Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[John Brawley]

4 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm curious to understand a bit more about how RAW differs to Prores in post.

To preface this, I'm a Resolve user and I don't know much about PP or FCPX, so maybe there are larger differences there?

In terms of Resolve, when you shoot DNG sequences:

• the sequence appears in the media browser and other windows as one item, the same as a clip, and behaves like one throughout
• the RAW panel is available (which isn't for other file formats obviously) but I think the defaults are just to defer to the camera metadata, so you don't have to change anything here if you don't need / want to (this is the part I'm less familiar with so maybe there are things you need to do here?)
• everything else behaves the same way a clip would

Assuming the above is correct and I'm not missing something, where is the extra difficulty?

Is it in extra processing power required to debayer the files perhaps?  Or does PP / FCPX not handle image sequences as clips?

People online talk about image sequences from time lapses as an extra bother because you have 'lots of files' or 'you have an extra step to combine them' but in Resolve that's completely automated.

The issue is logistics. 

The show I’m on now shoots in Atlanta but editorial is in LA.

Dailies needs to be available next morning synced and ready to edit.

We shoot three cameras on almost every scene.

We shoot about two hours per camera per day of footage.

Ar least once per episode we shoot 2 units so you can double that again. 

That’s a lot of footage that has to be graded, transcoded to DNX (Avid) and stored safely in three locations (archives).

Every day.  For weeks and weeks.

RAW data rates would swamp a production.  

The network I currently shoot for AIRS in 720 and masters at 1080.  They don’t need RAW.  There’s ZERO advantage, especially if you’re shooting a nice 12bit file like ProRes 444.

JB

 

 

 

 

[William Husker]

1 hour ago, John Brawley said:

The issue is logistics. 

The show I’m on now shoots in Atlanta but editorial is in LA.

Dailies needs to be available next morning synced and ready to edit.

We shoot three cameras on almost every scene.

We shoot about two hours per camera per day of footage.

Ar least once per episode we shoot 2 units so you can double that again. 

That’s a lot of footage that has to be graded, transcoded to DNX (Avid) and stored safely in three locations (archives).

Every day.  For weeks and weeks.

RAW data rates would swamp a production.  

The network I currently shoot for AIRS in 720 and masters at 1080.  They don’t need RAW.  There’s ZERO advantage, especially if you’re shooting a nice 12bit file like ProRes 444.

JB

 

 

 

 

Allow me to make an honest question then because something doesn't make sense to me and I'm afraid I might be missing something.

Don't storage rates also depend on the camera and the RAW format?

For instance if the shows you work on used exclusively the Ursa Mini Pro, how would Prores 444 UHD at 165 MB/s be a better choice than CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 at 135 MB/s?

Not only would you be saving space, you would also get higher resolution for re-framing and stabilizing among other things if needed.

To conclude my line of thought, couldn't you even say that what you claim about RAW is only true of the few cameras that only offer uncompressed RAW and no compressed RAW alternatives? Like the Arri Alexa cameras.

Thank you in advance for your input Mr. Brawley.

[kye]

Thanks @John Brawley that makes sense, and the data logistics would be significant.  However, I thought someone had mentioned that Prores was preferred even in situations where the data rates were similar?  I probably should have included it in my original question

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, or perhaps that statement might have been in a different context?

 

[Savannah Miller]

Firstly, the Alexa only does uncompressed raw.  Nothing else.

Secondly, there's no internal pixel binning, so you have to record full sensor resolution to get the full sensor size.  Not the same as 1080p prores.

Thirdly, and a big problem is RAW is not as simple as prores.  So at least at the VFX studio I work, we recieve the prores reels directly from editorial.  Then we get the EDL, and we generate the plates necessary for the shots, directly from the EDL and original camera prores with the necessary handles. This would likely be DPX format.  This is a 100% automated process.  We then composite with the necessary changes.  Any intermediate "precomps" would then be rendered as 32-bit linear EXR, and finals are exported back out as Arri-log DPX which are then converted back to Prores and delivered to the editorial/color.

With RAW it's not as nice because we can no longer deliver back in the same format that we recieve.  AND there are so many settings, especially with something like REDCODE that it's likely someone else now has to generate the dpx plates for us as we can no longer do that.  The ISSUE is they're not a VFX house and they likely do not have automated tools that do this, so that means extra time and money.  And then you might run into other problems slowdowns on the post side of things.  RAW is nice but it's not so simple just to use it as it causes extra hassle.  Prores 4:4:4 on the Arri Alexa makes everything work like a well-oiled machine.

Lastly, a lot of people believe that you have to have 4:4:4 in order to get accurate green screen keys, but what if I let you in on a secret.  I don't always KEY greenscreens.  You'll never hear this from anyone else, but if you take a greenscreen shot and despill it to where it's just a person over a now grey background, you can then difference the despill and the greenscreen to get a sort of fake alpha channel.  Multiply your background image over your despilled greenscreen plate and mask it by the result of that "fake" alpha channel and you get 100% perfect edges with no compositing.  And then you just adjust the white and black point of your bg image until it has the right level of contrast and color.

[Anaconda_]

Is this likely to apply to the Pocket 4K? In the video, he says although URSA Mini Pro 4.6k has a native ISO of 800, you'll get a cleaner, more malleable image at 400.

With the P4K's dual ISO of 800 and 1600, would it be reasonable at this time to assume that you're better off shooting at 400 and 1200?

Does this also apply to the GH5s, since it also has dual ISO?

(Disclaimer: I realise any responses are entirely hypothetical)

 

[Andrew Reid]

Those are some serious images in the video above.

If the Pocket is anything like the URSA Mini Pro it will be a treat.

[webrunner5]

I am sure the 800 ISO is going to be the native PK4 native ISO. So I would bet it is best to use that ISO.

[Andrew Reid]

On 7/23/2018 at 4:03 PM, Savannah Miller said:

Firstly, the Alexa only does uncompressed raw.  Nothing else.

Magic Lantern does.

Just now, webrunner5 said:

I am sure the 800 ISO is going to be the native PK4 native ISO. So I would bet it is best to use that ISO.

Assuming the sensor even has a native ISO. Not all do.

[Anaconda_]

8 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I am sure the 800 ISO is going to be the native PK4 native ISO. So I would bet it is best to use that ISO.

That's what I thought too, but the guy in the video I posted, shows that if the native is 800,  but the camera can go lower (400 or 200) those might give cleaner images at the cost of DR, but 400 is the perfect balance.

I guess we'll wait and see.

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Those are some serious images in the video above.

If the Pocket is anything like the URSA Mini Pro it will be a treat.

Pretty lush huh? And check these out.

 

[Savannah Miller]

I was referring to the Alexa not offering compressed raw, not that other cameras do not offer uncompressed raw. A lot of cameras do offer uncompressed raw, including early firmware builds of blackmagic and kinefinity cameras.

Pocket 4K native ISO is 400 and 3200 depending on whether or not you shoot at 1600ISO or above.  If you stick to 800 and below, it doesn't activate the high ISO mode.  All sensors to some extent have an optimal ISO, but whether it's a true "native" ISO based around Exposure Index is another question entirely.

Changing ISO does not give you less dynamic range when the camera uses EI, it just redistributes the dynamic range differently.  In the case of HOW it distributes the dynamic range, it's unfortunately backwards.  As you increase ISO, you get extra highlight dynamic range, and as you decrease ISO you get more shadow dynamic range.  That's the opposite of what you want as shadow dynamic range is optimal  in lower lighting scenarios and yet you would generally need  to use a higher ISO.

[Savannah Miller]

So that guy claiming to shoot at 400 ISO gives you a cleaner more malleable image.  Yes, although he doesn't do a good job of explaining WHY it gives you a cleaner and more malleable image.

The Ursa Mini Pro is always running at 800 ISO and that's the only real ISO setting.  Period.  All of the other ISO settings are "fake" similar to the extended ISO ranges found on a lot of dslr cameras.  So, when you expose for 400 ISO it's the equivalent of overexposing by 1 stop at 800 ISO and pushing it down in the grade.  If you convert your prores film gamut into xyz linear (bypassing the bias of the log curve) and gain the image, you get the same result as changing exposure/iso in the raw controls.  When you do that, you get 1 extra stop of shadow detail due to overexposing and you lose one in the highlights.  Also one of the side effects of exposing for 400 ISO is that you can push the image up to 1 stop in post and still get the no significant increase in noise level because you would now be back at the native ISO of 800.  So in run/gun scenarios, 400ISO gives you a safety net to accidentally underexpose by up to 1 stop with no consequences.  It's a lot harder to tell if an image is underexposed rather than overexposed and clearly clipped.

[John Brawley]

On 7/23/2018 at 9:44 AM, kye said:

Thanks @John Brawley that makes sense, and the data logistics would be significant.  However, I thought someone had mentioned that Prores was preferred even in situations where the data rates were similar?  I probably should have included it in my original question

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, or perhaps that statement might have been in a different context?

 

I'd love to explore it more, but I got some flack for discussing workflow issues like this as being non-core 4K issues in this thread so let's talk ab out this somewhere else some other time.  

JB

[Savannah Miller]

This is a thread about a 4K camera, so it does seem odd to mention that you only shoot 1080p or that's what professionals use, but it is the truth.

[webrunner5]

11 minutes ago, Savannah Miller said:

This is a thread about a 4K camera, so it does seem odd to mention that you only shoot 1080p or that's what professionals use, but it is the truth.

I don't have a 4k TV, and I am sure 99% of the people in the world don't, so why bother. I am more beginning to believe it is more for the VFX people on Blockbuster Movies than just BoB.

To me really good looking 1080p is well, damn good looking. I can maybe see 2K, but I guess the Genie is not going back in the bottle. I can see it for Travel, Doc, Scientific stuff, I can. But the cost of all involved to store it, edit it, Monitor it, Camera, media, on and on Christ I am not sure it is all really worth it for the average Joe Blow.

But this BM 4K BMPCC is pretty damn interesting I must say that.. Ugg.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't have a 4k TV, and I am sure 99% of the people in the world don't, so why bother. I am more beginning to believe it is more for the VFX people on Blockbuster Movies than just BoB.

As matter of fact, no idea how it is in your countries... But, here in Europe there's no sense to buy a new TV set unless UHD.

It is the market to determinate that. Full HD display technology is just outdated. You can buy a 40-55" TV set (UHD) for 400 euros, so...

People should stop to worry about resolution or even refrain to discuss such topic.

4K came to stay.

There's nothing strange about that. As much natural as digital or when DVD replaced VHS.

Wonder why or trying to praise the old technology doesn't make any sense, because lower resolution is merely old.

Nothing against that. Horses for courses, though.

We are not comparing apples to oranges. It is not 35mm film versus UHD.

I much prefer to watch an old movie in a remastered copy on my 4K display from a new 4K source than a lower resolution copy.

4K is here to help you out, not to make lower acquisition look like bad.

That's the whole point : ) This is not a competition. Technology is here to offer a better outcome. Only that : -)

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

As matter of fact, no idea how it is in your countries... But, here in Europe there's no sense to buy a new TV set unless UHD.

It is the market to determinate that. Full HD display technology is just outdated. You can buy a 40-55" TV set (UHD) for 400 euros, so...

People should stop to worry about resolution or even refrain to discuss such topic.

4K came to stay.

There's nothing strange about that. As much natural as digital or when DVD replaced VHS.

Wonder why or trying to praise the old technology doesn't make any sense, because lower resolution is merely old.

Nothing against that. Horses for courses, though.

We are not comparing apples to oranges. It is not 35mm film versus UHD.

I much prefer to watch an old movie in a remastered copy on my 4K display from a new 4K source than a lower resolution copy.

4K is here to help you out, not to make lower acquisition look like bad.

That's the whole point : ) This is not a competition. Technology is here to offer a better outcome. Only that : -)

I doubt you can even buy a New TV that is Only 1080p in anything less than 32" here. But I never buy a new TV. I buy them used off of Craigslist or from a Pawn Shop. I can buy a 55" 1080p one for 150 dollars. I don't have a real camera that even shoots 4K. I am not buying a recorder for my Sony a7s that cost more money than the camera did LoL. And my iPhone X does 4k, but it is not good enough to justify a 500 dollar TV to see it LoL. I really don't even read the news on the Web often. Don't care anymore.

I really hardly EVER watch TV, and when I do it is for an hour to watch the Local and National news from 6:00 to 7:00 PM. That is pretty much it. And I may only do that 2 or 3 times a week. Some times not for 2 weeks I turn it on.That is why I don't watch Fox news, CNN etc, etc. And I pay very little attention to Washington DC. I really don't even read the news on the Web often. Don't care anymore. If I get up and everything is still there I figure we are not at War with Russia, China, etc. So all is good. ?

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, John Brawley said:

I'd love to explore it more, but I got some flack for discussing workflow issues like this as being non-core 4K issues in this thread so let's talk ab out this somewhere else some other time.  

JB

New thread time please! :-) 

There was a good little thread over in dvxuser recently about how to promote a non-4K camera to clients in this 4K world:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?361174-Pitching-F35-to-clients-production-companies

 I would like to see more discussions around how we don't have to shoot 4K all the time

[kye]

9 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

This is a thread about a 4K camera, so it does seem odd to mention that you only shoot 1080p or that's what professionals use, but it is the truth.

I'm not sure if you're being literal, or sarcastic (it's so hard to tell on forums..) but I think that fixating on just one aspect of this camera is a bit silly.

It's also a RAW camera, a prores camera, a BM colour science camera, a m43 camera, a non-IBIS camera, a fixed-screen camera, etc etc etc.  All equally relevant aspects to discuss.

Talking about shooting 1080 in a thread about a camera that shoots RAW 1080 seems quite relevant to me, especially considering the enormous file sizes of 4K and high image quality of RAW 1080 I think a lot of people will shoot various flavours of 1080 with it when it comes out.

My prediction is that lots of people will be viewing this camera as a BMPCC where they fixed the battery issues, the screen issues, the sound issues, etc, as well as the people who will be viewing this as a camera that shoots 4K.  I'm not aware of many discussions around the BMPCC v1 where it was criticised for the image quality not being sufficient, and I'm sure that lots of cameras in 4K are poorer performing than the Pocket 1 or 2 are in RAW 1080.

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

This is a thread about a 4K camera, so it does seem odd to mention that you only shoot 1080p or that's what professionals use, but it is the truth.

Tonnes of people shoot at 1080/2K with a 4K camera. 

At a wild guess I'd say well under half of the shoots I'm on are done at 4K

2 hours ago, kye said:

Talking about shooting 1080 in a thread about a camera that shoots RAW 1080 seems quite relevant to me, especially considering the enormous file sizes of 4K and high image quality of RAW 1080 I think a lot of people will shoot various flavours of 1080 with it when it comes out.

 

But raw 1080 would be a substantial crop

I'd rather use the full sensor to shoot at 1080 ProRes HQ

[SR]

Just saw someone post this on FB:

https://www.coreswx.com/product/pbe-bmpc4/

Claims to power the BMPCC4K for 4 hours.