Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

roger.magnusson

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:58 pm
  • Location: Sweden

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 6:16 pm

lee4ever wrote:BRAW is no better than CinemaDNG, it also lacks the most important one: Highlight Recovery.

That's not true, that was just during the beta version. People also seem to misunderstand what the Highlight Recovery does. It might be useful in some cases but I don't think it's critical at all.
Last edited by roger.magnusson on Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 921
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 6:18 pm

michaeldhead wrote:No, that's not it at all. The OG Pocket has been used on a variety of major Hollywood productions, even as an a-cam on a few. You pick the right tool for the job, it doesn't matter if it's small.

I can't find the picture right now, but Shane Hurlbut mounted a GoPro on a Sachtler Tripod when testing cameras for Need For Speed. He used it a few times.


How do you explain the size of the union grips?
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline

michaeldhead

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 8:29 pm

Leon Benzakein wrote:
How do you explain the size of the union grips?


The same way I describe why a C-47 is called a C-47 :)
Michael D Head
www.michaeldhead.com
producer/writer/director/DP
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 921
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 10:58 pm

Why is a C-47 called a C-47?

My ones never come when I call, they just lay there doing nothing.
With a pinched, constipated expression. :roll:
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline

Ryan Payne

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:48 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 11:12 pm

roger.magnusson wrote:
lee4ever wrote:BRAW is no better than CinemaDNG, it also lacks the most important one: Highlight Recovery.

That's not true, that was just during the beta version. People also seem to misunderstand what the Highlight Recovery does. It might be useful in some cases but I don't think it's critical at all.


Plus I'm fairly sure the latest updates to resolve/ ump included highlight recovery for Braw.

Braw is nothing like cDNG, Braw is what everyone actually wants out of raw. Most of the manipulation, with ease play back and lower storage space.

Just how redcode raw and arriraw are so popular so will Braw.

I hope Adobe get on board with implenting play back but with prores export now in premiere they might be apple bound. I hope they get on board so I can shoot and hand off Braw and not worry it wont play back.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostFri Jan 18, 2019 11:19 pm

CinemaDNG is pretty much the equivalent of DNG in the stills world. It's completely different to a dedicated camera RAW, which has much greater capturing and post-processing capability. DNG is already partly post-processed, like JPG or TIFF. I am so glad that camera manufacturers (apart from maybe two) haven't moved to DNG like some pundits keep wishing. The less they are associated with Adobe, the better.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4615
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 3:09 am

Yes, Braw has highlight recovery now. Plus, I like it better than DNG, it has less of that digital harshness, which is probably false detail caused by the lack of an OLPF.
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 3:57 am

I have no possibility to test BRAW myself. I read an article about the comparison between BRAW and CinemaDNG. Here is the result:
Translated from here https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Bl ... html#Vergl
Blackmagic RAW is even further away from "real" RAW than RAW implementations available on the market today. There is little left of the basic idea of not leaving signal processing to the camera. Rather, Blackmagic RAW is a highly efficient 12-bit compression codec codec explained in the glossary, which can behave like RAW material in some areas. This is especially true for metadata settings such as ISO or white balance.

The real advantage over ProRES or DNx dialects, however, in our eyes lies primarily in the lower data rate data rate explained in the glossary and the decoding efficiency of the codec. And in the special case of the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K, the fact that the entire codec codec in the glossary simply explains how analog film "looks". We still lack a lot of further experience, but we don't want to deny a tendency in the end: With our test image, we couldn't tell the difference between the individual compression levels of the new codec. Even at 12:1 compression or in the Q5 level we couldn't detect any visible artifacts explained in the glossary (e.g. seams).
Offline

Chris Chiasson

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 am

The main reason I think the Pocket camera stopped being sold was because it was an HD only camera sold for $999, in a market where everyone was jumping to 4K. No one wants to spend that much on a camera that only films HD, when cheaper refurbished cameras could be bought for less. Sure the Pocket had Raw, but for HD work, it was mostly unused beyond green screen work. It gave you more data then you needed, so you most likely stuck to ProRes. And getting the camera also involved investing in accessories that were specific for the camera, which added to the price tag. Making the price higher then just getting the Pocket 4K.

However, I don’t think they should’ve discontinued it. I think they should’ve kept it around, and lower the price. At $650, I bet people would be still investing in the camera. But $999 today? If they couldn’t lower the price, then discontinuing the camera was bound to happen.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 7:36 am

Interesting theory Chris, but the. Icro Cinema Camera is still around, costs the same $995.00, and is an HD only camera, which requires a larger accessory investment to use. I think the Pocket sales dropped, due to its long list of issues, like the weak HDMI and Power connections, reliability issues, and slow sensor readout times, with the useual RS artificsts, and moire’. Add to this it’s lack of 1080p60 fps, which was in big demand, all led to it being dropped when the new “replacement” Pocket Camera was launched.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 8:40 am

I finally took delivery of my Pocket 4K and as a result sold my original Pocket. I felt slightly unsure about selling it and was sad when I took it to the post office. I made a short film I was really happy with only a few months ago. For me the original Pocket was very easy to use once I got my head around the various workflow and filming compromises.
In my (non film professional) opinion higher end amateurs and lower end pros are always looking for the latest technology and better quality. That's what the Pocket 4K seemed to deliver. Also, it seemed to me easier to use than the old Pocket (bigger screen, dual ISO, Braw).
So the original Pocket ended up competing with the GH5 and Sony.
Both of those are so much easier to use than the Pocket I think. Plus they are either excellent or decent stills cameras.
Chris Whitten
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 2:36 pm

the most used format is still HD, it's still something like standard for TV stations. They don't ask for 4k, but ask if the material is 10bit >. There is also BMMCC which is sold even more expensive, but maybe cheaper in production (plastic etc.) than BMPCC.

@Denny Smith
I tested a BMMCC yesterday and decided to stay with BMPCC and buy a small Osmo Pocket. I don't want BMPCC4k either. Next camera won't be a Blackmagic, just like Sony won't be.

And I remain with my opinion that it was a mistake that the BM people decided to give up the BMPCC.
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 3:43 pm

Leon Benzakein wrote:Dear lee4ever

I admire your passion.

I have a BMPCC. I am also a dinosaur, well a teenage one.
When I hold the BMPCC I am blown away by the technology I hold in my hands.

The truth of the matter is that size really does matter.
You see, in our jungle there are creatures called producers.
What self respecting producer is going to bring a client to a stage where there is a pimple of a camera on the end of a jib or on a dolly.
Have you seen the size of the union grips?
Have you seen the BMPCC in the hands of a union grip?
Union grips operate dollies.

How is a producer to get their jollies and feel that they are getting their monies worth when they cannot see the camera because it is so small.
I blame the union grips. I blame craft services for the size of the union grips.

To add to this, producers understand numbers.This is what blows their tartan kilts up.
Do you see a number on the BMPCC? No!
Do you see a number on the BMPCC4K?

In the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth every piece of video gear had to have the name SONY on it. If it did not have SONY on it, you were not invited to the party.
4K is the new SONY. Numbers.

Passionate One, hold on to your BMPCC, it is part of history. :ugeek:


The old BMPCC has been used more often and is still used, see here: https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/blackmag ... ema-camera

This was shot with iPhone:


If someone asked me what camera that is, I would say it looks like Pocket 4K? :roll:
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2510
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 8:06 pm

Chris Whitten wrote:In my (non film professional) opinion higher end amateurs and lower end pros are always looking for the latest technology and better quality.


You're right about one thing; the lower end you look, the more likely you are to find people complaining about not having the latest and greatest features, models, specs, etc. You don't find actual pros worrying about why their camera manufacturer of choice doesn't have an 8K camera if that preference isn't Red.

You're wrong about the quality part though. The lower end types are more focused on specs than on quality. There are people who shoot without lighting because their A7s can go to ISO 100,000, and brag about the high ISO number, which really has nothing at all to do with the quality of the image they're getting from their cameras.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Alienware M15 Hexacore + Radeon VII + Razer Core
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 9:57 pm

Good Lee, at least you saw a little of what it can do. You really need to add a remote to the Micro, like Phil’s One Little Goat ver4 remote, which adds preset focus pulls like the new Pocket can do. The advantage of shooting UHD/4K for HD delivery, you get a much better HD image once downsized. This is where the original BMCC 2.5K shines, you had some extra resolution to scale down and ability to do some post refraining, if needed. Shooting a higher resolution than the deliverable just gives you some more room in post production.

Personally, at this point, I passed on the new Picket 4K also, going to stay with my Ursa Broadcast in S16 Cine mode, using the Extended Video Lut.
Cheers
Last edited by Denny Smith on Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 11:10 pm

"Why did BM give up the BMPCC?"

BMD didn't "give up" anything. They are simply moving forward, you know, like the whole world does every single day.

Might as well ask why did Ford "give up" the Model T or why airlines have swapped out all their prop planes for jet engines. Progress. Change. It's what humans do.

BMD moving forward is totally the right move. Although the BMPCC is a lovely little device that has served me well, the color quality of the 4K Pocket, especially for skin tones, is unequivocally better. And the ergonomics are unequivocally better. It has a better processor that allowed BMD to add an improved debayer and it will allow them (sometime in the future) to add BRAW through a firmware update. The 4K Pocket is a welcome upgrade over the past, no question about it.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Chris Chiasson

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 1:25 am

Denny Smith wrote:Interesting theory Chris, but the. Icro Cinema Camera is still around, costs the same $995.00, and is an HD only camera, which requires a larger accessory investment to use. I think the Pocket sales dropped, due to its long list of issues, like the weak HDMI and Power connections, reliability issues, and slow sensor readout times, with the useual RS artificsts, and moire’. Add to this it’s lack of 1080p60 fps, which was in big demand, all led to it being dropped when the new “replacement” Pocket Camera was launched.
Cheers


True, but I think what makes the Micro an exception is because it’s meant for drones and gimbals, while the original pocket was not. That, and because they don’t have a Cine 4K replacement yet for it, they gotta keep it around. But I expect it’s replacement might drop this year, or next year at the latest.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 1:56 am

The issue with a 4K S16 Micro/Pocket, was BM has been unable to source a suitable S16 4K sensor* that gives them the look they have with the 2K sensor.

* Per BMD previous statement.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 3:53 am

BMD didn't "give up" anything. They are simply moving forward, you know, like the whole world does every single day.


I understand what you mean. But there are many BMPCC lovers. It would be nice if the BM did not initiate the redirect sign on BMPCC4K or BMMCC, but pave the way for the BMPCC rider (open codes for BMPCC) :). It is not asking much. This peculiarity with the camera manufacturers would make the BM more popular.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 10:53 am

Rakesh Malik wrote:You don't find actual pros worrying about why their camera manufacturer of choice doesn't have an 8K camera if that preference isn't Red.


That's not at all what I meant. I meant that the serious amateurs and pros are more likely to upgrade their equipment as better quality equipment comes through. Which is why so many of that demographic have bought the BMPCC4K. day to day they just get on with what they have, without obsessing about every new tech rumour, but when products are launched they will buy it if it delivers something better than what they are already using.

Rakesh Malik wrote:You're wrong about the quality part though. The lower end types are more focused on specs than on quality. There are people who shoot without lighting because their A7s can go to ISO 100,000, and brag about the high ISO number, which really has nothing at all to do with the quality of the image they're getting from their cameras.


Again, I disagree. The vast majority of people you are describing above aren't trying to make actual films, they are making demo videos for Youtube, they are camera 'enthusiasts' or bloggers etc. When the original BMPCC was launched the internet was flooded with test videos. Since then, those same Youtubers haven't uploaded dozens of actual short films, either narrative or documentary, they just continued to post test videos with other cameras GH5, Sony A7 etc....
I'm an amateur myself, but I'm trying to make short films with good quality visuals.
Chris Whitten
Offline

Chris Shivers

  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 11:11 am

lee4ever wrote: BRAW is no better than CinemaDNG, it also lacks the most important one: Highlight Recovery.

What kept me from Pocket 4K was IQ, it doesn't look cinematic although I expected Cinema because BM called the camera Cinema.


Braw is far superior then CDNG. CDNG is too big, it's slow, it has an open picture sequence with the audio detached. On the other hand, Braw is about the same size if not smaller than prores, is fast as f*** on your computer, is a single files with audio attached. Braw is everything that CDNG isn't. That was the whole point of BM making their own raw codec. And yes Braw does have highlight recovery it's in the final version and the newest version of resolve.

And you complain about the pocket 4K not having a cinematic image, it takes more than a camera to get a cinematic image, it's lighting, location, blocking, color grading, etc.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 1:49 pm

Denny Smith wrote:The issue with a 4K S16 Micro/Pocket, was BM has been unable to source a suitable S16 4K sensor* that gives them the look they have with the 2K sensor.

* Per BMD previous statement.
Cheers


Yes, that's true at the moment. But what happened next. Depth of focus of small sensor format and B4 broadcast lenses may be the reason for broadcast market as it was in past. Q. is - S16 +12stop sensor is the last attempt in 4K broadcast direction.

I think that next BM (easy and reasonable) step will be to put BMPCC4K sensor and math. to Micro (unfortunately for 16mm bmpcc users).

Original bmpcc is a great camera for documentary use. You can follow the object and forget about focus, operate only f-stop manually in changing light situation. I use a lot wide angle 6mm - 10mm manual cine lenses for this job (even cine zooms have great depth of focus, so you do not lost the situation inside of your frame). It's not possible to do the same with any of my 35mm film cameras I use for documentary (even with my FD24/1.4L lens). You should think about focus all the time. That's the main reason I still have interest to S16 format and S16 4KMicro in future as replacement of original bmpcc. And it should be very compact.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 3:31 pm

lee4ever wrote:This was shot with iPhone:


If someone asked me what camera that is, I would say it looks like Pocket 4K? :roll:


With a very bad lens. :)


Denny Smith wrote:The issue with a 4K S16 Micro/Pocket, was BM has been unable to source a suitable S16 4K sensor* that gives them the look they have with the 2K sensor.

* Per BMD previous statement.
Cheers


I like the look of the latter Sony sensors. I may not be the pocket, but is nice. The latter versions of the sensor used in the micro studio had significant improvements. How come it wasn't used? BM put a tall order for themselves to match that sensor, rather than one you had to do a bit more light control. It has 88db dynamic range, and 1.2 electron volts of noise. It would have been better to have the 4k 3-4 years ago, and just use it, and still be able to get the current sort of 4k last year.

The sensor line of the one in the mini 4k or a Sigma foveon sensor would both have been exotic enough to generate sales.

Uli Plank wrote:Yes, Braw has highlight recovery now. Plus, I like it better than DNG, it has less of that digital harshness, which is probably false detail caused by the lack of an OLPF.


It's an illusion. The sensor sees what it sees, processing can try to obscure that but it is loss of real detail. The colour science in BM (which cameras I don't know) adds some sharpening I understand, which plays with the image anyway. If I was to write a routine to restore detail, I would want what the sensor see's unaltered.


lee4ever wrote:
michaeldhead wrote:Why did Canon stop supporting/updating the 5d mki ?

Hmmm....


The camera came out in 2005, right? When did Canon take it out of support?

I read again and again that many are still satisfied with BMPCC and in principle find it a pity that BM give it up after 2 years. (Here three or four times this week. I think every BMPCC owner thinks it's a pity and certainly shrinks from buying another BM camera because the same expects....

They gave it up earlier, already with the firmware 2.1 (19 March, 2015? So after about two years... ). :(


So, we remind. The camera sold for years without an update. You notice how people play with dates here. Saying it's over 5 years old camera, sidestepping that most if the time it was sold without an update. I would expect more a quality camera to have updates for 5 years after it stopped being sold. That's quality, not just trying to make sure a camera doesn't have lower quality modes. There is much which could be done.


Denny Smith wrote:By March 2015, everything that could be added to the camera functionality wise, and image wise had been done. The camera then had twice the menu functionality, additional shooting aids, frame guides, etc. than it had when it was first released. I took about a years worth of FW updates to make the camera what I considered “fully functional” for practical cine shooting, adding the missing exposure and viewing aids, and correcting early camera issues.

So everything that could be done to this little camera had been done. Time to move on my friend.
Cheers


Nonsense. There was a mighty gap leaving people out in the cold as they concentrated on a unified driver scheme for future updates across cameras, rather than release a patch update for the bugs of the time, leaving people out. There is also much more which which could have been done.

lee4ever wrote:The sensor will be different with time than in the beginning so a sensor calibration via menu is desired to remove e.g. the more and more growing HotPixel(?).

If you are referring to adding 60fps to the camera, this was not possible due to hardware limitations of the camera.

Can you prove that? viewtopic.php?f=2&t=84451#p470593 Not really.


Good point.

Brad Hurley wrote:The question is, what's in it for Blackmagic Design? They're a business. Of course they want to make their customers happy, but a firmware update isn't going to sell more cameras if they're not manufacturing them anymore. And the lack of compatible SD cards is going to affect demand even further. Any effort to update the firmware would be a financial loss for them; you could argue that some customers will get mad and never buy another Blackmagic product again, but if die-hard BMPCC users (I count myself among them) don't like the look from the new BMPCC 4K they weren't going to upgrade anyway.


Loyalty, reputation!

I noted the look of the new Pocket 4k from the beginning. Something you can patch up with light control and post processing, but expense.


lee4ever wrote:Of course you expect your camera to work well after buying BM. You have bought with the certain that e.g. the battery indicator works correctly, that 4K in best quality is possible and that the USB-C does not simply cancel the recording etc. and so on.

Don't expect a firmware upgrade? BRAW seems to be the solution for taking best quality pictures with less Mbps in 4K, or did I misunderstand something? So this doesn't seem to be a new option, but a solution to a problem with another codec. Then why? BRAW is no better than CinemaDNG, it also lacks the most important one: Highlight Recovery.

What kept me from Pocket 4K was IQ, it doesn't look cinematic although I expected Cinema because BM called the camera Cinema.


As noted. But I'm yet to delve deeply into Braw examples, to see how well it dues under good lighting, which the Pocket 4k will do under darker scenes from reduced noise. What I did see before was culling of detail, contrast. Consumer codecs do that too, to get better data rates.

lee4ever wrote:
Australian Image wrote:
lee4ever wrote:What kept me from Pocket 4K was IQ, it doesn't look cinematic although I expected Cinema because BM called the camera Cinema.


Cinematic is not just about the camera. It's about the story, location, set design, lighting, composition, framing, movement, audio, post-processing etc.


You really think the sensor isn't important? Then the filmmakers don't need Arri, no Red...? Come on, with the old BMPCC, BMMCC and other older BM cameras, almost every shot looks cinematic. It may be MY ONLY who sees things.


True, there is more intrinsic value and less work in that type of image. Real field work is go, without much post grading. It is a distopian fantasy to demand people more out of pride to compensate for worse equipment because it has a name badge. Of course the image quality out of the box makes a difference down the bottom of the hill.

michaeldhead wrote:You're right - the only thing that makes things cinematic is the camera. Not one other thing.

Like this film: shot on a RED!



How far did you get into it before you quit? I'm curious.

The Pocket is still a good camera, but there are hardware limitations.

48/50/60 fps, even for a short time: you'll melt not only the sensor, but probably the CPU, too - increasing frame rates doesn't affect just the sensor, but the entire image pipeline inside of the camera. What happens when you overclock a CPU and don't add any more cooling to the system?

Better internal mic: so you do want a hardware change? I thought you just wanted a firmware update?

Sensor Calibration: This I honestly am not too familiar with, so I'll let others who know more speak to it.

If you want to still shoot on the Pocket, great! Do it! Lots of people still watch 1080p content - most of my stuff is shot 4k for 1080 delivery.

I think the OG Pocket is pretty much pushed as far as it can be. If more comes down the line without warning a la Blackmagic raw, great! But I wouldn't hold my breath. As much as I'm one who says "the number of Ks don't matter", I don't expect anything less then 4k to be made by just about any camera company from here on forward. Did you see the hubub when Sharp put out an "8k prototype" at CES? People freaked! I, for one, think it was just an empty case with a lens mount and blank ports, but there is obviously a demand for more "Ks" (ugh).


Proof?

You could follow the other thread abs thus one. Nobody gas offered real proof that it cannot be done. Like its wishful thinking that it can't.

You with see discussion on how it could be done with minimal best increase. These presumptions things will melt are not necessary. But what Lee has to realise is that the 0.8 watts of 22 bit 100fps fullhd, is in a very small s16 sensor chip, not a hunking big processor chip with a killer heat sink and fan. I don't know the efficiency of the solid state cooler in there, but years ago it was maybe below 10%, let's say it was now 30%. That's around 2.5 watts to cool 0.8 watts, trapped in a case. If it was 10% that would be 10 watts of heat trapped in a case to deal with.

Now, it does say 0.8 watts st the top 100fps, which would include any over clocking, and you don't have to do much more processing if you are going to use the existing data rate, or less and maybe less heat, to put out over HDMI etc, or record uncompressed to card.


michaeldhead wrote:Let me try this again:

48/50/60 fps, even for a short time: you'll melt not only the sensor, but probably the CPU, too - increasing frame rates doesn't affect just the sensor, but the entire image pipeline inside of the camera.

What happens when you overclock a CPU and don't add any more cooling to the system?


This has been explained, and it uses FPGA.


lee4ever wrote:I edited my post afterwards. See again, or read this: https://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Dail ... a-p/826125

You see any fans around there? It's also Spartan 6, another model, but it doesn't matter.

high-speed 3D camera !

Again: BM is the one who clocked down the hardware. And I ask, why not 60fps? No answer! Only users who know little about the fpga technological possibilities.


Yep. But still, it is a canwra built down to.a market, and might not contain parts with enough overhead fur a 16:9 p50 fulhd mode.


Denny Smith wrote:BM clocked down the sensor, to get the best looking image quality out of it, if you want fast frame rates, and do not care about the results, then get a GH5 or 5S, and see what happens at 120fps, it looks like crap! This is what would happen to the Original Pocket, by just increasing the frame rste or over clocking the camera. Not even the larger BMCC could do 60fps, and maintain its IQ.

When you wake up the dragon, you need to cool it’s fire! :roll:
Cheers


Different sensor. Yes. We expect a bit of quality drop off. It's OK. It's a choice between a camera and that camera with fullhd p50/60, which is more desirable?

lee4ever wrote:
Lee, the BMPCC was released and first shipped in July 2013, that makes the original Pocket camera 5 1/2 years old, BM didn’t stop making it until it was replaced by the new Pocket 4K in/around July-Sept of 2018.


The last firmware was in March 2015 and nothing came since then. It was then given up.

So the camera was five years old when BM ceased production.

I don't mean the production, but with support or better said with the optimization of the firmware. This is no longer the case since March 2015. Which professional camera manufacturer has given up a camera after about two years?

Of course, there are wishes, such as
- Sensor calibration
- Improve MIC: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=84748
- 48, 50 or 60fps
and much more.


Yes.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 3:36 pm

All these people whinge, but yet offer no real proof of how the actual pocket circuit can't do this. It's like a perverse pleasure for them to stalk people and tell them they are wrong needlessly.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm

The other irony is that people complain BM stopped supporting the original Pocket years ago, then in the same breath say it's 'a great camera', that they prefer to the 4K.
So what is it, a camera that really needed updating, or a 'great camera'?
Chris Whitten
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostSun Jan 20, 2019 7:28 pm

Obviously, both... :roll:
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 2:23 am

What I wanted to write:
The spreading, that the picture of the BMMCC, which has the same sensor as BMPCC (I also suspect it also has the same Spartan 6 FPGA chip), is "cleaner", THIS is not true. When I tested the BMMCC recently, I had a Blackmagic Video Assist and with the BMMCC I had seen (in the shade area) more FPN/Noise. It was both ISO 800. Can also be because the BMMCC has run longer (I first looked at the menu etc.) and thus became warmer than my BMPCC which I switched on later to see the difference.

Except that, I haven't seen any IQ differences, except that BMMCC has cheaper cases.

What I read here in the forum, there are two different heat pipe for BMPCC, which means that BM has apparently improved the cooling of BMPCC afterwards. Here to see: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42701#p280968

which one is newer and better? I think what can be seen on the second picture, with copper. It looks like it's a little thicker.

So there are BMPCC that have worse heat pipe? According to some reports, the flat cooling tube from Amec Thermasol has not always proven to be better.

It's a real shame that BM doesn't comment on this at all.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 3:28 am

Chris Whitten wrote:The other irony is that people complain BM stopped supporting the original Pocket years ago, then in the same breath say it's 'a great camera', that they prefer to the 4K.
So what is it, a camera that really needed updating, or a 'great camera'?


No Irony Chris, you know it can be better, and some basic stuff is missing. Braw should also be possible. It apparently uses JPEG like dng does for compression, maybe most of the work. Even if it can only do it in a 720p window, that would still be something for some people.

Chris, if you follow the previous thread you will see what I'm talking about.

But if that's the most people have to say, it says a lot.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Aaron Swann

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 3:41 am

This thread is getting ridiculous, Wayne why don't you and Lee4ever hack a Pocket cam to produce 60 FPS and then you can prove everyone (Including Blackmagic) on this forum wrong.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 5:16 am

No, it's only ridiculous because of people impossibly insisting something else is impossible. Think about it.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 6:07 am

I have tried looking for that Blackmagic video stating why it's not possible to do a 60 fps, but haven't found it. But people here know it. So, can anybody give it up as proof, and these other 60fps projects and magic lantern project (where they actually discuss the work so we can learn something from it). Lot of declaring in these threads, too little learning.

I have other things to waste time. It might be helpful to pocket owners, which is why people should he supporting rather than meanly going on about how they don't have a pocket and it doesn't matter (see other thread).

I've been considering 7 colour prism systems. I've been coming up with new 3+ colour system design proposals for years and years. But a vertical colour filter sensor like x3, is a more convenient solution. Unfortunately foveon, Sony etc (except Canon) have not released a video sensor version, which have been waiting for.

I've managed to come up with a solution for some basic prism problems. 7 colour prism should give incredible colour. 5 colour is enough, but I also want to do the other colours for other reasons. The other colours are also useful a bit for image quality. It allows it to out do foveon, as you can access the best sensors to attach to the prism. Its not that simple, lots of stuff to develop and test to find other problems to solve. There was a guy that did a water based prism system, but I guess he did not know about second surface mirror reflections. But worth for testing.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 6:28 am

You appear to have more high-level technological knowledge and ideas than but a few that come to mind such as Edward Land, Gordon Moore, Marty Cooper have demonstrated. You must also have numerous patents under your belt to prevent these ideas being taken up by others. So I wonder why you're on this forum telling everyone what can be done, instead of actually doing it. Why wait for others to adopt your ideas? Go forth and show us how.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Aaron Swann

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 7:14 am

I'm sorry Wayne but WTF does your prism system etc have to do with anything we are discussing in this thread. Do you always deflect confrontation with meaningless information non specific to the current conversation? If you say the Pocket can be done, do it!
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 9:04 am

I don't understand the excitement. @Aaron do you have any tips on how to hack bmpcc? I can't do it.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 9:08 am

Well, AI, if I could afford that level of patent protection, I could afford to do it. The best way to protect, is to keep the details to myself. If others come up with the same thing independently (not trying to steal over my shoulder) good on them, that's the way the patent system is meant to work.

I'm actually thinking of approaching BM with my touch table ideas as part of one if their product lines. Would be fun to work in, easy and not many patents. Figuring things our tends to generate many good design solutions, and dozens of potential patents, which really add up. You not only have to patent in one country. Even if they have some treaty to get you started quick, you then start getting fees/renewals from escg country. When the world was simpler, you would just patent in a handful of come cuntryes with most of the money, where you make most of your profit. But patents are only prices of paper that entitle you to take out extremely expensive litigation. It's so expensive, that law firm companies just hunt around for valuable patents not taken out by big business to break them, as the owner can't afford to defend them. Stupid stuff, and habeba proposal for a second easier cheaoer alternative system to the patent system, to flood the market and greatly increase technological progress, like his patents themselves did. You think things improved fast last century, you should see what will happen if every reasonable person's reasonable innovation is supported around the world.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1832
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth
  • Warnings: 1

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 9:21 am

Aaron Swann wrote:I'm sorry Wayne but WTF does your prism system etc have to do with anything we are discussing in this thread. Do you always deflect confrontation with meaningless information non specific to the current conversation? If you say the Pocket can be done, do it!


Somebody said:

Aaron Swann wrote:This thread is getting ridiculous, Wayne why don't you and Lee4ever hack a Pocket cam to produce 60 FPS and then you can prove everyone (Including Blackmagic) on this forum wrong.


So, it's in direct reply to what you said. And as you should know, I said that it maybe done and is worth exploring, and that people should ease off on Lee rather than spreading un-sober minded rubbish around. Lee is trying to do a good thing, and these people are trying to do bad, end of story. But there is little point of opening a second thread for them to kick him around in again. If Lee can't at least do the research towards proof, there is little reason to go on. Morally it might be a good thing, but for now it is just a curiosity until somebody does more.

Aaron, if you can't handle a full explanation of reply, what's the point in deflecting it as something else. I don't just throw thought bubbles out, I explain them. If one can't handle more than just throwing thought bubbles out, then maybe one shouldn't comment.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 11:23 am

Cooling system of bmpcc is not a problem at all. It may be improved with air cooling like Micro. Actually sensor inside is 4K sensor (but only in B/W mode like B/W-Red camera without color grid). I think that data flow to be the same line as later Micro (if you plan your business for couple of years and have 100fps chip in your hands, there is no sense to pay twice for the same job and lifetime tests. So, I personally think that Lee is not far from the truth.

BM want to have first something exceptional on the market - slim pocket body with ProRes (only later RAW) and 30fps. And than look what will happened next. I think they have had in "the pocket" plans to improved 60fps BM Micro camera at the same moment as already tested sample (some kind of 2K micro Red copy). But released the pocket first expecting better selling. All this are the part of marketing strategy of BM only. I mean to improve existing production step by step. What was the problem to have RAW from the beginning. The same story with new Pocket BRaw.))
Offline

Aaron Swann

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 12:21 pm

I have no issues with what Lee is trying to achieve whatsoever. Your "thought bubbles" had nothing to do with this topic and therefore were irrelevant! You could have finished your post at "Lots of declaring in these threads, too little learning". I'm not trying to argue against Lee's venture/curiosity, I'm trying to understand your point of view Wayne. You're very fast to challenge Blackmagic's product and it's limitations. However they have produced a camera and you haven't. They are a credible company and I'm not even sure what your qualifications are wayne.
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 1:30 pm

My only (small) issue is it's pretty obvious BMD aren't going to add more features to the original Pocket.
It's still a great camera, and still capable of making great films.
Chris Whitten
Offline

lee4ever

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:59 pm
  • Real Name: Aki Lee

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 1:53 pm

@Aaron
Sony also demands credibility from its customers. But the company has to earn credibility and Sony hasn't earned it.
When the A6500 came out after the A6300 in a very short time, many customers were annoyed and so the suspicion arose that Sony wanted , the customers frist to pay the A6300 before customers pay the A6500.

Many were angry (me including) and don't want to have anything to do with Sony anymore. I know Sony won't get any poorer because of it...

How is this with BM? Too much BMPCC has been sold, more than BMMCC can ever be sold. Do you understand me? Or how do you explain the BMMCC is still there? Think about it....is it??

I suspect strongly, the hardware of BMPCC can do everything that BMMCC can (except S.Bus...), I put my hand in the fire / i am ready to test and risk mine BMPCC.

But BM doesn't seem that neat to release an unofficial firmware for abandoned BMPCC owners, but enough neat to say "if you want 60fps, buy BMMCC...". And indeed, some former BMPCC owners have done that = Target achieved. Is it?

I know I'm a guest here at BM Forum and should hold back a bit. Nevertheless, I dare to say something that others might not dare to say here.
Offline

michaeldhead

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 3:55 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:Proof?

You could follow the other thread abs thus one. Nobody gas offered real proof that it cannot be done. Like its wishful thinking that it can't.



My computer degree and knowledge and experience in building and overclocking computers.

But please prove me wrong - double overclock every component you can on your computer and don't add any additional cooling. Please let us know how long it runs.
Michael D Head
www.michaeldhead.com
producer/writer/director/DP
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 4:35 pm

michaeldhead wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:Proof?

But please prove me wrong - double overclock every component you can on your computer and don't add any additional cooling. Please let us know how long it runs.


I have upgraded my Lenovo notebook in the past from T4200 2.0Gh to T9900 3.1Gh. And it still works fine.)

I think that hardware of BMPCC 30fps is the same as BMMCC 60fps. The reason to downclock BMPCC system was no air cooling of the sensor. May be it is not true.
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2252
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 4:48 pm

Valery Axenov wrote:
michaeldhead wrote:I have upgraded my Lenovo notebook in the past from T4200 2.0Gh to T9900 3.1Gh. And it still works fine.)


You have upgraded a CPU with 35W of TDP to a CPU with 35W of TDP. So what does that prove here in this case?
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 5:08 pm

Robert Niessner wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote:
michaeldhead wrote:I have upgraded my Lenovo notebook in the past from T4200 2.0Gh to T9900 3.1Gh. And it still works fine.)


You have upgraded a CPU with 35W of TDP to a CPU with 35W of TDP. So what does that prove here in this case?


That prove that if the hardware is the same bmpcc vs bmmcc it's possible to get 60fps.

I understand that Lee know how to get 77,4K and able to go up to 4.2K on the sensor) I have my personal experience in this deal.)) (Additional cooling not a problem if somebody are ready to drill it's own camera.)
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2252
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 5:17 pm

Valery Axenov wrote:
Robert Niessner wrote:You have upgraded a CPU with 35W of TDP to a CPU with 35W of TDP. So what does that prove here in this case?


That prove that if the hardware is the same bmpcc vs bmmcc it's possible to get 60fps.


Ahem, no - that absolutely does not prove that.

The only proof would be to open both cameras, inspect the electronic parts, compare those and their specifications. Just standing here and claiming it is the same doesn't make it the same.
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 5:29 pm

Robert Niessner wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote:
Robert Niessner wrote:You have upgraded a CPU with 35W of TDP to a CPU with 35W of TDP. So what does that prove here in this case?


That prove that if the hardware is the same bmpcc vs bmmcc it's possible to get 60fps.


Ahem, no - that absolutely does not prove that.

The only proof would be to open both cameras, inspect the electronic parts, compare those and their specifications. Just standing here and claiming it is the same doesn't make it the same.


I agree. Lee need to check repair manual for both cameras with principal electrical circuit and list of elements. This have been already discussed.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 6:41 pm

Yes, and given the issues BMD is having with the new Pocket 4K, I can not help to think, they should have stayed with the BMPCC/BMMCC sensor, redesigned the case similar to the new Pocket, but smaller, improved cooling and have color HD and a 4K B&W mode. Then you would end up with a camera that has the same IQ (same sensor) and addresses all the original Pocket Camera issues, poor screen, undersized connectors, etc... :roll:

Perhaps a new, larger “Micro” Camera is in the works, using the new Pocket 4K MFT sensor, sans screen or with a tilting screen similar,armto the one used on the Ursa Mini Pro. This would be a better gimbal/crane camera that could be flown on a drone.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

michaeldhead

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 7:12 pm

Valery Axenov wrote:I have upgraded my Lenovo notebook in the past from T4200 2.0Gh to T9900 3.1Gh. And it still works fine.)

I think that hardware of BMPCC 30fps is the same as BMMCC 60fps. The reason to downclock BMPCC system was no air cooling of the sensor. May be it is not true.


Upgrading a component is not overclocking the system. Take your 3.1 Gh processor and overclock it to run at 6.2Gh - it's not hard to change the system settings to do that. See what happens.

*disclaimer: if you choose to do this, you are making that choice. I am not forcing you to do this, and I recommend against doing it. If you do it, I am in no way responsible for what happens to your computer.
Michael D Head
www.michaeldhead.com
producer/writer/director/DP
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 7:40 pm

Denny Smith wrote:Yes, and given the issues BMD is having with the new Pocket 4K, I can not help to think, they should have stayed with the BMPCC/BMMCC sensor, redesigned the case similar to the new Pocket, but smaller, improved cooling and have color HD and a 4K B&W mode. Then you would end up with a camera that has the same IQ (same sensor) and addresses all the original Pocket Camera issues, poor screen, undersized connectors, etc... :roll:
Cheers


I will agree. Redesign only front part of original BMPCC with air cooling (Micro type) and space for Canon battery. Unlock 60fps 2K HD + 4K B/W. Later use this body for S16 4K sensor from BM broadcast system when +13stops to be available. And BMPCC4K (Sony sensor) to be a BMCC Pro line upgrade (not pocket). Use of "pocket" brand is only a marketing story. BMPCC4K do not replace the original pocket camera.

ps Shooting film in documentary photography from 80-90th I use both bigger Canon F1N with motor and pro L line lenses system and small rangefinder camera. And in many field situations rangefinder camera is much(!) better only because of it size factor. Half of my silver gelatin photographic prints on еxhibitions and for sale are also from small old rangefinder from 50th.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: Why did BM give up the BMPCC?

PostMon Jan 21, 2019 7:46 pm

michaeldhead wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote:I have upgraded my Lenovo notebook in the past from T4200 2.0Gh to T9900 3.1Gh. And it still works fine.)

I think that hardware of BMPCC 30fps is the same as BMMCC 60fps. The reason to downclock BMPCC system was no air cooling of the sensor. May be it is not true.


Upgrading a component is not overclocking the system. Take your 3.1 Gh processor and overclock it to run at 6.2Gh - it's not hard to change the system settings to do that. See what happens.

*disclaimer: if you choose to do this, you are making that choice. I am not forcing you to do this, and I recommend against doing it. If you do it, I am in no way responsible for what happens to your computer.


I think that BMPCC and BMMCC is the same Lenovo notebook in this case. Because it was designed and issued in principal at the same time for one 100fps chip. I cann't imagine the situation that BM pay for the same job twice to the same stuff.) The same situation was with my Lenovo motherboard, I think.
Last edited by Valery Axenov on Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests