Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[jonpais]

40 minutes ago, Kieran said:

It's waaaay more cinematic than your tack sharp home movies of adolescent Asian students. I guess some people just can't see the difference.?

This is the video which convinced me to buy the BMPCC a few years ago. The performance footage just looked so organic and filmic. Especially when juxtaposed against the GH4 footage also used in the video. Each look has its uses and I'm not saying one is better than the other. But that particular filmic look is what I'm interested in You can't really look at this and say the BMPCC is not cinematic. 

P.S. Thank you Aaron for making it 

 

 

First of all, I don’t shoot adolescents. 

Secondly, not once, for as long as I’ve been shooting video, have I ever claimed that my work looked cinematic. That’s like telling me I can’t play basketball like Michael Jordan - I never said I could!

Thirdly, nothing you say changes the facts I reported about the video I posted. 

 

[TwoScoops]

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 

 

[mercer]

2 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 

 

I wanted to post this but since you originally found it, I didn’t want to step on your toes. 

As I said before, if someone had told me this was shot on an Alexa, I don’t know if I would have questioned it.

[jonpais]

4 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 

 

That is gorgeous! Thanks, @TwoScoops

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

That is gorgeous! Thanks, @TwoScoops

Yeah it really is. And this was shot in ProRes... stunning. To be honest, I am a little bummed out by the Pocket II. It seems too mainstream to me. Like it’s neither here nor there. I much rather would have had them build on the original Pocket/Micro but with a 2.5K image. Until we see footage, it’s all conjecture, but I could see myself scooping up another Micro for cheap and be happy with FF Raw from my 5D3 and  S16 ProRes from a BMMCC.

With that being said, BM does have to be commended for the price point/features of the Pocket II.

[jonpais]

58 minutes ago, Django said:

why are we comparing footage from a FHD camera released 5 years ago with a S16 size sensor to an upcoming camera that shoots 4K with brand new M4/3 size sensor, 4th generation color science and featuring dual native ISO?

the only thing the original pocket & the upcoming pocket 4K share in common is the "pocket" moniker and even that is misleading imo.

if anything the IQ will be closer to a GH5S without NR/Sharpening, and with BMDs Film/Log profile, color science & pro res / raw recording support.

FWIW, I wasn’t asking anyone to compare anything. For a long time, it’s been claimed that the Pocket produces cinematic footage, and what I posted is fairly representative of much of what I’ve seen - cyan cast, weak shadows, soft, grainy, clipped highlights, crushed shadows, poor skin tones, etc. The video @TwoScoops just posted proves that the operator is 99% responsible for the image quality, and it will be no different with the Batcam. 

[TwoScoops]

 

30 minutes ago, mercer said:

I wanted to post this but since you originally found it, I didn’t want to step on your toes. 

As I said before, if someone had told me this was shot on an Alexa, I don’t know if I would have questioned it.

I wondered if it'd been mixed with something else, but only BM is listed here.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7018572/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

 

He's using the s16 mk2 Zeiss super speeds. I can't even find a place to rent those here. 

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, cantsin said:

You can also record ultra-crisp video with it if you prefer that look. It's just a matter of how you post-process the raw image.

 

What ever gave you the idea that all I look for in a video is sharpness? Did you even bother to read my post? Not only that, but in fact, the resolution of the video you shared, as near as I can tell with the slow vimeo I get here, is actually quite poor.

[mercer]

18 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

 

I wondered if it'd been mixed with something else, but only BM is listed here.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7018572/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

 

He's using the s16 mk2 Zeiss super speeds. I can't even find a place to rent those here. 

Yeah I’m pretty sure he used just ProRes HQ... he seems to have a colorist and obviously those super speeds didn’t hurt. I think Arri had some S16mm super speeds back in the day that can be adapted and they aren’t horribly priced.

 

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah I’m pretty sure he used just ProRes HQ... he seems to have a colorist and obviously those super speeds didn’t hurt. I think Arri had some S16mm super speeds back in the day that can be adapted and they aren’t horribly priced.

 

Lenses. #1. Super glue. #2.  

[Django]

 

37 minutes ago, jonpais said:

FWIW, I wasn’t asking anyone to compare anything. For a long time, it’s been claimed that the Pocket produces cinematic footage, and what I posted is fairly representative of most of what I’ve seen - cyan cast, weak shadows, soft, grainy, clipped highlights, crushed shadows, poor skin tones, etc. The video @TwoScoops just posted proves that the operator is 99% responsible for the image quality, and it will be no different with the Batcam. 

ok so on the one hand you claim the video you posted is "fairly representative" of the pockets IQ but you've now suddenly realized through the above video that  "the operator is 99% responsible for the image quality"... ? so basically you're whole point about the pocket was moot? 

[jonpais]

15 minutes ago, Django said:

 

ok so on the one hand you claim the video you posted is "fairly representative" of the pockets IQ but you've now suddenly realized through the above video that  "the operator is 99% responsible for the image quality"... ? so basically you're whole point about the pocket was moot? 

I didn't suddenly realize anything, @Django, I've seen good footage as well. Notice, I did not write 'all' the footage I've seen - I wrote 'much' of what I've seen.

My point was, what do members consider to be cinematic. The video posted by @TwoScoops is eminently cinematic, the one I shared, vehemently anti-cinematic. 

And I never talked about the Pocket's IQ. I was talking about the operator's skill.

[Kieran]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

First of all, I don’t shoot adolescents. 

Secondly, not once, for as long as I’ve been shooting video, have I ever claimed that my work looked cinematic. That’s like telling me I can’t play basketball like Michael Jordan - I never said I could!

Thirdly, nothing you say changes the facts I reported about the video I posted. 

 

Jon it's fact that you often come across as a sanctimonious prig. Your headmasterly tone grates very quickly. You're just another opinion on here not a voice of authority. And do you really need to reply to virtually every single post on here in every thread? We know you love everything about the GH5 and no other camera measures up in your opinion - but give it a rest please. I'd like to see interesting discussions develop without your constant interjection. 

[Snuff]

BMPCC, RAW with a cheap Meopta lens from the 16mm cinema camera Meopta Admira. Does it look cinematic?

 

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Kieran said:

Jon it's fact that you often come across as a sanctimonious prig. Your headmasterly tone grates very quickly. You're just another opinion on here not a voice of authority. And do you really need to reply to virtually every single post on here in every thread? We know you love everything about the GH5 and no other camera measures up in your opinion - but give it a rest please. I'd like to see interesting discussions develop without your constant interjection. 

I never said anything here about the GH5, so why don't you give it a rest?

4 minutes ago, Snuff said:

BMPCC, RAW with a cheap Meopta lens from the 16mm cinema camera Meopta Admira. Does it look cinematic?

 

I normally have an aversion to shots of leaves and twigs, but that footage is splendid.

[Snuff]

Stills from this video (exported from edited RAW in Premiere). There is some color noise but it comes from LUT, not from the camera. 

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Snuff said:

Stills from this video (exported from edited RAW in Premiere).

I read in the info box over at YouTube that there was a problem trying to work with RAW in Premiere - is that still the case?

[Snuff]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

I read in the info box over at YouTube that there was a problem trying to work with RAW in Premiere - is that still the case?

Yes, Premiere adds its own LUT on a RAW video so colors and contrast are not accurate.

[Django]

12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I didn't suddenly realize anything, @Django, I've seen good footage as well. Notice, I did not write 'all' the footage I've seen - I wrote 'much' of what I've seen.

My point was, what do members consider to be cinematic. The video posted by @TwoScoops is eminently cinematic, the one I shared, vehemently anti-cinematic. 

ok well i think the issues you may have had with the video you posted and perhaps others had way more to do with the grading quality than inherent cinematic or anti-cinematic properties of the camera. it also makes a big difference if you're shooting RAW.   let's not forget about lenses, those zeiss super speeds s16 are a great pairing but it's worth noting the full prime kit will cost you 5-10 times the price of the camera! but cine glass will take you a long way towards achieving.. cinematic footage. In the end what makes BMD cams special and different from the hybrids is ProRes/RAW, no OLP filter, no NR/Sharpening, Film/Log profile, color science. Basically the ingredients you'll find in much more expensive cinema cams. 

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, TwoScoops said:

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 

 

I'll agree it looks good. But I think this is more to do with the person behind the camera than the camera. I would have little doubt they could have achieved similar results with any number of cameras. 
Where for me the BMPCC lacked is in creating more punchy more modern looking images. It tends to always look vintage. You can make your footage feel 1960ish all day long. For me I prefer more flexibility.