Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I wonder why I should wonder about something that is promised and announced and allured me to buy... How would you called it and react to that in personal life? ... Simply, BM is so and so... actually, as I wrote earlier, this is some sort of prolonged puberty behavior that someone may sympathize - but not at all has to. We are customers and potential buyers, and we have all rights to be respected as we respect companies buying their products...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen an example of a switchable global and rolling shutter so maybe the images in that mode were just not worth enabling?

It's possible the global shutter mode had too many artifacts that they felt it was not worth adding to the cameras. I wonder if the global shutter sensor element affects the noise performance of the 4.6K sensor at all?

I'm just wondering if there were any downsides to adding a feature to a sensor that never got enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I have to bother with it asking such question and losing time - when they alone told me that it is so much worth, that was proud matter of their (be it who wish to be between companies) wizardry difference? ... And again and again, as if it is the must to slipped from the point... Which is not if GS is possible or matter of prepossessed  :) power - but that we were being convinced that it is, to the great degree (deserving important distinctive announce).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Prepossessing power? ūüėā

I would change my spelling mistake but then your comment would be well, confusing LoL.

And seeing, as far as I know, that the cheapest camera Sony makes now that has a Global Shutter is the Sony F55. So it ain't easy to do on the cheap as they say on every camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GH5 was announced that it was in development at Photokina ‚Äė16 and then officially announced in early January of ‚Äė17.¬†

Anyway the point is that this thread is full of people that act like no problems ever existed with BM cameras and people that act as though BM has the worst track record ever... both are a disservice... one looks like shilling troll and the other looks like they should just not buy one and be happy about it. 

Concerns or respect for BM is fine, but hate and extravagant praise is just silly. 

16 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Just marketing. For some reason this thread has 136 pages. Not only because of downvoting.

This thread is 136 pages because this camera is a near historic announcement for the indie filmmaker. The problem is that too many people want this camera to be something it won’t and others want it to fail.

And then the best part of the thread had a pro cinematographer openly and happily providing insight on how he uses BM cameras in his productions. But of course a bunch of eoshd pros have to argue with him about mundane things and chase him away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anonim said:

No, companies are not ALL the same - and BM in camera market is far away of desired behavior.


I reckon BMD's approach of offering the user a LOT for very little $$, is indeed a desirable behavior. 

 

 

2 hours ago, anonim said:

BM never fixed promised global shutter for BMMCC as a crucial advantage for many preordering users

Any one who pays 100% with the pre order is foolishly taking on the risk. 

So now we've got that out of the way, BMD never promised the Micro would get a Global Shutter once they'd already started shipping the Micro. This seems like a very unreasonable point to bring up against BMD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Justified criticism and/or skepticism is not hatred. I don’t believe a single person in this thread feels hatred toward BMD. 

Well I was being a little hyperbolic but anonim went from one side of the spectrum stating that Grant Petty is an honorable man that wouldn’t risk his reputation to saying BM has too much of a bad track record to be trusted...

But yeah, nothing is wrong with criticism or skepticism... I am skeptical of this camera. Actually I have two fears that are completely opposite scenarios... on one hand I am afraid that this camera’s use of this sensor is giving a lot of people false expectations that cannot be lived up to. But on the other hand, I really hope this isn’t a generic, vanilla camera that lacks the edgy, indie film look that was so beautiful in the first Pocket...

I guess we’ll know soon enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

Ok  they did announce global shutter on both 4.6K and Micro cameras and I don't now the logistics of why they never added those.  I don't think it's easy to do as Kinefinity cancelled their Terra 5K model as well that had switchable rolling and global shutter.

No one on earth has a switchable rolling/global shutter camera in mass production. 

And I think the only popular current cinema camera with a global shutter is the Sony PMW-F55
 

2 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

I wonder how far off they were from making that feature work?  I wonder what the real issues were?  Maybe the images looked bad and had enough artifacting during the GS mode that they didn't feel like enabling it.

Or the reverse might be true, if they had global shutter option then it impaired the rolling shutter mode so badly there was no point in having it. 
And most of us would rather have a rolling shutter camera without global shutter mode than having a global shutter camera poor in low light and with less dynamic range (which seems to be the common trade off). 

Of course if you can have a rolling shutter mode which works 100% fine and then the bonus of sometimes switching to global shutter for a few shots (even with an ISO / DR hit) then we'd all like that!

 

 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

This thread is 136 pages because this camera is a near historic announcement for the indie filmmaker. The problem is that too many people want this camera to be something it won’t and others want it to fail.

It boggles the mind why people would want it to fail, and yet they exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

Sony are the OEM. They built it FOR Hasselblad.  It's not licensed to Hasselblad so that Hasselblad can then go and make the camera under licence in their own factory.

Any off-the-shelf Sony technology that Hasselblad used is likely licensed so that Hasselblad can sell it.

 

On the other hand, neither of us know the language of the clauses in the Sony-Hasselblad agreement, so until somebody produces the contract, it is sort of futile to go back and forth any more on the matter.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You have not made that case.

Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

It's not an E mount if you can't use an actual E mount lens.¬† Isn't that obvious ?ÔĽŅ Isn't that relevant to the topic ?¬† You're claiming E mount, you're claiming it's easy to get around and yet, you actually can't use an E mount lens on the Kinifinity¬†despite the fact it has an E Mount option (unless it's some aftermarket E mount lens that doens't have comms)

E mount lenses require electronic comms for iris and power for IS. If you don't supply that then no native E mount lens with work on Kinifinity's E-mount.

The ONLY reason Kinifinity have been able to get away with saying it's an E mount is because it's not an E mount.  It's only mechanically an E mount

I think that most people would say it's an E-mount, even though the contacts are apparently not active.  When you buy the mechanical portion of the mount, what do you call it?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

Give me some examples with costs please. By the way you know Clairmount went bust ?

I have know idea how much Clairmont spent to make their adapters.  They were a rental house, so they didn't sell them.

 

I heard that Denny Clairmont merely  retired and sold his company to Keslow Camera -- not that Clairmont "went bust."'

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

I guarentee ÔĽŅyou the cost of a squishy lens was many thousands to manufacture. (Clairmount were like Panavision, mostly rental only)

I mentioned Clairmont Camera merely to demonstrate that the use of adapters is not always considered a "pain" nor "amateurish."  Rental cost of the adapters is immaterial.

 

Yes.  Panavision is another company that produces adapters happily used by pros.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

You should edit this and say...

"I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just can't change exposure or use the IS or record any metadata when using Native E mount lenses."

I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters.

As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses.

I am okay with that, as I would probably never need to use such an electronic lens.  I suspect that there are a few others who are likewise okay with it, as it being offered on a couple of cameras.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

How ?  By making a "plate" that magically doesn't cost extra ?  You're being foolish.

Right.  It's required. You agree.  It costs 700 bucks.  You want to add 700 bucks to the cost of a 1200 dollar camera for a feature few will use.

I am not sure you understand  the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design.

Of course it does.

I will try another way to explain how making the front end of a camera with a shallower mount costs no more than making the front end with a greater FFD.

 

Lets say that a camera manufacturer wants to make two cameras, each having a removable front lens plate:  one camera has a lens plate that mount at an FFD greater than that of say, a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "X" and camera body "Y";  the other camera has lens plate that mounts 12mm closer to the sensor than FFD of a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "A"  and camera body "B."

 

Lens plates "A" and "X" are identical, except that "A" is 12mm longer than "X."  Camera bodies "B" and "Y" are identical, except that "B" is 12mm shorter than "Y."  The tooling on the respective parts are identical, except for the difference in these single dimensions.

 

Thus, it costs the same to make "A-B" as it does to make "X-Y."  Got it?

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

Yes.  Tokina made a lens that some copies couldn't hit infinity at the standard Canon FFD. 

Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem.

 

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive.

Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable.

99% of the EF users will never change anything.  People who want to change mounts will largely be able to do so, and, of course, will have to accept any risks (which are almost nil).

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

Show me some detail about how you shim your EF mount ?

I wouldn't shim my EF mount (and I hardly ever use it).  However, if I had to shim it on the adapter to which it is mounted, I would have to unscrew it, put the shim(s) in place and screw the mount back on.  Of course, there needs to be enough male and female threads to do so securely and the shim/spacer needs to be positioned so that it comes between the adapter body and the mount material.

 

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

I am not sure you understand  the implications of native lens control or market economics mean to a camera design.

I think that I have made it clear that having a shallow mount doesn't preclude the use of a popular mount, and that such a configuration could be designed so that most users would be aware that the popular, fully-functional mount is actually removable.  I have addressed how the design of such a camera would not affect it's "market economics."

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks).

You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. 

I am saying that it usually is not a problem with cheap adapters, especially if one is using rails and a lens support.  Certainly,one tries to avoid skew, unless it is intentional (which, sometimes, it is).

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

I think you're alone in thinking that everyone will be fine with the compromise that goes with that. ÔĽŅ

That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users.

Yep.  At substantial cost.  It can be done. I agree.  You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this.

No.  It doesn't actually cost that much, even with precision.  Standard manufacturing/fabrication tolerances often start at +/- 0.003 inch (in the USA).  Of course, optical tolerances can be higher.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:
Quote

In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations).

Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ?  Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ?

I know one or two things about manufacturing.  The eight additional machining operations are tapping four threads in the camera body and drilling four corresponding holes in the lens mount.  These eight machining operations could be reduced down to two -- as I recall, the Eclair NPR had a turret that was attached with a single threaded knob (tap one thread in the NPR body and one hole in the lens plate).

 

Some fabricators count tapping threads as a separate operation from drilling the thread  hole.  Nonetheless, it is not that much more expensive than those who group such operations as a single procedure.

 

Before anyone goes on about the extra cost of dealing with a separate piece (lens plate) in comparison with a body that includes the front end as a single piece, there are complications that one has to deal with in regards to larger molded/die-cast items, which can drive the cost higher.

 

 

On 7/7/2018 at 3:58 PM, John Brawley said:

But it's a 700 dollar item. Round and round we go.  You keep saying it won't cost anything extra.

It's 700 bucks ! 

If you buy a theoretical camera with two plates, that's 700 bucks a pop. Or at least and extra 700 bucks for the EF version and you can make some homebrew e mount adaptor for 100 bucks, but it's still added 700 bucks to everyone else's camera for a feature they'll never use.

It's not more expensive, as I have explained in the "A-B/X-Y" example, and it is not much more expensive to go from a one-piece design to a two-piece design as I described directly above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 8:01 AM, webrunner5 said:

It Holds a F ing Sony E Mount lens, can you use the god damn thing, F No.

A shallow mount such as an E-mount allows one to do a few interesting things.  For instance, one can use the Kipon MF focal reducer on the Sony Venice and on the upcoming Kinefinity FF Mavo, and one is essentially shooting MF footage for a lot less than the Arri, Panavision and Red alternatives.

 

 

 

On 7/9/2018 at 8:38 AM, webrunner5 said:

EF Full Frame Package'  Fake News. What a misleading joke. Gee my APSC camera REALLY is a FF camera. Man did I get off cheap.

It's no joke.  Using a focal reducer to get the look of a lens designed for a larger format is absolutely valid.  If you think focal reducers are a joke, perhaps you should take up the issue with Metabones, Angenieux and White Point.

 

 

By the way, which camera do you have with an APSC sensor?  Unless you can afford the Angenieux or the newer White Point alternatives, your camera needs to have a shallow mount to take a focal reducer -- that's sort of the point that a few of us have been trying to make in several forum threads.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, tupp said:

A shallow mount such as an E-mount allows one to do a few interesting things.  For instance, one can use the Kipon MF focal reducer on the Sony Venice and on the upcoming Kinefinity FF Mavo, and one is essentially shooting MF footage for a lot less than the Arri, Panavision and Red alternatives.

 

And I can run out and buy a Barbie Cam and say I have a video camera. Comparing a Kinefinity FF Mavo to a Panavision is well, laughable.

 

 

It's no joke.  Using a focal reducer to get the look of a lens designed for a larger format is absolutely valid.  If you think focal reducers are a joke, perhaps you should take up the issue with Metabones, Angenieux and White Point.

 

It is advertised as a FF camera. It is NOT a FF camera. I can take a A6000 and add a SB and it is NOT a FF camera. It is a APSC camera that pretends to be a FF camera.

Why in the hell would anyone Ever pay the extra money for a FF camera if all you had to do was buy a new 500 dollar cheap ass APSC camera and add a SB? Why would any dumbass ever buy the Kinefinity FF Mavo when all they have to do is slap a SB on the cheap Kinefinity? Cause it Ain't the same thing.

 

 

By the way, which camera do you have with an APSC sensor?  Unless you can afford the Angenieux or the newer White Point alternatives, your camera needs to have a shallow mount to take a focal reducer -- that's sort of the point that a few of us have been trying to make in several forum threads.

 

Ever heard of a Canon 550D, a 80D, Sony A6000?

 

I can see some of your points. But you are not going to talk me into believing all of it LoL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The global shutter feature is built into the sensor.  I wonder if that effects the noise and sensitivity of the sensor to have that feature?  It would essentially be wasted design because it's not implemented anyway.

 

The only camera that I know of that also promised to have switchable rolling and global shutter was the Terra 5K and they completely scrapped that camera.

And Blackmagic does give a lot for a very little.  If you look at cameras under $10K, outside of the Ursa Mini Pro, how many of those could you comfortably use on a major Union television production with no compromise?  

EVA-1 has crappy codecs, and no TV show is going to let you shoot raw.  Same story with FS7, FS5, etc.  C200 is the same story and lacks any sort of timecode which makes it pretty useless as well.

Maybe you could use Kinefinity, but their cameras are priced in a clear bracket above what Blackmagic offers and their images don't seem as nice.

Blackmagic just gives you a no-fuss professional camera with every logical professional feature they can while still making the camera desirable for a large market says a lot about what people will think about the camera.  Blackmagic tries their best to not make compromises and give the users everything they want.  Look how many Ursa Mini Pros they will likely not sell because for a lot of people and their needs, the $1295 pocket is a better camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonpais said:

Justified criticism and/or skepticism is not hatred. I don’t believe a single person in this thread feels hatred toward BMD. 

And this has not to be believed - it is simply so and truth... But it  is challenge to participate in thread that permanently bring/threat you with fear that, in final, it would be seen as "hate" or "crying" or uncompetent or ungrateful to one DP - that still has no anything new to say about topic after hundred of often personal posts (!) - any single attempt to react against endless uncritical  ode to camera that is several months already in the showcase and preorder, without any single provided shot.

And after all these simple crying and hating facts - still again is born argument that such behavior is yet desired because BM gives so much for the money....There's no problem for me with BM to sell (not to give) anything comparative with chosen strategy... but with atmosphere in which any Consumer's voice of pure contra-reminding about failed or significantly prolonged promises has to be welcomed with a wave of intolerance, complicate advocating, quasiprofessional turnings of the topic or quasibalancing political correctness.

Actually, I think that I much tighter and mutually happier cooperate with BM in this case - at the moment it turns out that I'm exclusively user of m43 standard... the same one that for many participators in this thread is at other places not-enough-professional and against-rule-of-physics to compete with FF or S35 cameras... So BM mission with new Pocket is for me even broader... lets imagine why not to further rehousing it in truly smaller m43 camcorder body with integrated all necessary connections... or even (someone else with combining know/how) with IBIS as advantage of (till the yesterday) "small" unprofessional sensor.

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...