graphicnatured

I was about to sell mine, but this thread brought me back to the reality that the BMPCC and BMMCC footage is simply so much more gorgeous than the 4k. I would sell the 4k, but need it for work since we use the URSA Mini Pro and it marries well there. Like everyone, I wish BM would bring some of this old mojo back!

I'm about to sell some high-priced gear and was going to use eBay. Not anymore. Sorry this happened to you, Andrew.

On 8/16/2020 at 7:26 AM, Ed David said:

has anyone done tests between this lens vs like a lomo or kowa or SLR magic lens vs like a Kowa B&H lens?  

 

very excited about this lens for affordable anamorphic

The size and usability are really huge, but to me, it doesn't compare well to a Kowa, which has so much character. Still, it definitely makes up for being so much easier to use, and WAY lighter!

On 6/26/2020 at 3:06 AM, heart0less said:

I'm almost 100% sure he refers to Tiffen Black Pro Mist filters.

 

As for the diopters recreating more of the anamorphic look - I have no clue.
Diopters would only allow you to focus closer than the minimum focus distance on the lens.

They wouldn't change it's characteristics like stretch ratio, depth of field, etc.

Yeah, black pro mist and using diopters to further enhance my depth of field, which can aid in the look I want.

Didn't realize I don't have a 67-77MM step up ring. Hoping to get a variety of light, then can put up some quick clips.

So mine arrived. I love how small and light it is. Haven't had the chance to go out in the streets with it, but will this week. One thing it is definitely not is a Kowa! I picked up one of Tito's oval disks to see how that helps. First initial thoughts are that I love how light and small it is. Ease of use is the strong point. Anamorphic character is not really there in my limited time with it, but I think we all kind of know that. I'm hoping taking it into the world opens up my senses for the possibilities. I feel if I can Tito-fake this into giving me that anamorphic vibe with disks, diopters and bpm, it's worth having for size and ease. More later ...

Mine arrives Thursday.

1 minute ago, mercer said:

No problem, happy to help! Also Canon TV-16 c-mounts are really nice too as are the Zeiss Tevidons. The Cosmicar lenses, which are made by Pentax, are probably the cheapest. The 12.5 and 25mm are great little lenses and can be found for around $50 a piece. Kerns are a little more expensive but they are just gorgeous... mechanically and optically.

I'm not afraid of lenses with character so looking forward to trying some of these out in the BM4k crop when I can.

1 minute ago, mercer said:

I always liked Cosmicar, Fujinon, Kern Paillard and the Angeniuex 15mm I liked a lot as well.

The key to c-mount lenses is knowing what size sensor/film the lens was originally designed for. Some c-mounts were made for security cameras and some were made for S16mm film. This will tell you if the lens will cover the sensor without vignetting.

The other issue is learning which lenses will fit on a c-mount to M4/3 adapter without needing to be modified. Some are too wide at the base to screw all the way into the adapter. Some Cosmicar and Fujinon lenses need to be modified. With the Cosmicar lenses, look for ones that look kinda like old manual metal lenses with knurled grips. There are essentially two different ones... black ones that are f/1.9 and silver ones that are f/1.4. The f/1.9 lenses are fairly sharp wide open. Most Kern lenses will fit the adapters and so will the Angenieux. I've done a lot of research, so I probably know if a specific lens will work or not if you are unsure.

Good luck, but be careful... c-mount lenses have a very unique look because you're using the entire surface of the glass, so the image is akin to using FF lenses on a FF camera. They can be very addictive.

Thanks. Going by your comments over the years and by looking through past threads, I figured you'd have some good suggestions. I appreciate your time.

On 3/4/2020 at 8:52 PM, mercer said:

I asked a similar question a few pages back. It seems the crop is a little more than the Micro... I think a 3x crop... so it's closer to 16mm... which opens up some possible c-mount 2/3" zoom lenses. That 2.6K resolution interests me a lot as well... downscaled to 2K, it could really have that "Alexa look."

Pardon if this was discussed elsewhere, but which c-mount lenses are your favorite with BM? I'm curious to give the 2.6k a try.

M4/3

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

For the love of god please please tell me this was NOT a bts pic from while you were rolling! Although from that read lettering at the top of the BMPCC4K display I fear you were. 

As the boom mic is waaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far away!
 

She isn't speaking here, so it could easily be pre-rolling the shot while everyone is taking position.

I've always loved the image out of the F3.

As much as it has crossed my mind, I just cannot let either the Micro or the OG pocket go. Even if I rarely use them, they just produce such a beautiful image.

Thank you, Andrew. This is the kind of thing I love about EOSHD.

On 8/10/2019 at 12:01 PM, mercer said:

Don’t be too hard on yourself, sometimes a new lens can make all the difference or sometimes an Ursa, a GH5, a BMPCC 4K or maybe the P6K will “do the work?”

Don't forget to add the boring filter.

2 hours ago, kye said:

I'm going to claim some points with my prediction...  

I guessed a higher resolution pocket camera, and lo..  6K it is!  (part marks to me!)
I guessed that resolve edits for you, and lo..  v16.1 beta includes "Boring detector with timeline indicators to detect edits which are running too long"!  (more part marks to me!)

I'm semi joking of course, and my "guess" was a completely ridiculous extrapolation of current trends designed to get a laugh, but wow, they actually moved decently in those directions.  BM just keeps on giving  

I need you to go ahead and guess that I will be a multi-millionaire by year's end.

YES!!! Anamorphic!!

Yeah, finally fixed.

18 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Sounds to me you could use the old one on the new one if there is that little difference? Maybe it protrudes further into the sensor box though?

I have one, but am afraid to try it.

6 hours ago, docmoore said:

I use the BM mini to XLR cable with phantom powered boom mic ...

Signal is very strong ... if you adjust levels without hiss and no appreciable noise.

Adequate for the weekly blog that I record ... I no longer use an external recorder.

The camera continues to address a wide variety of needs ... it is very well designed and implemented.

I've been happy with the audio through XLR on the P4k as well.

1 hour ago, drm said:

I have used my P4Ks with the current Metabones 0.71x adapter with many different lenses (usually the Sigma 18-35) without issue. I have not noticed a single issue with the IQ when using the current adapter. I would be very interested to test my current adapters and the new ones side by side. To hear the marketing speak from Metabones, the newest adapter is the greatest thing ever   Having a longer mounting plate would be cool, but I just got the mount for my cage and it holds the adapter well.

The existing M43 Metabones adapters work well with the P4K. Will the new Metabones adapters work better? Probably. But, it isn't like you have to run out and purchase one. The existing ones work well.

I haven't had any issues either. I started with the Voltrox, but couldn't shoot wide open with it so was forced to grab the Metabones. Didn't want to chance it again with Aputure since I know for a fact Metabones work well. 

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Resolve dongle that came with the first BMCC in 2013 still works with Resolve 16 Studio for me

Incredible. This was a free dongle with a camera.

But no matter how good the competition is, coming off Premiere is like trying to stop smoking. Not easy due to the years of muscle memory.

As much as I continue to add Resolve more and more to my workflow, there are times when Adobe is just plain easier and I hate that. My hope is it's me and I'll improve.

Nothing in yours either, Leslie.

14 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

This blue sky subtopic is a mystery still to be cleared up as it seems. The fact people has found it along cDNG proves is not exactly related to braw. I wonder if that's not something coming from some user settings anyway? Something that under other circumstances may bring some distinct outcome and overcome the issue? It would be rather interesting to discover it : -)

I don't know, but I'll surely be looking out for it with all my cameras. I don't recall ever seeing it though.

I can't replicate the issue with blue sky clips. I attached a BRAW frame. Maybe I'm missing something. Only thing I can see is a lens that needs cleaning, lol.

A008_06142150_C201_000.braw

Pushed it a bit here to see if I could see anything, but still don't. I'll be the first to admit my eyes aren't what they used to be, though! Looking at this image after it posted, any artifacts appear to be from web compression, perhaps. It looks pretty clean to me on my monitor.