/64th or 1.5% of the original color information, in case of 12bit sensor signals, only 1/16th or 6.2%. (You might argue that debayering isn't factored in here for the 12/14 bit signal, but on the other hand, 4:2:0 chroma subsampling isn't factored in for the 8bit signal either.) So it's all about which choices the jpeg/mpeg engine of the camera makes: which 98.5%/93.8% of colors it will throw away and which it will keep. Cameras by consumer electronic manufacturers seem to be biased towards keeping a lot of green channel information because it will result in images that the untrained eye will perceive as sharper/more detailed. (The human eye can see greens better than other colors, a product of evolution and the age where hunters and gatherers need to spot prey or enemies in the woods.) It's probably the color science equivalent of edge sharpening, chroma oversaturation and increased micro contrast that is commonly used in consumer/amateur cameras to make images "pop" and appeal to the average consumers. We shouldn't forget that Sony, Panasonic and (still) Samsung produce affordable consumer 4k cameras to boost sales of their 4k flatscreen TVs. I wouldn't be surprised if their color sciences is optimized for those TVs rather than for professional or cinematic/photographic video production.

It will be physically impossible to build a multi-lens/light field camera with large sensors and high quality lenses - or it would end up having the size and weight of a suitcase. Whether we like it or not, the industry is moving towards mobile device photography where technologies like the ones used in the L16 promise more versatility and better-looking images in combination with tiny lenses/sensors/bodies. - If you can use algorithms to up-res the signal from small sensors and lenses to match the quality of today's system cameras, it will be good enough for most buyers, and hence good enough for the industry. (With the added benefit of cheaper components.) But I fully agree with you that superresolution is overdue for being used in high end cameras. It could improve image quality significantly. At the moment, however, computational requirements might still be too steep for implementing it in firmware.

Stu Maschwitz has an excellent blog piece on this: http://prolost.com/blog/lightl16 We're moving to computational photography based on reconstruction algorithms (such as superresolution, light field etc.) - where much of the contents of an image will be software-computed from incomplete/deliberately non-matching partial image data. The DxO One goes a similar (if less radical) path with its 'SuperRaw plus' feature. There's also some speculation that many of today's consumer 4K cameras already use such algorithms (super resolution in particular) since their image are often aliasing-/moire-free even if they physically shouldn't. It could mean that in 10, 15 or 20 years, today's high quality, hardware-based camera technology - including large sensors and complex optical lens constructions - will become a thing for traditionalists much like reel-to-reel tape recording machines vs. mp3 players today. With cameras like the Light L16, we may get a first glimpse into that future, comparable to the Logitech Fotoman as the world's first widely marketed digital camera in 1991. (The Fotoman had a picture resolution of 376x240 pixels in 8bit greyscale...)

@enny: Bingo on point 2 - you tried to update from the Camera Utility on the CD-ROM? Just curious.

The website Prad.de is an excellent (IMHO the best) critical resource on monitors - I'd stick to their reviews and buyer's guide: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/buyers-guide/start.html , section "Displays for graphics work".

There are two possible sources for your problem: (As said, uncompressed RAW was never available on the Pocket - for good reasons. So it seems that you simply cannot record RAW anymore.) You are trying to use a different SD card than the Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 Mb/s. No other card (really: no other card) can record raw on this camera. This includes all other Sandisk cards - the Extreme, the Extreme Plus and the Ultra; and even the Extreme Pro 280 Mb/s U3 card. None of them will work for raw recording. The same is true for all SD cards by other manufacturers (Sony, Lexar...) that state a 95Mb/s or higher speed. They won't work either. Always stick to Blackmagic's list of approved SD cards: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/support/faq/43083You have used an ancient version of the Blackmagic Camera Utility, for example, from the CD-ROM that came with your camera, to update your firmware. If you did this, than you actually downgraded your firmware - maybe to an ancient version from the times where the BM Pocket was fresh on the market and did not yet support raw recording. A common (and easy) mistake is to think that the Camera Utility will simply download and install the latest firmware. This is not the case - the Camera Utility includes the firmware and can only install the particular version that is hard-coded into it. Therefore you always need to download and install the latest version of the Camera Utility to install the latest version of the firmware. Instructions are here: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28413

Dynamic range, in visuals, is the difference between the brightest and darkest area. In photography, film and video, we're dealing with (a) the dynamic range of the subject/scene we record, (b) the dynamic range the film/sensor can reproduce, (c) the dynamic range of the particular reproduction medium (screen, print etc). In photography and film, we're often dealing with light in relative measurements. Opening one f-stop of a lens means to let in twice as much light. If I'm shooting the desert at noon, with the sun visibly in the camera shining light on a palm tree, my scene "(a)" will have nearly infinite dynamic range from the darkest shadow of the tree to the sun. In a normal bright sun light situation, without holding the camera into the sun, my scene will have about 15-17 stops dynamic range. The camera sensor "(b)" can only record a limited part this dynamic range - typically, something around 8-10 stops usable dynamic range -, so the camera operator will need to make a decision which areas s/he should let clip to white respectively black. For example, I could expose for the palm tree, then the sky would likely clip to white. Or I could expose for the sky, then the palm tree would turn black. In this situation, an Arri Alexa will give me more range than, for example, a C300 or (let alone) a GH4, with a higher likelihood that shadow details of the palm tree will still be visible when exposing for the sky. Third in the equation is the dynamic range of the output medium (c). An average flatscreen TV might have a contrast ratio of a 1:1000, which is about 2^10 (1024), u,e, ten f-stops. In this case, camera dynamic range and display dynamic range are roughly equivalent (although, if we deliver in 8bit, we can't encode 10 f-stops dynamic range without color banding - another can of worms). If we print on photo paper, we'll have maybe 6 f-stops dynamic range and compress the recorded dynamic range into that. (On a postcard, you can still print near-infinite dynamic range of the subject (a) - from shadows of trees to blue skies - by compressing dynamic range.) In studio production, camera dynamic range isn't really an issue, because you simply light the scene (a) within the dynamic range of the film/sensor (b). This is why Hollywood could make films even in times when film had poor dynamic range. (And the same reason why the GH2 did will at the Zacuto camera shootout - back then, the GH2 team properly lit the scene for the camera's limited dynamic range.) - Oh yeah, if I lived in a science fiction world (or in Plato's cave, for that matter) where there were nothing but either pitch-black or fully-white objects, and my camera and display could reproduce this, then my scene (a), my recording medium (b) and my display medium (c) would all have infinite/perfect dynamic range. So Mattias' explanation is, in fact, wrong.

Well, on top of everything said above, DxOMark only measures raw stills. The dynamic range you get out of processed video - even when recorded with a log curve - will in most cases still be less. (Among others, because compression and noise reduction might take away whole areas in the shadows and highlights where otherwise signals could still be extracted from the raw sensor data.)

For video cameras, we're simply lacking a pro independent tester for such data. In photography, sensor dynamic range independently measured by DxO Labs (on DxOMark) tends to considerably differ from manufacturer f-stop data. Another can of worms are the image processing curves applied to video footage - which influence dynamic range. With photo cameras, sensor measurement is much easier because all decent cameras shoot raw. EDIT: A good example is the Sony A7s. When it first came out, Sony claimed that it had 15.3 f-stops dynamic range (which back then got everyone in video forums excited), but DxO Mark measured only 13.2 f-stops.

There is no objective measurement for the dynamic range/f-stops of a camera because it all depends on signal/noise ratio. I.e. if what you get in the lowest shadows of your sensor output is 1% signal and 99% noise, do you still count that as signal in general? Or do you filter it out as noise? If yes, this could make the difference between 13 and 14 f-stops on paper. These days, f-stop dynamic range numbers are simply camera marketing - unless they have been measured by independent entities using a standardized test and measurement methodology.

Saying that somebody is spreading false information without substantiating your argument is not exactly good debate culture, and you've avoided any factual statement so far. Your only argument has been that my positions are "ridiculous", and your request to stop is nothing but patronizing. To your defense, I think it is simply possible that we misunderstood each other and that you were mistaking my points on limits of freedom of speech as points on limits of freedom of press - which are two different issues. (And Sweden has a stellar record in freedom of press, no doubt about it.) For those in this thread who want to form their own opinion, here's a source that you surely won't dispute, namely the website of the Swedish parliament, which explains the concept of freedom of expression in your country. Americans will note that it differs quite a lot from the one granted by the First Amendment in the U.S.: https://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/Democracy/The-Constitution/The-Fundamental-Law-on-Freedom-of-Expression/

A real journalist? Your video would get you fired from any journalism school if you were a student there. No, you're publishing borderline irresponsible stuff - and I am not the only person here who tries to get this across to you. Get some common sense. My point about the difference between U.S. First Amendment and Swedish anti-defamation laws ("Hets mot folkgrupp" ) is absolutely valid. Argue on facts and not the laughter of buddies.

Hmmm? I don't think so: http://www.exponerat.net/16-arig-pojke-domd-for-uraldrig-vits-pa-fb/ ("16-year-old sentenced for old joke on Facebook". That joke was a racist joke.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Sweden Sweden, like most European countries, definitely does not have the extent of freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment in the U.S. I'm just mentioning this here because many people on this forum are not from Europe and would therefore completely mistake your statement. And you have witnessed here (and pointed out) first-hand in this thread that your intended joke actually amounted to misinformation and mythology. Are you a critical thinker? Do you take responsibility as a publisher? Are you a kid or a grown-up person?

You probably know very well that this is not true for the country where you live, which has very strict hate speech laws that don't exclude jokes. Besides, we're not 4chan here. I would prefer this forum to be more grown-up (not only in this respect).