The video that shows Blackmagic Pocket 4K RAW image quality is same as GH5S 400Mbit

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Andrew is right. They should just pay the license fee and offer the internal ProRes or some compressed RAW. It’s time. Does ProRes HQ offer superior quality over Panasonic’s 400Mbit ALL-I? Probably not much. Definitely not for the storage increase, but it sure does speed up workflow, which is the most cost effective thing you can improve. That extra $250 license fee Panasonic made you pay will be paid off real quick.

 

They mentioned they saw a big uptick in sales once they added ProRes to the Z Cam E2

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Does it cost $250/camera to include ProRes though?? I very highly doubt it!

I was only speculating. I have no idea what the licensing terms are.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

They mentioned they saw a big uptick in sales once they added ProRes to the Z Cam E2

Well there you go. More reason to add it.

[SteveV4D]

8 hours ago, Julien416 said:

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those two cameras if there was not an A/B comparison.  

People are arguing about invisible sharpening - that can be desharpened, maybe 1/3 of a stop of DR and easily matchable color science. 

Most people are just rooting for brand loyalty reasons. And to comfort for own decisions to buy to buy this camera or the other one. For the rest of the world, the image coming out from those 2 is exactly the same. 

I've been brand loyal to Panasonic for 8 years and still own and use the GH5 and GH5s on most jobs.  But the Pocket 4K is my A camera.  To be honest, I wasn't expecting that when I got it.  In fact I almost cancelled my order.  But using the camera and working with the footage, has earnt this cameras place as my main go to camera for work.  But I still have love for my GH5 and GH5s.

And I see plenty of comparison videos of my own, shooting with multiple cameras.  Every edit, I am working with both Pocket 4K and GH5s footage.  And yes, I can tell the difference between the 2.  

Certainly in controlled shooting scenarios such as the comparison video Andrew posted, and with time spent in grading, you can get the GH5s pretty close to the Pocket 4K, but why spend more time and effort grading GH5s footsge to look like the Pocket, when you can just use the Pocket 4K.  Especially as in some shooting scenarios, it's not so easy to grade Panasonic footage to match the Blackmagic look.  

[BTM_Pix]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Additionally, I keep on holding out hope BMD will realise the brilliance of combining S35 with MFT mount! Imagine a BMPCC6K MFT or URSA Mini 4.6K MFT?? ? (bonus points if it is a locking MFT mount!)
 

Its not hindsight because I argued it at the time as well but I think the EF mount for the 6K was a mistake.

The MFT mount was the best of all worlds because it would have allowed for cheap lightweight primes, speedboosted EFs to effectively make it a full frame camera and of course the shallower mount to take PL lenses or the MFT mount Meike Cine Primes which cover the s35 sensor anyway.

Most other MFT lenses give at least 85% coverage so a simple window mode (which they have done now with the 4K for Super16 without the sky caving in) for when you are using those lenses would have been sufficient.

There is absolutely no benefit to having the EF mount on it so you have lost full compatibility and inter-operability with the 4K and permanently restricted your lens options for the sake of having native control of a lens that you could already use anyway. 

Its like the Brexit of lens mount decisions and like Brexit I've yet to hear a single tangible benefit from the choice.

I have both the 4K and 6K and I certainly can't give you an example of a benefit.

The only way the EF mount makes any sense is if BM see it as a B cam for the Ursa but its surely more logical to see it as the A+ cam to the 4K.

Unfortunately, the JVC LS300 wasn't popular enough to dissuade a lot of people about an MFT mount only being able to have an MFT sized sensor behind it so that inevitably plays a part too.

 

[kaylee]

@Andrew Reid i realllllly like the typography in your new logo/icon. nice work, you should use it for your header ?????

[Cinegain]

O RLY?! Interesting. I thought it was a step backwards, it's almost retro feeling. ? Like the original Cinegain.

I watch some Will Paterson every now and then: https://www.youtube.com/user/breakdesignsco/videos . Used to do that quite a bit myself, graphic/logo design.

 

[Julien416]

3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

And I see plenty of comparison videos of my own, shooting with multiple cameras.  Every edit, I am working with both Pocket 4K and GH5s footage.  And yes, I can tell the difference between the 2.  

Of course they are different and you can the difference. You own both and you're a gearhead (like myself so don't take it the wrong way).

That wasn't my point. No one besides us would ever see the difference if someone were to mix the footage of both cameras in a simple scene. You can argue all you want. Do the test, to a real audience, not pixel peepers arguing endlessly about the motion cadence unicorn, or color science mojo of one brand or another. For all those normal people, the image will look exactly the same. 

3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Certainly in controlled shooting scenarios such as the comparison video Andrew posted, and with time spent in grading, you can get the GH5s pretty close to the Pocket 4K, but why spend more time and effort grading GH5s footsge to look like the Pocket, when you can just use the Pocket 4K.  Especially as in some shooting scenarios, it's not so easy to grade Panasonic footage to match the Blackmagic look.  

Everyone and their mothers use luts nowadays, honestly the starting color science is less and less important, especially now that resolve is almost free. Furthermore, to the rest of the world color science could be reduced to three groups. Arri - the best by a mile, Sony DSLR color science - the worst, and everyone else in between.

In 10 years from now, people will look at the GH5S, Z Cam E2, and Pocket 4K and the footage of all those cameras will look exactly the same to them. Those differences we are arguing about are just a hobby. 

[Andrew Reid]

If Blackmagic can license from Apple their codec for a $1000 Pocket camera... Why can't Panasonic license it on a $3999 S1H?

The S1H is tarnished by the H.264 label on the box.

We need both options. ProRes is forever associated with filmmaking, it is a proper editing codec.

H.264 is a flexible but CPU intensive codec, and I'm grateful for it when I need smaller file sizes but it should never have become the one and only Default option in mirrorless cameras like the A7S, GH5 or S1H.

As for Raw, to delegate such an important feature to exclusive Atomos hardware is a complete joke.

It's like Canon delegating out autofocus to a start-up who provide it through specialist channels as a module.

Would pro stills photographers put up with JPEG only? No. We have had a lot of patience as filmmakers with no RAW codec.

Also RED should recognise that REDcode would be better off as an industry standard in all cameras and not an exclusive to their cameras only. I think they'd make a lot more profit if they did that and it'd be good for us as well, a win win.

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

@Andrew Reid i realllllly like the typography in your new logo/icon. nice work, you should use it for your header ?????

Thank you, trying out a few options which are more 'cinematic'... The current logo was done in a rush in 2011 after Canon asked me to change it or get sued.

Changing just the forum avatar allows me to see how clear it is when viewed as a small icon.

For the final design which logo works best for you guys out of these two?

Candidate 1

 

Candidate 2

[SteveV4D]

28 minutes ago, Julien416 said:

Of course they are different and you can the difference. You own both and you're a gearhead (like myself so don't take it the wrong way).

That wasn't my point. No one besides us would ever see the difference if someone were to mix the footage of both cameras in a simple scene. You can argue all you want. Do the test, to a real audience, not pixel peepers arguing endlessly about the motion cadence unicorn, or color science mojo of one brand or another. For all those normal people, the image will look exactly the same. 

Everyone and their mothers use luts nowadays, honestly the starting color science is less and less important, especially now that resolve is almost free. Furthermore, to the rest of the world color science could be reduced to three groups. Arri - the best by a mile, Sony DSLR color science - the worst, and everyone else in between.

In 10 years from now, people will look at the GH5S, Z Cam E2, and Pocket 4K and the footage of all those cameras will look exactly the same to them. Those differences we are arguing about are just a hobby. 

I am well aware no one will likely tell the difference between the GH5s and Pocket 4K.  I can vouch for that from my own clients feedback.  However that is not the point.  My work starts with my approval.  I want to be happy with my work and I am happier shooting with the Pocket, partly because I prefer Blackmagic colour science over the Panasonic.  In the same way some prefer the Canon image.  Each camera has a look and it's not always possible to entirely duplicate it with LUTs and colour grading.  I prefer the Blackmagic image.  I spent years and years finding a look I like with the Panasonic and even now there are moments, I am not happy with the image.  Not so with the Pocket.  Straight out, I found a look I am very happy with.  

There are other reasons I prefer the Pocket.  Punch in focus, menus, BRAW, SSD recording and choice of aspect ratios such as 2.40, you can shoot in.  Footage works so well with Resolve.  I love shooting with it.  

[Attila Bakos]

15 hours ago, kye said:

Instead of doing a CST -> adjustment -> CST can you just use a single node and set the CS of the node (it's in the menu you get via right-clicking the node) and would it do the same thing?  My understanding is that the CST is simply a user interface to the same RCM functionality that applies to clips in the media pool, timelines, etc.. 

Changing gamma and color space with the right-click menu on the node only works if your timeline gamma and colorspace is set according to the clip you're viewing.
So if you're viewing an F-Log clip, and you're timeline is set to Fujifilm F-Log, you can right click the node, set gamma to linear and adjust exposure with the curves the way I described before. It will be like a node between two colorspace transform nodes, but compressed to one node. But what do you do when you have clips from multiple cameras? I like the color space transform plugin better because I can see better what's happening. And sometimes you want to see what's happening between the transformations, in our case the linearized image. When you use the one-node method you don't get to see that, you only see the output of that node.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its not hindsight because I argued it at the time as well but I think the EF mount for the 6K was a mistake.

The MFT mount was the best of all worlds because it would have allowed for cheap lightweight primes, speedboosted EFs to effectively make it a full frame camera and of course the shallower mount to take PL lenses or the MFT mount Meike Cine Primes which cover the s35 sensor anyway.

Most other MFT lenses give at least 85% coverage so a simple window mode (which they have done now with the 4K for Super16 without the sky caving in) for when you are using those lenses would have been sufficient.

There is absolutely no benefit to having the EF mount on it so you have lost full compatibility and inter-operability with the 4K and permanently restricted your lens options for the sake of having native control of a lens that you could already use anyway. 

Its like the Brexit of lens mount decisions and like Brexit I've yet to hear a single tangible benefit from the choice.

Unfortunately the average buyer is so utterly clueless when it comes to lens mounts. 

So many times I've heard people say "I only brought this because it is an EF Mount, I'd never have bought it if it was MFT" when referring to the BMPCC6K (or other cameras too, like an URSA Mini, Z Cam S6, or a Panasonic EVA1). 

I mean come on, seriously???  You can't name even one good reason for EF on those cameras over using a locking MFT mount. 

You're certainly not buying a BMPCC6K for its great AF with EF lenses! haha

And a locking MFT would give the maximum flexibility and benefits. You could slap on a S16 zoom for those days you need massive zoom range all in just one lens. You could put on a focal reducer for Vista Vision Field of View and an extra stop of light. You could put on adapters for lenses that can't even be put on EF, such as FD lenses. Or even lenses that you could put on EF with an adapter, such as Nikon F Mount, you could have a much more solid connection (would basically feel like a "native F Mount") using a locking MFT mount than using the usual EF mount.

Unfortunately I suspect these companies are intentionally choosing EF Mount because they know they'll likely sell more to the idiotic buyers by having an EF Mount, in spite of all the technical reasons for choosing a locking MFT mount (which perhaps even BMD are unaware?? Wouldn't surprise me, I've sadly season folks like J.B. who beta tests for BMD being a strong advocate against MFT, ditto other companies like Panasonic where Mitch Gross argued very strongly against MFT for EVA1. Which is extra madness, as Panasonic ought to be supporting their own MFT mount and GH series of cameras!!).

But if only they could at least have offered us the choice! Like BMD did back at the start with BMCC EF vs BMCC MFT.  Or ship out all cameras with an EF adapter to appease the fears and worries of Canon diehards (kinda a bit like Sony did with the VENICE and all of the F3/F5/F55 cameras, so many of those users don't even realize there is another mount underneath!!).

[eleison]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I mean come on, seriously???  You can't name even one good reason for EF on those cameras over using a locking MFT mount. 

Sensor size?  I'm not sure you can put an apsc sensor into a MFT mount; I'm pretty sure you can't put a full size sensor.  I think the MFT lenses would have to be redesigned.

[MurtlandPhoto]

5 minutes ago, eleison said:

Sensor size?  I'm not sure you can put an apsc sensor into a MFT mount; I'm pretty sure you can't put a full size sensor.  I think the MFT lenses would have to be redesigned.

It's been done - the JVC LS300. Fantastic implementation, too. It just wasn't popular enough of a camera to spark a movement.

[newfoundmass]

10 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

It's been done - the JVC LS300. Fantastic implementation, too. It just wasn't popular enough of a camera to spark a movement.

?

I wish @Andrew Reid had reviewed it. It didn't get nearly enough attention and still is an excellent camera. 

I do hope they were serious about releasing a follow up. They really thought outside the box with the LS300 and supported it with updates/features long after most companies do. Of the "big companies" only Panasonic has done that 

 

[BTM_Pix]

9 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Unfortunately, the JVC LS300 wasn't popular enough to dissuade a lot of people about an MFT mount only being able to have an MFT sized sensor behind it so that inevitably plays a part too.

 

1 hour ago, eleison said:

Sensor size?  I'm not sure you can put an apsc sensor into a MFT mount; I'm pretty sure you can't put a full size sensor.  I think the MFT lenses would have to be redesigned.

The prosecution rests m'lud

[eleison]

23 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

The prosecution rests m'lud

Technically I said apsc, and not super 35.  :-)  From my quick google search the ls300 sensor size is 23.46*15.64 which is smaller than apsc.  However, I guess technically a MFT could fit an apsc sensor but with significant drawbacks.  Perhaps that is why the LS300 was not popular (e.g., corner sharpness of MFT lenses meant for smaller sensors)?

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4327452

[MurtlandPhoto]

3 minutes ago, eleison said:

Technically I said apsc, and not super 35.  ? From my quick google search the ls300 sensor size is 23.46*15.64 which is smaller than apsc.  However, I guess technically a MFT could fit an apsc sensor but with significant drawbacks.  Perhaps that is why the LS300 was not popular?

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4327452

[eleison]

20 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

If we even have Ironman rolling his eyes, we must have reached peak minutia :-) slowly backing away...

[Yannick Willox]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

For the final design which logo works best for you guys out of these two?

Candidate 1

 

Candidate 2

candidate 2 is clearly superior. My guess is candidate 1 was shot on a GH5s, candidate 2 on a p4k. Candidate 2 is clearly smoother, less sharpening.

the difference is almost invisible of course for the average user !

seriously, i prefer nr 2 ?

[KnightsFan]

20 minutes ago, eleison said:

Technically I said apsc, and not super 35.  ? From my quick google search the ls300 sensor size is 23.46*15.64 which is smaller than apsc.  However, I guess technically a MFT could fit an apsc sensor but with significant drawbacks.  Perhaps that is why the LS300 was not popular (e.g., corner sharpness of MFT lenses meant for smaller sensors)?

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4327452

APS-C is usually 23.5mm x 15.6mm (Sony, Nikon, Fuji), or smaller (Canon). That's a 3:2 aspect ratio, so the area when shooting 16:9 or wider is smaller still. If anyone does "APS-C with MFT mount" it will likely be 23.5x15.6--Z Cam, for example.

No one expects all MFT lenses to work on an APS-C sensor, it's the adaptability that makes it appealing, and mirrorless APS-C lenses like the the Fuji MK cine zooms.