BMCC6K Facts and Findings

I think those comments about the other testers and camera brands are slightly unfair.

Here's wishing those comments were more censorious and dismissive, also encompassing the views of the party in question -- "3D pop" (along with "motion cadence"), being largely an invention of internet discussion forums, and on which there is zero consensus.

At least DR and latitude are sort of measurable. "Image quality", OTOH, is a meaningless term unless the criteria are agreed-upon and objectively determined. Even then, the term continues to be meaningless when removed from the process of post-production, the data actually captured, the log transforms and the shooter's ability as colorist. These youtube comparison "reviews", tirelessly posted here, proceed as if the cameras are point and shoots, with those ridiculous side-by-sides, and who knows how the guy got there.

Thanks for sharing this clip. It is one I had not seen yet and enjoyed watching it. It reminds me a bit of the landscape shots the Flo from "Of Two Lands." with his BMCC 6K FF tests.

At least DR and latitude are sort of measurable. "Image quality", OTOH, is a meaningless term unless the criteria are agreed-upon and objectively determined. Even then, the term continues to be meaningless when removed from the process of post-production, the data actually captured, the log transforms and the shooter's ability as colorist. These youtube comparison "reviews", tirelessly posted here, proceed as if the cameras are point and shoots, with those ridiculous side-by-sides, and who knows how the guy got there.

I don't agree with that take at all.

Sure there are the measurable aspects of each camera that can be detailed and itemized. And it is nice to have those agreed upon standards to compare. And of course a lot of the look of footage has a lot to do with how it was shot and color corrected, etc.

But what can't be easily measured is the amalgamation of all these separate aspects that make up the picture that we see. The way that these all come together and meld into something that we either respond to or don't.

Now, I suppose with enough grading work you could get most footage to look pretty close to each other. But at some level I think most of choose an Image Quality that we like or respond to innately. And that absolutely does not need to be "agreed upon or objectively determined," any more than the way that two people respond differently to a painting. It's completely ok for one person to not care for it, while the other loves it.

While a lot of what digital cameras are, can be broken down into numbers, facts and science. And I can see how those tangible things can give certain people comfort. At least some part of this is undefinable. You either respond to it or you don't. And perhaps that is all the "Image quality" is. Sure it can't be measured, but you know it when you see it.

I used to share camera tests.

Public comment from ignorant camera experts mean I no longer share them in public.

Internet entitlement is so toxic.

Professional camera reviews seem corrupt.

Steve huff did something similar but seems to have been taken down.

https://www.streetshootr.com/steve-huff ... to-ghosts/

The best way is to test fly yourself.

JB

Agree that the cinematographer, editor, colourist, director, producer each bring their personal element to the delivered look. In broadcast, you presumably do what is required from a standards perspective. In cinema projection you also need to meet delivery standards. But the art lies in what you want to show within those standards.

What are we without personal taste and vision determining how we do what we do? Obviously even a given generative AI will have a perspective on cooking the meal. But the people involved bring the surprise seasoning.

Rely on your own tests ultimately as they’ll reflect how best the ingredients suit your palette.

I used to share camera tests.


The best way is to test fly yourself.

JB

I remember - on your wordpress blog page. I always really enjoyed those.


Totally agree! At the same time it is still nice to see the results of other peoples tests, especially if it is with something that is not readily available for the average joe. Although Sharegrid has helped a lot with that.

Rely on your own tests ultimately as they’ll reflect how best the ingredients suit your palette.

Amen!

I used to share camera tests.

Public comment from ignorant camera experts mean I no longer share them in public.

Internet entitlement is so toxic.

Professional camera reviews seem corrupt.

Steve huff did something similar but seems to have been taken down.

https://www.streetshootr.com/steve-huff ... to-ghosts/

The best way is to test fly yourself.

JB

Thanks for sharing the video John.

Forums, in my opinion, are better places to get unbiased information, share expertise and advice.

We get half the truth from YouTube reviewers and the other half remains hidden. As stated in the video, most of reviewers are biased or feel obligated to show the positive side of a product while keeping the dark one unrevealed.

Whenever we want to buy a product we intuitively rush to YouTube, because we want get rid of any insecurity we feel towards the product or to - emotionally/psychologically - justify the purchase, so we feel that we’ve made the right decision.

BMCC6K is the first video camera I have ever owned. I’m just a hobbyist, with zero experience in videography. I still don’t know how I stumbled upon BM products; I’m glad I did. Long story shorts, when I checked its specs, I straightaway knew it’ll be a perfect fit for my needs. Its pros overshadowed the cons. Nevertheless, I had watched almost all reviews on YouTube, so I feel relieved once I buy it. I also had to use my imagination of how the camera would perform, because I couldn’t find any review related to real estate videography.

I don’t know why I’m writing this, I just felt the urge to share my experience

We appreciate what you have shared. Of course the forum tends to be related to camera technology and techniques. But we do manage to reveal our personal motivations and goals, wishing and hoping for increased knowledge and connections with the community of individuals as well as the tools and toys.

"3D pop" (along with "motion cadence"), being largely an invention of internet discussion forums, and on which there is zero consensus.

At least DR and latitude are sort of measurable. "Image quality", OTOH, is a meaningless term unless the criteria are agreed-upon and objectively determined. Even then, the term continues to be meaningless when removed from the process of post-production, the data actually captured, the log transforms and the shooter's ability as colorist.

I agree. I have never heard the term 3D pop before reading this thread and have no idea what it means in reality. Image quality is more tangible but in itself has multiple meanings and depends on a whole range of factors on top of post production including the lens used which is most important.

That is why I want to know about objective, measureable quantities if I'm making a purchase. I don't need to read or see reviews to get that information but reviews by trusted independent reviewers are important in authenticating the claims made by manufacturers.

Professional camera reviews seem corrupt.

The best way is to test fly yourself.

JB

I think the Gerald Undone video was more about the culture of manufacturers inviting reviewers to pre-release events in exotic locations and all that entails (bias, fear of upsetting the manufacturer etc), not necessarily about reviews in general. I take these types of reviews with a big pinch of salt, one or two steps away from an ad for the product.

Finding unbiased reviews is another thing though and sometmes it means reading between the lines. But it is hard to argue with objective facts as long as one understands what the facts actually mean - there are facts and alternative facts.

It would be nice to test gear oneself but that requires renting which can be expensive and could be very time consuming to do it properly. I can usually tell enough from a decent review along with informed forum contributors as Omar says to know whether to buy something or not.

I agree. I have never heard the term 3D pop before reading this thread and have no idea what it means in reality.

If you're interested, there's a long discussion thread about it on the Fred Miranda forum; the first post is from 13 years ago: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/

The original poster seemed to think some lenses produced more of a 3D effect than others, but if you trawl through the 38-page debate and show-and-tell you'll find that others claim it's due to lighting or simply to depth of field. And nobody really knows what it means, other than the sensation that the image is leaping off your screen and feels three-dimensional.

Edited to add an example.

Threading the needle by Brad Hurley, on Flickr

My first camera was a two eyed box, and the second a Minolta.
And this is the only lens you can ‘Leitax’ to EOS. It’s a nice portrait length on S-35.

A long time ago in a universe far far away, I had a Minolta but I didn’t keep it. Regrettably.

I'm not sure what the exposure was because I was using a manual lens: my grandfather's old Minolta 58mm MC Rokkor-PG F/1.2. The BMCC6K is the first camera I own that can properly use his lenses so I've been trying them out lol

My first camera was a secondhand Minolta SRT101 with a Rokkor standard f1.4 lens. I forget the exact focal length but it was a real beaut. I had never heard about bokeh back then but that captivated me.

For the last several months, I've been traveling A LOT and need to keep gear to an absolute minimum while maintaining quality. It seems it's going to be my life for the next year or so, which is cool and enables me to problem solve the tension.

I am borrowing a Pocket 6k Pro from a friend and I really like everything about it. BUT the ND's started to seize up, like they did on my previous 6k Pro.
I had purchased a CC6kFF right when they came out and tried to rig it up like a 'big boy' cinema camera, and even with an expensive Mid49 cage, it was not pleasant. The HDMI out seemed to lag quite a bit, compared to my 6k Pro at the time, but it was also so nice to have access to multiple mounts and full frame depth in shots I otherwise wouldn't have had. But, I sold it (before the price break) because I couldn't 'run n' gun' as fast as I thought I could with the Pocket 6k Pro.

And yet, a full frame, 6k, L Mount camera for $1500 was too good to pass up. Like that's crazy good.
In my travel shoots, they have been very simple: Sit down interview + B Roll afterwards. I'm not nearly as rushed as I thought I was going to be. And filming in places that aren't the nicest, it would be nice to have a little more visual depth in the shot (hence FF).

I still have a preorder in for the Pyxis, but it doesn't solve the portability requirements I'm looking for. Even as a box-style camera. Plus, I'm getting the same image at half the cost.

I agree. I have never heard the term 3D pop before reading this thread and have no idea what it means in reality.

If you're interested, there's a long discussion thread about it on the Fred Miranda forum; the first post is from 13 years ago: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/

The original poster seemed to think some lenses produced more of a 3D effect than others, but if you trawl through the 38-page debate and show-and-tell you'll find that others claim it's due to lighting or simply to depth of field. And nobody really knows what it means, other than the sensation that the image is leaping off your screen and feels three-dimensional.

Edited to add an example.

Threading the needle by Brad Hurley, on Flickr

Thanks. Beautiful portrait and I can see what you mean. FIrst impression is it's lighting and the pose.

I have never heard the term 3D pop before reading this thread and have no idea what it means in reality.

I know it from lens discussions. Certain lenses were described to have a 3D pop. Explanations included micro contrast.

As it has been said, there's no scientific evidence of this. There are many factors at play and a large part is also due to how the gear is being used, not the gear itself. You can always increase a 3D feel with (color-) contrast.
Oftentimes, a simple increase in color temperature or a slight increase of saturation gives the same image more "3D pop".

But I do agree that some cameras look and 'feel' better straight out of camera and the BMCC 6K seems to be one of them.

Thanks. Beautiful portrait and I can see what you mean. FIrst impression is it's lighting and the pose.

Haha, thanks...it's not really a flattering portrait but was part of a series of test shots I was making with a new lighting setup (using Dedo Lightstream reflectors); based on these tests I got some larger reflectors for softer light. You'll be happy to know this was shot with a Minolta lens (Rokkor MD 28mm f2; I got the version Uli recommended in his Rokkor Survival Guide)

Thanks. Beautiful portrait and I can see what you mean. FIrst impression is it's lighting and the pose.

Haha, thanks...it's not really a flattering portrait but was part of a series of test shots I was making with a new lighting setup (using Dedo Lightstream reflectors); based on these tests I got some larger reflectors for softer light. You'll be happy to know this was shot with a Minolta lens (Rokkor MD 28mm f2; I got the version Uli recommended in his Rokkor Survival Guide)

Yes looking again I think the wideangle lens in close is exaggerating the perspective as is the angle of the woman's head tilted towards the camera together with lighting and sepatation from the background. Anyway the picture has a really nice overall feel to it.

I have never heard the term 3D pop before reading this thread and have no idea what it means in reality.

I know it from lens discussions. Certain lenses were described to have a 3D pop. Explanations included micro contrast.

As it has been said, there's no scientific evidence of this. There are many factors at play and a large part is also due to how the gear is being used, not the gear itself. You can always increase a 3D feel with (color-) contrast.
Oftentimes, a simple increase in color temperature or a slight increase of saturation gives the same image more "3D pop".

But I do agree that some cameras look and 'feel' better straight out of camera and the BMCC 6K seems to be one of them.

Ok thanks for the info. I'm getting a feel for what it means even if it's somewhat intangible.

We appreciate what you have shared. Of course the forum tends to be related to camera technology and techniques. But we do manage to reveal our personal motivations and goals, wishing and hoping for increased knowledge and connections with the community of individuals as well as the tools and toys.

Thank you Rick. I'm content being part of this community, and I look forwarding to contributing to it.

The original poster seemed to think some lenses produced more of a 3D effect than others, but if you trawl through the 38-page debate and show-and-tell you'll find that others claim it's due to lighting or simply to depth of field. And nobody really knows what it means, other than the sensation that the image is leaping off your screen and feels three-dimensional.

It goes back further than that. You kids probably don't remember when perspective became all the rage in painting back in the day. All that flat iconographic painting looked like a pale imitation of reality when artists starting using perspective to give their paintings 3D pop. A couple weeks ago, I was looking at Pieter Saenredam's paintings in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and I thought, those architectural interiors have serious 3D Pop! As a large format photographer, I remember when I started using pyro film developer, I felt like my images got more 3D pop from the acutance of that on my film. Edward Weston used pyro and looking at his Shells and Peppers, that guy really knew how to get 3D pop! And no screen backlighting either! Paper prints for those that remember viewing images that way.

But yes, all of this simply relates to the optical illusion that we're viewing an object in three dimensional space when we're looking at a two-dimensional medium whether it's a drawing by Durer, faces by Caravaggio or shells by Weston. And therein lies the rub, that instead of attributing it to the artist, we get lost in thinking it's the brush, developer, lens or sensor. I recently saw someone on youtube showing some footage of the new DZO Arles lens and I thought, wow, that lens looks great. As I traversed other reviews by him, I realized that I was responding to the way that he did his color grading, contrast, etc. since his other reviews looked similarly.

The tools do matter, though, since, like most things, it's not either/or. This is why test charts are only a piece of the overall puzzle. And it's why, though I can't define it, I find a je ne sais quoi to Blackmagic cameras. I bought the BMPCC in 2013 and just upgraded it to the BMCC6K because, though I have shot on Sony, there's an intangible something that made me choose the caveats over the Swiss Army knife. From there, the rest is up to me.

I know it has already been stated, but after shooting with the BMCC 6k FF a bit, I just want to reiterate how nice the OLPF is. It really helps with the IR pollution.

And this might be a bit of a controversial or hot take, but I think I prefer the OLPF to an internal ND at the end of the day.

I know it has already been stated, but after shooting with the BMCC 6k FF a bit, I just want to reiterate how nice the OLPF is. It really helps with the IR pollution.

And this might be a bit of a controversial or hot take, but I think I prefer the OLPF to an internal ND at the end of the day.

The "contreversial" come only from a young filmmaker that have little experience or knowledge on the benefit of an OLPF and some hate towards the Pocket Form Factor.

I know it has already been stated, but after shooting with the BMCC 6k FF a bit, I just want to reiterate how nice the OLPF is. It really helps with the IR pollution.

And this might be a bit of a controversial or hot take, but I think I prefer the OLPF to an internal ND at the end of the day.

Absolutely agree. I shoot in the southwest and 6 stops is often not enough anyway.

Chris, if recent memory is still working for my old brain, the new Canon C400 has 10 stops internal ND. If I’ve invented that recollection, time to ship out a fiery Viking pyre.

BMCC 6K FF (and Pyxis) with DZOFilm Arles primes, what an incredible combo (not to mention if you add the DJI Focus Pro and Ronin RS4 Pro)

“Filmed for 2 days in the city of Arles and one afternoon back home in the French Alps. I used the DZO Arles 25, 35, 50, 75 and 180mm. Shot mostly between T1.4 and T2.8 Most of the footage is shot handheld, with the DJI Focus Pro Filmed on the BMCC6K, in 6K DCI at 24 and 48 FPS. Some shots on the Ronin RS4 Pro and mini iFootage Tripod” (Florent Piovesan, Of Two Lands)

BMCC 6K FF (and Pyxis) with DZOFilm Arles primes, what an incredible combo (not to mention if you add the DJI Focus Pro and Ronin RS4 Pro)

“Filmed for 2 days in the city of Arles and one afternoon back home in the French Alps. I used the DZO Arles 25, 35, 50, 75 and 180mm. Shot mostly between T1.4 and T2.8 Most of the footage is shot handheld, with the DJI Focus Pro Filmed on the BMCC6K, in 6K DCI at 24 and 48 FPS. Some shots on the Ronin RS4 Pro and mini iFootage Tripod” (Florent Piovesan, Of Two Lands)

Thanks for sharing it! Really is a great combo, had fun shooting with it

Chris, if recent memory is still working for my old brain, the new Canon C400 has 10 stops internal ND. If I’ve invented that recollection, time to ship out a fiery Viking pyre.

I was referencing the BMPCC6kPro as I saw the internet lose it's mind when the Pyxis replicated the BMCC6K's lack of internal NDs and that outrage that it didn't have what the Pro had. That camera only has 6 stops.

I think the best feature of the Pyxis which isn't getting enough accolades is giving the camera a name. No more google messing up your searches with "bmpcc"-esque variations! Whew, thanks Blackmagic!

And Canon? Ewww. When you're Blackmagic, you're Blackmagic all the way from your first living breath to your last dying day. Apologies to Stephen Sondheim.

I can accept that they did away with those internal NDs, which seem to have got stuck on more than one of the ‘Pocket’ samples. One can always use a matte box, which is a good idea anyway with serious cine primes. But not everybody dares to add an OLPF on their own.
The UMP line is different with simpler mechanics for internal NDs in its deeper throat.

I just did a quick doc shoot in a black walled gym for a powerlifting team. The overhead lighting was like a warehouse, not very bright.
I shot at f2.8 and 1250 ISO. The footage looks fine, honestly. Little NR needed but completely manageable.

I just did a quick doc shoot in a black walled gym for a powerlifting team. The overhead lighting was like a warehouse, not very bright.
I shot at f2.8 and 1250 ISO. The footage looks fine, honestly. Little NR needed but completely manageable.

I'd love to see some stills or video examples if you have the time!

I used to share camera tests.

Public comment from ignorant camera experts mean I no longer share them in public.

Internet entitlement is so toxic.

Professional camera reviews seem corrupt.

Steve huff did something similar but seems to have been taken down.

https://www.streetshootr.com/steve-huff ... to-ghosts/

The best way is to test fly yourself.

JB

This is why I haven't participated in forums in years.

Does anyone know if the Anamorphic desequeeze preview options from the Pyxis will be available on the Cinema Camera 6K FF? I saw a video saying the Pyxis has all the desqueeze preview options you'll need and that was one of the advantages it had over the Cinema Camera 6K FF.

Has it been said anywhere if this will come to the Cinema Camera 6K FF?

Thanks!

The images coming from the BM 6K FF camera have something special, I like to use the term ‘3D-pop’ to refer to it, the sort of three-dimensional quality of the images that this particular FF sensor combined with the camera hardware and Davinci color science can produce (in good hands of course).

With a Full Frame camera, you can take advantage of a lens that gradually vignettes in the corners for character. This helps isolate the subject in the center from the background.

[At maximum aperture, the Zeiss 35mm f/2 produces more vignetting than other lenses at f/1.4, reaching almost 3 EV in the extreme corners. As you stop down to f/2.8 vignetting starts to decrease and by f/5.6 onwards it is very subtle. Although this type of behavior is expected from large-aperture lenses, especially when they are mounted on full-frame cameras, vignetting on the Zeiss 35mm f/2 can be considered unusually high. However, this heavy vignetting does not bother me a bit – in fact, I actually like the way this lens renders images wide open. In addition, vignetting is reduced quite a bit when focusing at close distances, so the 3 EV results you see above are only seen when shooting at infinity. If you look at some of the images in this review that were shot wide open, it is the combination of clear colors and vignetting, which made images look more three dimensional and pleasant to look at in my opinion.]

Check out the depth of the sample images of this lens, especially in the landscape shots.

Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZF.2

ZeissDistagonT_2_35ZF_2.png (868.38 KiB) Viewed 10600 times

Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 Review

https://photographylife.com/reviews/zei ... m-f2-zf2/2

Anybody else think the Super 16 crop is kind of waste of a crop mode?

At the BMCC6K's photosight density, it only winds up being slightly less of a crop then 1080p at just 2112 x 1184. If anyone wants to shoot with Super 16 lenses on a budget, the Pocket 4K is a way more sensible option. It's Super 16 crop gives you 2.6K (2688 x 1512) at up to 120 fps (so there's less rolling shutter wobble, too) and it costs less money. At the speed that the BMCC6K reads out it's S16 crop, the P4K could probably handle a 2688 x 1612 which would also be 15:9 like actual Super 16.

It just seems weird to me to cater to a use-case that a cheaper camera that you offer already out-classes it on. In my opinion, the BMCC6K should be focused on supporting 4K DCI delivery as best as it can. That means turning that 1080 crop into a proper 2K DCI crop and adding more stop-gap 17:9 resolutions between 2K and 4K so you're not forced to drop down to 1/4th 4K DCI resolution to shoot anything faster than 60.

I doubt anybody is shooting 1080p on this camera for anything other than slow motion. If BMD used the IMX410's second 12-bit readout mode after the current 12-bit mode is tapped, it should be able to handle 4K80 and 3K120 pretty safely. Even if there's a loss in quality it's probably still preferable to drop to actual dropping to a lower resolution. Based on my math, it should be able to handle 5K (5120 x 2710) or even 5.8K (5802 x 3072) at 60 fps, too.

The BMPCC4K with 2688x1512 is an ideal format for generating HD 16:9 deliverables with a 1.4x reduction of the X and Y axis. I’ve used that frequently.

The BMCC6K choice 2112x1184 must have been made to accommodate the horizontal axis only and isn’t a ‘standard’ aspect ratio without a pillar box. 2112x1192 may have been a better choice if the sensor or image processing requires the resolution to be divisible by 8. In either case the resolution provides some room for stabilization or reframing but not downscaling in post. Is it important for BMD to offer a Super 16 window for B4 shooters?

If I was delivering HD, having Super 16 on this camera isn’t as satisfying as downscaling from a 4K capture for potentially superior colour and image detail.

It’s possible this may change in a future firmware release. But don’t hold your breath.

Does anyone know if the Anamorphic desequeeze preview options from the Pyxis will be available on the Cinema Camera 6K FF? I saw a video saying the Pyxis has all the desqueeze preview options you'll need and that was one of the advantages it had over the Cinema Camera 6K FF.

Has it been said anywhere if this will come to the Cinema Camera 6K FF?

Thanks!

There's a thread dedicated to this here:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=166906&start=50

The BMPCC4K with 2688x1512 is an ideal format for generating HD 16:9 deliverables with a 1.4x reduction of the X and Y axis. I’ve used that frequently.

I absolutely would too if I was using 16mm glass.

The BMCC6K choice 2112x1184 must have been made to accommodate the horizontal axis only and isn’t a ‘standard’ aspect ratio without a pillar box. 2112x1192 may have been a better choice if the sensor or image processing requires the resolution to be divisible by 8.

For me I'm more weirded out by the two sub-4K crops being 16:9 because if you're using them for slow-mo and you upscale to 4K DCI, you have to crop the top and or bottom of the frame to fill the frame anyway. It's effectively the same shooting 2112 x 1118 and 1920 x 1016.

In either case the resolution provides some room for stabilization or reframing but not downscaling in post. Is it important for BMD to offer a Super 16 window for B4 shooters?

The thing with that is that I remember Grant Petty saying that the reason the BMCC6K isn't part of the Pocket line and doesn't have have ProRes is because they have different intention for it than the Pocket line. One of the things he mentioned was that the Pocket line can work in broadcast setups and they don't want to do that with the BMCC6K so I don't think it's to accommodate B4 shooters. I think they just figured since they were providing a Super 35 crop, they might as well offer as Super 16 crop, too, but it's just not a good fit for this camera for the reasons I mentioned.

It's also weird that the Pocket 6K doesn't have a Super 16 crop for some reason because, come to think of it, the P6K has even smaller photosights than the P4K. I think a Super 16 crop on the P6K would be something like 3330 x 1998.

If I was delivering HD, having Super 16 on this camera isn’t as satisfying as downscaling from a 4K capture for potentially superior colour and image detail.

Hands down. I feel like there's some things they didn't properly reconsider after deciding to drop the Pocket name for this and the PYXIS.

It’s possible this may change in a future firmware release. But don’t hold your breath.

Well the Super 16 and anamorphic crops were added to the P4K in a firmware update so with enough demand I'm sure they'd consider adding crops but I'm sure they'd be hesitant about removing some.

Adding a 3K crop would be great though. The Super 16 crop was added to the 4K because the original Pocket had a Super 16 sized sensor so it would be cute to call the 3K crop the "4/3rds crop" since the last non-Pocket Cinema Camera had a 4/3rds sensor lol... though if it matched the P4K's sensor size, it would technically be 3186 x 1680.

It's also weird that the Pocket 6K doesn't have a Super 16 crop for some reason because, come to think of it, the P6K has even smaller photosights than the P4K. I think a Super 16 crop on the P6K would be something like 3330 x 1998.

It’s all about the lens mount. On a stock BMPCC6K there isn’t a great way to use lenses designed for smaller formats, so what good would a Super16 mode do? Obviously there are PL mods but I bet the number of people who have actually done that is vanishingly small.

That. On MFT you can adapt a lot of vintage S-16 glass and still enjoy it.

It’s all about the lens mount. On a stock BMPCC6K there isn’t a great way to use lenses designed for smaller formats, so what good would a Super16 mode do? Obviously there are PL mods but I bet the number of people who have actually done that is vanishingly small.

Oh duh! It completely slipped my mind that is uses an EF mount. I take that back then. That does make a lot of sense.

I still don't think one makes sense on the BMCC6K though despite the ability to adapter to C-mount. Sub-4K crops for higher frame rates makes sense but including a crop so that people can use lenses that only guarantee covering 10% of the sensor at most just doesn't make sense. It seems like Blackmagic realized how poor of a fit FF sensors are for Super 16 in the Cine 12K, but they didn't for these cameras. In terms of resolution, they barely offer an advantage over the original Pocket or Micro Cinema Camera and either of those could be had for $500-800 now.

The best S16 cam that BM makes is undoubtedly the OG 12k. Most other sensors are too cropped, sure the pocket and micro are neat but nobody really wants an HD native cam in 2024. For every Fairchild follower you’d have a hundred bloggers decrying WTF.

Good Luck

The best S16 cam that BM makes is undoubtedly the OG 12k.

I agree. The OG 12K offers 6K and 4K at Super 16 so if someone had that money, that's the best option. Below $6385 though, the P4K is the best option.

Most other sensors are too cropped, sure the pocket and micro are neat but nobody really wants an HD native cam in 2024.

Yea, and on BMCC6K, the photosites are nearly as large as the original Pocket so you're barely recording more than 1080p anyway and it still isn't cropped to the right size.

A short film by Shugo Akatsuka (Tokyo, Japan)
Shot on Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K with DZOFilm PAVO 55mm T2.1 (2x anamorphic)
Edited with Phantom LUTs (Vision)

The best S16 cam that BM makes is undoubtedly the OG 12k.

I agree. The OG 12K offers 6K and 4K at Super 16 so if someone had that money, that's the best option. Below $6385 though, the P4K is the best option.

Most other sensors are too cropped, sure the pocket and micro are neat but nobody really wants an HD native cam in 2024.

Yea, and on BMCC6K, the photosites are nearly as large as the original Pocket so you're barely recording more than 1080p anyway and it still isn't cropped to the right size.

I must say some sweet S16 glass on the UMP12K would be ideal. Would have a similar feeling in size and weight to the Arriflex SR2, or an Aaton. I've got a lot of nostalgia for Super 16mm film.

… on BMCC6K, the photosites are nearly as large as the original Pocket...

I just realized my personal spreadsheet on the BMD cameras begins with the URSA Mini 4.6K I purchased.

I vaguely remember the BMCC had 6.5 micron photosites, but I could be wrong. And I thought the BMPCC used the same size photosites. Does anyone have a pdf of the specs for those first two cameras they can share here?

Edit
Found enough information from John Brawley’s Wordpress article on the BMPCC and the BMPC4K to derive the photosite size 6.5 microns I didn’t have in my database for 1920x1080 HD:

“The sensor is exactly the same generation as the 2.5K BMCC, but it’s active area is 12.48 x 7.02mm, close to Super 16.

The Super 16 camera aperture is actually 12.52mm x 7.41mm. So at first glance it seems like there’s a difference, BUT let’s remember the extra height is because super 16 camera aperture is actually 1.66. The 1.78 (16×9)extraction from Super 16 size is actually 11.95mm x 6.72mm. If you’re being fussy and want 1.85 it’s 11.75mm x 6.35mm

So the pocket camera active sensor actually is slightly bigger than Super 16 extracted for 1.78, BUT any super 16 lens will be designed to cover the slightly larger 1.66 size. In other words, any lens that works for Super 16 will work with this camera.”

Same source on the BMPC4K sensor specs: for 4000x2160 open gate 5.28 microns:

“So in the same form factor as the BMCC, they now put a near super 35 4K sensor. Not only that but the global shutter, eliminates rolling shutter, something many found irritating to work with. The active image area is 21.12mm x 11.88mm. Super 35 @ 1.78 is 24.89 mm × 14mm.”

I just realized my personal spreadsheet on the BMD cameras begins with the URSA Mini 4.6K I purchased.

I vaguely remember the BMCC had 6.5 micron photosites, but I could be wrong. And I thought the BMPCC used the same size photosites. Does anyone have a pdf of the specs for those first two cameras they can share here?

Here ya go!

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/ ... age-sensor

You're correct that the photosites are 6.5um which is 9.4% larger than the 5.94um ones on the IMX410CJK in the BMCC6K. I guess that's more statistically significant than I thought but compared to BMDs other cameras right now, they're fairly close. Unless I'm mistaken, that makes them the third largest photosites on a sensor in a BMD camera.

[CaptainHook]

You're correct that the photosites are 6.5um which is 9.4% larger than the 5.94um

Just a reminder - photosites are essentially square areas, so you would calc the difference in area (your above example being closer to 20%)

You're correct that the photosites are 6.5um which is 9.4% larger than the 5.94um

Just a reminder - photosites are essentially square areas, so you would calc the difference in area (your above example being closer to 20%)

Oh duh! I've done that calculation correctly in the past but it slipped my mind this time lol Thanks!

Btw, since you're here: what are the chances that a 3K and/or 5K crop will come to the 6K FF/Pyxis? What about extended frame rates by switching to the IMX410's faster 12-bit readout mode after a certain point? lol

BMPCC 6K Full Frame/Pyxis vs. Kinefinity Mavo LF MKII test | Blazar Remus Anamorphics (Omega Brand Productions)