First ProRes files from the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera released

[peederj]

Transmitting light that falls outside of the active sensor area is just wasted. That's how the speed booster works, it condenses the projected circle of light onto a smaller sensor. Just cropping an S35 sensor to 16mm size loses you your light otherwise.

[Nikkor]

Transmitting light that falls outside of the active sensor area is just wasted. That's how the speed booster works, it condenses the projected circle of light onto a smaller sensor. Just cropping an S35 sensor to 16mm size loses you your light otherwise.

The same as not cropping but only having a 16mm size.

[Bruno]

Transmitting light that falls outside of the active sensor area is just wasted. That's how the speed booster works, it condenses the projected circle of light onto a smaller sensor. Just cropping an S35 sensor to 16mm size loses you your light otherwise.

I don't follow... a cropped area of the image won't become any darker just because it's cropped.
The speed booster is a different thing, it compressed light into a smaller area, it's not the same as cropping, cropping s35 to 16 won't make it any lighter or brighter, the lens' aperture will remain the same.

[peederj]

I don't follow... a cropped area of the image won't become any darker just because it's cropped.

 

No but it makes it lower quality, because there are fewer photons countable per shutter cycle. Not to mention losing the DR and anti-aliasing benefits of downsampling if you have a native res sensor or crop. And again it makes the DoF deeper.

 

The whole "sex appeal" of the wide aperture lens is that it will make image quality better (vs. cranking ISO) and DoF shallower. This is brought most to fruition on larger sensors. The inherent tradeoffs on smaller sensors mean that while you can have cheap and light lenses with huge apertures like 0.95 the image quality you can get out of the system will not be comparable to what you can get on a same-generation larger sensor with an aperture of f/2.8 or even narrower. And I'm ignoring a lot of the problems presented by smaller lens design in terms of CA and distortion etc...note how MFT lenses, even quite expensive ones, perform pretty terribly without the in-camera correction tech. Most FF shooters don't use in-camera correction tech because their lenses don't need it.

 

And coming all the way back round to topic, is there any word yet whether the BMD Pocket camera supports the in-camera image correction (CA, distortion, vignetting) technology that the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras do? Because if it doesn't, then the lenses you have to choose from for the native mount are rather dismal performers. Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

[Marino215]

https://vimeo.com/72391838

The first real world test I just came across.

[Axel]

https://vimeo.com/72391838

The first real world test I just came across.

 

And? Doesn't it look as if from a standard, even not very good camcorder?

 

The sensor size is neither fish nor fowl. Most of the time the image will look as if it had total depth of field. But it hasn't. It actually has over 90 % of the image very slightly out of focus. I guess this is one factor for the poor sharpness. 

 

Bruno:

16mm sized sensor is great for documentary or one man shoots, as it's much easier to keep things in focus, and yet it can also look cinematic.

 

 

I don't know. I had a 16mm camera once, at a time, when there was no such thing as cinematic look or a shallow DoF hype. I didn't have fast lenses, I jused Tri X Pan, further deepening the field (misleadingly labelled ISO 400, which actually is not comparable to 'iso 400' on any digital camera). So what I had was almost a fixed focus. Most of the time, if I had guessed the distance roughly, I got everything in focus.

 

There is another aspect: The circle of confusion for a camera of

> this sensor size.

> this amount of pixels.

 

Because with every other camera with a sensor of roughly comparable size, you have several pixels debayered and interpolated to one ('binning'). I don't know how this affects the depth of field, but it has to. Watch the clips we know so far just for their depth of field, find the sharpest layer, and think about this.

[Bioskop.Inc]

And? Doesn't it look as if from a standard, even not very good camcorder?

 

The sensor size is neither fish nor fowl. Most of the time the image will look as if it had total depth of field. But it hasn't. It actually has over 90 % of the image very slightly out of focus. I guess this is one factor for the poor sharpness. 

 

Pity the guy decided to focus on columns, posters etc... instead of the people!

This made it very annoying & gave you no sense whatsoever about what could be done with it.

Think this is going to make those run'n'gun people think twice, cause you know they're going to end up with mushy/out of focus footage - perhaps practice might make acceptable?

And it didn't look too video-ish, just maybe not the best choice in lens.

[Bruno]

Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

Yup, I'm all for the flaws and character of a Super 16mm $25k Zeiss Cine zoom lens that can now be found for less than $2k :)

[tosvus]

No but it makes it lower quality, because there are fewer photons countable per shutter cycle. Not to mention losing the DR and anti-aliasing benefits of downsampling if you have a native res sensor or crop. And again it makes the DoF deeper.

 

The whole "sex appeal" of the wide aperture lens is that it will make image quality better (vs. cranking ISO) and DoF shallower. This is brought most to fruition on larger sensors. The inherent tradeoffs on smaller sensors mean that while you can have cheap and light lenses with huge apertures like 0.95 the image quality you can get out of the system will not be comparable to what you can get on a same-generation larger sensor with an aperture of f/2.8 or even narrower. And I'm ignoring a lot of the problems presented by smaller lens design in terms of CA and distortion etc...note how MFT lenses, even quite expensive ones, perform pretty terribly without the in-camera correction tech. Most FF shooters don't use in-camera correction tech because their lenses don't need it.

 

And coming all the way back round to topic, is there any word yet whether the BMD Pocket camera supports the in-camera image correction (CA, distortion, vignetting) technology that the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras do? Because if it doesn't, then the lenses you have to choose from for the native mount are rather dismal performers. Of course I take it this crowd is mainly wanting to adapt flea market finds whose flaws are "character."

 

While there is something to this, do you mean bigger is always better? If you feel so, the only good choice that I know of for filming would be the 5D mk3? Cameras like even the C100 have much smaller sensors for instance.

[peederj]

Bigger is better when everything else is equal. Super 35 is a decent compromise but if we had a full-frame of the same sensor quality and downsampler yes it would be better. The 5D3 RAW has a poor downsampler but a great sensor yet it's hobbled by its lack of a worthy codec and there's no way to pipe the signal out other than CF cards. But that's a better idea than the small-sensor BMD cinderblocks and that's why BMD had to slash their prices by a third.

 

As for the sample above, I think it shows how misleading subjective samples are. What people are responding to in samples isn't the camera so much as it is the people operating and posting it. This sample was posted by someone who apparently didn't know how to even hold a camera much less focus it or do post on the image. But if you pay a great cinematographer to make the iPhone look like masterful video you will wonder if you should be shooting it instead of Alexa on your next tentpole feature.

 

It's the wizard, not the wand, and as I will insist both privately (ahem) and publicly, it's better for people to learn how to get the absolute most out of a cheap camera like the Rebel rather than attempting to buy their way into skill. The cheap consumer camera is less forgiving than the fancy ones, it doesn't have a baked-in "cinema look" so you have to learn to do that yourself in post. And having gone through that challenge you will be better able to make the most of any camera presented to you, and you won't want cameras that bake in a specific look. You'll also come to really appreciate practical flexibility on set (e.g. low-light capability) vs. absolute image quality, because the impact of your content relies more on getting the right shot in high-pressure circumstances than on the finest gradations of blue in the sky.

[cantsin]

Bigger is better when everything else is equal. Super 35 is a decent compromise but if we had a full-frame of the same sensor quality and downsampler yes it would be better.

Not necessarily. With 2 Megapixels on a sensor that has about 1/9 of the surface of a full frame 35mm sensor, the sensor pixels on the BMC Pocket are about as large of those of the 22 MP 5D Mark III.

[peederj]

Not necessarily. With 2 Megapixels on a sensor that has about 1/9 of the surface of a full frame 35mm sensor, the sensor pixels on the BMC Pocket are about as large of those of the 22 MP 5D Mark III.

 

And being able to work with the information of nine times as many of them will lead to...?

[peederj]

Emm runs into snags already, ends up recommending the Ninja 2 for Pocket shooters anyway:

 

http://cheesycam.com/blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-a-few-tips/

[cantsin]

And being able to work with the information of nine times as many of them will lead to...?

Binned pixels.

[peederj]

Binned pixels.

 

In the case of the 5D3 yes they cheaped out on the downsampling. But not as severely as the other DSLRs that still use line-skipping. Pixel-binning uses all the light falling on the sensor and avoids introducing worse moire than the bayer sensor does already. And that's not only a lot better than line-skipping it's a lot better than a small native res sensor like the current BMD attempts.

 

The Cx00 line has proper downsampling and the 1DC is a prototype example of a full-featured full-frame DSLR. I hope for a full-frame Cinema EOS camera line and I think we'll get one as it makes Canon's full frame glass something special for filmmaking. Note their Cine lenses cover full frame already. There's a new teleconverter that adapts old PL lenses to larger sensors out too, and the Dragon sensor is nearly full frame width, so Vista-vision sized sensor video is probably going to be a common thing soon even above the DSLR level.

 

Wouldn't it be nice to shoot your movies in the equivalent of 15 sprocket 70mm IMAX? At 70.41 mm × 52.63 mm that's bigger than even medium format 645. Ambitious filmmakers will demand that, to their credit, and they'll soon (by the end of the decade?) be able to afford it through the virtues of digital and Moore's Law.

[lmackreath]

Some more real word postage I just found on Vimeo

 

https://vimeo.com/72467605

 

I really want to love this camera and have had it on pre order since day one..but again I look at the footage and just think "why does look so soft and out of focus!!!!"...

 

I keep telling myself that in the right hands with the right lenses and so on the camera will shine...but right now I feel like I might be better off sticking with my GH2 and investiging in the Sigma 18-35 with MFT speedbooster instead of the BMPCC!!

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

Emm runs into snags already, ends up recommending the Ninja 2 for Pocket shooters anyway:
 
http://cheesycam.com/blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-a-few-tips/

That's not how I interpreted that article. However he does suggest using the extreme SD cards which seems to be in the user manual anyway.

[peederj]

And external mics are apparently mandatory...

 

http://cheesycam.com/internal-noise-from-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/

[Michael Ma]

And external mics are apparently mandatory...

 

http://cheesycam.com/internal-noise-from-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera/

 

 

Maybe fixable with a firmware update in the future?

 

I ran this clip through Adobe Audition's noise reduction (after I captured footprint).  

 

Then you will see that all the unwanted extra noise is coming 5k and 6.3k Hz in the 30 band EQ.  Put that to zero....not for quality recordings but maybe fine for non-professional output.  When you aren't shooting on the fly, a preamp and a mic would go a long way.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64326938/blackmagic%20audio%20noise%20removed.mp3

[Bioskop.Inc]

 

I really want to love this camera and have had it on pre order since day one..but again I look at the footage and just think "why does look so soft and out of focus!!!!"...

 

Got to remember the guy only had it for a day & some of it is bang on focus, think practice will make perfect.

 

Some of his next one looked quite nice (apart from Vimeo compression)

 

http://vimeo.com/72534882

 

 

 

Maybe fixable with a firmware update in the future?

BM rep on their forum has already said that it shouldn't be making that noise, so might be a faulty test model sent to the reviewer.

In any case not that big a deal really if you're coming from DSLR world.