Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About osmanovic

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I would like to return to this contribution. Here it is claimed that the cDNG example is false details. I quote "Especially this image - what you're seeing on the DNG is not real information the DNG retained, it's CREATING it (falsely) and it can look like sharpness/detail when it's over areas of real detail, but it's a very "hard" and digital feeling look IMHO" That's not correct. The solution can also be found in your Blackmagic forum: Or: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7529
  2. Look much more at the documentary shot, with the vignette. So it's a nice family video.
  3. repeat that, but this time with the original pocket, micro or bmcc and you'll see, it's really filmic.
  4. Especially the BMPCC is used very often next to Arri Alexa. Apparently very few people here know that.
  5. As a better explanation, I would like to add that: http://rubenkremer.nl/2013/08/27/theoretical-light-sensitivity-of-the-pocket-cinema-camera/ "Down to the micrometers The sensor of the 550D is 22.2mm wide and has a height of 14.8mm. It's resolution it 5.184 × 3.456 pixels. Simple math will tell us the pixels are 4,28 × 4,28µm. The legendary Canon EOS 5D Mk. II has a large fullframe sensor, one of the (relatively) few. It's measures 36 × 24mm and has a resolution of 5.616 × 3.744 pixels. Zooming in on the actual pixels on that sensor we're getting a pixelsize of 6,41 × 6,41µm.
  6. 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
  7. CinemaDNG offers significantly more details. The comparison pictures BRAW and CinemaDNG also show that BRAW has no finest details. The image information is lost at both 4K and 1080P and cannot be restored. CinemaDNG is different, because it contains the finest details and you can see how good this is when you scale up 1080P to 4K. BRAW is also not an OLPF, the moiré improvement can be seen minimally in the horizontal area. You can do similar things with CinemaDNG by applying "Gaussian Blur" filter (H/V Strength: 0.333) to CinemaDNG.
  8. CinemaDNG is real RAW. This looks like this on the example picture, because CinemaDNG does not filter the finest details (which are reproduced by analog-to-digital conversion (ADC)). With BRAW, the finest details are filtered internally. RAW should remain RAW and the processing of RAW should be left to anyone, who has bought a camera because of RAW and also expects real RAW. When I put on the CinemaDNG example image in DR some "Gaussian Blur"-filter (H/V Strength: 0.333), it looks similar to BRAW. And yes THAT has something to do with sharpness.
  9. 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?
  10. CinemaDNG and 4K is closer to true 4K BRAW and 4K is about 10% less. Therefore, 1080p and CinemaDNG is a very good 1080p. So CinemaDNG with 1080p is about as good as BRAW with 4K scaled to 1080p (in terms of sharpness). This is our result. We compared both cameras (old and new Pocket).
  11. I didn't mean the sharpness (the old pocket and micro, is also surprisingly good in the sharpness) but the colours, the highlights, the contrast. This seems to be more organic or more natural with the old sensor. So the internal process, the conversion from analog to digital, is fantastic. Too much digital, makes it look video, and that's the case with the new Pocket. The digital look, doesn't change after colorgrading, it remains there because the internal process in the camera (the conversion from analog to digital) is no longer manipulable afterwards, because it comes from the sensor as
  12. Hello everybody, I expected the new Blackmagic Pocket 4K to be slightly better than the old one, but I was wrong and returned the camera. The old Blackmagic Pocket simply has better image quality. Colorgrading works better, many different colorstyles are possible. The Pocket 4K somehow has a video look, it has a lot of noise in the shade and is very big without any special advantages. It's plastic. The display is nice, but I don't use it anyway, because I can connect another screen and move it in any direction. In practice, it's only used for menu. So not really an argument. More FPS is
  • Create New...