Blackmagic Forum

I think im starting to catch on....

in the example with the flower, the light rays projecting from the top of a flower, travel downward and the bottom of the flower, travels upwards and when they meet at the focal point, they overlap, causing the top to be on the bottom and the bottom to be on the top, causing the image to look upside down even though in reality, it is not upside down.

feel free to correct me if im not getting it right...

Yes, it is upside down. If you ever encounter a classical plate camera, you can see it for yourself.
Even the image on your retina is upside down, but your brain has learned very early to compensate for that.

Of course, camera electronics care for that as well.

In the '70's at art school we taught from a great little book called "Visual Perception". It may have been this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Visual-Perceptio ... ay&sr=8-12

In it there was an experiment. A group of students was fitted with prismatic goggles that flipped images upside down that they wore all waking hours. In 3 days they adjusted and were seeing right side up. They took the goggles away and they all saw upside down until they re-adjusted, about 3 days later.

Must have been six days of extreme nausea at the least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would think so, like walking around sea sick!
Cheers

That is bizarre. There's so much about our own visual systems - human anatomy - that I find surprising. Astounding even.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The course was instrumental in understanding the difference between a camera which freezes an image in time, even a movie camera (many images), and the eye/brain connection which is more of an active scanning system that intelligently assembles an impression of what's happening in front of the viewer. The importance of which is how to make the camera material more similar to what we experience in our heads when we see.

im curious as to why no one mentioned the Super Takumar 50 mm f1.4 (besides from being radioactive, lol)?

anyone with good advice on which lens to buy for indoor cinematic looking head/bodyshots?

I'm excited to announce, after carefully reviewing all the camera options, i came across an unused/unopened BMPCC on ebay with a winning bid of $455.00. I guess time will tell if i made the right choice.

I'm excited to announce, after carefully reviewing all the camera options, i came across an unused/unopened BMPCC on ebay with a winning bid of $455.00. I guess time will tell if i made the right choice.

You do realize that this is the OLD pocket camera and not the new 4K version, right?

If you are buying the old version because you read somewhere that the sensor is more "cinematic" you will likely be disappointed. "Cinematic looking" footage refers to an ideal of what our minds eye sees in the cinema. Most of which is heavily lit to look "unlit", and in very carefully designed sets to appear as if the actors just walked into any room that just happened to contain contrasting colors and textures, perfect acoustics, and a missing 4th wall to make room for a natural camera angle. In other words, "cinematic" has very little to do with the camera & lens, and almost everything to do with what is put in front of the camera and lens by very expensive crews of specialists in all these areas and many more.

Ok that said, for the type of shooting you describe, on ANY camera, you will want a fast (wide aperture, F 1.2-F2) prime lens of "wide normal" to "long normal" length, depending on the size of the rooms you expect to be working in. A better starting place for a first lens is a zoom. I have been using the Olympus 12-40 F2.8 Zoom on my PCC4K and it's an extremely versatile lens. It does not, however, have any image stabilization. There is a Panasonic zoom of similar focal length that includes IS, but these lenses get more expensive, and you did not specify a price range.

The original BMPCC camera has a smaller sensor than the new BMPCX4K. The Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 would give you a modest wide angle to a portrait view that may be suitable for closeups. As would the 12-40mm which is a short telephoto. When you’re not in a controlled situation, such as outdoors may be, the BMPCC can lend itself to an attractive image.

Watch for moire though in some situations. True of any BMD Camera but perhaps more susceptible on a smaller sensor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you’re not in a controlled situation, such as outdoors may be, the BMPCC can lend itself to an attractive image.

Rick,

No doubt it will, but judging by the wording of this question I fear the user may be expecting the camera to do something that only a crew of expensive professionals can actually provide. Camera choice does not equal "cinematic footage", people do.

True, but the original Pocket camera can give a nice classic, organic look to it’s images. For head shots on a S16 format (which the original Pocket camera is) 29mm is the portrait look focal length. So a 25-30mm prime lens will have you that perspective look. In a MFT mount lens, the Voightlander 25mm, SLR Magic 25mm and the excellent Panasonic Leica 25mm DG lenses will work. All three have a softer organic look available when shot wide open, and a sharper, crisp look stopped down 2 to 3 stops.

Lighting will also be a contributing factor, as will framing, etc. but having a decent camera to start with helps. The orig Pocket is a fine little camera with in its limitations. I would also be looking at getting a good small cage for this ca pmera, like the Wooden Camera Pocket Cage or the Smallrig Pocket Cage.
Cheers

Ric Murray wrote:

When you’re not in a controlled situation, such as outdoors may be, the BMPCC can lend itself to an attractive image.

Rick,

No doubt it will, but judging by the wording of this question I fear the user may be expecting the camera to do something that only a crew of expensive professionals can actually provide. Camera choice does not equal "cinematic footage", people do.

after watching numerous bmpcc videos and indoor closeups, I am disagreeing with "Camera choice does not equal cinematic footage, people do".

Denny Smith wrote:True, but the original Pocket camera can give a nice classic, organic look it’s images. For head shots on a S16 format (which the original Pocket camera is) 29mm is the portrait look focal length. So a 25-30mm prime lens will have you the perspective look. In a MFT mount lens, the Foightlsnder 25mm, SLR Magic 25mm and the excellent Panasonic Leica 25mm DG lenses will work. All three have a softer organic look available when shot wide open, and a sharper, crisp look stopped down 2 to 3 stops.

Lighting will also be a contributing factor, as will framing, etc. but having a decent camera to start with helps. The origPicket is a fine little camera with in its limitations. I would also be look8ng at getting a good small cage for this ca era, like the Wooden Camera Pocket Cage or the Smallrig Pocket Cage.
Cheers

classic organic film look is the look i am acquiring, i see professional head shots look like cookie cutter photos, overly sharp, too bright, just not a pleasing look for a $400 head shot session.

Denny Smith wrote:True, but the original Pocket camera can give a nice classic, organic look it’s images. For head shots on a S16 format (which the original Pocket camera is) 29mm is the portrait look focal length. So a 25-30mm prime lens will have you the perspective look. In a MFT mount lens, the Foightlsnder 25mm, SLR Magic 25mm and the excellent Panasonic Leica 25mm DG lenses will work. All three have a softer organic look available when shot wide open, and a sharper, crisp look stopped down 2 to 3 stops.

Lighting will also be a contributing factor, as will framing, etc. but having a decent camera to start with helps. The origPicket is a fine little camera with in its limitations. I would also be look8ng at getting a good small cage for this ca era, like the Wooden Camera Pocket Cage or the Smallrig Pocket Cage.
Cheers

just received camera, I was fortunate to have winning bid on a new/unopened bmpcc for the same price they are selling used for. I ordered the small rig cage, a descent tripod, looking to get the external mic, and not sure if i should put a view finder directly on camera, or buy a 5 or 7 inch monitor, so i can 'fine tune' the focus and exposure. I know it wont take much to turn a fine looking cinema camera into blaah footage such as being out of focus and incorrect exposure. i have so much learning to do, i get a headache
just thinking about how much i need to learn.

Do the lens you list already the size of an mft prime lens mount , or do i need the metabones speed booster and will that alter the size of the lens?

here is the look im going for

another headshot look id like to achieve, both of these videos were created without an expensive crew.

what is anyone's thoughts on the lens pictured on the bmpccc box? A Panasonic lumix 20mm f1.8?

This look is created by the use of lighting and the actor’s timing, cinematography is more about light and how you use it, than it is equipment.
Cheers

austindonald1 wrote:what is anyone's thoughts on the lens pictured on the bmpccc box? A Panasonic lumix 20mm f1.8?

Yeah, perfect. Go for it and post some of your work here as soon as you have it done.

Ric Murray wrote:

austindonald1 wrote:what is anyone's thoughts on the lens pictured on the bmpccc box? A Panasonic lumix 20mm f1.8?

Yeah, perfect. Go for it and post some of your work here as soon as you have it done.

but i cant get the sigma art 18-35 off my mind

The Sigma 18-35 creatrs a sharp, clinical looking image, if that is what you want, get one — I am however giving it a miss. The Oly 14-35 f/2.0 is what I prefer p. It has a better overall image quality, which I prefer.
Cheers

austindonald1 wrote:just received camera, I was fortunate to have winning bid on a new/unopened bmpcc for the same price they are selling used for. I ordered the small rig cage, a descent tripod, looking to get the external mic, and not sure if i should put a view finder directly on camera, or buy a 5 or 7 inch monitor, so i can 'fine tune' the focus and exposure.

A monitor is better because it gives you more and better ways to check focus and exposure (false color for exposure, bigger screen for checking focus, etc.), but there's a crucial catch: the mini-HDMI input on the original BMPCC is weak and vulnerable to breaking. If it breaks, it takes the whole camera with it. The smallrig cage includes some screws for stabilizing the mini-HDMI cable at the input and you should use those if you go with a monitor.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be finding compatible SD cards. It's almost impossible to find any today because SanDisk made some changes in the last year or so and the models formerly recommended for the BMPCC (and the 5" video assist and the Micro Cinema Camera) no longer work.

Another thing in your long list of purchases and things to learn about is neutral density filters; you'll need a set of those (or a variable ND filter, more convenient but can be problematic since it's actually a polarizer). If you get a matte box you can efficiently use the same filters on all your lenses no matter their diameter; check out the Zip Box models from Wooden Camera. And you'll need an IR/UV filter for each lens too. When I was first starting out, I thought the only reason to use a ND filter was to allow you to open the lens wider in bright sunlight so you could still achieve shallow depth of field, and that's true but with the original BMPCC there's the added consideration that the image starts to get affected by diffraction if you stop down beyond f5.6 or so (one of the many things I learned from Denny Smith here on this forum). I notice the image getting softer around f11 and it's noticeably worse at f22. As someone who started out doing landscape photography and Elliot-Porter-style nature shots, I was used to maximizing depth of field and instinctively went for small apertures when outdoors...that's not what you generally want in cinematography though and it becomes a problem with the original BMPCC.

There's a generally useful and recent survival guide to the original BMPCC here: http://data.pleintekst.nl//Blackmagic_P ... Guide.html Some things are already out of date on that page, including the SD card advice.

Brad Hurley wrote:

austindonald1 wrote:just received camera, I was fortunate to have winning bid on a new/unopened bmpcc for the same price they are selling used for. I ordered the small rig cage, a descent tripod, looking to get the external mic, and not sure if i should put a view finder directly on camera, or buy a 5 or 7 inch monitor, so i can 'fine tune' the focus and exposure.

A monitor is better because it gives you more and better ways to check focus and exposure (false color for exposure, bigger screen for checking focus, etc.), but there's a crucial catch: the mini-HDMI input on the original BMPCC is weak and vulnerable to breaking. If it breaks, it takes the whole camera with it. The smallrig cage includes some screws for stabilizing the mini-HDMI cable at the input and you should use those if you go with a monitor.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be finding compatible SD cards. It's almost impossible to find any today because SanDisk made some changes in the last year or so and the models formerly recommended for the BMPCC (and the 5" video assist and the Micro Cinema Camera) no longer work.

Another thing in your long list of purchases and things to learn about is neutral density filters; you'll need a set of those (or a variable ND filter, more convenient but can be problematic since it's actually a polarizer). If you get a matte box you can efficiently use the same filters on all your lenses no matter their diameter; check out the Zip Box models from Wooden Camera. And you'll need an IR/UV filter for each lens too. When I was first starting out, I thought the only reason to use a ND filter was to allow you to open the lens wider in bright sunlight so you could still achieve shallow depth of field, and that's true but with the original BMPCC there's the added consideration that the image starts to get affected by diffraction if you stop down beyond f5.6 or so (one of the many things I learned from Denny Smith here on this forum). I notice the image getting softer around f11 and it's noticeably worse at f22. As someone who started out doing landscape photography and Elliot-Porter-style nature shots, I was used to maximizing depth of field and instinctively went for small apertures when outdoors...that's not what you generally want in cinematography though and it becomes a problem with the original BMPCC.

There's a generally useful and recent survival guide to the original BMPCC here: http://data.pleintekst.nl//Blackmagic_P ... Guide.html Some things are already out of date on that page, including the SD card advice.

I am wondering why this site did not list the lens on the bmpcc box along with a panasonic lumix 12-35?? looking at bmpcc videos, the panasonic lumix with speed booster seems to be nailing it in low light conditions.
One of the major frustrations trying to figure out which lens to buy after watching various you tube videos, is they all fluctuate, some look like movie theatre qualiti, but others have this terrible blur or distortion, looking like someones 5 year old grabbed a dslr and hit the record button... very frustrating.

You really can not go by Utube, unless you know the reviewer knows what he/§she is doing. As you discovered, shooting sample footydepymore on the skill of the person shoot the clip, rather than the gear.

You really need to shoot your own samples, try renting or borrowing some lenses you are interested in.
Dealers like B&H or Adorama let you buy, try and return if the lens is not what you hoped it would be.

That said, there are several lenses that are very good in the MFT lineup. The Panny 12-35 ver2 works well, was one of the most popular zooms on the original Pocket camera, as were the Panny Leica Primes, and the new 12-60 f/2.8 Zoom was designed with video in mind, and works well on the smaller S16 sensor.
The new Oly Pro lens series is also excellent.
Cheers

austindonald1 wrote:[ looking at bmpcc videos, the panasonic lumix with speed booster seems to be nailing it in low light conditions..

As far as I know, the "panasonic lumix with speedbooster" combination doesn't exist. The speedboosters adapt one lens type to another, so you have a number of speedboosters that adapt Canon, Nikon, etc. lenses to Micro-Four-Thirds, but I'm not aware of a speedbooster that just makes an existing MFT lens faster. Unless I missed it somewhere (I checked the Metabones site and there's nothing there like this).

Correct Brad, there is not a Speed Booster for any MFT Panasonic Lumix or Olympus lenses, not even for the longer FFD Four Thirds lenses. You can not adapt a native lens to its own mount, there is no physical room for either an adapter or the required optics for a Speed Booster.

I just put that down to a mental typo. With so many options whirling around in our tired brains, we are bound to write about things that don’t exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rick.lang wrote:I just put that down to a mental typo. With so many options whirling around in our tired brains, we are bound to write about things that don’t exist.

How's your book on unicorns coming along?

Just finishing the last chapter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denny Smith wrote:Correct Brad, there is not a Speed Booster for any MFT Panasonic Lumix or Olympus lenses, not even for the longer FFD Four Thirds lenses. You can not adapt a native lens to its own mount, there is no physical room for either an adapter or the required optics for a Speed Booster.

isn't this just what you speak of? (sorry, newbie here )
http://www.viltrox.com/en/index.php?m=i ... 145&id=103

Yep, and that adapter is for the larger Four Thirds lenses to mount on the MFT (Micro F/T) camera. FT lenses have a longer FFD and larger diameter mount as they were used in mirror DSLR type camera bodies. That said, the lens projected image circle is about the same, so no gain or ability to add a Speed Booster element to this setup.
Cheers

Brad Hurley wrote:

austindonald1 wrote:[ looking at bmpcc videos, the panasonic lumix with speed booster seems to be nailing it in low light conditions..

As far as I know, the "panasonic lumix with speedbooster" combination doesn't exist. The speedboosters adapt one lens type to another, so you have a number of speedboosters that adapt Canon, Nikon, etc. lenses to Micro-Four-Thirds, but I'm not aware of a speedbooster that just makes an existing MFT lens faster. Unless I missed it somewhere (I checked the Metabones site and there's nothing there like this).

hmm... maybe im not understanding correctly...
Does the lumix come with canon ef mount that needs to be converted to micro 4/3 rd's by mounting the metabones speed booster ef mount to micro 4/3rd's mount?

Does this "condense" more light rays, resulting in a brighter image?

No, Panasonic Lumix lenses are MFT mount only, they do not come in a EF mount.
You can use a Speed Booster with Canon EF or other third party EF mount lenses, to adapt them to the Pocket 4K and the SB will give you a greater field of view and increase the lens brightness, so you gain about 1-stop more light.
Cheers

Kim Janson wrote:One answer to the original question

Screenshot 2019-04-07 at 16.14.49.jpg

This was though not ideal setup at all for walking 5 km, no tripod, no ND filter and trying to get some video of swans.

Without ND filter I had to use f9.1 and shutter angle 75 degrees, so no use to have a huge lens, and it was pretty inpossible handheld, good thing though it has IS.



So no, there is not many use cases where I would remomend this lens.

When making the video, the focusing did not work. Just updated the SpeedBooster FW to latest and now focusing works.

BTW, this was with 0.71x speedbooster, it seems to work fine with the BMPCC4k. The BMPCC SpeedBooster does not work that well as it has bad vignetting / cuts the corners. With some lenses it is almost ok, expesially if in UHD. FHD, no problems. The BMPCC SpeedBooster goes also very deep in, making me afraid the back lens hitting the sensor, but I guess it should not, it is anyway made for MFT mount.

looks like the Nikon P1000