How to get sharp/focused footage and resolve pan blur/strobe

Hi,

I've been trying to get sharp/focused footage with my BMPCC this morning and seem to be having a difficult time.

It seems like focus peeking doesn't always work, since even when I've got something as sharp as it can be on the LCD, I don't see any green on it (and yes, peeking is on). Even when I do see the green so that whatever I'm shooting is presumably in focus, when I watch it on my computer it looks... soft. I recall reading that footage may need to/can be sharpened in post when shot in film mode, but the Sharpen effect in After Effects seems to only make it look more pixelated and magnify the noise.

I've tried the Voigtlander 17.5 mm and Panasonic 12-35 mm (with both manual and auto focus) so far and felt the same about footage shot with both lenses, so I figure it's either the camera or me. I'm hoping it's just me. If anyone can give me any tips on how to get things in better focus or otherwise get sharper footage, I'd appreciate it.

Is it possible that it is the camera? Has anyone else had any trouble getting "tack sharp" footage from the BMPCC? I read that footage would be sharper if shot with the BMCC at 2.5k and then downscaled to 1080P. Would it be significantly sharper such that I might want to reconsider going the pocket route after all?

Also, I feel like I need to get my eyes/head checked after watching a panning shot with 23.98 fps with 180 degree shutter speed. It seems like an unnatural blur, almost as if a fast strobe effect has been applied. Is this what everyone is talking about when they recommend using a 172.8 shutter speed? I wasn't sure if I should use 172.8 or 180 since the manual says:

While 180 degrees is commonly regarded as a normal shutter angle, you may need to use a Shutter Angle of 172.8 degrees to minimize flickering light when shooting 24p in countries with 50 hertz power supplies. You can use any shutter angle to shoot 24p in countries with 60 hertz power supplies and most people will choose 180 degrees for a normal look.

and I am shooting 23.98 fps and not 24p, and I don't know how many hertz power supplies are here in the USA. Can anyone tell me whether I ought to be using 172.8 when shooting at 23.98 in the USA?

Have you tried double tapping the OK button? That zooms the LCD (and peaking still works in that mode as well).

Thanks, Craig. Yes, I had tried that, but the image still looks pretty soft to me. Based on PhotoArtsLA's incredible frame of the moon, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13791#p86738, it would seem the BMPCC is quite capable of capturing sharp/focused footage. Perhaps I just need to keep at it.

this camera is MUCH harder to focus than the BMCC, keep with it and you will know what to look for!

What makes it much harder to focus than the BMCC, Steve? Do you think better results are all but guaranteed with the BMCC over the BMPCC, or do you think it's just a matter of learning how to work with the BMPCC and equally good results can be achieved with it on a consistent basis?

The one thing you didn't really mention was what aperture you were shooting at. Forgive me if you already know this but just in case... lens performance is generally not as good wide open and the shallow depth of focus makes it really unforgiving to get critical focus.

As for the pocket cam specifically, I have noticed myself that when the shot is dark or underexposed the green focus assist lines don't appear. Since you mentioned that, it might lead me to believe that you are shooting in low light situations.

If you can get your aperture more towards 5.6 or even 8 you'll notice your images getting nice and sharp.

The shots of the moon that you mentioned - the moon is actually, deceivingly super bright (reflected sunlight!). One of the tricks that photographers use who shoot that kind of stuff is that they actually use high apertures like 8 or 11 and leave the rest of the sky totally under exposed. A lot of people assume because it's dark outside that you have to go wide, but actually the moon can be extremely bright if you expose for the moon itself and not the sky around it.

What makes it much harder to focus than the BMCC, Steve? Do you think better results are all but guaranteed with the BMCC over the BMPCC, or do you think it's just a matter of learning how to work with the BMPCC and equally good results can be achieved with it on a consistent basis?

I think it is the matte screen and the size of the screen, it seems to me that in general the resolution is much lower also, but I could be wrong, it is an ideal candidate for AF. As of now I am all manual on both models until my pano arrives for the bmpc, hopefully that is up to date!

I think it is the matte screen and the size of the screen, it seems to me that in general the resolution is much lower also, but I could be wrong, it is an ideal candidate for AF. As of now I am all manual on both models until my pano arrives for the bmpc, hopefully that is up to date!

I have the Panasonic 12-35 with AF, Steve, and maybe I didn't give it a fair enough chance but it didn't seem to help all that much when I moved around. Perhaps mine needs to be updated. Does anyone know how to tell if it does?

The one thing you didn't really mention was what aperture you were shooting at. Forgive me if you already know this but just in case... lens performance is generally not as good wide open and the shallow depth of focus makes it really unforgiving to get critical focus.

As for the pocket cam specifically, I have noticed myself that when the shot is dark or underexposed the green focus assist lines don't appear. Since you mentioned that, it might lead me to believe that you are shooting in low light situations.

I was testing the camera and lenses with different amounts of lighting and at different apertures, Jason.

I suppose a big part of the problem may be that I don't know what white balance setting to use and when, what aperture to use and when, what iso to use and when, etc. So far, it's clear that opening/lowering the aperture lets more light in and makes things brighter, and closing/raising the aperture makes things darker.

Does some generous soul want to take a stab at explaining these things as they relate to the BMPCC, or perhaps even be willing to have a telephone conversation about them to make it easier for him or her to explain?

I feel bad taking up experienced people's time with my beginner issues and questions. I'm sure I'm not the only camcorder user who will be lured to "reach above their station" by the promise of higher quality, better keying, etc., at this price point, though, so at least know that any time spent answering my questions here is likely to help many others who will read and benefit similarly.

I went from a BMCC to a BMPCC , cos of size....BUT I had the same problem, it is/was a nightmare getting pin sharp, especially with a terrible screen of the BMPCC.
I now have just gone back to the BMCC,which was much easier to get sharp images.
Again, it may just be user error...but just found using the BMCC easier to get amazing images.

I am going out for the first time tommorow down in asbury for the first time with the BMPC and a wide angle ziess lens with speed booster in the AM. I do find my high end nikons which are a bit more forgiving focus wise are easier to use with the pocket. I will report back in the afternoon.

PS The ziess has to be perfectly focused to look good, but when it is, wow

Please let me know how you make out with the BMPCC, Steve. This weekend is all about trying to determine whether the issues are with me or the camera so I know whether to return it.

It's much easier to get sharp focus with an external monitor. The PAN issue sucks, nothing can get rid of it far as I know. I put my pocket on a glidecam and any turning much is like UGGGGGH

I suppose a big part of the problem may be that I don't know what white balance setting to use and when, what aperture to use and when, what iso to use and when, etc. So far, it's clear that opening/lowering the aperture lets more light in and makes things brighter, and closing/raising the aperture makes things darker.

Well, obviously it's a pretty big topic! The white balance actually is the one you can kinda put out of your mind as far as exposure and sharpness, though. Me personally, I underestimated the attention to detail needed to get really sharp focus. I still struggle with it at times myself. For me, avoiding wide apertures does make a big difference. On my DSLR I used one of those loupe attachments to get a viewfinder effect and that also is a huge help. Anything you can do to see better what you are doing is going to help.

I have a kinda simpleton approach myself, though. Personally, unless I'm going for an effect then I try for f8, or as close as I can get to that. To me f8 just has a good look and forgiving focus. If you check out a DoF calculator - you'll find that shooting wide open, in some cases your depth of field is less than 1 inch! That means you may have the tip of somebody's nose if focus but their eyes will be soft. Or if they move their head 1 inch then your shot is ruined!. So shooting wide increases the difficulty of getting things in focus - not even to mention all lenses performance are usually at their worst when wide open.

Anyway, since I know I want to be at f8 or f5.6 or near to that, then I need to get the shot exposed properly. The tools you have to use to do that are a) lights b) ISO and c) shutter speed. With stills you can adjust the shutter speed quite a lot, but with video you pretty much will have that locked down. So, again, you can kinda put shutter speed out of your mind as far as an exposure tool. So - that leaves you with only two tools to work with to get your exposure - lighting and ISO.

So you can then tweak the ISO a bit to get exposed. Then if I need to compromise 1 or 2 stops of aperture I'll do that if I have to. Otherwise, I utilize lighting to get the exposure that I want. The only time I deviate from that is if I don't have control over the lighting. In which case, I just try to do anything possible to not open my lens all the way. You also have to keep in mind that higher ISO will make the image start to degrade as well. So you may have to experiment to get the best compromise.

The ideal situation is the adjust your lighting so that you do not have to make these compromises. To me it's all about lighting. I think a lot of old-school guys are like me - they would rather bring in some lights than to change their aperture from what they want. I feel like that's really where the art comes into play. There's books on the subject and people have differing opinions. But that's my $0.02.

If you are determining the lighting, you should be able to dial in an accurate white balance. White balance with pro res 422 still matters. There are online guides on choosing the right white balance.
I have shot very sharp footage on my BMPCC, but it's very difficult to use the LCD screen I do agree.
I have found focus peaking to work, especially in contrasty scenes. It's not great in flat or darker scenarios.
I'm transitioning from normal eyesight to needing spectacles. If I look at the scene I'm shooting, it's a total blur when wearing my glasses. But looking at the pocket screen is a total blur when not using my glasses.
So yes, I do think getting sharp footage is possible, but needs practice from new users.

Hello Insomniac. Did you use tripod?

Some of what I'll post has been said already but I'll try to simply and maybe clarify things as I understand them.

Focus:
Focus Peaking works in cases of high contrast but what I find most reliable is using both Focus Peaking and Focus Zoom (double tape the OK button) which really helps given the resolution of the LCD.

Some lenses are sharper than others:
I originally bought the Lumix 14-45 as an inexpensive OIS lens, along with Metabones SpeedBoost for my collection of Nikon glass. All the functions on the 14-45 worked fine but it couldn't get as sharp as my Nikon glass. I returned the 14-45 for the much more expensive 12-35 and it's a world of difference... although the "auto focus" function isn't working as the lens needs a firmware upgrade. Personally though I find using BOTH Focus Peaking and Focus Zoom at the same time really helps.

ASA is much like Gain in a video camera:
The camera is natively 800ASA. Go above that and the image will certainly get brighter but you'll be adding
electronic noise as there's more current/gain to the sensor and electronics. Going below 800ASA is like negative gain on a video camera in that you're pulling in the highlights but you may be sacrificing dynamic range.

Lenses have a sweet spot:
That's the spot where the image is sharpest. I believe in most lenses it's somewhere between f4 and f5.6 but it certainly be different depending on the lens. Opening wider or closing down the "iris" can result in a softer image. That's why some of the best and most expensive lenses are not only "fast" (low f number) but maintain sharpness at that setting. In other words some fast lenses are sharper than other when wide open. There can also be issues with the glass as you move away from the center of the image. That would mean framing could have an impact on sharpness (and even light). The best lenses remain sharp near the edges. The BMPCC crop factor actually helps with that to some extent since it may be cropping out the issues on the edges of some lenses.

Shutter Speed and frame rate.
Both the above impact motion blur. Higher frame rates reduce motion blur (and light). The result though is sometimes called the "Saving Private Ryan" look and, I think, some mention Gladiator as well. The motion often looks "jittery, stepy, nervous." Motion blur seems most natural in most cases at 180° such that 23.98 or 24fps is 1/48 and 29.97fps 1/60, 25fps 1/50. All would be about 180°. Some feel there may be an issue with the BMPCC having too much blur at that "angle" and use 172.8° setting. Going above 180° adds blur and below gets more "jittery." Given the potential for more blur when panning fast, there are "Cinematographers" guides when panning at 24fps. Move too fast and you'll get too much motion blur. Also with some compressed codecs (low bit rate H.264 with IBP GOP) the codec can't keep up and can look even worse. Additionally the "B" frames may not have enough detail from the "I" frames which also makes it worse. ProRes doesn't have that issue and cDNG shouldn't either. Sometimes, when the encoding has some variable bit rate you might even see larger frames due to a slightly higher data rate as more bits are needed to maintain image detail during the pan. Basically if you're getting issues when panning, you may be panning too fast relative to the frame rate. BTW this is one of the reasons some will shoot sports at 60fps Progressive or 30 interlaced frames (which is 60 fields) rather than 30p (I'm oversimplifying here).

I'm sure I'm leaving out some things so please do feel free to refine and even correct anything I may be misstating.

My eyes are old and I can't see anything small close up so I can't do without an EVF. I have the Cineroid EVF4RVW and focusing is a snap with it. BTW it has a waveform and vectorscope and LUT option which all help with exposure. I need to make a rig to support extras like evf, TVLogic 5", battery and long lens. As a mimnimum, I need the Cineroid EVF

My eyes are old and I can't see anything small close up so I can't do without an EVF. I have the Cineroid EVF4RVW and focusing is a snap with it. BTW it has a waveform and vectorscope and LUT option which all help with exposure. I need to make a rig to support extras like evf, TVLogic 5", battery and long lens. As a mimnimum, I need the Cineroid EVF

That's all true (and my eyes are old too) but at that point your BMPCC will look much like a BMCC with a rig. Sometimes that's the way you need to go but, for me, the BMPCC "advantage" is that I can sometimes go "small and discreet" and I'd rather depend on the LCD in some shooting situations.

Thank you very much for the information and advice, everyone. To be sure, I haven't just been waiting to be spoonfed information here, I've been researching these things as well. Of course, they're explained generically elsewhere so I appreciate your describing them as they relate to the BMPCC.

Regarding adjusting lighting so that I can shoot with a desired aperture, I'm looking for the best solution possible with available light. While I want the ability to create good looking narrative works with staged lighting, etc., I am equally interested in being able to pick up a camera and capture the best footage possible of my kids playing in our apartment's miserable lighting. To be sure, I am willing to grade it afterward to have the best, so I don't necessarily mean right out of the camera. Is it possible the BMPCC is just not good in this department? Is there a camera that is much better suited to capturing significantly better footage in low light?

After reading about how things become out of focus at lower f stops, I wonder what use the f/.95 of the Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/.95 lens that I purchased with the intention of using in my apartment's low light is? Does the fact that the aperture can go that low mean that the lens will be sharper at a lower aperture than the typical lens that Craig mentioned is sharpest between f/4 and f/5.6? If footage shot in low light with a lower aperture is just going to be out of focus, then where is the advantage of having an aperture that low? I must be missing something.

Regarding needing to add a monitor to the BMPCC, I think I'd just as soon replace it with a BMCC. Once the advantage of its form factor is nullified by mounting a monitor to it, what reason is there not use the higher resolution version of the camera?

I didn't use a tripod, Manu.

chrisso, what do you mean by "determining the white balance"? I'm not sure which white balance setting I should use or how to determine it.

I must be doing something wrong. I shoot in film mode, and of course the footage is dull and muted. When I apply Captain Hook's LUT via "Apply Color LUT" in After Effects, everything just becomes redish. When I try to manipulate the colors myself via the Synthetic Aperture Color Finesse plugin, the best I seem to be able to do is make things a dull sepia. Whites are certainly not white. Does that mean I had the wrong white balance set to begin with or something? I can't seem to get footage as good with this thousand dollar camera and thousand dollar lens as I can with my several hundred dollar camcorder.

I'm a semi novice too, but what I've found is the more you get the exposure wrong, and the white balance, the more weird Captain Hook's LUT turns out.
I've spent a couple of weeks just trying different white balance in doors, and different exposures.
I have a few lenses with very low f stops (0.95, 1.4 etc). The focus range becomes very small when you use those apertures. I'm filming static objects in low light, and I have to be very careful where i place the camera and what I choose to focus on. The sub 2.0 f stops are going to be hard to use on moving objects like children, unless you are skilled at quick refocussing and are happy to have much of the frame blurred.
Search DSLR, white balance on Google. There are lots of sites with information.
The white balance will depend on what electrical lighting you are using in your home. Also on the time of day for natural lighting.
It seems to be that the pocket camera produces great footage the more light you can get on to the sensor. It's called ETTR - exposure to the right. If you are at 800 and are having to use very low f stops like 0.95 and your footage is still very dark and under exposed, you are probably going to have to bump up the light.
I'm getting decent exposure at f1.4, but I want more of my image to be in focus, so I'm about to buy at least one light for indoor filming.

That's all true (and my eyes are old too) but at that point your BMPCC will look much like a BMCC with a rig. Sometimes that's the way you need to go but, for me, the BMPCC "advantage" is that I can sometimes go "small and discreet" and I'd rather depend on the LCD in some shooting situations.

That's true.
My Pocket is looking like a Frankencam.

BMPCC-B4.jpg (57.73 KiB) Viewed 54654 times

No chance of sneaking up on someone with this.
Add a shoulder mount, EVF, shotie, sound recorder, monitor, rails, power supply, lens support and I might as well use an F900 instead, except the image is better than an F900.

I'm waiting on a 4K as well and all this gear is really for that.
Ha, the EVF is bigger than the camera.

Thanks, guys. I played around with the white balance this morning and managed to get much more realistic colors, but making the colors visible in post introduced lots of multicolored grain/noise:

http://imagebin.org/273564

http://imagebin.org/273565

Is there any way to get rid of this grain/noise without adding additional lighting? Also, do you see what I mean about the lack of focus?

Pablito, your Pocket looks like a rocket.

Insomniac, you may need to ETTR (expose to the right) so your brightest parts are near 100%. If you can't do that then you may need a faster lens. If you have to bring up (rather than down) levels you can end up adding unwanted noise. You can raise ASA to 1600 but that canl add noise too. Focusing in low light is also much harder as peaking may not find the contrast and even focus zoom may not help. You have to trust your eyes on focus zoom with no peaking.

Thanks, Craig. The footage these stills are from was shot with the Voigtlander 17.5 mm f/.95, so I don't know what a faster lens would be since this has the lowest aperture I found.

When I look at the RGB levels in the original footage, they only go from 5 - 52 or so:

http://imagebin.org/273566

Is that indicative of needing to ETTR? If I ETTR properly, can I expect the footage to go from 0 - 100 on this meter? If not, is there some other way I can tell if and when I've done it properly?

I am going to Google how to ETTR. Is there some way I can incorporate the BMPCC's zebra feature to assist me in doing it?

You set the zebras to 100 (in theory; better use 95!), then expose just as much that the brightest parts of the image just don't show zebra. You can influence exposure by a) opening up the iris (affects depth of focus and overall sharpness), b) changing the shutter angle (affects motion blur and motion smoothness), c) using ND filters (reduces light, can also affect color rendition and "blackness" of shadows if not combined with IR filters), and of course d) adding light to the scene.

Assuming you already had your iris at .95, want the shutter angle at 180°, and are not using any ND filters then there is no other option left than d) bring more light to the scene! The BMD cameras are ok, but not excellent in low light situations.

The lens may be 0.95 but that may not be the setting you used. It might have been at f16 for example.
You have to make sure the aperture is set to 0.95.
ETTR is exposing so the hottest parts are just below your zebra settings would could be 100 although some prefer 95 or 90.
ASA also makes a difference. Once you set exposure you may want to change to ASA 1600 if it's still dark but that will add noise. Best is at ASA 800.

Thanks, guys.

I made sure to shoot with .95 aperture. It's later in the day now so there is more light coming through the window, but I don't think the conditions are all that much different. I think this is a tad better, although softer:

http://imagebin.org/273577

The BMD cameras are ok, but not excellent in low light situations.

I see. Are there any cameras in a similar price range that are excellent in low light situations? Any that shoot as high quality footage? The BMPCC sounds ideal, but perhaps I need something best suited for my particular situation.

Your lens is soft compared to some others specially wide open.

make sure you do not go over 1.4

Look around for other lenses also.

You have to consider that the conditions you film are to dark if you get noise in the post.

If exposed ETTR then i see no noise usually at all.

Most lenses are designed to give max performance about 2-3 stops from wide open. That said, when using overkill lenses, like 35mm SLR full frame lenses, only the CENTRAL portion of the image circle is captured. This is generally a huge advantage with most lenses, as the central portion of a lens' image circle has the best overall characteristics in terms of image quality. Distortion and aberrations are generally found at the edges, which are not used in the cropped mode.

Now, that said, when using 35mm SLR lenses, the massive "magnification factor" can be tamed to some degree using the Metabones Speed Booster Adapters. This devices increases the image quality while increasing the lens max aperture by one f/stop. Clever glass designed in the U.S.A. is at fault, or, more correctly, at credit for this.

All THAT said, GIGO applies at all times. (GIGO = Garbage in, Garbage out) This means, cheap glass looks like cheap glass, and good glass triumphs.

FINALLY, if you are a filmmaker, as in feature films... it is all about the look. While it is easier to corrupt the pristine than to accept the limitations of lesser lenses, if your lens complements the storytelling, the audience may forgive you.

Look at the old film "Brainstorm" from the legendary Douglas Trumbull. Shot with 35mm for the common narrative, and 65mm for the "brainstorm" effect. Obviously, there was a marked difference in the theater... which was the look Trumbull intended.

Somewhat, the same thing applies here. Until manufacturers begin better supporting the Pocket Cinema camera with choice optics, particularly in the wide angle end of things, there will be only a select few who continuously push the limits of the format in terms of technical quality, but that's just it, technical quality yields to storytelling... sometimes.

I've attached the Moon picture others have described here. This is full tilt, go for the magnification, using an old Nikkor to C-mount adapter without any optics, just a straight pass of the full frame image to the tiny sensor on the Pocket Camera. The lens is a classic high end "sports sidelines" kind of lens. Massive telephoto is intriguing. The key is to find a cool to cold, calm as can be, night. This limits the amazingly image destroying effect of air turbulence. When viewing the video of this moon shot, you do see turbulence rippling over the image.

Your lens is soft compared to some others specially wide open.

Thanks, guys. I'm a hair away from returning the BMPCC and going with a DSLR or even a camcorder since at the moment sharp footage and low light are a priority, but of course I keep reading about how the BMPCC is superior to them so I would much rather figure this out.

I took the BMPCC with me on our family trip to the zoo this weekend with the Panasonic 12-35mm with auto focus and OIS, and I still didn't feel like I got sharp footage. I also found I didn't care much for the auto iris and the inability to set the aperture myself since what appeared to work well one moment didn't seem to work well the next, and it was unwieldy to push a button and wait (wonder) whether the aperture changed appropriately as opposed to just turning an aperture ring myself.

I don't know what's going on. I'd never used a DSLR before, but the minute my friend at work handed me his D800 with manual focus lens to play with I was able to get razor sharp, crisp, focused footage.

I really don't want to give up on the BMPCC. What would be the absolute best lens or lens and adapter to try for the sharpest footage possible at a wide angle with good low light performance without requiring a monitor or view finder?

There's no issue setting iris yourself on the Lumix 12-35.

Sharpness is very related to the quality of the lens.
Line skipping on most DSLRs as the sensors aren't generally made for vide and can result in serious moiré and aliasing, which is much less likely with BMPCC.

When it comes to codec there's no comparison between BMPCC ProRes and DSLR's H.264. Granted there are "Raw" hacks but that's not a direction I'd want to pursue as a professional.

insomniac, I can't help but think you're not really sure about how the camera works.

I (as well as almost everyone at this stage) are newbies to BMPCC but if one understands the technology behind lenses and how to use them, it's just learning the unique nature of the camera.... and that's the case with any camera as even Canon 5D may be different than a Nikon 800 and a Panasonic GH3.

You rally have to know the tool and the technology because there's no magic bullet.

In fact, I think so many don't really know how to judge sharpness that many cameras often default to internal electronic over sharpening.

I was referring to the Lumix 12-35 not having an aperture ring, Craig. You're saying the aperture can be set via the camera's menu system, right?

I'd like to think I know how the camera works since there seem to be so few things to it, but given the trouble I seem to be having while the rest of the world is head over heels in love with the quality of the footage they are getting, you may be right. My return window won't close for a few weeks, so I suppose there is no reason I should rush to return it and I will keep on trying to get footage I am happy with.

If anyone knows of a lens that is likely to get sharper footage and be easier to focus with than the Lumix 12-35, or has any other ideas, please let me know.

External EVF is what gives you better control over focus.

Small internal screen is not as accurate if looked at in bright conditions some time.

I was referring to the Lumix 12-35 not having an aperture ring, Craig. You're saying the aperture can be set via the camera's menu system, right?

Using the up/down arrows. Yes.

If anyone knows of a lens that is likely to get sharper footage and be easier to focus with than the Lumix 12-35, or has any other ideas, please let me know.

It depends on whether you want OIS or not. The 12-35 seems to be the best OIS of limited choices.
Any number of lenses otherwise compete if you have a Metabones SpeedBooster. I'm using Nikon G version with a variety of Nikon F mount glass.

Again Glass is always key. The 12-35 is specifically good for OIS though. Note that with MBSB which drops the crop factor to just over 2 from 2.88 you can find wider and being one stop faster you can certainly find much faster than f2.8. All at prices your credit card company will like.

External EVF is what gives you better control over focus.

Do you know of an effective, inexpensive EVF for the Pocket? Does it take the Pocket's HDMI output as an input or something?

It depends on whether you want OIS or not. The 12-35 seems to be the best OIS of limited choices.
Any number of lenses otherwise compete if you have a Metabones SpeedBooster. I'm using Nikon G version with a variety of Nikon F mount glass.

Again Glass is always key. The 12-35 is specifically good for OIS though. Note that with MBSB which drops the crop factor to just over 2 from 2.88 you can find wider and being one stop faster you can certainly find much faster than f2.8. All at prices your credit card company will like.

Is there a specific lens/speed booster combination that you think would be worth forfeiting the OIS for, Craig? If I can manage to get footage I am happy with and keep the camera, then hopefully I'll be able to get something for stabilization in the future.

I have Alphatron and it is not cheap. More than BMCP

Hey insomniac,

Good on you for trying to stick it out, this is how you learn.

Few pointers:

I haven't used that 12-35/2.8, but I imagine on this camera it's actually not the sharpest choice until likely around F4. I say that because of the examples I've seen, but would love for someone with experience to chime in.

Are you using NDs? Even more important, are you using IR NDs? You need them, it's an additional cost to get the best the camera has to offer. I noticed you mentioning a weird color shift in your footage, it may be for several reasons but if you have IR pollution, that's going to hurt your frames.

Next, stay away from shooting beyond 8 on any lens if you can. This will also result in soft footage (diffraction). Oddly enough, sometimes the diffraction can cure aliasing/moire.

The camera is actually a bit soft, but not unpleasantly so. I've tried my Nikon 24/2 wide open, and down to 4~5.6 and yes, it can be difficult to nail focus. However, with my Sigma 18-35/1.8, even wide open it's very very clear what is in focus and what isn't. By 2.8 it's pretty much razor.

I never use peaking, pretty much on any camera, actually. Training yourself to nail focus without peaking goes a long way, but in the case of this camera, having modern, sharp glass does as well. While I have an external (TV Logic), I can focus just fine with the existing LCD as long as the glass that I have on the camera is sharp. Using old Nikons' etc wide open, no go for me.

As far as the stills you've shown go:

Your Voigtlander is notoriously soft wide open. Additionally, CA brings in a glowing blue cast that may or may not be desirable. Wide open, the lens' color and contrast also shifts, resulting in cold muted tones. Compounding that with shooting very very underexposed images results in what you're seeing.

The camera doesn't do any internal noise reduction, you have to consider that as a part of your post process.

I can show some stills from the SIgma 18-35, SLRMagic 25/0.95 (this lens is sharper than the Voigtlander wide open, but also has a major color shift. It's cool/muted between 0.95-1.4, and from 1.4 on the color's saturated), from shooting ProRes if that helps.

Hope there's something useful in this post.

I forgot to tack on: try sharpening the footage just a bit. Most DSLRs have in-camera sharpening that you actually can't turn off, the Pocket Camera has zero in-camera sharpening, so you can apply it on your own.

This isn't abnormal for cameras of this type. You'll often find that even 4K footage has been slightly sharpened.

I have Alphatron and it is not cheap. More than BMCPHi

Thanks, Margus. Unfortunately, I don't think that's an option for me at the moment.

Good on you for trying to stick it out, this is how you learn.

Hi Kholi, and thanks, I'm really hoping I can make this work.

Are you using NDs? Even more important, are you using IR NDs? You need them, it's an additional cost to get the best the camera has to offer.

Hi Kholi, I've heard about filters but assumed I wouldn't need filters when shooting indoors, though of course I had no real basis for this assumption other than the fact that I've only needed sunglasses when outdoors. Would you recommend NDs and/or IR NDs when shooting indoors? Does IR ND stands for infra red noise diffuser?

owever, with my Sigma 18-35/1.8, even wide open it's very very clear what is in focus and what isn't. By 2.8 it's pretty much razor.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Would this lens be your suggestion, then, for getting the sharpest footage possible on the BMPCC? Would I need the Nikon G Metabones Speedbooster in order to use it?

I can show some stills from the SIgma 18-35, SLRMagic 25/0.95 (this lens is sharper than the Voigtlander wide open, but also has a major color shift. It's cool/muted between 0.95-1.4, and from 1.4 on the color's saturated), from shooting ProRes if that helps.

I would very much appreciate that! I've found imagebin.org to be a good place to dump high resolution images if you need a place to put them.

try sharpening the footage just a bit. Most DSLRs have in-camera sharpening that you actually can't turn off, the Pocket Camera has zero in-camera sharpening, so you can apply it on your own.

I tried using the Sharpen effect in After Effects, but that seemed to make the whole image appear pixelated. Is there a different plugin you recommend using to sharpen footage?

Thanks again!

IR ND just blocks heat and NDs simultaneously. You could do this with a single IR/UV filter as well.

I don't know if the camera really needs ND indoors, but some people say that the 2.5K does. I havent' done any testing.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... sp=sharing - three stills from day one testing, with a 0.8x wide angle on the lens (Which definitely makes it slightly softer)

- 1.7, 800 ISO, shooting through a pane of glass
- @ 35mm w/Tiffen 1.8 IR ND, probably at a 2.0

All pulled from ProRes

And here's some random trees and dirt on vimeo, just trying to see if the wide angle attachment was worth it. in the end, if the Speedbooster works out with the 18-35 SIgma, I'll likely get that.


(Edit here: this was all focused off of the screen on the camera)

RE: Sharpening. I use Resolve, in Premiere you can try an unsharp mask.

Thank you very much, Kholi. How are you using the 18-35 Sigma lens on the BMPCC without the Speed Booster? I thought it was required to attach the lens to the BMPCC, or is there an adapter you can use to fit the lens without the benefits to depth of field and aperture that the Speed Booster offers?

Do you know if the Speed Booster makes footage any softer, or does it make it sharper since it is taking in more and scaling it down?

I just think it's hard to use the BMPCC as a family point and shoot without any extra add-ons.
ND filters for outside. Set the aperture you want and regulate the light with NDs.
EVF or extra screen for outside. The onboard screen is very hard to see. personally I'm probably going for an EVF due to small form factor and portability.
Extra mic for audio.
Some kind of stabilisation to avoid overly shaky footage from such a small bodied camera.

Indoors, if you are struggling with low exposure, you need to add more light. This can be as simple as adding a few domestic standard lamps in your room. Or buying a video light and stand to light your scene.

Possibly a basic DSLR is easier to use, but many of the above issues would still remain - sound, stabilisation, too much light outdoors, too little indoors.
So all in all, I prefer to work with the BMPCC as it offers more flexibility and quality in the footage output.

Hey Insomniac, check out this shot - Di Nero is in a really dark room but he's sitting right in front of the lamp with the bulb in the shot. Notice the lamp is exposes properly, allowing the rest of the room to go almost totally black. Scorsese didn't just try to lighten up the whole area.



Shooting in a dark room isn't impossible, but the way to solve it is with intentional use of light, rather than trying to just crank up the whole space with ISO or faster lenses. You're going to solve your problems with sharpness plus get more interesting images by adding splashes of bright light to your shots. If you don't want to have dramatic shots like this, you can also go out to the park and shoot your kids in the sunlight.

Insomniac, perhaps this is the lens you might want.


Very good review with examples of Sigma 18-35 Nikon mount with Metabones SpeedBoost
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11294/ulti ... ed-booster

You can certainly see how sharp the Sigma is compared to the soft Voigtlander. It's almost as fast at f1.2 with SB but unlike the Voigtlander, it's still very sharp when wide open.

Hey Insomniac, check out this shot - Di Nero is in a really dark room but he's sitting right in front of the lamp with the bulb in the shot. Notice the lamp is exposes properly, allowing the rest of the room to go almost totally black. Scorsese didn't just try to lighten up the whole area.

Thanks, Jason. I actually wouldn't mind black in my footage. It's the noise that I can't stand, where pixels dance, shift, and move all over.

Insomniac, perhaps this is the lens you might want.

Thanks, Craig. That video definitely looks sharp! I wish I could try it, but it is apparently sold out everywhere.

Thank you very much, Kholi. How are you using the 18-35 Sigma lens on the BMPCC without the Speed Booster? I thought it was required to attach the lens to the BMPCC, or is there an adapter you can use to fit the lens without the benefits to depth of field and aperture that the Speed Booster offers?

Do you know if the Speed Booster makes footage any softer, or does it make it sharper since it is taking in more and scaling it down?

Adapter = Kipon EF to MFT adapter http://www.amazon.com/Kipon-EOS-m4-Adap ... B004XGFIZY

And a dumb/passive EF to MFT mount. Honestly, most of the time I'm either wide open or at a 2.8, with ND on the camera, so changing the aperture using the 2.5K EF camera isn't a big deal. I rarely use iris blades on the Kipon, only to help kill flare from too much light bouncing around in the lens mount.

SpeedBooster... claims that it makes the images sharper, I've seen maybe ONE video that I would call satisfactory, to me, anyway. That was with an FS700 and most of it was slow-mo, but the lens was the Sigma 18-35.

I'm still waiting to see some standard tests (cats, trees, flowers, bikes) that just show bokeh etc. wide open. This lens is sharp, bokeh is not soft or hazy, so...




If it doesn't look like that wide open, or at least by 1.4, then I'm not sure there's a reason to have one with this lens.

Thanks, Kholi, I'm definitely keeping an eye out for this lens.

Last night I tried shooting some footage with the Panasonic 12-35 lens I have. Nobody else was home and I was tired of just shooting objects, so I decided to make a quick "narrative" for testing purposes. My friend said I could upload a shot to his server so that I could ask questions about it here.

It looks to me like there is a lot of noise in the shadow outside the bathroom door. Would you guys mind taking a look at the clip and letting me know if this is normal and what I should expect? Is there a way to make gray in shadows look gray without dancing, shaking, shifting, distracting noise?

Also, I would love to see what somebody who actually knows how to grade/color correct can do with this footage if anyone is so inclined, since I haven't been able to do much. For instance, trying to make the bluish color of my shirt stand out only discolors my face and everything else.

Here is the link to the clip: http://www.musiciansearch.com/temp/PocketSample.mov (you can save it by right clicking it and choosing "save link as")

Thanks for any time you may spend watching, providing feedback, or working with it.

Looks like this could be of help with focus on the pocket cam. coming out in a few weeks.

http://www.kinotehnik.com/products/lcdvf/overview

I am still on the fence over getting the pocket vs getting another GH2. Getting nice clean blacks with the hack. However grading footage that originates as 422 and is ready to go into edit with no transcoding sounds nice.

This looks like it would be very helpful, indeed! Thanks for the link, Chad_S!

Here is a quick and dirty grade done in Resolve.

grade_1.1.1.jpg (389.5 KiB) Viewed 54000 times

I've uploaded a render and the .DPX file if you wanna see what I did in Resolve.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/646 ... 086400.mov
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6460491/Archive.zip

A few nodes. Started with Captain Hook's LUT, Balanced the shot in node 1, NR in node 2, then split the footage into Luma and Chroma, blurred the Chrome a bit and sharpened the Luma a touch. Then added a mask for the shirt to add a bit of blue. Finished with a vignette and a cool shadows warm highlights "look".

Your footage is very under exposed. Could do with about 2 stops more light. That is why you are seeing noise in your shadows. Boosting the exposure in post also boosts the noise.

DSLRs do a lot of noise reduction in camera and so the low light footage from DSLRs looks less noisy but you tend loose detail.

The BM cameras are not low light cameras. While that can shoot at 1600ISO and get reasonable images they do much better when you feed them with light.

The BMCC and BMPCC both had a "film grain" type of noise pattern. This is part of its look and for many is the part of the reason they love the look.