Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[kye]

8 hours ago, tweak said:

Kind of like the story of MLraw. I still look at footage I shot with MLraw vs GH5 and think it looks better somehow... and that's comparing 1080p to 4K.

 

9 minutes ago, Savannah Miller said:

ML Raw at 100 ISO probably has similar dynamic range to GH5 and it's RAW so it has some quality advantages.  Color looks more like what people seem to enjoy working with, so indeed it probably is better, especially how easy it is to use with Adobe Raw interface.  V-Log is likely harder to deal with and takes more work to get that Canon 5d3 look.

But there's no mistaking this Pocket 4K will be much better.

In my head I think of the Pocket 4K is a kind of "Official ML".  

What I mean by this is that it will provide results in the same league as ML (eg, a 4K version of the 3.5K RAW in 5D3) but will be fully supported with documentation etc, will be fully functional (eg, having full realtime monitoring while recording) and will be running the hardware well within its spec (unlike ML which is draining every last drop out of the hardware by pushing it to its limits, or past them in terms of overheating etc).

I don't think it's better than ML, just different because it's for a different purpose.  I have full respect for the wizards behind ML.

[Savannah Miller]

Yeah. Magic lantern would also be better if canon didn't put slow SD card controllers in their cameras.  A lot of the modern Canon cameras that are SD only such as the 6D, etc.have really slow SD card slots much slower than UHS-I standard so a lot of the higher resolutions are not possible.

That being said everyone did seem to think ML looked amazing (and it did compared to compressed Canon video) but side by side even with the old RED MX sensor, it clearly lacks a little bit.

Magic Lantern raw ONLY looks good because the nice color it has when processed with Adobe camera raw.  Otherwise it clearly lacks in dynamic range and overall image latitude compared to even the 10 year old RED MX sensor.  So compared to GH5, GH5s, even though it looks "better" I would guess that it's quite far behind.

[mercer]

So even though it looks better, it isn’t? Okay... but I’m pretty sure it has about the same DR as both of those cameras... so it looks better and has the same DR. It also has no internal noise reduction or sharpening. It’s also 14bit vs 10bit. It also looks better in only 1080p compared to 4K. So, yeah you’re right it really isn’t better... it just looks “better.”

[Savannah Miller]

5d mark III has around 11 stops of DR.  If you use the HDR mode you get a little more than that.  It's interesting as you can do both HDR and Raw at the same time.

From people that came from DSLR, the BMCC was very hard to use, whereas 5D mark III was a lot easier.  But from a professional standpoint, not being able to playback anything and the overall hacky nature of the 5D3 was a bummer.

Most people didn't have the skill to make the BMCC look good even though it was a better image.

[mercer]

I’m not comparing the 5D3 to BMCC, I was referring to your statement about it compared to the GH5/GH5s.

Everything I’ve read states that 5D3 is between 11.5-12... which is better than the GH5 and close to the GH5s.

But really I don’t care, I think I just found your comment interesting that the 5D3 looks better but isn’t?

[Savannah Miller]

Oh.  I think it was just people's memory of what was better without comparing the two side-by-side.  The camera was definitely a huge jump above compressed 5d3 video so people tend to remember it as better than it really was.

Maybe it really was that good and I've just forgotten.

[jonpais]

I find all of his comments interesting.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I’m not comparing the 5D3 to BMCC, I was referring to your statement about it compared to the GH5/GH5s.

Everything I’ve read states that 5D3 is between 11.5-12... which is better than the GH5 and close to the GH5s.

But really I don’t care, I think I just found your comment interesting that the 5D3 looks better but isn’t?

 

[Axel]

1 hour ago, Savannah Miller said:

Most people didn't have the skill to make the BMCC look good even though it was a better image.

 That describes me. I can't grade. 

Would the P4k be right for me? Although I just admitted that I can't grade? I like the simplicity of the menu. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

... I just found your comment interesting that the 5D3 looks better but isn’t?

He had put better between quotation marks:

Quote

So compared to GH5, GH5s, even though it looks "better" I would guess that it's quite far behind.

 

[kye]

19 minutes ago, Axel said:

 That describes me. I can't grade. 

Would the P4k be right for me? Although I just admitted that I can't grade? I like the simplicity of the menu. 

My experience has been discovering that I also can't grade, but I discovered that Resolve has built-in transforms for C-Log (and name others) and they look lovely to my tastes.

I'd bet that the Pocket 4K will integrate beautifully with Resolve, and simply by using their recommended settings will produce nice images that you can then adjust to taste if you want to do something specific.  If you're not a Resolve user then I'm not sure how easy it will be to get good results..?

[Axel]

I am a Resolve user.

And I did apply a simple official BM LUT (I think it was labelled "4k" then) on my first Pocket film (short doc about a local hospice for a nursing school) and above that literally didn't change a bit. Was it "better"? It looked okay the way it came out of the camera, skin, shadows, skies, all somewhat analog. Found it okay then, find it better now. "Better", to be exact.

[BTM_Pix]

Yes, but is it 'better' than the A7iii though as that is the only true measure of 'better' isn't it?

Lets cross over to the chairman for the official announcement.

[Savannah Miller]

You don't have to grade with this camera.  It now features an extended video setting which doesn't need grading and looks nice.

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Savannah Miller said:

You don't have to grade with this camera.  It now features an extended video setting which doesn't need grading and looks nice.

Have you already shot with the production model? Because it sure sounds like you already know everything there is to know, including how the files look and everything.

[tweak]

7 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

ML Raw at 100 ISO probably has similar dynamic range to GH5 and it's RAW so it has some quality advantages.  Color looks more like what people seem to enjoy working with, so indeed it probably is better, especially how easy it is to use with Adobe Raw interface.  V-Log is likely harder to deal with and takes more work to get that Canon 5d3 look.

ML Raw (even the 7D version I once used) seems to have a similar DR to GH5 except it has a much nicer highlight retention . It's much easier to over expose GH5 footage and ruin shots than MLraw, also the 14bit colour is a pretty huge bonus (no white balance issues). Although the resolution of MLraw is less I don't find it too much different to look at once edited and colour graded. That extra colour info somehow makes up for less resolution a bit. That being said FF 4K ML raw would be amazing... I'm waiting to see how the new BMPCCC and Zcam E2 will look, they might be close to what I like (or not  ).

[Savannah Miller]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Have you already shot with the production model? Because it sure sounds like you already know everything there is to know, including how the files look and everything.

John mentioned it in a previous post.  And it's gen4 color science and Ursa mini menus, so almost the same as the broadcast cam features.

A lot of other manufacturers could easily crush Blackmagic if they wanted to, but I doubt any of them will even try to compete.  Sony has really good sensor tech and they could easily build a small-form factor RAW and Prores shooting camera but they would never do it.

[jonpais]

32 minutes ago, Savannah Miller said:

John mentioned it in a previous post.  And it's gen4 color science and Ursa mini menus, so almost the same as the broadcast cam features.

A lot of other manufacturers could easily crush Blackmagic if they wanted to, but I doubt any of them will even try to compete.  Sony has really good sensor tech and they could easily build a small-form factor RAW and Prores shooting camera but they would never do it.

Now you know what other manufacturers will and won’t do as well? I don’t see BMD crushing anybody here. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji all have their good and bad points, as will the Batcam. You really come across as a raving fan boy already.

[LORDD]

18 hours ago, Jim Giberti said:

Estoy bastante seguro de que los médicos hablan de medicina cuando no están haciendo cirugía y que los pilotos hablan de aviones cuando no están volando.

Y, por cierto ... ¿no deberías estar grabando y trabajando en este momento?

 

You complain about things in the cameras as if they were unusable for them. Relax, while you complain in the forum I work. ;). I'm glad that my comment has removed you inside.

[TwoScoops]

3 hours ago, Axel said:

 That describes me. I can't grade. 

 

 

How long did you spend trying to learn? Maybe you didn't find the right teaching materials. 

[Axel]

4 hours ago, Axel said:

 That describes me. I can't grade. 

 

35 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

How long did you spend trying to learn? Maybe you didn't find the right teaching materials. 

You got me wrong. I know all the tools like the back of my hand. Started with Apples Color, read the whole manual, bought a (Ripple? Lynda?) training, graded. Went on with Color Finesse (as part of AAE, in the short period of a year or so when I was pissed after FCP X launch), then learned Resolve 9, again with van Hurkmans Ripple and (also his) manual. I also entertain myself musing about the best workflows for grading.

It's just that the further I tweak the image the less confident I become as to whether what I'm doing makes things better or worse. I'd better just primary color correct, add a tiny bit of "mood" - and leave it alone. This is almost camera-independent.

[TwoScoops]

2 minutes ago, Axel said:

 

You got me wrong. I know all the tools like the back of my hand. Started with Apples Color, read the whole manual, bought a (Ripple? Lynda?) training, graded. Went on with Color Finesse (as part of AAE, in the short period of a year or so when I was pissed after FCP X launch), then learned Resolve 9, again with van Hurkmans Ripple and (also his) manual. I also entertain myself musing about the best workflows for grading.

It's just that the further I tweak the image the less confident I become as to whether what I'm doing makes things better or worse. I'd better just primary color correct, add a tiny bit of "mood" - and leave it alone. This is almost camera-independent.

Gotcha.