Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Does abyone know how to get 50/60p out the HDMI? 

Figured it out - You need to set the 'Project Framerate' to 50/60p and then the VA will receive a 50/60p 1080 signal.

Annoyingly, this will slowdown switching to a slow motion external recording. I guess I've already become spoiled by the one touch slowmo, which is amazing for run and gun. 

Tomorrow I'll see what happens if I set the project framerate to 50p and the offspeed to 25p.

I imagine, when using a 25p timeline, the SOC files will give me realtime playback with the usual motion blur etc when set to 50/25, and 50/50 will still give me slowmo in that same timeline. The external recordings will have to be confirmed to whatever playback speed I need on a clip by clip basis, but I'm excited to try it out, it could be an interesting work around to a niche problem.

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
On 4/1/2019 at 9:43 PM, deezid said:

Q0 looks better (...)

Really?

I only find any slight differences if any. To me braw has been a disappointment for a simple reason... because of CinemaDNG's IQ standard. The fact we have one or another doesn't help either.

Share this post


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

Really?

I only find any slight differences if any. To me braw has been a disappointment for a simple reason... because of CinemaDNG's IQ standard. The fact we have one or another doesn't help either.

Agree, it's no comparison to cDNG at 4:1 even in terms of detail/texture and lack of processing artifacts. 
At least people over in the official BMD forum are complaining as well and demanding for no noise reduction/sharpening setting available.

6 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Is that a full frame in the vertical crop? It looks very underexposed so we are seeing the differences in the shadows where the most 'NR' seems to happen. I still can't see any 'sharpening halos. 

This examples specifically doesn't show any sharpening halos. You need areas strong in contrast to see it.
Just download some Braw/ProRes footage from the comment section of the video and look at what happens between her skin and jacket, and also how it renders hair...yikes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, xzobinx said:

I don't know but I prefer the look of the new bmpcc4k in your clip. I used to have a BMPCC and to be honest I would be happy with either of them. But side by side like that, I would take the new bmpcc4k.

On a side note, tried some vertical filming the other day. 

Untitled_2.2_1we.thumb.jpg.8608d0190f830acf7c1410e059a295b4.jpg

  

Cool shot...

This thread might be of interest...

 

Share this post


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

Agree, it's no comparison to cDNG at 4:1 even in terms of detail/texture and lack of processing artifacts. 
At least people over in the official BMD forum are complaining as well and demanding for no noise reduction/sharpening setting available.

This examples specifically doesn't show any sharpening halos. You need areas strong in contrast to see it.
Just download some Braw/ProRes footage from the comment section of the video and look at what happens between her skin and jacket, and also how it renders hair...yikes.

 

I've downloaded the files and have them in a UHD timeline in Resolve Studio  outputting to a 27"  HDR UHD monitor via decklink  - I can't see anything  (and I'm looking really hard with a critical eye used to identifying all kinds of artefacts) and I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing that I am worried about. What setup are you viewing these files on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Just redundant remark from experience with previous models, being little bit puzzled with discussion — if BrawQ0 is meant to be equal to ProresHQ? than there's no place for dilemma: through all BM cinema line CinemaDNG up to 3:1 was always noticeable richer in texture, also in DR and its distribution curve in high demanding situation than ProresHQ, which really is great codec, but not on pair with cDNG for top cinema usage. Without doubt, extremely respectable quality of BM camera image - that for many professionals surpasses that from Red - lays exclusively in, so to say, "deep raw" non-processing transfer... I don't know if at least BrawQ0 keeps that approach...)

Share this post


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

Braw 3:1 holds up well on this guy's comparison..

 

 

Thanks for posting... But, frankly, I expected that difference seen on laptop monitor with HD resolution will be less noticeable (i.e. I assumed that comparative qualities of Arri are becoming very noticeable visible just at big screen reproduction)... At least for my eyes, P4K looks waaay harsher in comparison, especially in (second) example in front of the fence where they are at closest matching (in first example Arri was not even properly focused).

Share this post


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

They do differ in favour of the Arri for sure, but my thoughts in posting were that the differences are smaller than I imagined they would be, considering the saving.

Actually, I expected that differences will be barely visible on laptop :) (But, of course, my opinion usually is not at all too valuable.) For example, there are some youtube comparisons between GH5(s) and Arri Mini that, for my eyes, somehow manage to make looks even more similar :)

I'd be so glad if the same procedure was applied with CinemaDNG files from P4K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Natural Rec709 vl LUT did a good job of making the Pocket 4k closer to the look of the Alexia Mini - that said there is a dynamic range difference that is apparent in day light and makes the Pocket  4k  image harder and more contrasty looking to my eye. I actually thought the Pocket 4k competed nicely for the night shot, as either would do IMHO. I think Sage can get even closer once he makes his LUT available for the Pocket 4k.

What I was most impressed with is that BRAW did not seem to show objectionable softness due to the (b)raw "processing", which is of course a contradiction of terms.

All and all BRAW is not what is hold back the Pocket 4k image - it is the sensor's lower dynamic range.  There is a m4/3 Fairchild sensor that would fit nicely in the Pocket 4k body, which offers an additional 1 and 1/2 stop of dynamic range (14.5 stop and dual 11 bit dacs), so hopefully there will be a new m4/3 camera Blackmagic Camera based on the Fairchild sensor in the (near?) future.

Share this post


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

What I was most impressed with is that BRAW did not seem to show objectionable softness due to the (b)raw "processing", which is of course a contradiction of terms.

I'm afraid that there could be some sharpening compensation at work to neutralize such compression softness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there seems to be quite a few complaints about BRAW from heavy forum users, I've now worked on two high profile Ad campaigns that have used BRAW and haven't heard a DP complain about it. At the same time, I've spoken first hand to VFX guys and girls that have said that they are really happy with the new codec. 

Here's a few pics of the P4K being used as a B Cam on a recent car ad for those interested.

 

 

20190404_104937.jpg

20190404_104651.jpg

20190404_104442.jpg

Share this post


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

Thanks for posting... But, frankly, I expected that difference seen on laptop monitor with HD resolution will be less noticeable (i.e. I assumed that comparative qualities of Arri are becoming very noticeable visible just at big screen reproduction)... At least for my eyes, P4K looks waaay harsher in comparison, especially in (second) example in front of the fence where they are at closest matching (in first example Arri was not even properly focused).

Not sure what I'm missing but after the grade they're almost identical. Like sure, I can tell, but I'll take the $59,000 savings with the P4k any day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 4:27 AM, seanzzxx said:

The calculation is very simple. Let's say you use a 50mm. Your metabones reduces the crop by 0.64. 50*0.64=32.

Your Pocket has a crop factor of (in full sensor width) 1.88. 1.88*32=60mm (rounded down). That's pretty close to the full frame equivalent already, but your new crop is (60/50) 1.2 times. So if for some reason you absolutely NEED to shoot at exactly the same equivalent focal length all the time (instead of just framing your shot slightly different), you can take your full frame lenses and divide them by 1.2. 50/1.2=42 equivalent perspective (rounded up). You could do that for all lenses. You want to match your 14mm on full frame's perspective with the Pocket+speedbooster? 14/1.2=12mm, etc.

 

Does that make sense?

Thank you so much.

So, for obtain any full frame equivalent I need to multiply the lens focal by 0.64 and then by 1.88?

For example for a 24mm

24*0.64=15.36

15.36*1.88=28.8 

Si it's safe to say that the 24mm will act similar to a 30mm lens? Thats awesome! This will be my first time using the Metabones Speedboster 🤩

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...