Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

So I’m all prepared with batteries and media storage, but not an adapter for my lenses. Because I’m going from aps-c lenses I’m looking at putting in an order for the speedbooster Ultra .71. But I have a question to you more technically involved guys; if metabones did make a specific speedbooster for the P4K down the line, how much better could that be? The Ultra .71 already pushes the lenses capacity in regards to the sensors size no? So there wouldn’t be a point to even create a specific speed booster, am I right?

If you want to save a substantial amount of money but don't want to compromise on optical quality then get a Viltrox EF -M2. Infact get the M1 straight adapter as well and still have plenty left over! No point producing a specific focal reducer for the P4k as it's just a stock M43 sensor size and mount .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My dear erstwhile member can you please stop attacking John Brawley now. I have long since given up on camera forum arguments so might not be completely up on who is right and who is wrong-evil /

I like the pictures. A lot.  This camera will probably replace the micro cinema camera for me as it’s not much bigger and is much easier to work with.  I didn’t feel as strongly about the 4K

What a shame. Who are these "deep state" BMD insiders that are here pushing an agenda ? Myself and Hook.  Who else ?  What do you guys think, there's a plot and conspiracy ?  You guys don't wat t

Posted Images

The Viltrox EF-M2 has issues with my LS300 though. The connections aren't right and keeps disconnecting the lens. Works like a charm on my GX80 though. Metabones non booster to EF works on the LS. Im hoping it works on the pocket, but only time will tell.

Speaking of time... Is IBC the generally accepted release expectation. BMD have said they have an announcement about this cam at IBC, and they've also said in the last week that they're still aiming for a Sept release.

so I think they'll either release it at IBC, or reveal the final, fixed date.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

Speaking of time... Is IBC the generally accepted release expectation. BMD have said they have an announcement about this cam at IBC, and they've also said in the last week that they're still aiming for a Sept release.

so I think they'll either release it at IBC, or reveal the final, fixed date.

 

B&H has the expected availability date listed as 10/5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thomas Hill said:

B&H has the expected availability date listed as 10/5.

That's typical B&H "expected delivery" nonsense in attempt to keep the orders coming in...  BMD are on record denying any involvement in giving them that date or any other date.  My vendor has spoke with the distributor, and they have no date as of yet but still planning for Sept for preorders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mercer said:

So a P4K specific speedbooster may be introduced to reflect the exact mount and filter thickness of the camera.

@Brian Caldwell

Can we get you to weigh in on this?

As far as I understand, filter stack thickness varies between m43 cameras, yet no m43 camera has problems focusing native lenses to infinity.

Which leads me to believe the camera manufacturer offset the distance of the mount to account for their filter stack to prevent this issue from ever occuring.

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

@Brian Caldwell

Can we get you to weigh in on this?

As far as I understand, filter stack thickness varies between m43 cameras, yet no m43 camera has problems focusing native lenses to infinity.

Which leads me to believe the camera manufacturer offset the distance of the mount to account for their filter stack to prevent this issue from ever occuring.

It’s not to do with getting focus at infinity at all.

its about optimising performance with very fast lenses when shooting wide open. 

Previously it meant making a specifically optimised BMD SB variant to account for the different IR cover glass thickness. 

You can still use a regular SB and it will still hit infinity. It’s just less optimised to work with faster than F2 lenses. 

JB

Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Brawley - Really interesting discussion!  If you use a faster lens wide open without a speed booster will the performance change based on sensor stack thickness?  Does a manufacturer like Sony stay will the same sensor stack thinness year over year? or if Sony makes it thinner generation to generation, does performance increases generation to generation with the same native lenses?

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, majoraxis said:

@John Brawley - Really interesting discussion!  If you use a faster lens wide open without a speed booster will the performance change based on sensor stack thickness?  Does a manufacturer like Sony stay will the same sensor stack thinness year over year? or if Sony makes it thinner generation to generation, does performance increases generation to generation with the same native lenses?

Thanks!

The sensor maker doesn’t necessarily make the sensor stack. The very fact that the sensor stack thickness is consistent with BMD cameras should tell you this.  

Wide open lenses with shorter cover glass isn’t the issue. It’s because we’re adding another optical formula in between the rear of the lens and the sensor.

The thickness isn’t important to performance either. Obviously or we’d have noticed major problems by now !

It changes the optics performance of what a speed booster is doing though. And THATS the issue.

It’s not worse.  Or better. It’s just different to other MFT cameras and that means to fully optimise the optics design of the SB you have to change the formula and that makes it less optimal for other MFT cameras.  

This is about making a correction to get the most from a lens.  

Many cine lenses that have rear filters for example always have to have a clear filter in because the optical formula is calculated with that exact thickness of refractive index always being there, no matter if it’s clear or ND.  

This is my “lay” understanding.  It gets reported as “non standard” MFT cover glass, but there isn’t an actual standard ! 

Olympus and Panasonic both use a different thickness, it’s just that they’re close enough together that the same speed booster works fine for both of them. (One is 2.3mm I think and one is 2.5mm)

They are also using OLPFs as well as being IR. BMD only have the IR filter, no OLPF.  

This is about economics.  They don’t want to have to make a BMD specific speedbooster, they want the same MFT speedbooster to work on all MFT cameras.

 

JB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Brawley said:

It’s not to do with getting focus at infinity at all.

See this is why I'd like to have @Brian Caldwell reply. I was forced to study optics for a semester specifically for microscopy.

Brian could maybe tell us what specifically changes quantitatively. Instead of just "performance".

Can't really fathom what else would change besides the angle of refraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@andrgl Here's an interesting article about RX and non-RX lenses for Bolex.

http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/12/rx-vs-non-rx-lenses.html

I'm pulling some quotes from the section about the aberrations caused by using non-RX lenses (designed with no glass prism) on an RX camera (which has a 10mm glass prism between the lens and the film).

Quote

The problem is that the prism causes the outer light rays from a lens to be bent at different angles to the central ones, so they don't converge at the same point, creating blurry images at the film plane. These aberrations are what the RX lenses have been designed to counteract.

Quote

The aberrations are more pronounced at wider apertures, because this is when the light rays pass through the edges of the lens elements as well as the centre, exhibiting the most variation in how they are bent.

 

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

See this is why I'd like to have @Brian Caldwell reply. I was forced to study optics for a semester specifically for microscopy.

Brian could maybe tell us what specifically changes quantitatively. Instead of just "performance".

Can't really fathom what else would change besides the angle of refraction.

He’s posted a few times on the BMD forum about this issue. Some others have tested his assertions as well. 

My takeaway is that the edges are “softer” and have more aberrations with fast primes because the design isn’t optimised for the different thickness in cover glass (not made by Sony)

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=71899

and

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26122

JB

 

EDIT and actually this post and the video below it demonstrates the differences visually.  https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26122#p162887

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, matthere said:

In the top video ^^ they seem to mention waveform a lot?  Is this a confirmed feature?

Think they showed us focus peaking when talking about 'waveforms'. Think they have little idea what they're talking about. They also called the 4/3" sensor inside slightly bigger than the Micro Four Thirds sensor... which... is not a thing. xD

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...