Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

[webrunner5 2,459]

38 minutes ago, jonpais said:

other cinema cameras perhaps; not mirrorless.

 

Where does it say that? Every camera does Raw., even a iPhone. Every Cine camera that I can think of is pretty much a Mirrorless camera in the modern era. PK4 is mirrorless.

[Jn- 85]

@matthere

“I've not noticed any "substantial" problems myself but I tend to use manual wide lenses from SLRmagic and Laowa currently, the PanaLeica 10-25 f1.7 has my attention though”

The manual lenses you mentioned may well be better corrected than the Pana/Oly lenses.

Sony also relies heavily on software auto correction.

To see the issue, have a look at the Opticallimits lens review site, formerly photozone.  Klaus usually displays the non-corrected distortions etc in his lens tests.

Of course the distortion can be corrected in the nle, its just something you won’t have to do with say a Pana/Oly/Sony camera.  Canon Nikon Sigma tend to be better corrected from the get go, so if using say a Canon with adapter, not really much of an issue.

[Jonesy Jones 683]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

"Blackmagic told us that Blackmagic RAW will be coming to the BMPCC 4K at some stage, but it won’t be in there when the camera first ships.

It is also very likely that over the next 6 months or so that we will see Blackmagic RAW being implemented into other companies cameras. Blackmagic have said that they are very open to letting just about anyone use Blackmagic RAW as opposed to making it a closed system."

From this article at the bottom.

 

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/09/15/blackmagic-raw-explained-ibc-2018/

When I said other cameras, I was referring to other non BM cameras. Yes, it will be added to the P4K. Perhaps some other BM cameras, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY .braw will be added to other manufacturer cameras for free. The best analogy I can think of is this.

Lets say a nutritional company has created a health system that guarantees you more energy, strength, stamina, whatever, etc. It is based on some new biotech research. Based on many reviews it really does seem to work, but it has to be customized for each person. So you make an appt with one of their personal nutritionist. They take myriad tests and measurements on you personally. Based on your current condition, blood type, build, etc they prescribe a handful of dietary supplements along with some workouts and lifestyle changes. Several weeks later they test and measure you again. You've made progress. But they tweak the prescription a bit based on your reaction to it. Several more weeks pass and they test and measure you again. You're doing even better, but they tweak the prescription once again, though likely this will be your new and default program from there on out. And truly you feel amazing.

Your friend comes along and tries the same things you did, with no tests, and sees little to no effect on his personal health.

BM is able to get amazing things out of the UMP because of the their R&D AND the implementation to that specific sensor/camera combo. In other words, not only was there a great amount of effort spent developing the .braw codec, but it has to be taylor fitted to each sensor/camera combo which requires a great deal of resources. 

Not only does this give BM cameras a marketing edge and would be silly to just give it away for free, but it takes a great deal of time to implement. There is also the issue of camera processing power as well. Each of these reasons make it unlikely that we see .braw in a non BM camera and if it does happen, and I would love to see that, it won't be for free. 

59 minutes ago, Jn- said:

@matthere

“I've not noticed any "substantial" problems myself but I tend to use manual wide lenses from SLRmagic and Laowa currently, the PanaLeica 10-25 f1.7 has my attention though”

The manual lenses you mentioned may well be better corrected than the Pana/Oly lenses.

Sony also relies heavily on software auto correction.

To see the issue, have a look at the Opticallimits lens review site, formerly photozone.  Klaus usually displays the non-corrected distortions etc in his lens tests.

Of course the distortion can be corrected in the nle, its just something you won’t have to do with say a Pana/Oly/Sony camera.  Canon Nikon Sigma tend to be better corrected from the get go, so if using say a Canon with adapter, not really much of an issue.

The Pan "Lumix" lenses need software correction, but Oly's don't rely on that as much according to Brawley. I kind of assume the Leica lenses don't rely on it as much either since Leica has such a great lens making heritage.

[Snuff 85]

Japanese review with sample footage.

 

[jonpais 3,123]

20 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

When I said other cameras, I was referring to other non BM cameras. Yes, it will be added to the P4K. Perhaps some other BM cameras, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY .braw will be added to other manufacturer cameras for free. The best analogy I can think of is this.

Lets say a nutritional company has created a health system that guarantees you more energy, strength, stamina, whatever, etc. It is based on some new biotech research. Based on many reviews it really does seem to work, but it has to be customized for each person. So you make an appt with one of their personal nutritionist. They take myriad tests and measurements on you personally. Based on your current condition, blood type, build, etc they prescribe a handful of dietary supplements along with some workouts and lifestyle changes. Several weeks later they test and measure you again. You've made progress. But they tweak the prescription a bit based on your reaction to it. Several more weeks pass and they test and measure you again. You're doing even better, but they tweak the prescription once again, though likely this will be your new and default program from there on out. And truly you feel amazing.

Your friend comes along and tries the same things you did, with no tests, and sees little to no effect on his personal health.

BM is able to get amazing things out of the UMP because of the their R&D AND the implementation to that specific sensor/camera combo. In other words, not only was there a great amount of effort spent developing the .braw codec, but it has to be taylor fitted to each sensor/camera combo which requires a great deal of resources. 

Not only does this give BM cameras a marketing edge and would be silly to just give it away for free, but it takes a great deal of time to implement. There is also the issue of camera processing power as well. Each of these reasons make it unlikely that we see .braw in a non BM camera and if it does happen, and I would love to see that, it won't be for free. 

The Pan "Lumix" lenses need software correction, but Oly's don't rely on that as much according to Brawley. I kind of assume the Leica lenses don't rely on it as much either since Leica has such a great lens making heritage.

Just looking at the Leica 12mm f/1.4 and 8-18mm f/2.8-4, they’ve both got huge amounts of distortion. 

[Jonesy Jones 683]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

Just looking at the Leica 12mm f/1.4 and 8-18mm f/2.8-4, they’ve both got huge amounts of distortion. 

Balls.

[jonpais 3,123]

I repeat, B RAW will not be coming to a hybrid anywhere near Ohio in my lifetime. 

[webrunner5 2,459]

You guys are crazy as hell, but I have known that for awhile LoL. 🤣

[Jn- 85]

I've already checked out the Oly 12mm f2.0 because I have it, its just as bad for uncorrected distortions as the Pana lenses.  I have one of the four thirds Leica zooms and its better corrected, not such reliance on software,  just needs adapter, which I have, FT to MFT.

I'll be mainly using the Pana 12-35mm f2.8, mk. 1.  The issue for distortion eases as you zoom away from 12mm with most of any zooms that start that wide.

If you look at the John Brawley indoor shots, the distortion on verticals is quite obvious, windows on the right, door at end left.  As an exercise I went about correcting in Vegas, no problem.

I have only one non MFT/FT lens, the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 Nokton, but that becomes an 80mm.

 

[webrunner5 2,459]

7 minutes ago, Jn- said:

 

I have only one non MFT/FT lens, the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 Nokton, but that becomes an 80mm.

 

I see a Speedbooster in your future LoL..Ahh hell, it's only money.

[Newway12 12]

 

cheap bmp4k cage option

https://www.ebay.com/itm/BMPCC2-4K-DSLR-Rig-Kit-Cage-Handle-15mm-FOR-BlackMagic-Pocket-Cinema-Camera-4K/202421181001?hash=item2f213e1a49%3Am%3Am0Gd4jzTBeDxy2eJG3DlFcA&var=502444651621

[Jn- 85]

32 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I see a Speedbooster in your future LoL..Ahh hell, it's only money.

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.

 

[webrunner5 2,459]

I don't know if this has been shown??

 

[jonpais 3,123]

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. 

[Dunjoye 61]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't know if this has been shown??

 

Came in to post that. Great colours 

[Snowfun 331]

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.

[tekeela 3]

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?

[jonpais 3,123]

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.

[Robert Collins 400]

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.

[jonpais 3,123]

 

Zeiss CP.3 primes take shading and distortion correction to the next level.