The technical complexity of high-resolution high-speed RAW recoding is an engineering quagmire.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/jour ... 24105.fullYou must consider the sensor-readout performance, in-camera denoising, sky-high data-transfer speed, and refrigeration-level cooling in order for the camera to record higher frame rates, even at 120 fps, not to mention unitary price per frame.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/78638051.pdfIf we consider the high-end Phantom VEO4K 590 (
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/produc ... a/veo4k590) as a Pocket 4K analogue (it’s not, really) for the purpose of argument, then it can give us about 60 seconds of 120 fps at 4096 × 1720, 9.4 Mpx pixel readout, with 10629120 bytes per frame.
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/resour ... calculatorWhich means, if my calculations are correct, 1.2 Gigs of data generated per second, ignoring the data-transfer rate. Ten seconds of 120 fps at 4096 × 1720 on the Pocket 4K, even at high BRAW compression ratio, may not be comparable.
Even the big dogs such as Arri and Red offer 120 fps recording at lower vertical resolution at 4K, and the data rates are mind-numbing, even for ProRes. Others such as the Zcams, the Canons, and the Sonys, even though can offer 10-bit 4:2:2 4K 120 fps, don’t come below €2,000 in retail price.
I’m fairly certain BMD can theoretically implement 4K 120 fps via firmware update. But even if it were theoretically possible, the practicality of 4K 120 fps for the Pocket 4K may not be worth the dividend if it accelerates sensor degradation in the short-term, thereby negatively affecting the life of the camera, if not creating a situation where the camera catches on fire within 10 seconds.