Personal View site logo
2K BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera, active m43, $995
  • 4493 Replies sorted by
  • guoshguosh

    had a little fun shooting in RAW today. considering the night clips were heavily underexposed, it actually turned out really well in the end!

  • MikhailKMikhailK

    @DocoDocoMan Thanks for the advice on Nikon glass.

  • lmackreathlmackreath

    @kholi so in theory I could import my dngs into compressor.. Export out as prores and then import the prores into fcp x? Would I see a loss in quality and would the footage still be as gradable?

  • DocoDocoManDocoDocoMan

    @MikhailK: If you are already used to shooting with those lenses in a manual focus "mode" I think you will be fine with the pocket, I still plan on using my GH2, but only for stills.

    Give some thought to some of the old Nikon glass, you can get some very nice lenses at exceptionally cheap prices, and believe it or not those old Zeiss Hasselblad lenses are a bit of a bargain for the longer end of the scale.

    As long as you don't need a sport/party/sunset/pet cat mode to shot your stuff then IMHO you will fall in love with this camera. GH Who??

    Andy.

  • MikhailKMikhailK

    @kholi

    Need your/other PV members advice/thoughts on BMPCC. My local dealer finally got it for me. But I still haven't decided - let it go or not, because I wasn't ready for the "new" workflow with RAW (I'm a GH2 user). I do realize I need a lot of additional stuff to shoot with BMPCC. Unfortunately, I don't have some extra cash for good lenses and I only own Panasonic lenses (12-35 and an old 14-140). So my question to you refers to these both Pana lenses.

    Will these lenses be a good choice for BMPCC (in terms of focus-by-wire, image quality, sharpness, distortion, usability). By the way, I always shoot using manual focus with these lenses. I hate auto focus.

  • lmackreathlmackreath

    Morning all

    Playing around with RAW last night on my BMPCC. My 12 month old mac doesn't support Resolve so am having to find a better way of working with RAW.

    From looking online the best way seems to be to import the dng files into Lightroom (I don't own premier or After Affects), do a simple correction if required then export the dng's as tiffs.

    I then export the tiffs into FCP x, change the file duration and compile each set of frames and that's it done!

    My question is if I were to import the tiffs ungraded into say compressor as an image sequence, then export that sequence to a prores file, import that prores file into fcp x....would I:

    1. Lose any major quality along the way?
  • kazuokazuo

    @kholi

    Are the Hoyas expensive? I am using Century Optics, and they cost me a bomb. Was looking at the Schneider Digicon filters, if you are familiar with them. These filters are designed to increase dynamic range, by raising black levels and lowering highlights. Have been looking at them since GH2 days, but now with 13 stops, I am really interested to find out if these will make some more difference. Then, add SB to the mix. Something to waste my money on

  • kholikholi

    @kazuo

    1. Smaller sensor, less moire, but also a different kind of moire. Point the two at the same scene, the 2.5K moire/aliasing signature isn't the same as the Pocket... I'm pretty positive that this is also why the 2.5K sometimes looks "video"-ish with handheld motion. As much as I have shot handheld with the Pocket (and strangely enough I'm a LOT steadier with a Pocket Rig than the 2.5K...), it does not look the same.

    2. Indeed. I actually hope the new developments of the Pocket get transported over to the 2.5K when compressed RAW is dropped. Color's slightly more pleasing right out of the box on the pocket, additionally (as mentioned) the RAW stills are also more pleasing to simply kick out.

    Until compressed RAW drops, I'll likely shoot ProRes on the 2.5K... but I will always shoot RAW on Pocket, it's too good.

    1. Pocket VS. SB... Pocket =P But, then, SB. This gig finally came through, got a list of things I need to waste my money on, SB's one of them.

    Aside: I've also been testing a complete set of Hoya ProNDs... camera's image/color feels brand-ass-new in comparison to the Tiffen set.

  • kazuokazuo

    @Kholi

    I agree with much of what you said.

    1. Smaller sensor = less moire? Makes BMPCC alot more attractive at this point.

    2. Rec 709 pro res acquired on 2.5k is surprisingly very sharp. For web, even TV, it looks indistinguishable from RAW after grading. Of course, certain conditions apply, such as standard production values, ie good lighting.

    3. Time to get my metabones SB to complete my workflow. Then again, maybe I should add a pocket to the arsenal

  • OedipaxOedipax

    Just wanted to mention, and this really goes for whatever camera system you might be using, but if you guys haven't looked at your footage played back in 1080p on an HDTV in a while... you are in for a (hopefully) very pleasant surprise.

    I've been pixel-peeping a lot this year, with the ML RAW hack, RAW on the BMCC, prores on the BMPCC, then RAW. Playing around with all the different options that exist for us in acquisition and post now, really obsessing over image quality. But along the way, I got so nit-picky about it (and watching on a 2560x1440 screen of course makes matters worse).

    I loaded up some RAW BMPCC footage I shot earlier today along with prores and ML RAW stuff from earlier this year, watched it through PS3 Media Server on my 40" Samsung, and man! It gets repeated over and over, but we are really there in terms of image quality from these cameras now. All the stuff that bugs me on a monitor just gets smoothed out while at the same time somehow appearing more detailed and subtle on a nice TV.

    Try it out if you haven't done so in a while :D

  • kholikholi

    @kazuo

    Good thoughts... let me see..

    1. Should be, larger sensor, lens was actually stopped down versus the Kipon adapter being stopped down (not the same as stopping the lens down), and of course 2.5K resolution. If one were looking for the sharpest image however, 2.5K wins.

    2. Less of a difference when magnified, always that for any format. Just about everything looks good projected, but for some reason the more inexperienced filmmakers (no offense intended at all, no other way to say it?) seem to think the opposite? Only way you're going to see it is projecting 4K, then you'll spot it.

    3. SSD port, Larger Sensor, HD-SDI, Thunderbolt, Ultrascope, Resolve, 2.5K. I'd say that's a pretty fair jump for one grand no?

    4. I guarantee you it had nothing to do with the 5D. We were already testing the RAW update a while ago. Announcements happen much later.

    People are returning because: they can't handle the raw workflow/LOG workflow (prime reason, just want colored footage, ProRes looked soft anyway), sensor size (some can't get over it, preference rules the day and it should), unexpected costs to make the camera work (rigging etc.), have an existing lens set that doesn't play nice (Canons).

    Kinda neat note, you could shoot RAW now, do absolutely nothing to the color and export that to ProRes, and have a better image than if you shot REC709 ProRes. =P

    I'm probably going to see about getting another Pocket and using those until the 4K drops, use 2.5K with mosaic filter for beauty, establishing shots (wides etc.), safety.

    Can't put my finger on it entirely, the Pocket Camera is the image I like the most right now.

  • kazuokazuo

    @Kholi

    Thanks for the tests. Some thoughts:

    1. 2.5k still looks the sharpest.

    2. Choice between Pocket and 2.5k would depend on application and final playback. Wonder if there is a diff when images are magnified 400%.

    3. If things seem marginally different, apart from Avid codec, what differentiates pocket from 2.5k? The $1000 difference is for Resolve 10?

    4. Update 1.5 is inevitable development cos of the speed at which competitors are moving. Also, on the side, Magic lantern has turned MK3 into a monster. Alot of pp in Singapore were selling their Pocket at one point. Brand new sets, hardly a week old, so they could go back to 5D

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @kholi

    Funny, so I looked at the clips without knowing what was what and here's my results.

    1. Liked the most for motion.
    2. Liked the least
    3. Liked most overall.

    I guess that settles it damnit!

  • kurt10kurt10

    With Lightroom and Capture One 7 no problem.. DrasticPreview 4 Player not works

  • kholikholi

    You may be able to use the app that the 5D RAW people are using. Not sure, though.

    And yes, there is a pretty vast difference, been tryin' to warn people about this... it's not the same on the 2.5K, ProRes and RAW are decently close.

    On the Pocket, it's been night and day in my experience.

  • lmackreathlmackreath

    Might have to rethink my workflow.. Didn't think I would see such a vast difference in quality between pro res and raw on the pocket.. Shame I can't get resolve to run on my mac.. I need apple to start supporting dng files or find me a dng-prores convertor..

  • derekderek

    Use after effect cc is working nice, i also have the same problem whit Adobe cc

  • kurt10kurt10

    Dng bmpcc not works in the premiere CC... :(

  • kholikholi

    It doesn't, neither does a Tiffen Digital.

    It does nicely with reducing the edge and helps with shadows, but does not reduce moire/aliasing on either camera.

    Mosaic is the way to go for the 2.5K.

  • AriaAria

    Has anyone ever tried using a Black Pro Mist filter, maybe 1/8 or 1/4 on the BM cameras to see if it helps reduce the Moire?

  • kholikholi

    @jrd

    Sorry, let me clarify:

    Even when overexposed slightly (for highlights), the camera's DNG files are still actually pretty pleasing. This is before touching them, or in Resolve, before switching to the BMD Film space. If you expose for the end product, yes, it's pretty much as shot, with a lot of leeway to do what you want.

    I have yet to compare them to the Rec709 coming out of the camera, but from memory it seems like they're actually more saturated than the REC coming off of the camera. So, you could shoot RAW, use something like After Effects or Premiere to just convert that data into DNxHD or ProRes, and deliver or cut.

    Agan, I haven't tried this yet, but from what I've seen over the last four to six weeks through the betas, it's definitely more viable than what I'm used to seeing from the 5Mb raw files on the 2.5K.

    If it seems like I'm biased toward the Pocket... =P you are not imagining it.

    Here's a folder of DNGs from the Pocket, nothing done to them: https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B8-f-XPnmOp6XzlibWVpNTNLZm8

    Just glancing at the Google Drive thumnails, you can see that they're already saturated, and represent what was shot. The beach shots were slightly overexposed, just slightly (I use a waveform ritually, now, and tend to put most of my image in the 50-60 IRE range)

  • jrdjrd

    @kholi

    We've discussed this with BMD for a bit, on how the files actually look much more pleasing versus over-exposed on the Pocket camera.

    I assume you're saying that a traditionally "correct" exposure, as opposed to exposing for highlights, just below clipping, is preferable in RAW. Is this before grading, or after?

  • peaceonearthpeaceonearth

    I am not sure about CaptureOne as it's taking all the bue/grey color from the building. I will go on with more tests to other subjects.

  • derekderek

  • kholikholi

    @peaceonearth

    No way, that wasn't ironic. I was fortunate enough to sit with the RAW beta and help out to get it working, I'm always up to hand out information/work with the community to solve problems before they come around.

    Noise Ninja does an incredible job and ripping moire and aliasing out of an image... but, it is in no way suited to video/moving pictures. =T Looks like Capture One does a good job of removing the moire, maybe for select shots it's good to have it running alongside Resolve. Thanks for sharing.

    Resolve doesn't have a moire filter option, but you can denoise the area effectively most of the time.

Add a Comment