Personal View site logo
2K BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera, active m43, $995
  • 4493 Replies sorted by
  • Hopefully we'll get some better footage here. I'd say 75% of the footage is not sharp. I just don't know if people are having a hard time focusing with it. The colors are great but it almost looks like there's a softening filter put on most the footage. I'm not one for crazy sharp images either. I really like what the 2.5K is giving me. I don't get it.

  • Yeah, all that softness is what is bothering me. The DR is there, ok.… color as well. But what about the sharpness? It kinda reminds me the early days of Canon's h264. Will RAW improve that?? 'Aukland in my pocket' was the only real nice footage so far. JB also shot some cool stuff. Let's wait and see what PB can get.

  • Reid will bring a blind leading blind manual out for his phalanx of adopters soon, fear not - book of Mormon? Meme Video - and if ever one of his believers makes it to a work situation the stinky meme will keep me lucratively working weekends , along with many more happy chaps!

  • Don't know if anyone posted this here yet but here are are some more raw prores shots of some green screen stuff:

    It was linked from a article posted on the 18th


  • She did say that the softness was due to the variable ND filter she was using.

  • Well that was just a stupid, pointless test. Hey, let me get this brand new camera, be the 5th person to show footage, know it has a crazy crop factor, most likely use one of the Vari NDs that sucks beyond 50mm on a FF, Lightcraft/Genus(Reg) and post it. Oh, I'll be in the sun with a tight white top so that's all that matters. Oh....wait......shit, my bad I guess that's all that really matters. My bad. Continue with your test ma'am :)

  • @vicharris her whole ensemble was quite impressive... seriously :)

  • Philip has a production model from CVP, so the same one that everyone else has.

    As far as Softness goes, this is basically what happens when people don't sit down and look at what they've got before posting footage. Variable NDs = wrong, flat out wrong.

    Captain Hook's footage shows that it can be plenty sharp, so does some of John's footage (some of it was soft). Soon enough, though.

  • @SuperSet No, I was trying to make a joke but yeah, if she was in charge of putting Vari NDs on that thing, she's an idiot. Period and shouldn't be reviewing brand new cameras since she has no idea what she's doing. Period :)

  • Jem: "The 14mm pancake that we used was crap. Very soft even stopped down."... Really?!?

  • @vicharris

    I was under the impression that Mr Cheesy Cam' studio shoot all their footage - hence they use the same gear, as does Oliviatech- very incestuous that lot. So if anyone's to blame it's not the chick. LOL

  • I've heard not good things with Pany glass multiple times. That's why I have the SLR Magic Cine set.

    @last_SHIFT You know, she presents herself as an expert and not just a hot chic talking about cameras. All I'm saying is anyone using a cheap Vari ND on one of the few cameras out there should not be considered a reliable source of anything. It's the same thing when some quasi famous internet review guy accused me of moving my Rokinon 35mm back and forth while I was trying to demonstrate how bad it breathes. Then he asked me what breathing is. It's just that kind of crap that grinds my gears! :)

  • I've heard not good things with SLR Magic glass multiple times. That's why I have Pany, Oly and Voigt lenses. :)

  • Yeah I am still not totally blown away by any of the footage bar 'Aukland in my Pocket', that however was shot with some expensive Canon glass so maybe thats the difference?

    It just seems so soft...and also the motion blur doesnt seem right on most of the footage...I always use 1/50 to get a nice motion blur, which translates to a 180 degree shutter on the BMPCC...are people not using this??

    I await Phillip Blooms tests to see what he can pull out of the camera...but right now based on the footage I have the unknown of when I might actually get the camera I may be tempted to cancel my order and invest in some more glass for my hacked gh2....

  • @Imackreath ...or you can drop your pre-order and use those funds to offset half the cost of the bmcc ;)

  • @BurnetRhoades @niGGo Thank you. Yes, I presume a lot of the poor footage is down to the users not the camera. Only seen a couple of really good examples of stuff looking nice. Going to pick up a BMCC and see how close I can get it and GH2 to match.

  • While I didn't have a 14mm Panny to test, even the famed 20mm hat soft corners WO open the BMPCC. So, there might be something when these lenses are not corrected in camera.

  • Don't know if it's a camera correction problem. As far as I know the corrections are related to CA and distortion only. Both the P14 and P20 are known as VERY sharp lenses... Still waiting for a killer footage from the Pocket... My pre-order is on risk..... :(

  • Panasonic lenses are sharpened a LOT in-cam.... (even with sharpness dialed down).

    You will see fluctuations in sharpness in-between different bodies for the same lens because of this.

  • I don't get it, guys. You've seen nomad's charts. The BMPCC resolves significantly more than the GH2, even forgetting its dynamic range and gradeability.

    Have folks come to love the sharpened DLSR look?

  • The charts were shot with a (originally) very sharp Zeiss C/Y. I wonder what's going on with the P20, since it is very sharp on my GH2, but on the even smaller sensor of the BMPCC the corners were softer.

  • I presume most of the posted samples of Pocket shots are not sharpened in post. So it is pretty normal to look a bit soft. They need and will hold much sharpen without problems.

  • S16mm also looks "soft", compared to GH2 footage. Some of this is generation loss related to film processing, and even 35mm prints rarely deliver more than 700-800 lines in a theater, but maybe it's really an aesthetic question in the end.