Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
2K BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera, active m43, $995
  • 4493 Replies sorted by
  • @johnbrawley - yeah my comments were more directed towards the idea they're destructive in nature - Kholi referenced Peter saying this but i don't believe that's quite what he meant. I mean the second you change the image in ANY way in Resolve and render it out, it's 'destructive'. Use a LUT or a basic curve, there's still math involved to generate new pixels. :-)

  • Hey guys,

    Shot this ad on the Pocket with Panny 12-35 (the IS really helped on the biking shots). Not a huge fan of the edit and we shot with rec709 LUT because the editor is not much of a colorist, but I think the shots came out pretty well.

  • Night shots from Hong Kong, shot using RAW:

    Graded in Resolve Lite. Lumix 2-35mm f2.8 lens.

    Moire is first two scenes.

  • @theconformist Good to see the pocket being used on real jobs! Too bad you couldn't have shot it in RAW to help out a little more in post.

  • Thanks @vicharris not the best representation of the camera's ability but we're slowly transitioning into shooting log and raw. that ad was just a load of b-roll, we've got some traditional commercial shoots coming up with the pocket alongside the 2.5k, should be fun and i look forward to posting the results!

  • Nice. It performs so well in a decently lit environment. I bet most would be able to tell which cam is which when viewed online :)

  • After watching many videos of the 12-35mm on the pocket cam, I have concluded that I just don't like the look for film work. It's just too clinical, cold and videoish looking. Even on shallow dof shots with an ND filter it still doesn't cut it for me and that's a shame because the pocket cam needs a good zoom with stabilization. I actually prefer the look of my 14-140mm over it. I'm waiting for the pocket cam speed booster to team up with my AIS primes and will probably get the 18-35mm, but I sure hope someone comes out with some descent lenses with stabilization soon because I really want to use this cam hand held and right now my hand held footage is looking like it was shot by Barney Fife.

  • I do not understand this at all: "After watching many videos of the 12-35mm on the pocket cam, I have concluded that I just don't like the look for film work. It's just too clinical, cold and videoish looking. Even on shallow dof shots with an ND filter it still doesn't cut it for me and that's a shame because the pocket cam needs a good zoom with stabilization. I actually prefer the look of my 14-140mm over it."

    Whatever your definition of a "film" look (tinted, off-colors? fuzzy? faux grain? most everything oof?), the whole point of the BMC equipment shooting RAW is you can achieve any look you want. Surely the look of the videos posted that used the 12-35mm lens had much more to do with grading in post than the lens. Staring with a sharp lens (much better than the soft and "videoish" 14-140mm) surely cannot be bad; you can mess it up any way you like in post.

    To say the 12-35mm is not "descent[sic]" is absurd, based on viewing graded videos on the web. Just like people's conclusions that the BMPCC cannot reproduce color, based on the poorly (or artistically) graded videos that some post.

  • I think the 12-35 is pretty much perfect (image wise) for shooting in log or raw (if you don't need super shallow depth of field or aren't doing very low-light shooting). It's very sharp which is very important for this camera as there is no in camera sharpening. If it's too sharp you can blur a bit in post which is preferable to trying to sharpen in post. Also the I.S. is a life saver for handheld (especially without a rig), and the focal range is pretty much all you need (35-105 eq). Color and contrast are great, but in log or raw, not so important as these things aren't baked in. If a "video look" is produced it's entirely on the editor. Obviously the lack of manual aperture and electronic focus are downsides, but overall an amazing lens.

  • You can change a lot in post with grading but the character of a lens does not go away and I don't like the look of this lens. That's my opinion! If you like it use it, however I'm not the only one who has expressed such concern over this lens. I disagree that if a "video" look is produced its entirely on the editor, as if the cinematographer and equipment are moot just because your shooting raw. The lens is fine if you are shooting video style for TV but it doesn't cut it for film work with the examples I have seen so far, I would love to be proven wrong on this, because as I said I'm looking for the right zoom lens with IS but currently there is just nothing out there.

  • You are simply not seeing the look of the lens. You are seeing an interpretation of what the lens saw. No one is saying the lens (or the shooter) do not matter. What is being said is you have no evidence on the look of the lens, as there are too many important factors that vary. None of us care whether you get this lens; what we are responding to is your belief that the posted videos tell you much about the lens.

  • I have seen the look of this lens! I have seen many examples of it on the GH cameras when it first came out, plenty with no grading. I was hoping that it would look different on the pocket since there is no internal processing on the pocket, but I see the same characteristics. Yes, I have plenty of evidence on the look of the lens. The notion that all I am seeing is only an interpretation of what the lens saw is ludicrous. You can alter what ever parameters you want in post, but the character of the lens remains.

  • This is what you said: "After watching many videos of the 12-35mm on the pocket cam, I have concluded that I just don't like the look for film work." That statement is what is "ludicrous." If you had other evidence, fine, for whatever look you think you want.

  • I'll do a side by side next week with these two lenses and post without labeling each one, maybe throw in 3 Rokinons as well. Same camera position, same light, same grade. See what happens :)

  • What he's saying perfectly valid. It's why Panavision lenses from the '70s are better than Primos for a lot of DPs. There's nothing you can do to these modern zooms, no way you can shoot with them, that will give them the feel of something like a Helios 44. That said, there aren't any vintage zooms that are as good and fast (and good when fast). Try and find primes that wide that are as good wide open.

  • Apparently "good" is not what the guy wants; he wants a lens "look", no matter how soft or flary. I am not saying that is wrong. Like color grades, there seems to be no good or bad in some people's mind.

  • Another BMPCC RAW example, Lumix14-35mm lens

    Sorry it's not fuzzy, and the colors are more realistic than "filmic." :)

  • There are good zooms in vintage, just not wide and cheap. But there are very "vintage" and cheap wides, like the older Cosmicars, see my thread here:

    http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7789/lens-tests-on-the-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-bmpcc/p1

  • @BurnetRhoades exactly my point, thank you. That's why I use Nikon primes on the GH and now on the pocket cam with the pc speed booster (when it's back in stock). @markr041 "good" is not what I want, I want "great" and "cinematic". No need to get sarcastic because I'm simply addressing the characteristics of a lens, but perhaps you just don't get what "cinematic" means. By the way, I don't prefer to use the 14-140mm, but sometimes for achieving a more film look (hand held), especially emulating super 16 ( of course with the right grade), I would use it over the 12-35mm. Beyond that If I were to use any of the Lumix lenses for a film project on the pocket I would use primes. What I want is something like the Sigma 18-35mm + speed booster + OIS, obviously dreaming for the moment. In the meantime I'll be content with shooting with my Nikon primes + speed booster and shoot with a shoulder rig or steady cam. If I need a great lens for shooting video projects or reality shows I wouldn't hesitate to get the 12-35mm, but for cinema it's not my choice. Also, I'm not bashing anyones work here, I simply don't care for this lens for cinema style and yes, I can see the characteristics of this lens in these videos regardless of the grades.

  • I've found Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 extremely useful for run n' gun stuff, when I'm not desperately looking after "the look". Its OIS is very good and it's a sharp lens.
    For narrative stuff and controlled shots, I use my SLR Magic glass mostly.

    PS: I think I will be sending my BMPCC for RMA since it has the infamous hot pixel. Not only the galaxy of moving spots under low light conditions (that's underexposure, I understand that), but a fixed white spot very visible on the footage even in well lit scenes / broad daylight :(

  • When @vicharris does his side-by-side, I think the standout difference with the 12-35 will be how it renders reds and highlights. I've never been a fan of Lumix glass outside of the 20/1.7 which seems to have an altogether separate look in comparison.

    The 12-35, IMO, is not a good match for this camera. Someone mentioned that it looks the same as the 18-35 Sigma, far from it.

  • @trumpetman I've always thought this is video is a pretty great example of what this lens is capable of - and this is shot on a GH3

    While it's true that every lens has certain characteristics, I really feel like their role - beyond DOF, perspective, flaring, etc - in the "look" of a project is a bit overstated. Not that the choice of lens has no impact, but that your camera settings, lighting, composition, and grading has more to do with whether an image has a "video" or "film" look than what lens it was shot with.

    I am quite confident that if you shot/edited something on the BMPCC (raw or log mode) with 12-35, and then shot/edited it again the same way using cinema primes, you (and the rest of us pixel-peepers) would be the only one who noticed the difference. I am not meaning to say there IS NO difference between the quality of these lenses, but that by and large, the difference is not significant or detectable to the average person (i.e. your audience).

    You are entitled to prefer one lens over another for any reason you like, and certainly many lenses have distinct characteristics that the 12-35 simply can not reproduce, but I think it's misguided to deem any lens unusable for a "cinematic" look. For a very particular look, sure. But for a cinematic look, that's the DP/operator's job, not the lens'.

  • Here's something pretty point blank. These are supposed to be rehoused Canon glass, examples say that it's not just rehoused.

    But, if you can't see a difference then it won't matter of course.

    May not be safe for work.