The biggest difference between the BM 4k and 6k is the native lenses they accept. The 4k uses MFT lenses. This is a good thing since they're less expensive. The 6k has a super 35 sensor and uses EF mount lenses.

What Brian is saying a common practice to achieve higher quality video is to film at a higher resolution than you intend to use and once you're finished editing you export to your lower intended resolution. In this case film at 6k in order to produce a higher quality 4k. The main problem is raw 6k takes a lot of processing power and space. If you're on a budget like you are it's not worth it.

Oh okay, well I am use to EF lenses and that is what I have. So if try to use them on the 4K bmpcc, I would need a lens adapter, but is that going to be a problem with the camera, if they are EF?

Oh okay, well I am use to EF lenses and that is what I have. So if try to use them on the 4K bmpcc, I would need a lens adapter, but is that going to be a problem with the camera, if they are EF?
Are you counting that terrible kit lens you have? If so then you don't have any quality ef lenses. Yes you can buy an adapter that costs $400. You should decide what lenses you can realistically afford, then get the camera that is designed for them.

I wasn't counting the kit lens, I was counting my 50 prime, and my 18-400 tamron zoom lens which are both ET.

I wasn't counting the kit lens, I was counting my 50 prime, and my 18-400 tamron zoom lens which are both ET.
The tamron is a very slow lens. the 50 is inexpensive. I wouldn't let those lenses hold you back.

The problem with all these lenses, they're fly by wire, and thus you can't pull focus. So you'll need to get cinema lenses to do that, that's if its still important to you. So again if that's the case that still puts you at ground zero. If you truly want to use EF lenses I'd get the 6k camera.

WolfCrow has a number of detailed articles on the subject of lens for the BMPC
https://wolfcrow.com/the-best-lenses-for-the-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-4k/

Oh okay, well if I the the 4K bmpcc, what's a good telephoto lens for that, that goes up to 300mm? I do not need a fast lens, cause the DOF is way too shallow on a fast lens, so what is a good slower lens that goes up to 300mm for that camera then, that is not fly-by-wire?

6k is there because Bayer sensors don't have a true resolution that matches the number of photosiites, so if you want a true 4k resolution, you need to over sample on the sensor. This is what you'd record if shooting RAW,.


The main problem is raw 6k takes a lot of processing power and space. If you're on a budget like you are it's not worth it.

Brian and Pete are right. Just to explain further, the Pocket 6K records ProRes at 4K by oversampling the full 6K sensor, so you will be getting a "true" 4K from the 6K sensor, as Brian mentions. To me, that is the "sweet spot" and what I use (ProRes 4K). And it's pretty inexpensive, because you can record 4K onto an external Samsung T5 SSD drive (which is cheap as chips, relatively speaking) rather than the small fortune you'll spend on those internal AngelBird cards if you want to record 6K RAW.

When you record ProRes 4K on the Pocket 6K, just make sure you set the Gamma to "Film", so that the files will capture the full dynamic range of the camera.

Summary:
The Pocket 4K will record RAW in 4K but, with the Bayer sensor, you might only be getting 3.2K in actual resolution.
The Pocket 6K records RAW in 6K only (it won't do RAW in 4K) and also records an oversampled ProRes 4K which gives a "true" 4K resolution.

Regarding lens choices when deciding between getting a Pocket 4K or 6K, people like Brian can give you better advice than I can. But I will offer this strategic advice:

As cameras change, you'll want to take your lenses with you. EF is heavily catered for by camera manufacturers, because they are so popular and widespread.

Oh okay. But is the extra resolution worth the money though, if you want to market your work, or if in the future, you get a distributor, will they want that extra resolution or care?

Ryan. It’s very dangerous to say you don’t need a fast lens because with your history I suspect that next month or next year you will be complaining you need to shoot in lower light. Hang on, wasn’t this your exact problem last week? You needed more sensitivity. Surely now is the time to buy a quality lens that will last?

Well it's just that a faster lens means much more shallow DOF, and I feel it would be best to light the scene better, and have more light, than sacrificing DOF. I thought that in the future, investing in brighter lights is better, than a faster lens, cause then at least I have more DOF to focus with. That's the thing about fast lenses, is that everyone wants them, but no one talks about the problem they have with shallow DOF, as oppose to just using brighter lights.

Rubbish ryan. A faster lens gives you the option to let more light through if you need it. They are perfectly capable of being stopped down to increase depth of field. The more light it can let through if YOU decide you need it is important.

In truth Ryan you make easy decisions hard and complex decisions impossible. There are two primary problems you face: 1) You have small budget which restricts what equipment you can realistically own that in turn limits how you can film. 2) You have misguided ideas on what you need and problematic approaches to filming. Combining the two makes for impossible to meet requirements.

Most serious minded cinema film makers on a budget will get 3 cinema primes: wide, normal, telephoto. You keep talking about dof problems, but with MFT the dof is big to begin with, even when wide open. It's not hard to predict your thinking, shoot deep focus never have worry about pulling focus, now I can use my inexpensive fly by wire lenses. All you seem to care about super telephoto lenses.

Rubbish ryan. A faster lens gives you the option to let more light through if you need it. They are perfectly capable of being stopped down to increase depth of field. The more light it can let through if YOU decide you need it is important.
I can guarantee he's misusing deep focus idea as a lazy shortcut to avoid pulling focus. If you notice most of he post in the last month he's been talking about shooting at small aperture like f11 for the night scene. He also insists on using super telephoto lenses...

In truth Ryan you make easy decisions hard and complex decisions impossible. There are two primary problems you face: 1) You have small budget which restricts what equipment you can realistically own that in turn limits how you can film. 2) You have misguided ideas on what you need and problematic approaches to filming. Combining the two makes for impossible to meet requirements.

Most serious minded cinema film makers on a budget will get 3 cinema primes: wide, normal, telephoto. You keep talking about dof problems, but with MFT the dof is big to begin with, even when wide open. It's not hard to predict your thinking, shoot deep focus never have worry about pulling focus, now I can use my inexpensive fly by wire lenses. All you seem to care about super telephoto lenses.

Oh okay, well I was thinking I would get 2 lenses. A 24mm, a 50mm, and one that can zoom into 300mm around for certain shots here and there, where I want high compression.

I can research more on MFT lenses if that's better. But I was told by another filmmaker slower lenses, and more light, would be easier on the focus puller if that's true. I mean in my experience, it's hard for actors to hit their marks exactly, when it comes to shots with quite a bit of movement, so I thought that giving them extra DOF room was good.

When it comes to MFT lenses, why do they have a much bigger DOF? What makes them different to have that? Is it because a 300mm EF lens, is longer on a bmpcc, than a 300mm MFT, and therefore more DOF?

What I am also worried about with opening up real wide on a fast lens though, is that is there such thing as too shallow? If I am watching a scene with fast movements and suspense, and it's shot at say f2.2, that would be so shallow on a long lens, that I would be struggling to see what is in focus and what is not, during the fast suspense. So isn't there such thing as too shallow to worry about therefore? It's not that I reluctant to choose shallow DOF out of laziness, it's out coherence for the audience.

I don't know why you're getting getting confused about this.

You can use a f1,4 lens at f2.8, f5.6 or f8, with some cheaper fast lenses you may not want to use them wide open because the quantity isn't there.

I used to set T1.3 Zeiss lenses at T2.8 pretty regularly (the T is for transmission stops). just because you've got a wide aperture lens, you don't need to use it wide open.

You should have a good monitor, which is large enough to reveal how sharp your pictures are. having peaking will assist with this, especially if it's coloured

MFT lenses have more depth of field because you've got a smaller sensor, so using shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view. Super 35 or FF cameras will be using longer focal length lenses. EF is a camera mount, it has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens, the sensor size is the important factor regarding the field of view for a particular focal length. If you mounted a EF mount lens on a MFT camera the DOF would be the same as a MFT lens with the same focal length.

All this is the job of the DP and the focus puller, they will call out if a take is soft. They will pull focus during a shot, so that the important part of the action is sharp.

This is going over old ground again, there is a whole thread on deep focus etc.

I don't know why you keep asking if something is true, with most of these things if you think about it for moment you can work it out for yourself, Especially things like stopping the lens down (so giving more DOF) will make life easier for the focus puller.

For sure, yes I know I can only open up to f2.8, but even with that, I still only have about less than 3 inches of focus, on a telephoto, according to my calculations. So even that is not much focus room at f2.8, and is still very shallow, if that's okay.

Oh okay, well I was thinking I would get 2 lenses. A 24mm, a 50mm, and one that can zoom into 300mm around for certain shots here and there, where I want high compression.
MFT have a 2x crop so the lenses you mention would be equivalent to a normal (24=48mm) and telephoto (50=100mm). You would need an ultra wide to get an equivalent wide.

There is very little need for a super-telephoto. These lenses are made primarily for people who can't get close to their subjects like nature, sports, and event photographers. But you can because when shooting a movie at any time you can yell cut and reposition the camera as close as you need.You like to go on about compression, a normal telephoto is fine, and at your current level, no one is going to care about compression. This is film school kind of stuff. It's not like it doesn't matter but just like grading it isn't essential to the success of the film.

Like Brian is saying fast lenses don't need to to be shot wide open but its nice to have when needed. Lighting is difficult and expensive. One of the most useful tools to combat low light is a fast lens. MFT are not good low light performers to begin with and stick a slow lens on it...

The MFT dof is huge compared to FF. People who use the G5 for weddings have 2 complaints its not great in low light and its difficult to get a shallow dof.

One of the main reasons people get the Black Magic Pocket cameras is that they can mount manual focus lens that you can pull focus. You still haven't said how you intend to pull focus with the fly by wire lenses you have.

But the Tamron 18-400mm isn't fly-by-wire though. It has hard stops and I can pull focus with it therefore. Unless I missed something?

The reason why I want a telephoto lens is because of shots where I want high compression. I tried faking compression with wider lenses and getting closer, but it didn't work. People could tell the compression was fake. Here are some examples, of a telephoto lens with real compression, vs. a 50mm lens, with fake compression:

compression tests - YouTube

I was told that faking the compression with a 50mm does not work, and I need a telephoto lens to get compression. That is why I wanted one was for those types of shots, such as an OTS shot, where the actors are really closer together, or where I want the gun to be really close to the face.

Another reason for a telephoto lens, is cause in the chase scenes, where a character is running from another, I can pan the camera for a longer along with the actor for a long amount of time compared to a wider lens. Here is a testI did with a telephoto:

lens running test 2 - YouTube

So these types of shots, as well as high compression shots, where I want actors to appear closer together in an OTS, or where I want a gun to look close to the face, are the reasons why I wanted a telephoto lens for those shots. Does that make sense, or can these shots be done with a wider lens? Now I could say nevermind those types of shots, but I feel I should be able to direct the shots my way to what I feel is best to tell the story, shouldn't I?

Another thing is, is that long lenses make things like punches look more convincing, cause it looks like the actors are actually hitting the other person compared to wider lenses of course. So if I do not have telephoto lenses will I still be able to sell the effect?

But also, if shooting on a fast telephoto lens is best, with a shallow DOF is best, than what I if I just did that then?

Regarding fake hitting, the actors meed to have good timing and the camera has to be in the right position to hide that the blow isn't connecting. That combined with the right sound effect gives the impression that the blow has connected without telephoto lenses, which aren't the most dynamic looking lenses for a fight scene..

I suspect your problem is that the first two factors aren't correct. Any fight scene needs a lot of rehearsing and choregraphing, they can spend days putting rehearsing these scenes. Professional wrestlers pull it off without telephoto lenses in front of a live audience. A fight arranger would be worth hiring, if you've got the funds.

Why not use a profile shot for the gun stuck into someone's face? it looks a lot nastier than a frontal shot or even how the nose cut in Chinatown, which doesn't use long lenses. You seem to be trying to get the lens to do what the actors should be delivering. .

Roman Polanski cuts Jack Nicholson's nose - YouTube

Oh okay thanks, I thought that telephoto lenses would be safer for the actors, cause they don't have to get as close to punch then, compared to professional wrestlers.

What about the other shots though where I would want a telephoto lens? When you say show a profile shot of a gun in someone's face, well in my scenario, the shooter is further away and not up close like that, but I also want to show an extreme face close up of the shooter to gauge their emotional point of view. For example let's say for one shot I want to have an extreme close up of an actors face while he shoots someone. With a telephoto, you can get an extreme close up of an actor's face with the gun looking very close to the face. What if I shot it instead, where the camera is close and moved past the gun for an extreme close up of the face.

So you get an extreme close up of the face, but without a gun in front of it, cause the camera is past the gun. Would that work just as well then?

Are they just pointing a gun or sticking it into someone's face? Consider faking the gun into the shot, if the camera is closer, than the reality. .

Let the actors practice the fight scene, they can work out their timings. Trained professional actors are taught how to do fight scenes for their stage work, if you're doing serious fight scenes, get a fight arranger.

Oh okay as long as the training and timing is enough and I do not need compression to sell the hits.

The actor is suppose to be pointing a gun and aiming at someone further away. Like in the test clip I showed before at the beginning of the video:

compression tests - YouTube

That's the kind of shot I want, or at least a close up of the shooter's face, as he shoots someone. When you say consider faking the gun into the shot, what do you mean by 'faking'? How would I do that?

Unfortunately, those shots look flat and rather boring, I would think again.

Ryan you keeping posting that clip to prove your point about compression but I think it does the opposite. I couldn’t say which angle of view was better and neither would an average viewer. I agree with Brian seems flat and unappealing. Learn to trust what you see rather than trying to impose rules.

You seem to be stuck on this compression thing and are misusing it. Like others pointed out many of your examples like the gun could be filmed a different way. Profile of the gun would work better. Knowing you, you’ve lifted it from a movie and locked into one way to film it. You remind me of inexperienced students who construct an over thought explanation to defend why it “should” work.

Using compression to try to cover up people who can’t pull off a proper fight scene...

Like I said before start by getting the 3 standard primes (wide, medium, long) and forget about these odd scenarios you’ve convinced yourself you need a super telephoto.

Oh well the reason I wanted to show the face from in front during the gunshots is because profile is more from the side, and you get a different type of emotion with profile from the side more compared to the front. The front you get a different perspective of the character which I am going for and feel that would be better.

For the OTS shot, I want two characters to be really close and intimate and a longer lens will bring them really close and intimate in an OTS perpective. If I use a wider lens for the OTS shot, it will make them further apart, and less intimate.

You don't need a long lens for the shot to be intimate, unfortunately, the current long lens idea creates the opposite impression, because you can sense the camera is distant to the participants.

What I mean is, is that the characters look closer together, which is more important intimacy wise, than how far back the camera is. But I still need to be zoomed in close, to not only have them closer together, but to see their face emotion more.

I'm just trying to use my own instincts, when coming up with the shots, as to what I feel is best, and I should do that, right? I mean it was said on here that I should make my own decisions sometimes, so isn't it good that I am calling the shots, on the shotlist?

But I did suggest alternative ideas before, if I am not to use the telephoto lens. What about those alternatives? For example, what if I showed the front of the face during the gunshot, without showing the gun, cause the gun would be past the camera in that case? Would that work, if I don't use a telephoto?

Or what about faking the compression during the OTS shot?

There are many factors in a scene that are going to effect the how the audience will feel. You’ve taken one factor, angle of view, more specifically compression, inferred it creates intimacy, when I’m not convinced it does, and raised this expected effect far beyond that is reasonable.

Maybe you should research all the factors that create intimacy. You might be surprised to find out compression isn’t one of them. Did it ever occur to you position the actors closer together?

Oh okay, I mean I am describing the shot out of context, so maybe it context of the movie it would make more sense.

Yes, it occurred to me to move the actors closer. What about on the example video I posted, where I tried to move the actors closer together and cheat it? Should I just do that instead?

Unless the scene is intrinsically intimate, though the closeness of the characters and their relationship for good or bad, a lens isn't going imply anything. Bear in mind that the audience is also part of this and need to sense their intimacy with the characters, perhaps to the point of discomfort and not wanting to be there.

Long lenses can give a sub conscious sense of voyeurism unless you're careful.

Oh but I wanted that sense of voyeurism too, since it's a thriller. Perhaps that is why I like those kind of shots, for this type of story, but couldn't find the word.

But I can rethink that OTS shot and think about alternatives.

What about the idea I had for wanting to see an extreme close up of the shooter's face as he shoots? If I use a shorter lens, and not a telephoto, what if I just cut to a close up of his face, as he shoots, but you do not see the gun in front of his face, cause the camera is closer to his face than the gun is. Would that work, instead of using a telephoto for an extreme close up?

Here is an example. What if when cutting to the close up of the shooter's face, I just don't show the gun, like this:

extreme close up test 2 - YouTube

Thrillers aren't usually limited to telephoto lens shots, they can be rather limiting and yours seem more televisual than cinematic in nature.

We don't know the scene, the nature of the characters etc, so asking for asking for comment is difficult,To me they suggest some sort of mental issue with the character with the gun, emotionally distant - isolated. However, I don't know if that's your intention or if I'm just reading something into the person's face, regardless of the lens being used.

Oh okay well I am going by my own instincts, and not going off of television. Just trying to to use my instincts for what is best for the shot.

Well I talked to a DP I might hire, and he said we can make a 85mm lens, look like a 200mm, in terms of compression. He said we will just used forced perspective, kind of like what I was doing in my examples.

Is the DP right though, and forced perspective will work?

An 85mm lens makes more sense, a 200mm doesn't do anything for the dramatic content of the scene.

Oh okay, so we should just force the perspective then, like he said?

I don't think it will need much forcing, but yes.

Oh okay, but that is what I did before in the previous examples, and I was told before on here, that the forced perspective does not work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=KYLKkfOierM&fbclid=IwAR3nzTPXu59H86km7IBXFV7cw-F8rXqKM3XJlIRZ7jaEJd2u2FohXWbi1Zk

Unless it can work if we do it better?

It's your call, you're the director.

Okay thanks, but I've been told on here before that pretty much everything I ask about and can it be done, is wrong, or cannot be, which is why I asking, if I would be making the wrong decision again...

As previously stated, we know nothing about the scene, Depending on the factors involved it may work, it just risks being very flat looking if you've got someone standing against a wall.

Oh okay, they won't be standing against a wall in the scene. For that test shot, I just had to have someone stand against the wall, cause in order to zoom in to 200mm to get that compression, they had to stand against one end of the room, while I was on the other side, in order to get the lens far back enough while zoomed in.

But when we shoot the actual scene, location is going to be much bigger, so they won't have to stand against a wall therefore, and there will be separation in the background. Plus if we fake compression than the room size won't be much of an issue either.

Your test was pretty worthless in that case, since you're not placing the subject in the correct context. The wall is so overbearing it gives an incorrect visual impression of the scene as a whole.

Oh yeah, I wasn't going to have a wall near the actor at all like that. The purpose of the test was to ask for opinions on of the forced perspective works. Not the background context. I just wanted to know if the gun in perspective to the face looks convincing, and if the actors faking the forced perspective with how far away from each other in the OTS shot worked. I had no choice but to shoot against a wall cause when I compared with the telephoto lens, I need like 30 feet of room to zoom in on the actor, thereby forcing the actor to be up against a wall for that distance. But when we actually shoot, the location will not be that restricted, and they will not be up against a wall like that. Sorry for confusion. I was just asking if the forced perspective would work, if one could read between the lines, and forget about the wall in the background.

So does that mean all the input before is invalid now, if the background was what was being thought about?

Shooting with telephoto lens indoors is very restrictive, so, unless in a very large building, it's best avoided because of the limitations. It's also time consuming, so unless shooting a commercial or a particular moment, the standard range of focal lengths work best. You can easily shoot an entire drama with a single lens in the 32mm to 50mm range, it's a lot more difficult and restricting with a 200mm.

Context matters with a shot, you're obsessing about a detail that gets lost within the scene as a whole. What works in one location may not work in another.

We can't macro manage your lens selection, this is a job for you and your DP, possibly on the day the scene is being filmed.

Oh well I was going to use a large location. Since it is a chase and stand off scene, I was going to shoot in a large location for that, where there would be room for a few telephoto shots. I didn't want every shot to be a telephoto shot, just a few during the chase and the more suspenseful moments, during it.

But I can do force perspective, for those shots, if that's better.

Use whatever works in a particular circumstance or dramatic moment.

You also seem to be using terms very oddly. Suddenly we stop talking about compression and start talking about perspective. Your ‘compression’ is just one artefact of different perspectives. Compression or foreshortening is a feature you can use or not, a choice. I simply don’t understand why you hear a phrase, talk about it as essential and then use a clip that shows it used poorly. Can you not see the problems with it? With single camera operation surely this is a blocking task and a sensible lens. You mentioned emotion. The use of a long lens doesn’t create emotion, ever! The composition and the acting, script and location create emotion. The camera and lens just collect it intact and can enhance it. In your clip the only emotion generated is the awkwardness of the shot. Given a small budget to buy glass, long lenses are bottom of my list in usefulness.

Forced perspective is more an art direction thing, commonly used on sets to make them look bigger, when they're constructed in a smaller studio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective

Or fooling the viewer regarding the relative size of objects.

Oh well as far as using the term oddly, I know what it is, and how it is used, it's just the DP used it describe faking the compression and said the term was forced perspective, and he was applying it to this as well.

If the telephoto lenses don't add anything, what if for the shot of the gunman's face, I just use a close up of the face, but with the camera close to the face, so you don't have to see the gun? Like this:

extreme close up test 2 - YouTube

Just cut to a close up of the face, but don't see the gun in front of it. Would this be a better choice?