BMD 6K Pocket Cinema Camera

Paul F said:
True, but unfortunately, producers want the latest cool thing. "Full frame; I gotta have it. 6K? ... oh yeah, I need that too."

Speaking of viewers, I'll bet if I started making TVs that were vertical instead of horizontal, I'd sell them. First I patent it. Then ... "Now selling! An exclusive from Apricot, an iPhone compatible TV/monitor. Now watch your videos the way they were meant to be seen! No more black bars on the sides! Fill the screen with your latest videos!"
Click to expand...

Yeah... Samsung beat you to it. ; )

https://www.redsharknews.com/post/item/6346-are-we-really-ready-for-a-vertical-tv
 
scorsesefan said:
... And already I see some PK6k cams on Craigslist at inflated prices because they're already on backorder at BH/Adorama...
Click to expand...
Side story - a friend sends me a link to Jalopnik yesterday. A Toyota dealer at Vero Beach, FL listed a brand new Supra for $200,000. The list is ~ $55,000. Allegedly, it was sold for $140,000.

So, while getting from Point A to Point B in a 109 hp Nissan Versa is fine and dandy, some people like a little more Fahrvergnügen.
 
Paul F said:
Thank you Drift. I was getting lost at the enthusiasm for 6k. I thought maybe I was missing something.
Click to expand...

If people want to shoot in 6K, 8K or 24K eventually, go sick. Just sayin', in the real world, there is a hidden cost in your media, storage and editing pipeline that is fairly significant that seems to get glossed over in every breathless exortation about how XX camera is great because it's 6K or 8K.
It's the same reason why when I review and write about cameras, I go out and use them on real jobs doing shoots for paying clients instead of shooting test charts and measurebating about the differences between 13 and 13.5 stops of DR. All I care about with cameras are
are they reliable, do I and my clients like the images and does the camera work well in the real world. Same reason I have issues with the new breed of Chinese Z Cams and Kinefinity, not because they aren't good cameras, but because I only care about it I buy one,
put it to work and it breaks, do I have to ship it back to Shenzen and wait two months to get it back from repair. In the real world, spending thousands on a new camera and then having to then rent other cameras when your new camera breaks is the worst.
My C200 broke, although arguably, the breakdown was at least mostly my fault and Canon USA had it repaired and back in my hands in a week. THAT is worth so much more to a working DP than is it 6K or does it do this or that.

Unlike a lot of camera reviewers, I only care about what a tool can do for me in the real world to make money and satisfy clients and deadlines. Honestly, much of the rest is all techno-nerd hype to a point.
 
puredrifting said:
If people want to shoot in 6K, 8K or 24K eventually, go sick. Just sayin', in the real world, there is a hidden cost in your media, storage and editing pipeline that is fairly significant that seems to get glossed over in every breathless exortation about how XX camera is great because it's 6K or 8K.
It's the same reason why when I review and write about cameras, I go out and use them on real jobs doing shoots for paying clients instead of shooting test charts and measurebating about the differences between 13 and 13.5 stops of DR. All I care about with cameras are
are they reliable, do I and my clients like the images and does the camera work well in the real world. Same reason I have issues with the new breed of Chinese Z Cams and Kinefinity, not because they aren't good cameras, but because I only care about it I buy one,
put it to work and it breaks, do I have to ship it back to Shenzen and wait two months to get it back from repair. In the real world, spending thousands on a new camera and then having to then rent other cameras when your new camera breaks is the worst.
My C200 broke, although arguably, the breakdown was at least mostly my fault and Canon USA had it repaired and back in my hands in a week. THAT is worth so much more to a working DP than is it 6K or does it do this or that.

Unlike a lot of camera reviewers, I only care about what a tool can do for me in the real world to make money and satisfy clients and deadlines. Honestly, much of the rest is all techno-nerd hype to a point.
Click to expand...

I always love your insight and no-nonsense comments. Would love to connect with you off-forum (social media) and see your work. Where can I do that?
 
puredrifting said:
If people want to shoot in 6K, 8K or 24K eventually, go sick. Just sayin', in the real world, there is a hidden cost in your media, storage and editing pipeline that is fairly significant that seems to get glossed over in every breathless exortation about how XX camera is great because it's 6K or 8K.
It's the same reason why when I review and write about cameras, I go out and use them on real jobs doing shoots for paying clients instead of shooting test charts and measurebating about the differences between 13 and 13.5 stops of DR. All I care about with cameras are
are they reliable, do I and my clients like the images and does the camera work well in the real world. Same reason I have issues with the new breed of Chinese Z Cams and Kinefinity, not because they aren't good cameras, but because I only care about it I buy one,
put it to work and it breaks, do I have to ship it back to Shenzen and wait two months to get it back from repair. In the real world, spending thousands on a new camera and then having to then rent other cameras when your new camera breaks is the worst.
My C200 broke, although arguably, the breakdown was at least mostly my fault and Canon USA had it repaired and back in my hands in a week. THAT is worth so much more to a working DP than is it 6K or does it do this or that.

Unlike a lot of camera reviewers, I only care about what a tool can do for me in the real world to make money and satisfy clients and deadlines. Honestly, much of the rest is all techno-nerd hype to a point.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why i think the division of image quality is ridiculous. Consumers and prosumers want unrealisitc image quality, whereas professionals are thinking more pragmatically.
 
James0b57 said:
This is exactly why i think the division of image quality is ridiculous. Consumers and prosumers want unrealisitc image quality, whereas professionals are thinking more pragmatically.
Click to expand...

Professionals just want to get the job done by whatever means is necessary. Consumers expect the camera to do the entire job for them and get very upset when the camera isn't perfect every time.
 
James0b57 said:
This is exactly why i think the division of image quality is ridiculous. Consumers and prosumers want unrealisitc image quality, whereas professionals are thinking more pragmatically.
Click to expand...
Producers/media conglomerates want to make what they can sell. And if it's easier to sell 6K/4K vs. 1080P, then that's the direction the industry will take.

Two years ago, the debate on Canon boards was about the C-200 C-Fast 2.0 cards, then going for about $3/GB (SanDisk). Then EGO came out at a little over $1 and, since it worked fine, C-200 became a tenable model. A Canon executive was quoted at the time that, while indeed the cards were pricey at the time of the release, they're likely to be fairly affordable soon. And they became affordable quickly.

The same goes for the SSD's, CPU's/GPU's, codecs, Red mags (well, maybe not Red mags), et cetera. Short of time? Shoot 4K baked-in HEVC @ 80 Mbps. Have a flexible schedule and DIT's? Shoot 5.7K compressed Raw.

Will there be division in quality? I say, if there is, it will be marginal and mostly due to variables other than cameras.
 
@dingo
@dld
@pure
@rice

Cellphones took care of all the “don’t see the difference” consumers. So, what kind of camera buyer is left? The one that wants to shoot birthday memories and family trips, or make art on their spare time. But they can’t afford $20K + of camera.

Any way, sales are down for these companies, and they deserve it.

I’ll buy Panasonic or whatever, when it comes to work, but even today, these companies have a hard time letting go of the image quality separation.

The C200 codecs felt like a passive aggressive move. “Here, you want image quality? Here fine take it! Have it! Have fun buying hard drives every week!”


It all works out in the end. Tech is moving so much faster than the camera industry. Soon Dyson and Tesla will take better picutres than cameras.

The cameras are always... not bad, for the day. But Really don’t start looking ok until they have certain base specs, and no camera has that yet. Maybe the Alev iv will be the first one.


I just always thought it silly the road maps these companies take. Seems like what are they afraid to not include, rather than what is going to make a better image.
 
Camera manufacturers are a tight circle of close semi-competitors, which is why you see such abominations as the codecs in C-200. But if no one sends angry letters to their consumer relations, then these companies PR departments are elevated in their importance.

As to image quality, it's an upwardly sliding scale. One day, the high end pro cameras are 8, the low end pros are 6, the consumer DSLR's are 4 and the smartphones are 2. A decade later, both the low and the high end pros are 10+, the DSLR's are 8 and the smartphones are 6 1/2. And most viewers can't spot anything beyond 5.

PS By 10+, I mean that anything with 4K and 10 stops is more than a human eye can discern. I just watched a couple P6K clips uploaded in 8K because that minimizes the YouTube compression. (it buffers on my end) And then it's left to the camera operators, of which there's seemingly an unlimited number.
 
DLD said:
Camera manufacturers are a tight circle of close semi-competitors, which is why you see such abominations as the codecs in C-200. But if no one sends angry letters to their consumer relations, then these companies PR departments are elevated in their importance.

As to image quality, it's an upwardly sliding scale. One day, the high end pro cameras are 8, the low end pros are 6, the consumer DSLR's are 4 and the smartphones are 2. A decade later, both the low and the high end pros are 10+, the DSLR's are 8 and the smartphones are 6 1/2. And most viewers can't spot anything beyond 5.

PS By 10+, I mean that anything with 4K and 10 stops is more than a human eye can discern. I just watched a couple P6K clips uploaded in 8K because that minimizes the YouTube compression. (it buffers on my end) And then it's left to the camera operators, of which there's seemingly an unlimited number.
Click to expand...

That may be, as there tends to be a “because we can” mentality with technology.


Video and Stills should continue to be seperate in the professional world. They have different requirements.


Resolution:

Stills are static. A single frame with extra resolution can be looked at longer, and the viewer can admired the details.

Video is dynamic. A single video takes place over time. The camera can more around or a shot can “cut” in closer. So resolution is not as high a priority.

Dynamic range:

Stills is a moment or instant. It is easier to get around dynamic range restrictions because you only are capturing one angle.

Video is recording over time and movement. A single shot can and does often go from indoors to out doors, or objust can move in and out of frame or change. Dynamic range is a high priority in video.
 
However, in the consumer market, hybrid cameras make a lot of sense.
 
This 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW camera is really going to stir up the high end film market with 6K RAW. 6K RAW is better than what Hollywood has been forced against their will to shoot on in the past, the just now outdated Alexa Mini and Alexa XT at a mere 3.4K RAW which can't do 6K RAW. And the huge cost savings on Hollywood productions of using cheap 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW cameras with their 6K RAW better than Arri 6K RAW image quality will mean that 6K RAW Hollywood movies can now afford to spend more money on 6K RAW CGI so the next 6K RAW Cats remake will look 6K RAW great when shot on 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW with better CGI and 6K RAW.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
This 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW camera is really going to stir up the high end film market with 6K RAW. 6K RAW is better than what Hollywood has been forced against their will to shoot on in the past, the just now outdated Alexa Mini and Alexa XT at a mere 3.4K RAW which can't do 6K RAW. And the huge cost savings on Hollywood productions of using cheap 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW cameras with their 6K RAW better than Arri 6K RAW image quality will mean that 6K RAW Hollywood movies can now afford to spend more money on 6K RAW CGI so the next 6K RAW Cats remake will look 6K RAW great when shot on 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW with better CGI and 6K RAW.
Click to expand...

I can’t tell if you are being serious or not.
 
James0b57 said:
I can’t tell if you are being serious or not.
Click to expand...

He's being Eric.

FWIW, I agree with him, the BMD PCC 6K, if they've improved reliability, is a really sweet prosumer, hobbyist camera. I seriously doubt it will see much pro/Hollywood use other than as a car cam/plant cam or crash cam, essentially it's a high end Go Pro as far as television and features would regard it.
The Alexa LF, possibly the Venice and the Monstro will be the most popular cameras used in all Hollywood output for the foreseeable future. Hollywood isn't nearly as trendy as the low end and hobbyists. For that matter, still a lot of high end stuff shot on the now ancient F55.
Based on my experience in Hollywood working on some pretty high end sets, once stuff works and looks good, is reliable and crews like it, it will work for quite a while. Hell, if it wasn't for Netflix, the regular Alex and Alexa Mini would be the standard for the next couple of years still.
You're not going to see mirrorless cameras in higher end production, other than for special purposes, like Bell & Howell Eyemos used to be used in the days of film, crewed production and small cameras just don't mix.
 
Eric is an Arri fan, and he knows more than anyone the reliability and the practicality of thos cameras for work. He just went wrote a whole paragraph, not many people stay in character that long. Maybe he types fast.


In any case. I don’t think he is being serious.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
This 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW camera is really going to stir up the high end film market with 6K RAW. 6K RAW is better than what Hollywood has been forced against their will to shoot on in the past, the just now outdated Alexa Mini and Alexa XT at a mere 3.4K RAW which can't do 6K RAW. And the huge cost savings on Hollywood productions of using cheap 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW cameras with their 6K RAW better than Arri 6K RAW image quality will mean that 6K RAW Hollywood movies can now afford to spend more money on 6K RAW CGI so the next 6K RAW Cats remake will look 6K RAW great when shot on 6K RAW Blackmagic 6K RAW with better CGI and 6K RAW.
Click to expand...

This is art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top