Jump to content

osmanovic

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About osmanovic

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Look much more at the documentary shot, with the vignette. So it's a nice family video.
  2. repeat that, but this time with the original pocket, micro or bmcc and you'll see, it's really filmic.
  3. Especially the BMPCC is used very often next to Arri Alexa. Apparently very few people here know that.
  4. 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. That's 150% of the 550D's pixel size. This makes perfect sense and is in-line with the expectations. Now we're coming to the interesting part: what's going on on the surface of the Super16 sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? The sensor measures 12,48 × 7,02mm. It has a resolution of (merely) 1920 × 1080 pixels, because it doesn't need to take 21 megapixel stills - only (just over) 2 megapixel video. When we do the math we get a pixel size of 6,5 × 6,5µm. And the winner is... The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera! Theoretically. Wait! What just happened there?! So, there it is. If we consider each individual pixel on the sensor as a sensor of its own - the camera with the largest sensors is actually the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's pixels are 1,4% bigger than those of the Canon 5D Mark II and 52% bigger than the pixels on the 550D/T2i. So theoretically, solely based on the numbers - the BMPCC should theoretically have a better light sensitivity than practically all DSLR's on the market today. " Therefore, old Pocket and Micro, with up-scaling from 1080P to 4K, is still very good today. But with Blackmagic RAW this wouldn't be as good as with CinemaDNG, because Blackmagic RAW is less sharp. If Blackmagic RAW is also released for Blackmagic Micro and Pocket, I will not upgrade. That CinemaDNG is better is my personal conviction and opinion. It shouldn't speak for everyone at all. I hope this is now understandable.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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).
  10. 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 it comes. Is my statement so correct?
  11. 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 also good... but everything together is not an argument if the picture quality hardly differs from my iPhone. Probably because iPhone also has a Sony sensor? Are you of the same conviction? Friendly greetings.
×
×
  • Create New...