Really interested to see the sample footage from this.

NAB 2013: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera unveiled on Vimeo

There might be videographer teams doing high end bmc weddings but that camera doesn't have the ergonomics to do weddings, it's much worse then a dslr and it has a much harder workflow, especially in a business where you are doing 1 to 2 run and gun type weddings every week. There is one guy in that thread you linked to that wants to do weddings with it but after seeing some of his posted samples I can tell this is not a camera for everyone as I have seen better looking footage done with a dslr. Many think they will have instant filmlike footage by just pointing the camera and pressing the rec button but I have seen enough bmc footage that looked like crap to know it takes an experienced operator to get it right and I"m sure this pocket cam is no different.

I think if you carried that thing around in your pocket, you'd better wear really baggy pants with your shirt left out.

Hey guys. What would you say a decent set of zoom lenses would run for this thing? For instance many folks have the 24-105 and 70-200 for the 5d. Whatd be the equivalent for the bmpc, given the different sensor size?

Owning a large selection of m43 lens I can see how this camera could be incorporated into my filming; not as my main camera, but in certain situations where extra DR was needed; a few beauty exterior shots. That said, I'm certainly not pre-ordering. Their 1st camera is far from perfect and for many people who ordered last April, they're still awaiting stock.

There might be videographer teams doing high end bmc weddings but that camera doesn't have the ergonomics to do weddings, it's much worse then a dslr and it has a much harder workflow, especially in a business where you are doing 1 to 2 run and gun type weddings every week. There is one guy in that thread you linked to that wants to do weddings with it but after seeing some of his posted samples I can tell this is not a camera for everyone as I have seen better looking footage done with a dslr. Many think they will have instant filmlike footage by just pointing the camera and pressing the rec button but I have seen enough bmc footage that looked like crap to know it takes an experienced operator to get it right and I"m sure this pocket cam is no different.


I'm sure you can say the same thing about any camera. I've also seen great footage from the BMCC.

I think this could be a great tool to use during a wedding. Even if it's just for the prores. People are already rigging out their DSLRs to work for filming a wedding. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to outfit the BM Pocket Camera to work for a wedding, especially for those who are using the m4/3 mount already (GH2/3).

The biggest downside is the harder workflow and weather it's worth the extra effort.

When I ditched my huge JVC ENG cameras for the Sony VX1000, it was hard to believe the much smaller camera would be up to the task. I just added a shoulder bracket along with an up front grip with LANC to control rec.pause/zoom and was I happy. I am sure I will like the pocket BM especially with the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 (24-70) along with a LANC grip and a really good shoulder bracket. A loupe type magnifier for sunny outdoors and you have a formidable weapon.

I'm sure you can say the same thing about any camera. I've also seen great footage from the BMCC.

I know you can get great looking footage out of a bmc but all I was trying to say not everyone will succeed into doing that. I have seen footage that is jaw-dropping beautiful and I have seen footage that looks worse then what my 600 euro dslr can do, this means these camera's require a certain level of expertise to get the most of it but if you get it right, the sun shines :)

I"m sure you could cover a wedding with at least 2 operators manually controlling 2 bmc pocket cams on a tripod, slider or steadicam, audio you can always record separately. I am almost sure to get one by the end of the year, when I have seen enough user footage to know it will be a safe investment, plan on using it mainly for personal projects.

I am almost sure to get one by the end of the year, when I have seen enough user footage to know it will be a safe investment, plan on using it mainly for personal projects.

Assuming it's available by then. I know a few Videographers still awaiting last years model.

When I ditched my huge JVC ENG cameras for the Sony VX1000, it was hard to believe the much smaller camera would be up to the task. I just added a shoulder bracket along with an up front grip with LANC to control rec.pause/zoom and was I happy. I am sure I will like the pocket BM especially with the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 (24-70) along with a LANC grip and a really good shoulder bracket. A loupe type magnifier for sunny outdoors and you have a formidable weapon.

I noticed you put 24-70 in parenthesis, but to complicate matters worse, that wouldn't be accurate if you're speaking of the Black Magic Pocket. The BMP has a 3x crop, so if you wanted to denote what the full frame equivalent angle of view would be when the panasonic 12-35 is on the BMP, it would be (36-105).

Because of the BMP we won't be able to simply say "The Panasonic 35-100 is the 70-200 equivalent" without also adding ". . .when in front of a micro four thirds sensor." The BMP is m43 mount, but roughly a 1" sensor I believe.

Oh it's gonna get all sorts of confusing!

To add, what would be damn cool is the re-emergence if 16mm contemporary lenses. And Since BM cameras aren't designed for photographers, the new lenses would be specifically designed for motion picture and zero regard for stills. It would a be a streamlined set of lenses. The lenses would be even smaller than m43 lenses, which could possibly mean, dare I say, cheaper? Perhaps wishful thinking. Actually, all of what I just said is wishful thinking. The BMP, unfortunately is only one body, so it's doubtful any company could afford the R&D for it, or want to take that gamble on one body. Still...would be cool.

What'd be the equivalent for the bmpc, given the different sensor size?

S16 has a crop factor of 3 IIRC.

Crop factor of 3 is fine being thus allowing a boost in the tele side of things. The 12-35 panny at the tele end would be welcome for the long shots. Question: on the wide side of that ( 38mm equiv) , can a really good wide adapter like Century Optics be used to widen things up a bit, or perhaps obtain a fisheye effect as well. If full range zooming is possible with the adapter, all the better.

Just thinking, how would a B4 mount lens such as those used in ENG broadcast 2/3 inch cameras work out with the pocket sensor size.? most I've seen are in the 12 to 1 zooms with 1.8 apertures.

Hey guys. What would you say a decent set of zoom lenses would run for this thing? For instance many folks have the 24-105 and 70-200 for the 5d. Whatd be the equivalent for the bmpc, given the different sensor size?

Since I am already a micro 4/3 shooter, I plan on pre-ordering the BPCC (http://www.adorama.com/VDBMCCP.html?kbid=68009) once I see some graded footage. I'll probably get the m.Zuiko 9-18 f/4-5.6 for it to complement theZuiko 11-22 f/2.8-3.5[/url] that's currently adapted to my GH3.

I am also looking at those adapted B4 ENG zooms. I would very much like to try one of these $500 9-126mm parfocal servo zooms on the BPCC.

Them B4 zooms look enticing, after all they were designed for 2/3 inch 3 CCD sensors on Betacams and such. I read an article that they were optimized for the 3 chip prismatic setup ( RGB) and would not be well suited for flat plane single sensor. I don't know about that as I never tried one on any other cam. Them lenses come a dime a dozen on eBay and were originally in the thousands when they were available back then. I am sure a B4 adapter mount is available but will the lens cover the entire sensor on the pocket cam without vignetting or sharpness issues ? when they say 16mm , I imagine that is the diagonal dimension, therefore a 2/3 inch sensor (s ) is equivalent to 16.914 mm. diagonal. Awful close. Just a mm. If that is the case, perhaps the darkened perimeter can be cropped out. Just wondering.

Hi Arthur,

With a 2X extender, these lenses do a great job with a flat plane micro 4/3 sensor. Here is an example:

Star Studded Panasonic GH3 with Canon B4 2/3" Lens on Vimeo

Camera: Panasonic GH3


Lens: Canon YJ 18x (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=9&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_uq=Canon+YJ18X&icep_sellerId=&icep_ex_kw=&icep_sortBy=12&icep_catId=3323&icep_minPrice=&icep_maxPrice=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) plus 2X extender

Adapter: B4 to micro 4/3 adapter from Ceico7 on eBay (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=10&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_uq=B4+micro+4%2F3+adapter&icep_sellerId=ciecio7&icep_ex_kw=&icep_sortBy=12&icep_catId=78997&icep_minPrice=&icep_maxPrice=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg)

The lens has a star filter on it, and there was some sharpening in post. I did not shoot this, so please direct questions to Gan Eden Video (http://vimeo.com/ganedenvideo), and not me :)

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution (http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com)

I have read mixed opinions about the 2/3 inch B4 lenses adapted on the MICRO 4/3 rds sensor. Some say it just clears the super 16 sensor, others say it does not. The ones who say it does not are those that have that `Panasonic GH2 sensor. The GH2 sensor is much larger than the super 16 by a large margin. Perhaps they are referring to that. Anyway the 2/3 inch sensor wether measured as 2/3 inch horizontally or diagonally does seem to fit in with the super 16 size as 2/3 inch is in my calculations is 16.93 mm. now if that is measures as horizontally, then it would fit the super 16 sensor's 12mm spec'd horizontal dimension.
Unless either the 2/3 inch is a rough estimation and is actually much smaller. or that super 16 size is larger than 16mm.How really is that super 16 measured, horizontally or diagonally ? regardless, it should fit within the 16.93 dimension of the 2/3 rd optics. Something I'm missing here ?
.

17.3 X 13mm is the GH3's sensor. I can easily understand the B4 2/3 image size ( without extender) will NOT cover that.The BM pocket camera's sensor is much smaller at 12mm horizontal dimension, so it will fit, yes, no ??

so guys, what do you think, total cost to have a shootable cam here (couple zoom lenses covering a reasonable range, batteries/power, media, bag, etc.)?

Im the person whos crazy enough to use a BMC for weddings

I preordered the BM Pocket and will probably get 2 for my 2 other shooters

the BMC DR + dnxhd/prores + $180 battery lasts for ~7.5 hours.
$280 for 480gb ssd or 2x 240gb lasts about 5-6 hours of footage--maybe a little bit more

I do admit that the videos listed on my vimeo really suck--the BMC ones are spectacular though and yes there are shots you cannot achieve easily on other cameras

for the BMC Pocket I'm venturing to say these are the items needed:
Pocket Cam itself
Spare nikon batteries
EF/Nikon adapters, MFT lenses maybe--definitely if you like IS or AF
Viewfinder
SD cards + spares
Rig if you want
Steadicam if you want

A rig with a LANC controller on the handgrip is what I'm after. That controls the zoom and pause/rec function would be awesome. I have an old Sony bracket that came with that grip controller and will just use that handgrip on a modern bracket. The pocket BM does accept LANC. Great. I am awaiting a custom made LED light just for it. Hope when July comes, so does the camera.

Can any one confirm if a B4 2/3 inch lens such as a Canon or Fujinon ENG type will cover the super 16 sensor without vignetting and without using a 2X extender/converter ? I am NOT talking about covering the micro 4/3 sensor or the BMCC sensor. I have read mixed opinions on this and would like to know for sure.

Thanks everyone. I got it all figured out.
Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes)

Can someone explain to me why using prores (or even RAW when it comes) is a much harder workflow? If premiere supports prores (and next update DnxHD) directly, why is it harder to work with? Is it the file size? I am working on a "cheap" 8-core AMD 8350 with 32GB 2133 ram, W5000 workstation graphics card, SSD boot and external SSD (using the only 6gps esata dock that gives as fast speeds to external dock mounted drives as if they were internal). I would think that my machine should be plenty powerful enough to edit a large set of prores/dnxhd (and possibly raw) footage?

One thing I am not quite clear on with my workflow.. right now I am stuck with my t2i and it's format, and after editing, I am basically adding more compression when rendering out a file. It still looks "ok" but no where near as nice as the good cameras. I was hoping that I could "assemble" various clips into one clip and save it, without adding any more compression by re-rendering it, to the same format. I take it this isn't possible?

Likewise, with RAW (or pro-res or dnxhd) footage, can I edit the footage and save the edited clips as RAW with no compression added still.. so that I could say give all the clips to someone else to assemble, or myself I could then gather all the edited clips into a new project and assemble? My question being, is there any way to ensure that during the editing process.. until you're ready for the final output? I don't want to keep rendering already compressed footage of any kind, thus adding multiple rendering steps and worsening the quality. I would typically import and edit the clips (sync audio, adjust in/out points, etc) as I shoot footage, say each day, then come back and assemble the story, documentary, etc with the ready to go clips and render just once the final output format.

Can someone explain to me why using prores (or even RAW when it comes) is a much harder workflow? If premiere supports prores (and next update DnxHD) directly, why is it harder to work with? Is it the file size?

From my understanding Prores would not be a huge change in workflow since you're coming from a DSLR workflow. The files will be bigger. The biggest difference is that it will shoot really flat (which you may be doing in your DSLR anyway) and will have to colorgrade everything.

If you utilize raw then your workflow will change. RAW cannot be played in Premiere and even if it could it would take a beast of a machine to play them. It also doesn't bake in information (like white balance) so this while this will give you flexibility in post it will require you to color balance in post.

You'll probably have to convert all of the RAW files to Prores or something more editable. The file size are also huge so you'll need more hard drive space.

Of course there are a lot of benefits and the potential has a lot of upside.

I've heard that the RAW files may come warpped in a QT container allowing them to be brought into any of the current NLEs. If not, open in Lightroom, edit your first frame, then apply the same edit to all the frames.