BMD Pocket Camera 1080 HD for a Theatrical Projection!

There are many Films shot on canon 5d mark 2 camera and projected well in theaters

1. Will BMD Pocket camera beats canon 5d mark 2 in terms of video quality? if so, how much difference?

Hugo and Black Swan was shot on 1080 HD and projected well in theaters.

2. As BMD Pocket Camera gives Lossless CinemaDNG RAW and Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) at 1920 x 1080 can I upscale it to 2k as 1080 is close to 2k and do a theatrical projection.

@Mods I've posted similar question in earlier thread, but I am not able to get information I needed, so I'm posting again. let me know if this is not allowed. Thanks.

Though I don't have the camera I can say with some confidence the video will out perform the 5dm2. As for 2k upscale, I'm not 100% but it should do fine.

Black Swan was shot on Super 16 film not HD. So it had the same image senor size at the BMPCC.
In terms of video quality - it's not just the camera, you need to light well, block out your action, edit well, grade etc so it all comes together.

Done properly there is no reason why it couldn't produce more than acceptable pictures.

Resolution will be cleaner but it wont have as much strong dof as the 5D.

Black Swan was shot on Super 16 film not HD. So it had the same image senor size at the BMPCC.
In terms of video quality - it's not just the camera, you need to light well, block out your action, edit well, grade etc so it all comes together.

Done properly there is no reason why it couldn't produce more than acceptable pictures.

Subway scenes were done with the markII. The Pocket camera outperforms the 5D byt far. Line skipping, skewing and it's not real HD resolution either, number of pixels is not the same as being a true HD delivery. DSLR's have always been bad in terms of quality, the only thing that the 5D, for it's price, outperforms in is sensor size. The only other camera in that range with a similar sensor size is the Red Epic shooting at FF. The pocket's sensor size is it's major drawback.

I don't think the senor size is a real drawback - Black Swan, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours were all shot using a similar sized sensor. It didn't do them any harm.

But - you have to know what you are doing and have the right kit. Grabbing a Pocket Cam out of the box and slapping a Panasonic M4/3 lens on it is probably not going to give you the same look as these films.

I don't think the senor size is a real drawback - Black Swan, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours were all shot using a similar sized sensor. It didn't do them any harm.

But - you have to know what you are doing and have the right kit. Grabbing a Pocket Cam out of the box and slapping a Panasonic M4/3 lens on it is probably not going to give you the same look as these films.

So wat lens you say we can put on pocket cam to get perfect theatrical look? will tht work out with low cost lens?

I think to best determine what lenses will make for the "theatrical look" is to use lenses that were used on recent films shot on the super 16 format (film). To list some good examples of lenses there's the Zeiss super speed MKIII's, Zeiss Ultra primes, and Canon PL zooms. The super speeds were used on Moonrise Kingdom, the ultra primes were on Black Swan, and the canon PL zooms were used on The Hurt Locker and Moonrise Kingdom as well... I think it is common for s16 to be scanned at 2K and projected at 2K. With that said, many movies shot with HD cameras (such as Sony F900, Sony F23, Panavision Genesis) in the past that shot at 1080p were upscaled to 2K projection no problem. If you can't afford those lenses: rent them as they are not that expensive to rent. It can't get any more theatrical than that.

I think it is common for s16 to be scanned at 2K and projected at 2K.

How we do this? may be a dumb qsn , sorry , its just that I've never did that, so just want to know whats normal procedure...

It can't get any more theatrical than that.

What you mean by It can't get any more theatrical than that.

How we do this? may be a dumb qsn , sorry , its just that I've never did that, so just want to know whats normal procedure...

Generally, you wouldn't do this yourself because the machines that do this sort of scanning on a large scale are very expensive. Labs like AlphaCine in Seattle (we use them to scan our 16 mm film at SFI) does this sort of thing, and a lot of productions ship their film to AlphaCine for development, scanning, and even color grading.

What you mean by It can't get any more theatrical than that.

Meh. Lenses determine the look of the film to some extent, because they have their own characteristics that influence how they render images. How you design your sets and lighting influences your film's look even more. Plus, you can get some very beautiful lenses that are surprisingly inexpensive if you do a spot of research and shop used. In general, modern lenses will give you better image quality in terms of sharpness, flare resistance, and low distortion, plus great ergonomics and mechanics. They'll also last forever if you take care of them.

Generally what marks a film as being theater-worthy isn't the gear, it's the film itself. If you use good lighting, staging, and composition, then you'll get a good looking film. Most of the people that I know around here don't think about composition at all, and their lighting is generally half-assed. They don't pay attention to how their set designs and staging contribute to the storytelling, and as a result, you'll find a LOT of films shot with expensive Red cameras that look no better than films shot on iPhones, but their directors and DPs of course think that they're great films because they're shot on Red cameras.

BMCC ProRes footage at 1080P looks way sharper than h.264 1080P from any DSLR I have seen. Upscaling to 2K on the Pocket Camera shouldn't be a problem at all. The additional dynamic range will make the footage look much more pleasing than 8-bit h.264 DSLR footage.

Now with bmcc price reduction of $1000 what would be difference between shooting bmcc2.5 K and to shoot on pocket cam and upscaling it to 2k?

Now with bmcc price reduction of $1000 what would be difference between shooting bmcc2.5 K and to shoot on pocket cam and upscaling it to 2k?

The BMCC footage will have higher resolution. The BMCC & BMPCC sensors are essentially identical except for their resolution (refer to the cameras' specs).

-

Now with bmcc price reduction of $1000 what would be difference between shooting bmcc2.5 K and to shoot on pocket cam and upscaling it to 2k?

The BMCC footage will have higher resolution. The BMCC & BMPCC sensors are essentially identical except for their resolution (refer to the cameras' specs).

-

Now I'm confused - the BMCC has a bigger sensor than the BMPC too, right? 15x8-ish as opposed to 12x7-ish. Or is that not enough to make a significant difference in terms of DOF and the various other issues that sensor size influences?

If I may also ask your opinion on something else while I'm at it - in terms of resolution, is it worth an extra $1k just to step up from 1920 to 2432 vertical pixels, if the aim is independent short and feature productions aimed at festivals? I can't see any other significant advantage to the original BMCC, and I'm wondering if it's best to put that $1k towards other pretty vital bits of gear rather than a little bit of extra resolution.

Now with bmcc price reduction of $1000 what would be difference between shooting bmcc2.5 K and to shoot on pocket cam and upscaling it to 2k?

The BMCC footage will have higher resolution. The BMCC & BMPCC sensors are essentially identical except for their resolution (refer to the cameras' specs).

-

Now I'm confused - the BMCC has a bigger sensor than the BMPC too, right? 15x8-ish as opposed to 12x7-ish. Or is that not enough to make a significant difference in terms of DOF and the various other issues that sensor size influences?

If I may also ask your opinion on something else while I'm at it - in terms of resolution, is it worth an extra $1k just to step up from 1920 to 2432 vertical pixels, if the aim is independent short and feature productions aimed at festivals? I can't see any other significant advantage to the original BMCC, and I'm wondering if it's best to put that $1k towards other pretty vital bits of gear rather than a little bit of extra resolution.

Pros:
Greater resolution.

The BMCC has HD-SDI output compared to the HDMI on the BMPCC allowing connection to a wide range of other professional quality gear.

Less expensive recording media on SSD per gigabyte versus high speed SDXC cards.

Two independent channel connectors for balanced audio input.

Software includes the full version of Resolve that retails for $995.

The internal battery is like an uninterruptible power source allowing you to change external batteries without interrupting whatever else you are doing in camera. The battery lasts longer, typically 90 minutes for the camera operation.

Cons:
Not quite as compact and less of a stealth camera compared to the pocket that can look like a harmless point-and-shoot.

The BMCC MFT is not an active mount.

The internal battery can take longer to charge but typically not an issue if external batteries are used.

Not a crash cam like the pocket camera might be used.

Screen is larger but more difficult to see in brighter light.

Tends to attract bigger rigs and more gear so may be a more costly setup.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Pros:
Greater resolution.

The BMCC has HD-SDI output compared to the HDMI on the BMPCC allowing connection to a wide range of other professional quality gear.

Less expensive recording media on SSD per gigabyte versus high speed SDXC cards.

Two independent channel connectors for balanced audio input.

Software includes the full version of Resolve that retails for $995.

The internal battery is like an uninterruptible power source allowing you to change external batteries without interrupting whatever else you are doing in camera. The battery lasts longer, typically 90 minutes for the camera operation.

Cons:
Not quite as compact and less of a stealth camera compared to the pocket that can look like a harmless point-and-shoot.

The BMCC MFT is not an active mount.

The internal battery can take longer to charge but typically not an issue if external batteries are used.

Not a crash cam like the pocket camera might be used.

Screen is larger but more difficult to see in brighter light.

Tends to attract bigger rigs and more gear so may be a more costly setup.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Wow thanks very much, that was a really helpful reply.

I think on balance it's the BMCC - the only other option is of course 4k but I can't really afford it (and given the increased price difference it makes even less sense), and who knows how long we'll be waiting anyway.

So the one remaining decision is EF or MFT - as someone without lenses at the moment I think the more obvious choice is MFT as it offers more options. The EF mount was aimed at the Canon 5D/7D market originally I think, in its own right (for someone without lenses already) I'm not sure it makes as much sense, even though the MFT rules out some lenses too.

Upgrading from a video camera though (Sony V1) I'm not familiar with how it feels to work with manual as opposed to powered lenses and it's hard to know in advance what I'd prefer, that's my only worry.

Pros:
Greater resolution.

The BMCC has HD-SDI output compared to the HDMI on the BMPCC allowing connection to a wide range of other professional quality gear.

Less expensive recording media on SSD per gigabyte versus high speed SDXC cards.

Two independent channel connectors for balanced audio input.

Software includes the full version of Resolve that retails for $995.

The internal battery is like an uninterruptible power source allowing you to change external batteries without interrupting whatever else you are doing in camera. The battery lasts longer, typically 90 minutes for the camera operation.

Cons:
Not quite as compact and less of a stealth camera compared to the pocket that can look like a harmless point-and-shoot.

The BMCC MFT is not an active mount.

The internal battery can take longer to charge but typically not an issue if external batteries are used.

Not a crash cam like the pocket camera might be used.

Screen is larger but more difficult to see in brighter light.

Tends to attract bigger rigs and more gear so may be a more costly setup.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Wow thanks very much, that was a really helpful reply.

I think on balance it's the BMCC - the only other option is of course 4k but I can't really afford it (and given the increased price difference it makes even less sense), and who knows how long we'll be waiting anyway.

So the one remaining decision is EF or MFT - as someone without lenses at the moment I think the more obvious choice is MFT as it offers more options. The EF mount was aimed at the Canon 5D/7D market originally I think, in its own right (for someone without lenses already) I'm not sure it makes as much sense, even though the MFT rules out some lenses too.

Upgrading from a video camera though (Sony V1) I'm not familiar with how it feels to work with manual as opposed to powered lenses and it's hard to know in advance what I'd prefer, that's my only worry.

I'm in a similar position to you and am leaning towards the pocket camera. I'm not sure how I'll end up using it or what limitation I'll run into with either camera so I'm going with what appears to be the most flexible option and see how I get on.

... I think on balance it's the BMCC - the only other option is of course 4k but I can't really afford it (and given the increased price difference it makes even less sense), and who knows how long we'll be waiting anyway.

So the one remaining decision is EF or MFT - as someone without lenses at the moment I think the more obvious choice is MFT as it offers more options. The EF mount was aimed at the Canon 5D/7D market originally I think, in its own right (for someone without lenses already) I'm not sure it makes as much sense, even though the MFT rules out some lenses too.

Upgrading from a video camera though (Sony V1) I'm not familiar with how it feels to work with manual as opposed to powered lenses and it's hard to know in advance what I'd prefer, that's my only worry.

Wipeman has a valid approach going with an active MFT mount on the BMPCC.

The BMCC with passive MFT mount is a great mount for several reasons:
you can select a very large number of manual lenses including true cinema PL-mount lenses that require an adapter but will work well;

you can use some electronic lenses like Canon EF lenses with the right adapter to power the lens;

you can use manual Nikon F and Nikon G lenses with the right adapter (the Nikon G has a lever to enable manual iris changes on the right adapters such as the current Metabones Speed Booster Nikon/MFT adapter and get a wider angle of view and a one-stop faster aperture; and

surprisingly, you can actually use it with manual MFT mount lenses that are very fast and decent performers--the lenses specially designed for the MFT mount can improve your image contrast and reduce visual interference from reflected light in the camera since their image circle is smaller than say an EF or EF-S lens that can cover larger image circles; as well the MFT specific lenses can be lighter and smaller so easier to mount on your rig or stabilizer or tripod.

On the other hand, if you suspect you will want the BMPC4K at some point, most of the MFT specific lenses can't be used on any APS-C sized or larger sensor. If a company sells a lens with both MFT and EF mount, it might have a larger image circle and work but you won't find an adapter to fit it to the camera. That is when it is wise to invest in EF mount lenses even though you may be shooting with the BMCC MFT camera. You'll carry more weight and expense, but your lenses will work on any BMD camera. Maybe I'm getting too far ahead of myself in worrying about that. After all, you can always sell lenses and buy new lenses if you moved to the larger format camera. To me if you suspect you will want the BMPCC later you are safe with MFT lenses otherwise, go EF and add the MSB whether or not you end up buying the BMPCC after all.

People usually get the BMCC EF mount when they have already invested in many EF lenses. The mount is active so you have a lot of lenses to choose from!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD