Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[Brian Williams]

10 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Adorama has them. I ordered mine last week and it looks like they are still in stock.

interesting. That is very reassuring. I haven’t used the GH5 extensively but it looked nice in CineD with the contrast down. 

Yeah, I ordered mine from Adorama last week, got it last Friday, returned it today, sadly. BHPhoto has them in stock now too. I read on the BM forums yesterday that BM confirmed that new versions of the camera can't downgrade the firmware to get back CDNG, and they claim it's because they had to switch their LCD screen supplier... So I wonder if this sudden availability has to do with having solved their LCD issue.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

cDNG is better. Period. And such comparison above-posted proves it once again.

P4K brings higher resolution possible to find on doll's hair as for instance, but loses compared with BMCC as far as color concerns; .braw shows less detail.

Just checked on a screen 80" wide along a calibrated 4K projector from a 1080p copy. Fairly visible.

 

Last but not least and overall, BMPCC outcome is the worst sample shown there IMO.

I think the BMPCC is second to the BMCC.

[Emanuel]

I've just read it up there now (I had seen it projected without audio track), it was shot ProRes after all so raw doesn't obviously apply as the OP had inferred, so ends inaccurate and led others like me to misinformation on that one.

Which means no less curious findings anyway. Just not raw related.

 

In any case, there are many tests out there (to prove the shit BMD staff is used to smoke nowadays is updated and HQ indeed):

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

I'm sorry @CaptainHook but denial never helped people to grow up... : ) Life and reality above all are beyond our most secret wishes, it doesn't depend on our mantra. Coexists outside :X

 

Our team's flag can end faded, it happens.

 

[kye]

4 hours ago, osmanovic said:

As a better explanation, I would like to add that: http://rubenkremer.nl/2013/08/27/theoretical-light-sensitivity-of-the-pocket-cinema-camera/

"Down to the micrometers

The sensor of the 550D is 22.2mm wide and has a height of 14.8mm. It's resolution it 5.184 × 3.456 pixels. Simple math will tell us the pixels are 4,28 × 4,28µm. 

The legendary Canon EOS 5D Mk. II has a large fullframe sensor, one of the (relatively) few. It's measures 36 × 24mm and has a resolution of 5.616 × 3.744 pixels. Zooming in on the actual pixels on that sensor we're getting a pixelsize of 6,41 × 6,41µm. That's 150% of the 550D's pixel size. This makes perfect sense and is in-line with the expectations.

Now we're coming to the interesting part: what's going on on the surface of the Super16 sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? The sensor measures 12,48 × 7,02mm. It has a resolution of (merely) 1920 × 1080 pixels, because it doesn't need to take 21 megapixel stills - only (just over) 2 megapixel video. When we do the math we get a pixel size of 6,5 × 6,5µm.

And the winner is...

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera! Theoretically.

Wait! What just happened there?!

So, there it is. If we consider each individual pixel on the sensor as a sensor of its own - the camera with the largest sensors is actually the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's pixels are 1,4% bigger than those of the Canon 5D Mark II and 52% bigger than the pixels on the 550D/T2i. So theoretically, solely based on the numbers - the BMPCC should theoretically have a better light sensitivity than practically all DSLR's on the market today.

"

Therefore, old Pocket and Micro, with  up-scaling from 1080P to 4K, is still very good today. But with Blackmagic RAW this wouldn't be as good as with CinemaDNG, because Blackmagic RAW is less sharp. If Blackmagic RAW is also released for Blackmagic Micro and Pocket, I will not upgrade. That CinemaDNG is better is my personal conviction and opinion. It shouldn't speak for everyone at all.

I hope this is now understandable.

There's more to it than this.  Sensors vary significantly in design and how much surface area of the sensor actually receives light.  For example:

Not saying your explanation is wrong, just that it's oversimplified.

Also, remember that 4K downscaled to 1080 is 1080 4:4:4 and the downscaling process smooths some of the ISO noise, and 1080 sensor is 4:2:2 without any noise smoothing.  Everything is a tradeoff.  The best way to actually work out what is what is to do a real-world test and go from there.

[Shirozina]

The P4k is a fantastic camera in many ways but the use of a 1:1 sampling sensor and no OLPF means that for high resolution / fine detail capture tasks it's never going to be ideal no matter what codec is used. If your application requires the highest clean rendition of fine detail then you have bought / are considering buying the wrong camera for this task.

[leslie]

18 hours ago, osmanovic said:

CinemaDNG offers significantly more details. The comparison pictures BRAW and CinemaDNG also show that BRAW has no finest details. The image information is lost at both 4K and 1080P and cannot be restored. CinemaDNG is different, because it contains the finest details and you can see how good this is when you scale up 1080P to 4K. 

 

honestly i don't care how they compare. After watching the vid all i can say is, use what you got. you wont be disappointed. I have neither of the previous bm cameras, it's water off a ducks back, for someone who just goes out and buys the camera and wants to make videos.... er movies for those that get offended by the word video ? . I Pre ordered because i was impressed with the p4k trailers that bm produced. if i can produce something half as impressive i'll be happy. if you have either of the other cameras and can produce awesome footage thats fantastic and while i may not worship the ground you walk on, i will clap politely ? . Talk of pixel sizes makes me sleepy. i think you have got some real issues if you have the camera and need to talk pixel sizes and if you dont have a camera but still need to talk pixel sizes then your nitpicking. Like it or not CinemaDNG is a dead horse with bm and i'm guessing theres a few legal reasons why. Now you can keep on flogging that dead horse but it gets pointless pretty quickly and the rest of us will look at you oddly as well, unless you were an early adoptee and have a 6.1 version.  show some wisdom and move on.

[Mattias Burling]

That the original pocket and micro introduce false detail due to sharpening in cDNG is hardly news. In BMD/D16 circles it's been discussed for years. So I'm not at all surprised that BMD eknowledge it now when they have Braw.

I also prefer the older sensor but that doesn't mean Im going to deny it's "shortcomings", if one consider them as such.

[thebrothersthre3]

Regardless of the softness I still love the BRAW. Wish they'd put it in the Ursa Mini. The ability to shoot low bitrate 12 bit is awesome. 

[Emanuel]

@CaptainHook Hook, you just add a disservice to our brand with such blind & piteous attitude. Who puts money in the hands of the manufacturer who pays your income, demands more from your juvenile approach.

Learn to listen your clientele and some other point (and argument) outside your bubble rather than act as a complete Autist... with all due respect to them, they don't deserve to be compared with some other class of individuals who can't see a shit beyond the own belly button ; -)

[Shirozina]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

@CaptainHook Hook, you just add a disservice to our brand with such blind & piteous attitude. Who puts money in the hands of the manufacturer who pays your income, demands more from your juvenile approach.

Learn to listen your clientele and some other point (and argument) outside your bubble rather than act as a complete Autist... with all due respect to them, they don't deserve to be compared with some other class of individuals who can't see a shit beyond the own belly button ; -)

You may like to shoot the messenger because you don't like what he says but it's the cDNG 'ultras' that have issues with myopia (at 300%).....

[kye]

Aren't we simultaneously having two conversations?

1. The P4K is way too sharp!!!  4K and modern cameras aren't cinematic, the Alexa / older BM cameras are all lower res and have magic.
2. The P4K is way too soft!!!!  BRAW is clearly inferior because it smooths fine detail.

Not to mention conversations in other threads that also include:

1. Who needs 4K - 1080 is fine and you can't tell the difference and ...... blah blah blah
2. 8K!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!  ??

[graphicnatured]

26 minutes ago, kye said:

Aren't we simultaneously having two conversations?

1. The P4K is way too sharp!!!  4K and modern cameras aren't cinematic, the Alexa / older BM cameras are all lower res and have magic.
2. The P4K is way too soft!!!!  BRAW is clearly inferior because it smooths fine detail.

Not to mention conversations in other threads that also include:

1. Who needs 4K - 1080 is fine and you can't tell the difference and ...... blah blah blah
2. 8K!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!  ??

Well said.

[thephoenix]

 

[anonim]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Aren't we simultaneously having two conversations?

1. The P4K is way too sharp!!!  4K and modern cameras aren't cinematic, the Alexa / older BM cameras are all lower res and have magic.
2. The P4K is way too soft!!!!  BRAW is clearly inferior because it smooths fine detail.

My 2 cents, and as I see it, it's not about sharpness but about (at the moment questionably) better/higher discerning detail of image. Someone 1) calls/argumenst it is "false" or at least "not necessarily" true, someone 2)  calls/advocates it as real. It seems that both side in discussion are calling history of previous argumentation as some sort of adding authoritative proof. 

As I see, careful (Resolve's "super scale") upscalling Micro/Pocket/CC 1080p image gives pretty identical result detail-wise as best P4K Braw codec. Or, at least, yet nobody argue that such conclusion is matter of perceptive miopy or so. My personal conclusion is that cDNG 1080p of previous cameras simply have more initial detail richness that allow upscale to 4k space results comparatively unnoticed. Peace may be find in conclusion that at any case image is more than enough rich and wonderful - with advantage that newer camera brings it with m43 sensor and more useful plethora of lens-posibilities,  brings it wit 5inch monitor and advanced lowlight capability, with more economic and faster editing files etc.

Furthermore, BM as company sometimes put us all in specific situation: giving, obviously, comparatively far best/the most artistic friendly products and (I'd say exclusively) fulfilling some sort of true/honest cinema-art liberation mission, BM also repeatedly makes some too-hurry give-then-back claims and promises, and than tries - with little bit sophistical and always delaying manner - to explain that such things actually doesn't exist or convincing users that actually doesn't matter. So someone 1) remembers/keeps in mind more all matchless qualities/offering that BM brings to market and stay content and forgivable about such occasional  circumstances, and someone 2) following its own temperament that don't at all tolerates sophistic "not necessarily but might be"  ingredient in argumentation and general treatment, tends to  insist on its own perception, risking to seems ungrateful.

I hope that BM and all of us will/may profiting from both direction.

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Aren't we simultaneously having two conversations?

1. The P4K is way too sharp!!!  4K and modern cameras aren't cinematic, the Alexa / older BM cameras are all lower res and have magic.
2. The P4K is way too soft!!!!  BRAW is clearly inferior because it smooths fine detail.

Not to mention conversations in other threads that also include:

1. Who needs 4K - 1080 is fine and you can't tell the difference and ...... blah blah blah
2. 8K!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!  ??

You might be confusing sharpness with detail and/or resolution. They aren't the same thing.

[kye]

37 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

You might be confusing sharpness with detail and/or resolution. They aren't the same thing.

Apologies, I was distracted by the non-sensical nature of the conversation to get every word right  

[leslie]

1 hour ago, thephoenix said:

 

thanks for that, been wondering for awhile how those filters compare. i kinda like the promist 1/8 seems just a little less pronounced or more subtle perhaps. 1/8 is the weakest effect right ?

[webrunner5]

3 hours ago, anonim said:

My 2 cents, and as I see it, it's not about sharpness but about (at the moment questionably) better/higher discerning detail of image. Someone 1) calls/argumenst it is "false" or at least "not necessarily" true, someone 2)  calls/advocates it as real. It seems that both side in discussion are calling history of previous argumentation as some sort of adding authoritative proof. 

As I see, careful (Resolve's "super scale") upscalling Micro/Pocket/CC 1080p image gives pretty identical result detail-wise as best P4K Braw codec. Or, at least, yet nobody argue that such conclusion is matter of perceptive miopy or so. My personal conclusion is that cDNG 1080p of previous cameras simply have more initial detail richness that allow upscale to 4k space results comparatively unnoticed. Peace may be find in conclusion that at any case image is more than enough rich and wonderful - with advantage that newer camera brings it with m43 sensor and more useful plethora of lens-posibilities,  brings it wit 5inch monitor and advanced lowlight capability, with more economic and faster editing files etc.

Furthermore, BM as company sometimes put us all in specific situation: giving, obviously, comparatively far best/the most artistic friendly products and (I'd say exclusively) fulfilling some sort of true/honest cinema-art liberation mission, BM also repeatedly makes some too-hurry give-then-back claims and promises, and than tries - with little bit sophistical and always delaying manner - to explain that such things actually doesn't exist or convincing users that actually doesn't matter. So someone 1) remembers/keeps in mind more all matchless qualities/offering that BM brings to market and stay content and forgivable about such occasional  circumstances, and someone 2) following its own temperament that don't at all tolerates sophistic "not necessarily but might be"  ingredient in argumentation and general treatment, tends to  insist on its own perception, risking to seems ungrateful.

I hope that BM and all of us will/may profiting from both direction.

Very well stated.  I think we just have to admit that the original and the PK4 are 2 different cameras output wise, both in a good way, and that neither one is going to look like the other one no matter what we do. And that is a good thing. We all have a choice. And the older ones are not that much money so, if you are lucky, you can have both. To me All the BMD cameras are a gift from heaven for what they cost. So we ought to be happy which ever route we go. But yeah, dropping  cDNG option on the new ones is a bummer.

[majoraxis]

And so it begins... in stock and  being sold at a discount used.  I figure if BH Photo selles it for $1129.95 with Resolve (used) - at least that’s what the description said when it was available this morning, then we will see it for $1000 without Resolve on eBay in the next few months... maybe less depending on the condition and the firmware version... 

 

[webrunner5]

I predicted 850 Dollars a long time ago on here without the Dongle. I bet it will hit that mark soon. Hell on paper it was in reality "only" a 995 Dollar camera new figuring you got Resolve Studio with it that cost 299 Dollars. So in reality you are loosing 150 bucks on the camera. Big deal. The good news is that will drive the price down for the older ones.