Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

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
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
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
1 hour ago, osmanovic said:

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.

That video doesn't show the point you're trying to make. You're comparing cDNG to Braw, but he states in the test that he's shooting ProRes - which if anything will be closer to Braw than to cDNG on any camera.

On top of that, before he revealed which image was which camera, the OG BMPCC was my least favourite, with the BMCC coming second and P4K being the best. That said, I wouldn't complain about any of them, and your findings may vary - which is fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

That video doesn't show the point you're trying to make. You're comparing cDNG to Braw, but he states in the test that he's shooting ProRes - which if anything will be closer to Braw than to cDNG on any camera.

You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

Share this post


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

You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW:https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

It will be nice to see some Pocket 4k CinemaDNG image/footage in comparison from users who still take a walk through firmware versions... This, actually, from my side now just out of cheap curiosity, while waiting arrival of mine piece of P4k camera :) I'm sure we all here are well aware of enormous potential and liberating $$ affordability of BM cameras and artistic direction. Let's hope that hawk eyes of users will result in some nice next firmware addition and further progression of BRAW quality.

Share this post


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

That video doesn't show the point you're trying to make. You're comparing cDNG to Braw, but he states in the test that he's shooting ProRes - which if anything will be closer to Braw than to cDNG on any camera.

On top of that, before he revealed which image was which camera, the OG BMPCC was my least favourite, with the BMCC coming second and P4K being the best. That said, I wouldn't complain about any of them, and your findings may vary - which is fine. 

The PK4 to me was the worse. Not even close. But we all have different ideas what is good or not, and not the same monitors looking at the footage, which by the way I just re-calibrated mine 3 days ago.

Share this post


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

The PK4 to me was the worse.

To me also, mostly because of red-ish bias in color. Who knows what's the reason, but I'm not at all interested in prores comparison - in spite some other opinion, from my practice any Prores is noticeable behind RAW in BM cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, osmanovic said:

You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

As a better explanation, I would like to add that: http://rubenkremer.nl/2013/08/27/theoretical-light-sensitivity-of-the-pocket-cinema-camera/

"Down to the micrometers

The sensor of the 550D is 22.2mm wide and has a height of 14.8mm. It's resolution it 5.184 × 3.456 pixels. Simple math will tell us the pixels are 4,28 × 4,28µm. 

The legendary Canon EOS 5D Mk. II has a large fullframe sensor, one of the (relatively) few. It's measures 36 × 24mm and has a resolution of 5.616 × 3.744 pixels. Zooming in on the actual pixels on that sensor we're getting a pixelsize of 6,41 × 6,41µm. That's 150% of the 550D's pixel size. This makes perfect sense and is in-line with the expectations.

Now we're coming to the interesting part: what's going on on the surface of the Super16 sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? The sensor measures 12,48 × 7,02mm. It has a resolution of (merely) 1920 × 1080 pixels, because it doesn't need to take 21 megapixel stills - only (just over) 2 megapixel video. When we do the math we get a pixel size of 6,5 × 6,5µm.

And the winner is...

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera! Theoretically.

Wait! What just happened there?!

So, there it is. If we consider each individual pixel on the sensor as a sensor of its own - the camera with the largest sensors is actually the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's pixels are 1,4% bigger than those of the Canon 5D Mark II and 52% bigger than the pixels on the 550D/T2i. So theoretically, solely based on the numbers - the BMPCC should theoretically have a better light sensitivity than practically all DSLR's on the market today.

"

Therefore, old Pocket and Micro, with  up-scaling from 1080P to 4K, is still very good today. But with Blackmagic RAW this wouldn't be as good as with CinemaDNG, because Blackmagic RAW is less sharp. If Blackmagic RAW is also released for Blackmagic Micro and Pocket, I will not upgrade. That CinemaDNG is better is my personal conviction and opinion. It shouldn't speak for everyone at all.

I hope this is now understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cDNG is better. Period. And such comparison above-posted proves it once again.

P4K brings higher resolution possible to find on doll's hair as for instance, but loses compared with BMCC as far as color concerns; .braw shows less detail.

Just checked on a screen 80" wide along a calibrated 4K projector from a 1080p copy. Fairly visible.

 

Last but not least and overall, BMPCC outcome is the worst sample shown there IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BenEricson said:

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. 

Yeah, I ordered mine from Adorama last week, got it last Friday, returned it today, sadly. BHPhoto has them in stock now too. I read on the BM forums yesterday that BM confirmed that new versions of the camera can't downgrade the firmware to get back CDNG, and they claim it's because they had to switch their LCD screen supplier... So I wonder if this sudden availability has to do with having solved their LCD issue.

Share this post


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

cDNG is better. Period. And such comparison above-posted proves it once again.

P4K brings higher resolution possible to find on doll's hair as for instance, but loses compared with BMCC as far as color concerns; .braw shows less detail.

Just checked on a screen 80" wide along a calibrated 4K projector from a 1080p copy. Fairly visible.

 

Last but not least and overall, BMPCC outcome is the worst sample shown there IMO.

I think the BMPCC is second to the BMCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read it up there now (I had seen it projected without audio track), it was shot ProRes after all so raw doesn't obviously apply as the OP had inferred, so ends inaccurate and led others like me to misinformation on that one.

Which means no less curious findings anyway. Just not raw related.

 

In any case, there are many tests out there (to prove the shit BMD staff is used to smoke nowadays is updated and HQ indeed):

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

 

I'm sorry @CaptainHook but denial never helped people to grow up... : ) Life and reality above all are beyond our most secret wishes, it doesn't depend on our mantra. Coexists outside :X

 

Our team's flag can end faded, it happens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, osmanovic said:

As a better explanation, I would like to add that: http://rubenkremer.nl/2013/08/27/theoretical-light-sensitivity-of-the-pocket-cinema-camera/

"Down to the micrometers

The sensor of the 550D is 22.2mm wide and has a height of 14.8mm. It's resolution it 5.184 × 3.456 pixels. Simple math will tell us the pixels are 4,28 × 4,28µm. 

The legendary Canon EOS 5D Mk. II has a large fullframe sensor, one of the (relatively) few. It's measures 36 × 24mm and has a resolution of 5.616 × 3.744 pixels. Zooming in on the actual pixels on that sensor we're getting a pixelsize of 6,41 × 6,41µm. That's 150% of the 550D's pixel size. This makes perfect sense and is in-line with the expectations.

Now we're coming to the interesting part: what's going on on the surface of the Super16 sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? The sensor measures 12,48 × 7,02mm. It has a resolution of (merely) 1920 × 1080 pixels, because it doesn't need to take 21 megapixel stills - only (just over) 2 megapixel video. When we do the math we get a pixel size of 6,5 × 6,5µm.

And the winner is...

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera! Theoretically.

Wait! What just happened there?!

So, there it is. If we consider each individual pixel on the sensor as a sensor of its own - the camera with the largest sensors is actually the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's pixels are 1,4% bigger than those of the Canon 5D Mark II and 52% bigger than the pixels on the 550D/T2i. So theoretically, solely based on the numbers - the BMPCC should theoretically have a better light sensitivity than practically all DSLR's on the market today.

"

Therefore, old Pocket and Micro, with  up-scaling from 1080P to 4K, is still very good today. But with Blackmagic RAW this wouldn't be as good as with CinemaDNG, because Blackmagic RAW is less sharp. If Blackmagic RAW is also released for Blackmagic Micro and Pocket, I will not upgrade. That CinemaDNG is better is my personal conviction and opinion. It shouldn't speak for everyone at all.

I hope this is now understandable.

There's more to it than this.  Sensors vary significantly in design and how much surface area of the sensor actually receives light.  For example:

18mosu75wjn93jpg.jpg

Not saying your explanation is wrong, just that it's oversimplified.

Also, remember that 4K downscaled to 1080 is 1080 4:4:4 and the downscaling process smooths some of the ISO noise, and 1080 sensor is 4:2:2 without any noise smoothing.  Everything is a tradeoff.  The best way to actually work out what is what is to do a real-world test and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P4k is a fantastic camera in many ways but the use of a 1:1 sampling sensor and no OLPF means that for high resolution / fine detail capture tasks it's never going to be ideal no matter what codec is used. If your application requires the highest clean rendition of fine detail then you have bought / are considering buying the wrong camera for this task.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

honestly i don't care how they compare. After watching the vid all i can say is, use what you got. you wont be disappointed. I have neither of the previous bm cameras, it's water off a ducks back, for someone who just goes out and buys the camera and wants to make videos.... er movies for those that get offended by the word video 🙄 . I Pre ordered because i was impressed with the p4k trailers that bm produced. if i can produce something half as impressive i'll be happy. if you have either of the other cameras and can produce awesome footage thats fantastic and while i may not worship the ground you walk on, i will clap politely 😉 . Talk of pixel sizes makes me sleepy. i think you have got some real issues if you have the camera and need to talk pixel sizes and if you dont have a camera but still need to talk pixel sizes then your nitpicking. Like it or not CinemaDNG is a dead horse with bm and i'm guessing theres a few legal reasons why. Now you can keep on flogging that dead horse but it gets pointless pretty quickly and the rest of us will look at you oddly as well, unless you were an early adoptee and have a 6.1 version.  show some wisdom and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the original pocket and micro introduce false detail due to sharpening in cDNG is hardly news. In BMD/D16 circles it's been discussed for years. So I'm not at all surprised that BMD eknowledge it now when they have Braw.

I also prefer the older sensor but that doesn't mean Im going to deny it's "shortcomings", if one consider them as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CaptainHook Hook, you just add a disservice to our brand with such blind & piteous attitude. Who puts money in the hands of the manufacturer who pays your income, demands more from your juvenile approach.

Learn to listen your clientele and some other point (and argument) outside your bubble rather than act as a complete Autist... with all due respect to them, they don't deserve to be compared with some other class of individuals who can't see a shit beyond the own belly button ; -)

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...