MattH

1 hour ago, Anaconda_ said:

@TurboRat and @MattH - I don't have that lens, but I have the Canon 10mm that I've hacked (literally) to work with the Viltrox speedbooster. I imagine this give a similar field of view - although it will be slightly narrower. I'll happily do some tests for you, but can only get to f3.5ish with the booster.

If that's helpful, let me know what formats you'd want tested and I'll upload some stuff.

For a quick sample, here's a grab I just took at it's widest. Handy button that frame grab one ? 

A008_10241448_S001.dng 

Would you mind posting a jpeg?  I cant view that currently.   Is that the 10-18 f4.5- 5.6 ?    I doubt there will be any field curvature visible at that narrow an aperture anyway.   I don't know if speed boosters reduce field curvature or maintain it.  Perhaps they do maintain it.     I have the 7.5mm which is why I'm very interested in the issue.   It does have field curvature, but it that guys pocket4k was massively exaggerating the issue.  The 20mm 1.7 has field curvature wide open too when focused to infinity so I'm worried that will look shit on the pocket4k also.  It would be pointless getting one if all my mft lenses dont work properly.

2 hours ago, TurboRat said:

Any news about the soft edges when using wide lenses like the Laowa 7.5? I was following a thread about this on bmcuser but I think it got removed?

No, I think its still there, it just seemed to die.  I have been waiting for the update on that.  Did he have a faulty camera? Did the problem go away once he stopped down further?  I may need to bump it, because that seemed a serious issue.

1 hour ago, JordanWright said:

So I received the Pocket 4k today. yet to do proper tests but I've had a quick play and the files look decent. What surprised me the most however is that I'm able to record 4k 50p Lossless raw to my Samsung T5 500gb drive. didn't expect that. The only downside so far is the battery door. It opens by itself waaayy to often. 

Even the battery itself knows its about to die!

5 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Haha I don't need it perse. I have a 6D for that. But was just wondering Might be handy though for once in a year kinda situations.

It's electronic rolling shutter so even if it had flash it would have a maximum flash sync speed of 1/50th of a second or something.  Any faster than that and only part of the image would be exposing when the flash fired.

6 hours ago, Jerome Chiu said:

I'd also go for the M9. If so, the lens is 61 years old, i.e. was produced in around 1957. A rigid 50mm Summicron?

Ok. My second go.  I forgot to look at the resolution of the large file.  I guess I assumed it would have been scaled down.  The horizontal resolution of 5212 is exactly the same as a M9 or M9-P, and there arent any other 18 megapixel full frame cameras i dont think.   And the 18 megapixel apsc canons only have a horizontal resolution of 5184 so they are out. 

So the lens was produced in 1957 if its the M9 and 1955 if its the M9-P.     I first thought it was 35mm but now I do think its 50mm.  So 50mm summicron seems correct.

It would have to be the 5cm screw mount colapsible summicron if it was 1955 so it is more likely An M9 with rigid 50mm Summicron as already guessed.     

So that was a nice run around the houses for no reason on my part.  At least I got the exercise I guess.

I presume it is wide open as the depth of field is shallow.  If so, its certainly sharp enough wide open.  I supose thats what this shows.

My guess is that the reason you are presenting this guessing game is because you were suprised in some way yourself.    So Im guessing its not a new camera.  So its an old digital, but it would probably have to have some significance in order for you to buy it.   So like a 5d mark 1 or something.    Could also be the first micro four third camera with a speed booster, but I'm getting a canon vibe from the image.    It could be an old apc canon.  Ah the 50d!  We know you were already surprised by the fact that it can do raw video dispite not having a video mode.  But because you already have that it would have to be a new lens or lens combination in order to suprise you.  I initially thought it must be full frame.  So I think you are surprised by how large sensor it looks.   Im not a lens expert so someone else would have to work out what fast aperture lens it is.  Unless you have removed the mount and mirror in order to cram a speed booster in.  But thats probably pushing it a bit.

As the 50d is 10 years old, 70 years total would put the lens date of birth at 1958 (the maths confused me for a minute).  Searching 1958 lens brings up the mir 37mm f2.8,  But the feild of view looks wider than 59mm equiv and the aperture looks wider too, so probably not, but then again if it was that I can imagine it surprising you.

1 hour ago, kye said:

I wasn't talking specifically about either.

When you said "The pocket 4k has different tone curves at different iso's (shown drastically by the dual native iso) so the discerning user will choose the ISO with a tone curve that matches the look they are going for at that particular moment (narrative/documentary)" it made me think that for people shooting in less controlled situations they could use whatever settings was appropriate (full sun or low light etc) and still benefit from being able to choose which tone curve they want.

If you're on set then you can just dial in whatever lighting hits your favourite ISO, but that doesn't always work for everyone.  Does that make sense?  Maybe I'm the one missing something

Well that functionality is essentially built in to raw already.   Your only choices are the physical exposure and the native iso.

Even in prores, the way I understand it is that if you were at iso 100 and you adjusted your exposure so that the sky was just on the edge of clipping, you could increase the iso up to 1000 and the sky wouldn't clip.  Just the average brightness would increase.  So (not that I'm saying you said this) I don't think you would ever gain anything by shooting at one iso and then adjusting it so it resembled another.  It would be preferable if you knew before hand.

But if you are just talking about flexibility, I guess shooting in the middle of the range would make sense.  Probably at the native iso's themselves of 400 or 3200. Then you would have a balance of noise performance and highlight latitude with a little bit of leeway either way. 

But to leave significant leeway to boost the brightness you would have to bake in what looked like an under exposed image and shadow detail would be lost due to insufficient bits in the shadows, or to leave significant leeway to crush the noise out you would have to bake in what looked like an over exposed image and highlights would potentially be clipped.

13 minutes ago, kye said:

And the technically proficient and discerning user might also shoot a test scene with a bunch of ISOs (controlling exposure via SS) and then compare, select the nicest curve, and then build a set of curves that turn the lesser tone curves into the good one.

If you're careful and organised such a thing would only take a few hours to do from start to finish.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would you do that?  (build a set of curves that turn the lesser tone curves into the good one).

The way I saw it that with prores you are first choosing a native iso band and then the iso within that band defines were the midpoint is within the exposure range.  With raw you just choose the native iso. The increments within those bands just alter how bright the image looks on your screen to act as a guide for how much light to put on the sensor.

Are you talking about raw or prores?

3 hours ago, Inazuma said:

There seems to be a lot of speculation in here about how the original looked more cinematic than the p4k, which I believe. But has anyone shot any side by side videos to prove it? And to ascertain whether it is simply due to the higher resolution or is it something more?

From what I have seen I think the resolution plays the largest factor.  The lower resolution of the og pocket helps to mask other amatuer/video looking things (lighting, colors, composition).  A slight amount of added blur should soften up the image nicely and eliminate most of the difference between them.  (For the record, this would be for narrative work only, if its a documentary you would leave it sharp. Though luckily this proviso is mostly redundant as most people sharpen anyway).

I also think the og pocket may have had a tone curve that is favourable to highlights.    The pocket 4k has different tone curves at different iso's (shown drastically by the dual native iso) so the discerning user will choose the ISO with a tone curve that matches the look they are going for at that particular moment (narrative/documentary), which is a trade off between highlight latitude and noize performance.  In prores the tone curve is baked in,  while the raw iso increments are only metadata but the native iso comes into the equation even in raw, and the chosen iso will indirectly effect how the user chooses to expose.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

The ProRes has very little moire anyway. And I’m sure the OG look is easily obtainable with the P4K but for less than $500 used... plus the highlights are better on the OG.

I don’t have a need for 4K for at least another year and I’m hoping ML will help me out when that time comes. If not, a used P4K (or fire sale) will be my next main camera. But I have a feeling another company will have Raw capabilities by this time next year... am hoping it might be Olympus.  

It will be very interesting if other companies adopt Blackmagic Raw.  That will open things up massively.

1 hour ago, AlexTrinder96 said:

The one thing I'm yet to be convinced on from the p4k is the motion cadence... still early days though!

Disregarding the arguments that go around about whether motion cadence is a thing,  I think we can already tell how it will act with respect to motion:

Its a rolling shutter, which seems to be fairly minimal due to the native 4k resolution.  But it is there and it will be perceptible to some extent over a global shutter camera.

But if you shoot raw there's nothing I can think of other than the rolling shutter that would effect motion.  With either raw or prores you are getting rid of interframe compression which can effect motion in other cameras.  And in raw you are getting rid of all compression (in case that would effect it)

1 hour ago, Turboguard said:

At the time I was asked to do photography for work I had already sold off my canon and I had already been working with stills from the DNG’s on personal projects so thought, what the hell, let’s try it. The client loved the images and decided to continue with me so I saw no reason investing in a stills camera. This was a couple of years ago, still getting photo jobs. And now going from 1.9Mb DNG to almost 13Mb is just less post adjustments for me. Win/Win! I’ve done product shots with the bmpcc too.

Cool, well if they were happy with it, theres nothing anyone can say against it.  The only thing the Pocket4k doesn't have compared to stills cameras is mechanical shutter and flash.  In raw mode its more acurate to call it a 60fps electronic shutter stills camera with no buffer limitation than than it is a video camera.

46 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

Funny how people on here say they don’t want the camera but still come back to have opinions about it, a camera barely no one has their hands on yet and they probably have never even seen in real life on top of that.

 

As someone who owns it (and loves it!) and also still owns the OG pocket, I can let you know that with both cameras I get paid 700dollars a day to take pictures with them. Funny right!

 

Next week is first day to take pictures with the P4K actually. I have a very simple work flow with it, just load your DNG into ACR and voila! Here’s a load of pictures taken with OG pocket if you wanna have a look;

https://www.olarch.com/retail

Why did you choose to take stills with the pocket?

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

It doesn't have half the features of the GH5/GH5s,  It has different features. Taking the photo side of the GH5 out of the equation, I would say the pocket has more features for video. If you need a hybrid camera obviously the P4K is the wrong choice.

 

I really don't understand this way of thinking. When shooting video, the GH5s only really has AF and a tilt-able screen up it's sleeve compared to the Pocket4k (and better battery life). Yes, AF is handy for shooting home videos, and yes, I wish the Pocket4k had a tiltable screen but to call it a useless camera is pretty silly. I've used it in a run n gun situation with zero accessories and more than happy with the results. How do you get to $3000? Add a $100 monopod, a $180 AndyCine a6 and an NP-F battery (the andycine can power the P4K) or 4 more LP-E6N batteries and you have a run n gun package that will be better than any IBIS can provide. A monopod is the most underrated bit of gear by videographers. Quick to set up, lightweight, easy to carry, versatile... and better than any IBIS or OS.

While AF is nice for home videos, if you want to step up your video game, the sooner you learn to focus manually and ditch stop relying on AF the better. 

Are people today born with eyes that can't see, or hands that can't turn a focus barrel? Are they all born with hand tremor? Is a camera without AF or IBIS really useless in todays world? Maybe according to you, but I'm managing to use cameras from many different manufacturers that don't have either features pretty well. In relation to IBIS, while IBIS is nice for Home videos, for anything else, i'd still recommend using a monopod with or without IBIS. Are the X-T3 or GH5s useless today because they lack IBIS? No, people will make great videos with both. 

 

So, you're starting to add accessories? Again, I can easily add the Andycine a6 to the Pocket4K to get the tiltable screen. Speaking of adding accessories, you don't need to add any to get good audio into the P4K which you do for the GH series. So your GH5 has already gone up in price by adding the ninja star and Battery Grip. Talking about the Ninja Star, you do realise it's 1080p only right? To fairly compare to the Pocket4k you need to add the NinjaV which is $599USD. Your GH5 with NinjaV and battery grip to get audio now costs $2946USD but has the advantage of AF. The Pocket 4K with monopod and Andycine a6 cost around $1700. Will you be editing your videos? If so, you will need to add another $299 to get resolve for your GH5 making it closer to $3250.

 

The P4K is far easier to use than the OG Pocket you really can't compare. Far better screen and ergonomics make it possible to use handheld. The OG Pocket was way too small to be used in the hand. You really can't put the two cameras in the same category or draw any similarities to them. When I switched to Fuji for stills, I really enjoyed using the camera and this made me want to use it more. In terms of video, so far the Pocket has done the same thing for me. Small package, un fussy menus and a great screen that reward's you instantly when looking at nice shot's. I just want to use it.  

 

It's actually less of a toy than most mirrorless cameras and I'm finding it a joy to use professional. It's far quicker to change settings on it than my X-T2 or the A7 series cameras that I have used as B-Cams before. It's by far more of a proper video tool compared to a hybrid but that's just my opinion. The workflow is not hard, you can bake LUTS in if you need quick turnaround or just use the provided BMD Rec709. I don't see how it's any slower. And if you shoot LOG on the GH5, then that still needs grading in post. 

For anyone reading this, camera brand aside, if you think IBIS and AF are going to make you shoot like a pro and some how magically make your images 'cinematic' ...they won't.

'Out of the box it's useless' ....'need to spend $3000 to make it work'....... 'it's a toy'. Considering you haven't used the camera yet, these are all pretty biased and inaccurate statements that I'd expect to hear out of a Panasonic rep ?

 

 

 

I summed up all that in a Laughing reaction.    But thanks for spending the time to flesh it out.

16 minutes ago, dslnc said:

The thing is - if it can do a 4K/UHD 60p readout. Then it should be possible to do a cropped 1080p240 readout as well ( haha being demanding on my side. Maybe it is saved for a future firmware update )

Hmm.  Maybe it cant scan partial lines?    If the scan duration was proportional to the imaging area then yes it would be able to do 120p at a larger crop than 2x and be able to do 240p at 2x.

So Im thinking the scan speed must be proportional only to the number of lines being scanned.

14 minutes ago, deezid said:

Ettr doesn't mean blowing highlights out though. Even doing ETTR on the GH5 to maximize dynamic range with great results. But when I can I center the histogram/waveform to make better use of the baked in gamma curve - which is irrelevant on raw though 

Yes!  In fact Ettr literally means not blowing the highlights.  It means exposing as far to the right on the histogram as you can without blowing highlights. (not counting things you choose to blow).  It's only really aplicable in raw though.

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

No it isn't the same, the PK4 has a HELL of a crop.

The GH5s 120p is clearly line skipped.  Evidenced by the jaggies.  That's how it avoids cropping.    A crop at 120fps when you are getting smooth details is really spoilt rich man problems.

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

 

You are looking at ONE pretty piss poor video comparison. Hardly definitive evidence.

It doesn't matter.  Its half the price.   My comment is simply refuting the claim that the 120fps on the GH5s is better.  They both seem fine to me for what 120 fps is worth.

20 minutes ago, Slothorp said:

From the zoom in the pictures, it seems that the BMPCC4K has actually more resolution than the GH5S. The perceptible difference that leads us to think the opposite is due to the sharpening process in the GH5S that is not applied in the BMPCC4K. 

You are right.  Looking at that Budapest clip the Pocket4k has more detail, but its smooth detail.  Look at the straight lines on the plynth of the column.   The GH5s has jaggies on straight lines.  It's false detail that is giving the overal impression of sharpness.   So this clip actually shows that the pocket is BETTER in 120 fps.    The only flaw is the moire on that guys shirt that is when zoomed in which is actually there because of the extra detail and is only really visible zoomed in.

1 hour ago, wyrlyn said:

what a terrible resolution at 120 fps. I honestly can't get why an awesome hardware intensive codec packed cam cannot do BETTER (less crop and blurry) res at 120 fps. It is not a slow-mo cam I know (and also I don't really like the slow mo hype around) but seriously, it is useless.

The crop is defined by the scan speed of the sensor.    120 fps means a frame every 8.33 milliseconds.  If the entire sensor cant be scanned in that amount of time then full sensor readout 120 fps is physically impossible.  The two options then are either to line skip the whole sensor or to do a full readout of a smaller proportion of the sensor.   The pocket4k has clearly opted for the latter.   I doubt the GH5 or GH5s have readout speeds of less than 8.33 milliseconds so if they have full sensor 120 fps then it is probably line skipped.

I cannot, for the life of me, think why someone would need a 120 fps slow motion shot of a still detailed wide city-scape like that in which 60fps wasn't adequate.   If you are doing 120 fps slow motion it is usually of something that is moving and thus detail is less important.   If detail is really important then simply play 60 fps at half speed.  In sports broadcasts they often achieve the slow motion by playing each frame about 3 times, and that looks smooth enough.   The original pocket didn't even have 60fps.  To me it just seems a silly ask to expect 4k detail 120fps full mft sensor from a camera of this price.

1 hour ago, grex said:

Light warp?

Light as opposed to heavy.  Meaning small or minor.

ISO 1250 is the WORST iso to choose to test the red clipping issue.    It is pulled 3200 iso, so even properly exposed it only has 2.3 stops of latitude above middle grey.  So of course the highlights will clip and look shitty.  ISO 1250 will be the number one noob trap on this camera.

Im more worried about the wide angle lens blurryness.  Yes, lenses have field curvature that is more aparent wide open and yes the Pocket 4k has a wider field of view that shows more of it, but that alone doesn't account for what the examples in that thread show.  It must be the sensor stack thickness also.  If stopping down to 2.8 doesnt resolve that issue then that is going to be a way bigger deal breaker than red clipping.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Actually Canon pulled a little trick in EF-S lens mode - which is the AUTOMATIC crop mode that happens when you attach an EF-S lens. They made the 1080p the same crop as the 4K - so around 1.8x - so there is no change in FOV between 1080p and 4K in movie mode. With 1.6x crop mode enabled, and a normal lens, there is. So Canon seem to think their EF-S users are too stupid to realise what's going on  No 1.6x 1080p for them!

 

Ah ,that might be what I was thinking of.   Im think I remember a review mentioning something about the the crop that was unexpected so that might have been it.    I guess it is easier to get the 1080 by downscaling the 4k than line skiping a marginally larger area.  Although that would lead me to think that perhaps the HD in crop mode has better detail than the line skipped full fram HD.

Still I suppose the test is worth it just to see as really theres nothing physical to stop them choosing any crop they wanted.

The banding is fixed patten noise and happens on all canon sensors I think so its going nowhere.  That's the major advantage with sony sensors which dont have this flaw.

About the crop.  Are you absolutely sure its cropping to 1.6 in apsc mode?  might it be cropping more, therfore making the transition to 1.8 crop less?

It would be easy to test with a tripod and another canon apsc camera with the same prime lens.

5 hours ago, Slothorp said:

Last test : 
 

 

It would be good to see the same situation in prores.   Shooting raw actually bypasses the majority of what the camera can do to fix the image, so criticising a raw image is really just criticising only the sensor, not the cameras handling of it.  (which is another reason why blackmagic raw should be great as it could include image fixes).

Specifically,  try prores film at 1000 iso or 6400 iso exposed properly and then try reducing the exposure if the effect is still there.

I wonder if a filter to lower only the reds would work? A green filter? And then adjust back the colors.  Or maybe a diffusion filter.