Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I would think it is from them not having any software corrections for Vignetting,  Barrel Distortion , Pincushion, on and on. Most lenses are crap on the wide end new or old. A lot of the old lens suck at having poor coatings ,or if they have it are half wore off, or have swirl marks from hell. Fungus in older lenses adds to it also.

Having a camera with No corrections is not very conducive to super great output, especially once you get below 18mm FF equivalent. Back in the day anything wider than that in FF was a Fisheye lens

Have you looked at the samples?  The main lenses compared are maunal lenses.  The Laowa 7.5mm and Samyang 12mm, which dont have any corrections happening in any camera.  These tests even show these lenses at f2 on a GX85 out performing themselves at f5.6 (even f8) on the Pocket4k.

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 minutes ago, MattH said:

Have you looked at the samples?  The main lenses compared are maunal lenses.  The Laowa 7.5mm and Samyang 12mm, which dont have any corrections happening in any camera.  These tests even show these lenses at f2 on a GX85 out performing themselves at f5.6 (even f8) on the Pocket4k.

Not on the edges that I see. Sure I would hope using 12 bit Raw you get better results than a GX85 can produce .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I would think it is from them not having any software corrections for Vignetting,  Barrel Distortion , Pincushion, on and on. Most lenses are crap on the wide end new or old. A lot of the old lens suck at having poor coatings ,or if they have it are half wore off, or have swirl marks from hell. Fungus in older lenses adds to it also.

Having a camera with No corrections is not very conducive to super great output, especially once you get below 18mm FF equivalent. Back in the day anything wider than that in FF was a Fisheye lens

In camera corrections do not fix edge softness and infact due to the correction warping of the image they often make it worse. This is simply a physical phenomenon of lens exit pupil position in relation to the sensor, a difference in sensor filter thickness and the larger sensor of the P4k. Also some lenses are very good at their widest setting and wide open - my OL12-40 2.8 is sharper at the edges and corners than my 12-35 2.8 and 12-60 2.8-4 even when these are stopped down to optimum apertures. I do however worry that these lenses when used on the P4k where they are not corrected for distortion and CA will not look great. I'll find out tomorrow when my camera arrives ( or Monday...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably right. But with the crop in this camera you have to go Wide as hell to get wide. And the wider you get the worse it is going to get. And with no corrections, I can sort of see why they did it, it might end up being it's Achilles Heal for what most people would like to use it for.

And most Anamorphic lenses REALLY suck at the edges to start with that are affordable. So it will be interesting. Some of it can add to the mood, but some of it can kill the mood also. Interesting camera for sure, good and bad.

I would still like to buy one. I have sort of got hooked on 16mm on my Sony A7s. So I would have to go to 8mm on the PK4. Might get interesting doing that. Not worried about the 120 crop, I would not go that slow I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You are probably right. But with the crop in this camera you have to go Wide as hell to get wide. And the wider you get the worse it is going to get. And with no corrections, I can sort of see why they did it, it might end up being it's Achilles Heal for what most people would like to use it for.

And most Anamorphic lenses REALLY suck at the edges to start with that are affordable. So it will be interesting. Some of it can add to the mood, but some of it can kill the mood also. Interesting camera for sure good or bad.

It's all relative - a 12mm lens for M43 is just a scaled down 24mm lens for full frame so it's not technically very special 

Share this post


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

It's all relative - a 12mm lens for M43 is just a scaled down 24mm lens for full frame so it's not technically very special 

Yeah but a true native m4/3 lens is not the same animal as a adopted FF lens formula, optics wise. You are Only using the center on the m4/3 body using a FF lens. Even a poor lens on FF is not too bad looking on a PK4. Actually the poor lens probably has a better Cine look to it to be honest on the PK4. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of hysteria surrounding ultra wide lens edge performance but in real world shooting is this really a problem. Shooting moving images with an ultrawide lens is problematic for many reasons including weird perspective effects like excessive motion at the edges of the frame when combined with camera movements, unnatural perspectives and simply people looking fatter at the edges of the frame. In the cinema it may be used to convey a sense of distorted reality in a scene but in general use that 'ultra wide shot' has few uses. 

Share this post


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

There seems to be a lot of hysteria surrounding ultra wide lens edge performance but in real world shooting is this really a problem. Shooting moving images with an ultrawide lens is problematic for many reasons including weird perspective effects like excessive motion at the edges of the frame when combined with camera movements, unnatural perspectives and simply people looking fatter at the edges of the frame. In the cinema it may be used to convey a sense of distorted reality in a scene but in general use that 'ultra wide shot' has few uses. 

It depends on how you shoot. It might not be a major issue for many, but I draw a lot of inspiration from the aesthetic of directors who make prominent use of ultra wides like Terry Gilliam, Terrence Malick and Michael Mann (of late), so it is for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PROAV dynamic range tests are pretty useless.   They don't understand that ISO is not exposure.    So they have not actually increased the exposure at all steps in these tests.  In some they have just changed the iso.  Which just shows how the camera reacts to the same exposure at different iso's.   Thats why you see such a masive difference at the so called "+3 stops" on the pocket4k test.   Between "+1 stops" iso 400 and "+2 stops" 800 thats actually exaclty the same exposure and native iso with a different tone curve aplied.  So there would be no difference in what clipped.  Whereas with the "+3 stops" thats the same exposure but with a real 2 stop iso boost, so the clipping point has gone down 2 stops in a single step.

A better test would be to keep the iso the same and change the actual exposure.   You could then do the same test at different iso's to see how iso effected dynamic range.

 

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...