Jump to content

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K


Yurolov
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, deezid said:

I completely agree.
But guess what, I was reaching out to Panasonic ambassadors and developers in the past about this issue. They we're either uninformed and said there is no additional sharpening and NR, though the evidence thanks to strong halos in high contrast areas, harshness and sometimes even ghosting is there - or they were laughing at me "everyone loves how our images look"... :grimace:

C'mon Dennis, you are getting your workaround to control the beast or not? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the ergonomics for such a camera, that I probably use with a speedbooster, or bigger lens, not so great with m43 lenses, even GH5 is a little more in both size and weight for my taste (even the 12-100 Olympus is too small and light for such a camera).

It is actually a bit shorter and has less depth than the Panasonic, and obviously wider because of the 5" screen.

I would really prefer a 4" screen, as the best compromise on-a-camera-monitor, and obviously some kind of hinge, preferably the kind of Samsung/Sony has that doesn't take any space from the side of the cameras, and help with lower/higher shots, but for the price, I really can't complain, can I?! 

If everything goes well, and nothing "better" (= more preferable for my case) exists until then, this is a certain buy. Just can't see how NOT having one for the price. I already have 4 mirrorless right now, I can sell a couple and get this as a more video orientated camera. It is that cheap.

On the other hand, this is not a hybrid, nor a photo camera, I can't see that it will replace my hybrid system, or my photo taking machines, so I believe all this negativity against Panasonic is unfair, and really unnecessary as there are at least 5 things that GH5 does A LOT better than the Pocket (and a few more that Pocket doesn't do at all), and the most important thing, is that you can take it right now, and make a video. I doubt anyone here can say the same for the Pocket 4K!

GH5 is 1 years old, and shaked the industry well. It sold amazingly well for such a camera, there isn't a company or a group of people that are in the business that do not have one, just in case. What it does is just amazing for the price. I mean, what were the other options last year? What are the other options right now, for less than 1800euros? There isn't any, really.

Also, if you need an Alexa, you take an Alexa, how the GH5 is in the same conversation with a camera that cost as much as dozens of GH5, (multiple dozens, and add a couple of GH5s dozens, for good measure!) it is seriously above me. Do really people think, that Arri is doomed because of the Pocket then?

We started from killing Canonikon, then we moved to Sony, today we killed Panasonic, and now we are moving to Arri, in just 24 hours! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Blackmagic is not doing crowdfunding. They are not going to get a dime from B&H or any company on pre orders. The will go to a bank and borrow money like any large company does to build buy the materials and pay for production for the camera. Plus company's like B&D don't even charge your credit card until it ships.

That is not really what happens. Using pre-orders as an indication of demand is used as a tool to raise financing necessary to produce a product. You have to convince the lender that you are a good risk using a viable business plan, and pre-orders is one way to do that.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

No showreel, zero credibility. 

Here he is again, dismissing the X-H1 as  junk.

 

Lol, well, if he has clients and works on "serious projects", one assumes that he would not be using a consumer orientated camera in the first place. At least one hopes not :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Jesus we get you are not going to buy the God Damn thing. Give it a rest!

I never said I wasn’t going to buy it. I said it’s no replacement for the GH5/S. And by now you and others have seen the side by side comparisons and should understand better. But what those comparisons do not show is how it feels in hand, or screen response etc... 

You will come to understand. No one could record output as BM did not allow it. I did witness the motion cadence from the rear screen and thought it was not as filmic as the V1 camera. You will no doubt see this soon enough also.

Everyone is waxing on about how great this camera is... and they have not yet seen any footage. I’ve owned many BM cameras. But I’m no brand fanboy, so I’ll keep it real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Lol, well, if he has clients and works on "serious projects", one assumes that he would not be using a consumer orientated camera in the first place. At least one hopes not :)

I find it stimulating trying to get the very best image I can from second-rate cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Philip Lipetz said:

EDIT:  this information was covered by a prior post in this stream.   No need to read this,

 

The rumored is that Atomos has a period of exclusive use. Hence Apple cannot license ProRes RAW to BM. 

ProRes Raw is defintely not exclusive to Atomos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

ProRes Raw is defintely not exclusive to Atomos.

 

Could be that BM were keeping this so secret, they hadn't applied for the license before the announcement? Just included the codes they already have licenses for. And they were just as surprised as us to see the words 'Prores RAW' written in a banner at the convention.

I really can't see them releasing this camera without it included.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I find it stimulating trying to get the very best image I can from second-rate cameras.

Well, I am a scientist, and the idea of using tools intended for home use in a professional environment and expecting them to perform like professional tools is ludicrous IMO. That is not to say that you can't use them, sometimes for the odd thing it might be convenient and cost effective, but if I am going to do something routinely where I need reliable performance I get the proper equipment for the job. Why cut corners and take chances with stuff that might not hold up or be completely effective because it was designed for a completely different occasional use in a home setting? When you are working time is money and you want your equipment to always work and always work properly. 

I have one of these Kitchenaid mixers at home, which is fine for the odd baking I do on occasion, but there is NO WAY that I would depend on it if I was running a commercial operation using it 8 hours a day. For that I would buy a proper commercial mixer, because the home mixer would probably last a few weeks before burning out.

This is kind of how I see these arguments fretting about consumer cameras being "not good enough" for professional jobs. News flash, they were not designed for professional use, they were designed for home use. If you are shooting video professionally, then buy the professional tool for the job. IMO any "professional" who wants to use them as professional tools is probably not quite as professional as they might want to be. It does not mean that they are not doing good work, but clearly they have difficulty making a living doing their job if they have to scrimp like that to do work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Well, I am a scientist, and the idea of using tools intended for home use in a professional environment and expecting them to perform like professional tools is ludicrous IMO. That is not to say that you can't use them, sometimes for the odd thing it might be convenient and cost effective, but if I am going to do something routinely where I need reliable performance I get the proper equipment for the job. Why cut corners and take chances with stuff that might not hold up or be completely effective because it was designed for a completely different occasional use in a home setting? When you are working time is money and you want your equipment to always work and always work properly. 

I have one of these Kitchenaid mixers at home, which is fine for the odd baking I do on occasion, but there is NO WAY that I would depend on it if I was running a commercial operation using it 8 hours a day. For that I would buy a proper commercial mixer, because the home mixer would probably last a few weeks before burning out.

This is kind of how I see these arguments fretting about consumer cameras being "not good enough" for professional jobs. News flash, they were not designed for professional use, they were designed for home use. If you are shooting video professionally, then buy the professional tool for the job. IMO any "professional" who wants to use them as professional tools is probably not quite as professional as they might want to be. It does not mean that they are not doing good work, but clearly they have difficulty making a living doing their job if they have to scrimp like that to do work.

I have the same issue with my electronic baking machine. 3-4 hours for just one bread! at least it overheats less than my business partner's a6300!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why cut corners and take chances with stuff that might not hold up or be completely effective because it was designed for a completely different occasional use in a home setting?"

This cam is certainly not a home movie "film the baby" sort of cam. But I think, just as in "science", the proof will be in the final, shipping product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cantsin said:

Well, sharpening and noise reduction can't be turned off in the camera, not even when you externally record ProRes from HDMI. So, technically, an external ProRes recording should have little or no advantages over the internal 10bit recording at high bitrates. And its true that h264 high profile retains more detail than ProRes at the same bitrates (but only then).

Sorry to remark: for the vital part (concerning "little or no advantages") it is not true. I am shooting every day (well, not exactly every) between internal and external on GH5. First, for some reason DNxHR codec works better than ProRes on Atomos. Second, there is significant difference especially in greatly suppressed Noice Reduction, but also in noticeable less sharpening with externally recorded DNxHR HQ. What previous poster, to whom you answered, stated is, I think, simply too superficial (or maybe naive) impression - "details" confused with absence of heavy correction, while at the same time claiming with obvious insulting tendency/dictionary about oversharpened rubbish - which get several likes of like personе.

As @Jonpais put in the words my already long resource of enjoy: efforts of degrading to the zero quality of GH5 image in this (so often) theater of many omnipotence personalities are so funny and sympa.

What is even more funny is to read how the same people that yesterday glorify GH5s or Fuji or what else new (actually, I believe even GH5 at its dawn) now started to minimize everything to favor of yet unseen new BMPCC - camera with modest un-cinematic m43 mount...

Because RAW must be so great! - so, thanks for such original and powerful discovering - from these so powerfully sounding and discovering mouths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I agree with him, in the photography still world the technical performance has plateaued out, with only incremental improvements now. 

When will we reach this in the video world?

I reckon the BMPCC4K could be the beginning of the end.

I think you summed it up well.  This is a watershed moment.  Assuming this camera is what we think it is there will really only be refinements going forward.  If you can't get it done with this thing it's not the camera that is the problem.  Sure the camera is missing Canon's DPAF, IBIS, internal NDs, etc.  But two or three years ago nobody was even asking for that stuff (except maybe some people asked for NDs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

I think you summed it up well.  This is a watershed moment.  Assuming this camera is what we think it is there will really only be refinements going forward.  If you can't get it done with this thing it's not the camera that is the problem.  Sure the camera is missing Canon's DPAF, IBIS, internal NDs, etc.  But two or three years ago nobody was even asking for that stuff (except maybe some people asked for NDs).

The problem is that when you start using DPAF, you can not live without it anymore, especially in docs, anyway, this camera is insane cheap....too cheap to pass unnoticed, I am sure many GH5s potencial buyers are going to move to the 4Kpocket, of course is the camera works fine, and we do not get another brick like the A6300...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

Well, I am a scientist, and the idea of using tools intended for home use in a professional environment and expecting them to perform like professional tools is ludicrous IMO. That is not to say that you can't use them, sometimes for the odd thing it might be convenient and cost effective, but if I am going to do something routinely where I need reliable performance I get the proper equipment for the job. Why cut corners and take chances with stuff that might not hold up or be completely effective because it was designed for a completely different occasional use in a home setting? When you are working time is money and you want your equipment to always work and always work properly. 

I have one of these Kitchenaid mixers at home, which is fine for the odd baking I do on occasion, but there is NO WAY that I would depend on it if I was running a commercial operation using it 8 hours a day. For that I would buy a proper commercial mixer, because the home mixer would probably last a few weeks before burning out.

This is kind of how I see these arguments fretting about consumer cameras being "not good enough" for professional jobs. News flash, they were not designed for professional use, they were designed for home use. If you are shooting video professionally, then buy the professional tool for the job. IMO any "professional" who wants to use them as professional tools is probably not quite as professional as they might want to be. It does not mean that they are not doing good work, but clearly they have difficulty making a living doing their job if they have to scrimp like that to do work.

So go back to your science, in the artistic world 1+1 doesn't necessarily make 2. By the way raw or even prores in 4k camera was unheard of in 99.9% of pro camera 5-10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

 I am sure many GH5s potencial buyers are going to move to the 4Kpocket...

... including myself... that I called new version of crowdfunding: by using of time :)

Let's announce something unfinished half year in advance to prevent competitive existing product not to be bought. Of course, anybody in theory could withdraw initial sum - but in praxis it would be rare... Buyers of BMCCC were willing to wait year and half for preordered cameras... So let's collect thousand of preorders to bind customers - although even now it is obvious that they couldn't be dispatched to the time for most of preordering buyers.

But, I'm no regretting any moment - from the beginning of GH5s I protested because of insolent price. From my point of view, Panasonic deserved to be warned in a such way. And I like that BM did it.

I'm just afraid that such behavior will be from today new standard... and I dislike it. Contrary, I liked very much when BM's announcement of UMP was completely opposite: WYSIWYG NOW!

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...