Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

I am going to make a little carbon fibre visor to sheld of the vents from eating stuff it shouldn't. I wonder why they didn't put them at the exact place but on the bottom? Afraid I might get into a crazy freak accident being scalped, safety first boys ;D

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
3 hours ago, Logan said:

I'll take color and recoverable information over pure resolution any day.

The real question is 4K too much for m4/3?

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5258-top-end-cinema-cameras-it-s-all-becoming-clearer

After reading that article, I can deduce that Arri who is a leader in the industry didn't feel that true 4K on super35 was a good fit so they went LF....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mkabi said:

The real question is 4K too much for m4/3?

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5258-top-end-cinema-cameras-it-s-all-becoming-clearer

After reading that article, I can deduce that Arri who is a leader in the industry didn't feel that true 4K on super35 was a good fit so they went LF....

There are two main ways sensor size can affect the maximum resolution:

1)  The ability of a lens to resolve finer details than the distance between two neighboring pixels. 

 --> There are plenty of lenses that support far higher resolution than 4K so that's not a limit

2)  The ability of pixels to collect enough light. 

 --> Current m43 sensors with large pixels offer  ~13stops of dynamic range and excellent color information. 

So in short, in that article just suggesting that for 4K someone needs a LF sensor, is plain wrong and marketing bulshit. 

In general systems are far more limited by their processing pipeline than optics/sensor performance, and that's why offering RAW is such a big deal.

Share this post


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

There are two main ways sensor size can affect the maximum resolution:

1)  The ability of a lens to resolve finer details than the distance between two neighboring pixels. 

 --> There are plenty of lenses that support far higher resolution than 4K so that's not a limit

2)  The ability of pixels to collect enough light. 

 --> Current m43 sensors with large pixels offer  ~13stops of dynamic range and excellent color information. 

So in short, in that article just suggesting that for 4K someone needs a LF sensor, is plain wrong and marketing bulshit. 

In general systems are far more limited by their processing pipeline than optics/sensor performance, and that's why offering RAW is such a big deal.

May be I should've been clearer.....

Of course, you can have 4K on a m43... You can also have 4K on a cellphone camera.... But is that really any good for image quality???

You can spout about lens resolving capabilities and pixels gathering light... But is that going to give you the best in image quality?

There are plenty of camera makers... Only one that thinks resolution is what matters most and that's Red.... Arri has never made a true 4K super35 sensor camera (which is bigger than m43). And, read that article.... It actually does not say, "...for 4K someone needs LF sensor...," but it does say that many of the high-end cinema cameras are moving to LF and most are 6K+ except Arri.... What does Arri know that the rest doesn't know???? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Of course, you can have 4K on a m43... You can also have 4K on a cellphone camera.... But is that really any good for image quality???

That is exactly what my answer was about. 

Quote

You can spout about lens resolving capabilities and pixels gathering light... But is that going to give you the best in image quality?

 These are the main factors that change with sensor size and affect image quality. Of course there are million other things that affect image quality. If you need 15 stops of dynamic range you have to go use a larger sensor currently (because sensor technology is also very important), but again image quality is far more limited by the processing pipeline than the sensor size. For example the original pocket with its tiny sensor, offered far better image quality than the majority of consumer 1080p cameras with sensor sizes even 8 times larger.  Also pixel resolution is not that important as most films you see in the cinema are in 2K and nobody complains about the resolution. Not to mention all the large sensor cinema cameras that are used professionally and have less dynamic range than the tiny sensor from the pocket. Another example is the GH5s that many argue it offers better or at least similar quality to the A7sII but with a sensor ~4 times smaller. 

But let's not deviate from your original question:

Quote

The real question is 4K too much for m4/3?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 5:12 PM, Damphousse said:

I gave up on hybrid.  I have a Canon DSLR and a BMPCC.  There was no other way I was going to get Prores and raw 1080p for $500.  No new expensive hybrid camera has compelled me to upgrade.  Obviously the new BMPCC 4k is now going to be my next camera.  I do like that it has photo capabilities but the Canon stays and I will definitely upgrade to some kind of Canon full frame.

Once I stopped looking for everything in one camera I relaxed and a lot of possibilities opened up.

Obviously you never used the original BMPCC.  The raw and prores were solid.  You had to spend thousands of dollars to get a new camera that even came close.  The BMPCC is the real deal.  I thought the GH5 was going to be basically what the BMPCC 4k claims to be.  But as you noted for whatever reason it fell far short of the BMPCC.

BMPCC files are a pleasure to grade and the noise when it does appear is very film like.  There is no macroblocking, harsh highlight roll offs, banding, etc.

No you’re correct, I never did use it.  Maybe you tell fortunes as well.  Don’t be so defensive.  I was simply highlighting the limitations of lower end vs higher end cameras with respect to so called raw output.  I'm glad for you and others that had such good experience with that camera.  I hope the new one is as good or better with respect to codec quality, but i’ll wait for something more concrete than just the assumption that the new one has to be better just because its newer and the older one was very good. Its called a review, Andrew and others do them, so i’ll wait, but i’ll definitely get one if the Prores quality is excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nathan Gabriel said:

do hope Blackmagic have already bought up a boatload of the sensors.

Yeah..I hope this wasn't one of the manufacturing issues that Petty said is yet to figure out. It would be a good question for someone to ask in his next interview...keep him from demoing selfies with this cam ;)

Share this post


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

Yeah..I hope this wasn't one of the manufacturing issues that Petty said is yet to figure out. It would be a good question for someone to ask in his next interview...keep him from demoing selfies with this cam ;)

If that's really a Sony sensor, I doubt that's going to be the cause of any production issues. Now a carbon fiber body being mass produced to meet tolerances, proper lens mount alignments and such seems a little more dicey IMO. I get they wanted to save weight, but a more traditional magnesium skeleton seems like it would be a little more robust. I'm curious if there will be any flex with larger lenses.

Share this post


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

I am going to make a little carbon fibre visor to sheld of the vents from eating stuff it shouldn't. I wonder why they didn't put them at the exact place but on the bottom? Afraid I might get into a crazy freak accident being scalped, safety first boys ;D

 

That reminds me. I need a hair cut!

 

anyway, if you put anything above it be careful not to interfere with the airflow too much 

 

7 hours ago, mkabi said:

The real question is 4K too much for m4/3?

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5258-top-end-cinema-cameras-it-s-all-becoming-clearer

After reading that article, I can deduce that Arri who is a leader in the industry didn't feel that true 4K on super35 was a good fit so they went LF....

 

It is more the case that Arri feels they only own ONE really really good sensor which is ready for production (I'm sure they working on others). Thus the easiest way to get true 4K from it is just to scale up the size of the sensor Itself 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

If that's really a Sony sensor, I doubt that's going to be the cause of any production issues. Now a carbon fiber body being mass produced to meet tolerances, proper lens mount alignments and such seems a little more dicey IMO. I get they wanted to save weight, but a more traditional magnesium skeleton seems like it would be a little more robust. I'm curious if there will be any flex with larger lenses.

The Nikon D810 has a Plastic, carbon chassis and the D500 has it also along with the front face being a Plastic, Carbon combo. Hell Canon has used  glass filled poly-carbonate bodies for years. It isn't going to break or flex.. It is stronger, tougher, lighter than Titanium. I have had a lot of Canon bodies and I never had one crack, or hell even have scratches for that matter, It is some damn tough stuff. Titanium doesn't absorb any real force like plastic carbon can. It transfers it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3948389?page=2

Heck even airplanes and race cars are made of the stuff now. Most of the Boeing 777 is composites. All the high end super cars are made with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmm.... BM says "The carbon composite material consists of a high strength polymer that’s reinforced with carbon fibers".

Which looks like thermoplastics with tiny carbon fibers REINFORCING IT, (as they do with GLASS FIBERS) not like CARBON FIBERS layers filled with resins as it done with proper commonly known as "carbon fiber"...2 different materials AND process (injection moulding vs laying by hand layers of carbon fibers cloth into moulds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Philip Lipetz said:

Yes, notice as video. What matters most is the effective color resolution, and in that the BMPCC2 will be better. Introducing more spatial resolution without also increasing color resolution results in the video look. Something looks off, and it is discontinuity in color gradient  as it does not change at the same frequency as does the spatial information 

 

 

i have a newbie question : when we have a thin black line(less than 1 pixel width) on a white background like a telephone wire in the sky will raw 4:4:4 have double the resolution in x and double the resolution in y compared to h264 4:2:0 ? (for example i dont remember the old bmpcc in 1080p raw  having comparable resolution to 4k h264 4:2:0 :

).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*rolleyes* scusa : ) No St Anthony per te : )) Maledizione di un portoghese ; ) Seems like to say from nowhere that your best 2nd half's face sucks... LOL :-)

Share this post


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

mmm.... BM says "The carbon composite material consists of a high strength polymer that’s reinforced with carbon fibers".

Which looks like thermoplastics with tiny carbon fibers REINFORCING IT, (as they do with GLASS FIBERS) not like CARBON FIBERS layers filled with resins as it done with proper commonly known as "carbon fiber"...2 different materials AND process (injection moulding vs laying by hand layers of carbon fibers cloth into moulds).

FACT!!! Having a hand-layed-carbon-fibre-textile-vac-bagged body would strech their (and our) budget slightly :grin:

Share this post


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

After reading that article, I can deduce that Arri who is a leader in the industry didn't feel that true 4K on super35 was a good fit so they went LF

I think Arri can not shrink and put all their dual gain architecture into smaller sensor units (remember Arri has the best highlight rolloff and they basically take the signal and run it through two different amplification gain and then combine it back together) without the wires and pixels cross talking. I also think, they are building something that is future proof so they can support 6K or 8K in the future. They already have a sensor architecture that is still superior on the market. So why mess with it. Just make it larger to meet the higher resolution. 

So, if you don't care to have the buttery smooth highlight rolloff or can control your lighting, you can probably do just fine with 4/3. The 4/3 is about 1/4 the area of the FF. On my nikon of 36 mp. My Sigma Art 50 and some of my zeiss, voigtlander and adapted leica lenses have amazing pixel resolution. So 8 megapixel on 4/3 should *roughly* demand the same amount from the sensor and the lens. Which is BTW, is the exact resolution of  BM. The problem is the 4/3 hybrids that are 16 or 20 megapixels. So I think if you had 8 mp 4/3 sensor you could get the same DR as a Nikon D810, which is quiet amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The low light ability of the GH5s is better, but I would really have to pixel peep to see a difference in DR between the two cameras. Maybe because V-Log Lite caps out at 11.5 stops? Not sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, amanieux said:

fair enough, we all have different taste for image . is human eyes+brain system more sensitive to resolution or to color ?

Personally, I will find improved color gradation and highlight rolloff more noticeable. I can't say that for everyone...

18 hours ago, mkabi said:

The real question is 4K too much for m4/3?

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5258-top-end-cinema-cameras-it-s-all-becoming-clearer

After reading that article, I can deduce that Arri who is a leader in the industry didn't feel that true 4K on super35 was a good fit so they went LF....

Arri is definitely the king for image as far as I am concerned, however, we are talking the difference between a Toyota and a Ferrari.

If we can get 95% of the way there with the BM I'll be stoked.

This can actually work as a response to both of your posts:

If we get that amount of resolution with significantly improved dynamic range and color information I will be very pleased. If they really are using the same sensor I think our chances are good.

 

 

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...