Pocket Camera questions - low light, green screen, lens, etc

Hello,

I'm new to cinematography, but not to making videos. I am a hobbyist who enjoys working on VFX/green screen/narrative projects of my own on weekends and capturing footage of my kids any day of the week.

Until now I've been using a several hundred dollar camcorder, the JVC Everio GZ-HM200, and the footage shot with the available light in our living room makes me want to cringe. It's so "noisy" (I think that's how you pros refer to looking like pixelated garbage), etc. that I can hardly bear to watch it. I'm tired of spending many hours using Adobe Premier, After Effects, etc. only to have the final product look lousy on account of the quality of the original footage, so I'm ready to step up to a "real" camera.

For starters, will the Black Magic Pocket Camera capture better footage with available light than the JVC I was using? A review site said this about the JVC's low light performance: "The camcorder required 29 lux of light to reach 50 IRE on our waveform monitor."

Also, am I correct that the ProRes footage the BMPC shoots will make it much easier to get a good key from the wrinkled piece of green cloth I've been using as a green screen? Should it get even better if/when the BMPC can shoot compressed RAW?

How about low light and green screen/vfx work as compared to a comparably priced DSLR? I understand the workflow with the BMPC may be a bit more involved than copying .mov files off a DSLR, but I'm prepared for that if the boon to low light and keying ability make it worth it.

As for lenses, I have no lenses and not much of a budget to acquire them, so I am trying to figure out which one lens for the Black Magic Pocket Camera would be most useful/lend itself to the most applications. I'll often be very close to my "talent", e.g. in our living room, in the car, at a table in a restaurant, etc. so I suppose that means I need to look for a lens that can capture as much as possible of what is right in front of me. I'd also like to capture the kids on rides at Disney World, etc. so ideally it would be able to zoom. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I imagine this would be a different lens, but I'd also like to be able to take the BMPC places and have it look like a regular "point and shoot". Can anyone suggest a good "pancake" lens like the one on the right in the picture below that would keep its form factor as close to a point and shoot as possible?



Finally, regarding SD cards, is this the card I should order to ensure I can record in both ProRes and RAW if/when it becomes available? SanDisk Extreme Pro 64 GB SDXC Class 10 UHS-1 Flash Memory Card 95MB/s SDSDXPA-064G-AFFP

I built my desktop computer for editing/VFX/3D work, but it doesn't have a card reader. Does anyone know of a USB dongle or something that would allow me to insert a card and format it to exFat as required and copy videos onto my PC?

Thank you very much for any advice/suggestions you can offer!

Your post reminded me of this guys film:

I am impressed by this lens and have bought one, ready for the Pocket when it comes.
Fast for low light, works close up and sharp and great shallow depth of field.

It's a prime and not exactly a general purpose though.

will the Black Magic Pocket Camera capture better footage with available light than the JVC I was using?

That of course depends on the lens you're going to add. The faster the lens, the better the overall low light performance will be. That said, the Pocket CC is by far no low light star, but from what demo footage we've seen it isn't really bad either. Just don't expect miracles - and think about a fast prime...

am I correct that the ProRes footage the BMPC shoots will make it much easier to get a good key from the wrinkled piece of green cloth I've been using as a green screen? Should it get even better if/when the BMPC can shoot compressed RAW?

Definitely. To both questions. Even ProRes has a higher color resolution than MPG or AVCHD, and less (or even visually no) compression artifacts, the quality of your keying / masks will improve significantly!

I have no lenses and not much of a budget

If your budget allows: get a wide, fast prime lens for indoors, and add a medium length zoom lens for outdoors. For starters even a 14-42 kit lens from panasonic/olympus mft-cameras is ok, you can get these below $100 on ebay. In any case: read all you can find about the PCCs crop factor, OIS (or lack thereof) and native ISO 800.

I built my desktop computer for editing/VFX/3D work, but it doesn't have a card reader. Does anyone know of a USB dongle or something

If your pc has usb-3, get a card reader that supports it! Anything slower will be a p.i.t.a.! Apart from that there are hardly any significant differences, all recent readers will support sdxc and exFat.

Fast for low light, works close up and sharp and great shallow depth of field. It's a prime and not exactly a general purpose though.

Thanks for the suggestion of the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 Manual Focus Lens for Micro 4/3 Mount, Pablito. To be sure, it can work up close and far away to capture a whole scene, right? When you say it's not exactly a general purpose lens, what should I be aware that it can't do? It's more expensive than the Black Magic Pocket Camera itself, of course, but perhaps it's worth it if it will result in the best low light performance and the sharpest images.

That said, the Pocket CC is by far no low light star, but from what demo footage we've seen it isn't really bad either. Just don't expect miracles - and think about a fast prime... In any case: read all you can find about the PCCs crop factor, OIS (or lack thereof) and native ISO 800.

Thanks, Mac Jaeger. Do you know if there is a camera in this price range that performs better in low light and offers ProRes in a similar form factor or would otherwise be better suited for the uses/needs I described? All signs appeared to point to the BMPC during my research, but perhaps I missed something.

Assuming you think the Black Magic Pocket Camera is my best bet, do you think the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 Manual Focus Lens for Micro 4/3 Mount Pablito suggested will maximize its low light performance/image quality, or would you suggest something else?

Thanks again for your help/advice, guys!

Check out the SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 too. £399

Thanks for the suggestion, MMedia.

I was just speaking to a colleague who is into photography about the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm, and he said the x3.02 crop factor on the Black Magic Pocket Camera would mean I'd have to be very far away to capture a full scene, i.e. I'd have to be standing outside of a room to capture what was happening in the room, or else I'd likely just be capturing heads.

I found this calculator (bmpcc.rubenkremer.nl) which said the 17.5 mm would be equivalent to 49mm on the BMPC, or 35 mm with a speed booster. He said 35 mm would be a lot more usable, but that there would likely be compromises with the image quality or low light capability with a speed booster. Does anyone know if that is the case?

Just when I thought I was close to knowing what to get...

Your calculations are about right. If you are used to full frame comparisons you can say the 17 mm behaves approximately like a standard 50 mm would on a full frame body.

Finding a good wide lens for establishing shots is still rather difficult for the Pocket (btw: the "official" crop factor is 2.88ish), i'm going to test the olympus 9-18 and have my eye on slr magic 12 mm, the panasonic 7-14 i just can't afford.

I found this calculator (bmpcc.rubenkremer.nl) which said the 17.5 mm would be equivalent to 49mm on the BMPC, or 35 mm with a speed booster

FYI, the Voigtlander lens you mention is a native m4/3 mount lens, I'm not aware of a M4/3 to M4/3 speedbooster, not sure if that's even theoretically possible since M4/3 lenses are designed to cover a smaller image circle already. You'd be stuck with only the 17.5mm FOV.
If you're looking at a lens around that pricepoint, the one that sounds perfect for your needs would be the Panasonic 12-35/2.8. This would give you a moderately wide field of view and also a decent tele. The lens is optically excellent, AND you get good optical image stabilization to boot... which will be a huge help on handheld or even rigged shots. JB's first BMPCC footage was shot with this lens.

Thanks for the suggestion, MMedia.

I was just speaking to a colleague who is into photography about the Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm, and he said the x3.02 crop factor on the Black Magic Pocket Camera would mean I'd have to be very far away to capture a full scene, i.e. I'd have to be standing outside of a room to capture what was happening in the room, or else I'd likely just be capturing heads.

I found this calculator (bmpcc.rubenkremer.nl) which said the 17.5 mm would be equivalent to 49mm on the BMPC, or 35 mm with a speed booster. He said 35 mm would be a lot more usable, but that there would likely be compromises with the image quality or low light capability with a speed booster. Does anyone know if that is the case?

Just when I thought I was close to knowing what to get...

Well, it depends... remember that the often quoted crop factor is for folks coming from a photography frame of reference. So the assumption is that you're going TO a smaller sensor FROM a full frame sensor. In your case, you're coming from 1/4 sensor to a Super 16 sized sensor (a little over 3x larger), so the Pocket Cinema Camera will have a wider field of view than you're used to. On Super 16, anything between 8mm and 12mm is considered wide, so 17mm would be considered normal. Also, the Speedbooster adds a stop of sensitivity to whichever lens it's attached to. Lastly, none of the BM cameras are low light champions... but having a few more stops of latitude makes up for the noisy gain you normally see in inexpensive camcorders.

Check out AbelCine's FoV calculator. You can actually compare 1/4 HD sensors to S16 film.

http://abelcine.com/fov/

Thanks,

Shawn

Hello,

I'm new to cinematography, but not to making videos. I am a hobbyist who enjoys working on VFX/green screen/narrative projects of my own on weekends and capturing footage of my kids any day of the week.

Until now I've been using a several hundred dollar camcorder, the JVC Everio GZ-HM200, and the footage shot with the available light in our living room makes me want to cringe. It's so "noisy" (I think that's how you pros refer to looking like pixelated garbage), etc. that I can hardly bear to watch it. I'm tired of spending many hours using Adobe Premier, After Effects, etc. only to have the final product look lousy on account of the quality of the original footage, so I'm ready to step up to a "real" camera.

For starters, will the Black Magic Pocket Camera capture better footage with available light than the JVC I was using? A review site said this about the JVC's low light performance: "The camcorder required 29 lux of light to reach 50 IRE on our waveform monitor."

Also, am I correct that the ProRes footage the BMPC shoots will make it much easier to get a good key from the wrinkled piece of green cloth I've been using as a green screen? Should it get even better if/when the BMPC can shoot compressed RAW?

How about low light and green screen/vfx work as compared to a comparably priced DSLR? I understand the workflow with the BMPC may be a bit more involved than copying .mov files off a DSLR, but I'm prepared for that if the boon to low light and keying ability make it worth it.

As for lenses, I have no lenses and not much of a budget to acquire them, so I am trying to figure out which one lens for the Black Magic Pocket Camera would be most useful/lend itself to the most applications. I'll often be very close to my "talent", e.g. in our living room, in the car, at a table in a restaurant, etc. so I suppose that means I need to look for a lens that can capture as much as possible of what is right in front of me. I'd also like to capture the kids on rides at Disney World, etc. so ideally it would be able to zoom. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I imagine this would be a different lens, but I'd also like to be able to take the BMPC places and have it look like a regular "point and shoot". Can anyone suggest a good "pancake" lens like the one on the right in the picture below that would keep its form factor as close to a point and shoot as possible?



Finally, regarding SD cards, is this the card I should order to ensure I can record in both ProRes and RAW if/when it becomes available? SanDisk Extreme Pro 64 GB SDXC Class 10 UHS-1 Flash Memory Card 95MB/s SDSDXPA-064G-AFFP

I built my desktop computer for editing/VFX/3D work, but it doesn't have a card reader. Does anyone know of a USB dongle or something that would allow me to insert a card and format it to exFat as required and copy videos onto my PC?

Thank you very much for any advice/suggestions you can offer!

I do a lot of VFX work, and while I haven't had a chance to do any green screen of my own with the BMPC yet (I had to send it back for recalibration) I can tell you it'll be better than any camera anywhere near it's price for the job...

As far as your thing about bad lighting and wrinkled green screen, no camera is going to save you from the trouble of doing things the right way... I can't encourage you to avoid a proper set up. But you will have better luck badly shot footage when shot in ProRes or Raw than you will with any DSLR H264 trash... Doing good green screen work isn't the result of a camera alone. It's all about good lighting, good software (Red Giant Keying Suite with Primatte) and a good codec...

And you might want to consider something like this if you're having problems with wrinkled cloth... http://www.tubetape.net/servlet/the-62/ ... QgodSV8AeA

I can't speak to the quality of this particular product. I have one like it, but mine was about $250-$300...

There's also a foam-backed fabric that's very good. But you'll need some way to hang it. I used a backdrop support stand with some big clamps from Home Depot to stretch it out to minimize wrinkles.

Thanks for confirming my understanding, Mac Jaeger. It looks like the Panasonic 7 - 14 would be equivalent to 20 mm which, if I understand correctly, would have a very wide/good field of view. Doesn't the f/4.0 mean that it requires much more light to shoot good footage, though, at least when compared to the Voigtlander at f/.95? Unfortunately, being unable to just pick up the camera and get good to great footage using the available light in my living room (where I'd either be filming my kids or shooting green screen) would defeat much of the purpose of this investment. Thebicyclecafe, wouldn't the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 be similarly "limited", though to a lesser degree than f/4.0?

n your case, you're coming from 1/4 sensor to a Super 16 sized sensor (a little over 3x larger), so the Pocket Cinema Camera will have a wider field of view than you're used to.

A colleague at work actually let me borrow his Nikon D800 with 24mm lens to shoot a project, so unfortunately that experience has spoiled me somewhat as compared to just coming from my camera.

On Super 16, anything between 8mm and 12mm is considered wide, so 17mm would be considered normal.

Is normal (as opposed to wide) enough to capture most of what you see in front of you when you're standing in a medium sized room? I know that's probably a very difficult question to answer, but I'm really trying to understand whether the Voigtlander 17.5 mm at f/.95 will do the trick. I'd really like it to because of its reputed ability for performance in low light. Also, would I be missing out on much without autofocus and OIS?

Also, the Speedbooster adds a stop of sensitivity to whichever lens it's attached to.

Thanks, but as thebicyclecafe mentioned, I likely wouldn't be able to use a speed booster with the Voigtlander because it is MFT already.

Lastly, none of the BM cameras are low light champions... but having a few more stops of latitude makes up for the noisy gain you normally see in inexpensive camcorders.

Is it possible I should be looking at a different camera given the importance of low light performance to me? Do you know of anything else for video with this many stops, ProRes, etc. in this or a similar form factor?

Thanks for confirming the benefits this camera should have for green screen work, Corrupt Frame, Inc. I do have a simple lighting set that came with my inexpensive green screen kit that I use when I setup the green screen, but I don't iron all the wrinkles out of the fabric, etc. I'm hoping to step up to a higher quality screen that wrinkles much less in the future, but I figure there's not much sense in doing that until I have a decent camera to shoot it with.

Thank you guys again for all of your help and advice!

You will not find a better camera for green screen in this price range.

The next up would be the Original BMC for $1,999 and then Hacked 5D MKIII which would have better low light performance, but the workflow isn't as good and there's no ProRes, and that's $3,400...

Thanks for confirming my understanding, Mac Jaeger. It looks like the Panasonic 7 - 14 would be equivalent to 20 mm which, if I understand correctly, would have a very wide/good field of view. Doesn't the f/4.0 mean that it requires much more light to shoot good footage, though, at least when compared to the Voigtlander at f/.95? Unfortunately, being unable to just pick up the camera and get good to great footage using the available light in my living room (where I'd either be filming my kids or shooting green screen) would defeat much of the purpose of this investment. Thebicyclecafe, wouldn't the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 be similarly "limited", though to a lesser degree than f/4.0?

You're absolutely right. The f/4 is not very fast a lens, especially compared to the voigtlander 17/.95 . But on the other hand 17 mm on a bmpcc is by no means wide, and even the 12 mm end of the mentioned pany lens i wouldn't consider wide just yet. If you want wide, in the sense of "capture a group in a room" wide, you should look at 10 mm and below - hence my interest in the olympus 9-18, even though it's even slower than the panasonic 7-14.

And somewhere you said you were on a tight budget... oly 9-18 starts at €500, pany 7-14 cost you at least double that, and both the pany 12-35 and voigtlander 17 are around €1300 - if that fits your budget, go get them, they are truely remarkable lenses!

And somewhere you said you were on a tight budget... oly 9-18 starts at €500, pany 7-14 cost you at least double that, and both the pany 12-35 and voigtlander 17 are around €1300 - if that fits your budget, go get them, they are truely remarkable lenses!

I just bought the Voigtlander 17.5 new for $1100 inc tax here in Australia.
They can be had for under US$1000 new on ebay.
Here's one for 700 Euros:
http://www.smartimports.net/products.php?product=Voigtlander-Nokton-17.5mm-F%7B47%7D0.95-Lens&gclid=CK7Cse7T9bkCFUhapQod_UsAaQ&setCurrencyId=2

A colleague at work actually let me borrow his Nikon D800 with 24mm lens to shoot a project, so unfortunately that experience has spoiled me somewhat as compared to just coming from my camera.

Ah, I see. Then you probably would want something in the 8-12mm range then. I don't know how big your shooting space is, but if you have 15 or 20 feet to spare, you should be okay for full body shots. That's factoring the space you'll need between your subjects and the green screen.

Is normal (as opposed to wide) enough to capture most of what you see in front of you when you're standing in a medium sized room? I know that's probably a very difficult question to answer, but I'm really trying to understand whether the Voigtlander 17.5 mm at f/.95 will do the trick. I'd really like it to because of its reputed ability for performance in low light. Also, would I be missing out on much without autofocus and OIS?

It depends on how big your medium sized room is... that can mean different things depending on your location. I assume that fully zoomed out on your current video camera is about 5 or 6mm? If so, that's about the same as 17mm on the BMPCC, so 15 to 20 feet should be fine. As for OIS and auto focus, it just depends on your individual needs. Shooting fully manual takes a bit of time and practice, but it certainly will make you a better camera operator over time.

Thanks, but as thebicyclecafe mentioned, I likely wouldn't be able to use a speed booster with the Voigtlander because it is MFT already.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Voighlander would work with the Speedbooster, it obviously doesn't.

Is it possible I should be looking at a different camera given the importance of low light performance to me? Do you know of anything else for video with this many stops, ProRes, etc. in this or a similar form factor?

Nope, there isn't anything near this price range with those specs, definitely not with the BMPCC's form factor. You can get cameras with less compressed video for less than 10k... but nothing 10bit with 13 stops of DR, that's Red and Alexa country.

Shawn

Here's one for 700 Euros:

Be careful.

In germany you have to pay customes and shipping from japan.
So it will cost roundabout 1000 Euros as well.

I just wondering why the price of the 17/0.95 will not drop. µFT Photographer seems to prefer other lensens. The 25/0.95 for speed and other 18mm lenses for this focus length for sharpness. The 17 got some not very good critics for sharpness on the edges.

I got my panny 7-14 used for 650 Euros.

Thomas, still wating for the bmpcc

I assume that fully zoomed out on your current video camera is about 5 or 6mm

You know, knowing the effective focal length I'm getting on my camcorder (not the D800 I was able to borrow for a few days) would go a long way toward helping me determine whether the 17.5 mm on the BMPC would be workable for me where I shoot mostly in the cramped living room of my apartment (and extend sets via green screen). I just looked it up, and JVC's support site says the JVC Everio GZ-HM200BU has "2.9 - 58.0 (35mm film equivalent: 41.4 - 828.0)".

bmpcc.rubenkremer.nl says the 17.5 mm would be equivalent to 49, which is even "worse" than what I've been dealing with already. Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of this calculation? I *really* want this lens's low light capability, but I can't imagine being even more limited (having to move even further back to shoot) than I am already. For that reason, I think I may have to forget the Voigtlander 17.5 f/.95, which is extremely frustrating because no matter how decently another lens may work in low light, I'll know it could have been better, perhaps much better.

I've spent all day reading about lenses and even visited B&H. They didn't have a BMPC for me to see, of course, but they showed me a "Nikon 1 v 2" which had a 2.9 crop factor and was therefore roughly equivalent to the BMPC. The Voigtlander wasn't available to see, evidently because the company stopped paying to have models available for inspection on the show room floor, but I was able to check out an 18.5 mm of some other brand. The salesman was standing right behind the counter in front of me and I could only see his head and shoulders using the lens.

I have to get some work done so that today isn't a total wash. Man, this is frustrating. I wish the creative part of me woke up 6 months or maybe even a year later instead of just recently; the BMPC, or perhaps even its next iteration, would likely be available on store shelves, there'd be a lens with excellent wide focal length and low light ability, etc.

Oh well. If anyone has any other suggestions (or even thoughts regarding the Voigtlander 17.5 f/.95) please do share. Thanks again for all of your help and patience, everyone.

I just looked it up, and JVC's support site says the JVC Everio GZ-HM200BU has "2.9 - 58.0 (35mm film equivalent: 41.4 - 828.0)".

Ah, I see. That actually makes sense... 2.9mm on your camera is about 10mm the BMPCC.

bmpcc.rubenkremer.nl says the 17.5 mm would be equivalent to 49, which is even "worse" than what I've been dealing with already. Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of this calculation?

I think the 17mm equivalent of S16 on a 1/4 inch sensor is around 59mm... I might be wrong, but that's my quick calculation. Hopefully someone will correct me if this isn't right.

I *really* want this lens's low light capability, but I can't imagine being even more limited (having to move even further back to shoot) than I am already. For that reason, I think I may have to forget the Voigtlander 17.5 f/.95, which is extremely frustrating because no matter how decently another lens may work in low light, I'll know it could have been better, perhaps much better.

Makes sense, it sounds like something between 6-11mm would be a better fit for you. Maybe someone with more experience shooting S16 will chime in with a good recommendation.

Shawn

Don't know what your calculations are base upon, but they don't seem right to me.

Compared to 35mm full frame format the Pocket CC has a crop factor of about 2.88, meaning you'd need a 14 mm lens to match the look of your Everio camcorders wide end, or anything less if you want to get wider. Personally i don't regard anything above 30 mm (full frame equivalent) as wide angle, so i'd say you need a 10 mm lens or less to get wide.

One more thing to know and think about:

The wider a lens gets, the more it's image can be distorted. MFT-cameras from panasonic and olympus have built in correction algorithms to counteract this distortion (at least when they "know" the lens), and they have high enough image resolution to rectify images without much loss in image quality. But the Pocket cam doesn't correct the images, so depending on the lens you might get bend lines etc.

Don't know what your calculations are base upon, but they don't seem right to me.

Compared to 35mm full frame format the Pocket CC has a crop factor of about 2.88, meaning you'd need a 14 mm lens to match the look of your Everio camcorders wide end, or anything less if you want to get wider.

We're talking about a 1/4 inch video senor vs a super 16mm sized sensor. So the difference is about 3.4 (S16 vs 1/4 inch - 13.7mm vs 4mm - ((13.7mm/4= 3.4mm). )). I think this is where the term "crop factor" get's so confusing. It's not an absolute comparison between sills 35 and everything else... it's a way of comparing the diagonal size of one sensor or film back to another. Since the original post was specifically about going from a 1/4 inch video sensor to a Super 16 sized sensor, I thought it made more sense to compare those two sensor sizes.

Personally i don't regard anything above 30 mm (full frame equivalent) as wide angle, so i'd say you need a 10 mm lens or less to get wide.

If you re-read my post, you'll note that I recommended a focal length between 6mm and 11mm to get a wide angle on the BMPCC. In fact, I would say that anything under 8mm on S16 would be considered ultra wide, whereas 8-16 would be wide and 17mm would be considered normal. I'm drawing mostly from memory here, so I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong... but I believe that's correct.

Thanks,

Shawn

Thanks, guys.

Maybe I should just give up on this low light business since I apparently can't "have it all"?

I was reading about the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black). At 12 mm it should be wider than my camcorder and of course it would have the option to zoom. Is 2.8 aperture enough to capture high quality footage in miserable light, though (say, a single lamp in a room at night)?

There's also the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format, which would have a wider angle but presumably even less performance in low light.

I tried to find an SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6, but couldn't find it for sale anywhere.

If you were me, would you

a) Go for the Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/.95 for what sounds like the ultimate low light performance, even if the focal length makes things more difficult to shoot
b) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black)
c) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format
d) Wait and hope that an f/.95 lens comes out with a shorter focal length soon

Thanks again!

SLR 12 T1.6 is about the most suitable Wide/Low light lens i can think of.

Or maybe have a search for C mount cctv lens on here.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe I should just give up on this low light business since I apparently can't "have it all"?

I was reading about the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black). At 12 mm it should be wider than my camcorder and of course it would have the option to zoom. Is 2.8 aperture enough to capture high quality footage in miserable light, though (say, a single lamp in a room at night)?

There's also the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format, which would have a wider angle but presumably even less performance in low light.

I tried to find an SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6, but couldn't find it for sale anywhere.

If you were me, would you

a) Go for the Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/.95 for what sounds like the ultimate low light performance, even if the focal length makes things more difficult to shoot
b) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black)
c) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format
d) Wait and hope that an f/.95 lens comes out with a shorter focal length soon

Thanks again!

I haven't shot on the BMPCC, so I'm not sure what the low light performance is like... but I generally don't like shooting on anything slower than f2.8 in most low light situations. Another option to consider is the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm in f-Mount with a Metabones Speedbooster adapter... that combination will give you a .7 wider FoV and an increase of one stop in maximum aperture.

Shawn

The question is just where you draw the line between a "normal" lens and a "wide" lens. On full frame 45 to 50 mm look similar to human perception, some people only call that "normal", and anything below and above "wide" and "tele" respectively. I think different, i consider even a 35 mm lens not "wide", hence i stated what i call "wide" and what lens that would be on the pocket, but of course you might use the term differently.

Concerning crop factors: a crop factor is meaningless unless you state what sensor size you base it on. In consumer photography and video crop factors are almost allways based on full frame comparison, so unless otherwise stated that's the base _i_ would use with the pocket cc (which will attract a lot of "prosumers" stepping up from consumer devices, and used to the terminology found there). Again, experienced film makers might prefer other sensor sizes as a base for comparison.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe I should just give up on this low light business since I apparently can't "have it all"?

I was reading about the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black). At 12 mm it should be wider than my camcorder and of course it would have the option to zoom. Is 2.8 aperture enough to capture high quality footage in miserable light, though (say, a single lamp in a room at night)?

There's also the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format, which would have a wider angle but presumably even less performance in low light.

I tried to find an SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6, but couldn't find it for sale anywhere.

If you were me, would you

a) Go for the Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/.95 for what sounds like the ultimate low light performance, even if the focal length makes things more difficult to shoot
b) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 Asph. Lens for Micro 4/3 (Black)
c) Go for the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4.0 ASPH. Lens - Micro Four Thirds Format
d) Wait and hope that an f/.95 lens comes out with a shorter focal length soon

Thanks again!

With point source lighting like that, it really depends how close to the light your subject is. I'm visualizing a 60W incandescent bulb type lamp....
In that scenario ambient light shooting, ie not directly around the light, even at ISO 1600 you will be underexposed at T/2.8, 180 shutter. Those are awfully poor shooting conditions, you'll have to push your footage significantly in post, so don't expect high quality footage.
If you can't improve your lighting situation or be selective of your shots, I can't imagine even a 2.8 lens being adequate. You really need to be looking a t/1.4 and faster... there aren't any native m4/3 lenses that are that fast and as wide as you need. Why not get a fast, normal prime like the Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 for when you absolutely need to get the shot in dismal lighting, and a decently fast wider lens like the Olympus 12/2.0? The cost of the two lenses gets you pretty close to either the 17/0.95 you mentioned, or the 12-35/2.8.

Concerning crop factors: a crop factor is meaningless unless you state what sensor size you base it on.

I feel like we're having a bit of a disconnect here, since both sensor sizes were mentioned early in the thread. It seems like a straight forward question... what's the equivalent field of view of the BMPCC compared to 1/4 inch video senor. I even said this to you... that my calculations were based on S16 vs 1/4 inch video... what am I missing?

so unless otherwise stated that's the base _i_ would use with the pocket cc (which will attract a lot of "prosumers" stepping up from consumer devices, and used to the terminology found there). Again, experienced film makers might prefer other sensor sizes as a base for comparison.

I think you may have missed the part where we were explicitly talking about 1/4 video compared to s16. Why does full frame come into the discussion, when the original poster said that his frame of reference is the JVC Everio GZ-HM200... a 1/4 inch camera?

Shawn

I apologize if I caused any confusion by mentioning both my 1/4" camcorder and the full frame D800 I was able to borrow for a few days.

If you can't improve your lighting situation or be selective of your shots, I can't imagine even a 2.8 lens being adequate. You really need to be looking a t/1.4 and faster...

This is what I suspected and why I've been reluctant to forget about the .95 lens. The thing is, I don't want to have to improve my lighting or be selective; while I want to do narrative work where I will be able to do these things, I also want to be able to pick up the camera and capture high quality footage of my kids in our apartment for posterity.

Why not get a fast, normal prime like the Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 for when you absolutely need to get the shot in dismal lighting, and a decently fast wider lens like the Olympus 12/2.0?

Unfortunately, the place with the dismal lighting is the same place where I need a wider lens.

SLR 12 T1.6 is about the most suitable Wide/Low light lens i can think of.

This lens sounds like it may be a great compromise between wide and low light, but I haven't been able to find it in stock anywhere to even flirt with the decision to purchase it. Is it brand new like the BMPC and therefore hard to come by until manufacturing ramps up, or is it difficult to find because it's gone extinct?

By the way, is there any way to tell what the aperture is (or is equivalent to) on my JVC camcorder so I can estimate how much better the f\.95 or f\1.6 lenses would function in lower light than this thing? A review site said this about it's low light performance, "The camcorder required 29 lux of light to reach 50 IRE on our waveform monitor", and looking at it now, the lens says "f=2.9-58mm 1:1.9 030.5".

Thanks!

www.ukdigital.co.uk/slr-magic-lenses.html £399

www.slrmagic.co.uk

http://www.slrmagic.com

http://www.ukdigital.co.uk/slr-magic-lenses.html £399

http://www.slrmagic.co.uk

http://www.slrmagic.com

Thanks MMedia, but I'm in the USA and haven't been able to find the lens for sale anywhere.

I need to choose a lens quickly, though, because I just ordered a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera and it will be here Tuesday!

http://www.ukdigital.co.uk/slr-magic-lenses.html £399

http://www.slrmagic.co.uk

http://www.slrmagic.com

Thanks MMedia, but I'm in the USA and haven't been able to find the lens for sale anywhere.

I need to choose a lens quickly, though, because I just ordered a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera and it will be here Tuesday!

Have you considered renting from these guys?

http://www.lensrentals.com/

A lot of their lenses and adapters are pretty inexpensive to rent. This way, you can at least get a feel for which lenses and focal lengths fit your style of shooting best.

Shawn

I just ordered a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera and it will be here Tuesday!

pure envy here...

Have you considered renting from these guys?

Good idea, thanks.

pure envy here...

Yeah, I feel kind of guilty considering how long I've read others have been waiting for their pre-orders. Here's hoping you and others who have been waiting will receive them soon!

So, will I get pelted with rocks if I say that now that I've finally placed the order, I'm having doubts about whether I should have gone with a GH3 and am considering trying to change it? I won't list the BMPC's limitations since we all know them, but the GH3 appears to have nothing but advantages in comparison other than an inability to shoot in ProRes and RAW. I have to admit that when I look at videos online comparing footage between the GH3 and BMPC, I don't see a difference, and in some cases the GH3 footage even appears sharper.

I know I've asked earlier in this thread, but I can't help but ask again now that I've ordered it and this is really happening. This is somewhat of a significant investment for me if you can't tell - and one that my wife will not "permit" a follow up to for a long, long time; "you just got $2,000 worth of camera stuff 3 years ago, you can't possibly need to spend that much money on a camera again!" I really need to make sure I'm getting the most (and best) bang for the buck since the camera will serve as my creative outlet for at least a few years.

A few questions to that end:

1) Can I expect ProRes footage to key MUCH better with the BMPC vs footage shot with the GH3?
2) Will After Effects' 3D camera tracker be MUCH more accurate/have an easier time "solving" with the BMPC vs footage shot with the GH3?
3) Will footage shot with BMPC look MUCH better than footage shot with the GH3, or is the BMPC's perceivable advantage (i.e. not just in terms of specs) limited to extra details in shadows that may not even be noticed?

Also, another concerning thing I read is that the BMPC may need a rails system to support larger, heavier lenses or else the mount is subject to break.

3) Do you think it's true that the BMPC's lens mount is subject to break if heavier lenses (e.g. the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/.95) are used without a rails/support system? If so, the requirement of a rails system makes this even more expensive.

Thanks,
Conflicted

1) Can I expect ProRes footage to key MUCH better with the BMPC vs footage shot with the GH3?

Better, yes. MUCH better is possible, but depends not on ProRes but on your skills setting up a scene. The BM cameras can't magically turn badly lit scenes into brilliant ones, but if you know how to set the lights (and have the lights to do it) the BM cameras are much more flexible in capturing stunning visuals.

2) Will After Effects' 3D camera tracker be MUCH more accurate/have an easier time "solving" with the BMPC vs footage shot with the GH3?

Much more? Probably no. Better looking images don't always track better, it's more the scene itself that determines whether AE (or other trackers) can reconstruct 3D-space and resolve camera motion correctly. Rolling shutter is always a problem, will be with both cameras.

3) Will footage shot with BMPC look MUCH better than footage shot with the GH3, or is the BMPC's perceivable advantage (i.e. not just in terms of specs) limited to extra details in shadows that may not even be noticed?

Again: when you know what you are doing, you can push the BM cameras footage much farther in post than the GH3 - but your shots won't magically all be better. The Pocket and CC are instruments, they can only do as well as the one playing the instrument.

All in all i'd say the Pocket will do better than the GH3, but probably not as MUCH as you obviously want it to be, at least not by its own. You'll have to learn how to exploit the Pockets great features, only then will you really embrace the difference. Hopefully we get raw soon, this will even further the gap between these cameras!

[edit]The next part was mistakingly posted, leftover from a quote i failed to remove. I left it in here after editing the post so that the next postings are understandable...

Also, another concerning thing I read is that the BMPC may need a rails system to support larger, heavier lenses or else the mount is subject to break.

3) Do you think it's true that the BMPC's lens mount is subject to break if heavier lenses (e.g. the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/.95) are used without a rails/support system? If so, the requirement of a rails system makes this even more expensive.

Thanks,
Conflicted

Thanks, Mac Jaeger. I think part of your post may have been lost. Did you mean to say the weight of heavier lenses like the Voigtlander 17.5mm f.95 cannot damage the BMPC's mount, or that a rails/support system is required?

I have to admit that when I look at videos online comparing footage between the GH3 and BMPC, I don't see a difference, and in some cases the GH3 footage even appears sharper.

3) Will footage shot with BMPC look MUCH better than footage shot with the GH3, or is the BMPC's perceivable advantage (i.e. not just in terms of specs) limited to extra details in shadows that may not even be noticed?

If sharpness straight out of camera is what you are after, and you don't need/want to take the extra time to work with your footage in post, then perhaps the GH3 is a better option for you. If your scenes are lit and exposed properly, and you have no need for the high dynamic range or flexible log footage, the advantages of the GH3 might outweigh the benefits of the BMPCC in your case.
To your #3, I think that image quality is so much more than perceived sharpness or look OOC, but I guess that's a personal choice. If you're willing to take the time to shoot and edit properly, I do think the pocket camera's footage will give you a better final image, albeit at the some workarounds, and a steeper learning curve. To that end, the fact that we are even comparing the two just goes to show how good the GH3 is, and I personally think any cinematographer would be limited by it- if you have a great idea in mind, the limitations of the GH3 won't stop you. More importantly, consider your shooting/editing style, and whether or not the benefits of the GH3 make sense to you- built in viewfinder, better frame rate options, autofocus capability, lower crop factor, etc.

Thanks, Mac Jaeger. I think part of your post may have been lost. Did you mean to say the weight of heavier lenses like the Voigtlander 17.5mm f.95 cannot damage the BMPC's mount, or that a rails/support system is required?

I meant not to say anything about the weight of heavier lenses - that was leftover from the text i quoted, obviously a glitch in my browser...