Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Snuff said:

I'm going to use with the new Pocket 4K vintage full frame manual lenses with Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x (Nikon to M4/3). 

1. Tokina 28-70 f/2.8, with BMPCC4K (crop 1.9) and 0.64x booster it covers 34-85mm f/1.8.

2. Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2.

3. And I would like to get Angenieux 70-210mm f/3.5.

My plan is to do something similar. Only I'm going with the Nikon Bourne lenses, the 28-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8, sharper wide open with more contrast, with a couple fast Nikon primes to complete the set. I had the Tokina/Angineux zoom, had to stop my copy down to 5.6 to get rid of that milky glow. My lens wasn't decentered and it looked consistent with other samples I'd seen on the net, I just prefer a bit more bite to the sharpness with more modern coatings. Its a great MF lens though, mine was really smooth and easy to repeat focus moves.

I would like to do Contax/Zeiss as I really like the way they look, but the zooms are mostly one-touch and I find it challenging to zoom/focus with the same ring while shooting handheld.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
3 hours ago, Axel said:

 

You got me wrong. I didn't say the lenses were soft. Or 'crap'. One of my favorite lenses for my A6500 is the Sony 18-105. Mostly for practical reasons. But you can't for the love of god focus manually, because there are no 'positions', and if you try to rehearse a focus transition, the focus ring will just slip under your fingers. Even infinity is infinitely pushed away from you. That's what I meant with "completely useless there" (= on a 4k Pocket). And your son's clip proves little, because it's done with such a narrow aperture, it's almost fixed focus.

Also, of the category I was referring to I only know Pan 14-40 kit lens, Oly 9-18 and Oly 12. There may be better lenses. On the official Pocket site BM shows the camera mostly with the Oly 12-40 f2.8, and according to this review, the manual focus is very useable:

 

 

 

 

 

Well I can understand why it is not easy, and I doubt I will be doing crash zooms with them LoL. But i can't afford to buy a whole bunch of Cine Lenses and the camera to boot. So I will need to use them as is. I am a tripod guy in no hurry so I doubt it will effect me much. I used to have a bunch of MF old lenses, but it got to be a GAS attack from hell and I got rid off Everyone of them. There is no end to that habit. So I will use what I gots as they say. One push AF ought to work. I know on my AF100A I had it worked well enough on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

My plan is to do something similar. Only I'm going with the Nikon Bourne lenses, the 28-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8, sharper wide open with more contrast, with a couple fast Nikon primes to complete the set. I had the Tokina/Angineux zoom, had to stop my copy down to 5.6 to get rid of that milky glow. My lens wasn't decentered and it looked consistent with other samples I'd seen on the net, I just prefer a bit more bite to the sharpness with more modern coatings. Its a great MF lens though, mine was really smooth and easy to repeat focus moves.

I would like to do Contax/Zeiss as I really like the way they look, but the zooms are mostly one-touch and I find it challenging to zoom/focus with the same ring while shooting handheld.

Chris

I used to have a similar set up (looks like we've all taken old Andy Lee's EOSHD lens advice to heart!) That 80-200 is one hell of a lens, sharp wide open, built like a tank. Just be aware that it is indeed a push-pull lens as well, if you're going after the one frequently recommended on this forum. The actual one used on the Bourne movies was the same lens, just re-housed for cine use. I liked mine, but eventually sold it because it was just too big and bulky for the type of shooting I do, as I don't really like to go all out with a rigged-up heavy cage/rails and lens-support setup, which I felt like I had to with the 80-200. Plus I rarely feel the need to go beyond 135 so it was kind of unnecessary zoom range for me. Eventually I had gotten rid of enough of my other Nikkor Ai and AiS primes that I started getting annoyed only having one lens that "focused backwards". Wreaks havoc on my muscle memory haha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JordanWright said:

The price on those 1.2 primes was the main reason I haven't gone for them, all the footage i've seen looks fantastic.

Lenses will generally last a lot longer than the camera 🙂

They're always a good investment in my view

2 hours ago, Jim Giberti said:

On the push pull zoom topic, FWIW I offer the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 Ai-s.

This is one of those "under the radar" lenses that was only on the market very briefly but is pretty widely loved by the folks that have shot with them. 

 

Nikon do some lovely glass.

But for us dedicated manual focus lovers, they focus the wrong way and that's not an insignificant issue with my decades of muscle memory.  I usually like to pull of the barrel in these scenarios but you can get direction reversing gears and reverse a motor of course, but in this kind of area, that's less likely to happen...

JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start with what I've been using and see how everything looks, then I'll start visiting this and other forums to see what you guys are using and the results everyone may share.

Nikon 

24-70, 70-200, 35mm F2, 85mm 1.8

Tokina

100 Macro, 11-16

Sigma 

50 1.4

Helios 40 and 44, Jupiter 9

Kowa 1.5x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest Leica R zooms - I found that their construction is second to none except modern Voigts. They don't protrude, focus and zoom rings are incredible smooth, again only comparable with Noktons. If lenses are in nice conditions (and their long life  period is unbeatable) they achieved quality that is the most important to me but I don't know how to better explain it: cleanness. Simply, image without predominant tone/shadow veil. Most of vintage lenses has it - and although it may be interesting in effect, it is near impossible to remove it completely in grading to get proper initial/neutral/clean grading point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Parker said:

I used to have a similar set up (looks like we've all taken old Andy Lee's EOSHD lens advice to heart!) That 80-200 is one hell of a lens, sharp wide open, built like a tank. Just be aware that it is indeed a push-pull lens as well, if you're going after the one frequently recommended on this forum. The actual one used on the Bourne movies was the same lens, just re-housed for cine use. I liked mine, but eventually sold it because it was just too big and bulky for the type of shooting I do, as I don't really like to go all out with a rigged-up heavy cage/rails and lens-support setup, which I felt like I had to with the 80-200. Plus I rarely feel the need to go beyond 135 so it was kind of unnecessary zoom range for me. Eventually I had gotten rid of enough of my other Nikkor Ai and AiS primes that I started getting annoyed only having one lens that "focused backwards". Wreaks havoc on my muscle memory haha. 

There's a two-touch version of the 80-200 AF-D. That's the one I'm referring to. I skip rails and just use the zoom's tripod mount with the camera hanging off the back. If I'm shooting with a tele, I'm generally on the sticks or a monopod. I use my lenses on APS-c and FF, so for me they cover a broader spectrum than m43. I would guesstimate that the 28-70 with and without a speed booster can cover 95% of what I shoot. If I like the P4k, I'll find an ultrawide like the Tokina 11-16 to cover the rest of my needs. 

Cheers

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JordanWright said:

Blackmagic were at the Media Production Show in London today. They didnt have any Pocket 4k's on display but they told me they are still expecting a September release.

That's a little crazy. Only 2.5 months until release, and they don't show any footage or nothing, but spent tons of money on the PR for it (images on their website etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

That's a little crazy. Only 2.5 months until release, and they don't show any footage or nothing, but spent tons of money on the PR for it (images on their website etc).

I don't think that it's crazy. 

What would be crazy, I think, would be to release less than optimal footage for everyone to squabble over while the sensor is possibly still being tweaked. Their cameras improve and evolve with each product and firmware release, so there's no reason to expect anything different with a camera they've been developing for so long. Obviously the countless people that pre-ordered within hours are confident that this will be the next gen, small camera that they've been anticipating.

But of course it makes sense for anyone, who wants to see footage, to wait until the camera is out in the field and being shot, tested and reviewed, as most people do.

Personally, I had no issue pre-ordering a pair at the end of the press event, without seeing advance footage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 7:39 AM, BTM_Pix said:

This is what Grant Petty had to say when they acquired DaVinci in 2009.

"When we were doing the due diligence on DaVinci, I saw a $50,000 price in the price list if you bought a secondhand system, and now wanted to be supported by DaVinci. And not only that, you're paying upward of $80,000 a year for support contract after that."

That was just the service charge price you paid to get it checked out if you bought a second hand one.

At that time he was talking about getting the purchase price of the high end systems down from $850K to $500K

At $1299, I'd say its the camera you are getting for free and not the software.


Thank you for putting some perspective into this! Agreed 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dan Wake said:

will the new blackmagic be compatible with this card? https://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B00HUWW8KQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

thx

Bro, like, just check: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs/W-CIN-12 or something.

Quote

Storage Type

1 x CFast 2.0.

1 x SD UHS-II card.

Highest bitrate mentioned: 272 MB/s

So reasons the card you're looking at is a bad match:

Nobody actually has any hands-on experience with the thing. For the original BMPCC they said:

Quote

What SD cards should I use with the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera?

The following SD cards are recommended for Apple ProRes 422 HQ recording:

  • Delkin Devices 16GB Elite SDHC UHS-I
  • Delkin Devices 32GB Elite SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 8GB 45 MB/sec Extreme SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 16GB 45 MB/sec Extreme SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 32GB 45 MB/sec Extreme SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 64GB 45 MB/sec Extreme SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 128GB 45 MB/sec Extreme SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 8GB Extreme Plus 80 MB/sec SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 16GB Extreme Plus 80 MB/sec SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 32GB Extreme Plus 80 MB/sec SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 64GB Extreme Plus 80 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 128GB Extreme Plus 80 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 128GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 256GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 512GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I

The following SD cards are recommended for CinemaDNG RAW recording:

  • Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDHC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 128GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 256GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I
  • Sandisk 512GB Extreme Pro 95 MB/sec SDXC UHS-I

So... they might be recommending these: https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/cfast/extremepro-cfast-2d / https://www.delkindevices.com/products/cfast/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx for your reply, I already own that card. I have checked the website but I have not understand if it will be compatible, for me would be ok to shoot in 1080p to start. can you help me to understand if it will be compatible please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said:

Quote

Nobody actually has any hands-on experience with the thing.

So, there's not knowing for sure, without having a go at it, or without Blackmagic making any specific statements about compatibility.

With SD cards there's the V-class. You can work out that a min. sustained speed is about 1/3th of the actual speed the card maxes out at (e.g. V90 = R280/W250). So R160/W155 would cover just a little over 50MB/s; which is where I think you'd be safe with the card and it does do that for all the 1080p resolutions except for the 'CinemaDNG RAW - 66 MB/s'. Of course I take it that's VBR, so you might not hit and therefor need to write away 66MB/s for some recordings. But CF is of course not SD (although coincidentally SanDisk mentions VPG-130 which also is a little over 3x to get from max rates to guaranteed speeds). So... my I guess is you'd be fine for:

Quote

1920 x 1080

  • CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 32 MB/s
  • CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 24 MB/s
  • Apple ProRes 422 HQ - 27.5 MB/s
  • Apple ProRes 422 - 18.4 MB/s
  • Apple ProRes 422 LT - 12.75 MB/s
  • Apple ProRes Proxy - 5.6 MB/s

Storage rates based on 30 frames per second.

But who knows, really. That's just what my logic would dictate. I'd pick up something new atleast, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...