The possibility: BMPCC4K 4K/120 FPS

Yeah.. so I think it could be possible with limitations of course
I mean: max 10 sec, 8:1 or 12:1 compressions.

Blackmagic should give this ability via firmware.

thx.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/faq/59025

This is because the media you are using is not fast enough. try CFast 2.0 card

You guys misunderstand me. I want both 120 fps and 4k with BMPCC4K via fw. Currectly it is not possible, but technically could be with limitations (like compression as I said)

You guys misunderstand me. I want both 120 fps and 4k with BMPCC4K via fw. Currectly it is not possible, but technically could be with limitations (like compression as I said)

What makes you think it is technically possible?

2.6K at 120 fps was also possible.

120 fps in 4k is not an option so not really technically possible,

2.6K at 120 fps was also possible.

2.6K with the BMPCC4K is using windowed mode - a much smaller area of the sensor, which is why it can scan much faster than the whole sensor.

I suspect that the sensor simply cannot scan the whole area at 120 frames per second, otherwise BMD would have made this possible ages ago. I don't think it is an encoding/media issue. Notice that, according to the manual, 4K 2.4:1 mode is also windowed at 4096 x 1720 - a smaller vertical resolution, which means smaller area - and can achieve 75 frames per second.

2.6K at 120 fps was also possible.

Readout time for the full sensor of the PCC4k is 16.2 ms, in 2.7k crop it is 7.98 ms

The UMP G2 has 7.6 ms in 4.6k full sensor and 3.2 ms in 2k crop.

For 120 fps you need minimum readout time of 1/120 = 8.333 ms

So how do you put 2 litre of water into a one-litre-bottle?

The technical complexity of high-resolution high-speed RAW recoding is an engineering quagmire.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/jour ... 24105.full

You 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.pdf

If 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 ... calculator

Which 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.

2.6k is a lot of resolution. I often use 2.6k and 120fps, and mix it with 4k DCI. Both look great in a HD timeline. Needless to say, for 4k output this won't work well. Then you need (rent) a different camera.

There is this weird idea floating around that hardware companies are intentionally limiting their cameras for the hell of it and if they would just update some firmware parameter, they would be able to unleash new crazy features to users at no extra charge.

This is simply insane and I wish people would stop with this type of nonsense.

There is this weird idea floating around that hardware companies are intentionally limiting their cameras for the hell of it and if they would just update some firmware parameter, they would be able to unleash new crazy features to users at no extra charge.

This is simply insane and I wish people would stop with this type of nonsense.

I mean... isn't that the basis for Magic Lantern? Firmware that unlocks an incredible amount of features and options that have no business being in those cameras. The Eos-M can shoot 1080 raw with basically zero limitations just because of the firmware. You can even shoot 5k raw on it, but with some limitations. It's coming up to being a 10 year old camera, and in many ways, a better buy now than the OG pocket. Certainly much cheaper, better audio and stills. And I'm pretty sure its s35 sensor in 1080 raw modes.

---

With that said, I don't believe BMD hold back on features. They max out their hardware, and give an incredible amount of options for frame size, rate etc. If it was possible for 4k120 in the P4k, it would have been in the update that also allowed 4k75p at 2.4:1.

Then what was the reason not to give 2.6k 120 fps at the release? Im confused about that.

2.6k at 120fps is very demanding for write speed and probably for the CPU as well. When I get dropouts, it's in the 120fps mode or 4k 60fps mode. Such tests with different media take more time. Luckily we have more constant quality choices now, but this again takes a toll in the time for thorough testing.

Feature changes (improvements) sometimes correlate with changes in the list of recommended media. I don't remember exactly, but there were one or two changes in that list since 2019.

I mean... isn't that the basis for Magic Lantern?

For the Canon EOS line, yes. But most of those products started as, and indeed remain to date, still-photography DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with added video functionality.

The very reason Magic Lantern arose and is still kicking is because Canon refused to innovate and refine the EOS products into video-focused lines based on customer feedback, for a decade, and people were frustrated with that. I know I was.

I’d argue that if Canon had forked the EOS family into a more video-focused line like the C70 right after 5D Mark II and 7D came out, then probably very few people would find the need for Magic Lantern builds to give them the functionality that Canon should’ve been providing in the first place.

BMD cameras, on the other hand, are cinema cameras focused on video, and as such there is no driving reason for third-party entities to try to exceed what BMD can do on their own, at least for the current Pocket line.

Then what was the reason not to give 2.6k 120 fps at the release? Im confused about that.

After launching the Alexa Mini LF back in 2019, only this year Arri added extra recording formats for 3.4K Super 35 and 2.8K anamorphic through firmware update. It comes down to service cycle and customer feedback.

Then what was the reason not to give 2.6k 120 fps at the release? Im confused about that.

The developer team at BMD is still small. Programming real-time hardware and optimizing code is difficult. My guess is that at the release they just couldn’t get the strict timing of the whole data flow right, but were able to improve the code later on.

I mean... isn't that the basis for Magic Lantern? Firmware that unlocks an incredible amount of features and options that have no business being in those cameras.

As someone with extensive experience with ML, I can tell you that there were some pretty major issues and limitations involved in using it. Issues and limitations that ultimately were due to the hardware not having been designed for those capabilities. Issues and limitations that customers would have not found acceptable.

If we're asking why Blackmagic doesn't fix menu-related issues, or other software-related issues with their cameras -- I think that's fair game.

But asking them why the sensor can't capture 4K at 120fps seems silly considering that Blackmagic is not Canon, and if the hardware could do that, they certainly would be marketing the camera that way.

Second this, BMPCC 4K 120 fps would be nice !

I got this message for BM Team:

Thank you very much for your feature request, we always welcome customer feedback, especially from professionals wishing to add new codecs to their workflows.

This feature, as you mention will be quite data-intensive, and would require some time for our developers to implement, but I will pass your request on to my supervisors for further assessment.



Fingers crossed.

I got this message for BM Team . . . Fingers crossed.

Interesting.

I’d be pleasantly surprised if that’s not a boilerplate response and they implement it in reality.

We know that currently 120 fps sensor readout time is possible at the vertical resolution of 1512 pixels, and 2688 pixels horizontally.

If they can get it to go up to at least 3840 pixels horizontally – 3840 is the minimum horizontal pixel count required to be considered 4K, if not 3996 or 4096 – then at 3840 × 1512, it’d still be technically 4K 120 fps, albeit with a non-DCI, non-standardized resolution, and an aspect ratio of 2.54:1.

If you crop that in post to DCI 2.39:1 scope, you’d theoretically get 3.6K 120 fps at 3624 × 1512 – quite better than the current 2.6K. Going below an aspect ratio of 2:1 would defeat the purpose though.

If they can get it up to 3840 × 2160 or 4096 × 1720, the latter of which can already go up to 75 fps, then I’d be amazed. But this seems unlikely.

The bottleneck for the Pocket 4K seems to be data processing, if not sensor cooling.

Here’s Arri’s Marc Shipman-Mueller talking along similar lines – the size of the camera is directly proportional to the maximum possible frame rates to allow for cooling, even if you have sufficient data processing (at 16:40):

You guys misunderstand me. I want both 120 fps and 4k with BMPCC4K via fw. Currectly it is not possible, but technically could be with limitations (like compression as I said)

No.

JB