Blackmagic Forum

LMACKREATH wrote:more awful footage from the bmpcc

I got a decent grade out of it using only a screenshot off of Vimeo.

It's distressing how instinctually anxious people are to excuse a potential product defect:

https://www.facebook.com/BMCCusers/post ... 5237810237

Probably the author of the clip didn't have advertising the Pocket CC in mind when he uploaded the footage to vimeo...

There is some out-of-camera ProRes footage available. To get a glimpse of the cameras IQ everyone can simply download the free version of Resolve, grab the footage and get their hands dirty at grading. I think this gives a more realistic assessment than anything graded by someone else.

focuspulling wrote:It's distressing how instinctually anxious people are to excuse a potential product defect:

https://www.facebook.com/BMCCusers/post ... 5237810237

As I understand it, Cheesycam has a defective unit, it's not a design flaw, right?

Mac Jaeger wrote:

focuspulling wrote:It's distressing how instinctually anxious people are to excuse a potential product defect:

https://www.facebook.com/BMCCusers/post ... 5237810237

As I understand it, Cheesycam has a defective unit, it's not a design flaw, right?

I hope so; someone at the User Group mentioned something about that being discussed at this very forum, but I can't find it. Anyone know? Is it an official response? This thread would be a good place to have it.

Hello:

There is no internal noise bug or flaw. We haven't seen that anywhere else. There is a problem with that individual camera, and we will speak with them about getting it switched out.

Terry

Terry Frechette wrote:Hello:

There is no internal noise bug or flaw. We haven't seen that anywhere else. There is a problem with that individual camera, and we will speak with them about getting it switched out.

Terry

Good Guy Terry!

Nice to see someone out there can communicate from time to time

Terry Frechette wrote:There is no internal noise bug or flaw. We haven't seen that anywhere else. There is a problem with that individual camera, and we will speak with them about getting it switched out.

Thanks for clearing this up!

This may be a stupid question, but is there a difference between the pro Rez on the pocket and the pro Rez on the BMCC as they are both 1080p? Does it still use the data from the whole sensor on the BMCC or is it a crop?

The prores on the BMCC is from the whole 2.4k sensor, so theoretically should be a bit better. In practice i haven't seen much of a difference yet as BMD have done a great job with the pocket, but i haven't done side by side tests yet either. It's a nice day today so might try this afternoon!

Darkfable wrote:This may be a stupid question, but is there a difference between the pro Rez on the pocket and the pro Rez on the BMCC as they are both 1080p? Does it still use the data from the whole sensor on the BMCC or is it a crop?

The ProRes recording mode is the same on all BMD cameras -- "ProRes 422 HQ" -- it's one of Apple's several ProRes recording formats. See the attached tables.

However, the ProRes 422 HQ recordings are derived from different source data streams in the various BMD cameras, because the different cam models have sensors with different resolutions.

For example, the BMPCC pocket cam has a 1920 x 1080 sensor, and records 1920 x 1080 ProRes 422 HQ @ 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 220 megabits/ sec. So it's not a crop.

The BMCC has a 2.5K sensor, so when it records ProRes 422 HQ it scales the 2.5K down to 1920 x 1080 @ 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 220 megabits/ sec. Again, it's not a crop; it's 2.5K smoothly scaled-down to 1080p.

The BMPC-4K cam will supposedly be able to record ProRes 422 HQ at both 1080p and "4K" (3840 x 2160).

The BMPC-4K's 1080p ProRes 422 HQ recordings will scale the 4K (3840 x 2160) down to 1920 x 1080 @ 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 220 megabits/ sec. Its 4K (3840 x 2160) ProRes 422 HQ recordings will be 3840 x 2160 @ 10-bit 4:2:2 at up to 884 megabits/sec.





-

Darkfable wrote:This may be a stupid question, but is there a difference between the pro Rez on the pocket and the pro Rez on the BMCC as they are both 1080p? Does it still use the data from the whole sensor on the BMCC or is it a crop?

I think the physical sensor in the Pocket is only 1920x1080 so debayering will lose some detail in order to make an image with the same dimensions. The original CC debayers from a 2.5k sensor so there is enough info to downsample into a crisp 1080p image. The upcoming firmware will further enhance the CC debayer technique and make it even crisper.

Personally, the most recent Pocket footage that was released was detailed enough for me. I could see individual strands of hair yet it wasn't in-your-face sharp.

From the footage I've seen posted the BMPCC is softer than the BMCC. I ended up canceling my pre-order and getting the BMCC ef and have been happy to final made up my mind which to get. Wish I'd made up my mind a month ago so I wouldn't have bought the 12-35 and 35-100 panny lenses that I have to sell now.

woodybrando wrote:From the footage I've seen posted the BMPCC is softer than the BMCC. I ended up canceling my pre-order and getting the BMCC ef and have been happy to final made up my mind which to get. Wish I'd made up my mind a month ago so I wouldn't have bought the 12-35 and 35-100 panny lenses that I have to sell now.

Yes this is the route I'm going too, going to pick up the BMCC tomorrow. I might keep my day 1 pre order tho coz by the time it 'ACTUALLY' ships (for Christmas) I might have enough money for that as well :p

I find some exciting possibilities with this pocket camera if I could adapt my 12-120 mm Angenieux zoom using a C mount to M4/3 adapter. The zoom came with my Beaulieu R 16 electronic camera.
Thanks best
Vinod

VERY quick rough test done this afternoon. The clips are VERY short because i knew i wanted to upload them for people to play with themselves.



Same lens (canon 35/1.4L) on both camera and the Pocket Camera was mounted on top (and beside) the BMCC so any differences are really the difference in sensor size and any differences inherent to each camera. You can notice the skin is different to the two, and i think you could match them just shifting the tint in the offset but i didn't want to do that here to show the differences. I really just added my LUT to these files and for the shots of Auckland city i pulled the exposure down a little using the offset control in the log tab. I apologise that the BMCC wide shot is not level, but it was freezing outside i was trying to move quick.

I've attached some pics down the side of the vimeo page so you can see the setup as well. Otherwise picasa album here: https://picasaweb.google.com/112181464706861045186/PocketCamVsBMCCTesting#

Download the original files to play with here:

https://copy.com/imoKt82WHbX4

CaptainHook wrote:VERY quick rough test done this afternoon. The clips are VERY short because i knew i wanted to upload them for people to play with themselves.



Same lens (canon 35/1.4L) on both camera and the Pocket Camera was mounted on top (and beside) the BMCC so any differences are really the difference in sensor size and any differences inherent to each camera. You can notice the skin is different to the two, and i think you could match them just shifting the tint in the offset but i didn't want to do that here to show the differences. I really just added my LUT to these files and for the shots of Auckland city i pulled the exposure down a little using the offset control in the log tab. I apologise that the BMCC wide shot is not level, but it was freezing outside i was trying to move quick.

I've attached some pics down the side of the vimeo page so you can see the setup as well. Otherwise picasa album here: https://picasaweb.google.com/112181464706861045186/PocketCamVsBMCCTesting#


Download the original files to play with here:

https://copy.com/imoKt82WHbX4

Thanks again MR the HOOK!!

Thanks for taking the time and getting frozen for your troubles:)!
wow. just previewed the images, the bmpcc CU of the girl is superb. it is stable, fully resolved and engaging. I know great glass is really important but the camera seems to be capable of accepting what it is being presented with. thanks again

Thanks for these!

Are the original clips all from the bmpcc or from both cams?

Original clips from both cams are in the link so you can compare etc. Thanks.

CaptainHook wrote:Original clips from both cams are in the link so you can compare etc. Thanks.

After downloading I think the BMCC is slightly crisper and less mushy overall.

is it obvious from the file names and/or the clips which is from which camera?

It will be obvious looking at the footage, but BMCC = A01_#### and Pocket Cam B01_####.

The BMCC Seems to have a little more yellow in the mid tones and the BMCPC looks sharper but that could simply be because the lens is closer because of the smaller sensor which would also help with focusing.

Here's some more BMPCC footage

Starring JB. Nice Grading.

grassroots wrote:I find some exciting possibilities with this pocket camera if I could adapt my 12-120 mm Angenieux zoom using a C mount to M4/3 adapter.

It'll vignette up to 18mm at least…

Some more BMPCC footage I have found on Vimeo this morning...

Seems really stuttery the playback on my machine?

Yeah first video is very stuttery, almost like old school 'strobe' effect. I'd guess issue is somewhere in encoding process. Colour reproduction, skin tones and and sharpness look good to me.

And the footage keeps rolling in!



I assume this guy was either using the 14-42 that doesnt have the IS swtich on ....or it did and he failed to use it :p

Have I missed a memo about cinema dng on the bmpcc? Anyone point me in the right direction? Ta

leepatterson wrote:Have I missed a memo about cinema dng on the bmpcc? Anyone point me in the right direction? Ta

There's a note in the box when you get the camera saying there will be a future firmware update.

Thanks ryan

jb's 'The Ravens' footage, plus a rough key.

< 1080p version

< 720p version

MarcusWolschon wrote:

marctwo wrote:The above lens looks like a good option for the pocket camera due to it's small size and OIS. However the OIS can only be activated electronically, there is no button on the lens. Would there be any support for this on the BMPCC?

Does the OIS need support from the camera (e.g. feedback from the sensor) or is it done autonomously (e.g. using MEMS gyros and accelerometers)?

Confirmed that you need a physical O.I.S. switch or you won't get it on the BMPC:

I hope Black Magic continues to push the envelope of what can be done. I am not sure what the point is in creating this type of camera so tiny. The external audio recorder would be the same size if not larger and, the fiddly controls and mediocre battery life will turn people off. The cage/rig would be just as massive.

PrashantKumar wrote:I am not sure what the point is in creating this type of camera so tiny. The external audio recorder would be the same size if not larger and, the fiddly controls and mediocre battery life will turn people off. The cage/rig would be just as massive.

Well, the point is this, you can use it without a rig, say, with a wide lens or one with IS, or on a small tripod or stabiliser.
Or you can rig it for a production with lens support, monitors etc.
It's versatile.
The external audio recorder does not have to be onboard.
It can be handled by a sound recordist, which is the usual way to do this, and a cable going into the camera for a sync track.
True, doing run & gun with viewfinder/sound recorder/batteries etc, the camera looks ridiculously small compared to the rest of the rig.
But the point is not whether it looks impressive in size relative to the rig.
It's the image quality you get from it.

I've done my first test shots (yeah, finally got the camera!!!) on a xmas fair yesterday. I'm used to filming there with larger cameras, usually this creates a lot of movement when people see a shoulder mounted camera, but not so this time. I was practically ignored holding the Pocket cam with the 14-45 lens, not different from hundreds of visitors with snapshot cameras - the Pocket makes you "invisible" in average tourist crowds... Sadly the imagery isn't usefull for anything.

Mac,
Congrats on getting your camera finally!

Enjoy!
Steve

Mac Jaeger wrote:I've done my first test shots (yeah, finally got the camera!!!) on a xmas fair yesterday. I'm used to filming there with larger cameras, usually this creates a lot of movement when people see a shoulder mounted camera, but not so this time. I was practically ignored holding the Pocket cam with the 14-45 lens, not different from hundreds of visitors with snapshot cameras - the Pocket makes you "invisible" in average tourist crowds... Sadly the imagery isn't usefull for anything.

I would be interessested in some short examples. Just to see how bad or good it performs in such situation. The 14-45 is not that fast. I would have taken the 20/1.7 or 12/1.6.

Steve Holmlund wrote:Enjoy!

I do. Really!

One good thing about the long wait: my camera doesn't suffer from white orbs, and until now i've had no problem with any of my lenses; thanks to newer firmware i have that beautifull percent-stepped battery gauge, that clicks down so tauntingly fast that i don't waste time on playing around but get straigt to the job...

So far my tests fullfilled my expectations, again that's a good thing about the wait: i knew exactly what problems i'd face and could prepare (eg. bought spare batteries ahead of time, and the Anker too). Now i have to get used to grading in resolve, but here is another bonus: others already invested time to find out and (thankfully!) document best practices, so my learning curve migth not be as steep.

This community is part of my very positive Pocket Cam experience - thank you!

I would be interessested in some short examples. Just to see how bad or good it performs in such situation. The 14-45 is not that fast. I would have taken the 20/1.7 or 12/1.6.

You are absolutely right - the 14-45 is to slow at 3.5, that's exactly why i went there with this lens: i wanted to find out how far i could push the footage from this cheap lens, before i decided which faster lens to get myself for christmas. I have a couple of primes (nikon 50/1.8, sigma 30/1.4) that would have performed much better, but i'm still waiting for some accessories, namely speedbooster (just cancelled the order and ordered to new x0.58 version) and dumb nikon-to-mft adapter - i didn't want to spend too much money before i had the camera for good.
Sorry i can not provide examples this time, i have deleted all test clips after verifying that it's really unusable... maybe i'll get more shots this weekend. What i can say is that i underestimated the difficulty of holding the camera still enough to avoid rolling shutter wobbling. Without IS i had a hard time even at 14mm, IS helps but still there is some wobbling left once you leave the safety of wide shots. I figure it will be impossible for me to get decent footage with the unstabilized 30 and 50 mil primes, have to try with a monopod once i get the nikon-mft-adapter. From what i found, and from what i need, i will probably buy the panasonic 12-35/2.8 instead of my formerly preferred Sigma 18-35/1.8 plus speedbooster, just because of the OIS. Portability and stealth are key to most of my shots, i don't want to draw attention, i want the people i film to act naturally, i want to not be take too seriously...

Mac Jaeger wrote:From what i found, and from what i need, i will probably buy the panasonic 12-35/2.8 instead of my formerly preferred Sigma 18-35/1.8 plus speedbooster, just because of the OIS. Portability and stealth are key to most of my shots, i don't want to draw attention, i want the people i film to act naturally, i want to not be take too seriously...

Couldn't be truer; it's expensive but absolutely vital as a primary lens with Power O.I.S.