Caleb Genheimer

Perhaps. Still, the only thing I would currently shoot on Sony cameras is a zombie flick 😂

Hey, look at those lower resolutions! That’s awesome! Oh wait, what does that word “crop” mean? Also, it’s 2019. I thought all the speedbooster debates by people who don’t understand how they work were put to bed two years ago. I’m not rehashing how those work and their benefits again. Also, no way am I treating it like a Sony. AGAIN, I’m pointing out how the P6K is actually extremely similar to the the P4K, WHICH I OWN AND LIKE A LOT. Sony’s cameras are just gross.

+0.3 more stops of DR is definitely worth the extra $1K. Right?

Also, I didn’t think they could possibly update the Pocket and make it MORE of an ugly duckling. Somehow, they managed to do exactly that.

It’s a step down for your wallet, that’s indisputable. I would absolutely dispute any claim that it’s an objectively better camera. Both cameras are EXTREMELY similar. There are subjective reasons that someone might prefer either camera. The question potential buyers will be asking is, “are those subjective reasons important enough to me to justify the higher price tag?” For me, it is definitely not. If I want a camera compatible with EF full-frame image circle lenses, I’ll just get a cine speedbooster for the P4K. It really is that simple from my perspective. I actually see the 6K as little more than a spec sheet bragging number. Seriously, for almost all practical work (that I do), 4K is more than enough. Anything more just means bigger files. If you do work that simply MUST have 6K Raw, by all means, nobody is stopping you. Get the P6K. The difference between APSC and Micro 4/3 is honestly pretty negligible. Any claims of it having less noise or better dynamic range due to its sensor are COMPLETE and utter conjecture. I’ll believe it when I see real tests, and according to all the press per BM, the DR is exactly the same. It is 2019. The concept that 6K APSC versus 4K M4/3 is a HUGE deal radical difference (all else being equal) is honestly not only laughable, but potentially bad consumer advice. They’re just different, and both are a steal compared to anything else in the market. I guess I should apologize for voicing my honest opinion on the pros/cons of these two cameras. I didn’t realize this was supposed to be the blind circle-jerk thread.

Explanation: Bolt this to a P4K cage: https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BTB Fullframe EF Cine Mount camera. Better than a normal EF mount. End of story. It just is. The LucAdapter will be the closest thing for the P6K by making it fullframe, but it still doesn’t give you a locking cinema mount. You’re stuck with the bog-standard EF mount on that camera thanks to BlackMagic.

I would argue that with a proper cage that has support for hard mounting a booster, the cine locking EF (or PL I suppose) booster actually makes the P4K MORE of a cinema camera than the P6K would ever be. I don’t care how well-machined a standard SLR bayonet is, a positive locking cine mount is infinitely superior for any real cinema camera work with follow focus units. The Metabones optics are already fantastic, and now they have versions specifically for the thinner sensor stack of the P4K. There are a million things to worry about when doing cinema work other than 6K resolution. Sure, the oversample is a nice perk, but 4K is plenty. Again, I feel like an SLR mount on a mirrorless camera is low-key stupidity. Let me put on a dummy EF adapter! Maybe even one with ND or a booster... but I digress. I prefer the form factor of the ZCam stuff for sure, but their pricing I think is awful ambitious for a new company, no matter how good the cameras are. At the very least, the P6K will change the market’s price tiers for the better

Gotcha! I have no actual optics experience, nor any way to measure the optical power of the lenses, so it is nice to have quantified confirmation of what I was hypothesizing. This means that it is important to start with a reasonably wide-shooting anamorphic for the front optic, and add a rear from a shorter scope to reduce to the desired squeeze ratio and achieve an increase in taking lens angle of view. I’m *almost* tempted to snag the rear group out of my 16-H to see if I can’t make a killer wide 1.5X or even 1.33X. Again, I now have a bunch of bigger 35mm projection scopes, many almost the same size, so armed with this knowledge, the best path to good results is probably using those fronts with 16mm anamorphic rear elements. They’ll be way smaller than the fronts, but it is probably where some of the rarer anamorphics get their design from, like the Möller 30. I suppose 16mm fronts with 8mm/Baby rears is not entirely out of the question either.

I’m really digging good handheld work lately. I shot weddings nonstop for the last 7 years on gimbals, and they just don’t look cinematic to me, even though I’m a seasoned operator. I’m heavily considering a 1-Axis Letus Helix just for keeping good horizon with heavier setups. Full-on 3-Axis gimbals for big rigs are prohibitively expensive and need major ancillary support equipment, but a single roll axis could keep the rig to a handheld/shoulderable size while providing some stabilization to the critical axis. There is also no replacing a good shot on sticks. Gimbals, just like autofocus and other advanced camera technologies, do allow you to get quality results with less effort. But the effort itself is part of the process that forces a certain pace and approach to shooting. Sure, with a gimbal you can quickly achieve any camera angle, any camera movement, instantaneously. But that doesn’t force you to stop and think through the motivation for the movement and angle. You can, but you don’t have to. As soon as the schedule on set is rushed, you stop thinking and just shoot. I prefer tripod these days, sometimes slider for a bit of movement. If I do use the gimbal, it is only when I want a specific shot from a piece of gear that I don’t have on hand (dolly or jib for example), and in that case, I’m trying to precisely mimic only what that piece of gear would do with the gimbal, nothing fancy.

Yeah! Although they’re shorter than original... not necessarily smaller or lighter:

Try this on for size. I guess I need 114mm diopters now, because the 95mm ones vignette:

First off, YES. This disrupts aspects of the market wonderfully... not that all cameras should be just like BM cams, but the major players have been holding back on good, easy-to-use RAW. This lights a fire that has needed lighting for some time. And it adds more Resolve users, which is great for that platform. If you haven’t switched to Davinci yet, what are you even doing? Second though, I still prefer my P4K. I’m planning on adding one of the new positive locking mount Metabones, which effectively makes it a fullframe camera with a real cine mount once I bolt the booster to the camera cage. And even with $700 for the fancy-pants booster, it’s still cheaper than the new P6K. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492783-REG/metabones_mbspef_m43_bta_t_cine_speed_booster.html I don’t think I really need 6K... not in 2019. I shot a great short film last year on GH5S that just did very well at LA Shorts Fest, and that was a 2K DCP that looked fantastic. More often than not, I’m looking for ways to soften even the 4K stuff anyway, and my (very good) Kowa 16-H resolves about 4K max at shallow apertures unless it’s very stopped down. Black ProMist, Glimmer Glass and Smoque are all higher on my to-do list than 6K. Probably top of the list though is a full-frame mirrorless that can take the Kipon Baveyes MF adapter and shoot good 4K footage with good dynamic range. I’m after some tasty Alexa 65/IMAX/Ultra Panavision vibes. My hopes are on the S1H or the Sigma.

Yup. No guarantees. There are some guidelines for good luck though: Stick to prime lenses. Pancakes are your friend. Get clamps designed specifically for your scope. Get a good variable diopter as it will last you over many different scopes. The widest 2X scope I’m aware of is the Kowa 16-H/8Z/Bell and Howell/Elmoscope (many versions of the same lens), and best it can do on full frame is 56mm, and that’s only if you’re planning on cropping it to 2.35:1. They fetch a pretty penny though because of their wide angle status, so if you’re on a budget, you should accept that you’ll probably be using longer focal lengths than this, closer to 75mm or even 85mm. With your budget I would say get a Rapido FVD-16A and then use the leftovers on a scope. Finally, get some clamps for the scope.

Here’s the B&L front, Meopta rear. A bit of a quicker looser test, but it was easy to see that it resolves really well, even out into the corners. It ends up at 1.5X, and this is with a Tamron SP 24mm all at f2.8. Again, the 95mm +1 diopter vignettes when it is in front, so if I want to use this B&L seriously, I would need to get something like a 114mm diopter. Seems like the primary (source locked) flares in anamorphic lenses come from the rear element, as that’s the straw gold flare from the Meopta. The B&L flares blue, so that’s also still there from the front group. I think actually really like the contrasting flares: I’m at the point now where I’m waiting until next week when a couple more lenses arrive to disassemble. Got a 16mm B&L that looks to be of similar era (silver) to the ones I already have, and a big ‘ol Möller 63/2X. If anyone has lenses with only one good element, or other frustrating damage, I’d consider giving you a little cash for them depending on the condition... or just big unwieldy scopes that you don’t use. The only scopes I’ve ruled out are the Russian NAP stuff. They don’t play nice with others. I’m going to do my best to analyze all my results and share them here for everyone, so any help or insights would be very welcome. I think the most exciting aspect of it to me is the potential to not only come up with attractively specced unique scopes, but to also breathe life and a second chance into otherwise bulky/impractical lenses. The B&L in original form is bigger than my head!

It really seems like pairing groups from two scopes of a similar physical size is pretty much a wash. I suspect that the scope I am utilizing for a front (B&L) may even be for 70mm projection as it is a monster... and the rears therefore I’ve been pairing with it are for regular 35mm projection. I have a cheap 16mm projection B&L on the way to test this theory, and see if I get similar results pairing it with a 35mm projection scope.