Is there a chance to ever see an Anamorphic mode on BMPCC4K

Would be great to see some Pocket 4K footage with that Sirui anamorphic.

Phil, are you referring to true anamorphic lenses or adapters under $1,000?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No Film School: Blackmagic's 4K Pocket Cinema Camera Is Getting New Upgrades

The upcoming Firmware upgrade will allow for users to shoot anamorphic at 2.8K Central.
Blackmagic had us so busy showing off a bunch of great new products, and a host of new software features, that nobody really noticed a firmware update coming for the 4K Pocket Cinema Camera. And with it comes not only the ability to shoot anamorphic at almost 3K resolution, but it also supports for framing where the image gets cropped. While Blackmagic has yet to reveal the timing on the firmware upgrade, it's a significant one that will make shooting for filmmakers more effective in the long term.

The BMPCC4k can already shoot in widescreen, but up to now, it had been limited to 1080p. The new upcoming update will more than double the resolution for anamorphic mode, giving shooters another great shooting option.

And when shooting in Blackmagic Raw, users will be able to window the micro four-thirds image sensor to shoot 2.6K anamorphic uncompressed and at frame rates up to 120p. 2.8K widescreen is presumably available in other modes. That shows that the plucky little micro four-thirds image processor can handle a lot more than it was originally thought.

Previously, the 4K Pocket could only shoot anamorphic Raw in 1080p.

Framing guides and keeping level
The Camera Update will also give shooters new frame guides, including vertical video aspect ratios, plus support for making your own custom guides as well. And lastly, Blackmagic is giving BMPCC4K shooters a digital spirit level overlaid on the touchscreen to help shooters keep the image level when setting up their shots.

This new update gives the 4K Pocket legs to keep up with Raw development for a little while longer and assures 4K users who haven't upgraded to the 6K model, that Blackmagic isn't leaving them behind.

The update is listed as "coming soon," and all in all, while not a feature-laden update, it'll definitely be a useful one.
https://nofilmschool.com/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-4k-firmware-upgrade

Phil, are you referring to true anamorphic lenses or adapters under $1,000?

native lens, not an adapter. Small, lightweight, 700 Euros.

Search for Sirui 50mm anamorphic on YT, the Sirui website does not mention their new line of glass.

Peter, we're all in the loop. Just waiting now..

The attachment Anamorphic Test.jpg is no longer available

Here's a quick comparison shot I did. with and without the Vormax 1.33 Anamorphic lens
Same setup, same lens. exact same spot.

I'm looking forward to shooting some actual film with it.

I recently bought an Anamorphic adapter Vormaxlens Compact 1.33x rev.1 mount 67mm on EBay for $107.00 USD. I shot some test video images in Prores 422 on a BMPCC 4K.

The adapter greatly reduced the depth of field and makes the edges more blurry as a result. It was also harder to focus (I forgot to pack my loupe) due to this blurriness and due to using a low contrast lens on a mirrorless camera. In addition, there is some chromatic aberration. This is a prototype and was sold for parts. There is now a version 3 of this adapter available for $169.00 USD that may have an improved image.

Here is an HD image screenshot with the adapter on top and without it if you scroll to the image on the bottom. The taking lens is a 1966 MIR-1 37mm at F/2.8 at 1/250 sec. It is adapted with an M39 to M42 ring and a $4.00 USD M42 to MFT adapter.

Vormax compact 133 top & without bottom

HDMIR1Vmx_352Top16x9Bottom.jpg (380.39 KiB) Viewed 12348 times

Here is a C4K image screenshot with the adapter on top and without it if you scroll to the image on the bottom. On both the top and bottom, the taking lens is a 1966 MIR-1 37mm at F/2.8 at 1/500 sec. It is adapted from M39 to EOS and then to a Aputure DEC Lensregain focal reducer to MFT.

Vormax compact 133 top & without bottom

C4KMIR1Vmx_368Top&16x9Bottom.jpg (442.16 KiB) Viewed 12348 times

Here is an HD image screenshot with the adapter on top and without it if you scroll to the image on the bottom. The taking lens is a 1993 Helios 44M-7 58mm at F/2.0 at 1/500 sec. The slight distortion is due to my inexperience in adjusting the Vormax adapter to line up properly.

Vormax compact 133 top & without bottom

HD44M7Vmx_361Top16x9Bottom.jpg (522.64 KiB) Viewed 12348 times

Along with the video tests I also did some stills of the Vormax Compact adapter. I corrected them and some of the softness is now gone as if I had shot the scenes raw.

HDMIRVmx250_10101459_C808.jpg (989.08 KiB) Viewed 12312 times

C4KMIRAnfLrVmx500_10101529_C828.jpg (726.2 KiB) Viewed 12312 times

HD44M7Vmx500_10101515_C817.jpg (875.95 KiB) Viewed 12312 times

Using a handheld BMPCC 4K, I shot a still in UHD on my Vormax compact 1.33x anamorphic adapter with a Voightlander Nokton 42.5mm mft taking lens at F8 from a distance of approximately 10 to 12 feet. I then paired it with a video capture from a similar angle shot taken much closer using a Voightlander Nokton 17.5mm mft lens.

I was told that the best focus range for this Vormax adapter is from 10 to 20 meters. This is why the edge focus is so blurry. The landscape helps to mask this however.

Vormax adapter/Voightlander 42.5mm top & Voightlander 17.5mm bottom

4KVoight42VmxF8_867_133TopVoight17Bottom.jpg (676.89 KiB) Viewed 12109 times

I am in the process of learning how to position these oval aperture lenses. In previous posts I had positioned the oval horizontally (the string gives a nicer flare this way) which did not compress the image on my anamorfake Helios 44-2 and MIR-1 lenses. I am now using the oval in the vertical position.

I attached the Vormax compact 1.33x anamorphic adapter to my anamorfake 1966 MIR-1 F/3.5 fixed 37mm lens through a .75 Aputure DEC Lensregain focal reducer at a slightly closer distance in HD. This was also handheld. I set the pixel size to 1.33 in post. Here it is in comparison to the Voightlander Nokton 17.5mm mft lens. Scroll the picture to see the comparison picture below it.

Vormax adapter/MIR-1 37mm top & Voightlander 17.5mm bottom

HDMIR1LrVmx_785CCSFLairTop&16x9Bottom.jpg (671.6 KiB) Viewed 12109 times

If you position the squeeze oval horizontally, and you capture on a 16:9 sensor, you are essentially converting your deliverable to 4:3 aspect ratio.

16:9 = 1.78
horizontal oval squeeze 1.33x
1.78/1.33=1.33



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I recently received a Diopter MultiCoated glass Vormaxlens filter -0.3/+0.3/+0.5 72mm that I got from Vormaxlens on EBay for $20.00 USD. I placed that on the end of my Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter. I screwed this onto a Voightlander 42.5mm mft lens set to F/8 and ISO 800 and took these handheld pictures from 3 to 5 feet from the foreground objects on my BMPCC 4K. I choose the 1.33 pixel size in post.

HD Vormax compact 1.33/+0.3 Diopter/Voightlander 42.5mm lens

HDVoight42VmxDiptF8_891_133.jpg (868.29 KiB) Viewed 12074 times

HD Windowed Vormax compact 1.33/+0.3 Diopter/Voightlander 42.5mm lens

HDVoight42VmxDiptF8_894_133.jpg (939.2 KiB) Viewed 12074 times

Cinema 4K Vormax compact 1.33/+0.3 Diopter/Voightlander 42.5mm lens

C4KVoight42VmxDiptF8_890_133.jpg (945.25 KiB) Viewed 12074 times

Although nowhere near the same cinematic quality, can a used $435.00 USD Voightlander 42.5mm mft lens, a $107.00 USD Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter and a $20.00 +0.3 Diopter produce a separation of a foreground object from the background that in any way resembles an expensive $100,000.00+ anamorphic lens?

Vormax compact 1.33/+0.3 Diopter/Voightlander 42.5mm lens top & Voightlander 17.5mm bottom

C4KVoight42VmxDiptF8_890_133Top&Voight17Bottom.jpg (661.92 KiB) Viewed 12104 times

Scene from William Wyler's Ben Hur 1959, Robert Surtees DP, Panavision Auto Panatar

BenHurB.jpg (107.1 KiB) Viewed 12104 times

I did some tests of the new anamorphic modes offered by the 6.6 firmware update to the BMPCC 4K camera a little over a week ago. I did this on the campus of City College of San Francisco.

These have a subject in the foreground to help evaluate what effect a Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter has on subject to background separation. Each of these pictures has the desqueezed anamorphic image, and if you scroll up or down, the regular image at that sensor mode. I should have used a larger monitor to dial in the adapter's oval aperture to eliminate the angular distortion.

This 4K 2.4:1 (4096 x 1720) mode image was shot using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax +.3 and +.5 diopters in Blackmagic Raw 3.1 and the same lens with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer on the bottom. I used 450 5600K led lights on the top, and 900 bi-color led lights on the bottom. The wall is 12 feet behind me. I'm 9 feet from the camera. The image is too wide.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter top & without bottom

Oly28Vmx-3+5DBR4K24_499Top&Lg500BottomA.jpg (400.68 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

This 2.8K anamorphic (2880 x 2160 4:3) mode image was shot in Blackmagic Raw 3.1 using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer and the same taking lens with the anamorphic adapter plus Vormax +.3 and +.5 diopters on the bottom. Both images used the Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer. I'm using 900 bi-color led lights here and I'm 15 feet from the camera. The giant Olmec head is a little softer with the anamorphic adapter at 8 to 11 feet away at the edge.

Olympus OM 28mm top & Vormax 1.33 adapter bottom

ly284K28_513Top&Vmx+3+5D_532_133.jpg (549.61 KiB) Viewed 11695 times

For comparison, this Cinema 4K DCI (4096 x 2160) mode image was shot in Blackmagic Raw 3.1 using an Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 lens with Vormax +.3 and +.5 diopters plus the anamorphic adapter and a 1966 Soviet Mir-1 37mm F/2.8 lens on the bottom. I'm using 450 5600K led lights on the top image.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter top & Mir-1 37mm bottom

Oly28Vmx-3+5DBRC4K_C492Top&Mir1An_465BottomA.jpg (573.07 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

Lots of separation!

In the post I made last week I neglected to scale down two of the Vormax anamorphic images. I corrected them and edited the post.

I did some other tests using the 2.6K 2688 x 1512 mode with the Vormax compact 1.33 adapter on the BMPCC 4K.

I had a problem with my adapted 1980's Olympus OM lens in that the aperture was frozen wide open at F/2.0 and in need of servicing. This lens is known for it's classic bokeh, not it's sharpness. I compensated for it with a higher shutter speed. A modern, sharper, native mount 28mm lens with less chromatic aberration would be a better match for the Vormax anamorphic adapter.

This 2.6K image was shot using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax +.3 and +.5 diopters in braw 3.1 and the same lens without the adapter on the bottom. Both images used the Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter top & without bottom

Oly28LgVmx+3+5DBR3126_529Top&_519Bottom.jpg (477.88 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

This HD image was shot with the 2.6K option using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax +.3 and +.5 diopters in Prores 422 HQ and the same lens without the adapter on the bottom. Both images used the Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer.
The anamorphic HD 2.6K image looks similar to the 2.6K anamorphic image above in spite of it taking up less space. This 21 second Prores HQ HD 2.6K clip is 569 MB, while the 16 second 2.6K Braw 3.1 clip is 851 MB.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter top & without bottom

Oly28LgVmx+3+5D422HQHD26_526Top&524Bottom.jpg (448.5 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

This HD image was shot with the 2.6K option using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax -.3 and +.5 diopters in Prores 422 HQ and the same lens without the adapter in Blackmagic raw 3.1 on the bottom using the 2.6K mode. Both images used the Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer.
I added some contrast on my face and lightened it in post to compensate for the led light at half strength in the anamorphic image on top.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter top & without bottom

Oly28LgVmx-3+5DHQHD26_507Top&BR26_501Bottom.jpg (474.13 KiB) Viewed 11473 times

This 2.6K image was shot using a Voightlander 42.5mm F/0.95 MFT taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax -.3 and +.5 diopters in Blackmagic raw 3.1 and below it is a Mir-1 37mm F/2.8 lens in C4K DCI with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer in Blackmagic raw Q0.

This is in the middle of the Vormax adapter's sweet spot in terms of distance to the Olmec head as it is 45 feet away. The focus was set at the near field however to myself as the subject. My body at 9 feet is softer and subject to chromatic aberration largely due to edge distortion from the Vormax anamorphic adapter.

I added a little color and contrast to my part of the frame to compensate for the poor lighting in the shade. This was a test shot for a storyboard where an artist is painting at an easel in the center of the frame with a model to be added later in the distance in front of the Olmec head. That is why there is nothing in the center where the focus and clarity would be best.

I’m taking it that you’re happy having that 2.6K capability on the BMPCC4K, Don. I’m looking forward to doing more SLR Magic APO T2.1 prime plus 1.33x-65 Anamorphot tests with it to see if it’s a good option for a feature film or documentary.

Very pleased with the 4K 2.4:1 window on the BMPCC4K plus the Tokina 11-20mm T2.9.

Yes, I'm pleased with my El cheapo setup for now. HD 2.6K seems pretty efficient with the limitations I am facing. I am limited by a prototype adapter and am still in search of an affordable medium wide lens at the edge of what the adapter will handle. My Voightlander 17.5mm mft vignettes badly on the Vormax adapter and I need a sharp 28mm if I am in a confined area.

I'd like to see what your setup can produce. This style seems like a game changer and we need to convince a producer that all the effort of blocking and changing the frame is worth the added expense.

So if I follow your example then I should shoot in 4K DCI with a 1.33x anamorphic adapter instead of the 2.0x one and crop the edges off.

This is an example of that crop. This 4K 2.4:1 mode image was shot using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 taking lens on a Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter with +.3 and +.5 diopters in braw 3.1. The size of this clip is 1.4 GB for 14:17 sec. This is 103 MB/sec., while the 2.6K is 53 MB/sec. and the HD 2.6K clip is 27 MB/sec. If my math is correct then with a horizontal crop at .66, the 4K 2.4's deliverable is 2703x1129=3 megapixels vs. the 2.6K (2688x1120) at 3 megapixels and the HD 2.6K (1920x800) resolution at 1.5 megapixels. For comparison, Cinema 4K DCI (4096x2160) offers a 8.9 megapixel image.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter -4K 2.4 anamorphic cropped edges

Oly28Vmx-3+5DBR4K24_C499B_66.jpg (965.44 KiB) Viewed 11389 times

Here is the same picture without the crop.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter -4K 2.4 anamorphic

Oly28Vmx-3+5DBR4K24_C499DWide.jpg (988.29 KiB) Viewed 11392 times

I also compared using the Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter on the BMPCC 4K at UHD vs. a similar looking clip at HD in the 2.6K window.

This HD image was shot with the 2.6K option using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer taking lens on an anamorphic adapter with Vormax -.3 and +.5 diopters in Prores 422 HQ and the same lens and adapter without the focal reducer in Blackmagic raw Q0 UHD on the bottom. The HD 2.6K clip is 507MB for 19 sec. at 27 MB/sec. and the UHD clip is 2.1GB for 18 sec. at 125 MB/sec.

Don, to clarify, when I’m shooting 4K 2.4:1, I use the spherical lenses only and then I generate a widescreen look without use of anamorphic lenses or adapters.

When I’m shooting 2.6K 16:9, that is with spherical lenses and the 1.33x-65 Anamorphot to give the widescreen look with some anamorphic character.

I’d then generate HD widescreen deliverables.

If I was shooting 2.8K with anamorphics, then I’d generate DCI 2K widescreen deliverables.

UHD or 2.6K -> HD
2.8K -> 2K

So, for an HD deliverable you use an anamorphic 1.33x adapter which restricts your depth of field for softer out of focus areas and shoot in UHD or 2.6K resolution and then downsample the clips in post.

By using the HD resolution to capture the clip and selecting a 4K or 2.6K sensor area setting, I assume that you will use the larger sensor area to do the downsampling in camera instead of wasting money on faster memory and using up GPU and CPU resources on your computer in post.

If you are not using special effects, like keying in green screen in your production, is there an observable difference in image quality? Will the editing software in post color or distort the image when it downsamples?

All of the following clips were processed in Adobe Premiere Pro. These are screen shots from that program, cropped and exported in Photoshop.

Here is a close-up at 200% of the in-focus area (I admit that I did not have a cameraman to pull focus, I focused first on something else) of the UHD clip (2.1GB 18 sec. 125 MB/sec.) compared with the HD 2.6K (507MB 19 sec. 27 MB/sec.) clip.
This HD image was shot with the 2.6K sensor area setting using a Olympus OM 28mm F/2.0 with an Aputure DEC Lensregain .75 focal reducer taking lens on a Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter with -.3 and +.5 diopters on the left and the same setup without the focal reducer and with an led light at half the leds (450) held closer on the right. The focal reducer gave me an extra stop of light on the HD 2.6K clip. Both were shot on a BMPCC 4K. The HD 2.6K sensor area setting clip was shot in Prores HQ and the UHD clip was shot in Blackmagic raw Q0. The quality is virtually identical.

Olympus OM 28mm Vormax 1.33 adapter HD 2.6K Left & UHD Right

Oly28LgVmx-3+5DHQHD26_C507Left&UHD_C497RightCU.jpg (405.67 KiB) Viewed 11271 times

Here is a clip at HD resolution in a 4K sensor area setting on (110MB 4 sec. -27 MB/sec.) on top compared to a UHD clip (391MB for 3 sec. -130 MB/sec.) on the bottom. Both were shot in Prores HQ using a 1966 soviet era Zeiss designed Mir-1 37mm F/2.8 lens at F/3.5 on a Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter with a -.3 diopter on a BMPCC 4K from a distance of about 12 feet.

Mir-1 37mm Vormax 1.33 HD 4K top & UHD bottom

Mir1AnVmx-3DHQHD4K_C471Top&HQUHD_C467Bottom.jpg (597.67 KiB) Viewed 11271 times

Here is a 400% close-up of the in-focus area of the HD 4K sensor area setting clip on the right compared with the UHD clip on the left. The quality is virtually identical.

Mir-1 37mm Vormax 1.33 HD 4K right & UHD left

Mir1AnVmx-3DHQHD4K_C471Top&HQUHD_C467BottomCU.jpg (563.31 KiB) Viewed 11271 times

Don, you’re getting very comparable results which is impressive. Good to know. I haven’t examined my results at 400% but I have occasionally looked at 300% in post. I prefer to do my downscaling in post, but seeing your results, if the situation required that I downscale in camera, I’d still feel confident of the results. Really appreciate your precision and efforts on our behalf.

I’ve decided to avoid upscaling footage in post though some say you can get good results going from 2K to 4K for example. Now that I have 1 TB media for both my cameras, I’m going to capture mostly shooting 4K 2.4:1 spherical and UHD 1.33x anamorphic and downscale in post for projects with roughly 2.5 hours or less footage for the day. For longer projects I’ll trust the downscaling in camera based on your results.

I delivered the results of the musical theatre yesterday and the client was all smiles as we reviewed the video. Earlier I posted I was having difficulties, but I did overcome them all and personally I was pleased with the work after all. So my big gamble of exposing in the lower quartile of the histogram (so I’d be able to cope with those unpredictable portions of the performance with very much brighter lighting) worked out well overall.

The next theatre project in December, I’ll be shooting BRAW and CinemaDNG on the BMPCC4K and URSA Mini 4.6K respectively and I’ll be biting my nails until I see the final video from that exercise. The sensors are different but I’ll use Colour Science version 4 for both and that will help a lot to match the look. Cross my fingers I can pull it off.

I’m really interested to see the actual benefit of the greater dynamic range of the URSA Mini 4.6K and I can expose that a stop or two higher in the histogram due to the better dynamic range.

found the official website for Sirui lenses (actually only one at the moment) for those who are interested:

https://cf.sirui.com/Anamorphic-Lens.html?lang=en-us

... and an interesting Tom Antos review of DZOFilm 20-70mm T2.9 MFT Parfocal Cine Lens and Vazen 40mm T2 1.8x Anamorphic Lens, as well as the first review of the soon available Sirui 50mm.

At a camera show I found a Super 16 C mount lens with a shaved mft adapter for only $65. It is a Fujinon TV 35mm F/1.7 lens. I also got a Hoya IR cut UV filter plus a Tiffen variable ND filter and tried them out with my Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter with a +.5 diopter. I stood about 9 feet from the camera with the Olmec head abount 35 feet behind me and a wall about 60 feet away. The advantage of using the ND filter is that I can leverage the speed of the lens by setting it at F/2.8 to help separate me from the background with a shallow depth of field. This complete setup cost me $300.

Here I am using the Blackmagic raw resolution that was designed for the S16 image circle on the BMPCC 4K, 2.6K 16:9 (2688 x 1512) on the top. There is no vignetting. A reflection from a yellow taco truck gave me some light on my face.

For comparison, here is the same scene using a more closed aperture on a Voightlander 42.5mm F/0.95 mft lens at the HD resolution on the bottom with a +.3 and a +.5 diopter on the bottom. The tree almost looks like I could hold it in my hand due to the wide depth of field. I'm sure that I can get more out of this lens if I set it up the same way as the Fujinon and stand in the center.

Fujinon 35mm Vormax adapter top & Voightlander 42.5mm Vormax adapter HD bottom

Fuj35Vmx+5DIRNDBR3126F28_C016Top&Voight42+3+5DHD_545Bottom.jpg (302.97 KiB) Viewed 10983 times

Here is the same Fujinon 35mm setup shot using Prores HQ 422 at HD resolution with the sensor area setting of 4K (3840 x 2160) on top. Although the lens almost covers the image circle, some vignetting is present. The vignetting was made worse by the darkening of shadows in post processing for the face.

For comparison, the same Voightlander 42.5mm F/0.95 mft lens at the HD resolution on the bottom with a +.3 and a +.5 diopter on the bottom. Both of these were captured at around 27 MB/sec., saving space.

Fujinon 35mm Vormax adapter HD4K top & Voightlander 42.5mm Vormax adapter HD bottom

Fuj35Vmx+5DIRNDHQHD4KF28_019Top&Voight42+3+5DHD_545Bottom.jpg (310.15 KiB) Viewed 10983 times

To see if the Vormax compact 1.33 anamorphic adapter provides a deeper look, here is a comparison to the same lens without the adapter and diopter on the bottom. The top image was shot at 2.6K 16:9 (2688 x 1512) resolution. Both were shot at F/2.8.

Fujinon 35mm Vormax adapter 2.6K top & Fujinon 35mm bottom

Fuj35Vmx5DIRNDBR3126F28_C016Top&Fuj35_015Bottom.jpg (331.53 KiB) Viewed 10983 times