anonim

2 minutes ago, MochaP said:

China is the problem to the whole world. She is too hungry for all kind of resource to feed up her people. Let she suffer may bring a better future to all human race.

So suffer of hungry people will bring better future to all human race? 

52 minutes ago, kaylee said:

@anonim whats been up? you havent liked it?

Not, quite contrary, I've found my last one is best of all (Mozza Aircross vs various Ziyun and one Feyutech)... but obviously I'm not a person for using gimbal so much, I tend to appreciate more some sort of (little bit heavily) rigged camera for achieving more natural stabilization. But, as I wrote, I'll keep gimbal for quasi dolly (revealing or side tracking or up-stairs) shots that I've found really could be satisfactory replacement (at least for my usage) for several-seconds-lasting dolly movements.

(But if you insist, maybe you can use some baby rolling chairs and put camera on it, or shopping basket with wheels

Quasi dolly shooting is sole reason I'm hesitating not to sell my fourth gimbal (and fourth attempt to make some love for it)...

5 hours ago, Yurolov said:

It isn't just about the trade war; it is about the stealing of intellectual property for the purpose of out-competing american companies.

Problem is that before stealing of intellectual property was/is some other sort of harder, more brutal, fatal/letal and constant  (nature- and human-) resource stealing/abusing through period of time, on which base so-call (technical) intellectual property arose. Besides that, when calling out "intellectual" property there's one uber-aspect of it that is more important and that constantly lacks in repeated history circumstances: how to deal properly with other humans and nations with whom we are blessed or condemned to live with. What if at the end we will be forced to face with true that much higher "intellectual" property was/is also capability to protect resources on planet, to wisely accommodate our needs and wishes to nature and right of other people to have at least part of our commodity we have just because we are born at one place, not at another?

 If USA policy and consumers mass-ideology (as model and last global leader just because of circumstances of WWI and WWII) not being stopped  with their global usage of "intellectual" property course, planet would be ruined very soon (first of all because of monstrous hypocrisy greed and its consequences). Now it's a matter of balance and we have witnesses of another turning point in history. After all, at meta-plane all of this is just demonstration how true is yin-yang concept ... and all powerful intellectual property that stay bellow that concept and helped him to become important knowledge property of human race as whole 

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

The PK4 to me was the worse.

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.

5 minutes ago, osmanovic said:

You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW:https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

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.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/not-necessarily

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.)

7 hours ago, CaptainHook said:

I get some people prefer cDNG, that's totally fine.

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?

31 minutes ago, drm said:

I have three P4Ks. I had to return one of mine more than once for screen problems. I believe that it had a defective digitizer. I was eventually given a new camera. I know that other people on here have had a similar issue.

BM most likely swapped the screen for a business reason, like high failure rates on the old one, insufficient supply, etc. A new screen is very likely to require a new driver in firmware. It is likely that the new cameras (with the new screens) don't work with the old firmware because of a driver difference. Could BM have let people know about the hardware revision or update the old firmware to work with the new firmware? Sure, but why? Why would they let people know about the hardware change if the screens are technically similar, but perhaps just from a different manufacturer? BM is certainly under no obligation to let people know about a running change. Companies manufacturing products make running changes during production all the time. 

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but assuming that BM deliberately changed the screen in order to prevent people from downgrading the firmware is an exceptional reach  If they wanted to stop people from downgrading, they would just follow the lead of Apple and others by signing the firmware and telling the camera to only load approved firmware.

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.

1 hour ago, osmanovic said:

Honest opinion?

I don't think a new screen is the reason you can't downgrade the firmware. New screen has nothing to do with BRAW or CinemaDNG. Blackmagic Design simply does what they want. The customer is not asked or informed in advance. The customer is condemned to endure the problems with the CinemaDNG patent. BRAW was served to the customer as a sedative tablet and not because it is a better alternative to CinemaDNG.

They can still take pictures in CinemaDNG using the "stills button". And the screen has no problems with that?

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

11 hours ago, kye said:

• 135mm and 200mm are good but it's not fast to change lenses so I'm tempted by a zoom, something like a 70-200 would be great.  However, I don't want to sacrifice IQ in the ways that vintage zooms were never as good as vintage primes, and I can't afford a modern fully manual zoom lens.  Unless there's a lens I'm unaware of?

Nikon 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E

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

9 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

My sweet baby boy, if you really think the Pocket 4k has 13+ stops of usable dynamic range I have a bridge to sell you (and this is coming from someone who owns and loves the Pocket 4k!)

"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.

8 hours ago, tonysss said:

 

thank you for the link to this person https://vimeo.com/stevenleone 

he does a great job at orig BMPCC !

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

7 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

FWIW:

 

https://www.4kshooters.net/2019/05/01/arri-alexa-mini-vs-bmpcc4k-side-by-side-footage-comparison/

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...

18 minutes ago, graphicnatured said:

I'm assuming you weren't actually looking for a response. Hook has been helpful when he's had time. Why go this route? I'd love for his input to remain a part of this forum. Omit the emotion when asking the question so we have a chance at an answer. I know this topic has come up before and he's responded to it. Things are always changing. Lets keep it real in here. Even if I missed something I don't know about, that post isn't getting any of us anywhere. My two cents.

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?

3 hours ago, tonysss said:

I have also BMMCC, and I repeat myself several times, There is no difference between look and color between RAW and Prores! 

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.

21 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The prores does look like mush compared to RAW, though its barely noticeable when not zoomed in 400%, to me at least. That RAW is so sharp lol

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...)

8 minutes ago, tonysss said:

not DNG, just simply ProRes

 

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.)

13 hours ago, Skip77 said:

I would like to know what everyone thinks is the best camera out side of Arri or RED.

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