clanterns

if you are shooting people - which I do for pop videos all the time

75mm -85mm is considered portrait because it gives you a head and shoulder shot

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/21-freak-asylum-you-better-leave-video/

50mm gives you a waist upwards shot

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/22-throwaway-girl-video-shoot/

35mm gives you a knees upwards shot

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/24-throwaway-girl-video-shoot/

28 is usually the whole body from feet up

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/23-throwaway-girl-video-shoot/

 

thats how I personally use them to shoot girls for pop videos

Very interesting, I suppose DOF could be done reasonably when on human subjects if following these guidelines. 24mm DOF wouldn't look too good on humans with BMPCC, might give off a "miniaturized" effect... 

Rungunshoot said it right. A 50mm is a normal lens, while an 85mm is a portrait lens, and a 75mm would be close (that 25mm by 3 on the BMPC).
The idea of 4K for $4K is great but the EF mount turns me off. E mount would've been the ideal choice! And right now I wouldn't be able to handle 4K RAW. Now HD and 2.5k are a different thing... The BMCC, with that same sensor and more physical buttons (and a swivel screen... and a compressed RAW codec like Cineform RAW...) would be the ideal camera for me right now. But the BMPC looks to be quite sexy in its own right.

Hmm, so why is 75mm considered portrait, if what we see is 50mm? Just trying to learn here. And does anyone know how long after the original BMPC was announced, that footage was released?

And If the BMPCC had clean output, we could record higher rez/fps, like the 4k, right?

Ok so here's my virtual BMPCC kit:

 

Wide: 8mm f/1.4 c-mount for 1" sensors (mfr undecided) - about $500

 

Normal: Voigtlander 17.5mm f/.95 ($1250)

 

Portrait: Voigt 25mm f/.95 ($1000)

 

That kit is expensive as hell (to me), but it would cover 95% of what I would want to shoot with a satisfying amount of bokeh.  And 2 of the lenses will benefit from the mythical M43 Speedbooster.

Wouldn't the 17.5mm be good for portraits? (52.5mm equiv), and the 25mm would be more telephoto? How do you think bokeh will look with an 8mm f/1.4? This is driving me crazy, especially with the FF 4K for $4k... Too much though, still.

A video review of the Samyang 7.5mm (Aparently allso by other brands like Bower and Rokinon)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl8W99biLmU

That would be like a last resort for me, if my thinking is right, no DOF with that lens.

Wow, that DOF master thing is complicated.  Here's the short answer:

 

On a full-frame camera, this would be like using a 24mm f/4 lens.

 

Practically speaking, you'd get a blurry background if your subject is closer than like 2 or 3 feet away.

I don't think f/4 gives you much of a blurry background as you say, at least none that I've noticed...EDIT: sorry, I misread, f/4 would produce blurriness.

Or you could just fake it in post with a minimal fisheye type effect or something similar that will distort the image to your exact requirements - will save time, money & possibly buying the wrong lens.

I may have to do that if cost get out of hand, but even then I don't think it'd offer a very professional look.

Here's an option for a 24mm-equivalent lens on the BMPCC.  8mm f/1.4 C-mount lens designed for 1" sensors. Roughly $500.

 

http://www.navitar.com/product/navitar-machine-vision-1-format.aspx

So if I take this camera's specs into http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html, do I input it as 8mm, or 24mm (crop factor) for S16?

I think you and I are definitely on the same page as far as what we want.

is there any reason in particular you want the black magic? Something like the GH2 or GH3 would acheive the look with much greater ease

I have seen the GH2/3 and heard of their modding community. The clarity of the BMCC is incredible IMO, and they don't use a low pass filter for moire, which increases the sharpness. And RAW 1080p video is key. I have not seen anything comparable to the BMCC when it comes to the GH's, maybe you can prove me wrong.

depth of field is pretty much non existant

 

here´s a calculator:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

So the speed booster mentioned earlier would bring it back?

So an 8mm lens would appear to be a 24mm lens on the BMPCC... This is factoring in the crop factor, and the S16 sensor size? I'm still learning here.

Length wise it'd be about a 24, but there would probably be a little bit more distortion. And not as shallow depth of field

And I regain that DOF with a speed booster? Can the DOF change be calculated?

Realised my mistake, as its the distortion you like! 

Then go as wide as you possibly can - you could even try fisheye lenses.

Just remember that a x3 crop sensor will behave differently with that 24mm than a FF sensor.

Correct, I understand that an 8mm is considered "fisheye". So do you know how exactly an 8mm would look on this camera? Would it look more like a 24mm, due to the 3x crop?

I don't think anything is going to give you that look on the BMPCC. I've been researching the same thing, and the focal length of lens you're seeking is 8mm.  While those lenses exist for s16mm, they would need impossibly large apertures to equal the wide-yet-shallow DOF in your sample images.

 

You might get something vaguely similar with this combo:

 

m43 speed booster (doesn't exist yet)

voigtlander 17.5mm f/.95

 

That would something be like a 35mm f/1.4 on full-frame.  

 

As far as I know, nothing is equally fast and wide in the m43 arena.

I see, what would it be like without the speedbooster, as current models are around $500, then I would have a lens to buy, I'd rather just buy an expensive lens, as the speedbooster quickly makes the "low price" of the BMPCC not so low.

question is, if you want the look of a 24mm full frame, why not go 24mm full frame?

Have you seen the price of the BMPCC?

we already have a thread looking at lenses for this camera here have a read

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/2495-super-16-lenses-for-pocket-cinema/

Yes, a lot of good information in that thread, I admit I didn't see this thread before, but also I think my thread is more fundamental. I'm trying to figure out the exact calculations I need to make the right purchase.

The picture you're most impressed with is giving what is known as a 3D effect (an optical illusion generated by a v.thin & shallow DOF), but not a v.good example. 

Some lenses create this effect & others don't - its nothing to do with the focal length & it doesn't really translate to video/film (hence why 3D exists).

I could take the exact same picture with a 55mm, but i wouldn't be so close to the car when taking the picture.

I realize it has good depth of field, that is not the particular thing i'm getting at. As 8mm lens are very wide field of view (with distortion), 50mm, the human eye is used to seeing (portraits), and on up for telephoto (a "compression" effect).

Hello!

As a student currently learning about imaging, I think the best RAW start up camera would be the Pocket camera. (I have past experience too, but handy-cams and after effects don't look too professional).

I am still confused on the best lens for it would be. I am interested in the look that a 24mm gives to a full frame sensor, but don't know how that compares to the crop factor (I heard it's 3x), and the fact that it's a super 16 sensor. It seems like it's basic math, but I'm unsure.

Researching these forums, I see recommendations for this site: http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

but that doesn't answer my question.

If I can figure out the basic math to my problem, I can choose the right lens to get the 24mm, 50mm, etc. look from a 35mm sensor.

Would I need a higher, 50mm lens, to get the wide angle look of 24mm, on this camera? Or would I need to go even lower, 8mm to get around a 24mm look?

Here's an example of the "look" I'm going for with my future Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=567

That example is a 24mm (wide angle) lens, mostly on full frame cameras. The 3rd image catches my eye in particular.

I'm interested in wide angle for music video production.

And yes, those are from a prime lenses, as they are the sharpest, I want the most clarity I can get, and do any distortion in post.

Any help/advice would be appreciated. If I've made any mistakes in my research, PLEASE correct me.

Coffee trip video from Zach is damn nice.  Amazing quality.  We (the video community) are well used to software hacks from the likes of Magic Lantern.  It is more difficult, but perhaps now we should get some electronic engineers to do some hardware hacks.  This is a cheap camera: tear one of these things apart, take the feed from the buffer and send it to an SSD.  A cooling fan should complete the setup.  

I completely agree with you on the hardware hack, I feel like it'd be a good diy. This could be a dream come true.