Microjitter question

Hi Folks
I've got two BM cameras - the bmpcc4k and bmcc6k FF. This question is mainly about the 4k - though I'd welcome how the answer would apply to the much larger sensor 6k FF.

I'm trying to handhold or SAKK-hold my bmpcc4k with a Metabones ultra .71 and an unstabilized Canon f/1.4 50mm lens and having very little luck. I get nasty microjitters even when it's firmly on the SAKK - which is on me. Is the 50 just too long to handhold with a camera that has this readout speed? Don't have the FF with me but wondering what people would expect were I to try the same lens on it.

I'm aware that I can use gyro (or perspective) stab in Resolve. To do this effectively I have to both reduce the shutter angle to 90 or 45 and frame 10-20% wider than I'm really going for. I consider at least the reframe impractical in a handheld situation.

Is there something I'm doing wrong or is it just not reasonable to use an unstabilized 50 on a bmpcc4k like this?

The latter. Your technique could no doubt be improved, but most shooters will need a stabilized lens for these cameras if there's no support. Can't speak to SAKK, however, no experience with it.

I should have said cine saddle!

Microjitters can be greatly exaggerated by low refresh lighting. Daylight and tungsten are often fine but LED and flourescent can be problematic if the refresh rate isn’t high.

Good Luck

You are taking a small sensor, a FF lens on that sensor (turning a 50mm into a 100mm), then extending it even further. No wonder you have microjitters. I'll echo what others have said, get a stabilized lens.

I'm using the 6kFF and Contax 50mm manual lens on a Cine Saddle. I got a custom neck strap on etsy and took measurements and had them make it very short so that is providing another point of contact. One of the things I like a lot about the Mid49 cage is that it has space at the top left that I can use use like a side handle. All of this has gotten me more stable than simple handheld, but not perfect by any means. Still developing my ninja walk. With the neck strap I can raise up and maintain stability. Sometime I wonder if I should have gotten a gimbal, but I don't want one. The other thing is that I can walk around like this and it's comfortable and easy to manage for urban walk stuff. But this is full frame so 50mm is 50mm.

If it works for you, I’d go with a 20mm lens or shorter.

Many things contribute here.

Focal length.

The way the camera is dressed. I see many poorly built rigs where the center of gravity is very high.

Individual technique.

With a shoulder mounted camera even the most skilled operators will struggle above 100mm. And that’s a well balanced shoulder supported camera.

I find when I hand hold a smaller camera like the pocket 4k, 50mm is the highest I can realistically hand hold without it becoming distracting. And im very practiced at this technique.

This is with a G2. 50mm Zeiss CP Makro



Password is

Resident.

JB

Try using the Gyroscope for stablization.

Cool BTS John! Do you have the final shot by any chance?

Hey Joe,

Loads of factor for microjitters.
Balance of the rigs, muscle tension (yes), weight, positionning, handling...

Best shows us your rig and some video of you operating it to get any tips.

Anyway, 6K FF with a 50 will need some weight to avoids microjitters.

It's been one of my gripes with the form factor, it's meant to be used handheld without rigging but it's actually pretty bad at that.

You will need to rig it in a way that there is center of gravity that helps eliminate m.j.

The camera I’m asking about right now is the 4K with the correct Metabones speed booster. Which from my understanding should pretty much equal a 6K rather than a 6K FF.

Here’s my rig such as it is:



So decidedly not top heavy but neither is it bulked up to reduce movement.

Here’s a link to some footage I shot with the camera stabilized on top of a cinesaddle clone (intentionally want some handheld movement):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C5tljP ... sp=sharing

The side handle can help with horizontal jitter but not vertical, which is what you mostly see in the video imo. Think about how every axis needs to be adjusted when balancing a gimbal.

Any Pocket will be front heavy once you add a lens (your microphone adds to that), and since your hands grab the camera outside the center of gravity, you'll constantly work against that imbalance. I used to use it with rails and some sort of counter weight at the back (weight, battery...).

I don't see a monitor so suppose you use the built in screen, which forces you to hold the camera up and in front of your face, an unstable position. I usually used a top monitor and shot from the chest/waist (this works well for narrative but for doc ect one might want to shoot at eye level).

A stabilised lens can help of course, iirc I used the Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S (with simple modification) on the 4K + Speedbooster as it has the best video IS I know of any lens.

Thanks. I've actually been shooting from chest height and managing to look down at the monitor at an angle. Still just playing with it as opposed to doing actual work so this has been acceptable.

Definitely sounds like the unstabilized 50 is a no go for hand held - and it's way too tele for most things - so I'll get something like your Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S. What's the mod you mentioned?

You need to remove the rear plastic ring, else it touches the speed booster. But unlike the guy in this video I could always gently remove it with the fingers and later pop it back in.

But I'm not sure if I had it on the 4K or the OG Pocket, it's an EF-S lens so it might vignette depending on the speed booster / camera combo.

Thanks for the info!

Joe, I couldn’t find the actual image circle of the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom but here is a test photo from Ken Rockwell showing the image vignetting at 17mm f/2.8 on a Canon APS-C camera, 1.6x ‘crop’ sensor without the focal reducer you propose using:


You can see significant falloff but the BMPCC4K with 1.9x ‘crop’ sensor will look good with the lens with minimal falloff. Any reduction of the image circle with a Metabones Ultra Speedbooster (0.71x) though will cause severe vignetting at f/2.8 as indicated in a previous post.

I used the Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S (with simple modification) on the 4K + Speedbooster as it has the best video IS I know of any lens.

Thanks Rick! I’m a bit puzzled now though. Doesn’t the speed booster just expand the circle from MFT to APS-C? Michael said that’s the combo he used on his 4k.

Anyone know how the panny 12-35 MFT lens compares to the Cannon both image and IS wise?

… I’m a bit puzzled now though. Doesn’t the speed booster just expand the circle from MFT to APS-C?
…

The Speedbooster expands the optical field of view for a ‘crop’ sensor, but the focal reducer shrinks the image circle.

Speedbooster Ultra (0.71x) allows you to gain a full stop of exposure so that a f/2.8 lens will appear to have the light-gathering capability of an f/2 lens. It provides that illumination boost by concentrating the light in a smaller image circle.

This works best if you have a larger image circle such as a Super 35 lens (crop 1.42x) or a ‘full frame’ lens on a mirrorless sensor (crop 2x):
2 x 0.71 = 1.42.

Ok now I’m more puzzled. Looking back at my last post it seems I said expand when I meant contract. Sort of swapped things.

I thought speed booster was just a brand name for a focal reducer. Either way it increases the light by shrinking the image circle so it falls on a smaller area.

But since the lens is made for APS-C and the sensor is a (smaller) MFT that the speed booster/focal reducer shrinks the image circle from its intended APS-C to my desired MFT.

Where am I mistaken?

It’s the amount of shrinking. The area of the image circle becomes about 50% smaller with a 0.71x focal reducer. That reduction from an APS-C Canon 1.6x crop lens to a mirrorless sensor with a 1.9x crop is too great; the resulting image will be too small to cover the BMPCC4K sensor. If the lens was a Super 35 lens the image circle would shrink appropriately to match the size of the smaller sensor.

Joe,

I originally said I used it on the 4K w. Speed Booster but I'm not entirely sure anymore, see below:

But I'm not sure if I had it on the 4K or the OG Pocket, it's an EF-S lens so it might vignette depending on the speed booster / camera combo.

Anyone know how the panny 12-35 MFT lens compares to the Cannon both image and IS wise?

I think that lens looks terrible (as many MFT lenses).

The original BMPCC has a much smaller sensor and then the APS-C lens will work with the much smaller sensor, a 3.2x crop of a 1.6x lens is a very good fit for the Metabones Speedbooster ULTRA for BMPCC.

APSC/s35 and MFT are relatively vague terms overall. Blackmagic's first S35 sensor was 21mm wide vs. the 27mm width of the Ursa Mini 12k. This is twice the difference between the P4k's 19mm MFT sensor and Canon's XTi APSC/S35 22mm sensor (the source of Rick's grab.)

The effective sensor width of the 19mm MFT sensor on the P4K with a .71X booster is in the territory of 26.5mm. Given the amount of vignetting on the 22mm Canon sensor I'd said a fair bit of vignetting is likely on the wide end with a booster.

Good Luck

I used the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 a lot on my RED Scarlet-X over 10 years ago and it didn't vignette.
s35mm / APS-H sensor size.

Wide open, virtually all lenses vignette. If you mean to say there was no portholing or hard vignetting that’s one thing but this lens loses 2 stops in the corners on a 22mm sensor wide open. It’s not going to get better at 26mm tho one will get a little back shooting 16 or 17:9 over 3:2.

Good Luck

I must admit in general I enjoy lens aberrations like vignetting. Analog character. Of course there are good and bad aberrations but I don’t think of moderate vignetting as a bad thing.

What other lenses might people recommend for my fairly simple application?

On sale at B&H Photo for $999.99, the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 Pro zoom mFT would be a good general zoom. Lots of comments about it in forum threads.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1817759-REG

If you want a faster f/2.8 zoom, consider the Olympus 12-40mm on sale for $799.99:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1688419-REG

I THINK I’d prefer a Canon EF mount lens so I could leave the speed booster installed. Is that a bad idea? That would also mean I’d have the option to use the lens on my 6K FF.

My general impression is that MFT is great to adapt to other mounts but that buying native lenses is kind of a waste as the MFT format doesn’t have staying power.

Then perhaps the Canon 24-70mm? That’s full frame and you’d certainly have no issues with the Speedbooster.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA

Most full frame zooms are a few thousand dollars and up.

No IS as far as I can tell. And rather more spendy than I’d like to go at first.

I must admit in general I enjoy lens aberrations like vignetting.

Well, in my book 2 stops is more than a bit of 'character'. Even if you can compensate for some vignetting with a Power Window, you'll get more noise in the corners.
So, if you want to stay with EF and a focal reducer, try any cheap full-frame kit zoom and see if it suffices.

I’m saying I find some vignetting acceptable. I believe you that two stops is too much. Just asking people who more experience than me what they’d suggest given that I clearly need IS and would like a decently flexible lens or perhaps two lenses that’ll be under say $1200 and be” pretty” rather than clinical.

If that’s not enough info then please tell me what I’m leaving out and I’ll try to provide it. You all are much more experienced at cinematography than I am hence my asking.

PS I’m a fan of the “cooke look” and 70s glass if that’s any help.

It's rather either/or then.
That seventies look can be had for cheap with photographic vintage lenses like, e.g. M42 Takumars, adapted to EF. But those will be primes and will not have a stabiliser.
Or it's a modern zoom with a stabiliser, which will either be cheap with not-so-pretty flaws and not such a great stabiliser. Or it will be an expensive zoom with a rather clinical look.
You may want to get different lenses for different projects.

Seems like the difficult part for me is the need for a stabilizer in a lens. Other than that I like the old still lenses. Do you think at wide enough focal lengths like 12-25 I will be able to avoid the micro jitters with a non stabilized lens? I guess in vintage glass it may be cheap enough to just experiment.

If you mean to say there was no portholing or hard vignetting that’s one thing but this lens loses 2 stops in the corners on a 22mm sensor wide open.

If there was any severe vignetting with the RED Scarlet-X then I can't remember.

What other lenses might people recommend for my fairly simple application?

What was great about the 17-55 was that you could pan, tilt and move and it would always smooth out those movements, including the "ins" and "outs".
Personally I'm not aware of any other EF lens that has a great video IS, every one I tried would cause sudden chopped movements or lag and then compensate with a too fast movement, ect. Some more, some less, but they all did something. I haven't tried each EF IS lens so there might be another good one out there.

Just asking people who more experience than me what they’d suggest given that I clearly need IS and would like a decently flexible lens or perhaps two lenses that’ll be under say $1200 and be” pretty” rather than clinical.
.

That would confirm my recommendation of the 17-55 2.8. It isn't too soft wide open but renders a lovely image. It's the lens I regret selling most. Unfortunately you'd need to buy it used and won't be able to test the vignetting with your camera+SB combo.

@17mm the rear element apparently sometimes touches a Viltrox Speedbooster (and sometimes not).
Seems to work with Metabones with slight vignetting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments ... ltra_x071/

Maybe you can borrow it somewhere before buying to test.


Found this BMPCC4K w. Viltrox Ef-m2 , 0.71x

That would confirm my recommendation of the 17-55 2.8. It isn't too soft wide open but renders a lovely image. It's the lens I regret selling most.

Unfortunately you'd need to buy it used

Thanks Michael. I’m convinced! As far as used goes, is the one that’s available new different? Here’s one link to it:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... _8_IS.html

I see this lens on eBay used and has regularly sold for $200-$350. Am I looking at the right one?

That listing points to an open box gray market sale. In other words it’s used and doesn’t have a Canon warranty.

I thought you said you wanted an EF mount camera that you could also use on your BMCC6K full frame camera. I don’t think that lens will give you good results shooting Super 35 on the BCCC6K.

One thing I have learned over the years: buying a camera is easy, buying a lens is hard. Because there are always trade-offs to be made. As Howard says, “good luck.”

Yes this listing is open box. I pointed there because it’s B&H which most people find reputable. Here it is on sale from Willoughby’s new in box for $549:

https://www.willoughbys.com/Canon_EF-S_ ... 31145.html

My main question again here is is this the correct lens or is it a lesser lens that’s a follow-on to the original that Michael has said is only available used.

14 hours left to save $330 for a lens with Canon warranty so if you have a problem, Canon will stand behind their lens.

The lens has the same description as it has always had. There’s no change to the branding which Canon would do if it was a second generation of the lens such as mark ‘II’ so I would say it’s the same lens with largely plastic parts in the lens housing. The actual optics have been described as ‘L’ (Canon’s professional branding), but there is no formal L designation for the 17-55mm because those L lenses have metal housings.

You’re well aware of the potential for strong vignetting with wide-open aperture and wide angle using the Speedbooster Ultra for BMPCC4K. You may find the lens acceptable and if not you can return it to the retailer.

With the Speedbooster Ultra (0.71x focal reducer) this 17mm lens will behave as if it’s approximately a 23mm focal length on the BMPCC4K. Another option, if you want to keep the lens but don’t like the vignette, is use of the Metabones Smart Adapter for EF that has no optics. In that scenario, the lens would have the field of view of about a 32mm lens so still reasonably wide. I shoot with my BMPCC4K and the SLR Magic 32mm APO prime lens regularly and like the perspective it has on the pocket camera. Granted being able to get as wide as 23mm with a zoom is better!

Thanks for the additional info!

Looking closer it says “import model” which means no us warranty. So I’ll probably go for a used one off KEH. Discovered it is indeed discontinued in 2021 but I guess there’s still plenty of new old stock around. Even Canon still sells it directly.

Brand New Factory Fresh Import Model

They put that on Nikon lenses as well. Did you phone them to understand there’s no Canon USA warranty which means it’s considered Gray Market, but they don’t explicitly say Gray Market?

I googled them and there was a Reddit discussion about how the company had turned into scam artists. They did this exact thing with selling gray market items as “import models.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/co ... _emporium/

Prudent to avoid as you decided. Let us know how this all turns out when you have the lens.

Will do! Thanks everyone for all the help.

EDIT:
I was under the impression that this lens is not produced anymore but I think I was wrong, looks like you can still buy it new?

Definitely plenty of new copies still available even though it’s been discontinued as of 2021 according to Wikipedia.

Still I’ll probably get a used one for $400 rather than a new one for 900.