considering buying the 4k BMPCC or the 6k...?

hello,
i have a question regarding using the MFT with speedbooster on the 4k or just get the 6k,

currently owning the GH5, previously had the BMPCC (1080P), first i want to say the the color science on the pocket is amazing even with the older model. the GH5 is also amazing after a lot of post editing
my question is, if i will use the SB 0.71 ultra that i have on the GH5 with the BMPCC4k which "sensor size" it will output for me? a full frame? close to super 35?
if using the 4k with SB will output for me a closer to super 35 (which i want) it will be great.
the 6k is a super 35 however i dont like the fact that there is no 4k RAW neither a 6k ProRess....and much more expensive

Seem like you have already made up your mind.

P4k with 0.71 ultra sb will give you less crop than the p6k. More like 1.55 on the p6k vs 1.35 on the p4k with sb 0.71. So basically you would be closer to a standard super 35 with the p4k and get dci 4K at lower cost (datarate) and less taxing to your system spec.

P6k is great for sharper 4K delivery, more room for cropping in post and better slow motion capability. Also BUT, You need to crop the sensor on the p6k to get 4K 60fps. That’s not a problem with the p4k at half the price..

Oyvind is right on.

I'm going to pass on the P6K and hold off for the P8K and may even pick up another P4K in a few months. I'm all EF so easy move for me to P6K, but the 0.71 SB gets me to full frame FoV and adds about an extra stop of light. You're forever cropped on the P6K while losing some light because of that. And the P4K is about $1000 cheaper (not counting the SB).

I'm hoping that 2.8K 120fps comes to the P4K if the innards are nearly identical to the P6K.

...however i dont like the fact that there is no 4k RAW neither a 6k ProRess.

On the raw side, you still get various crop modes—including 5.7K for proper oversampling.

And regarding ProRes, remember that full 6K braw 8:1 is 121MB/s where 4K ProRes comes in at 118MB/s.

Between the options provided you have lots of choices. If you want a baked in file you can go with full sensor readout to 4K ProRes and even bake the LUT if you like. That file is ready to go.

If the problem is data rate, you might still want to use the full res braw at 8:1 (12:1) or Q5 and then use the added resolution to your advantage in post.

That said: P4K is still just as great value (if not better) at $1295.

Thank you guys!!!
6k will wait for now most people will not see a different between 4K and 6k down samples to 4K
Who wants to buy a GH5?? Hahah just kidding but yes I will sale it (or use as B cam) I just love the colors on the pocket + I have created a LUT that applied to p4k/6k demo footage and it just awesome!!

Just to throw a spanner in the works.

A 6K without extra glass is going to give you a sharper image. If you're thinking angle of view you just need to look at the lens focal length, not the speedbooster, a wider lens can give you the same results.

Also just a heads up there's a new adapter called the magicbooster which will give a 1.1 crop for the 6K camera and they just launched a kickstarter yesterday. They did the same type of speedbooster for the Ursa.

All these people saying metabones on the 4k are distorting the truth in some ways. If you look at the comparison shots. LESS glass in front of your sensor is always going to give you a sharper image. The Speedbooster on the 4k becomes softer compared a lens with an equivalent angle of view on a native EF mount.

Just sayin, there's a lot of misinformation out there, the speedbooster isn't a panacea, you should be looking at angle of view of any given lens whether it's cropped or full frame and go from there. A 10mm spherical lens on the BMPCC 6K gives me about the same angle of view as my 24mm taking lens with a 1.33x anamorphic adapter. All up the 6K saved me $2000 compared with buying 2 different metabones speedboosters on the 4K, plus a straight EF to MFT metabones adapter, plus an external monitor for desqueeze of anamorphic footage.

The MFT mount I found was terrible for wiggle when using adapters which makes it bad for shooting a feature film with a motorized follow focus system as the lens shifts with that much wiggle. The EF mount on the 6K is rock solid and no wiggle at all.

I returned the 4K and upgraded to the 6K and am extremely happy I did. I no longer need metabones speedboosters and I can invest my money back into good prime T1.5 glass with the angles of view I need.

The 4K is a great camera but if you're looking to do high end work, go for the 6K, you won't regret it.

Without hesitation get the 6K. Some folks are really underestimating what a game changer the Pocket 6K is. This is the most Alexa-like, and most RED Helium-like image ever produced by Blackmagic. The motion cadence is fantastic too, even though it scans slower the OG4.6K, when you play back the image it has that special organic motion. Skin tones are beautiful. The 2.8K slow-motion is stunning. The touch autofocus on the 6K works great with Canon lenses. I have a Pocket 4K with Metabones XL and the single touch AF can never be trusted.

I've owned all the Ursa Mini 4.6K flavors, including the G2. In my opinion, the image on the Pocket 6K is prettier than the G2.

Blackmagic with their latest cameras and now the Pocket 6K, has to have deeply wounded RED. They are probably terrified and are probably barely selling any cameras. The rush to release the Komodo 6K seems to be the only hope the company has to survive the camera battles ahead between RED, Blackmagic, and Z-Cam...oh, and maybe Sigma FP.

Great to hear the emphatic endorsements for the BMPCC6K, but the BMPCC4K is still being sold (just over half the price of the BMPCC6K) and still has new development coming in the next release to help it match some of the capabilities of the BMPCC6K. I think one of the key decision points is your intended deliverables. If you plan to deliver 4K/UHD, the BMPCC6K is likely the better choice in terms of colour and detail. And for many purposes where ‘sharpness’ is a paramount concern, it should be the better choice. If you plan to deliver 2K/HD, then the BMPCC4K is well suited to your need; if you are shooting narrative work, it’s going to perform very well and if there is an inherently softer image, it works in your favour, to aid “the willing suspension of disbelief” at the core of all art. A small point but it can be more economical in terms of storage and post processing requirements when you consider the BMPCC6K uses up to 2.4x the data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The motion cadence is fantastic too, even though it scans slower the OG4.6K, when you play back the image it has that special organic motion.

funny you mention that, I looked a very few demos yet but instantly liked the motion, very film like. I am a new pocket 4k owner and I do not enjoy the feel of the moving image, I do not know why. I also think the 6k colors are more film like but that may be the grading.

guys now I need to re think all over...hmmm in my country the p6k is about 3K USD...the p4k around 1600USD...

Grain of salt.... The motion cadence stuff and claims for the color science (Alexa, etc.) are, well, just a bit subjective.

Every indication so far is that the cameras are far more similar than different. The few published comparisons bear this out.

Grain of salt.... The motion cadence stuff and claims for the color science (Alexa, etc.) are, well, just a bit subjective.

Every indication so far is that the cameras are far more similar than different. The few published comparisons bear this out.

Totally agree with this.

I own a P4K and .71x SB and would say this...

If you are delivering 4K content, get the 6K.
If you need high frame rate (120p) get the 6K.
If you are delivering HD and money doesn't matter that much, get the 6K.
If you are deliver HD and want the least expensive option overall (including storage for raw etc.) get the 4K.

The P4K is still an incredible deal. The 6K to me is even more incredible of a deal for that bigger sensor, higher res, and the EF mount. The EF mount and larger sensor is worth the cost difference in my opinion and the higher res is icing on the cake. The SB with P4K will give you a wider FOV than the 6K, but the image from the lens is not as good in my experience as native mount to the body. Also, there is apparently better moire control on the 6k from what I have seen compared to the 4k version. I have had to deal with some moire issues in footage with the 4K.

If I had the choice again right now, I would get the 6K without even thinking about it. Its a hell of a deal.

Good summary Duane. I have the 0.64x speedbooster and I also find the images a bit soft and a touch distorted especially compared to the same glass mounted directly to the 6k.

If I had it to do again, I would not change a thing. I like the flexibility of having one BMPCC4k on which I will now mostly use MFT lenses (great images and great portability - and no more SpeedBooster) and one BMPCC6k on which I can put the full-frame or aps-c cine lenses.

Seems we need a new thread:
“To SpeedBooster or Not to SpeedBooster, that is the question.”

For many years the SpeedBooster has met with general approval, but now, not so much! I hate spending all that money only to find out I don’t like the results and rightly so, I’d have to face a chorus of “I told you so!”

The strength of this international community is the reliable advice we can find here, almost always independent and untainted by self-interest. I’m thinking perhaps I should hold off on the SpeedBooster but I’m already down for the PL->mFT model which probably needs every vote of support or it will never see the light of day. Of course I can’t buy what doesn’t exist so this decision may end up waiting until 2020 anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk