Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2019 at 5:10 AM, anonim said:

I need too much time to find topic about BMMCC, so sorry for posting here, but maybe it could be useful as another example of what BM cameras and especially BMMCC are capable for, or as comparison with Pocket 4k.

  

Everything about that was great. Except the lens and screen wobble. Why would they waste all this production on that camera? I understand they want to prove want that camera can do but it wasn't the camera for the job with the perspective issues and not using camera stabilization. 

On 4/4/2019 at 2:07 PM, Jonesy Jones said:

 

Great footage. 

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
1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

LT storage rate is just over 40% of HQ so roughly 2.5x the record time per TB.

1195672141_ScreenShot2019-04-28at20_27_13.png.eb210a0668d1768f67265fb271fbe66d.png

Thanks, do you know how BRAW 12:1 compares to ProResLT? If not, if you get a minute, and are inclined, could you run a test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Why would they waste all this production on that camera?

Really don't know... maybe you didn't check posted BTS clip which explains shooting process? Obviously they think about, see and value result different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

Everything about that was great. Except the lens and screen wobble. Why would they waste all this production on that camera? I understand they want to prove want that camera can do but it wasn't the camera for the job with the perspective issues and not using camera stabilization. 

 

I don't think they were trying to prove anything. And at the time they started it the BMPCC was just about one of the best camera you could buy for any money short of a Sony F35, F65 or an Arri which you can't afford, and if you could you were not going to use it in that mud hole. It is just a Movie that friends helped make. And they started Way before any of this IBIS, Gimbal stuff was popular. Actually if they had used it I think the film would have been worse. You are Suppose to get the feeling you were there with them in the pit. Perfect shots would have sucked.

Hell it is not about the technique, it is about the story. Who gives a shit about a little wobble. Did you see how they even shot it? I am amazed it was as great as it was.

Here is how they made it. Sort of more interesting than the movie. And yeah, that is the camera rig strapped to his head. There has been some pretty amazing stuff shot on a camera that at one time, was only 500 Dollars for a while brand new because they couldn't sell it for the 995 Dollars they wanted. I would not doubt half or more of the old timers on here have had one at one time or another. I know me and Mercer have. Probably I might buy one again soon. Only weakness in them was the damn HDMI port.

 

Share this post


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

Who gives a shit about a little wobble. 

Malick and Lubezki certainly would agree with you: "Song to Song" (in enormous quantity) and even "Knight of Cups" are full of wobbling handheld shots. And there it was not even intentional pseudosymbolic usage (as, say, in chasing to describe distorted perception) - they simply and really didn't "give a shit about little wobble" mesmerizing spectator in constantly flowing, poetical, juxtaposed, surreal movement.

Actually, there's no more rules in movie language. Moreover, probably never were - except to now how and where to cut across them in most efficient way.

Personally, I think that creators of that war movie obviously use wobble with purpose, as much as colors and light leaks. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Personally, I think that creators of that war movie obviously use wobble with purpose, as much as colors and light leaks. 

 

I think you are completely right, It adds to the emotion of the whole movie. The fear, the excitement. It is about as good as it gets. Amazing for who shot it, and the budget. A near Classic. A case study for any young, or hell, old film maker. 😛

Share this post


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

Thanks, do you know how BRAW 12:1 compares to ProResLT? If not, if you get a minute, and are inclined, could you run a test?

I doubt it will be for a few days but, sure, I'll see what I can do

Here is a test between different BRAW rates and ProResHQ that someone has done which you could look at in the meantime 

There is a download link there too 

 

Share this post


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

I don't think they were trying to prove anything. And at the time they started it the BMPCC was just about one of the best camera you could buy for any money short of a Sony F35, F65 or an Arri which you can't afford... There has been some pretty amazing stuff shot on a camera that at one time, was only 500 Dollars for a while brand new because they couldn't sell it for the 995 Dollars they wanted. I would not doubt half or more of the old timers on here have had one at one time or another. I know me and Mercer have. Probably I might buy one again soon. Only weakness in them was the damn HDMI port.

 

It seems to me that you little bit confused BMpocket and BMmicro :) Movie was shot with Micro (Pocket was sold at promoting price during one season)... and actually Micro cinema camera had pretty unison confirmation of being pinnacle of Blackmagic effort before moving to another "look". Many pretty serious cinematographers valued its image more than Ursa's. (I'm sure that, say, @Zak Forsman could say more in that regard...) In fact, Micro cinema camera is still actual.  

Share this post


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

It seems to me that you little bit confused BMpocket and BMmicro :) Movie was shot with Micro (Pocket was sold at promoting price during one season)... and actually Micro cinema camera had pretty unison confirmation of being pinnacle of Blackmagic effort before moving to another "look". Many pretty serious cinematographers valued its image more than Ursa's. (I'm sure that, say, @Zak Forsman could say more in that regard...) In fact, Micro cinema camera is still actual.  

Yep you are right. Was thinking of the other film. But pretty much the same camera sensor wise in a different form factor, and had 1080 60p for Slo Mo. Mercer had one of them, I never had one of those. I kind of always wanted the BMCC MFT, but the price just seemed too high for them. 2.5K is really nice on them.  The BM Production 4K was interesting for the Super 35 Sensor with Global Shutter. I don't think the CS was as good, but for what you can buy one now pretty amazing. I think Zak could make a Barbie Cam look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think they were trying to prove anything. And at the time they started it the BMPCC was just about one of the best camera you could buy for any money short of a Sony F35, F65 or an Arri which you can't afford, and if you could you were not going to use it in that mud hole. It is just a Movie that friends helped make. And they started Way before any of this IBIS, Gimbal stuff was popular. Actually if they had used it I think the film would have been worse. You are Suppose to get the feeling you were there with them in the pit. Perfect shots would have sucked.

Hell it is not about the technique, it is about the story. Who gives a shit about a little wobble. Did you see how they even shot it? I am amazed it was as great as it was.

Here is how they made it. Sort of more interesting than the movie. And yeah, that is the camera rig strapped to his head. There has been some pretty amazing stuff shot on a camera that at one time, was only 500 Dollars for a while brand new because they couldn't sell it for the 995 Dollars they wanted. I would not doubt half or more of the old timers on here have had one at one time or another. I know me and Mercer have. Probably I might buy one again soon. Only weakness in them was the damn HDMI port.

 

I love the look of the BMPCC but that film was shot with the micro-camera. . I get the feeling of being in the pit but you have the fisheye effect with the lens selection and wobble screen take you out of the moment. That's why productions like this are filmed with cine cameras. Do you really think with all that cost spent on the set, actors, etc that they couldn't afford a better camera set up? 

They used that camera to prove what it could do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever they are they seem to me to have talent. So I am sure they have considered different camera options. As far as I can tell it took them a long time to shoot this. And if you are renting you can't afford to do that very long. And any camera that shoots Raw, if you want to do that, is way out of the price range to buy for normal people.

I just don't see how the problems you are bringing up Really detracts from the film. Like I have discussed and what @anonim suggested is it may have been intentional? I have always been a super big fan of BMD camera output. And for the money they are just pretty amazing. They are a poor mans Red. I think they put the BMMCC to great use. I would kill to produce something that good. What other camera you going to hang off your head lol? Sure maybe a EOS M, but they didn't do ML then on it. And would it have been better? I think they knew perfectly well what they wanted and did it. And it looks to me they intensely used old lenses to get that character you seem to dislike that I do. Old C lenses do have that look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think you are completely right, It adds to the emotion of the whole movie. The fear, the excitement. It is about as good as it gets. Amazing for who shot it, and the budget. A near Classic. A case study for any young, or hell, old film maker. 😛

Do you know the difference between screen wobble / warp and handheld movement?  The later is not the issue. That micro BM sensor can't keep up. 

Have you actually produced anything like this or multiple shooting days? or are you hired shooter? You don't sacrifice camera and introduce screen warp because you want to save a little money. That's what you don't do or you wasted everyones time. This was done to show off the micro-BM camera and that camera did a well as it could. Just don't kid yourself to think it was the camera of choice when no other camera was considered. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you are a mind reader of the people that did that short. And tons of people use Warp in Premier, are they all perfect at it, well probably not, and we have no clue if that really was the case., let alone what their intentions were. And I doubt there is Any short or full blown movie without mistakes. And if you Have No money there is none to save.

You act like these people are suppose to be Steven Spielberg. They may have had a budget of 4 Pizzas, and used the only camera Any of them owned, and from the looks of it all they needed. That, and a shovel to dig the hole, and some water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the rates on renting cameras are not that high either.

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I am glad you are a mind reader of the people that did that short. And tons of people use Warp in Premier, are they all perfect at it, well probably not, but we still have no clue want their intentions were. And I doubt there is Any short or full blown movie without mistakes. And if you Have No money there is none to save. You act like these people are suppose to be Steven Spielberg. They may have had a budget of 4 Pizzas. Only camera Any of them owned, and from the looks of it all they needed. That and a shovel to dig the hole, and some water.

The had the budget for make-up and wardrobe and pull focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Also the rates on renting cameras are not that high either.

So you are going to rent a Arri LF, and throw it down that hole, and wear it on your head and control it from above that hole..

Share this post


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

So you are going to rent a Arri LF, and throw it down that hole, and wear it on your head and control it from above that hole..

They filmed this in 2018 and many other cameras other then Arri and this is not the first mud hole sequence ever filmed. 

They also had funding. 

https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/fr/projects/11-11-18-le-long-metrage

30713619_1719668894738608_1313324179010939141_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any camera used with that POV would have done the job. How many films were filmed this way?  The fisheye from the lens is more of an issue and shouldn't have been used in my opinion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since I am not too good at reading Flemish I  will sort of just pass on any judgement. I don't see what makes a crap if they had 20 Million Euros, they decided what to use that particular camera. It was their call, not mine or yours. Seems like they made the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Newway12 said:

Has anyone shot an entire feature on this camera yet? How much storage was required with BRAW? Or did you use prores?  I’ve only done small projects so far (couple minutes or less with prores) and i’m wondering how many hard drives i’m going to need for a 90 minute feature.

Probably the other real kicker is what your shooting ratio is, as that varies significantly between different film-makers.  

Or you could just go to your hardware supplier and give them your credit card and tell them to ship hard drives until you tell them to stop :) 

46 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well since I am not too good at reading Flemish I  will sort of just pass on any judgement. I don't see what makes a crap if they had 20 Million Euros, they decided what to use that particular camera. It was their call, not mine or yours. Seems like they made the right decision.

Don't question @Skip77 - he's here to set us straight about the right way to make a film!  He's finished in the GH5 thread and now we all know to throw our GH5s away he's here to educate the P4K and BM camera users.  Soon he'll clean up Hollywood and correct all the mistakes that the pros endlessly repeat.  I personally can't wait for him to get stuck into the YouTubers - think of the quality improvements that will be made then!

We've all been making so many mistakes for so long, let's stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

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...