Original black magic VS the new 4k

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 2:00 pm

I'm reading replies off of you tube videos that say the black magic 2.5 looks more cinematic than the new 4k model

What is the factual difference between the 2.5 model vs the 4k model for creating cinematic footage?

does the 2.5 require less editing (or cheaper) computer software?

I hope I am wording my questions correctly, I'm here to learn how this all works. :)
Offline
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 2:26 pm

Are you talking about the new Pocket 4K? Because the Production 4K camera released in 2013 had less dynamic range than the original 2.5K released in 2012. The 2.5K had rolling shutter and the Production 4K had global. The Production 4K sensor ended up in the URSA and the URSA Mini 4K.

I went from the 2.5K to the URSA Mini 4.6K and feel that the 4.6K creates just as great cinematic images. In fact, I have a much easier time with the 4.6K than the 2.5K. This is because of the improvements Blackmagic Design made with the color science and and dynamic range. The 4.6K is 15 stops of DR over the 13 stops from the 2.5K.

As to another question about "does the 2.5 require less editing (or cheaper) computer software?" Not so much software but more so hardware since it was 2,400x1,350 pixels versus 4,096x2160 or in the case of the 4.6K 4,608x2,592 pixels. More resolution simply needs a more powerful machine. Ultimately you should be fine editing with DaVinci Resolve.
"Movies are not watched. They are an encounter with a life's experience not your own." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 4:44 pm

timbutt2 wrote:Are you talking about the new Pocket 4K? Because the Production 4K camera released in 2013 had less dynamic range than the original 2.5K released in 2012. The 2.5K had rolling shutter and the Production 4K had global. The Production 4K sensor ended up in the URSA and the URSA Mini 4K.

I went from the 2.5K to the URSA Mini 4.6K and feel that the 4.6K creates just as great cinematic images. In fact, I have a much easier time with the 4.6K than the 2.5K. This is because of the improvements Blackmagic Design made with the color science and and dynamic range. The 4.6K is 15 stops of DR over the 13 stops from the 2.5K.

As to another question about "does the 2.5 require less editing (or cheaper) computer software?" Not so much software but more so hardware since it was 2,400x1,350 pixels versus 4,096x2160 or in the case of the 4.6K 4,608x2,592 pixels. More resolution simply needs a more powerful machine. Ultimately you should be fine editing with DaVinci Resolve.


Thanks for clearing that up, my dates are wrong, then it must be the original 2012 2.5 they were referring to.
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 793
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 6:57 pm

The sensor on the original 2.5k which started this entire path for Blackmagic had some...special sauce. A combination of the good dynamic range and the color science made it very 'film-like' for lack of a better term. The way the resolution was resolved into the image also made for a slightly softer image, once again contributing to that cinematic quality.

Fast forward to 2018, the Pocket 4k is smaller, cheaper, higher resolution with the ability to capture at full 4k DCI up to 60fps, and an ISO range which allows for some truly low-light shooting. Did I mention the swappable battery? The sensor resolves in a sharper image which some might associate with 'digital' sterility, but it's considerably easier to soften oversharp images than it is to sharpen soft ones.

Fundamentally there is a lot of subjectivity involved in comparing the two, but I will say this -- a filmic, cinematic image owes a lot to how the footage is shot. Lighting, lenses, environment, framing, and the subject can have a much stronger impact on how cinematic something looks and feels then what the sensor is actually capturing.

I shot a short narrative film on the 2.5k so I know it quite well, and a friend of mine shot a feature film on it. We both agree that if given a choice, we would choose the Pocket 4k in an instant since the improvements and added capabilities far outweigh the slightly less cinematic way the sensor captures the image.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
www.mbkproductions.com
Director, Colorist, Composer (not necessarily in that order).
Resolve 15.2, Mac OS X 10.13.5 (High Sierra), i7 8700k, 32Gb DDR4 RAM, Dual GTX 1080ti, Decklink Mini Monitor, USB 3.1 RAID
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2356
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 8:21 pm

I shot several shorts and a feature using one of the original 2.5K models, supplemented with an HD Pocket camera. Getting a cinematic image from either was a piece of cake, but the new Pocket 4K is a huge improvement in usability and color quality, and with braw coming soon, choosing that over one of the originals would be a no-brainer.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 990
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostSun Feb 10, 2019 10:55 pm

Attempting to answer the question of whether one camera is more "cinematic" than another camera is a futile exercise. The term is 100% subjective. The associated term "filmic" is equally impossible to pin down. For example, 16mm film is quite grainy while 70mm daylight stock can appear virtually grainless depending on how it is shot and processed. So does a cinematic image have grain or no grain? There's no single coherent answer to the question because there is no objective way to define what "cinematic" means.

A better question to ask is: Which camera will most efficiently achieve the desired look for the project it is being used to shoot? This is why careful cinematographers shoot camera + lens tests for each project they take on. They work hard to figure out which is the best tool for each job. Sometimes that might require more than one camera type/model. There is no single camera that is best for all projects.

If you need to own one single camera to execute your projects and achieve a variety of looks, as others in this thread have noted in various ways, I think you'll find the 4K Pocket to be a more flexible tool than the older BMD models.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1058
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 5:57 am

You know what? I may shoot something soon with my BMCC 2.5K. I've pulled it out of storage and am itching to see how it fairs. I know there's a dead pixel now, but at least Resolve has a tool for that. Overall, I'm excited to see how good the footage looks considering it's over 5+ years old.
"Movies are not watched. They are an encounter with a life's experience not your own." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 837
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Location: Mirboo North Victoria Australia
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 8:17 am

Rakesh Malik wrote:I shot several shorts and a feature using one of the original 2.5K models, supplemented with an HD Pocket camera. Getting a cinematic image from either was a piece of cake, but the new Pocket 4K is a huge improvement in usability and color quality, and with braw coming soon, choosing that over one of the originals would be a no-brainer.


I noticed that you had an article published in RedShark News. Looks like you do some interesting trips.

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/6139-make-sure-you-don-t-begin-adventure-filming-before-reading-our-essential-guide-first
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Daniel Alexander

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:38 pm

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 9:44 am

I still use mine everyday. Working on a mini web series proof of concept with it at the minute, a few test shots: https://vimeo.com/316502829/0207ae8e29
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 3:31 pm

Daniel Alexander wrote:I still use mine everyday. Working on a mini web series proof of concept with it at the minute, a few test shots: https://vimeo.com/316502829/0207ae8e29


Looks really good, cinematic, except the lighting on the speakers face looked more video-ish
Last edited by austindonald1 on Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 3:32 pm

timbutt2 wrote:You know what? I may shoot something soon with my BMCC 2.5K. I've pulled it out of storage and am itching to see how it fairs. I know there's a dead pixel now, but at least Resolve has a tool for that. Overall, I'm excited to see how good the footage looks considering it's over 5+ years old.

pLease share results

also, do you or anyone know why this original 2.5 cost so much more than the new bmpcc 4k in 2018?
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 3:33 pm

Australian Image wrote:
Rakesh Malik wrote:I shot several shorts and a feature using one of the original 2.5K models, supplemented with an HD Pocket camera. Getting a cinematic image from either was a piece of cake, but the new Pocket 4K is a huge improvement in usability and color quality, and with braw coming soon, choosing that over one of the originals would be a no-brainer.


I noticed that you had an article published in RedShark News. Looks like you do some interesting trips.

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/6139-make-sure-you-don-t-begin-adventure-filming-before-reading-our-essential-guide-first


do you mean 'raw' or is there something else coming out called braw?
Offline

austindonald1

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:54 pm
  • Real Name: Donald Austin

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 3:37 pm

i was looking at some of the high quality short films with the new bmpcc4k and noticed they were using the Panasonic lumix 12-35 f 2.8 (i think it spelled it correctly) and was wondering if there are any lens recommendations that are cheaper than this but work as good for cinematic short films and indoor portraits...
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 990
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 6:41 pm

If cost is a concern, you can get manual Nikon ai-s primes very cheaply on eBay and pair them with a cheap adaptor to m43

If you want/need image stabilization in an aperture stable zoom, that LUMIX 12-35 is your best bet at the price point
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Nick Vega

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:41 pm

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 9:09 pm

Id really like to see a shootout comparing the BMCC 2.5k to the new Pocket 4K in terms of its dynamic range.

The only camera Ive seen to rival the 2.5k is the Ursa Mini Pro (in regards to the BMD line up). The 4K production camera was extremely disappointing in its dynamic range. Honestly felt like a 9 stop camera, while the 2.5K felt like a hefty clean 12 stops, booth shooting raw. Calibrating both to my sekonic using the chart revealed similar results, give or take a half stop.

Anyone happen to have any material comparing each? The only enticing part of the 4K pocket seems to be improved noise/low light with higher ISO (great for run and gun), and 60 fps. But where does it sit with its dynamic range?
http://vimeo.com/nickvega
Offline
User avatar

Ulysses Paiva

  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:32 pm
  • Location: Pernambuco, Brasil

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostMon Feb 11, 2019 10:31 pm

Daniel Alexander wrote:I still use mine everyday. Working on a mini web series proof of concept with it at the minute, a few test shots: https://vimeo.com/316502829/0207ae8e29


Man, I would watch it in a theater without even bothering which camera was shot on or even coming close to think its a cheapper one, or cheap image. Blockbuster feeling I had when watching it.

I am another one who always thought the original 2.5k has a look so close to real film... if properly shot. Which it is in this case.
Ulysses Paiva
UPMD Filmes
http://www.upmdfilmes.com.br
Offline

Daniel Alexander

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:38 pm

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostTue Feb 12, 2019 7:07 am

Ulysses Paiva wrote:
Daniel Alexander wrote:I still use mine everyday. Working on a mini web series proof of concept with it at the minute, a few test shots: https://vimeo.com/316502829/0207ae8e29


Man, I would watch it in a theater without even bothering which camera was shot on or even coming close to think its a cheapper one, or cheap image. Blockbuster feeling I had when watching it.

I am another one who always thought the original 2.5k has a look so close to real film... if properly shot. Which it is in this case.



Thanks Ulysses,
I just think theres a secret sauce going on in the BMCC :D
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 793
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostTue Feb 12, 2019 8:18 am

After watching that clip a few times, here's what I would say makes it look and feel 'cinematic':

1. The acting/dialogue is good.

2. The framing/cinematography/lighting is good.

3. The sound is good.

4. The color grade is tasteful.

5. The editing is tight and efficient.

6. The shots are carefully framed to maximize the extras/props/set and make it look like there is a lot more going on than there actually is.

None of those things have anything to do with the actual camera or sensor, and have everything to do with the skill of the people who produced it.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
www.mbkproductions.com
Director, Colorist, Composer (not necessarily in that order).
Resolve 15.2, Mac OS X 10.13.5 (High Sierra), i7 8700k, 32Gb DDR4 RAM, Dual GTX 1080ti, Decklink Mini Monitor, USB 3.1 RAID
Offline

Daniel Alexander

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:38 pm

Re: Original black magic VS the new 4k

PostTue Feb 12, 2019 12:52 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:After watching that clip a few times, here's what I would say makes it look and feel 'cinematic':

1. The acting/dialogue is good.

2. The framing/cinematography/lighting is good.

3. The sound is good.

4. The color grade is tasteful.

5. The editing is tight and efficient.

6. The shots are carefully framed to maximize the extras/props/set and make it look like there is a lot more going on than there actually is.

None of those things have anything to do with the actual camera or sensor, and have everything to do with the skill of the people who produced it.


Thanks Kays, I agree that making something look 'cinematic' is largely down to those factors and I appreciate you checking out my work :D My personal taste/feeling is the original BMCC allows me to get to an aesthetically pleasing place more quickly than many other cameras I've tried. This was one of the first things I ever shot with the camera many years ago (sorry for multiple clip posts), no lighting, mic hanging off a tree and just a quick tweak of a LUT, dodgy props/editing. I find myself always coming back to the bmcc despite having access to others. If it wasn't for the lack of higher frame rates I think I'd stick with it as my personal cam.

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris Whitten, John Morris and 21 guests