Leaderboard

I just close my eyes and hope for the best.

I feel like a bit of a 'dumb adapter' myself, for only just realising the potential of the 18-35 on a non-speedbooster adapter ?.

Have officially booked the camera. Hope you guys have too. I'm trying to start a dedicated thread just for lenses you'd be pairing the Blackmagic Pocket 4k with (please include video samples of the lens in action) I'm strongly considering the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AF (making it 40-100mm with the Viltrox EF-M2 0.71X). The breathing seems minimal and the image filmic, a good candidate for short films. Next is probably the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8. (25.5-50mm with the 0.71x adapter). This should have me covered for a lot of future commercial work, where sharpness might be paramount.

I don't know why nobody makes a wide angle zoom point and shoot. I'd love a G7X or RX100 with a 16-35mm equiv and I think a ton of vloggers would as well.

Yes, it is better a manufacturer errs towards doing "too much" with their promo videos than "too little". In fact, I'd argue it is near on impossible for a camera manufacturer to go over the top with their promo videos! They could do a full on next Avatar or Lord of the Rings productions purely to promote their new camera and it still wouldn't be too "over the top"! ha I'm guessing they leaked these out purely by accident, it wasn't intentional? Edit: nope, I browsed around the videos and I see comments and replies from the YT channel, this wasn't any "accidental" uploading, very intentional! Exactly. It is great to improve the camera after release and push it forward. BUT you still at least have to start from a fairly high level of competency! At the very least they should have been unlisted videos, to help indicate this.

"Compact" is super vague, to some people the Nikon D7500 is a "compact 4K" camera (certainly is next to a D850 or D5! Or any 4K cinema camera), while there would be vlogs who think the RX100 is too bulky as it isn't as compact as their 4K smartphone!

Read the one million zillion billion thousand threads on the internet about "what lens to use with my GH5S" (or GH5, or GH4, or GH3, or GH2.... if you think I'm going to say next "or GH1", you're right! These discussions have been going on for a long time. And they're still relevant even today! Although yes, new lenses do come out over time. For instance the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 didn't exist back when I purchased my GH1. But broadly speaking the conversations about what lens to use for a GH2 vs a GH5 are not really that different).

If I'm using a zoom for speed (setup) reasons on commercial stuff, I can shoot all day with the Sigma 18-35 w/ dumb adapter (35 -70mm.) Just a great lens that can cover a lot like that. If we're moving around, action/documentary style w/ monopods and smaller support gear then I think the Olympus 12-40 (24-80mm) is pretty much an ideal zoom in that it's much smaller and lighter obviously and perhaps even sharper. It's just a great utility lens that's got a great manual focus clutch. Again, IMO there isn't a zoom that can draw an image like the Sigma. It's a one-of-a-kind piece of glass. But for one small lens that can cover all the bases from wide to portrait and render really sharp, contrasty and rich images the 12-40 is my second favorite zoom.

I have to admit that clip from mr Read doesn't look to me so favorable for NX1 because of too much crushed black (probably temporal stylistic preference) that leaves a question about DR. But I have some other personal favorites of NX1 shots - simply, contrary to some other or of the most members, I'm continually impress with results of all modern cameras in capable hands, looking to all of them as flowers in the garden So, to be remembered or some sort of hommage

I am all for open source, but the data rates of Prores are at least half of that of cinemaDNG Raw. Even if we take the efficiency of post-processing out of the way, supporting a 4K 120p data stream of cinemaDNG raw will be unlikely. With prores RAW you at least have a chance. But it doesn't matter, any of the two would be miles better compared to what has come out of that camera until now. My best guess is that they will not include any and within few months they will cut the price of this camera in half. And if they don't improve the quality somehow, it will be a hard sell even then.

We finally get to see something from Zcam's little mystery box. Plus links to footage on Google Drive. Google Drive stuff to download.... Quebec Sample Ungraded: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ow9YlVEsb6pwQYqPwjSTSFX_iBkN5vuB/view?usp=sharing Quebec Graded: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hdl1FRHtGohMwMgZIDyX3WiQ9rNenQ-7/view?usp=sharing 4k 120 fps: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n3WjI9tQxaDXInjqqXtYS8bnMfUk-Qp-/view?usp=sharing E2 with Veydra 35mm: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZPaxT3a3q3AgITzRGED2BwTNGqIYskiu/view?usp=sharing A Zlog shot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kGKvsJJtKuUlnr0HVZ3_KH_iLVua_q5y/view?usp=sharing Cheers Chris

Here's some more footage shooting 2.5k raw video:

I have pretty much the cheapest option available - the colormunki smile - it is also about the easiest to use. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/894645-REG/X_Rite_cmunsml_ColorMonki_Smile_Color_Calibration.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu_jYBRD8ARIsAC3EGCI-7VdfrbfT237OCphNTNM9_6Z8znhQ3BcU9dqCJqoWTEh4r8d0jwgaAvkrEALw_wcB#!/?currency=EUR&BI=7367&kw=&c3api=2572,113041916107 What it lacks is.... 1) Screen brightness adjustment (which would be particularly important if you want to match prints output to your screen.) But you can do this through 'Canon Print Studio Pro." 2) Advanced features such as setting 'black point' and 'gamma' I use 2 x screens, so it is important that both screens match. However modern screens dont lose their color accuracy that much nowadays, so a calibration every couple of months seem to work for me.

Datacolor Spyder 4, every couple of months. Old but still gets me in the ballpark.

Saw this thread come back up and thought the new post was going to be that someone had devised a hack to get RAW out of the HDMI port or something. Alas, its just the return of the over helpful spambot.

It looks to me that it could be justifiably to have place here for separate thread strictly about revealing/understanding/evolving/learning ideas and behind-techniques of cinematic language. Being myself a translator of Tarkovsky's books and calling for famous Bergman's quotes about Tarkovsky* as truly inventor of a new language, I found that this Sareesh Sudhakaran's post is great as introductory to movie as visual art with independent human-exploring language... So, if someone maybe have some similar insights, I'll be so glad to know and learn from them or read a comments and observations... about relationship between applied, deeply thought-out shooting choices or specific techniques with psychological (or aesthetic or metaphysical) artistic goals. *"My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle... Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease... I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how... Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream... When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn't explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally."

Yes, we're probably due an update aren't we. I'm currently finishing porting the Sony version, which is more or less complete. The Panasonic version is functionally complete but the intention is for it to be multi-platform from the off at least for those two systems. The version for Blackmagic will obviously only happen when the camera is released (though I will begin porting it next) so it remains to be seen when that will be. The slave module integration for operating multiple cameras (even different brand ones) from one controller both individually and in a unison mode is also something that is currently being worked on. The slave module will be the small version as you can see here and will also be used to support the remote record start/stop of external audio recorders from Tascam, Zoom and SoundDevices but will also allow direct remote control of the camera through its more limited integrated buttons. With regard to the focus control, it will work on anything that the camera can drive focus on so not just native lenses but also via smart adapters from metabones etc. so, yes, if the camera can control your 4/3 lens then the controller can too. Bear in mind, it can only ever be as accurate as the adapter allows. If the lens has servo zoom then its not beyond the bounds of possibility to create a simultaneous zoom and focus function control but it would take quite a bit of calibration setup per lens to create individual profiles for them. As I don't have any servo zooms for MFT then this is unlikely to happen anytime soon ! As for manual zooming, well, there are a couple of possibilities that I have been thinking about specifically for that but, again, its down to lens access for calibration. Its doable though as I can track the focal length position and then make focus offsets as it changes so I'm not saying no but just not yet * * Which probably means I'll start doing it as soon as I get back

I'd be concerned about latency with some of these recorders, the cheap ones can be pretty bad. No help for pulling focus if it's lagging too much. Clearly an important point for research before buying.

There is also all the differences between the F4 and original F8, of course the F8n keeps the benefits as well. One drawback the the F8 had vs the F4 that the F8n loses, is that the F8n now can power the FRC-8 itself (the F4 could, but the original F8 couldn't). I feel a few key points you need to ask yourself are: How often will I record more than 4 channels of audio? (thus will need the EXH-6) How often will I record more than 5/6 channels? (thus even the EXH-6 will not be enough) How many days a year am I getting use from my audio recorder? (as I assume you view this question more from a financial business decision than a hobbyist's question, so if you're working a hundred days a year then of course F4 vs F8n is no difference at all! On a per day basis. But if you're only doing 10 days of paid jobs a year then it becomes trickier as to if the extra cost of a F8n is worth it on a per day basis, I'd say it is, but on the flip side the F8n isn't gain you any extra work over what a F4 would) All the extra points like improved headphone amp, automix, new hybrid limiters, etc are all just extra gravy on the top for the F8n (but I want that gravy! And I'm constantly working, so the cost for the F8n seems very very small to me. Arguably, I should be getting a 633 instead). Because at its core the F4/F8/F8n are more similar than they are different, and any of them are a rock solid recorder packed with features that makes an excellent heart to have at the center of a low budget recording kit setup. btw, on the point of the F4 vs F8 screen, I suspect the F4 screen is one the factors which helps the F4 get better battery life than the F8, and in my limited experience working with the F8 my gut feeling is the F4 screen has the edge in terms of sunlight visibility. So yes, while the F4 has the "worse screen", it isn't all bad news. (however, I'm still looking forward to that higher resolution screen of the F8n when I upgrade from F4)

I wrote up quite a long comment on YT, and thought I'd share my thoughts here as well for wider consumption as it is relevant to this thread as to why I feel the F8n is the best choice in the marketplace right now for this niche (beating out the MixPre competitors): Something I didn't touch on is price, as it was fairly irrelevant to my points above (except how the MixPre10T creeps up near in price to what a 633 costs), but worthwhile considering if price matters to you: MixPre3: more expensive than a Zoom F4 (but the MixPre3 records half as many inputs, and has less features). MixPre3 + TC: more expensive than a Zoom F8 MixPre6: more expensive than a Zoom F8 MixPre6 + TC: more expensive than the new Zoom F8n MixPre10T: more expensive than the new Zoom F8n + Zoom FRC-8 + iPad Mini!!

Thanks Man.. Looks Like If I strip my NX1 down to nothing and use the PWR Zoom or my Pancakes it's a go.

Zhiyun-Tech Crane-M 3-Axis Handheld Gimbal Stabilizer https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1296818-REG $199 for the next 24 hours

In general I agree, if you only have an iPhone, go out and shoot with the iPhone, but to be honest, Tangerine artifacts were very distractive to me, when I was watching the movie and I saw all the effort and money spent in all the aspects of the movie, it was clear to me that the decision to use the iPhone as a camera was just a commercial choice, who knows how much money Apple put on the table, but I guess was a lot, today you can get a very good camera for almost nothing, less than $600 for a Canon M50, that's virtually nothing compared to what you are spending in other areas, or if you are really tie, $150 for an original Canon EOS M and ML to get 2.5k RAW, that's peanuts!!!!

Here is a link to download the footage straight from the beta Anafi https://mega.nz/#!D1pAhKra!uvLYN9kzmnmfSFbgbpwtm7639JgUo5pTp_zPUWAvXv0 It's 2.7GB, there is video, JPEG and DNG

So are you going to use this "pocket" camera as sort of a B cam to the GH5s? Which I think the GH5s is an excellent choice by the way, and I can see theGX80 working with it pretty well also.

That's not bad I guess, https://www.eoshd.com/2014/12/lets-see-samsung-nx1-really-capable-shooting-4k-sunny-lisbon/ and honestly, I haven't seen any worthy footage from you either, whatever expensive camera you have bought the last few years. NX1 was competing with the GH4, 7Dii and some 16megapixel Fuji cameras with barely any video capabilities. So glad I did the "mistake" and invest on the NX system.

History in general and recent history obliged us to believe in Chinese marketing even if it sometimes looks strange...

I think everyone knows it's a work in progress, just quite surprised at the current point of progress in that work. If the purpose of it was to gain feedback then I don't get the differentiation between it coming from their FB group or the wider world to be honest. Unless they've got a Reduser scenario going on there of zero criticism I expect the feedback was similarly lukewarm? Don't take this as being snippy because it's not meant to be - I'm actually rooting for them - but if the people on here who weren't thrilled with what they saw and they were in the market to buy one, then it might not be doomed but extrapolate that out versus people who were thrilled with it and it's not great. As I say, I'm not looking to contradict you necessarily but I think there is some relevance to the perception issue they've caused by putting this out there. Especially as its on their YouTube channel and not just a closed FB group.

I watched unsane last night and didn’t think it looked that bad - at the beginning. I actually though that it gave a certain docu style to it, and some parts even looked awesome to my eyes. Of course it didn’t look like a normal Hollywood movie - A bit like an art film, a filmSchool project or like a lot of other indies which have gone on to great reviews. In the last part of the movie it was like the picturestyle fell apart and the limitations of the phone became an distractions to the story. Tangerine was shot on a IPhone 5s and a Moondog adapter, and it looks great. To sum up: if you are planning on shooting weeding or the next charter in the Transformers saga then maybe your phone it not the camera you should choose. However, if you are working on an indie story-driven piece then I don’t think a phone is necesarraly the wrong choice. It gives the film a certain autentic look and then it all comes down to the storyline and style and working within it limitations. In the end, it is all about the story - and if your story isn’t good enough to be told through a phone then maybe one should spend more time improving the story, than thinking about getting a better camera. And if one doesn’t already own a camera the maybe the money is better spend on other movie-related items than on an expensive camera. Better to get a great story told with a IPhone, than not to get it told at all.

Based on your level of knowledge, just go with a used Canon 70D and a kit lens. (If you want it compact, Canon M5.)

The next version of Mavic Pro will have 1/1.7" sensor which is bigger than the current 1/2.3" but still much smaller vs 1", guess 1" is too big (or power hungry) even for rumored bigger size for Mavic Pro 2, hence I bought a P4A on special (few hundred dollars off + further 10% discount) recently, the image quality totally blow my Mavic pro away!

I have to say I'm bewildered why they've released this footage. The camera is very interesting but let's be honest they lost a lot of buzz when the Pocket 4K was announced. The only way to get that back was to put images out there that made everyone who'd pre-ordered or was going to pre-order the Pocket 4K to think "Mmm....hang on...we might have been a bit hasty here". Surely no one is anywhere near thinking that based on this? Manufacturers have a difficult enough time as it is with people making their products look bad by shooting garbage with them without joining in with it themselves. You can go too far the other way and make a glossy promo film of a £1500 camera with an unrealistic hidden supporting cast of gear and crew so it's fine to show something that is more realistically obtainable. But it still has to be aspirational surely? If they don't look like they care then why should we? This is less to do with what the camera is capable of but what the company itself is capable of. Showing such half baked and half arsed footage is not going to convince anyone that the company is in it for the long haul with this product. The first impression they made with their other interchangeable lens camera wasn't entirely positive and the massive price drop on it was testament to that so they were already playing catch up in terms of perception. As soon as the Pocket 4K was announced they must surely have known they'd really be up against it to claw back ground from an established brand coming in with something that drastically undercut it like that. This just doesn't inspire any confidence in them whatsoever that they can build any sort of momentum to counter the Pocket 4K. I'm the last person who wants to be a sheep and just buy what everybody else does and I like to see the underdog have a go so I'm really disappointed that this is what they've chosen to release. It's easy to say that we shouldn't write it off based on this footage but this close to the release of the other camera it would have been better to release no footage than release this. Better to keep quiet and have people suspect the footage from your new camera may not be all that than to open a YouTube channel and confirm it, as Mark Twain would've put it

Some of the other tests on their FB page look promising for the price IMO. Test them for yourself and see what the files are like. Lots of information in the shadows, much better DR than Panasonic IMO. Keen to see how a Raw output would perform. People blowing off a camera because one clip/s look bad is pretty funny IMO. I could find you thousands of bad clips shot with similar spec cameras... I guess that means they suck as well .

Oh. I think this clip of it might actually be a metaphor.

Have you tried Resolve 15 Public Beta? It is slowly becoming more and more like Premiere in terms of the editing interface and features, but without the performance issues. I am highly impressed. The purpose of editing is to trim the fat. Why not start doing some editing and remove those files from the project that you no longer need.

Here's a very quick test I shot with a Schneider / Beaulieu Optivaron 6-66mm f1.8 super 8 lens. 12-bit lossless, continuous shooting at 1392x1028 resolution. You can't really go higher than this resolution without getting excessive vignetting, and 4:3 aspect ratio is definitely the way to go with this lens. Also here's a test with an EF-M 15-45mm stock lens, this time at 1792x1030 resolution. I wrote the music on ableton live for both these videos.