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

[MurtlandPhoto]

Just now, eleison said:

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

Lol I probably jumped the gun with that GIF ? I know it seems like a s35 sensor behind a mft mount comes with lots of drawbacks, but honestly it doesn't. This is something many of us discovered at the release of the LS300. The implementation was honestly amazing. You saying you guess there would be significant drawbacks is sorta the point we're making - everyone dismissed the camera because it didn't seem possible, but it was! Just a sad missed opportunity for cameras that came afterwards.

[BTM_Pix]

58 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

It uses Variable Scan Mapping to scale coverage for different lens types (default preset for MFT is a conservative 80% but this is assignable as most lenses are 85-90%) to give the correct native field of view for whatever lens from Super16 to Super35 is attached so the corner sharpness of MFT lenses on it is moot when it comes to why it wasn't popular because you never see the corners.

The perception of the mount being indivisible from the sensor size was the biggest hurdle to it being accepted.

Well, that and the abysmal EVF obviously.

But because of the VSM you can do tricks with it that give it incredible flexibility, such as being able to put an APS-C lens such as the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 on it using an EF>MFT speed booster and using the VSM to rescale it to maintain the native FOV of 18-35mm but gain the extra stop and additional sharpness that the speed booster brings.

This is in addition to using the VSM in the "Prime Zoom" function making a 2x virtual zoom controlled on the hardware zoom rocker control for any prime (or zoom) lens.

Or re-mapping the zoom rocker control as a focus control for any lens while still retaining Prime Zoom control through an external LANC zoom control.

And on and on.

No one could ever say JVC didn't have a serious go at packing the innovation in when it came to that camera !

[sanveer]

3 hours 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.

 

[Andrew Reid]

GH5S sensor is oversized vs normal Micro Four Thirds sensors... So it's already not far off Super 35

The GIF above shows the difference well between normal M43 and S35, which is already not that huge.

Lens pins are the limit though, rather than mount diameter. They can't be shifted.

[kaylee]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Candidate 1

im goin with candidate 1 on this! its simplicity really works, i like it, scales rlly well too!

[kye]

8 hours ago, Attila Bakos said:

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.

I agree about them being visible if you're working with different colour spaces, but after the conversion then I find it's less relevant.  

My workflow is typically:

• Node to do things prior to conversion (mainly WB and exposure)
• CST
• General 709 grading nodes

My thoughts around having a node in different colour/gamma spaces would be if I could have one before the CST to simulate things being done in-camera, and after the CST as custom grading things like having nodes in YUV etc.  Obviously the nodes before the CST would have to be tailored to the colour/gamma of that clip, but if I just saved a power grade for each camera then I could just add them from presets then adjust away.

More experimentation is required.

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

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 agree with your sentiment, but I'd actually say they're not clueless about mounts, they see them as the boundaries between entirely different universes that cannot be breached.

@BTM_Pix The amount of "oooh, the P6K has EF mount - finally there's a camera that exists in my universe!  All the other ones have been in a different language in a parallel universe, and if an EF lens was ever in the same room as a non-EF camera then it would turn our solar system into a black hole".  and by the way, to most people there are two lens mounts - "the one I use" and "not the one I use"  which has the internal description of "nope nope nope nope..  back away now....   alien creatures are amongst us...  they didn't choose my lens mount soooooooo.................. WARNING!!!!".

The Canon vs Nikon debate places these two crowds so far apart that the curvature of the earth prevents even radio communication between them.  The MFT mount may as well be an underwater song made of colours.

[Video Hummus]

11 minutes ago, kye said:

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd actually say they're not clueless about mounts, they see them as the boundaries between entirely different universes that cannot be breached.

Just make a camera with an adaptable mount and multi-aspect sensor with JVC's VSM and problem solved.

Marketing: Use any lens you have!

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

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.

Even in this scenario it makes no sense, as a locking MFT with an EF adapter would be at least as good. And what about the times when URSA is using something else than EF? As the URSA Mini Pro has a swappable mount! Could be using Nikon F, B4 Mount, PL mount, etc

Wouldn't it be better if the BMPCC6K could have the same mount as the URSA Mini Pro is using?
 

[IronFilm]

13 hours 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. 

Who wants to debate which looks better and is overall a better camera out of Panasonic DVX100b vs the Canon GL2 vs Canon XL2 vs JVC GY-HD100 ?

Indeed, in ten years plus from now, absolutely nobody will care. (aside from the geekiest of geeky gearheads, or retro hipsters)

[IronFilm]

5 hours 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

Canon APS-C sensor measures 22.2 x 14.8 mm , I don't remember howls of protest about Canon not being "Super 35".  And JVC has put behind the LS300's MFT mount a significantly bigger sensor than that.

The majority of third party lenses for MFT can also cover APS-C / Super 35, as they were originally designed for that sensor coverage. 

And a good chunk of Panasonic / Olympus lenses can cover APS-C as well. 

Even for those which don't, all you usually need to do is a slight punch in (which the JVC LS300 can do automatically in camera, a variable amount of your choosing) to say 90% then you're good to go. 

Plus, just because a camera CAN DO "SOMETHING" doesn't mean you must do it. 

Just because a camera records 4K doesn't mean I'll always be recording in 4K. Just because it can do 120fps doesn't mean everything will be in slow motion. Just because it has 10bit doesn't mean I can't use 8bit on a shoot. 

Is all about having the flexibility to choose the right tool for the right moment. 

Need to go run and gun on a reality show outdoors? Put on that Panasonic 14-140mm lens with its massive zoom range. 
Need to balance the camera on a small handheld gimbal? Put on that teeny tiny SLR Magic 8mm f4 ultrawide angle MFT lens. 
Want to shoot a short film with a juicy set of vintage S35 PL primes? Then put on a PL adapter and use that whole sensor. 
Want to have that "Vista Vision" look with super shallow DoF? Then whack on a focal reducer and use your Nikkor 50mm f1.2 lens. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

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.

Hell yeah, how good would those Fuji MK lenses be on the BMPCC6K?? ? But sadly you can not, because BMD chose EF instead of MFT. 

Also I think Z Cam posted something a little while ago about working on an APS-C MFT camera?? I think. Don't keep up with their latest up to the minute news at the moment. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

GH5S sensor is oversized vs normal Micro Four Thirds sensors... So it's already not far off Super 35

The GIF above shows the difference well between normal M43 and S35, which is already not that huge.

More oversized camera sensors is good! Allows for features like multi aspect ratio, or getting more out anamorphic. 

The GH1 / GH2 were a bit like this as well. 
 

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

But because of the VSM you can do tricks with it that give it incredible flexibility, such as being able to put an APS-C lens such as the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 on it using an EF>MFT speed booster and using the VSM to rescale it to maintain the native FOV of 18-35mm but gain the extra stop and additional sharpness that the speed booster brings.

damn, that's a really good idea

3 hours ago, kye said:

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd actually say they're not clueless about mounts, they see them as the boundaries between entirely different universes that cannot be breached.

@BTM_Pix The amount of "oooh, the P6K has EF mount - finally there's a camera that exists in my universe!  All the other ones have been in a different language in a parallel universe, and if an EF lens was ever in the same room as a non-EF camera then it would turn our solar system into a black hole".  and by the way, to most people there are two lens mounts - "the one I use" and "not the one I use"  which has the internal description of "nope nope nope nope..  back away now....   alien creatures are amongst us...  they didn't choose my lens mount soooooooo.................. WARNING!!!!".

THIS! YUP!

And I would indeed say that is a form of "cluelessness", the very worst kind, which even builds up a resistance to even learn about anything else and give them a try. 

[mercer]

The problem with the GH5s was always the price and lack of IBIS. I could look the other way with the IBIS but the price, even today, is way too high. Panasonic should be selling the GH5/GH5s for $1000/$1500 respectively. They've been out for 3 years now.

With that said, I like the look from the GH5s and would choose that today over the P4K if they were priced the same. In fact, I'd probably buy one. 

As it is, I believe M4/3 will be dead in 2-3 years at these prices. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic chooses an entry level FF camera over releasing a GH6.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic chooses an entry level FF camera over releasing a GH6.

No way would a Panasonic L Mount FF mirrorless camera priced substantially under the S1 have all of the features that would be in a GH6. 

[MurtlandPhoto]

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

No way would a Panasonic L Mount FF mirrorless camera priced substantially under the S1 have all of the features that would be in a GH6. 

This is exactly why I think Panasonic with stay with MFT at least through the GH6. They have a massive group of users that want a full featured video camera for ~$2000. MFT lets them do that. It's impossible in FF at least in 2020.