Anaconda_

And XLR Based on Sigma's pricing of their other cameras, and on the current FF cameras out there, I don't really see this competing with the P4K price wise. I'd be over the moon to be proven wrong though. That is until RED jump in with their lawyers ?

I doubt they'll make a Pocket V2 (v3), and if they do, it won't be anytime soon. Plenty of people are still waiting for the current model, and if I was one of those people, I'd be really annoyed if they announced a new version while I'm still waiting on my order. If they did make a new version, they should definitely change the battery type before any other modifications. Oh and also add tilting screen, IBIS, VF, DPAF, full size XLR and a FF sensor. There's no other way to make good films without those things.

To be fair. Blackmagic body, ergos, color science, codec + Panny battery. The funny thing is, the battery can be resolved externally, but none of that other stuff can.

I just picked up an EOSm with 4 batteries, FD adapter, DC cable and magnetic VF for 75 euros. Only had a little play with my 28mm f2.8, but so far I'm enjoying it. It's a heavier camera than I expected. Looking forward to getting started with it properly!

So what's the most relevant; the light, the lens, the camera or the viewing device? What about the grade, the framing, and the viewing order?

I'm looking for a power solution to run my camera and monitor. I have a V-mount battery, but with only 1 Dtap, and 1 USB - the USB is 5v DC output. I'm running my camera with Dtap to DC, so is this cable likely the be able to power my monitor? (VA 5inch) https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0748FD8NF/ref=ox_sc_act_title_5?smid=A3H9LDGBXF3RS2&psc=1 Or would it be better to get a Dtap breakout box thing like this - and then go D-tap to DC input? https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B079P73FRC/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=APBHT6HUSGIHN&psc=1 https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B01KJ9RZT0/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?smid=A1R83JE18GEU2L&psc=1

Sorry, that was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but reading back, it just looks snarky, my bad. While I'm rectifying my previous post, the DNG image isn't from the P4k, it's from an Ursa 4.6k (not sure if pro or not, you can read more about it here: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69405&p=387660)

@Mattias Burling The easier way to see it is film directly up at blue sky then boost the saturation way more than you ever normally would and then get upset about it. This isn't my image, but here's a shot that most are using as an example of the 'problem'. This isn't an issue with Braw specifically, people say it's also apparent in ProRes, but IMO it's still cleaner than this image, which is from 4:1 DNG... if blue skies never bothered you with DNG, they also won't with Braw.

Last week I had a flickery room from cheap lightbulbs and I could see it quite easily on the BMPCC4K monitor.

Final Release Candidate is now out (b5) - https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/

@The ghost of squig - What he's saying, is the macro blocking in blue skies is only present if you have your project set up incorrectly, and the blocking you see in Resolve won't be present in your final export. It sounds to me similar to turning on Proxies, the software plays a lesser quality version of the file for smooth playback while editing... Before you rule out shooting blue skies, why don't you specifically shoot them, adjust your settings to fit your file and then do your own tests. I only copied the relevant part, but he also said it's nothing new, suggesting it's something people may be overlooking when posting their grabs... I've not had a chance to really test it, but shot a lot over the weekend where it was way too hot here, so going to double check and see how it works for me. Personally though, I've never been bothered by any macro blocking, so I'm the wrong person to be testing and pixel peeping.

About the blue skies thing, @CaptainHook said this over on the BMD forum: Hi, When evaluating in Resolve please make sure your timeline is the same resolution as the source files, or that you don't have optimized playback enabled. If you do and the timeline is half the resolution (or smaller) of the source files then Resolve will get the SDK to use a lower quality decode even if the clip settings are set to highest quality (full res). This should not affect renders, but if you zoom into the UI viewer you will only be zooming into a lower quality decode. Optimized playback settings are in preferences > user settings > playback performance in Resolve 16 (notice Optimized Decode is enabled when set to automatic mode).

Assuming the video has similar audio in the file, you can sync directly in the timeline. Go through one clip at a time, put the audio file and video into the timeline, select them both>right click>synchronise and then select one of the audio tracks. If that doesn't work, you could get the Pluraleyes plug in/standalone app. https://www.redgiant.com/products/shooter-pluraleyes/?gclid=CjwKCAjw0tHoBRBhEiwAvP1GFeU42qxLPNL-AoZGJFWQ-nX0IJIMNObILay69jctQtQ6Q8057H2L0BoCyeAQAvD_BwE For this you basically open all your video and audio files in and click synchronise. It does it all and is very accurate, you can then create an XML, which can create a pre-synced timeline in Premiere. Good luck!

Oh I don’t know. Internal NDs, built in XLRs, servo-zoom options (programmed to digital zoom or focus like the LS300). I’d much rather go s35 with those features than FF without them. Then you have codecs etc. JVC already have ProRes in their cameras, so it’s reasonable to assume this one will too.

I don't think the wireless is for recording, they record the audio internally like the Tascams. The wireless is just so you can monitor and adjust it in real(ish) time. You could probably rig it to transmit to your phone and run that into camera, but I'd only do that with the idea of syncing to the original recordings anyway. They'd be a great product for weddings as you're not limited to where your camera can be... That said, the DR10L would be better because the actual microphone part is much smaller.

I feel like this kind of flew under the radar, but BRAW is now Premiere compatible on Mac and Windows with the Autokroma plug-in. Shame Adobe haven't supported it natively for their subscribers and we have to pay extra for it. Booo Adobe, boo! https://autokroma.com/

I get that, I was just wondering if trading the interlaced standard for RS was really worth it. Both give artifacts like jello for, or bad moire on lines etc. but interlaced footage from days of old seems to have a more global shutter feel in some cases (ie. camera flashes, propellers etc.) And that's why. Does anyone know if Blackmagic's Production Camera has a GS? As I know that can shoot interlaced, while their other cameras don't.

I was taught at college that interlaced footage was invented as a stopgap until they found a way to record digital video as whole frames like film does. Now we all shoot progressive, but since that's most common at this level with a rolling shutter, is it really much better than interlaced? For example, if you're filming a model and there's also a photographer there, you can clearly see their flashes rolling down the frame, especially so in slow motion shots. I would think that interlacing would handle those situations at least 85% better, which made me wonder; did we really make progress with progressive acquisition on RS sensors? Is global shutter the only 'real' progressive frame? Does it matter?

Hey, I was in the same boat as you a few months ago, with more or less the same laptop. In the end, I questioned whether the laptop really needed upgrading, as it can still edit 4K ProRes for example. Graphics and really big edits of course, do slow it down, and export times were pretty long. What I decided was to hang onto it and spend the money on a desktop for the heavy stuff - rendering/exporting - and use the laptop for lighter work, or on the road. Lowering timeline resolutions and using proxies to speed things up where necessary. If I can, I do rough cuts on the laptop on location and then bring it into the bigger computer to colour, finish and export everything. It works well for me. So, the question is, do you absolutely need the portability on your new system? For a similar price, you can get a much faster iMac. eg. 2TB 27 inch basic is 2599€ stock (1TB is a little cheaper, but you can't upgrade the GFX card) - Intel Core i9 8‑core to 3,6GHz (Turbo Boost to a 5,0GHz) +480€ - 16GB di memory DDR4 to 2666MHz +240€ - 32GB di memory DDR4 to 2666MHz +720€ - 64GB di memory DDR4 to 2666MHz +1200€ - Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB memory HBM2 +540€ Let's say your total budget is 3900€, you could upgrade both the processor for 480€ and the GFX card for 580€. The total price for this iMac is now 3859€. In this case, you will only have 8gb RAM, but you can upgrade that yourself at any time, and you can do it much cheaper than getting Apple to do it for you. That said, if you are set on getting a new laptop, I would probably do the GFX card or the RAM. The processor is only upgrading you from 2.3GHz (Turbo 4.8) to 2.4GHZ (Turbo 5.0).

I think it is the Woodencamera kit as you can see the SDI in the back of the viewfinder. It looks like he's gone Camera > HDMI > Video Assist > SDI > VF. You could do the same thing, but replace the VA with BMD HDMI-SDI converter. They're like 30 bucks second hand, and run on USB power. Could tidy up the kit and minimise loose wires if you mount it somewhere out the way... like taped to a V-mount with USB output for example.

Hmm, that's not a dark environment, the table on the left of the frame is almost blown out. Maybe this is a better example of what you're trying to get at. Dark scene, but you can still see the expressions and intention in the performances.

It depends on how you do it. For example, I develop my negs at home, then use an old slide scanner on an dSLR to take photos of them and then develop the image in Adobe RAW. This was you can really fine tune the image exactly how you want it to be. I used to send them off to the shop, but was never really satisfied with how they processed them (random chain store, nowhere near my develops in house anymore). This is a similar scanner, I got it for 5euros. Don't let any fear of delusions stop you, but maybe let them slow you down a bit and start with cheaper gear and see how you like it. I'd love to have the Xpan, and have them saved on my search lists, but the prices definitely stop me. Stills is a hobby for me, and having the stereo cam I mentioned before makes it that extra bit different to carrying digital. The Xpan would also do the same but at 500x the price. Have a look for a Sigma DP1 or 2, I've had both but sold them because the batteries drove me mad, BUT if you look at that as a replacement for changing out your film roll, then they really do offer a great alternative to film. The images have a very nice quality to them, and despite their shortcomings they are very fun to use, and they hold their value very well. I bought both from the same guy for 150euros and sold them for 125 each hehe. @Mattias Burling also liked them, and he paid even less for his!

In my opinion, and I know many people won't agree, but I wouldn't buy a film camera just for the experience. You can get that digitally. Turn off all burst modes and all auto functions. Limit yourself to one click every couple of seconds, turn off the preview and don't put the card into your computer for a few days. Of course it's still different, but the lessons of intention will still apply, and you'll quickly find it's not all that romantic. The Sigma DP1 and DP2 do a very good job of replicating the experience. As for making it look like film, yeah sure, nothing beats the real thing, but why stop with stills? Grab a 16mm camera for video while you're at it. With all that said, film cameras are mega cheap. I don't want to tell you how to spend your money, but I'd definitely start out with an old AE1 before moving to the Hasselblads and Leicas, test the waters before jumping to the big guns. Also, maybe consider a camera that does something a digital body cant. For example I do shoot a fair bit of 35mm, but only because there's no worthwhile, reasonably priced digital equivalent. The Stereo Realist and others like it expose two full 35mm frames with each click, so you have the standard photos, but you can also make a stereo image, which is really immersive. Queen's Brian May has always been into this type of photography, and his website www.londonstereo.com has some great info on getting started etc.

It's so dependent on your equipment and delivery format. If you're shooting 4k on an iPhone but 1080 on a BMPCC then 1080 will win. If YouTube is the endgame, 4k is most likely better.

Got a link?