Jump to content

Savannah Miller

Members
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Savannah Miller last won the day on July 1 2018

Savannah Miller had the most liked content!

About Savannah Miller

  • Rank
    Active member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bezamod is a real product and already existing. He stopped making it when the ursa mini pro came out. The Lucadapters speedbooster is a real product too that already works. The design of the Pocket 6K one is only going to be improved.
  2. The Bezamod is not an adapter, it's actually more of a MOD for mounting PL lenses. The list is small because the guy who makes it likely hasn't tested very many lenses. This is different than most PL-EF adapters. If the camera was MFT mount, most people would complain. Some of the biggest arguments against the Pocket 4K were people that did not like the EF Mount. Making a camera that has a mount that forces some sort of windowed mode is against how Blackmagic operates. I don't think Blackmagic would ever sell a camera that forces people to buy an adapter to not window their camera. Looking at the P4K groups on facebook, very few people are using native lenses. Almost everyone wants the extra sensitivity and larger format that the speedbooster offers. From a value perspective, if you own no lenses, the 17-55 F2.8 from Canon is the best value if you can only afford 1 lens.
  3. RELAX. MFT lenses do not cover the Pocket 6K, so it's an odd mount, especially with Blackmagic RAW being one of the main selling points. No one wants a windowed sensor. Other mounts like E-Mount, etc. are proprietary and the only manufacturers that make them other than Sony, produce DUMB mounts which are useless. The only logical mount that could have been used is RF instead of EF, which we don't know if Blackmagic could deliver in such a short time. There's unfortunately not to many mount choices that BM can use, and they chose to take the safe route. Nothing wrong with that. Wasn't the original BMCC a PASSIVE M4/3 mount? That camera came out at a time when very few people were using anything other than Canon, and no one wanted a Passive mount or to use M4/3 lenses. Are you sure a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter? People just don't think outside the box. "You can't mount a lot of PL lenses on the Pocket 6K." Well now you can. "You can't put a speedbooster inside an EF mount because you need 4mm of clearance that you don't have." Remove the IR glass in front of the sensor and you have all the clearance you need. ala Lucadapters
  4. Blackmagic cameras are not perfect, but they put out a solid product. Their only real competitors are Kinefinity and Z-Cam and they put out much more "beta" products with hope of future firmware fixes. The first Z-Cam cameras were so bad, and even the Z-Cam E2 was not much better when it released. If you look at the original BMCC, it was not a perfect camera, but the first cams from Kinefinity and Z-Cam were terrible.
  5. One thing that I feel is the only real advantage Blackmagic has (which is admittedly huge) is that they shoot Blackmagic Raw and Prores. If similar, partially debayered RAW and Prores were intoduced into Panasonic or Olympus cameras, Blackmagic would have likely very little advantage. A lot of the mirrorless cameras have IBIS, phase-detect AF, battery life, smaller, etc. Even the Z-Cam E2 and the newer cameras from Z-Cam can now shoot ZRAW and Prores, which almost puts them on the level of some BM cameras, especially with their really high framerates. Blackmagic now delivers a really solid product with minimal issues, especially with their newer cameras, but their biggest downfall is they are too conservative in how they build their cameras. They play it safe and build a solid, well-rounded product at a good price, but Blackmagic doesn't really push any sort of technological boundaries like some other manufacturers. Z-cam only started making cameras just a few years ago and they are already in many ways pushing ahead of Blackmagic in many ways.
  6. Are you suggesting someone develop a new prores-like codec that is NOT prores?
  7. There is. It's called FFMPEG. Selling cameras with unlicensed Prores is risky business and no one wants to mess with Apple.
  8. There are some pictures floating around of the difference between the Pocket speedbooster and the original M4/3 one and there's a general haze over the image on the original one. The pocket speedbooster is a lot sharper, but it doesn't work optimally with any other m4/3 cameras, so less flexible. I think the usual m4/3 filter thickness is very thick(8mm?), and Blackmagic uses a rather thin IR cut filter.
  9. That's true, but maybe then you have to compare the best M4/3 glass to the best EF speedboosted glass since it's a little unfair to compare the center cut of a lens. But anyways, yes the quality of EF does generally improve, but I'm surprised how much of a drastic improvement the Blackmagic version was. I thought it was just a money grab, but the difference is quite noticeable. I am debating whether to buy a Lucadapter for the Pocket 6K or invest in lower cost ef-s lenses like 17-55 2.8, etc.
  10. That's not entirely true. The new pocket 4K speedbooster that just released is noticeably sharper when the lens is wide open due to the different thickness of the IR glass on BM cameras. Technically, with the old speedbooster and the pocket 4K, the wide open performance is soft. But with something like the Lucadapter on the Pocket 6K you should see some good performance.
  11. Blackmagic probably sells more than 10x what Kinefinity does. Kinefinity cancelled an entire camera (Terra 5K) which supposedly had a 5K dual-gain sensor. Where were they getting a 5K dual-gain sensor with 15 stops of dynamic range when the one in the 4.6K had to be custom-designed because Fairchild Imaging didn't make one large enough. Kinefinity cameras have too high-end of an attempted feature set and price without nailing the image and basic operation like Blackmagic has done. I am definitely not surprised if Blackmagic is already working on a new camera with this Sony sensor, and if they are, it will be much cheaper. They are probably working on continuous autofocus too.
  12. The BMPCC was the only camera I can remember that shipped without RAW enabled from the start. Most of their newer cameras have shipped without huge issues. Kinefinity doesn't even fix basic problems like monitor lag but continues to increase the specs of their cameras. I'm actually suspecting that the delays and lack of footage from the Pocket 4K is because they switched from the Sony IMX294 sensor to the slightly newer IMX299 variant.
  13. A couple things: Blackmagic cameras have kinks (for sure) but Kinefinity sees to release cameras that are even more unfinished than Blackmagic cameras. The Terra 4K was out months before it even could record cinemadng raw. Secondly, the Pocket 4K's power draw is pretty much on par or better than the Terra 4K. Blackmagic has mastered the FGPA very well. Blackmagic cameras do not have an OLPF which means no OLFP artifacts such as the red dot flares that affect Kinefinity cameras. The new BRAW codec has significantly reduced moire/aliasing that it's not really a problem anymore. Blackmagic seems siginificantly ahead in color science and creating beautiful images. Kinefinity cameras are all about size/specs (just like RED cameras to some extent) but Blackmagic is reliable and delivers where it counts.
  14. I disagree. Kinefinity released the Terra 4K for $4000+ and then Blackmagic turned around and released a BETTER camera (Pocket 4K) for $1295 with more features and better codecs/color science (Blackmagic RAW future update). I wouldn't be surprised once the MAVO LF comes out that Blackmagic is already making a better camera with the same sensor for half the cost. The new BRAW codec makes it possible for Blackmagic to now do higher resolutions such as 6K without the need for heavy storage. The new sensor profiling they do siginificantly reduces Aliasing/Moire as well as Fixed Pattern noise so they can get a significant dynamic range increase over competitors using the same sensor. Kinefinity cameras are too expensive for a small manufacturer, because at that price point you can now buy other well-established camera brands like RED, CANON, and even Blackmagic. On top of that, Ursa Mini Pro is practically a more usable camera for professional production because it matches much closer to the industry standard Arri Alexa and has a very good color science. MAVO LF looks like a really good camera but they need to drop their price to around $8000 to be competitive with other mid-range priced cameras because Kinefinity is not a well-established brand yet. I would be very worried if Blackmagic is also designing a camera with this sensor. Since the Ursa Mini Pro used a custom-designed sensor t hat cost millions of dollars to develop, the camera was priced at $6000. Since this Sony sensor would be "off the shelf," Blackmagic could easily price the camera at $4000 in an UMP body since they don't care about market segmentation.
  15. I don't think that's true. A lot of blackmagic cameras have exposed holes, but all of the stuff that is vital to the camera (FGPA, Sensor, etc.) are sealed from dust/weather, etc. I do think that the Pocket 4K is a better option for professional cinema use, but for everyday users I don't think Blackmagic cameras are ideal. Autofocus, IBIS, rotating screen, etc. are huge features that will greatly benefit the average user more than raw will. If another brand of mirrorless camera would incorporate the BRAW codec then there would be very little reason to buy a Blackmagic cam anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...