Jump to content

Blackmagic Camera Update Feb 17


Anaconda_
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I specifically said "I wont use it for vlogging "...
I thought the same as you a couple of years ago. I dont need ibis, I dont need AF, I dont need a flipoutscreen. And for most of my stuff I dont need it. But I learned, it sure comes in handy. I learned workflow is key, every minute you can shave off is a win. And these options(that are becoming standard for most mirrorless camera's) provide exactly that. Creating a nice image isnt that hard, getting multiple nice images in a small time window is a different story. 

Yes, stand for most mirrorless cameras.

These are not things that are becoming standard for cinema cameras, in part because they can be objectively detrimental. Like I said, if someone wants those things, get a mirrorless camera with them. People seem to think that because of the price point of the Blackmagics that they're supposed to have these things, instead of them being affordable options to five-figure cinema cameras. No one is out here asking why the latest RED or Arri doesn't have amazing PDAF with eye detection or IBIS. These cameras are absolutely no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pixelpreaching said:

Depends on how you expose. ISO 800 or 1000 will give you more highlight latitude and DR distribution closer to what Arri is at its native ISO.

But, no, at base ISO it is not as capable as Arri. To be fair, I don't think any sensor is.

It'd still be like 2 stops shy of the Alexa if the Alexa is having a bad day. Blackmagic do great stuff, but it's not like it's a Jesus camera. It's a fairly standard sensor in a box with some decent codecs. Everyone selling Pocket to Alexa luts are snake oil salesmen who prey on this kind of wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mrtreve said:

It'd still be like 2 stops shy of the Alexa if the Alexa is having a bad day. Blackmagic do great stuff, but it's not like it's a Jesus camera. It's a fairly standard sensor in a box with some decent codecs. Everyone selling Pocket to Alexa luts are snake oil salesmen who prey on this kind of wishful thinking.

man I didn't say it was a Jesus camera, I said it distributes its DR more closely to the Alexa than a number of other cameras that favor the shadows. If you somehow take that as "it's as good as an Alexa" then that's on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thpriest said:

I have only used a BMPCC4K once and it was a nightmare. It turned itself off, out of nowhere stopped recording normal clips and just recorded 1 second clips. Then it started working again. Random stuff. It was a rental but I know the owner and he said that had never happed before. Scarred me off BM. Really nice image though.

If the BMPCC6K Pro has got rid of those reliability problems it could be very interesting as everything else looks good. Can it do dual recording? I mean, I know it has various ways to record but could I record on SD and Cfast at the same time?

Sounds like a lemon to me. 

 

6 hours ago, kye said:

That doesn't make the camera a hand-held camera, it makes those lenses handheld lenses.

Name a camera that isn't a handheld camera then.  It's like saying that my dining room table is a cocktail table because it is compatible with cocktail making equipment.  

By that logic my dining table is also a boat table, because:

 

 

Did I say handheld camera anywhere? I said you can do handheld with an OIS lens. If you look at most of the Pocket camera product photos they are shown using OIS lenses. My Fuji xt3 with an 18-55 kit lens was fantastic for handheld and had the benefit of a zoom range. 

It's not misleading to say you can easily do handheld with this camera. OIS lenses are relatively cheap and light weight and many already have them. 

There are drawbacks to it of course like anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mrtreve said:

It'd still be like 2 stops shy of the Alexa if the Alexa is having a bad day. Blackmagic do great stuff, but it's not like it's a Jesus camera. It's a fairly standard sensor in a box with some decent codecs. Everyone selling Pocket to Alexa luts are snake oil salesmen who prey on this kind of wishful thinking.

What do Pocket to Alexa luts have to do with the cameras dynamic range? Those type of luts are pretty useful if you are trying to match the two cameras or if you just want better color without a lot of work. Juan Melara and GHAlex do great work with their color conversions. 

Honestly for the price it is like a Jesus camera. What else comes close to this anywhere near the $2500 price range, at least in terms of image quality. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

How common are "lemons"? A serious question.

How would anyone here actually know the answer to this question?  If only I bought 100 Pocket 4Ks back in the day, I could easily tell you something like 1 in 20 are faulty. 🙄 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

How would anyone here actually know the answer to this question?  If only I bought 100 Pocket 4Ks back in the day, I could easily tell you something like 1 in 20 are faulty. 🙄 

I mean, is it something "reasonably " common. Because with my GH5 and GH5S I haven't had any real problems nor with the Canon C100. But I have heard other scary stories with BM, which is a shame as the camera looks interesting. 

* I use dual recording all the time. Don't want a card ruining a one chance shot or interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

I mean, is it something "reasonably " common. Because with my GH5 and GH5S I haven't had any real problems nor with the Canon C100. But I have heard other scary stories with BM, which is a shame as the camera looks interesting. 

* I use dual recording all the time. Don't want a card ruining a one chance shot or interview.

There were I recall lots of issues reported on Facebook when the GH5 came out.  Freezing being the common issue.  I've had a few GH4s I owned freeze up and need the battery removed to unlock it.  GH5 hasn't played up for me.  GH5s froze a few times.  Variable frame rate can be touchy I find.  

As for Pocket 4K, I don't know.  Only Blackmagic will be able to answer and I doubt they would if asked. 🤣🤣

As for dual recording, you'd pick the C70 or any other camera with this function.  Dual recording only protects you from card issues.  I've had camera issues, not card issues and I shoot hours of footage in a single year.  We'll until last year I did. 🙄  I have my GH cameras for dual recording when needed.  Different tools for different jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thpriest said:

How common are "lemons"? A serious question.

I don't know anyone who's had a problem with them and it seems like everyone and their brother has one around where I live. I've heard of faulty cameras with every manufacturer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

It's odd that my learning process isn't quite as riddled with confusion as yours.

Sounds to me like you're not aiming high enough.

I'll leave you to your comfort zone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, independent said:

The a7s3 gets its dynamic range number w/ noise reduction - artificially boosting the S/R of 2

The ginormous photosites of the 12MP FF sensor might also contribute a smidge to the low noise of the A7S III.

 

 

21 hours ago, independent said:

The c70 is 13+ stops at that S/R if I recall correctly, better than the a7s3--or the fx6 (below 13), which makes sense because of the c70's dual gain sensor. Only the Alexa is better.

Will have to take your word for it that the C70 has greater dynamic range, but can the C70 shoot at 12,800 iso clean like the A7S III?  Also, isn't the C70 a Super35 camera?

 

By the way, there are HDR/dual-iso cameras that have a greater capture dynamic range than any Alexa.  Of course, that doesn't mean that such cameras produce a better image than an Alexa.

 

 

20 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Do I detect sarcasm? It would be sarcasm if I wrote it! ha

Oh, I am never sarcastic!

 

Seriously, it's perplexing as to why BM continues to choose the EF mount on their Super35 cameras over an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.) or over simply incorporating a shallow flange for interchangeable mounts.

 

 

17 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Most of us here are very tech minded and love adapters, and external rig parts, but I don't think this style camera is aimed at us. No adapters, no front-of-lens ND filters, no rigged batteries (if you use the grip), no external monitor or recorder.

Having a shallow mount (or a shallow interchangeable mount system) does not preclude easy use by EF users nor does it prohibit "built-in" NDs for such users.  BM can merely make a "default" EF adapter (or interchangeable mount) with NDs that follows the design lines of the camera, and the clueless EF users will never know that they are actually shooting through an adapter (or through an interchangeable lens mount).

 

 

17 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Simple enough for intro classes, don't need to teach students how to rig it up just to use it, but still makes great images.

"Intro" students should probably use a lower-end camera.  Once those students graduate to using actual cinema cameras, then they definitely should learn about using front filters, batteries, follow focus, monitors, mics, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kye said:

Sounds to me like you're not aiming high enough.

I'll leave you to your comfort zone....

If learning from Internet forums is aiming high, what's aiming low?  😉  

Then again, seeing how you responded to a clearly more experienced person trying to answer your question on clamping a camera to glass, I am not surprised your learning is more conflicted than my own. 🤣🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tupp said:

Having a shallow mount (or a shallow interchangeable mount system) does not preclude easy use by EF users nor does it prohibit "built-in" NDs for such users.  BM can merely make a "default" EF adapter (or interchangeable mount) with NDs that follows the design lines of the camera, and the clueless EF users will never know that they are actually shooting through an adapter (or through an interchangeable lens mount).

There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible.

And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure. The chances of me ever needing a different mount are vanishingly small. Given the option, I'd probably go with a shallower flange for the exclusive reason of boosting to FF, if I ever wanted to. I'm just saying it's not a deal breaker since I'm 99.9% going to using EF anyway.

15 minutes ago, tupp said:

"Intro" students should probably use a lower-end camera.  Once those students graduate to using actual cinema cameras, then they definitely should learn about using front filters, batteries, follow focus, monitors, mics, etc.

Yeah true, absolute beginner classes will be handing out fixed lens camcorders, not Blackmagics. But an intro to cinematography class, or anything beyond the "Intro to Film & Video" lecture definitely could. I worked on 4(?) undergrad/grad thesis films in the past 5 years that used blackmagic cameras, and every one of them would have had an easier time with the P6K compared to the 2.5k's and Ursa minis that we did use.

I'm not sure it's useful either to first learn about front filters, batteries, rigs, and rigamarole. It's not necessary to learning the art of filmmaking, and it's certainly something that can be taught if there is an interest. It's like asking screenwriting students to start out with typewriters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible.

There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing.  The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter.

 

 

10 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure.

Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras.  For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility).  Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts.  Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount.

 

Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations?

 

Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body --  looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance.  Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench.  If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside.

 

Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount.  If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount.

 

However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary.  Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users?

 

Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts.  Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:

canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf_1536859268_143

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...