Blackmagic Forum

Hello fellow Cinematographers everywhere!

After so many months of searching on the internet and on this forum, I couldn't find a very very important information I was looking! And this is regarding the two Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Cameras (6k and 4k) and how do they perform when mounted with their associated focal reducers (LucAdapters Magicbooster for the 6k and Metabones Speedbooster XL 0.64x for the 4k), as I'm mainly having Full Frame lenses.

So, I'd like to ask you creative family/community this: Has anyone tried to compare the 6k with the LucAdapters Magicbooster against the 4k with the Metabones Speedbooster XL 0.64x ? (the one that was made specifically for the Blackmagic Camera, not the other MFT version!)

I was really wondering how different images these 2 combos would produce, using (of course) the same Full Frame lens.

Please, creative BM family, if you have any posts, with videos or even photos of both cameras/focal reducers combinations, PLEASE SHARE!

I've only found online some before/after photos/vids of both cameras with their (mentioned) focal reducers, but never found some side-by-side comparison. My first impression when I saw the 6k with the LucAdapters wasn't that great. I thought it degraded the image and introduced some unwanted flaring. On the other side, with the 4k and the Metabones, I thought the results were much better, BUT I COULD BE WRONG as I didn't have ANY side-by-side comparison!!

So please, whoever has done tests with both of those I asked, please share!

Kindest Regards,
Panos

No answer yet?

I know MANY of you Black Magicians that have bought both the 4K and the 6K, didn't you buy and speed/magic boosters with your cameras?

Also you guys working for Blackmagic, you must be the ones that had most definitely the chance to try both setups with cameras+magic/speed boosters I'm asking. (if not YOU at least, then who else??)

Please share your footage and opinions!!

I had both and never thought to buy speed booster.

You may probably forget the real cost of ff. when you use full of lenses you need a very good lenses, that cost more than single pocket4k or pocket6k.

When you work with s35 sensor you crop ff lenses and use the best of them, if you use all part of lenses you see also the worst of lenses that at 6k show their weakness at the edge.

Ff fov mean expansive lenses (also in vintage market), and most of time mean that go out of common budget if people that choose pockets.

Many people use for pocket4k and 6k m4/3 and ef-s lenses then buying speed booster mean rebuild their lenses set.

In past I remember some thread about speed booster using, and about lucadapter you should search on Facebook, I remember that he had a page where show something. But no one that I know use it.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Thank you for your insight Sir!

Definitely enlightening your way of thinking, especially about the use of FF lenses on a 6K, and capturing that best 'center' of them. And it seems to me that (from whatever videos I've seen online with the LucAdapter), If I was to buy a 6K, I'd most certainly use it without the booster.

But since I own a 4K and still can find quality FF vintage glasses for way cheaper (most of the times) from most quality m4/3 lenses, I consider it more logical to buy a Metabones (Only!!) speed booster, because of the crop factor being fairly irrelevant to those lenses. And with metabones I've noticed the most minimal distortion comparing before/after shots, which unfortunately didn't happen with Luc.

This could be most certainly one of the reasons why Blackmagic dropped the price of 6k that much (and in my opinion it will drop even more in the future!), as a 4K with a Metabones and a basic FF set of lenses, with some additional m4/3 or APS-C lenses here and there [to cover the (more extreme) Ultra-Wide-Angles], is a much better overall investment than a 6k.

The only think that could possibly raise the 6K value again, is if Metabones can make a similar quality speedbooster for the 6k, like they did for their 4k counterparts.

OR, if BMD could come up with a FF POCKET camera soon, in any resolution possible and still remaining cost-effective, this way writing The End, for all these speed booster Star Wars Episodes!

Metabones will probably never make a Speedbooster for the 6K. There is not enough space for their approach.

Uli Plank wrote:Metabones will probably never make a Speedbooster for the 6K. There is not enough space for their approach.

May I ask what do you exactly mean about that? There is not enough space for what exactly?

Other than the Magicbooster, which is placed inside the mount, all SpeedBoosters until today are inserted between the mount and the lens. Since the EF mount is pretty long, this doesn't work.
With the very short MFT mount, it's easy.

Uli Plank wrote:Other than the Magicbooster, which is placed inside the mount, all SpeedBoosters until today are inserted between the mount and the lens. Since the EF mount is pretty long, this doesn't work.
With the very short MFT mount, it's easy.

Yea that's what exactly I'm talking about. Why shouldn't Blackmagic Design literally "hire" Mr Brian Caldwell PhD, to design a new dedicated focal reducer (like the magic booster) for the 6K (and of course also do the same for its bigger cameras like UMP and the new 12k camera), in order to give them even more value and versatility? That would literally "save" their 6k model from its continuously decreasing sales, which, obviously, except for its failed (in quality) LucAdapters Magicbooster design, it also failed because of that wrong choice of that old-fashioned and long flange distance EF mount, against its shorter flange distance counterparts, that most modern mirrorless camera manufacturers just use!

So why not see a BMD-Caldwell co-operation for its new cameras and just only have the LucAdapters option, which literally failed to deliver in quality, thus not giving any more value and flexibility to the BMD cameras they designed magic boosters for?

OR, of course, like I've said before, they (BMD) can come up with a new POCKET camera with Full Frame Sensor.

Until they offer such a FF camera to the public any time soon, they will continue to have the 4k as their best selling model, and for a good reason! And we are not talking for a FF Ursa Camera geared towards strict Professionals, but for a Pocket FF geared to the same public than a 4k! (And I don't think the K's resolution would interest the general public that much, as long as the camera is in affordable price, offers all cinema qualities like bit depth, color science, better dynamic range that made BMD design famous for, but only have that so desired FF sensor! Even 6k FF would be more than enough for me, as long as it's affordable and has a slightly better dynamic range, just enough to compete with the NEW Sony's!!

The main issue with the P6k is nothing to do with the format or lens mount but the data handling in recording and post production of 6k BRAW. S35 has been the cinema standard since the invention of 35mm film so for filmmakers it's perfect. A P6k with a 36x24 sony sensor as found in the A7III and Panasonic S1 and S1H would be nice for people used to this format in stills but again for BRAW it would be an insane data load on recording and editing. If you don't want or need BRAW (and it's data load) then get an S1 or wait for the S5. Before you ask - I own the P4k and S1 and they are very, very close in IQ and can be mixed with ease on a timeline.

John Griffin wrote:S35 has been the cinema standard since the invention of 35mm film so for filmmakers it's perfect.

There's no such thing as "perfect" for filmmakers when we're talking about cinematography formats, as different filmmakers swear by Full Frame, others prefer Super 35, others adore the Super 16 aesthetics and others go as far as "medium format", iMax and Alexas 65. So you can't really say that there's any "cinema standard", only because S35 was once upon a time part of the history's 'standard'!! Times have been constantly changing, same with filmmakers' needs. And companies which do not follow these ever changing needs but are stuck to a specific (S35) format instead, are left behind, and those are the companies that eventually will stop even EXIST in the very near future, IF they don't STOP GETTING STUCK into this S35 "cinematic" gizmo BS!! Which is not only "pseudo-elite-ish hollywoodian", but also TOTALLY anachronistic!!

As an example, I strongly believe that BlackMagic will definitely be ONE OF THEM, as they'll surely decrease their sales dramatically, and they will eventually get out of business if they don't offer a Full Frame Pocket (and Ursa Pro) cameras, at any time soon!! Same will happen a bit later for them, if they will not also catch-up with the medium format game, as well as that of the iMax and the Alexa 65. Who cares about 12k on a S35 sensor anyways? Way less people than you/and that company may think nowadays!

John Griffin wrote:A P6k with a 36x24 sony sensor as found in the A7III and Panasonic S1 and S1H would be nice for people used to this format in stills but again for BRAW it would be an insane data load on recording and editing. If you don't want or need BRAW (and it's data load) then get an S1 or wait for the S5.

I don't think you're the technically qualified right person to speak about BRAW and its limits, about data load, and whether it can or can't be practically used for Full Frame and how. Because it seems very reasonable for BRAW to CAN be used on FF as well, but maybe on 8.1 (lets say) instead of a 3.1 or a Q0 compression data rates, which would be still great for me and many others.

So I Say, we better leave this discussion to be covered by a Blackmagic Designer, technician, or Research and Development Master PhD, and I beg them to dive into this discussion here and shed some light, if they're reading this post!! (even though a bit out of topic, so I might start a new thread about this, if needed, meaning if NOBODY of these guys answers!)

John Griffin wrote:Before you ask - I own the P4k and S1 and they are very, very close in IQ and can be mixed with ease on a timeline.

Let me tell you you are really the very very first person from which I'm hearing this, "about P4k and S1 being so close in IQ that can be easily mixed on a timeline"!! There's no freaking way 2 cameras with such different codecs, bit depths and data rates, so different colour sciences, and so different aesthetics, to match, unless you do a ton of color grading "magic" and post work. Okay, maybe for you, and that average amateur stuff that you do anyways, they are possibly fine, but it really is a joke to tell me that any real professional would rely on these 2 specific cameras for his main A-B camera setup for "easy" editing!!

FunkyPanos wrote:

John Griffin wrote:S35 has been the cinema standard since the invention of 35mm film so for filmmakers it's perfect.

There's no such thing as "perfect" for filmmakers when we're talking about cinematography formats, as different filmmakers swear by Full Frame, others prefer Super 35, others adore the Super 16 aesthetics and others go as far as "medium format", iMax and Alexas 65. So you can't really say that there's any "cinema standard", only because S35 was once upon a time part of the history's 'standard'!! Times have been constantly changing, same with filmmakers' needs. And companies which do not follow these ever changing needs but are stuck to a specific (S35) format instead, are left behind, and those are the companies that eventually will stop even EXIST in the very near future, IF they don't STOP GETTING STUCK into this S35 "cinematic" gizmo BS!! Which is not only "pseudo-elite-ish hollywoodian", but also TOTALLY anachronistic!!

As an example, I strongly believe that BlackMagic will definitely be ONE OF THEM, as they'll surely decrease their sales dramatically, and they will eventually get out of business if they don't offer a Full Frame Pocket (and Ursa Pro) cameras, at any time soon!! Same will happen a bit later for them, if they will not also catch-up with the medium format game, as well as that of the iMax and the Alexa 65. Who cares about 12k on a S35 sensor anyways? Way less people than you/and that company may think nowadays!

John Griffin wrote:A P6k with a 36x24 sony sensor as found in the A7III and Panasonic S1 and S1H would be nice for people used to this format in stills but again for BRAW it would be an insane data load on recording and editing. If you don't want or need BRAW (and it's data load) then get an S1 or wait for the S5.

I don't think you're the technically qualified right person to speak about BRAW and its limits, about data load, and whether it can or can't be practically used for Full Frame and how. Because it seems very reasonable for BRAW to CAN be used on FF as well, but maybe on 8.1 (lets say) instead of a 3.1 or a Q0 compression data rates, which would be still great for me and many others.

So I Say, we better leave this discussion to be covered by a Blackmagic Designer, technician, or Research and Development Master PhD, and I beg them to dive into this discussion here and shed some light, if they're reading this post!! (even though a bit out of topic, so I might start a new thread about this, if needed, meaning if NOBODY of these guys answers!)

John Griffin wrote:Before you ask - I own the P4k and S1 and they are very, very close in IQ and can be mixed with ease on a timeline.

Let me tell you you are really the very very first person from which I'm hearing this, "about P4k and S1 being so close in IQ that can be easily mixed on a timeline"!! There's no freaking way 2 cameras with such different codecs, bit depths and data rates, so different colour sciences, and so different aesthetics, to match, unless you do a ton of color grading "magic" and post work. Okay, maybe for you, and that average amateur stuff that you do anyways, they are possibly fine, but it really is a joke to tell me that any real professional would rely on these 2 specific cameras for his main A-B camera setup for "easy" editing!!

Thanks for your time in replying to my post in such a polite and helpful manner. I'm sure you will be pleased to know that I'll not be wasting anymore of your valuable time by responding to any future questions but you seem so knowledgeable (and a professional?) that it's more likley that you will be the one with the advice. Unfortunately as I've now set you to 'ignore' I won't be able to see or benefit from it.

John Griffin wrote:Thanks for your time in replying to my post in such a polite and helpful manner. I'm sure you will be pleased to know that I'll not be wasting anymore of your valuable time by responding to any future questions but you seem so knowledgeable (and a professional?) that it's more likley that you will be the one with the advice.

Trust me, I've tried my absolute best to be as polite and helpful to you as possible, considering your edgy, polarised and irrelevant views towards the subjects you covered. Which, only show to us that you're not only a pro (nothing really wrong about that!), but at least NOT EVEN an ASPIRING pro, like most of us are trying their best to be here, in this forum, to learn something new every day and improve ourselves in every aspect!, being a 'better version of ourselves', like many people say!

Your way of thinking, unfortunately, doesn't make any artistic sense to me, and I'm pretty sure to other people of this community as well, who I think will agree. You view things in a totally sterilised technical and theoretical point of view, and not an artistic one! Where in the end of the day, we all came here to become better artists, and not just mere camera operators or just plain "processor technical guys" with no personal artistic views and flavours for what we are doing!!!

John Griffin wrote:Unfortunately as I've now set you to 'ignore' I won't be able to see or benefit from it.

With this statement you're not only being overly ironic, which will definitely won't help you become a better person and filmmaker, but you're also showing to the people that you're a "coward" (and please let me explain what I mean by that, for a lack of a 'better word')... AND BEFORE IT GETS CONSIDERED as an "insult" or a "derogatory phrase" by any of YOU moderators or administrators here, [WHO, on a side note, you've sent me a "warning" Private Message, 3 days ago, about me using such phrases, BUT WITHOUT STILL having taking 'some' of your 'precious' time explaining to me WHICH exactly phrases that I've used, you considered as "insults", and WHICH as "derogatory" ones, so that I could possibly elaborate on my 'non-native' English language in the future, and not 'get kicked outta this forum', as YOU guys threatened me to do by that "godly phrase of your's" "THIS IS YOUR FIRST AND FINAL WARNING"!!] (which TRULY reminds me of some old dictatorship days of Authoritarian Regimes JUST LIKE FASCISM, DOESN'T IT??!)

SO, by being a "coward", I mean you are not willing to accept some critical comments by others about you and your statements, and you chose to PRESS THAT IGNORE BUTTON INSTEAD, which shows to EVERYBODY that you are such a narrow-minded "coward" person, that you can only accept YOUR opinions as true, and that you are unable to be argumentative, thus leading ourselves to a healthy conversation!!!

EXACTLY like YOU DID, and SHOWED to the people in the other thread, where we were talking about "Fluid Head Recommendations", where you were not giving ANY consideration to the arguments I was presenting to you, as to WHY the Manfrotto Nitrotech 612 was a WAY better head than your Chinese E-Image GH6, which are both in the same price range, and i gave ALL the proof that you needed to understand why the 612 was a better value for its money than your GH6!.

And instead of reading carefully my arguments, ALL THAT YOU cared about and kept on REPEATEDLY asking me was if I had both owned/compared both heads. So when I didn't give you the answer you ONLY cared about, ALL THAT YOU HAD TO SAY TO ME was that, EITHER I worked for Manfrotto, OR that I was a "MANFROTTO FANBOY", both of which are considered as insults for me, a degradation to the true real facts, and a DEGRADATION to this forum's discussion level AS WELL!!

SO PLEASE, all you administrators/moderators, Tony Rivera etc. that PM'ed me such an unfair warning to me, I challenge you to reconsider, recall it, (cancel it, take it back), AND INSTEAD, send that same PM to Mr. JOHN GRIFFIN, WHO STARTED INSULTING ME IN THE FIRST PLACE PLEASE!!!

But enough said by me, I will let the people judge by themselves by providing the link to the threat I talked to you before, and to which John Griffin shows his real face, un-covering his real self!!. In there, you'll read all the conversation that happened between me and him, and YOU'LL BE THE JUDGE!!! (Instead of getting in the way administrators, moderators, "FIRST AND FINAL WARNINGS" and such TOTALLY UN-DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES!!

Now, THIS is what I consider to be a REAL DEMOCRACY, LET THE PEOPLE JUDGE, and I'm feeling URGED to DO SO AND SAY SO, because I am also PROUD to be born and be originated from, the Country where DEMOCRACY WAS BORN, and was spread throughout the rest of this world!!!

That being said, here is the link:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=119698&start=50

Thanks for your time reading this, and please, continue to always seek the real LIGHT, first as Humans, then as Artists, and everything else will change for the best, for ourselves and for this world that we're part of!!!

Respectfully Yours,
Panos Kappa

Do anybody here who may have an answer to the ops question?

I'm afraid nobody around here has really tested those specific combinations side-by-side.

Hi guys, time is gone and recently i bought a 6k used with lucadapter.
I did some test with my ef 70-200 IS Mark II, L series, i disassemble the lucadapter and i'm not interest to use it. the degradation of picture is too much for my taste, and i used a L Series to test it.
if i found it i can post some dng during test, i did it some weeks ago.
but every time i saw test video degradation is clear, i'm not interest to have more angle if i waste all picture.
i tested on two different 6k cameras, same result.

If in the next days i had a bit of time, mount again it and show you the result of some tests.

This prompted me to do some research including visiting their website. There seems to me to be a lack of specifics about the adapter compared to the wealth of information that Metabones provides regarding the SpeedBoosters. I don’t do Facebook anymore so if that’s the best source of information, I won’t see it. From reading reviews, I assume the focal reducer performs just like the Metabones Ultra SpeedBooster as a 0.71x focal reducer offering a stop more light. It results in an apparent crop of 1.106x compared to the photographic 135 film gate.

The first claim made on the official website is that the adapter provides a shallower depth of field. The Metabones SpeedBooster does not change the DOF as far as I recall so I have my doubts about a claimed shallower DOF.

To address the OP, the crop on a BMPCC6K with LucAdapter Ultra will be 1.106x and that is a stronger than the BMPCC4K with Metabones XL (0.64x focal reducer) which provides a 1.216x crop. Both require use of ‘full frame’ or greater image circles to avoid vignette.

As for the quality of the image, Metabones provides charts showing theoretical improvements to the MTF when using their SpeedBooster optics. In practice, that’s for others to judge who can properly test on an optical bench. LucAdapters makes no comparable claim re MTF.

Metabones also describes the number of lens elements in various SpeedBoosters as I recall since the numbers do vary with the specific models. I didn’t find similar detail for any models of LucAdapters.

Edit
The comparisons offered by real users of course are valid and I appreciate the findings in the previous post!

Funkypanos initial questions as to the adapters was a very valid post.

Unfortunately, his attitude towards the apparently impressive wisdom of his own opinions as to what other people will buy, and comments such as BM will obviously go bankrupt if they don't behave as he believes they should do, coupled with very unpleasant return comments to others, make this another thread with an annoying presence.

In *my* humble opinion.

I agree with another poster that an FF "pocket" is not an absolute requirement. Would be nice for some, but I would have no interest, need, or use of it. And others clearly feel the same.

We'll buy BM cameras because the IQ per dollar cost is about the best out there.

And personally I do not find it a great challenge *at all* to match my BMPCC4K BRAW with Red, Sony, or whatever media I get or acquire for a job.

Just takes a bit of understanding how to setup and match cameras. It ain't rocket science.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

Luca perhaps should advise that his device changes the "apparent" depth-of-field when the same field-of-view via a longer lens is conferred by the focal reducer. Then again my wordstuff may be a it too pedantic.

The real world is that the operator by trial and experience discovers the most pleasing aesthetic and knows how to reproduce it at will.

Focal reducers may require some fine adjustment before they yield their best. It is possible to compensate for the backfocus of the focal reducer being off, by adjusting the focus of the lens on front.

This may introduce defects in the image like soft corners with some lenses being more cranky than others. Zoom lenses will weird out hopelessly.

If you can adjust or shim so that your widest lens which has been proven good is focussed correctly, then the other longer lenses should be fine. I don't know if Luca's adaptor has internal threaded adjustment for the optical group as well as shim-only adjustment behind the mount or only shim adjustment behind the mount.

Both adjustments interact and finding the best combination requires a little patience and effort plus a decent sized viewing screen/monitor for best results.