pulp_writer

To be honest I think JB your first post didn´t have the right tone, anyway Andrew´s reaction was not the best ether, but I understand his feelings, as i understand yours......probably the best thing could be to just stop attacking each other and move on....sad to see your contributions end in this way....hope this never happens again.

I am finding this thread terribly juvenile and just an overreaction by all parties concerned. It was fine till we were discussing the camera.
Let's stick to the camera and keep other things out of it. 

@Andrew Reid
Have you considered that your own words & actions have lead to you being excluded from events and what not?

Honestly some of the stuff you write at times reads like a man PO at the world!
 
 
 

@John Brawley, I've been very grateful for your posts and have watched and enjoyed quite a bit of your work before even realizing that you were the DP (Lake Mungo is genuinely one of my favorite movies of the last decade). With that said, that post really bummed me out and felt pretty condescending.
If you disagree with Andrew that's fine, discuss it with him. As I said, I personally wouldn't feel the way he does. But he's entitled to feel disappointed that BMD didn't invite him to check out the camera, especially when they held the event just minutes away. Heck, the fact that he's so interested in the camera should be seen by BMD as a good thing! Are they obligated to invite him, or anyone? No. But would it be a nice gesture and courtesy to give someone that gave BMD their time and energy when BMD was just starting out with their camera lines an opportunity to check it out? Especially when their ambassadors / employee use the forum? 
Even if you do feel like he is overreacting, surely you can put yourself in his shoes? 

I can't help but feel a bit of a chill in the air.
These are your customers you're talking to John and fellow filmmakers. You've basically just labelled me a non-shooter/blogger and the rest of us a bunch of grading nerds who butcher your footage.
Call me "entitled" all you like but I've worked fucking hard on this blog and building a community, at the same time as being a freelance cinematographer in Berlin making my OWN stuff happen rather than working for clients. I have an artistic eye and technical expertise, I do shoot, I am not just a "camera reviewer" pedant who tests and verifies a specs sheet.
What's more, I am (or was) a loyal Blackmagic customer. I don't see much appreciation for that or for EOSHD in what you've posted above. You basically imply I'm an entitled nerd who should be glad I've even got a REAL DP on the forum. Hardly much support from you either then.
Since I started EOSHD, I've had just very occasional encouragement from people in the film industry. Doesn't happen very much. Reflects badly on the industry. But not everyone is like this. Speaking of the more positive responses I've had from people in the film industry, there's Rodney Charters. Bought my GH2 book. He sent me an email and we talked about the camera. A small thing but he had a genuine need for the book and we helped each-other out. Made a young filmmaker and anamorphic shooter feel good about all the long hours he was putting into EOSHD and all the Berlin projects at that time. It shows a generosity of spirit.
You should just be honest. You are here to sell a Pocket 4K camera. You don't give a shit about what I shoot, or what I write. I am just a guy hosting your posts.

@Andrew Reid perhaps they feared you would be too honest in your review? Who knows? I would not call it quits over this though. Personally, I think you should have been invited to the event in Manchester, but despite this shortfall, I would still hope to see you do an honest review of the camera. 

@Andrew Reid I really hope you keep the site going.  It bummed me out when previously took a hiatus.  I know it's selfish of me to ask for something without paying for it, though I believe I purchased one of your guides at one time.  Anyways,  it would be hard to believe Blackmagic does not have eye balls on this tread and I hope they will reach out to you with a review unit ASAP.  I always look forward to your insights and perspective and hope I have the opportunity to read about your hands on experience with and options about the Pocket 4k.

Andrew, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. 
Blackmagic really don't owe you anything for any 'free publicity'. Their Pocket 4k has started a frenzy among the camera world stirring up conversation and leading people to discuss it on forums, maybe you owe Blackmagic for making your site and this thread so popular? Maybe you owe all of your forum members here for contributing all their content here  and making this site popular. Maybe you owe John Brawley for his contributions, I know I read this thread mainly because of his input and presence here...... Silly, I know, but the tantrum you seem to be throwing could also be seen as a bit silly too. 
Seems like nothing really new came from the event and maybe BM didn't think you would want to do an unboxing video...? 
Your reaction here only serves to diminish your character and reputation and by snubbing the camera based on you not receiving a pre prod version for testing or not being invited to one event. It might also suggest that you can be easily bought which is not what most people want out of an online reviewer. 
Who knows, maybe a marketing person at BM didn't think it appropriate to invite someone who seems brand focused by being call EOSHD? 
There are so many reasons why you may have not received an invite.... 
Just my 2c.
 

[quote name="peederj" post="39391" timestamp="1374888939"The Heroic Pro Cinematographer that we're supposed to emulate saying the sensor on the new 4K camera sucks is devastating publicity.
 [/quote]

If a $4k super 35 global shutter 4k compressed raw/prores camera sucks because it only does 12 stops, I wish more cameras would suck!

I think part of the problem is that Blackmagic keep attempting to put out the fire by adding gasoline.
 
First they say September would be 'a best case scenario' - then the official statement they raise expectations by saying August. Bit risky no?
 
Expectations are already too high and there's a good chance that in the final development stages or production stages that a camera might encounter issues that take further work to solve.
 
It would be better if they just said 'second half 2013' and give themselves some breathing space.
 
Under promise and over deliver rather than the other way round.

Hey, pulp_writer - many thanks for these tests. I have both the Som Berthoit 17-85mm and the 17.5-70mm, and this is the first indication I've had of how they might perform. 
 
I've gambled and picked up a range of lenses early - Som Berthiot zooms and more practically, Kern-Paillard Switar primes - in hope of beating the inevitable rush. The real time to do this was right when the M4/3 format was announced - if only! - but I still saved quite a bit over where these lenses are now, and where they'll be going after the BMPC hits the streets.
 
I'm going to stay on the lookout for tests of the Switar 50mm, 25mm, 16mm and 10mm, as they're small and well suited to keeping a low profile with the Pocket Camera. Thanks again for your work.

Thanks to Julian for adding the crop overlay!  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glL_9aO-EWY&feature=youtu.be

I know this is a C mount compatability list but is anyone interested in other cine lens options?

I've got some old Arri ST lenses and a nice new adapter from Metabones that I'll be trying in the next few days.

Should I post results here or keep this one to C mount lenses?

ok, here's a quick and dirty focus test of the B&H Angenieux RF 10mm f1.8 using a Metabones C-M43 adapter.
 
The first shot is as you'd expect to use the adapter, with the lens on fairly tight.
Not going to win any awards with this one...
 
Next, I unscrewed the lens a bit.
Getting better...
 
Next, I stopped down to f5.6 with the lens still loose.
Now we're getting somewhere...
 
Last, f8 still loose
Best of all I think. 
Even with a bit of vignetting at the corners, I like this lens.
I prefer 2.35 anyway...
 
As I say, quick and dirty test. I'll try to get something more photogenic during the week.
 
Right, I'm off to make some shims...

My Metabones C-M43 adapter arrived today but I've only had 20 minutes to try it out.

What I did discover with my Angenieux 10mm is that if I tighten the lens into place I can't achieve good focus.
However, if I unscrew the lens on the adapter, about 1/6th of a turn, it pops into focus nicely.

Basically I will have to add a shim between the lens and the C adapter. Not too difficult.

Try it on yours, It may work. Be careful not to loosen it too much, as I said, I only undid mine about 30 degrees - very carefuly!

Also, to get the best out of the 10mm you'll need to stop down to it's 'sweet spot' which will be around f5.6

I'll upload pix when I get a chance. (Which means when I've figured out how...)

About $75 million.

No studio. He released it on his own. Traveled to different cities presenting and doing Q&As. I'd say that is pretty successful.

I guess what I'm getting at is that for wide angle lens' adapter manufacturing quality does start to matter.

With a small sensor wide lens' are very intolerant of back focus errors.
The B&H Angenieux 10mm f1.8 is a fantastic lens. They cost a fortune when they were new.
The lack of focus wide open in the test shot back in post #88 could well be down to incorrect flange depth.
I put more faith in Pierre Angenieux than I do in a $10 C mount adapter!

I don't have a C to M43 to test this but I do have a cheapo ebay C to Nikon 1 adapter for my J1.
I'll put my Ang 10mm on my J1 and check it against a focus chart and see.

Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus
 
Julian already classified this as a Yes (with dark corners) and has a link to my image of it at f/1.8, but I would like to add a few words.
You can find a lot of these lenses on eBay these days, starting around $200. Is it worth consideration at all?
This is, as you know, a fixed focus lens which was a very popular lens for handheld camerawork on 8 and 16mm. You just set the aperture and ran with it.
The downside: it only works when you have enough light. Although this is a very fast lens with f/1.8, wide open practically EVERYTHING is out of focus, infinity starts getting sharp around f/4, and the foreground around f/8.
So here are some images at different apertures, just so that you get an idea what this lens is like:
(There will be slight dark corners up to f/4, but as you probably won’t be using it until f/8, you shouldn’t have any problems.)
 
f/1.8: Everything is out of focus.
The plant in the front is about 1m (3 feet) from the camera. f/2.8 is pretty much the same.
 
 
f/4: The background is reasonably sharp, but the foreground is still soft.
 
 
f/8: Now, this starts to look usable! The foreground is reasonably sharp now.
 
 
f/11: Not bad at all, please look at the full size image to form your own opinion. f/16 is pretty much the same as this. Is it sharp enough for you?
 

Hello Julian,
great idea, very informative!
 
For all those who would like to try some old lenses on the BMPCC, here are my lenses between 10 and 16 mm. None of these is younger than 30 years, most are cine-lenses taken from 8mm or 16mm cameras. Some can still be found cheap on eBay, others have multiplied in price since I bought them. All show vignetting with the MFT sensor, so I had virtually given up on them (except in crop mode).
This first batch of images is with the apertures open.
I will upload some shots from outdoors with apertures stopped down later.
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8
This is actually not a C but an M-mount lens, made for Leica’s flagship super 8 camera, the Leicina Special in the 1970s. Very attractive because it has a macro mode.
It shows very slight vignetting, but may be usable still.
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9
A very popular lens for 8 and 16mm (1960s~). Also shows vignetting, but doesn't look too bad.
 
 
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5
A very old lens from an ancient 16mm Bell & Howell Filmo 70 DA, manufactured in the1930s. This is a f/1.5 lens but is a little soft wide open, so I stopped it down to f/2.7.
Shows no vignetting.
 
   
Cine-Nikkor 13mm f/1.8
This one comes from a very rare Japan Victor Corporation 16mm camera made in 1957. Nikon used to make very good cine lenses. This one is wide open now, but gets  sharper when stopped down.
(It looks like a wider lens here compared to the others, but that's only because I had to move back a little with my tripod to get it to focus.)
No vignetting.
 
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2
From a Beaulieu RC16, 1960s. 
Unfortunately, there's something wrong with the aperture ring of this one: it won't move.
But still, a very fine lens without vignetting.
(Well, looking at the thumbnail, you can see that the lower left corner is considerably darker. But in the full picture, it is not that apparent)
 
I have two more lenses in this category, one is a Canon TV Zoom 11-110mm, which I didn't put on because it only focuses to 1.2m, and the other is an Angenieux 10mm Retrofocus lens, which is totally out of focus when wide open.
I have also found an Avenir CCTV lens 6.5mm, very wide, which looks promising, but it is a fixed focus lens too.
I will put them on along with the others when I shoot outside.

Thanks for the update Richard, i'll add the info to the topic start!
 
@Pulp Writer: good stuff to know. So the lens is fixed focus and focussed at a pretty far distance I suppose? Personally I wouldn't spend $200 for this kind of results.

Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus
 
Julian already classified this as a Yes (with dark corners) and has a link to my image of it at f/1.8, but I would like to add a few words.
You can find a lot of these lenses on eBay these days, starting around $200. Is it worth consideration at all?
This is, as you know, a fixed focus lens which was a very popular lens for handheld camerawork on 8 and 16mm. You just set the aperture and ran with it.
The downside: it only works when you have enough light. Although this is a very fast lens with f/1.8, wide open practically EVERYTHING is out of focus, infinity starts getting sharp around f/4, and the foreground around f/8.
So here are some images at different apertures, just so that you get an idea what this lens is like:
(There will be slight dark corners up to f/4, but as you probably won’t be using it until f/8, you shouldn’t have any problems.)
 
f/1.8: Everything is out of focus.
The plant in the front is about 1m (3 feet) from the camera. f/2.8 is pretty much the same.
 
 
f/4: The background is reasonably sharp, but the foreground is still soft.
 
 
f/8: Now, this starts to look usable! The foreground is reasonably sharp now.
 
 
f/11: Not bad at all, please look at the full size image to form your own opinion. f/16 is pretty much the same as this. Is it sharp enough for you?
 

Hello Julian,
great idea, very informative!
 
For all those who would like to try some old lenses on the BMPCC, here are my lenses between 10 and 16 mm. None of these is younger than 30 years, most are cine-lenses taken from 8mm or 16mm cameras. Some can still be found cheap on eBay, others have multiplied in price since I bought them. All show vignetting with the MFT sensor, so I had virtually given up on them (except in crop mode).
This first batch of images is with the apertures open.
I will upload some shots from outdoors with apertures stopped down later.
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8
This is actually not a C but an M-mount lens, made for Leica’s flagship super 8 camera, the Leicina Special in the 1970s. Very attractive because it has a macro mode.
It shows very slight vignetting, but may be usable still.
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9
A very popular lens for 8 and 16mm (1960s~). Also shows vignetting, but doesn't look too bad.
 
 
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5
A very old lens from an ancient 16mm Bell & Howell Filmo 70 DA, manufactured in the1930s. This is a f/1.5 lens but is a little soft wide open, so I stopped it down to f/2.7.
Shows no vignetting.
 
   
Cine-Nikkor 13mm f/1.8
This one comes from a very rare Japan Victor Corporation 16mm camera made in 1957. Nikon used to make very good cine lenses. This one is wide open now, but gets  sharper when stopped down.
(It looks like a wider lens here compared to the others, but that's only because I had to move back a little with my tripod to get it to focus.)
No vignetting.
 
 
 
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2
From a Beaulieu RC16, 1960s. 
Unfortunately, there's something wrong with the aperture ring of this one: it won't move.
But still, a very fine lens without vignetting.
(Well, looking at the thumbnail, you can see that the lower left corner is considerably darker. But in the full picture, it is not that apparent)
 
I have two more lenses in this category, one is a Canon TV Zoom 11-110mm, which I didn't put on because it only focuses to 1.2m, and the other is an Angenieux 10mm Retrofocus lens, which is totally out of focus when wide open.
I have also found an Avenir CCTV lens 6.5mm, very wide, which looks promising, but it is a fixed focus lens too.
I will put them on along with the others when I shoot outside.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
 
I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
 
How?

Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
 


In Photoshop:
Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

List terms explained:

Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
No = doesn't cover the sensor
Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

Primes
 
Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
 
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
 
Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
 
Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
 
Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
 
SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
 
Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
 
Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
 
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

$ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

Zooms
 
Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
 
Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

As a stills camera I liked the Fuji X100 - it was an actual die-hard photographic tool with gorgeous good looks in a sea of plastic consumer gadgetry. However the terrible AF and fly by wire manual focussing technology spoilt it, and the video mode was very much an afterthought. Fuji have taken steps to address all of this with the X100S getting a significant upgrade under the familiar retro style casing.