Savannah Miller

4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

So you are saying the Pocket doesn’t cut it as a cinema camera, is that right?

No it does.  But more of a secondary camera for smaller shots or in tight situations.  Or if you're traveling and need something small and light.

Terra 4K is a similar image, but it's marketed as a main-body camera by housing it in such a professional body and having such PRO accessories.

Kinefinity cameras have always looked very expensive, but their images have suggested otherwise.  With the newer lineup, MAVO and MAVO LF, this looks to be different as now they finally have more DR too.

I say lackluster, because these days, less than 14 stops of DR doesn't cut it as a cinema camera.  So many prosumer cams (ursa mini pro, eva1, c200, fs7) offer noticeably more dynamic range.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

It is much more than that, Kinefinity has a whole ecosystem around their camera (like RED does, but at much much MUCH lower prices!)

The Terra 6K is the older model, so at the time it was "the best" Kinefinity made, but they've moved on to the Terra 4K and now the Mavo series 

That's true but it's like an ecosystem around a lackluster camera (terra 4K and 6K).  I think the pocket 4K solution of all in one is better for the type of camera that it is.  Mavo 6K and LF look much better.

4 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Are you sure? I dont see that in the spec list? http://www.kinefinity.com/terra/?lang=en

Yes.  It was upgraded in firmware 6.0 beta.  Only thing it cannot do is 4:4:4 which Kinefinity says is because of too much processing power required.  So that's good reasoning as to why the new Pocket can't do it either.

http://www.kinefinity.com/firmware_terra_kineos6p0/?lang=en

Crazy thing is it's in the lower priced Terra 4K model, but not the more expensive Terra 6K model.  That model was doomed to fail because of the horrible rolling shutter and not hardly any other benefits over the 4k model.

3 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

No it does not, Kinefinity has KineRaw which Davinci Resolve or Adobe Premiere not supports, you have to transcode before editing which is a slower workflow. As blackmagic is drag and drop :). The higher framerates and OLPF would be nice though but not needed for 90% of the things I do.  

Terra 4K now does cinemadng and compressed cinemadng too.  Actually I think it does up to 7:1 compression too which is  BETTER than what the Blackmagic does.  It does Kineraw too which is more options.

35 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Nope, my guess it will look something in between Terra 4K and GH5S, but better codecs then both

Terra 4K has the same codecs as the Blackmagic.  I think it just has higher framerate and  OLPF, which is  the only major difference.  Color science and image will be different, obviously.

27 minutes ago, jonpais said:

But I thought being able to lift shadows in post with less noise was the definition of more latitude... ?

Well yes but that's only if you're not clipping.  If you take an scene that has less than 11.5 stops of DR then yes, it would appear that he 5D has more latitude.  But in a high contrast scenario it's pretty clear that the pocket has both more DR and more latitude.

13 hours ago, squig said:

I'm talking about the Micro Cinema Camera, not the BMCC. I graded both in Resolve.

BMCC, Micro, BMPCC are basically the same sensor and color science.  The pocket and micro is a smaller cut, but it's pretty much identical.  RED does not lie about the SNR of their sensors, but they do claim higher than theoretical dynamic range numbers.

In resolve it's a bit unfair too as the color transforms from the Magic Lantern Raw are probably not accurate.  I'm sure the Blackmagic has not only more DR but more latitude as wel.  It just comes down to the skill of the colorist.

The 5D sensor likely has less noise though so you can lift the image more without seeing problems, giving the appearance of more latitude.

5 hours ago, squig said:

The backyard test (paling fence in full shade, blue sky, fluffy clouds) sorts the actual from the aspirational dynamic range. BM marketed the BMMCC as 13 stops. I tested the BMMCC raw against the 5D Mk3 raw (11.7 stops) and the 5D had more latitude in the grade.

Good write up on dynamic range vs latitude: http://www.xdcam-user.com/2013/11/whats-the-difference-between-latitude-and-dynamic-range/

Latitude might be due to your skill and using Adobe camera raw.  BMCC has more latitude in the grade than the 5d mark III, you just have to know how to work it.  Adobe camera raw is a bit weird and not ideal for the camera.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The original Arri Alexa did not do Raw other than to an external recorder. And at the time of introduction Arri claimed the following. As you can see they were Only claiming 14 stops.  You have to figure the Alexa is "Only" outputting Arri RAW 2.8K in 12 bit. So it is not going to be super high.

Long story short a lot of cameras really don't put out as much DR as you would think. But I want to correct my above statement about the DR of the Canon 3D mk III. I said 9.5, I meant 10.5 maybe 11.

 

ALEXA Classic EV Features

BEST OVERALL IMAGE QUALITY

Film-like, organic look

High Dynamic Range

14+ stops exposure latitude over the entire EI range as measured with the ARRI Dynamic Range Test Chart

future proof for High Dynamic Range (HDR) displays

16 bit in-camera processing

 

But there is this article that was interesting at the time.

https://nofilmschool.com/2014/07/sony-a7s-dynamic-range-arri-alexa-amira

And this older one.

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/blackmagic-cinema-camera-red-epic-arri-alexa-raw-test-part-3-overexposure

 

Resolution doesn't affect dynamic range.  Resolution only increases detail when you downscale so when maybe you get 1/2 stop more "resolved" details in the shadows vs. a lower resolution image.  The Alexa and BM cameras use dual sensor readout to get their high dynamic range perfomance.  RED builds high dynamic range sensors with high resolution, but because the photo-site size is smaller, they've always danced around the Alexa in terms of dynamic range.  Dragon was pretty close to Alexa DR but Helium was less.  Maybe the weapon processing of dragon improved things, but it still wasn't noticeably more if than the Alexa unless you lift up the shadows and denoise.  Gemini and Monstro are large photosite sensors.  Gemini is only 5K, but Monstro is 8K large format.  Those sensors are now probably more DR than the Arri Alexa, but they're still not a lot more.

Those 18 stop RED claims are ridiculous.  Download the R3D's of the xyla chart and try them out for yourself in davinci resolve.  It's VERY hard to produce the dynamic range numbers they are claiming.  Those xyla chart images are misleading as they use frame averaging of multiple frames to remove noise and they use multiple ISO settings within the R3D and composite the results together.  That's not how you use a xyla chart.

The sensor in that video that's 18 stops is the Dragon 8K VV sensor which was never released.  Now it's the monstro sensor which supposedly is a little better.

In order to reveal the dynamic range numbers phil is getting, I have to set the ISO to the highest settings and crank it up further just to dig into the shadows. Even then I still can't get as much information as he is clearly getting so I have no idea what he's doing. If the camera captures 18 stops of DR, it's very hard to reveal it all and impossible to use.  

For a long time people on there was a long thread where asked one simple question:  If Red Dragon and Alexa captured xyla images and were processed in exactly the same method would the Alexa show the same or better dynamic range than the dragon?  Everyone was dancing around the answer when the main tester who was comparing both cameras eventually broke down and said that he believed the Alexa would show more dynamic range.  Likewise, there are tons of tests showing that without digging up lots of noise, the Alexa still does have more usable DR than helium and dragon cameras.

There's even old RED images showing alexa and RED MX xyla chart images side by side with a minimal DR difference.  But we all know that isn't remotely true.

I don't know but that might be theoretical performance.  I've never seen anyone shooting kinefinity terra 4K or GH5s that has been able to produce even remotely that dynamic range.  Even using the same parameters that can produce 18 stops on RED cameras (which is a ludicrous claim) I don't think you can get over 13.

12 hours ago, Damphousse said:

No need for your "hunches".  The manufacturer already told us it has the exact same DR as the BMPCC.  It is in the product description on the manufacture's site.

13 stops is a manufacturer rating.  Some cameras have more DR despite the same numbers because they may round 12.5 to 13, or some cameras more confidently capture that range better than others too.

Kinefinity claims 14 stops on their Terra 4K camera as well as on their Mavo 6K camera.  But does the Terra 4K have remotely the same dynamic range as the Mavo 6K?  No it does not.

Likewise they claimed 16 stops in the "golden 3K" mode on the Terra 6K, but did it really have a noticeable 2 stops more?  No it did not.

"Stops" of dynamic range are just claims that anyone can make and not have to back up with evidence.  Wouldn't it be easier if blackmagic just went and said it has 13 stops so it's about the same as the original pocket?  It could be 1/2 stop less, but just doesn't market well to sell a cinema camera with a DR downgrade.  Notice how RED nowhere in their marketing ever claimed that Helium had less dynamic range than Dragon even though that was definitely true?

Oops.  It does have dual gain, but I was referring to the dual sensor readout like the Alexa and previous BM cameras use.  It helps to increase dynamic range.

Regarding DR, I have a hunch that the pocket 4K will have slightly less than the  older pocket due to the older cam having larger photosites and dual gain architecture.  But sony sensor design is good so we will wait and see.

FFMPEG colors are all kinds of wrong.  I work in VFX and we used them to export prores back to clients as you can't do that in a windows environment, and one of the clients noticed a 1% difference in the red channel of one of our images. 

Since then programs like Assimilate scratch, Nuke, etc. can do it but that is more recent.

As far as free updates for life, one of the most notable programs of all time has to be FL Studio.  They have offered free upgrades since the very beginning over 20 years ago.

Yes.  They're not optimal but everyone seems to forget that original BMCC was both EF and Micro 4/3 so not "optimal" anyway.

On top of that, the sensor in the BMPCC is pretty much THE SAME image as the BMCC, just a smaller 1080p sensor, and it's likely the same cut-down sensor.  So it does make sense that for cost measures they just reuse the same IR filter from the BMCC.

The pocket 4K is a completely new sensor that will have different filtering requirements, and will have a new stack.

9 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

In the scenario where Metabones do make a new speedbooster, has anyone heard of them trying to build in an IRcut filter into the glass element? That would essentially give the camera a built in filter, so you don't have to buy a new one for every lens, or screw it on and off for lens changes.

I don't have any experience with the BMPCC or it's cousins, so not sure how much of an issue the IR thing is. From what I can tell, it's 'ok' until you start using NDs, right?

Mosaic Engineering OLPF filters now have IR built in.  So if you want extra IR filtration, you can use one of those.

1 hour ago, Damphousse said:

Define "compatible".  Depending on how you define "compatible" it may not also mean "optimal".  I posted the M43/BM compatibility table already.  Read the second footnote.  Blackmagic spells it out in a very detailed manner.  I guess everyone is familiar with the type of mount and sensor crop.  What you guys keep glossing over is sensor stack thickness.  You can't just look at two out of three parameters and declare optimal compatibility.

It's not that simple.  The original BMCC was a confused camera.  Was it a micro 4/3 camera?  Not sure because it was a non-active mount, whereas the EF mount version was active.  Likewise sensor size fell between 4/3 and super 16 in size as well.  So I feel like they made both mounts so that people had more choices.  Speedboosters were nonexistent back then, and there weren't nearly as many preaching about the importance of a standard sensor stack thickness (even RED cameras don't necessarily care about standards so much as optimizing for their own camera) so Blackmagic didn't really do anything wrong with the sensor stack thickness they chose.  It works more than fine with both EF and Micro 4/3 lenses and wasn't a huge problem for most people.  Only when the speedbooster came out did this matter a lot more and seperate boosters had to be made.  

The new Pocket 4K is a more firmly decided micro4/3 camera and not a combination of both EF and Micro 4/3 so there's no reason Blackmagic would not use a thicker stack to match other cameras and the Speedbooster spec.  If anything, it's probably not hard considering Blackmagic has only IR cut and not an OLPF, so increasing thickness is likely not much of an issue.  Why do eoubt BM and think there will be any issues?

With micro 4/3 more popular than ever for video, Blackmagic now is building a 100% micro 4/3 only camera in both sensor size and mount, so they'll likely do things more normally this time.

There was a post on one of the other forums where Brian said that he didn't see any need to make a speedbooster as long as Blackmagic used standard filter stack size.  He basically said he didn't want to have to make one.

As long as this is standard (which it hopefully is) then everything should be just fine.

9 hours ago, Damphousse said:

Okay.  Thank you.

Savannah's post didn't make any sense and confused me.  It would be odd for Metabones to definitively decide at this date not to even look at making a camera specific speedbooster.

I'm probably not going to get the BMPCC 4k till next year.  I have one M43 kit lens and I will just use that till we get some final answers from Metabones.  We are all anxious to get started but it is better to just be patient and wait instead of spreading misinformation.

The first camera BMCC was their ORIGINAL camera.  It's possibly they didn't think about the filter thickness or made a hybrid thickness to accommodate both EF and M4/3 mount.  The Pocket was their second, and the micro is just a variation of the original pocket design, hence it would have the same thickness.  They may even have used the same filter of the original BMCC. I doubt thickness has anything to do with cost savings and they have likely rectified this with their latest model as sensor stack thickness can also affect optical performance when not using speedboosters.

I don't know much about filters, but maybe it was made thinner because Blackmagic's IR glass lacks any low pass filtering.

No.

Brian from Metabones said he is NOT making another speedbooster.

The normal ones work fine for this camera unless Blackmagic did something unusual. Everything looks to be standard with this camera.

In terms of quality, maybe it's a better future investment to get full-frame lenses and the XL speedbooster for future proofing.  Otherwise, if you already own lenses, super35 speedbooster might be better.

I'm surprised John Brawley still visits this forum given some of the comments on here.

That EM 1 mark II video is very impressive given the limited dynamic range of the camera.  If 10 stops can get you those kind of images, 13 is a huge step up.

IBIS works better I find than lens IS and gets too jerky at times.

5 hours ago, gethin said:

I've never pre-ordered a camera before but this is $1,585AUD in australia. Thats $1190 USD. THe gh5s is $3350.  Its insane.

BTW does anyone know weight (trying to figure out if it will fit on my gimbal).

760g body

80g roughly for battery

25g roughly for recording media

weigh your favorite lenses

Width is the real issue as it's 178mm wide, making it one of the widest cameras on the market.  It's as wide as many very big cinema cameras.

If your gimbal has both sides with bars on them it's 99% likely it will not fit.  Ronin-M/DJI M5, etc. Even single-sided gimbals like Zhiyun crane currently have problems but fixes are being implemented.

Currently the Tilta G2X and the Ronin-S are confirmed to work.

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Have you already shot with the production model? Because it sure sounds like you already know everything there is to know, including how the files look and everything.

John mentioned it in a previous post.  And it's gen4 color science and Ursa mini menus, so almost the same as the broadcast cam features.

A lot of other manufacturers could easily crush Blackmagic if they wanted to, but I doubt any of them will even try to compete.  Sony has really good sensor tech and they could easily build a small-form factor RAW and Prores shooting camera but they would never do it.

You don't have to grade with this camera.  It now features an extended video setting which doesn't need grading and looks nice.