Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
Yes, in such a way you move the center of gravity more up front. But when you pan you get a slightly different effect too.
Black Magic PocketHD and 4K production camera
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
dregenthal
Veteran
Once again we have a situation where a manufacturer (that happens to be leading the innovation pack at the moment), has failed to package every single feature we could possibly imagine into one camera (at less than $1000).
Gawd, I hate it when that happens.
Gawd, I hate it when that happens.
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
What missing features are you talking about?
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
Oh, sarcasm. That's an overrated feature...
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
He's clearly referring to the fact that the BMC-Pocket body only comes in a polished aluminium finish - no Ruby Red, Tangerine, or Hot Pink for us, it would seem. When is Black Magic going to get serious about the fashion conscious cinematographer?
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
Touché, good sir.
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
Does that mean a PL adapter as that on picture will become next year's fashion?
Michael Schrengohst
Well-known member
Heh, heh - the PL adapter probably costs more than the camera….and that lens is probably 4 or 5 times the cost of the camera…..
For marketing purposes BMC should have had like a 20MM Lumix on the Pocket Cam for that shot.
Can't say I have ever owned an interchangeable lens camera where the lens kit wasn't far more expensive than the body. Premium lenses are a good investment over time. Camera bodies are not, especially in the digital era.
Gut punch!
Nah, I think the PL mount actually does cost less than the camera, but the glass? Definitely more.
This is a good point, but the counter to that's when guys like m'self see the Hot Rod PL mount and the Superspeed on the camera it's like "Yeah, that's why I'm getting that camera."
Combo looks amazing, perhaps just missing a grip on the underside and a viewfinder.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Kind of crazy to think that small $995 NEX looking thing would have been a god send to people like Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez, and Aronofsky not so long ago.
Michael Schrengohst
Well-known member
Yeah, the camera bodies are almost - almost getting disposable.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Or it's exactly the other way round. "The little camera that could." Just shows which possibilities there may be: Could hook up my little sports car with a F1 motor if I need..... Looks more like a clever marketing argument.
And if the Pocket opens the road to more S-16 size sensor-cameras coming to the game - PL adapter may be a nice thing to own. What it does above all is that it makes the MFT-family both stronger and more diverse. I like it. A lot. If it does what they say it will - and comes in time.
Just the opposite of how it was thirty years ago. Then a new Eclair ACL II (camera and one 400-ft. mag) cost $16,400 ($35,000-$40,000 in 2013 dollars). Film stocks came and went, but the camera kept chugging along. If properly maintained, an ACL is still good today. With filmstocks, over the course of a few years we might see incremental reduction in grain, a little more sharpness and latitude, or (at best) a doubling of EI. And film standards -- e.g., film width, perforation pitch -- haven't really changed much in a bazillion years. With digital, however, the sensor and electronics -- the vital organs of the camera -- are effectively the filmstock. Over a few years, we may see nearly a quadrupling of everything and a changing in underlying standards. Yeah, despite Red's motto, all digital cameras are obsolescent before they hit the assembly line.
Last edited:
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
I'm not so sure going down in sensor size, like to S16, is the right way to go. S16 is probably the limit, as it was already blown up in films like "Leaving Las Vegas" that could be viewed in theaters with large screens.
For me "Leaving..." was the coming of age of S16. Around that time I was DP on a documentary, where film latitude was fundamental, and I could see how far film had got. If you exposed for the middle, you could print it almost 6 to 7 stops to each side and get detail in the upper knee and lower knee.
They claim 13 stops latitude for the Pocket, but will those upper and lower knees of the video sensor resolve that as elegantly as film did?
People seem to be worried mostly about low-light response, but what interests me more is how high contrast situations, like shooting in backlight, will be dealt with by the Pocket and the 4K too.
You also need very high quality glass for this too, with excellent non-reflective coatings on the lenses.
So this is what I wonder if we can get from the micro 4/3 lenses we have now.
For me "Leaving..." was the coming of age of S16. Around that time I was DP on a documentary, where film latitude was fundamental, and I could see how far film had got. If you exposed for the middle, you could print it almost 6 to 7 stops to each side and get detail in the upper knee and lower knee.
They claim 13 stops latitude for the Pocket, but will those upper and lower knees of the video sensor resolve that as elegantly as film did?
People seem to be worried mostly about low-light response, but what interests me more is how high contrast situations, like shooting in backlight, will be dealt with by the Pocket and the 4K too.
You also need very high quality glass for this too, with excellent non-reflective coatings on the lenses.
So this is what I wonder if we can get from the micro 4/3 lenses we have now.
People need to think about the camera SYSTEM. I.E. the body cost plus the cost of everything you need to make it work for you.
philiplipetz
Veteran
How do you think older Super 16 cinema lenses will work without modern reflective coatings? I have seen some great work with them on REDs in 2K crop mode. Flare with backlite sun, but otherwise great.
philiplipetz
Veteran
The ugly secret about the BMPCC is that recording media costs are double that of the BMCC if we must use the best SD cards, as JB says.