Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

The other problem is you can never be sure when the battery is going to conk out, that goes for LPE6 and external batteries; the battery metering is not to be trusted.

I think newer firmware has addressed though, but still good to know. Regardless, some like myself would prefer the LPE6.

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
19 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

I think newer firmware has addressed though, but still good to know. Regardless, some like myself would prefer the LPE6.

If you want to be sure the camera shuts down in the middle of a shot, the LPE6 is definitely the way to go. And for the record I've been using genuine LPE6 batteries with the new firmware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 11:47 AM, Yannick Willox said:

OK, so I finally have the Pocket 4K !

I also have a Zoom F8, which outputs timecode on a BNC. I have some cable/converters into 3.5 mm stereo jack, but I cannot get my p4k to sync up. 

Does anyone know if a direct connection is possible ? It would be great to record "playback" video shots on pr-edited audio tracks. I want to start playback of the audio clips on my Zoom, which would output the correct timecode, and all my shots would be in sync.

Hi Yannick,

I do this all the time with my F8n, on multiple P4Ks & P6K. Just plug your BNC cable into the BNC out on the Zoom F8(n) and plug in to the P4K mic input. You will instantly see your timecode sync. Let me know if you have trouble and I can walk you through the steps.

IMG_5194.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The ghost of squig said:

Don't waste your time with LPE6 batteries, Canon or otherwise. 20 minute run-time just isn't worth the hassle, nor the embarrassment. 

When recording internally (in my case on sd card) and having the screen brightness around 50% I get about 40m  ‘on time’.

Share this post


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

When recording internally (in my case on sd card) and having the screen brightness around 50% I get about 40m  ‘on time’.

same here roughly 40 mins however i did bump up the display to 100% yesterday in the afternoon sun  for about 10 minutes. no idea if the battery meter went down any faster i wasn't watching that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 1:16 PM, BTM_Pix said:

For fucks sake.

I have you on ignore, how can I see this post ?

Seeing that I can....just for old times sake and for ONE post only I'm going to respond.

READ THE FUCKING FACTS IN MY POST YOU FUCKING MORON

The lens options for EF mount are not endless if you want to use PL mount lenses.

You want to talk about serious cine shooters an yet want to pretend that PL lenses wouldn't somehow fit in that area ?

Seriously ?

I'm going to repeat this one more time so you can try and understand it.

There is no lens that you can put on an EF mount camera that you can't put on an MFT mount camera but there are plenty of lenses that you can put on an MFT camera that you can't put on an EF mount camera.

Therefore, the lens options for EF aren't "endless" as they literally end at any lens with a flange distance less than 44mm.

As for the rest of your post well I'll leave you to your "spreading false information" and the "unless you feel threatened" fantasies like the pound shop Donald Trump you clearly are.

Fuckity bye.

RELAX. MFT lenses do not cover the Pocket 6K, so it's an odd mount, especially with Blackmagic RAW being one of the main selling points. No one wants a windowed sensor. Other mounts like E-Mount, etc. are proprietary and the only manufacturers that make them other than Sony, produce DUMB mounts which are useless. The only logical mount that could have been used is RF instead of EF, which we don't know if Blackmagic could deliver in such a short time.
 

There's unfortunately not to many mount choices that BM can use, and they chose to take the safe route. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Wasn't the original BMCC a PASSIVE M4/3 mount? That camera came out at a time when very few people were using anything other than Canon, and no one wanted a Passive mount or to use M4/3 lenses.

 

Are you sure a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?
 

People just don't think outside the box. "You can't mount a lot of PL lenses on the Pocket 6K." Well now you can.

"You can't put a speedbooster inside an EF mount because you need 4mm of clearance that you don't have." Remove the IR glass in front of the sensor and you have all the clearance you need. ala Lucadapters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2019 at 5:09 PM, drm said:

Hi Yannick,

I do this all the time with my F8n, on multiple P4Ks & P6K. Just plug your BNC cable into the BNC out on the Zoom F8(n) and plug in to the P4K mic input. You will instantly see your timecode sync. Let me know if you have trouble and I can walk you through the steps.

IMG_5194.jpg

So, I did a test connecting the P4k to my Ipad with the proper cable, and timecode generator app installed. It works.

After selecting 3.5mm input for the left channel of course ! Which I forgot to do, I wrongly assumed this would happen automatically ...

Then I repeated the test with bnc to 3.5mm self made cable, I get a much hotter level to about -6 dB, and the P4K does not sync at all !

At what level do you have the timecode signal coming in ?

EDIT: I tried with 3.5 mm mic input for the left ch, gain all the way down, now my F8 TC signal is coming in at -18 dB - still no sync !

Share this post


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

RELAX. MFT lenses do not cover the Pocket 6K, so it's an odd mount, especially with Blackmagic RAW being one of the main selling points. No one wants a windowed sensor. Other mounts like E-Mount, etc. are proprietary and the only manufacturers that make them other than Sony, produce DUMB mounts which are useless. The only logical mount that could have been used is RF instead of EF, which we don't know if Blackmagic could deliver in such a short time.
There's unfortunately not to many mount choices that BM can use, and they chose to take the safe route. Nothing wrong with that.

Wasn't the original BMCC a PASSIVE M4/3 mount? That camera came out at a time when very few people were using anything other than Canon, and no one wanted a Passive mount or to use M4/3 lenses.

Are you sure a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?
 

I'm completely relaxed thanks.

I was debating a point with a complete idiot that was reducing the collective IQ of the forum every time he posted but if you want to open up the subject again..

From my experience with the JVC LS300, most lenses are able to do 90-94% coverage of the sensor so the windowed mode would be minimal (both in terms of FOV and resolution loss) and a fair compromise for the ability to use lightweight mft lenses. 

I don't know where the E mount or RF mount come into it as I never mentioned those as being a viable option for BM to incorporate.

Its a fair point about the original BMCC but that was also at a time when electronic mft EF adapters didn't exist so people were buying them because it was a shallower mount and more adaptable.

There is no reason why the new mount would not be active as per the Pocket 4K and there are now plenty of electronic EF adapters on the market though so its a bit of a moot point in the context of the point about this camera today.

The lens landscape in terms of quality and range for mft lenses is also significantly different between now and then.

For a camera with such rudimentary AF, there is no loss of performance in using an adapter versus native, only a loss of flexibility in having the option of both.

For the sake of a 90% windowed mode only when using the small lightweight lenses, I don't think there would have been a huge pushback at that compromise, particularly as it would also then allow the use of PL lenses amongst others. 

With regard to PL compatibility, this is a list from the SLR Magic PL Adapter and is actually quite a bit more extensive than other adapters that carry the same core list

  • SLR Magic
  • SLR Magic ANAMORPHOT-CINE 35mm/50mm/70mm
  • SLR Magic APO-HyperPrime 25/50/85
  • Century Optics
  • Century Optics S2000 150-600mm - Canon
  • Century Optics 200 mm T 2 - Canon
  • Nikkor
  • Nikkor Micro 200 mm T 4
  • Nikkor 800 mm T 5.6
  • Nikkor 300 mm T 2
  • Nikkor 200 mm T 2
  • Cooke Optics
  • Cooke 18-100 mm T 3
  • Canon
  • Canon 800 mm T 5.6
  • Canon 400 mm T 2.8
  • Canon 300 mm T 2.8
  • Canon 20-35mm T4
  • Angenieux
  • Angenieux 20-120 mm
  • Angenieux 7-81 mm T 2.4 HR
  • Angenieux 17-102 mm T 2.9
  • Angenieux 24-290 mm T 2.8
  • Angenieux Optimo 24-290 mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 28-70 mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 17-80 mm T 2.2
  • Angenieux Optimo 15-40 mm T 2.6
  • Angenieux Optimo 45-120mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 28-340mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 19.5-94mm
  • Focus Optics
  • Ruby 14-24mm T2.8
  • AllStar
  • Allstar 135mm T1.9
  • Allstar 80-200mm T3
  • Allstar 50mm T1.5
  • Allstar 18-35 T1.8
  •  
5 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

People just don't think outside the box. "You can't mount a lot of PL lenses on the Pocket 6K." Well now you can.

"You can't put a speedbooster inside an EF mount because you need 4mm of clearance that you don't have." Remove the IR glass in front of the sensor and you have all the clearance you need. ala Lucadapters

Hang on, you're asking if I'm sure "a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?" and then immediately talking about a product that exists purely to address that issue!

With regard to the speed booster, I don't know who's original quote that is as it's not mine, but there is a big difference between that statement and the Lucadapters solution.

Both products, as smart as they are, are offering solutions that need not have been there had BM continued with the mft mount and are nowhere near as convenient as the solutions on offer if they had.

I'm not saying that EF was a flat out bad choice (and it might actually have resulted in more attraction for people who don't like the mft mount) but it was certainly the less flexible and I don't recall a massive backlash towards the Pocket 4K for having an mft mount in terms of lack of sales of it.

By the way, for what its worth, I'm quite an advocate of thinking outside the box when it comes to BM cameras.

Way outside of it :) 

 

Share this post


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

I'm completely relaxed thanks.

I was debating a point with a complete idiot that was reducing the collective IQ of the forum every time he posted but if you want to open up the subject again..

From my experience with the JVC LS300, most lenses are able to do 90-94% coverage of the sensor so the windowed mode would be minimal (both in terms of FOV and resolution loss) and a fair compromise for the ability to use lightweight mft lenses. 

I don't know where the E mount or RF mount come into it as I never mentioned those as being a viable option for BM to incorporate.

Its a fair point about the original BMCC but that was also at a time when electronic mft EF adapters didn't exist so people were buying them because it was a shallower mount and more adaptable.

There is no reason why the new mount would not be active as per the Pocket 4K and there are now plenty of electronic EF adapters on the market though so its a bit of a moot point in the context of the point about this camera today.

The lens landscape in terms of quality and range for mft lenses is also significantly different between now and then.

For a camera with such rudimentary AF, there is no loss of performance in using an adapter versus native, only a loss of flexibility in having the option of both.

For the sake of a 90% windowed mode only when using the small lightweight lenses, I don't think there would have been a huge pushback at that compromise, particularly as it would also then allow the use of PL lenses amongst others. 

With regard to PL compatibility, this is a list from the SLR Magic PL Adapter and is actually quite a bit more extensive than other adapters that carry the same core list

  • SLR Magic
  • SLR Magic ANAMORPHOT-CINE 35mm/50mm/70mm
  • SLR Magic APO-HyperPrime 25/50/85
  • Century Optics
  • Century Optics S2000 150-600mm - Canon
  • Century Optics 200 mm T 2 - Canon
  • Nikkor
  • Nikkor Micro 200 mm T 4
  • Nikkor 800 mm T 5.6
  • Nikkor 300 mm T 2
  • Nikkor 200 mm T 2
  • Cooke Optics
  • Cooke 18-100 mm T 3
  • Canon
  • Canon 800 mm T 5.6
  • Canon 400 mm T 2.8
  • Canon 300 mm T 2.8
  • Canon 20-35mm T4
  • Angenieux
  • Angenieux 20-120 mm
  • Angenieux 7-81 mm T 2.4 HR
  • Angenieux 17-102 mm T 2.9
  • Angenieux 24-290 mm T 2.8
  • Angenieux Optimo 24-290 mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 28-70 mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 17-80 mm T 2.2
  • Angenieux Optimo 15-40 mm T 2.6
  • Angenieux Optimo 45-120mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 28-340mm
  • Angenieux Optimo 19.5-94mm
  • Focus Optics
  • Ruby 14-24mm T2.8
  • AllStar
  • Allstar 135mm T1.9
  • Allstar 80-200mm T3
  • Allstar 50mm T1.5
  • Allstar 18-35 T1.8
  •  

Hang on, you're asking if I'm sure "a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?" and then immediately talking about a product that exists purely to address that issue!

With regard to the speed booster, I don't know who's original quote that is as it's not mine, but there is a big difference between that statement and the Lucadapters solution.

Both products, as smart as they are, are offering solutions that need not have been there had BM continued with the mft mount and are nowhere near as convenient as the solutions on offer if they had.

I'm not saying that EF was a flat out bad choice (and it might actually have resulted in more attraction for people who don't like the mft mount) but it was certainly the less flexible and I don't recall a massive backlash towards the Pocket 4K for having an mft mount in terms of lack of sales of it.

By the way, for what its worth, I'm quite an advocate of thinking outside the box when it comes to BM cameras.

Way outside of it :) 

 

The Bezamod is not an adapter, it's actually more of a MOD for mounting PL lenses. The list is small because the guy who makes it likely hasn't tested very many lenses. This is different than most PL-EF adapters.

 

If the camera was MFT mount, most people would complain. Some of the biggest arguments against the Pocket 4K were people that did not like the EF Mount. Making a camera that has a mount that forces some sort of windowed mode is against how Blackmagic operates. I don't think Blackmagic would ever sell a camera that forces people to buy an adapter to not window their camera.

Looking at the P4K groups on facebook, very few people are using native lenses. Almost everyone wants the extra sensitivity and larger format that the speedbooster offers. From a value perspective, if you own no lenses, the 17-55  F2.8 from Canon is the best value if you can only afford 1 lens.

Share this post


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

The Bezamod is not an adapter, it's actually more of a MOD for mounting PL lenses. The list is small because the guy who makes it likely hasn't tested very many lenses. This is different than most PL-EF adapters.

 

Where did I say it was an adapter rather than a mod?

The clue that it is a mod is in the actual name of the product.

I didn't produce his list though, I showed the list of the existing adapters. His mod fleshes that list out pretty well which reinforces the original point I made about the limited choice with an adapter.

The announcement of the Bezamod being available for the Pocket6K was post the discussion you've quoted by the way and I'm not sure it would've moved the needle much as it does not have a release date and remains some way short of being funded and even then only carries an estimated earliest shipping date of February 2020.

2 hours ago, Savannah Miller said:

If the camera was MFT mount, most people would complain. Some of the biggest arguments against the Pocket 4K were people that did not like the EF Mount. Making a camera that has a mount that forces some sort of windowed mode is against how Blackmagic operates. I don't think Blackmagic would ever sell a camera that forces people to buy an adapter to not window their camera.

It forces it with one specific lens type.

The same way that Blackmagic have announced a Super16 windowed mode for the Pocket 4K if you want to use those lenses where, again, you need an adapter.

If you want to use it with EF lenses then it won't be cropped and you can use a speedbooster as well if you want.

Without a mod.

And you can use it with PL lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

Or Leica M lenses for fast, compact lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

I can see we won't agree on this (and nor do we have to so thats fine) so I'll leave it here but I can see one negative of retaining the mft mount versus several negatives to the EF mount.

BM have access to way more data than I do so I'm sure they've made the most logical choice for their needs based on that data.

 

Share this post


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

Where did I say it was an adapter rather than a mod?

The clue that it is a mod is in the actual name of the product.

I didn't produce his list though, I showed the list of the existing adapters. His mod fleshes that list out pretty well which reinforces the original point I made about the limited choice with an adapter.

The announcement of the Bezamod being available for the Pocket6K was post the discussion you've quoted by the way and I'm not sure it would've moved the needle much as it does not have a release date and remains some way short of being funded and even then only carries an estimated earliest shipping date of February 2020.

It forces it with one specific lens type.

The same way that Blackmagic have announced a Super16 windowed mode for the Pocket 4K if you want to use those lenses where, again, you need an adapter.

If you want to use it with EF lenses then it won't be cropped and you can use a speedbooster as well if you want.

Without a mod.

And you can use it with PL lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

Or Leica M lenses for fast, compact lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

I can see we won't agree on this (and nor do we have to so thats fine) so I'll leave it here but I can see one negative of retaining the mft mount versus several negatives to the EF mount.

BM have access to way more data than I do so I'm sure they've made the most logical choice for their needs based on that data.

 

Bezamod is a real product and already existing. He stopped making it when the ursa mini pro came out. The Lucadapters speedbooster is a real product too that already works. The design of the Pocket 6K one is only going to be improved.

Share this post


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

If the camera was MFT mount, most people would complain. Some of the biggest arguments against the Pocket 4K were people that did not like the EF Mount. Making a camera that has a mount that forces some sort of windowed mode is against how Blackmagic operates. I don't think Blackmagic would ever sell a camera that forces people to buy an adapter to not window their camera.

Looking at the P4K groups on facebook, very few people are using native lenses. Almost everyone wants the extra sensitivity and larger format that the speedbooster offers. From a value perspective, if you own no lenses, the 17-55  F2.8 from Canon is the best value if you can only afford 1 lens.

My opinion is that it would have been great for them to make the mount removable so that people could have the option.  Even if it took an hour and specialist tools to do, it would have allowed a level of customisation for those that were interested in it while also not even being noticed by those that would only use the EF mount.  Think about how Sigma offers the mount change service on many of its lenses, this might be a similar thing.

Maybe a separate version of the P6K will be released, but this makes changing between them a sell/buy exercise instead of a minor change you can do at home.

If the P4K/P6K was the right type of camera for me then I would have been willing to sacrifice a bit of resolution when shooting an MFT lens.  I use a GH5 as I don't want RAW but I do want IBIS as it suits my shooting style and aesthetic.

My lens collection has four major lenses: 8mm MFT, 17.5mm MFT, 40mm FF, and 70-210mm zoom FF.  I'm not sure how large the image circles on my MFT lenses are, but I'd be interested in being able to test how large it is and maybe my 8mm lens can actually get a bit wider too, who knows.

I see the P4K/P6K cameras as being somewhere in-between a point-and-shoot (where you can't customise anything or plug anything into it) and a cine camera where it is completely modular and you have to attach a dozen different things just to get it to write an image to a storage device.  In this sense I think there is room in the market for it to offer some degree of flexibility, and a removable mount with different crop factors would be a win-win where people who want it can use it and people who don't need it wouldn't even know it was there.

Share this post


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

So, I did a test connecting the P4k to my Ipad with the proper cable, and timecode generator app installed. It works.

After selecting 3.5mm input for the left channel of course ! Which I forgot to do, I wrongly assumed this would happen automatically ...

Then I repeated the test with bnc to 3.5mm self made cable, I get a much hotter level to about -6 dB, and the P4K does not sync at all !

At what level do you have the timecode signal coming in ?

EDIT: I tried with 3.5 mm mic input for the left ch, gain all the way down, now my F8 TC signal is coming in at -18 dB - still no sync !

I just connected my P6K (which has never been timecode synced before) with my Zoom F8n. The timecode on the P6K switched to EXT the instant I plugged in the 3.5mm cable. My audio is set to Camera Left and Camera Right. I didn't make any special changes to the P6K to enable the sync. As far as I know, this works the same on my other two P4Ks.

By the way, the timer counter shows 00:00:00:00 initially, but shows the TC after you tap the counter on the screen. Have you switched to the TC counter view on your P4K?

From the P4K manual, p.29:

The microphone input also accepts SMPTE compliant LTC timecode from an external source on the left channel. Valid timecode will be detected automatically, and embedded in your video file as timecode metadata. We recommend sending LTC timecode via a line level output, especially if you are not recording timecode as an audio track.

I wonder if you either 1) have a bad cable, 2) have settings wrong on your Zoom, or 3) have a bad camera? Are you sure that cable works to sync with other devices?

Share this post


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

I'm completely relaxed thanks.

By the way, for what its worth, I'm quite an advocate of thinking outside the box when it comes to BM cameras.

Way outside of it :)

About this far out i think 🤣

 

btm_pix.jpg

Share this post


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

Bezamod is a real product and already existing. He stopped making it when the ursa mini pro came out. The Lucadapters speedbooster is a real product too that already works. The design of the Pocket 6K one is only going to be improved.

Where did I mention anything about the Lucadapter not being a real product? He is a member of this forum so I'm well aware of his products.

Where did I mention anything about the Bezamod never having been a real product?

He closed sales on the original version when the PL mount of the Ursa was released a long time ago so it had ceased to be a product you could buy.

So the only version that you could buy now would be the new Pocket6K which is a new announcement, is still not fully funded and its earliest availability is listed as being February 2020. 

Hope that clarifies everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, drm said:

From the P4K manual, p.29:

The microphone input also accepts SMPTE compliant LTC timecode from an external source on the left channel. Valid timecode will be detected automatically, and embedded in your video file as timecode metadata. We recommend sending LTC timecode via a line level output, especially if you are not recording timecode as an audio track.

I wonder if you either 1) have a bad cable, 2) have settings wrong on your Zoom, or 3) have a bad camera? Are you sure that cable works to sync with other devices?

rtfm ...

twol issues at the same time:

1. my ipad pro does some funky stuff when connecting a stereo 3.5mm cable, so it kinda worked (when I do that, Siri is always harassing me, and some strange music often starts playing). Using my 2 euro smartphone, it works instantly, and without fiddling around.

2. my self-made cable ended in a stereo + third ch plug (the one typically used for stereo + 1 mic) - this of course does not work ... There it is, 25 years + pro audio recording experience, and I still did not figure out something as simple as a 3.5mm stereo connection !

I will order the right kind of cable and it will work - instantly. At least I now know that my p4k syncs properly, and that the workflow I want to do is possible !

I also know I have to read up on consumer audio connections 😣

Thanks for the tips however, using my smartphone to troubleshoot was the easy way !

Now if someone can just advise me to buy a RX 5700 XT or RTX 2060 super (both 8GB - price difference about 20 euro) ???? Then I can finally put together an editing system that can actually edit 4K BRAW footage + color correction and some stuff ...

Share this post


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

Now if someone can just advise me to buy a RX 5700 XT or RTX 2060 super (both 8GB - price difference about 20 euro) ???? Then I can finally put together an editing system that can actually edit 4K BRAW footage + color correction and some stuff ...

I have seen benchmarks showing the 5700XT is more on par with an RTX 2070 Super or 2080 Super for Davinci work (which I find very surprising). The 5700 XT uses a lot of power, but is a strong card for the $.

I am glad that you figured out the timecode issues.

 

Share this post


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

I have seen benchmarks showing the 5700XT is more on par with an RTX 2070 Super or 2080 Super for Davinci work (which I find very surprising). The 5700 XT uses a lot of power, but is a strong card for the $.

I'm planning on getting one of those when OSX drivers are released - the horsepower-per-dollar ratio is pretty good on that.

Of course, I'm not sure if getting a better card will help me as my CPU might be the bottleneck.  I'm currently talking with one of the BM support providers so am hoping for some wisdom (and performance gains!).

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...