anonim

To me also, mostly because of red-ish bias in color. Who knows what's the reason, but I'm not at all interested in prores comparison - in spite some other opinion, from my practice any Prores is noticeable behind RAW in BM cameras.

It will be nice to see some Pocket 4k CinemaDNG image/footage in comparison from users who still take a walk through firmware versions... This, actually, from my side now just out of cheap curiosity, while waiting arrival of mine piece of P4k camera I'm sure we all here are well aware of enormous potential and liberating $$ affordability of BM cameras and artistic direction. Let's hope that hawk eyes of users will result in some nice next firmware addition and further progression of BRAW quality.

Thanks, so I guess right this time So, cDNG sometimes really has more detail, but not necessarily... Now we have to learn how often and when... I'm personally interested for the simple reason: being extremely satisfied with form factor, rigging possibility and image of Micro 1080p cDNG, I'm not so satisfied with possibility that for similar 1080p quality I have to shot 4k in P4K. Also, if result of super (up)scaling Micro's 1080p to 4K is similar or identical with 4k of P4K, there's not too much advantage rest with P4K except framing. (I always shot rigged with external small audio recorder and Atomos recorders for the backup reason.)

To stay at forum language, potential and choices of USA world policy more and more look to me as imitation of Canon mirrorless camera adventure. (Maybe in war nobody wins, but somebody lose more.)

Alas, it seems to me not so "totally" fine... if you, as authoritative expert, claim that same people "mistake the artefacts of the DNG debayer as sharpness. Its not that the cDNG debayer is necessarily keeping more details, but it IS creating false detail". Maybe because of my missing language subtleness, but I don't quite understand what does mean phrase "not necessarily..." in given case... Does cDNG debayer keeps more details or not, or it does keep sometimes and sometimes not, does it always - as "IS" suggests - creates false detail, does Braw corrects that creating of false detail?

Question is not screen itself, but staying silence about changing advertised possibility that some or many users are finding competitively/comparatively important for buying decision.

Yes, it is little bit on shame side and how-and-when explanation is, after all, already some sort of BM signature:) All that said, though, output stay impressive...

Recently made "Quezon's Game" was shot with BMCC camera, great encouragement for all indie film makers to relay on Blackmagic.

BMPCC 4K vs Z CAM E2 vs GH5s ... in 3 parts: 1) In general 2) High frame rate 3) Color and postprocessing

Nikon 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/06/21/review-nikon-75-150mm-f3-5-series-e/

"My sweet baby boy" - that's really first time someone called me Such interesting people here... Actually I don't think anything, just quote BM site: 13 stops, but you already said you know better. You are welcome... Yes, he is one of those talented people I'm so sad that - as it seems - has no so extremely lucky stars at their side to easy and wider explore/promote their gift

Yeah, it was already posted here somewhere in the previous century in this eternity thread But, in spite I'm always against nitpicking, I'd have to repeat that, besides too obvious testing issues (focusing, than probably and white balancing) from such great shooters, resulting difference for me is too noticeable in laptop screen to take it as real. Those scenes from two cameras with DR 13+, I think, should be much more similar, even identical on laptop. (I can't resist to post one more example of nice and inventive usage of great BM offer to us - sorry, maybe somebody find some little idea...

Yes, although every competent suggestion from user base is important, I think that's BM own forum is right place for reporting and discussing possible bugs.

I think that all FF hybrids with their price simply have lost indie and aspiration filmmakers market, which today is not so little percentage of possible buyers. What once upon a time was photography as creative satisfaction, for new generation is dream about video/movie creation. Those population will jump over FF, starting from m43 (BM, Panasonic, Chinese producers) to proper cinema cameras. FF hybrids simply miss wider market, Sony was first in the game and could for a longer time calculate with price, but I think not so long. How much to charge - and whom, actually - for A7s III, if even come, if it is close or identical in price of second hand Eva1 or UMP4.6?

It doesn't mean too much how many times you repeat your opinion... It was just little bit misquoting from your side, nothing especial. And there is noticeable difference between RAW and Prores in texture richness in both cases: BM micro and P4K. To me, both wonderful cameras, where existence of truly RAW solution bring them in front of all other competitive offers. As you know, for some usage (reframing etc.) namely 400% is extremely important. RAW vs Prores is upper league of possibility and that few percents of distinctive quality which is either "the must" or "unnecessarily", depends of user and task. (Think of that, for example, as such: superscaling feature of Resolve with 1080p RAW clip may give result similar to 4k in Prores, because of much more initial information...)

Actually, it seems rather RAW:

I know everybody asked why Resolve didn't offered this, but never too late: look just at hue vs hue curve working solution now (But they did not bring back magnification of Curve window as was at v11 :( and I don't know am I only stupid to miss it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oPJRo_kDuk

Having several times bmpcc and micro (and now micro again with modular variants of rig), I must admit that their look is not at all identical. Being it result of different processing, slight changes on circuit or color science (or my ilusion) - but micro has to me much more balanced image regarding direction to cleaner-modern look, while keeping mellow smoothness usually connect with classic movies. (I used UMP4.6 just one time, have some impression about it, but nothing enough founded for competent commenting beside watched shots from others.)

Frankly, I think you would simply waste a time with anything besides Arri or RED.

I'm always so happy to see people just go with camera and shoot beautiful scenes like weekend painters did once upon a time... BM cameras are so good in that because of its forgiveness about mistakes... So. one more, maybe now for the @Kye if there's some curiosity how Pocket 4k look combine with Voigt 17.5

Having earlier every Panasonic zoom, I'm afraid that difference certainly will be more than 2 stops.

It seems to me that you little bit confused BMpocket and BMmicro Movie was shot with Micro (Pocket was sold at promoting price during one season)... and actually Micro cinema camera had pretty unison confirmation of being pinnacle of Blackmagic effort before moving to another "look". Many pretty serious cinematographers valued its image more than Ursa's. (I'm sure that, say, @Zak Forsman could say more in that regard...) In fact, Micro cinema camera is still actual.