This guy sharpened Brawley's footage a lot:
Phillip Bloom has just found out that the BMPCC has the same 'black hole' highlight issue as the BMC...not good news at all..
@RRRR don't want to start a debate here but this is the first time I hear that. So all Panasonic (and Olympus?) micro4/3 lenses will be soft on the Pocket?? Mmmm…. where can we confirm that? All lens reviewers, if serious, shoot raw (still) to avoid camera corrections that are applied mainly to distortion and chromatic aberration to see how they perform free of corrections. Of course I might be wrong, but never heard of sharpen applied to jpgs only… ok, maybe a bit, but not a lot... :)
@jrd absolutely. Not over sharpened, but not extra soft too. Anyway nice to hear your (latter) comment...
However, it seems it hold up well on CineMusic grading. I'm a bit skeptic cause I never sharpened my video footage so far… well, maybe this is a new paradigm (at least for me).
Well, RED footage can take some sharpening most of the time, but it has a proper OLPF after all…
@kholi @vicharris What is the problem with using a variable ND filter? I mean, why is this so different from using a matte box with filters? If you want to shoot with a shallow DoF in bright sunlight, what other options do you have? Is it in relation to IR pollution, in which case why not use an IR filter too?
@lmackreath That shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone since it's not fixed in any of the BM cameras. It's easy to fix in Da Vinci, so really not a major issue. I expect BM will come out with a firmware fix in the next few months.
Some, not all, are just poorly made parts put together.
I'm not sure if one exists with proper IR protection which is a HUGE deal.
They soften the image to a great degree, and produce artifacts (double edges, strange flares, etc.)
Using a Mattebox with Filters means you're probably using good filters, and you're not living with a polarizer for every shot. The less glass in front of your lens, the better. In the case of the Variable ND, you've ALWAYS got two slabs of glass in front of the lens.
No thanks. xD
Re: Black Spot
I've been using BV1 for about a year now, it should be a year in September/October... that black spot "issue" hasn't been an issue once... not once. Never. So overblown.
@kholi Thanks for the response. I love this forum -- always something new to learn.
Optical quality varies a lot when it comes to panny glass and each have their own in-cam treatment / profile. You can check this yourself from proper tests that have been done. The 12-35 resolves a lot as it is but easily becomes butt-ugly (very video looking) in video mode on the gh2 because of the in-cam sharpening (especially in contrasty situations). It looks better on the gh3 as you can control sharpening a bit more. Sharpening doesn´t seem to be applied to stills or it´s applied differently than for video (on 1:1 pixel level, making it less obvious?), at least when it comes to the gh2.
I have to agree with Kholi on the black spot.. it certainly hasn´t been an issue on the bmcc I´ve been using. (Kholi has most likely shot a whole lot more with it!)
@RRRR right, but the question is, why have they still not fixed it? Why can't you still format a card in the cam, or delete files? And (apparently) still no audio meters? They've had all this time since the BMCC, and it's just software issues that don't seem hard to fix (I'm a programmer).
I haven't bought their cams yet, but this does worry me a bit. Are they spreading themselves too thinly on all their different products? You'd think getting one good software guy in to sort this out quickly would be worth the expense.
The black spot thing is a non Issue. The early RED ONE's had this and it was fixed with firmware. I'm sure eventually BMD will fix this as well. Regardless it is super easy to fix in any modem NLE or modern color correction software that was made in the last 7-8 years. Not sure why people think it's a big deal. The 2+ years I had a RED ONE I only ran into the issue once and I have yet to run into it with my BMCC.
... oh yeah and no RAW either (as promised from day one). Sure it will turn up eventually, but there's a pattern here.
but there's a pattern here.
Hate to sound like a corporate booster, but the "pattern" would appear to be delivering cameras which, despite consumer-level prices, deliver performance which satisfies standards of theatrical exhibition, with respect to both resolution and dynamic range.
If users require mature products, they do exist -- for a price.
@jrd, I half-agree. Audio meters, no deal breaker. But the camera was sold as a RAW camera and they haven't delivered that yet. Hey, if RAW ships within a couple of weeks, I'm sure most will be OK with that. But if it takes 3 months?
Software isn't hard (if you're competent). OK so maybe they don't have the resources - so why not open the firmware?? They're revolutionising everything else here, they're missing a trick! Within weeks/months you'd get all kinds of cool new features, and even basics like formatting & file handling would be implemented for free by some enthusiast. People like me could finally write firmware that supports synchronised 3D shooting. People could add focus features for underwater/remote shooting/sophisticated timelapses and a million other things.
Yes, they would probably want to protect their trade secrets, like colour science and very low-level stuff. No problem, release parts of the firmware as encrypted binary only modules (or just don't allow flashing over those parts), but open everything else. And occasionally answer questions from modders. You listening BM?
In-cam formatting (or the lack thereof) is kind of ridiculous, yes. I´d be pissed if there still was no raw recording in 3-4 months after delivery. The lack of sound metering doesn´t concern me one bit as I won´t record anything but reference sound with the camera (preamp in bmcc is not good enough for critical work anyway; I don´t expect the pocket cam to be any better in this regard).
And @_gl´s suggestion is not a bad idea at all. However, I can understand why it´s not like that from the start since a fresh product like this needs basic functionality to get enough users to even stand a chance as an "open source" product.
If it's not an issue, why fix it? It's part of the camera's flaw pattern and can be fixed in post. Every camera has SOME sort of issue that just can't be fixed. That's it.
Also, why is it SUCH a big deal to format a card in camera or delete a clip? Perhaps formatting a card in camera could be handy, but again we're talking about things that arent' deal breakers or never even matter in real world usage.
It seems like only the people that haven't invested a dime in the product or used it for any extended period of time have the most to complain about.
@khole you're wrong, I'm generally very impressed with what BM are doing, and if I had the cash I'd have pre-ordered a Pocket the day it was announced (actually 2 for a 3D rig, if that shakes out).
But I would have spent on a raw camera and had not got one - I would be pissed if that doesn't show up v. soon. And formatting and file deletion, come on - 1 year after the BMCC launched? Really?? And the highlight dark spot issue, kinda a priority for all those that just want to use ProRes with 709 gamma without further grading right? And it's just sloppy.
Any one of those, fine (maybe). But together it looks like they don't care about the software side of things enough. If you check Phil Bloom's Pocket preview, he's pretty irritated about this stuff (and that's a very fair-minded guy).
Not trying to come off the wrong way here: is Philip's point of view supposed to be THE point of view? He doesn't do the kind of work I do, one, and most of the time I don't agree with what he says, anyway.
But, instead, I would implore you to ask people that actually own and use the camera extensively if either of these things that you're calling an issue are actually an issue.
Phil Bloom's Pocket preview, he's pretty irritated about this stuff
No beef with Philip Bloom, but what films has he made, which are of any consequence? These preoccupations don't seem quite sensible, for a $995 camera, unless your real business is reviewing cameras and talking about cameras and drumming up site traffic.
If BM, or any other manufacturer, waited to get everything right, the camera would be made obsolete before it was ever released, thanks to another manufacturer who was winning to release an imperfect product -- and would be mocked here, for being ridiculously behind the times. Don't most camcorders deliver all advertised features and conveniences like card formatting and sound meters? And who's buying them?
I'll have to agree with @kholi
The back spot is a non issue and can be corrected in a matter of seconds in post if it shows up. It's just people trying to throw stones IMO.
Also I'm surprised people are still unaware of crappy Vari Nds? Really? Come on guys. Some of you have been on this board longer than me. Yes, there's a HUGE difference between a good ND and a Vari. I haven't tried the Sing Ray or one in that price range but I have used a few in the under $200 range and I would NEVER use them for a paying job.....or even something for me. They destroy the image, period. There's no question or debate there. If you don't think they do, go back to filming your kids or your cats. That's fine, but if you are delivering footage to a paying client, don't think about it or if you're a "professional" reviewer online DON'T DO IT!!!!
And on to PBs review....he's just pissed it doesn't say CANON on the side. And I like the guy so I'm not bashing him, just having some fun :)
@kholi Good point buddy on the people bashing BM. Seems like everyone who has one, has positive things to say about it :) Stones my friend.....stones.
Just used Philip as another example of someone who's shot their cams, in case my opinion isn't good enough ;). Similar remarks from EosHD when he reviewed the BMCC (except of course both assumed they would get fixed in time).
They would be issues for me too - not dealbreakers (except raw), but I wouldn't trust BM to fix this stuff any time soon now.
I'm actually an occasional variable ND user (convenience)... what do think about this review:
The Tiffen looks like a great deal :)
I have the light craft and honestly didn't notice that much of a difference on my Canon glass but it does look pretty crummy to middle of the road at best in this review. I'm probably going to sell it now and pick up the Tiffen. My BMCC will be delivered next week.
@jrd, being able to delete a bad take is 'get everything right'? The Pocket lends itself to minimal rigs (unless you want to build it up). So if I'm docu-shooting on foot, why do I need to take another gadget with me just to delete bad takes? Or spend a small fortune on expensive spare memory cards because I can't?
This is cam 101, not 'would be nice if'. If it's not an issue for your workflow, fine. I'm always amazed how people on boards like this can't see past their own use-case and think if it's good enough for them, it must be for everyone. bzz fail.
But anyway ...
Just having some fun too.. have you guys noticed how PB is worried about his image nowadays? A couple of years ago he was using threadbare t-shirts with cartoon characters, messy hair, etc... It seems now he has a make up guy for himself on all reviews…. hahaha
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!