Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, drm said:

I can't believe that someone actually approved that "feature" for release to the public. 

I thought it might be something they got enough feedback about to change it in the new firmware release but apparently not.

I understand why it is done but there is a far more elegant way to make that seamless/invisible for the user.

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
7 hours ago, drm said:

That "feature" of only playing files in your current recording mode is just bizarre. It is horrible from a user interface perspective. How is a user supposed to know the format of the files on the card or drive? The camera should at least show you all the files on the card and change mode as necessary to play that file type. Is there a way to see what is on your card, other than just pressing play and using the FF RW buttons?

I can't believe that someone actually approved that "feature" for release to the public. All of my other cameras just play the file, regardless of what mode the camera is currently using. Many other cameras give you thumbnail and other views of the card content. Do other BM cameras behave the same way with regard to file playback as the P4K? 

Right, I can't see a single reason for this be like this. If they think it's smoothens the user experience by say, only showing raw clips cause I'm shooting raw, it's not. If I was shooting prores earlier and now Raw, and I click the playback button, my latest clips should be shown first right, so I'm not having to scroll through tons of pores and be like "OMG CAN IT JUST HIDE PRORES CAUSE I'M SHOOTING RAW NOW". That would NEVER happen, cause the prores would be AFTER THE RAW I'm shooting at the moment. Obviously this would go the other way around as well. BUT LIKE, what other camera does this in the world!? Sorry, i'm kind of pissed off about this as I had to delete a whole card on set last week cause I didn't have time to figure out what format I had shot stuff on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

Right, I can't see a single reason for this be like this. If they think it's smoothens the user experience by say, only showing raw clips cause I'm shooting raw, it's not. If I was shooting prores earlier and now Raw, and I click the playback button, my latest clips should be shown first right, so I'm not having to scroll through tons of pores and be like "OMG CAN IT JUST HIDE PRORES CAUSE I'M SHOOTING RAW NOW". That would NEVER happen, cause the prores would be AFTER THE RAW I'm shooting at the moment. Obviously this would go the other way around as well. BUT LIKE, what other camera does this in the world!? Sorry, i'm kind of pissed off about this as I had to delete a whole card on set last week cause I didn't have time to figure out what format I had shot stuff on it.

FS7 does it too and it's a quite popular camera. Don't blame it all on Blackmagic. It might have to do with the frame rates. All Sony mirrorless cameras can't record in Pal and NTSC on the same card. There must be some kind of software limitation. It's like the clips you can't delete. At first you think it's poor ergonomy, and then you discover there are reasons behind it (for safer media for recording in the second case). But i'm no engineer, maybe someone more qualified can chime in and tell us more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been shooting a new mockumentary/short movie where I'm using both the URSA Mini 4.6K and the Pocket 4K side by side, for interviews etc. Did some preliminary tests on grading the footage today, and they match quite nicely. Nothing scientific (and not all 100% going for cinematic since it is a mockumentary) about this one so it's not as if you can take it as a direct comparison - but I think some of you might find it interesting. Both cameras were at 800ISO (which theoretically is sub-optimal ISO for the Pocket but eh) and shooting at 4K Prores HQ, only difference in grading is that tint is set to -8 on the URSA and 0 on the pocket.

test_1.2.1.thumb.jpg.ab61e20a8be6827a8ad7d4bad2cab10d.jpg

 

test_1_27.1.thumb.jpg.b67d9ab439d12c00e5e60d0fb2e75539.jpg

Top one is Pocket, bottom one URSA.

Looking at them full-res, the most obvious difference is that yes, the Pocket is sharper. I may have mistaken about in-camera sharpening in Prores - on the other hand, they have drastically different lenses too; Pocket is running on Sigma 18-35 at 1.8 and a speedbooster while URSA was shooting with a Takumar 50/1.2 which is quite milky by nature.

Anyways, it's proving to be a nice b-cam for the big bro Ursa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you don't have to reformat the card every time you switch between Raw and ProRes. I vaguely remember having to reboot the Micro if I changed formats... but I may be remembering a nightmare or something.

@Turboguard @BTM_Pix

On 1/20/2019 at 8:39 AM, Anaconda_ said:

@mercer and anyone else, I couldn't get to some woods, but I shot some high contrast spots. As I said before, I don't shoot RAW, so I exposed as I normally would. I hope you can get the info you wanted from this.

Total size 1.72gb - https://mega.nz/#F!3Fs0mSSS!0gMCbZYRQ47KKrmY8WN_YQ

All shot with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (set to f4) on the Viltrox booster. All handheld, so excuse the shakiness. 

The RAW files are 4:1 and the others are ProRes HQ. The last 2 clips are the same shot, from the same position to show the crop when you shoot 1080p RAW. I believe its a 4x crop in RAW and 1.9x in ProRes - With the booster, those crop factors change, but maths isn't my strong suit, so I'll leave it to someone else to work that out.

 

Thanks Anaconda!!! I just had the chance to take a look at these. The ProRes looks good... 1080p would probably be more than enough for my needs. Thanks for sharing them. Did you shoot them in Video mode or was that after a BM LUT was applied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ehetyz said:

So I've been shooting a new mockumentary/short movie where I'm using both the URSA Mini 4.6K and the Pocket 4K side by side, for interviews etc. Did some preliminary tests on grading the footage today, and they match quite nicely. Nothing scientific (and not all 100% going for cinematic since it is a mockumentary) about this one so it's not as if you can take it as a direct comparison - but I think some of you might find it interesting. Both cameras were at 800ISO (which theoretically is sub-optimal ISO for the Pocket but eh) and shooting at 4K Prores HQ, only difference in grading is that tint is set to -8 on the URSA and 0 on the pocket.

test_1.2.1.thumb.jpg.ab61e20a8be6827a8ad7d4bad2cab10d.jpg

 

test_1_27.1.thumb.jpg.b67d9ab439d12c00e5e60d0fb2e75539.jpg

Top one is Pocket, bottom one URSA.

Looking at them full-res, the most obvious difference is that yes, the Pocket is sharper. I may have mistaken about in-camera sharpening in Prores - on the other hand, they have drastically different lenses too; Pocket is running on Sigma 18-35 at 1.8 and a speedbooster while URSA was shooting with a Takumar 50/1.2 which is quite milky by nature.

Anyways, it's proving to be a nice b-cam for the big bro Ursa.

Well now I want to see how the 18-35mm looks on the Ursa because it does indeed look nice with the P4K. Nice work matching them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a workhorse lens. Very sharp and good colors, not much character. Good when you want things to look slick and professional. I use it a lot on the URSA when doing corporate stuff. I think the speedbooster adds to the bloominess of highlights here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mercer said:

How is the Takumar on the P4K in ProRes?

It's surprisingly one of the better performing lenses on it despite the huge aperture. Haven't really noticed much of a difference or increase in aberrations between P4K and Ursa on it. Mayyybe a bit more flare, but on the lens itself flaring on it is pretty controlled so it hasn't been distracting so far. It's not as sharp as new lenses in any form unless stopped down but I love the vintage look.

Of the rest of my daily use lenses, the other Takumars perform pretty well. The Samyangs seem to fare the worst. They're prone to flaring and washed out look as-is and for some reason especially the 24 1.4 flares like crazy. Absolutely needs the lens hood at all times. Also a whole bunch of lenses I don't use as often are yet to be tested with the speedbooster/P4K combo.

Share this post


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

So I've been shooting a new mockumentary/short movie where I'm using both the URSA Mini 4.6K and the Pocket 4K side by side, for interviews etc. Did some preliminary tests on grading the footage today, and they match quite nicely. Nothing scientific (and not all 100% going for cinematic since it is a mockumentary) about this one so it's not as if you can take it as a direct comparison - but I think some of you might find it interesting. Both cameras were at 800ISO (which theoretically is sub-optimal ISO for the Pocket but eh) and shooting at 4K Prores HQ, only difference in grading is that tint is set to -8 on the URSA and 0 on the pocket.

test_1.2.1.thumb.jpg.ab61e20a8be6827a8ad7d4bad2cab10d.jpg

 

test_1_27.1.thumb.jpg.b67d9ab439d12c00e5e60d0fb2e75539.jpg

Top one is Pocket, bottom one URSA.

Looking at them full-res, the most obvious difference is that yes, the Pocket is sharper. I may have mistaken about in-camera sharpening in Prores - on the other hand, they have drastically different lenses too; Pocket is running on Sigma 18-35 at 1.8 and a speedbooster while URSA was shooting with a Takumar 50/1.2 which is quite milky by nature.

Anyways, it's proving to be a nice b-cam for the big bro Ursa.

Shots look nice.
Yh. Using ProRes the P4K definitely sharpens despite it being turned off.
Also noise reduction is turned which eliminates some fine detail and texture sadly.

Would recommend shooting RAW all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ehetyz @mercer My Takumar 55 1.8 arrived yesterday and I compared it to my Helios and found some interesting results.  Wide open the Helios was tack sharp (ha ha) in the very centre but got crazy soft on the edges (even with the 2x crop of MFT) and the Tak was considerably softer but had the same level of sharpness / bloom / flare across the whole frame.  By F4 they were getting similar, but the character of the softness was quite different.

I'll do some more tests and post a little write-up in the lenses thread when I'm done.  I've still got some lenses on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tested my Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko four-thirds lens on the Pocket 4K.  It has a cheap electronic adapter that works on the Panasonic micro-four-thirds cameras I have tried it on.  However, I cannot focus this lens on the Pocket 4K.  I can turn the focus ring but nothing happens. The adapter does not appear to work on the 4K. Has anyone had success with four-thirds lenses and electronic adapters on the Pocket 4K?

Share this post


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

Did you shoot them in Video mode or was that after a BM LUT was applied?

There's no LUT applied, these were straight out the camera. I thought I shot in FILM mode, but now looking at the files, I'm doubting that, and can't find any clues in the metadata. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, deezid said:

Shots look nice.
Yh. Using ProRes the P4K definitely sharpens despite it being turned off.
Also noise reduction is turned which eliminates some fine detail and texture sadly.

Would recommend shooting RAW all the time.

Shooting prores in this one because of the amount of footage we're getting. Lots of improvisation with cameras rolling several minutes at a time so RAW isn't practical.

When I do more planned, cinematic stuff I always use RAW.

@Stathman Noticed that myself as well. Needs a little more balancing but like I said, this is just a pretty rudimentary test. Some of the tone is from the angle the light is bouncing (Pocket is getting more of the Edison light in its frame) but yeah, I agree, in this case the P4K looks nicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I am sure RAW is better but the prores looks dang good. Hard to believe the output you get for 1000 bucks. 

I did some brief tests of RAW vs ProRes when I first got my P4k and apart from the RAW having more noise I couldn't see a whole lot of difference and certainly resolution didn't look obviously better in RAW. 

Share this post


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

I did some brief tests of RAW vs ProRes when I first got my P4k and apart from the RAW having more noise I couldn't see a whole lot of difference and certainly resolution didn't look obviously better in RAW. 

Were you zooming in 500%? You aren't a true artist unless you do. 🤣

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...