Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Speaking of CinemaDNG and the Pocket 4k... Can't you just rollback the firmware if you want CinemaDNG on the Pocket 4K?

NOT if you have the latest hardware revision with the new LCD screen.

If you recently purchased a Pocket 4k and it came with 6.2.1 factory installed then you will not be able to rollback the firmware to 6.1 to get CinemaDNG.  I purchased mine new just over a month ago.  It came with 6.2.1.  I was not able to roll back the firmware.

I spoke with Blackmagic and they said that they have switched to a new LCD screen, which is only compatible with 6.2.1 (and higher).  If you have the new LCD BRAW only Pocket 4k you will get a message that says your firmware is up to date.  I did when I tried to install 5.2 or 6.1.  Blackmagic also said that if I were to "force it" (whatever that means?) to go back to 6.1,  I could brick the camera.

Why does it matter?

For many it won't, but for some who want the CinemaDNG's highlight control available in the Camera RAW tab on Resolve that is not offered with BRAW, this will be an issue.  Also, for those who want a higher resolution image compared to BRAW, CinemaDNG was a good option.

 

Indeed! This is crucial! We Blackmagic camera owners must demand they may handle the issue!

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

Honest opinion?

I don't think a new screen is the reason you can't downgrade the firmware. New screen has nothing to do with BRAW or CinemaDNG. Blackmagic Design simply does what they want. The customer is not asked or informed in advance. The customer is condemned to endure the problems with the CinemaDNG patent. BRAW was served to the customer as a sedative tablet and not because it is a better alternative to CinemaDNG.

They can still take pictures in CinemaDNG using the "stills button". And the screen has no problems with that?

Share this post


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

Honest opinion?

I don't think a new screen is the reason you can't downgrade the firmware. New screen has nothing to do with BRAW or CinemaDNG. Blackmagic Design simply does what they want. The customer is not asked or informed in advance. The customer is condemned to endure the problems with the CinemaDNG patent. BRAW was served to the customer as a sedative tablet and not because it is a better alternative to CinemaDNG.

They can still take pictures in CinemaDNG using the "stills button". And the screen has no problems with that?

Yes, it is little bit on shame side and how-and-when explanation is, after all, already some sort of BM signature:) All that said, though, output stay impressive...

 

Share this post


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

Yeah, that screen thing don't make no sense.

New screen needs new drivers in firmware. If you would downgrade a new screen bmpcc4k to older firmware the screen would stop functioning. Therefore they block firmware downgrade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

New screen needs new drivers in firmware. If you would downgrade a new screen bmpcc4k to older firmware the screen would stop functioning. Therefore they block firmware downgrade?

I have three P4Ks. I had to return one of mine more than once for screen problems. I believe that it had a defective digitizer. I was eventually given a new camera. I know that other people on here have had a similar issue.

BM most likely swapped the screen for a business reason, like high failure rates on the old one, insufficient supply, etc. A new screen is very likely to require a new driver in firmware. It is likely that the new cameras (with the new screens) don't work with the old firmware because of a driver difference. Could BM have let people know about the hardware revision or update the old firmware to work with the new firmware? Sure, but why? Why would they let people know about the hardware change if the screens are technically similar, but perhaps just from a different manufacturer? BM is certainly under no obligation to let people know about a running change. Companies manufacturing products make running changes during production all the time. 

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but assuming that BM deliberately changed the screen in order to prevent people from downgrading the firmware is an exceptional reach :) If they wanted to stop people from downgrading, they would just follow the lead of Apple and others by signing the firmware and telling the camera to only load approved firmware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not at all be surprised if part of the legal settlement with RED was coming up with a way that future cameras could not use the old firmware. It's not much of a settlement if the future users of the camera can still use the forbidden format.

They just should've been up front about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, drm said:

I have three P4Ks. I had to return one of mine more than once for screen problems. I believe that it had a defective digitizer. I was eventually given a new camera. I know that other people on here have had a similar issue.

BM most likely swapped the screen for a business reason, like high failure rates on the old one, insufficient supply, etc. A new screen is very likely to require a new driver in firmware. It is likely that the new cameras (with the new screens) don't work with the old firmware because of a driver difference. Could BM have let people know about the hardware revision or update the old firmware to work with the new firmware? Sure, but why? Why would they let people know about the hardware change if the screens are technically similar, but perhaps just from a different manufacturer? BM is certainly under no obligation to let people know about a running change. Companies manufacturing products make running changes during production all the time. 

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but assuming that BM deliberately changed the screen in order to prevent people from downgrading the firmware is an exceptional reach :) If they wanted to stop people from downgrading, they would just follow the lead of Apple and others by signing the firmware and telling the camera to only load approved firmware.

Question is not screen itself, but staying silence about changing advertised possibility that some or many users are finding competitively/comparatively important for buying decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember bm saying that braw would be coming to the p4k pretty early in the campaign. Although they did forget to mention that it would be at the expense of cinemaDng 🙄

i have to wonder if mine now has added value since i have 6.1. not that i'm interested in selling, took 5 months to get this one, couldn't do that again 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 2:59 AM, osmanovic said:

CinemaDNG and 4K is closer to true 4K
BRAW and 4K is about 10% less.

Ignoring the made up numbers here, in terms of debayer quality the method for cDNG is much older as not anywhere near as good as Blackmagic RAW. I see a lot of people mistake the artefacts of the DNG debayer as sharpness. Its not that the cDNG debayer is necessarily keeping more details, but it IS creating false detail. An interesting comparison was just posted here that's worth looking at :

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=510320#p510320

Especially this image - what you're seeing on the DNG is not real information the DNG retained, it's CREATING it (falsely) and it can look like sharpness/detail when it's over areas of real detail, but it's a very "hard" and digital feeling look IMHO :

1731-Noise-Noise.jpg

But also pay really close attention to the resolution image at the above link. You can see on the right hand side the artefacts between the red and yellow resolution lines and around the edges of the circle. These artefacts are not real detail or sharpness that you lose with Blackmagic RAW, they are created in error.

Something to consider as well is we get a lot of feedback from customers that 4.6K Blackmagic RAW still has more resolution than some "other" cameras 8K RAW images - likely because of strong optical low pass filtering that without could produce similar artefacts as shown in DNG.

 

On 5/18/2019 at 3:18 PM, majoraxis said:

I don’t know the differences... I don’t believe there is a functional difference from an operationally standpoint.

I think BRAW looks really good - the issue for me is that Cinema DNG gives you more/different controls over the image/highlights in post than BRAW.  I believe this is due to the fact the BRAW de-mosaic filters in the camera so the highlight are more baked in than with Cinema DNG, which gives you more control over the highlights durning de-mosaic process in Resolve.

The highlights and shadows sliders in cDNG are NOT debayering RAW controls and work on debayered data only. They are the exact same (mathematically) as the ones in the primaries tab and work exactly the same on Blackmagic RAW as the DNG RAW tab ones. I demonstrated this for someone on Facebook last year..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CinemaDNG is real RAW. This looks like this on the example picture, because CinemaDNG does not filter the finest details (which are reproduced by analog-to-digital conversion (ADC)). With BRAW, the finest details are filtered internally. RAW should remain RAW and the processing of RAW should be left to anyone, who has bought a camera because of RAW and also expects real RAW.

When I put on the CinemaDNG example image in DR some "Gaussian Blur"-filter (H/V Strength: 0.333), it looks similar to BRAW.  And yes THAT has something to do with sharpness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, osmanovic said:

CinemaDNG is real RAW. This looks like this on the example picture, because CinemaDNG does not filter the finest details (which are reproduced by analog-to-digital conversion (ADC)).

This is not what noise looks like from the ADC. This is not natural and its not the finest details captured, its MORE. The information is made up in the debayer. I know it is.
People also seem to think cDNG has no processing before the file is stored in camera but cDNG is subject to calibration (which attempts to reduce noise and other issues) and other processing before those "RAW" pixels are stored as DNG also. Its okay to like it more too.

Quote

looks similar to BRAW

Doesn't mean its the same process or the same thing. An OLPF can look similar to Gaussian Blur too.
I get some people prefer cDNG, that's totally fine. But some people are acting like the image was faultless, which it certainly was not. And when there are incorrect statements made as fact, I will try to correct when I'm able to (IP and other concerns restricts my public involvement). The decisions made over a 2 year process developing Blackmagic RAW were not arbitrary or taken lightly either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally picked up one of these cameras. The menus and touch screen interface are really nice. 4k 60p output is really impressive. I am also really blown away by the sharpness.

Using the P4K, really shows special the colors and skin tone out of the original bmpcc and bmmcc were. The P4K looks really nice, but doesn’t seem that far off from the GH5.

I am also a bit shocked to discover they managed to release another camera with poor battery life. I used it for a day before I ordered an external battery solution.

Does anyone know if the battery life is better when running CFast vs SSD?

 

Share this post


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

Using the P4K, really shows special the colors and skin tone out of the original bmpcc and bmmcc were. The P4K looks really nice, but doesn’t seem that far off from the GH5.

 

That is strange. I used the GH5 once, and skin tones did not look any better than on my GX85. I used 2 bmpcc4K cams once (together with the GX85), and the skin tones looked dramatically better. Both conditions indoor, on a big (classical) concert stage.

Still waiting for the p4k to become available ... Luckily rental is quite cheap (but you do not get the Resolve license of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CaptainHook said:

I get some people prefer cDNG, that's totally fine.

Alas, it seems to me not so "totally" fine... if you, as authoritative expert, claim that same people "mistake the artefacts of the DNG debayer as sharpness. Its not that the cDNG debayer is necessarily keeping more details, but it IS creating false detail".

Maybe because of my missing language subtleness, but I don't quite understand what does mean phrase "not necessarily..." in given case... Does cDNG debayer keeps more details or not, or it does keep sometimes and sometimes not, does it always - as "IS" suggests - creates false detail, does Braw corrects that creating of false detail?

 

Share this post


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

Maybe because of my missing language subtleness, but I don't quite understand what does mean phrase "not necessarily..." in given case... Does cDNG debayer keeps more details or not, or it does keep sometimes and sometimes not, does it always - as "IS" suggests - creates false detail, does Braw corrects that creating of false detail?

 

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/not-necessarily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Thanks, so I guess right this time :) So, cDNG sometimes really has more detail, but not necessarily... Now we have to learn how often and when...

I'm personally interested for the simple reason: being extremely satisfied with form factor, rigging possibility and image of Micro 1080p cDNG, I'm not so satisfied with possibility that for similar 1080p quality I have to shot 4k in P4K. Also, if result of super (up)scaling Micro's 1080p to 4K is similar or identical with 4k of P4K, there's not too much advantage rest with P4K except framing. (I always shot rigged with external small audio recorder and Atomos recorders for the backup reason.)

Share this post


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

That is strange. I used the GH5 once, and skin tones did not look any better than on my GX85. I used 2 bmpcc4K cams once (together with the GX85), and the skin tones looked dramatically better. Both conditions indoor, on a big (classical) concert stage.

Still waiting for the p4k to become available ... Luckily rental is quite cheap (but you do not get the Resolve license of course)

Adorama has them. I ordered mine last week and it looks like they are still in stock.

interesting. That is very reassuring. I haven’t used the GH5 extensively but it looked nice in CineD with the contrast down. 

Share this post


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

Thanks, so I guess right this time :) So, cDNG sometimes really has more detail, but not necessarily... Now we have to learn how often and when...

I'm personally interested for the simple reason: being extremely satisfied with form factor, rigging possibility and image of Micro 1080p cDNG, I'm not so satisfied with possibility that for similar 1080p quality I have to shot 4k in P4K. Also, if result of super (up)scaling Micro's 1080p to 4K is similar or identical with 4k of P4K, there's not too much advantage rest with P4K except framing. (I always shot rigged with external small audio recorder and Atomos recorders for the backup reason.)

CinemaDNG offers significantly more details. The comparison pictures BRAW and CinemaDNG also show that BRAW has no finest details. The image information is lost at both 4K and 1080P and cannot be restored. CinemaDNG is different, because it contains the finest details and you can see how good this is when you scale up 1080P to 4K. 

 

BRAW is also not an OLPF, the moiré improvement can be seen minimally in the horizontal area.  You can do similar things with CinemaDNG by applying "Gaussian Blur" filter (H/V Strength: 0.333) to CinemaDNG. 

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...