Savannah Miller

C500 clips pretty harsh in the highlights, unlike film. But generally I don't expect wonders out of the pocket 4K either.

C500 is older and only has 12 stops of DR and highlights look quite poor compared to modern cameras. Pansonic has improved their contrast detect autofocus a lot, but Olympus does have a good phase detect autofocus available for Micro 4/3. Combined with IBIS and a front-facing flip screen, it would possbily be the perfect vlogging camera if it had better codecs.

It is a cinema camera after all, and Blackmagic does try to exaggerate the purposes for which the camera is most useful. Even in documentary scenarios, you might find a GH5s or GH5 with autofocus more useful.

This thread has gotten out of hand because there's nothing new to say about the pocket 4K. No footage, no nothing, so people instead have started to argue about other things.

You can make any lens mount you want, but it's not EASY to do. Canon EF and Nikon mounts are very old so it's well known how these mounts work and are easy to create similar mounts with working electronics. Sony E-mount is newer with lots of encryption so it's not easy to build an electronic mount, hence why there are none that exist. A "dumb" mount is mainly useful for cine glass, but otherwise it makes no sense. Blackmagic didn't screw up with the EF mount, it's just that they built it precisely to spec which made certain lenses (mainly tokina 11-16) not infinity focus properly. Since it was only a few lenses, you could actually adjust the lenses themselves to fix this issue, as the tokina came built with a way to adjust that. A lot of lenses do seem to have tolerance issues as the infinity focus never matches the markings on the lens. EF mounts that are fixed into the camera do not have a way to shim them as I don't believe that there are any exposed screws or anything that you can easily remove and stick shims under.

I don't know what deadlines are for TV, but I have definitely worked on vfx on a few CBS shows that have aired the same day. You would be surprised how last-minute you can be with changes and they still air. Productions have target deadlines, but I can assure you almost every TV show is behind towards the end of the season as in post people are a bit more relaxed in the beginning.

VFX is expensive, but it makes no difference if you do the an episode over 2 days, or over 2 weeks, as long as they get done and take the same relative amount of time it costs the same. Same with any other job. You can have more people do it and get it done faster, or less people and just take longer. With the amount of shows a VFX studio does at a time, you're rarely 100% dedicated to one show. The real problems happen if the shots are initially harder than planned or new shots turn up during editing. Not all delays in post cost money, but on set it's more of an issue.

Running a big TV set is expensive, so I assume they're very strict in how you work as both cost and not getting behind are very important. Once it enters post it seems to be more of a free-for-all in terms of getting things done.

Well to be completely fair, if the camera uses EI like all other Blackmagic cameras, then that's the equivalent of 3 stops underexposed shooting at 3200 ISO which is the camera's native. That's not THAT high as plenty of cameras can recover 3 stops underexposed with those noise levels.

TV generally seems to be about working as efficiently as you can while still maintaining a certain standard.

I feel like in TV everybody works fast. In VFX at least you generally complete the shots as quickly as you can while still adhering to some sort of quality standard, so generally unlike films, nobody is going to A/B your final shots with the original to pixel peep on your images. As long as it looks right and matches the script, most people are happy that it's done.

Ursa Mini Pro is a top-of-the-line model and is a bit more no-fuss if you want to use it on a bigger production. The other cameras like C200, FS5, FS7, EVA-1 are a bit more compromised.

It's not just that. Those cameras don't have PRO codecs internal or pro features that you need on bigger productions. C200 lacks timecode, and maybe you can match other cameras if you shoot in RAW, but then your show has to allow for it when everyone wants prores. FS5/FS7 aren't in the same league as other cinema cameras, and Panasonic has their weird codecs too.

No way that domain was $8. He probably paid out the ass to get it. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost 6 figures.

The blackmagic is not THAT ugly, and likely when you hold it, all your opinions will change. The Pocket 4K feels good in your hands.

I don't like the locked off look of a gimbal for a lot of scenarios, but it depends. I prefer a smooth movement, but one that looks "real." A handheld camera with really good ibis is exactly the look I like, but that's mostly for stationary shots.

I don't like the look of a gimbal, but I don't 100% need IBIS either. I also hate the look of the tiny shakes you get with smaller cameras too. I prefer a steadicam or glidecam alternative, or some sort of shoulder/chest stabilizer.

The Red Raven is a micro 4/3 camera in 16x9 mode so it would be so much easier if it was a true Micro 4/3 mount, but that's likely not possible because the sensor is too far into the body. Sticking with the DSMC2 design limits them with certain features they can/cannot add as well as cooling. Blackmagic is much more flexible in building cameras that match the sensors. RED probably gave the full 4.5K due to competition from the ursa mini 4.6K.

Weather sealing is unnecessary. You need ventilation for cooling, and as long as the electronics are not exposed directly, it's not a problem. For a cinema camera I'd rather have higher framerates and features over weathersealing. IBIS I don't see blackmagic ever doing, because unless the build more into micro 4/3, IBIS doesn't work nearly as well on super 35 and full frame cameras. I would like to see a BM camera with IBIS, but not sure if that will ever happen. I would say autofocus is a possibility, especially since it would be useful anyways as more cameras get it and they won't want to be behind.

No. The sensors in red cameras are sunk too far into the bodies for certain mounts (e-mount being one of them.) And because of the distance the sensor is from the body opening, it's very hard to build a speedbooster. The currently developed abt speedbooster for the RED cameras is ridiculously expensive because every speedbooster is built by hand from one of red's mounts (which are already expensive.) And on top of that, the ABT speedbooster is not a huge sensor size increase like Metabones is, it's much smaller. Imagine a speedbooster on the Raven, which is basically a micro 4/3 EF mount camera. Not possible. RED has promised to stick with the DSMC2 body design for another few years so that will also limit what they can do with their cameras.

What's interesting is Kinefinity fixed a lot of issues that RED has with their cameras. From the beginning they always designed a shallow sensor so that you can mount many different lens options. On top of that, their sensors can be speedboosted easily. I'm 100% for a collaboration with Olympus to build a model with IBIS and Autofocus. They are ahead of the game in those areas for micro 4/3. If blackmagic built a camera with a sony sensor (like mavo 6k, DJI, etc.), shrunk the size down, kept the same color science, and added autofocus, it would be a slam dunk against cameras like the c200 because of no market segmentation and professional features like prores. I mention a sony sensor because it will have higher iso performance and lesser cooling requirements, leading to a smaller camera. Blackmagic is the only brand building cameras without market segmentation and including every feature they can. If they just add a few things to their cameras and shrink the size a bit, they can cause a huge shift in the industry as a lot of other camera manufacturers will lose sales.

Ursa Mini Pro is hands down the best image and features under $10k for professional cinema use. John Brawley was using them as a smaller camera alongside the Alexa for a lot of shows, and while I do think that while he will probably continue to use them for a while, the Sony Venice is pretty interesting. The tethered head can get almost Blackmagic micro-like shots, and venice's current size/weight is not too far off from the Ursa Mini Pro. It also records Prores 4:4:4 as well. Ursa Mini Pro is interesting because it's too cheap, which also makes it possibly seem expensive as well. Sounds weird, but it's SO CHEAP when in reality its feature set and images can be compared to really expensive cinema cameras. But because it's priced like prosumer or higher end ENG/cine style camera combos (FS7, EVA-1, C200) it's bigger, heavier, with lesser ISO performance. And because it lacks autofocus and other convenience features such as smaller recording codecs, it's slightly less practical than those cameras for low-end jobs.

Back in 2012, Blackmagic did not have S35 cameras, OLPFs, 3D LUT support, Lens Mounts, 60fps. A dedicated monitor out as well, dual XLR, Timecode IO, 3D sync, and Wifi too. This camera was much aggressive and high-end than the original BMCC but with the image, it had noticeably less dynamic range and the color was not as nice.

No. Kinefinity released a 4K camera about the same time as Blackmagic and they were doing high framerate 60fps+ WELL before blackmagic was. It came out in 2014 but was slow to ship similar to the BMPC. But they also had a model that released in 2012 called the KineRAW S35 which had a 4K sensor and could record 60fps. They were an existing camera manufacturer that made astro cameras, and they were way more aggressive in giving features that Blackmagic wasn't. BUT, they had more fundamental issues with their images that Blackmagic did not. Blackmagic had in the early days some issues with moire and aliasing due to not having an OLPF on their lower resolution sensors. When they switched to 4K+ it was less of a problem. Kinefinity had tons of artifacting when shooting in the various high framerate and "sport" modes that their cameras offer. Their monitors also had serious lag issues which they still haven't fixed on their newer cams. But in terms of giving a camera that on paper was supposed to compete with RED cameras, they did it first. So in the early days when it came to Kinefinity vs. Blackmagic, Blackmagic was the realistic and safer option to buy. Now though, Kinefinity is offering so much high-end stuff (Kineback W, Small form factor with a Pro lineup of accessories), that they are now putting out something completely different to Blackmagic and they have their own niche. This is from 2012 and it has 60fps, interchangeable lens mount, etc. I'm pretty sure they had a cinema camera before that.

Because it's believed to be Sony Starvis sensor and has similar specs as the new pocket 4K. The images will surely be different, but in terms of Dynamic Range, I doubt there will be a noticeable difference. Kinefinity has always been significantly more aggressive than Blackmagic. They were way ahead of Blackmagic in doing 4K, and they definitely had High Frame rates much earlier than Blackkmagic did, and they still can do much higher framrates than anything Blackmagic does. Size/weight/form factor were also more aggressive compared to Blackmagic too. In terms of images and operation, they had more fundamental issues compared to the Blackmagic cameras. Rolling shutter was worse, their slow motion modes were full of artifacting, and their cameras have a weird monitor lag that they still haven't fixed. Blackmagic was much less aggressive with their cameras and prioritized dynamic range, and color. Two things which they are doing better than a lot of other manufacturers. Now with the new sensors in Mavo and other cameras, dynamic range is now closing in on the dual-gain sensors that BM uses.