What camera would be best for me when it comes to color grading?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

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...ema-camera-4k/

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[David Knaggs]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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,.

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

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.

[Ryan Elder]

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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?

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

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.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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...

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.