Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Recommended Posts

  • 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

RAW files reveal slight distortion in the Olympus 25mm and 45mm f/1.2 Pro primes used in JB’s Models Walking in Daylight, but huge amounts in the 12-100mm f/4.

I’ve shot fairly extensively with the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro on the GH5 and it’s pretty spectacular no matter how you slice it.

I’m quite confident the PanLeica 10-25mm f/1.7 will in all likelihood also have deliriously high distortion whenever it is released.

It should be noted that even zooms that don’t rely on in-body software correction, such as as the brilliant Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8, suffer from distortion -  in this case quite noticeable barrel distortion - from the wide end up until around 24-28mm, where it is tamed a bit. 

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

I’ve shot fairly extensively with the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 Pro on the GH5 and it’s pretty spectacular no matter how you slice it.

I’m think this or the Panasonic 42.5 f/1.2 equivalent for the P4k but from your experience the Olympus sounds like a good choice. I want to try the AF - usually use Voigtlanders.

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

RAW files reveal slight distortion in the Olympus 25mm and 45mm f/1.2 Pro primes used in JB’s Models Walking in Daylight, but huge amounts in the 12-100mm f/4.

I was thinking about getting the 12-100 as my first lens along with the P4k. What is the net effect of this distortion? Worse image quality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tekeela said:

I was thinking about getting the 12-100 as my first lens along with the P4k. What is the net effect of this distortion? Worse image quality?

Have a look at the charts and you tell me.

But unless you’re shooting real estate, I’m not so sure how much it really matters.

Distortion can be pretty severe at some focal lengths, but a lot of zooms ‘as bad or worse’ than the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 in that regard have been a staple of filmmakers for forever - the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tekeela said:

I was thinking about getting the 12-100 as my first lens along with the P4k. What is the net effect of this distortion? Worse image quality?

Purists have always been pretty animated about lens distortion. Obviously any lens distortion with a film camera would show up in the print. With a DSLR the distortion would be evident in the viewfinder but could be corrected. With a mirrorless you can correct the distortion in both the viewfinder (with lens profiles) and the image (in camera or in post.) 

Obviously software correction of optical distortion requires a small degree of stretching of the underlying pixels which equates to some loss of image quality but it is relatively minor. I feel it is actually an advantage of mirrorless that you can effectively use both software and optical solutions to correct distortion allowing cheaper and lighter lenses (the FE 28 2 is a good example). Pretty much any zoom like an M43 12-100 or FE 24-105 will tend to have quite a lot of distortion at the wide end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the distortion is simple barrel or pincushion it can be fixed in most NLE's. Even if it's more complex it's likley it can be made good enough for most and unless the image has vertical straight lines near the edges it won't be noticeable in the first place. Additionally if you fix it in your NLE it will probably be done with less loss of quality than if it's done in camera as in camera processing has to be done with minimum processor load and not maximum quality concerns. There are other issues to be more concerned with over lens choice - focus breathing, MF action, Bokeh, CA and image stabilisation. CA can also be fixed in some NLE's or you can import clips into photoshop as a smart object and correct with the filters ( inc distortion). I've seen loads of footage on TV and in the cinema that has uncorrected CA and distortion which may or may not have been added to create a certain 'look'. A lens can also be technically perfect but this doesn't mean it makes for a pleasing image......

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jn- said:

Indeed Webrunner5.  I'm waiting to see how well the existing ones work with this camera, for example will a new one be made, or will the x .64 one work, etc.  When reviewers or users here that already have a Speedbooster and report back on what works it’ll be easier to make a decision.

 

I'm using the .64 Speedbooster XL on my Pocket4K and it works great with full frame lenses.

There is a slight vignette on the wide end of my Sigma 18-35 1.8

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jn- said:

I’d imagine someone soon will come up with a Heath Robinson, off the shelf contraption to boost battery life,  i.e. external battery pack or maybe a manufactured battery accessory, maybe fitted to bottom of cam.

Either way, will be popular.

Is the screen not that good even at 100%?

Yep, that what I'm hoping re: battery. Neewer or Meiki who make battery grips for DSLR's need to come up with one for the pocket 4k.

The one shoot I did with the camera was all in mid day sun and the screen at 100% was not good at all. That, and the fact it doesn't tilt are my major gripes with the camera so far. Overall though, it's a great camera and I'm really enjoying it.

It's a shame that BMD have thought to fit a nice large sharp LCD to the camera but then screwed things up by not having it be tilt-able a few degrees meaning I'm probably going to have to use a SmallHD focus or similar on it.....kind eliminating the point of the built in screen. ?‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jn- said:

I’d imagine someone soon will come up with a Heath Robinson, off the shelf contraption to boost battery life,  i.e. external battery pack or maybe a manufactured battery accessory, maybe fitted to bottom of cam.

Either way, will be popular.

Is the screen not that good even at 100%?

Plenty of battery options already out there - Atomos Power station for instance. I'd just be using my stock of LP-E6 batteries and changing them as and when I need to as I won't want the bulk or hassle of an external battery. I wouldn't expect the screen to be usable in bright sunlight but it's highly likley various loupes and hoods are already in development to fix that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 11:16 PM, webrunner5 said:

I never said it wold cost more, it will be damn near as big. This is suppose to be a POCKET camera, not a Cinema Scope camera. And for 4 grand you can buy a real Cine camera used.

It's not really suppose to be a 'pocket' camera in the true sense of the word.......did you every try to fit the Kessler Pocket Dolly in your pocket?

In terms cine cameras that can shoot 4K RAW up to 60p, this camera really is 'Pocket' sized......but not literally if you get my drift. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Plenty of battery options already out there - Atomos Power station for instance. I'd just be using my stock of LP-E6 batteries and changing them as and when I need to as I won't want the bulk or hassle of an external battery. I wouldn't expect the screen to be usable in bright sunlight but it's highly likley various loupes and hoods are already in development to fix that.

Hmmmmm a 5" loupe? No thanks. 

I too am going to make a hood but that then means you need to hold the camera at eye height 6 inches away from your face which doesn't really lend itself to steady shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A_Urquhart said:

Hmmmmm a 5" loupe? No thanks. 

I too am going to make a hood but that then means you need to hold the camera at eye height 6 inches away from your face which doesn't really lend itself to steady shots.

Why is a 5" loupe going to be no good?  My eyes can't focus at 6" so it's either a Loupe or an external EVF if I want to use it off the tripod (which I won't as that's where the GH5 is clearly superior.)

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...