A_Urquhart

DELETED. Sorry, this is not how I want to spend my three days off.

Good grief, maybe posts like this should go into the motion cadence thread eh? I never said motion cadence wasn't a thing. We are replying to your comments that all film motion is smooth as 'silk' and I'm stating that the motion cadence of that original clip you posted was "smooth as silk" because it was shot and even delivered at 50p! Now spare us all the posts that are as long as Gone with the Wind and a little off topic in this thread and stick to the other thread you resurrected about motion cadence.

Yep this. And the fact that motion blur acts to hide the stutter. Skip, this same stutter happens in film (it's not limited to digital sensors, as you can read in the Cinematography thread I linked to. Adios, I'm moving on from this.....

I still don't understand what you are trying to convey here. The industry accepts that images shot at 24p have 'stutter' for lack of a better word. There are ways to minimise it in the way you shoot, but 24fps can only provide smooth motion up to a certain point. https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/65391-a-question-about-motion-cadence/&do=findComment&comment=418530 Maybe read that thread and argue your case there. I don't know but I think this conversation is probably boring the hell out of people wanting to know about the P6K.

So, to clarify, are you saying that motion film at 24p is just as smooth as 50p? ie, both are smooth 'as silk' and with zero 'stutter'?

I'm really not sure what you are saying here. Yes, at 50p, there is no 'stutter' as there are double the frames. Films captured at 24p (whether captured on film or digitally) do have a stutter to them though. Most films are shot 24p and that is generally when we talk about 'motion cadence'....at 24p or 25p. If films shot at 24p were smooth as 'silk' then why does 50p look so much smoother?

I wasn't saying that you are watching with image smoothing on, I was just trying to illustrate how film motion DOES have "stutter" (as you called it) and the proof is that TV's try to smooth out this stutter which is not how the film maker intended. If Films were perfectly smooth "as silk" as you say, there wouldn't be this issue would there? I don't know why you are getting so angry about this? And yes, I often watch YouTube on my TV.....is there a problem with that?

OK Skip. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/12/5/18127329/how-to-turn-off-motion-smoothing-tv-lg-samsung-vizio-sony-roku

Film motion is not like 'silk' at all. There IS a stutter to it. Most modern TV's have features now that attempt to smooth the motion out and the results are a little like watching 1080i or 50p at realtime speed, it looks 'videoish' I have a little mission in life whereby whenever I visit someones house, I try to secretly turn off image smoothing when they are up making me a coffee as most TV's seem to have it on by default. They don't notice anything and it is back to how the film maker intended ?

Uh, I suppose, if I have to! ?

I agree, hence why I said hardware and not cameras. They are creating an ecosystem........a very good one at that!

Not too sure I agree. BMD have been giving away Resolve with cameras for a while now. People who received Resolve years ago have never had to pay for any updates in all these years. On the other hand, people are always upgrading their cameras. Unless BMD are trying to suck us all in to their software and then are going to surprise us all with huge fees to use it, I'd say hardware is where they would make most of their money.

Not sure but how many cinema cameras out there are purely EF? Bet i can name at least double that aren't purely EF, than you can name that are purely EF ?

You may be right, but it looks like komodo is using CFAST so $2-3K media shouldn't be an issue. I'm just giving my opinions here like many others are. It's a forum.....I think its good to provide balanced information to counter some miss information that might be out there. You may call it hostility, I call it giving people something else to think about rather than just believing hype. As I've said to you before, my Pocket4K has paid for itself a few times over and continues to earn me money. I have no reason to defend my purchase because i know it has been a good one, my accounts prove it. If I didn't have the Pocket4K now and had to choose, would I choose the 6K? Nope...what exactly would I be paying double the money for? 6K BRAW? Don't need it, it's file sizes or the extra overheads it requires to edit. 4K ProRes? Already got it! Yes, the 6K to 4K downscale in camera might provide a slightly better 4K image but from what I'm hearing, the difference is negligible. Now if the 6K sensor was in a body with a better mount, a good battery solution like NP-F, BP-U or similar, and had a tillable screen, I might see the need in an upgrade like that and be willing to spend the double (if not more) that they are asking for the 6K and I guess that is where my disappointment is here. BMD should focus on genuine improvements rather than play the Resolution game that only really serves to impress those who don't really know better. I guess for the price of the 6K, i would expect BMD to fix issues like poor battery life, which are excusable in the price of the Pocket4K but really inexcusable in the Pocket6kifshootingBRAW.

I don't know too much about Komodo. I do know that 'cheapest and better (specs?)' are not what those who make a living from these cameras always look for. If Red can get it to $5000 with the few specs that are currently available , then they will sell plenty of them. Reliability and workflow are what I personally look for and so do most of my peers. Sure, obviously image quality and other factors come into play but the Komodo will be popular not because it might be cheap or have the best specs, but because it is a relatively trusted brand from acquisition right through to post production. While the Komodo body might be $5000, it will be interesting to see if you can use third party accessories with it like media and monitors etc which in previous Red cameras have always been the relatively hidden costs associated with owning one, or if Red release their own, more affordable proprietary touch screens etc????

I would say that since the world is moving towards mirrorless and shallow flange distances, Canons RF mount may have been a more logical choice?

Come on, that's not really true......a speed booster is about the size of a pancake lens. Most manual lenses are bigger than a speed booster by a fair amount...and anyway, the EF mount on the P6K adds that bulk anyway so there is no real advantage to it anyway. At least with a mirrorless type mount, you can remove the adaptor if you want to and use smaller, native lenses. Again, I don't quite get it. Your not really getting any smaller a footprint with the P6K vs the P4K and speed booster. I'd dispute that. If BMD made a mount similar to Kinefinity's mount, sure it would costa little to develop initially but they could use that same mount across ALL their product lines. People could then buy the adaptors or physical mounts they needed from BMD. BMD already make different types of mounts and adaptors, so they are already in the business of doing so. It would be a small initial development cost but could be used for many years to come, so I'd see it as a good investment. A good lens mount system could last 20years! Red's mounts, while expensive mainly due to REDTAX and the materials they used, were relatively simple...undo four screws, remove mount, replace with mount of your choice. I'm sure BMD could come up with something similar, and in a way, they already do with the Ursa mini pro which has replaceable mounts. I used EF-s lenses back in the day when I had my 7D. All the Canon ones were pretty terrible to pull focus off and were not built all that well. Sure, you can use EF lenses but then you are dealing with harder lensing choices at the wide end considering this camera has more of a crop than most APC-C sensors. On the Red Epic with EF mount I used Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 which gave nice results but not many other great EF-s lenses out there IMO. I often use EF cine lenses (Celere, Leica R etc) that cover FF and while they are EF mount, they will be better served by the Pocket 4K and a speed booster (giving it a 1.2x crop factor) than the P6K with it's native EF mount and its 1.6x crop. Sure, it's not the end of the world, and plenty of people use FF glass on crop sensor bodies but when there is a cheaper camera out there that makes better use of all that glass, I know which I'm going with.

"Blackmagic Pocket 6K - No ProRes in 6k" @Andrew it is really surprising me how many people do not read the specs of a camera before buying! I listed the record resolutions and Codecs many pages back and stated that there was no 6K ProRes modes and No 4K Braw mode. I am now hearing from multiple buyers that have bought the camera that they are just noticing these rather limiting issues once they get the camera in their hands I mean...... seriously, on what basis are people buying cameras these days if the most important elements are overlooked? Strange. EDIT: Sorry my bad, I should know better. 'Social Influencers' buy shit quickly to be the first to put videos up. Of course, it makes perfect sense....most people who actually use these cameras for what they are designed for probably do do their homework. ?‍♀️

Huge chunky adaptors? Now BMD have added that 'hugeness' to the camera by elongating the body to accomodate the mount and it's not removable. To each their own I suppose but I don't quite get it. I'll say it again but BMD, if you're listening, a new mount is required. You are already in the business of making mounts and adaptors so why not make up your own mount that will accommodate many different lenses via adaptors or swappable mounts. You may even make a little more money as people will invest in a few different mounts.

Where is the issue with using a speed booster. I personally haven't come across any issues and speed boosters live on my Pocket4K. Yep, when I'm not working on larger productions I do shoot and edit my own small projects. My Razer Blade laptop, that I also use on set for transcoding proxies, cuts the 4K BRAW files in Resolve wonderfully. Its being requested and accepted as a B Camera to the Alexa Mini and Ursa Mini Pro as a cheaper alternative that works well on a Gimbal or in other situations where a smaller camera is required. Like you say, the Pocket4K hasn't been out that long and most of what has been shot is still in post production. If you really want some proof that I'm using the Pocket4k alongside the Alexa Mini and UMP, let me know and I can PM you some stills.

You may say that but people in Facebook Buy and Sell groups are still buying them for $1000. Neither, I'm waiting for them to cost 'next to nothing' as you say so I can buy a few more ?

I've seen a few on eBay still go for near new prices even since the P6K was released. If prices of the P4K do drop to 'next to nothing' pick one up! Makes the price difference to the P6K even greater and even more of a no brainer!

I'm not here to defend my purchase.....I'm here to hopefully make people who have the P4K feel better about their purchase after being told by you that their camera now 'sucks' or that it 'sucks' to be them. I've had the P4K for over 6 months now and it has paid for itself many times over. I'll never loose money on it because it is still being requested on shoots by DP's who know the deal and know how great and flexible the camera is. Those same DP's and producers are not going to suddenly stop requesting it now that the 6K is out because it still delivers exactly what is necessary for production. My P4K has been used as an A Cam and as a B Cam along side Ursa Mini Pro, Alexa Mini, Sony F5, Sony FS7, Canon C300II..... as an aside, there are many DP's earning good money who shoot Sony and use optical adaptors on the FS7, F5, FS5 etc. Optical adaptors are widely accepted professionally. Not once has the MFT sensor been a bottleneck, quite the contrary, it has meant that the camera has been more versatile. I always use it with a speedbooster because it means I have great flexibility in the lenses I can use. Shooting PL on the Alexa Mini? Sure, I can use the same lenses on the Pocket4k. Shooting EF, No problem, i can use EF....or pretty much any other lens under the sun. I have received many compliments on the pictures I have shot with the P4K, the release of the P6K does not mean those same images are any less good or negate the compliments I received from clients and producers. Those same producers have never requested anything greater than 4K files so the P6K would have no advantages and I have used the P4k on everything from Netflix Docs to Sports documentary for National TV. FOR ME......I just don't see ANY advantages to the P6K. If you are a one man band and shoot/edit your own films and use EF glass exclusively while editing in Resolve and need the extra 2k resolution, sure get the P6K if you want to spend the extra money. It's going to be a great camera. If you have the P4K and all of a sudden feel like you have been short changed....don't. It's a cheaper camera by a substantial amount (even if you do buy a speed booster, that can be had for $200), still shoots great images and is far more versatile. The 6K does not replace it. Hell, the Alexa Mini LF 'Only' shoots 4K so does the P6K suddenly mean the MiniLF is outdated? If you want to future proof your investment then maybe 6K will be better in a year or two's time when BRAW is widely accepted, but by then, BMD will have released another camera (or two even, at the rate they are going!) with hopefully a more future proof mount. The only people making the P4K obsolete are those that spend all their time on forums agonising over specs. In the real world, the P4K will still earn you money in a year's time....by then, there will be a new BMD camera more worthy of upgrading to. A Viltrox adaptor will cost you $150 at works a treat. Also, you will need a beefier setup to edit those 6K files over the 4K ones so factor that in as well.

This. Unless you are shooting 6K BRAW exclusively (the Pocket6K doesn't do 6k in ProRes) then the Pocket4K at half the price is the better buy IMO. Also, with the SpeedBooster on the P4K, all my full frame lenses are closer to their proper FOV than what they will be on the P6K.

Not only is there no 4K option in BRAW, but there is no 6K in ProRes. My clients prefer ProRes over BRAW. BRAW is in its early days still. I love BRAW for small personal projects but post houses don't really want it. So unless you are going to shoot 6K BRAW exlusively, you are paying double for a camera which is less flexible when it comes to lensing....? BTW, Alexa Mini LF is 4k and has only just been released. 4K is going to be widely accepted for a long time yet.... Good on BMD for pushing the envelope but personally I think this sensor is kinda waisted in this body and with this mount.