osmanovic

There are a lot of people who think that the pocket or micro with the small super16 means retro look. But that is not true. What makes the old blackmagic cameras special is the sensor. The sensor is equipped with large photosite and a dual-gain architecture (the same as ALEV sensor).The development of such sensors took place at that time for arri. The goal at that time was to keep the analog Arri look, with the digtal sensor. And the fairchild sensor is the same, only in small (pocket and micro, super16), large photosite with 6.5microns, dual gain and strangely the image is also very close to the arri.

Wonderful!
I think there's a few interesting points here.  
Firstly, I disagree when you say the OG isn't more gorgeous than the 4K.
There's a view that because they all shoot RAW that they're the same because you can make RAW look like anything, but that's simply not true.  For example, even in colourist circles the ability for Steve Yedlin to emulate film is often viewed as practically impossible, and Steve even says in his blog that it's not possible with the limited tools available (referring to Resolve and Baselight) and he had to write his own custom software to do it.
But setting aside professional colourists for a second and getting to the people who would realistically buy a BM pocket cinema camera (P2K, P4K, P6K, or P6KP), these people aren't likely to be able to grade the P4K to look like the P2K, or vice versa (and let's be honest - a great proportion of them only go as far as applying a LUT).  So while in theory the P2K isn't more gorgeous than the P4K, it is in practice when the average user has next to no ability to colour grade.
Moving into the comments about resolution and sharpness, I think this is something that relates to marketing and to ability to colour grade as well.
It relates to marketing in a couple of ways.  
Firstly, people often pick up the P2K for a retro look, because they're been brainwashed by TV companies to think that more resolution is more modern, when in reality most cinemas still project in 2K.  In addition to this they often pair the P2K with vintage lenses, which of course give a vintage look, which lacks sharpness.  However, in fact the P2K and BMMCC can just as easily be paired with modern cinema glass, and is by people who aren't after a vintage look.
Secondly, as people watch more and more content from YouTube rather than content shot on Alexas and graded by professional colourists, people get used to a sharper look as the default look.  Once again, this is marketing because the default look is over sharpened because the TV manufacturer who made your camera is baking that look into the camera in order to manipulate you into wanting a HD FHD 4K 8K TV.
Sharpness also comes down to colour grading, and this is something that I am experimenting with at the moment.  The P2K and BMMCC are very soft straight out of camera, which is fine if you know what you're doing, but alas, these files aren't being graded by professional colourists, they're being graded by people who don't even understand how LUTs work.  On top of this, sharpening is a whole art form but is almost never discussed and there are basically no tutorials.  Why?  Because your TV manufacturer camera oversharpens rather than under sharpens, and instead of learning to sharpen in post you learned to use vintage lenses and diffusion filters to get a sensible level of sharpness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WF1C7Kagjs

I understand what you're saying, but would suggest that they are only simple to deal with in post because they've had the most work put into them to achieve the in-camera profiles.  
It is widely known that the ARRI CEO Glenn Kennel was an expert on film colour before he joined ARRI to help develop the Alexa.  Film was in development for decades with spectacular investment into its colour science prior to that, so to base the Alexa colour science on film was to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Glenns book is highly recommended and I learned more about the colour science of film from one chapter in it than from reading everything on the topic I could find online for years prior:

Also, Apple have put an enormous effort into the colour science of the iPhone, which has now been the most popular camera on earth for quite some time, according to Flickr stats anyway.
I have gone on several trips where I was shooting with the XC10 or GH5 and my wife was taking still images with her iPhone, and so I have dozens of instances where my wife and I were standing side-by-side at a vantage point and shooting the exact same scene at the exact same time.  Later on in post I tried replicating the colour from her iPhone shots with my footage and only then realised what a spectacular job that Apple have done with their colour science - the images are heavily processed with lots and lots of stuff going on in there.
and now that I have a BMMCC and my OG BMPCC is on its way, I will add that the footage from these cameras also grades absolutely beautifully straight-out-of-camera - they too (as well as Fairchild who made the sensor) did a great job on the colour science.  The P4K/P6K footage is radically different and doesn't share the same look at all.

Wonderful movie shot on BMPCC and Voigtlander Noktons, presented in Cannes 2019.
https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/lillian-review-1203227609/
https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/lillian-cannes-review/5139633.article

No, the look is different, the new pocket 4k is worse...
today's test: 
BMMCC - best colors and overall look , a little noisy picture, but the noise is pleasant. Moire problem. But overall he is the winner! (Slowmo 60p) 
at ISO 400 is slightly cleaner in the shadows. (Native is 800) . It is not a modern clear picture, but as a best film emulation.
BMPCC (orig) - same as BMMCC but only 30p (a little more noise and moire than BMMCC)
BMPCC4K - worse colors and overall picture is shifted to yellow-red?  sharp highlights rolloff ? the picture is far more difficult to correct and color than the old pocket ?
the picture is cleaner , but it gets a "video look" ,  The shape of the body is terrible.  I gave a second chance and really didn't ... I put it back.
GH5 - The best tool for run & shot - Worse colors than BMPCC4K but not much, excelent IBIS ! , battery life, adjustable display and viewfinder. Very economical codec for all day shooting. It's a winner if you need quick and comfortable shooting.  It is a modern clear picture. Winner for RUN & GUN Shooting
 
So everything stays the same, I keep GH5 for modern picture style, BMMCC for film emulation project. 
BMPCC4K - not necessary ?
 

Orig. Pocket with orig.Nikon battery = 50min-60min. If i imagine BMPCC4K with NP970, i'm glad i have a real POCKET!  ? with 2x stabilized lens and mic, and still in the palm of your hand... 

 

I'm still surprised by my sigma 18-35, it's the most versatile of all ? close up or wide view.. no problem
(BMMCC)
 

me neither, not even Braw nor ProRes

I saw that video when it first came out. That is the video that I was talking about in my post.
I have three P4Ks and have tested all of them. Mine don't lose footage when they lose power. I wonder if his camera was defective or if that was an early firmware issue. All I can say is none of my three P4Ks behave that way. 

That is the problem with the Micro to me over the BMPCC, you might as well have a Canon C300. I, at my age, can't hardly shoot with a Smartphone, let alone a Camera Rig. The world has changed big time. Nobody trusts anyone anymore. When i was young Everyone trusted everyone. Complete opposite then. You young people are screwed big time.

Exactly.
No possible to live without them, isn't it? ; )
 
So, why to go lower and exclude the upper?
Why to ignore the most crucial clientele basis interest only to unilaterally impose some self-centered business aim or/and corporate agenda?
Why to not comply the full specs, prior-advertised, launched and released as well PURCHASED CinemaDNG camera, as due?
Why to not let people to keep the chance for choice and use whatever they/we want?
Why to keep and extend such cut-off with the new display firmware now, practically towards a P4K Mark *Minus* II?
Why such lack of respect with the customers who pay the existence of the brand, after all?
Why telling us lies like we are all naive consumers with a prosumer toy in hands?
Why to tell advantage in a pathetic show off presenting the whole thing as the most important invention since Steven Sasson when it's not consensual if we can all call it raw?
 
More questions we could address here... nuff said for now though.
Pictures still worth a thousand words. They speak by themselves. Useless the usual childish denial. It simply doesn't work out.
 
E : -)

Very well stated.  I think we just have to admit that the original and the PK4 are 2 different cameras output wise, both in a good way, and that neither one is going to look like the other one no matter what we do. And that is a good thing. We all have a choice. And the older ones are not that much money so, if you are lucky, you can have both. To me All the BMD cameras are a gift from heaven for what they cost. So we ought to be happy which ever route we go. But yeah, dropping  cDNG option on the new ones is a bummer.

And where is the orig. BMPCC? 300USD(used) , 1920x1080 RAW Crop 2,88 ? Proress HQ,422,LT,Proxy. Orig. BMPCC should be in the top of your list. And where is BMMCC 500USD 1920x1080 60p RAW (RAW 3:1) And absolutely great colors. Very easy RAW editing in Resolve.

I think the BMPCC is second to the BMCC.

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.

The PK4 to me was the worse. Not even close. But we all have different ideas what is good or not, and not the same monitors looking at the footage, which by the way I just re-calibrated mine 3 days ago.

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. 

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. 

Thanks, so I guess right this time  So, cDNG sometimes really has more detail, but not necessarily... Now we have to learn how often and when...
I'm personally interested for the simple reason: being extremely satisfied with form factor, rigging possibility and image of Micro 1080p cDNG, I'm not so satisfied with possibility that for similar 1080p quality I have to shot 4k in P4K. Also, if result of super (up)scaling Micro's 1080p to 4K is similar or identical with 4k of P4K, there's not too much advantage rest with P4K except framing. (I always shot rigged with external small audio recorder and Atomos recorders for the backup reason.)

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.

Yeah, that screen thing don't make no sense.