MattH

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

 

You're right.  The pocket 4k has literally no advantages.  Might as well throw it in the bin.

34 minutes ago, helium said:

So you're not really interested in the conversation, but simply must offer up your two cents anyway, which is that BMD had better drop everything until the BMPCC 4K murders the GH5 -- murder coming up, next firmware release! -- because you're not satisfied with the difference between the two cameras, based on what you've seen on youtube.  

Between a host with all the self-control of 5 -year old, and a readership which evaluates cameras based on hearsay and computer monitors, this place is really something.   

In other words, another one bites the dust.  Goodbye, and good luck.

He said he is 'not invested' in the conversation, not 'not interested'.   So he's saying he's not realy in the market for the camera but if he was this is what he would think.  I think its a good idea to make a list of all the flaws that could be resolved with firmware.  Someone who has the camera could compile it and post an updated list every once in a while.

Ability to focus by USB would be one thing,

Being able to disable the automatic iris button so you cant accidentally press it.

100% clipping zebras that go off the raw sensor data.

32 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I am not sure why everybody keep comparing it with the GH5. The obvious competitor is the GH5S, a heavily video orientated hybrid. 

GH5 is a slightly-video orientated hybrid and the P4K is a video camera.

It is a one trick pony, but there are more people shooting and editing digital video than any other time in recent history.

It's probably because a lot of people already have a GH5 so the question is do you get a Pocket 4k instead.  If the difference isn't anything that cant be overcome then the answer for most of these people will be no. (This probably also goes if you already have a GH5s but because its newer, far fewer people will be in this position) 

If you are choosing a new camera from scratch then the Blackmagic starts to make more sense.  But In this second case if things like a flipy screen and viewfinder appeal to you, it's likely that ibis will apeal to you also.   ibis is the GH5's trump card over the pocket 4k.  Get rid of that, like with the GH5s and it struggles to come out on top.

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Sorry, did you take offence to one of my comments? I'm not sure where I was being unprofessional toward you. 

Welcome to the forum.

1 minute ago, kye said:

Good points.  He does talk a little about why he bought it in the video so I'd recommend watching it if you haven't already.

What is your definition of cinematographer vs videographer?  Not being sarcastic - I googled this very thing some time ago and there didn't seem to be much consensus.

People have commented before that many people will buy the P4K and then get a shock and sell/return it and others have said that if it didn't do RAW internally then there probably wouldn't be the hype around it that there is.  I think these are symptoms of it being a cinema camera and people not understanding the differences.  The original pocket kind of taught the average person a bit about the difference, but I think this version will have quite an effect on people.

They will realise the file sizes are huge, they're not good all-in-one solutions like an A6500, and most importantly that RAW won't make them a better cinematographer.  I've looked at RAW RED footage before and been surprised and disappointed because it wasn't magical.  

I think the Ferrari is a good analogy, except if the analogy was that people were trying to take it off-road.  It can do it, but it's really not the best tool for the job.

I watched half of if before being compelled to write the comment.  I will watch the rest.      Maybe I should have said "I thought I was a big-shot cinematographer, but then I realised I was a one man band videographer".       As technically in the age of digital there isn't a hard and fast distinction between the two.   Its just that Reds seem to be used on big budget projects, tipically feature films, whereas he clearly makes talking head corporate videos.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a high quality camcorder would do the job.

5 hours ago, kye said:

I think this thread needs a reality check, and luckily Caleb Wojcik just posted one.

Some of the points he made were:

• He loves the image but the camera is a pain to use and so often stays at home in favour of his 2 x C100 mk2
• It was expensive, and the battery life, proprietary accessories like touchscreen, storage, media readers, handle, chargers, and everything else cost about $25K US about two years ago
• In fact it was so expensive that he left it locked up because of fear of using it (despite having insurance)
• It's hugely heavy and impractical to use, he had to buy four batteries because two wasn't enough, and it basically requires a team to build and operate it

In summary - two years ago one of the most affordable cinema cameras cost $20K plus, was such a PITA to use that he didn't take it places, and he used C100s instead.

 

Why the hell did he buy it in the first place?  Surely you would realise all this before spending $20,000 dollars on something.  Clearly more money than sense.

Really if he was honest he could sum up his video with "I thought I was a cinematographer but then I realised I was a videographer"

Its pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  Its like a taxi driver buying a Ferrari and then posting an earnest video explaining all of the reasons why it wasn't right for his taxiing as if people would be surprised.

Rich people problems.  

Though you wonder why someone who could afford a Ferrari so casually would continue to taxi-drive.

2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Philip Bloom has shared a small edit which he says is from one continuous shot. He’s also given a link to download the original file... it’s 22gb.

 

Not a chance I would waste my time watching such a boring slow motion shot.  I stopped after 10 seconds.  Its people walking. Why do I need to see it in slow motion? How long does the video last anyway?

16 minutes ago, kye said:

 

I did some testing myself to work it out, and long story short is that if you watch a video in 4K (or 1080p60 I am told) then the bitrate of the stream from YT is considerably higher.

Here's the thread if you're curious:

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/26746-getting-good-video-quality-on-youtube/

It's actually not surprising that the bitrate is higher as its 4 times the resolution.   But you would think that in viewing 4k on a 1080 monitor you would not make use of that extra information, that is if the 1080 bitrate was sufficient to deliver true 1080p quality.   So since there is a big difference the conclusion is that the 1080 bitrate is not sufficient.   And presumably the 4k bitrate is not sufficient to deliver true 4k quality on a large 4k monitor.       Thanks for the link.

18 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Also if one puts 60p on a 25p timeline the clip can only be used for slowmo. Real time will look like crap. Imo its a waste of creative options in post for a margialy slower slowmo that almost no-one would notice.

But the jerkines of 60p in real time on a 25p timeline is very noticeable.

Ah yes, If you are shooting with for option of slow motion only but may play it back real time then of course you would shoot at double the project frame rate.

35 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but 4K down sampled to 1080p is the hot setup. That is what makes the C100 shine. I still think Really nice looking 1080p is here to stay for a really long time. Every little bit helps.  4K and 10 bit doesn't always equate to a heck of a good look output wise. It has to have Mojo like the original BMPCC or the C100. Not every camera not matter the specs looks great. Sony A7s has great 1080p. The A6300 sucks at 1080p. Some cameras are just magic, most aren't.

I am not too sure about the PK4 yet. Heck it ought to work somehow pretty well. It has the Codecs to do it, does it have the Mojo it needs? I have not seen it in spades yet.

Generally there is nothing wrong with propper good quality HD.  

Although im pretty sure youtube has reduced the quality of their HD stream because even on a 1080 monitor when I sellect 4k the quality goes up considerably.  So for maximum quality on youtube it may be best to upload at 4k even for people with HD monitors.  Though I supose you could easily upscale your finished HD video before uploading it.

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

So your lights won’t flicker?

Ok so its only bad if you're shooting slow motion indoors using practical lighting or ouside using street lights.  Thats fine.  So theres no issue with shooting 60fps in daylight and conforming to 25fps? I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

1 minute ago, Anaconda_ said:

50fps slowed to 50% is 25fps. It’s the same reason it’s not advised to put 30p footage in a 25p timeline, you’ll see skipping and generally not smooth playback. 

60fps at 50% is not notocibly slower than 50fps at 50% but 50fps at 50% will playback a hell of a lot smoother in a 25p edit. 

It’s a pal/ntsc issue. 

It will slow the footage down by 2.4 times instead of 2 times, but I don't see how it will be less smooth.  We aren't shooting interlaced.

37 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

Yeah, but if your camera project is frame rate is 25p, set the off speed to 50p not 60p.

Why?

1 hour ago, Snuff said:

 

From the previous test it is obvious that C is the GH5, and that tells me everything I need to know about the difference you get with black magic compared to panasonic.  People will have their preferences for either but to say they are the same is silly to my eyes.   So the question is which is the 4k.  I think I know,  but the fact there is a question at all tells two things:

1. That the pocket 4k isn't that far behind the original pocket in terms of dynamic range and overal look. 

2. Just how good the detail from the original pocket is.

I think A is the original pocket.  It seems to have very slightly better highlight handling, but B seems to have better colour ungraded.  With A you would need colour correction but with B you could get away with just contrast.

42 minutes ago, Dan Wake said:

is this camera usable only at 200 iso if you want a true clean image quality? to me it looks dirty at 400 iso, super dirty at 800... 1600 seems a nightmare, 3200 is trial for heresy lol. what do you think?

 

That you are joking.

If not, then try selecting 1080p and watch your troubles disapear.   All cameras have this noise.  All jpeg and video processing has tons of noise reduction. That clip didnt even have chroma noise reduction.

7 minutes ago, deezid said:

Looks good to me. 
(one scene showed some aliasing though)

That's more like it!

Where did you see the aliasing?

35 minutes ago, Dunjoye said:

 

The video look is strong with this one.

24 minutes ago, sfc said:

The vast majority of hobbyists and vloggers will get better results with a GH5/S or XT-3 than the 4K Pocket. Just like the vast majority of them got better results with a GH3, 5D3 etc than the original Pocket and the endless ‘organic retro lut’ grades that abounded with that camera. Although Blackmagic are trying to aim this camera at a broader market that the Ursa 4.6k/Pro, I don’t think it is the right solution for people who don’t use Davinci in their workflow.

BM have tried to simplify things for users with the Gen4 colour science but they overestimate the average person’s interest in correctly white balancing (even in post), using more than one node, appropriate lift/gamma/gain and selective sharpening etc. The fact that this camera has a much higher quality ceiling than everything else under $3k doesn’t mean it will play out that way in most situations.

It is in that tricky space between being able to cut seamlessly with an ARRI or Ursa Mini Pro(which looks fantastic with Gen4 colour) and looking potentially worse than consumer cams. 

Absolutely my thoughts.  This camera will sort the men from the boys.  I've seen footage that could go head to head with ARRI and Ursa as you say, but I've also seen footage that has more of a video look than a 8 year old apsc cannon dslr (way more infact).    The correct settings and grading will make all the difference.  And obviously the quality of the cinematography also.  One thing about a lower price point is that it makes it more accessible to more amateurs, so the lower average quality of craftmanship might make the camera seem worse than it would do otherwise compared to more expensive cameras.

Seemed like a pretty useless comparison unfortunately.  Wasn't even log against log, and the grading wasn't very good.  And they didn't show what ISO each shot was shot at which we know matters a lot on this camera.

If they can keep cameras small and not hold back on features then I see no reason why they cant sell more m4/3rds cameras possibly by the millions if they play their cards right.  Especially if they were cheap.   Imagine a camera half way in size between a GM5 and a GX85, with an articulating screen, mic socket, gh5 sensor and gh5 video features.   Is anyone seriously saying that wouldnt sell like hot cakes?   And thats before you even think about adding in smartphone technology.

You probably will do this anyway,  but my request for testing is to test the effect of sharpening and turning down/off sharpening.  The main reason is that z7 and z6 footage ive seen seems to have edge enhansement or high sharpening, especially evident on high contrast transitions like the edge of a white dress etc.   And also, does recording log externaly get rid of sharpening or is there stil an option or is it there no matter what?

7 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

One of the more significant announcements from today is the upcoming Panny Leica 10-25mm 1.7 lens. This will be a brilliant lens for this camera. Too bad there is no OIS. But still, looking forward to pricing and availability.

https://***URL removed***/news/9248867492/panasonic-is-developing-a-10-25mm-f1-7-lens-for-micro-four-thirds

Yeah if it had IS it would be perfect for the pocket 4k.   I guess its still appealing in many ways, but the lack of IS is a dampener and makes other options have more appeal like light weight primes or speed boosted dslr lenses that do have IS.

Log is forced under exposure.  Thats how it works.  Thats why it says iso800 when its really iso100.  Its a lower iso pushed to a higher average brightness, but it says iso800 to make you expose lower.  Thats how you get more highlight latitude.  How else could you get it?  It cant be magiced up from nowhere.

So if three stops of extra latitude is too much and you'd rather have just two with cleaner shadows then, sure, over expose a stop in log.

But if you're over exposing by two stops (definitely 3) you may as well just shoot in normal gamma because you are throwing away everything log gives you anyway.

On 9/19/2018 at 6:04 PM, matthere said:

I have recently been thinking of creating a periscope type thing with two mirrors.. One directly facing the screen to reflect the view upwards, then the other above it to direct the view forward.. solves the reversing problem.

?

 

I would love to see a video were you film yourself painstakingly constructing this in a workshop and then film your reaction testing it the first time,  but I'll tell you now: not only will that fail to flip the view horizontally the right way but it will flip the image upside down! Ha Ha!     Draw another arrow next to the blue one and see what happens.

Normal periscopes avoid this because they dont flip the direction the light is going in.

In order to do what you are trying to do you would have to lie the contraption flat on the table so that the flip only happened horizontally, but then it would be dificult to see.

Probably easier to just deal with the filp.

On 9/19/2018 at 2:40 PM, IronFilm said:

Reversed could mean a real mind fuck for when you're trying to frame yourself and talk at the same time!

 

I would have thought it would be easier seeing yourself as a mirror image because we are well used to seeing ourselves in the mirror.

40 minutes ago, helium said:

Even ignoring the obvious difference in DOF, the grading of the two clips isn't matched.  Without access to the original files, the comparison is meaningless.

The difference in depth of field shouldn't even be that much difference.   The gemini crop factor is 1.17.  BMPCC4k crop factor with the 0.71 speed booster is essentially 1.33.     So in the comparison the equivalent focal length for the BMPCC4k with the 70mm is 93mm, and the gemini with the 50mm is 58.5.  And yet they have the same framing which shows that the 50mm must be closer to the subject therefore focused more closely than the 70mm which is throwing the background out more.  And really the difference in background blur is the only thing that stands out to me as a difference.  Being honest I actually prefer the overall look of the original pocket in these tests, but that will easily be achievable in post with the 4k.

Wait.  How could it be more processor intensive?  The camera already has to de-mosaic fully in order to create a video file.   DNG was just skipping that process altogether.  Blackmagic raw is supposed to do most of the heavy lifting of the de-mosaic but not fully.  (not sure how that works exactly).  So I cant see it being any more processor intensive than just regular video.

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

LOL.

Was that not already obvious to you from any everyday shoot with any camera? You suddenly learnt that useful info from this clip did you... Oh.. Ok.

 

 

Woah there cowboy.   Did I even reference you by name?  

If you thought that my comment applied to you that is a judgement you made on yourself, not one that I made.

And now you're trying to mock a very long term member (I had another account before even this one) who comes on your forum who is politely sharing opinions?

You're in no position to mock anyone with the temper tantrum you've just shown over the past few days young man.  

I haven't said anything up until now but If you want to be a smart assed dick you can get some in return.

I'm not far from Manchester myself and always thought I'd be open to future collaborations with people I met on this forum if it took my interest , but certain bitter attitudes cant be overcome.