Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Yurolov
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Kisaha The difference in sensor stack size between the P4K and other M4/3 cameras should be most visible with native lenses at very wide apertures. I did some quick testing a few days back with my Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens. I didn't notice a drop in image quality between my GH5s and my P4K, even using that lens wide open. At some point I am going to try and set up a test scene and look at this issue in more detail. There may be differences with that lens between the two platforms, but my initial look didn't reveal anything that stood out.

3 hours ago, leslie said:

i wonder if it protrudes more to compensate for the reportedly thinner sensor stack the p4k has ?

Yes. I am sure that is the cause. I also think that Kisaha is correct. That particular lens in that video didn't show a big difference because the exit pupil is about 80. A shorter exit pupil will likely show different results.

You just *know* that in the future you are going to hear horror stories about someone putting the new Metabones adapter on a normal M4/3 camera and messing up or scratching the sensor stack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drm said:

@Kisaha The difference in sensor stack size between the P4K and other M4/3 cameras should be most visible with native lenses at very wide apertures. I did some quick testing a few days back with my Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens. I didn't notice a drop in image quality between my GH5s and my P4K, even using that lens wide open. At some point I am going to try and set up a test scene and look at this issue in more detail. There may be differences with that lens between the two platforms, but my initial look didn't reveal anything that stood out.

Thank you very much, If I had the time I should be doing some testing myself.

Some Zeiss and Voigtlander can go as low as 25! I am not sure about this one, but there must be some difference.

First of all, I have to clear out that my knowledge in optics is like most people in this forum, pretty basic!

Since the Metabones release, I tried to learn as much I could about the subject matter because it is something new to me. e.g. I read in the BM forums that BM cameras and the P4K specifically, are prone to fugus eating the sensor(!) glass. Are those "missing" millimeters from the sensor responsible for that?

I seriously want an official statement address the sensor issue

A) why only BM uses those kind of m43 sensors? Are they cheaper maybe?

B) what is missing from the sensor stack?

C) how does it affect native m43 lenses?

2 of the productions companies I work mostly (the others shoot FS7mkII and one C200 cameras) use GH5, LS300 and Pocket4K cameras, and we already use some Metabones.

Now, I may order a personal P4K soon-ish (I have a project in September/October that I would like to strictly use my own equipment) and I want to do it right; also, when/if the GH6 is out next year, and if I want it, do I have to spend another 750-800€ for another adapter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Let the speculation begin:

I speculate:

1. New 4k Micro Cinema Camera based on the Fairchild MST4323. https://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/scmos-sensors/mst4323 with 4k @ 120 and 1080p @ 240, great low light and excellent dynamic range, dual micro XLR inputs with phantom power and SDI 1080p output via brake out cable shipping by the end of October, priced at $1295 with Resolve Studio.

2. BRAW codac update with improved my gradation and true 12 bit performance

3. Pocket 4k and USRA Mini Pro G2 offers Cinema DNG recording options for $99 license fee.

4. Resolve 16 is out of beta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, drm said:

@Kisaha The difference in sensor stack size between the P4K and other M4/3 cameras should be most visible with native lenses at very wide apertures. I did some quick testing a few days back with my Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens.

It's probably worth mentioning that there are three magic ingredients here..  "wide aperture", "MFT", and "sharpness".  Our problem is that if we're testing the adapter for how sharp it is, then we're in trouble with most/all of the fast MFT lenses, because they are absolutely not sharp when wide open!

I have the 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander and the last two stops are quite soft, and compared to the difference that the adapter is likely to be making they are probably useless.

What we need is for someone to test it with a lens that actually is razor sharp when wide open, and for that I think we have to adapt something else.  Just look at the lens test that @BTM_Pix posted in the Lenses thread - how much sharper the master prime was than the Rokinon or Dog Schidt lenses when wide open, and then look at the size / cost comparison!

I'd be surprised if any of us with our mere mortal lens collections would be able to tell any difference at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

Looked around the website and read specs, so if I’m correct, the weight and size/design between 4K and 6K units are the exact same? Can’t find any comparison options so am I correct to assume this?

I do not know for sure, but there are obvious differences around the much bigger EF mount.

At least one dimension is bigger (width), and I would guess the bigger sensor and larger body surface increases the weight too.

I am only guessing of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I do not know for sure, but there are obvious differences around the much bigger EF mount.

At least one dimension is bigger (width), and I would guess the bigger sensor and larger body surface increases the weight too.

I am only guessing of course.

Tottaly right.

 

Increased width and weight are only physical differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I do not know for sure, but there are obvious differences around the much bigger EF mount.

At least one dimension is bigger (width), and I would guess the bigger sensor and larger body surface increases the weight too.

I am only guessing of course.

It does seem a bit odd to me, but the Blackmagic site lists the dimensions for *both* cameras to be the exact same:

7" wide x 4" deep x 3.8" tall

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/techspecs/W-CIN-15

The weights are:

P6K: 1.98 lbs

P4K: 1.59 lbs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s probably a stupid question, and I’m missing something, but what's the advantage of an in camera crop to s16 over using the whole sensor and cropping in post? 

Couldn't they just add s16 frame lines to help you get your shot and then you can adjust it later. That way it's the same advantage as shooting 6k for 4k delivery... right?

Or even better, allow the s16 frame to fill the camera monitor, but the actual file has the full 4k image, vignette and all.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...