helium

Are you claiming that you can detect these defects under normal viewing conditions or just that they're visible zoomed in? Would you, for example, bet the house on being able to tell difference in a blind test, without being able to move your chair or hit the zoom key? If the answer is yes, please link to full rez examples, so the rest of us can test our own eyesight under the usual viewing conditions. If that sounds like I'm being over-generous with your time, you've repeated these same claims on several discussion sites, so surely you must have examples on hand?

I tested a cheap third party battery, recording continuously for 50+ minutes with the screen at 35% (bright enough for indoors and cloudy days). Wasn't all that hot and no difficulty getting it out. Don't ask which one, I'd rather not offer a recommendation without more use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most common battery to jam is the counterfeit LP-E6, not the acknowledged clones. Somebody else claimed that the authentic Canons have latches more apt to jam on the BMPCC 4K, though it's possible this guy actually had a counterfeit, as reputable dealers don't appear to offer an absolute assurance you're getting the real thing. If the BMD battery suddenly jammed after repeated successful use, what other explanation than that it swelled? At some point, this may get sorted out....

If anyone's LOL, it's BMD. They're selling thousands of "cinema" cameras, with no run and gun conveniences, to people who'll be shooting nothing but crowds, skylines, receding tail-lights and slomo gimbal reviews. And all ETTR. Sounds great, from the marketing point of view.

I'm sorry you did too. What I didn't realize was that the 300+ pages here contemplate using this camera in uncontrolled conditions, and not shooting anything that *must* be exposed correctly and consistently -- you know, like faces. Perhaps there might be better camera choices for that sort of photography?

Yeah, well, that's a basic presumption of cinema lighting -- you light the scene. But you expose for the subject. If there's no lighting, then we're back to the more haphazard approach of available light stills photography, where the best compromise is sought.

Only if what you're shooting is unconnected street or nature scenes and you're using it like a stills camera. Otherwise, the best practice for this camera is to expose for the subject, as you would with any cinema camera.

Watch the video. They rate the original BMPCC at 11.2 and the BMPCC 4K at 11.6. They appear to be using the lower more conservative set of values (SNR=.5) in the chart reproduced above. In any event, they state plainly that by their measurements, the P4K has more dynamic range. This is consistent with what most shooters, including this one, have discovered.

Where did this come from? They tested the original Pocket tested at around 12.5, which was consistent with other third party results, and the P4K hasn't been tested at all. Or has it?

Take it for what it's worth, but I find the performance of the two cameras nearly identical in the highlights, after grading -- meaning the same amount of data is preserved in both cases. At least, this is the case with limited testing. The shots above are not actually "blown out", so there's nothing to recover. It's just that the highlights are mapped into the super-white regions in the debayered .dng. But the data is intact, it just has to be brought down. You'll see the same thing on the original Pocket.

It's interesting that you're able to perform DR comparisons by mentally comparing unrelated and differently graded shots seen on youtube, and are confident enough in the results to announce them. The usual complaint about youtube "reviews" of BMD cameras is that the tuber has no idea how to grade the material, so the tests are meaningless. But it's gone one better now: comparisons of unrelated shots (from youtube?) done by memory.

No, that's not normal. Pressure on the grip has no effect on mine. I'd say exchange the camera, but of course you can't at this point.

In that case, it's as pointless trying to grade the .png as it is the downloadable video. The few .dngs made available here by members here offer a much better example of BMPCC 4K performance, but I gather examining those frames isn't of interest to the critics here. It looks to me, subjectively, that the BMPCC 4K has more usable dynamic range than the BMPCC, at least in part because it's so much cleaner in the shadows. But for some reason there seems to be a strong interest in pushing another story here, and without reference to original footage.

I don't know where the .png came from, but even if it was exported prior to grading, exports out of NLEs typically clip out of bounds (but recoverable) data, making analysis of actual DR impossible. The file may be flat, but it's levels are truncated. It's not original log. If you have grading skills, there is log/raw footage available for download, which would provide a more accurate view of the cam's DR. But that might not lead to your preferred conclusion.

This thread is aggravating enough to revive the dead.... You do realize you're grading a grade, not camera original? There's no way to know how much original highlight detail was in the shots, because current levels are baked in. It's like trying to grade a bluray and concluding that 35mm stinks, because you can't push the highlights without clipping.

So you're not really interested in the conversation, but simply must offer up your two cents anyway, which is that BMD had better drop everything until the BMPCC 4K murders the GH5 -- murder coming up, next firmware release! -- because you're not satisfied with the difference between the two cameras, based on what you've seen on youtube. Between a host with all the self-control of 5 -year old, and a readership which evaluates cameras based on hearsay and computer monitors, this place is really something. In other words, another one bites the dust. Goodbye, and good luck.

It's raised beyond the point of no return, an acceptable grade would require more attention, but are the highlights any better for you here?

Putting skin tones on the line would be a grading choice. Normalization is a different process -- it takes all the log values and converts them to rec. 709. If this process wasn't done correctly, skin tones would be off, as would everything else. But the fact that skin tones aren't on the line doesn't in itself prove that the normalization is off. The trouble here is that there's no way to evaluate the comparison. Skin tones may be that bad, pre-grade. Or they may not. GH5 skin tones usually incline to green.

It may not be a bad thing -- if in fact the BMPCC 4K can survive incompetent grading -- but based on their only comment on the matter, it sounds as if they "normalized" the log footage by looking at the vectorscope and making adjustments -- not a promising or reliable workflow, for normalizing log footage. And that was apparently the extent of the grading they did on both shots. Without more information, it's impossible to say the poor GH5 results aren't the result of incorrect handling.

I assume you're referring to John Brawley, who *is* a recognized authority -- he gets paid to shoot, rather than blog -- because I said nothing about Sareesh's contractual arrangements, not being privy to them, if any. That aside, this place is too damn funny. Here we have three guys defending the wisdom of a blogger, while they by their own implied admission know nothing about the log post-production process. Normally, you'd expect folks to remain silent, under those circumstances. But of course this is the internet....

Well, that settles it then. Case closed! Sareesh is a world-class authority, by decree. The proof that most users, including Sareesh, never figure it out is as plain as the poor grades and senseless test comparisons (in Sareesh's case) which are routinely uploaded, with apparent pride. 336 hours is nothing. This has been going on for years. You still have people offering up uncorrected log footage from their BMPCC, and expecting to be admired for it. Then again, if you have no intention of either buying or using this or any other camera ("I would think"?), it won't matter much. Pick your authorities as you prefer.

I suggest you repair to the BMD cinematography forum, and read the discussions initiated by Sareesh, where he betrays astonishing ignorance -- even venturing to lecture BMD staff (Captain Hook), among many others who patiently tried to explain to him the basics, to no effect. Only BMD and your deity of choice know why Sareesh and other bloggers were chosen for advance units. With the exception of the Proav UK footage, from a dealer, which didn't try to do much other than set levels, the grading was pretty terrible, even by amateur standards. Maybe their skill level was deemed to reflect the average Pocket buyer. Alas.

It's worse that that; Wolfcrow is woefully misinformed on basics like log shooting, LUTs, normalization and dual circuit gain. He has no grasp of what the camera requires in post. His reviews should be limited to point and shoots.

A characteristically civil response. I don't know or care how you vote. The subject, which you raised, was the current Supreme Court nomination. Read the post, why don't you? But, in any event, thanks for additional confirmation that nobody in her right mind would ever consult on these questions, any more than for camera evaluation.

I was going to say, given your views it's easy to see why nobody would ever consult you on any Supreme Court appointment, but of course the most powerful interests in the country agree with you, at least with respect to this nominee (don't expect them to make the same concessions for a liberal), because they know he'll rule for them. It must be great pretending you're a fearless independent thinker, when your opinions just happen to coincide with big money interests. Then again, the U.S. has the distinction of being the only country in the world where 38% of the population thinks its either in the top 1% or soon will be, so these allegiances are not surprising.

The operator doesn't know how to move with it. There could also be balance/tuning issues. The lack of basic operating skill evident in the video doesn't suggest a high degree of competence in the setup. There are also fundamental limits to smooth gimbal operation without stabilizing arms. Most gimbal review videos avoid showing how bad it can be, and how bad the operator is. This explains brief cuts, shots in open areas and lots of slow motion. In a word, another useless youtube gimbal review....