August 8, 2013

First Full-Quality ProRes Clips from the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Have Been Released

They may be shipping in relatively small quantities, but there are at least a few Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Cameras floating around. If you haven't ordered one yet, it's probably going to be a while (since the pre-order list is long), but if you've been disappointed by Vimeo-only footage, we've got some camera-original ProRes clips for you to mess around with. Click through to check those out.

First up is footage from Hook, which you can download here. This footage is from his Auckland video we recently shared:

We've also got a clips from John Brawley. First are files with people and motion in the frame that you can download here, and then some more static shots you can find here (these were all shot in film mode on the Pocket, which is like log). Some people have tried their hand at grading the footage, here are a few samples with grading and stabilization from :

This  test showing what different FilmConvert profiles can do to the footage:

The last grading test I'll be doing (publicly) with John Brawley's Pocket Cinema Camera footage. This time around a grade which was meant to be a quick grade but took several hours to put together. It's done using FilmConvert with basic settings and using the 'Blackmagic Cinema Camera Film' profile. Nothing was done to the original footage before applying the FilmConvert filter in Premiere Pro CC. Film Grain was kept at 100%, as was Film Color. With the lake-view shots I also increased exposure with 0.08, marginal, but it just looked better that way

Not all film stocks from FilmConvert were used, I made a selection of seven stocks.

Here is  take on the rest of the footage in the second batch:

Dynamic range looks pretty good in these test clips. The footage has a very similar look to the original BMCC, and that makes perfect sense since they are supposedly from the same sensor family -- with the Pocket simply being a scaled down version. We don't have any RAW clips to play around with yet, as RAW is not yet finished on the camera, but you can still push these quite a bit. Just like with the BMCC, I was able to push color and saturation a lot, since the log mode on these cameras is relatively flat.

All in all, not bad for a camera that's only going to run you $1,000. There isn't another camera in this price range capable of putting out a log image that is this malleable without many penalties, so it's impressive to say the least.

What do you guys think of the footage? Feel free to post your graded versions.

Links:

Your Comment

147 Comments

Wow. That's pretty impressive. for around $4k you could run an entire production house. This is blowing away my 7D. I'm seriously thinking about snagging one of these and trading out of that DSLR dinosaur.

August 8, 2013

0
Reply
Nate

You still need lenses, rigging, lighting, sound, recording media, editing hardware and software...

August 9, 2013

1
Reply
Pat

thats why he said "for around 4k" haha

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffries

Go for the BMCC instead of the pocket, then you can potentially re-use the same Canon lenses. The Pocket is lighter, but the lenses are different — which can be expensive.

August 9, 2013

-2
Reply

DSLRs are dinosaurs lol. They are so 2008 ;)

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
Michael Hawk

Technology is changing fast. The Red Dragon 6K is forcing every camera maker to go for 4K, and at fairly a low priced in order to keep sales high. The 6K sensor is showing that higher K's are are too beautiful to hang on to lower resolutions. BM4K for $4K is forcing the price of a 4K down too. God Bless them for it! :-)

DSLR's MUST go for higher resolution. What they currently are now has no future. I've seen a Panasonic rep say Panasonic is going for 4K in the next GH. Within 1 1/2 years the general population will begin to see 6K movies. There will be no looking back then, no time to debate if higher K's are better. Every camera maker MUST begin to make changes now so they can hit the ground running when the higher K demand hits in earnest, because it's coming.

August 10, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

I doubt any theater chain is going to spend millions changing its brand new 4K projectors for 6K ones.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Kenneth

I don't think they will. They don't need to. Video recorded on 6K and played on 4K projection will look better than 4K video play on 4K projectors. Look how good 6K looks on vimeo. It looks better than 4K on vimeo.

But I bet there'll be a few 6K theaters. and I'll go.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

The only difference in the 6K vimeo video from normal epic footage was the dynamic range. Don't even pretend like you could see a difference in detail/resolution in that 720p compressed morass.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Kenneth

I had the wrong impression of you.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

You don't think it looks better?

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

It's not about what he or you thinks.

Optically there's not much to really tell 6K and 4K apart even on a big cinema screen, much less on Vimeo, where's it's also physically impossible.

You're just pixel-peeping.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
foljs

Did you see the 6K Red Dragon video? It did look better than any 4K, 1080p, or any other video I've ever seen. I'm not doing anything other than seeing a fantastic video. That's all.

August 11, 2013

-1
Reply
Gene

It looked better than Skyfall...

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Kenneth

?

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Kenneth

I thought we were talking about vimeo/YouTube videos.

I suppose it will take about 1 1/2 years before we get any movies in theaters shot in 6K. We can compare final products then rather than final product vs. ungraded.

August 11, 2013

-1
Reply
Gene

Well presumably if the vimeo compression has no effect on how good something looks, then what you're saying is that the Dragon footage looks better than Skyfall. However, if vimeo compression really DOES affect the look, then it must be scientifically measurable what it does. Scientifically speaking, vimeo takes your footage and turns it into 720p footage, no matter what it was shot on.

August 11, 2013

-2
Reply
Kenneth

Ok, well, we all have our own opinion.

I'll have to get going now.

August 11, 2013

1
Reply
Gene

Presumably what you're saying is that vimeo doesn't affect the look of footage, or at least in only affects it in a way such that resolution can still be seen. Thus, the 6K footage from the dragon should look better than Skyfall. Apparently you're conceding on that point. So, let's talk about what vimeo does to your footage. It basically takes it and crunches it down to 720p resolution, not matter how many K's it was shot at. 6K? Nope, now it's 720p. So it's physically impossible to tell the difference--at least in resolution--between 1080p, 4K, and 6K footage when it's viewed at 720p on vimeo.

August 11, 2013

-1
Reply
Kenneth

I wasn't comparing anything to Skyfall. I was talking about the 6K footage that looked fantastic.

You don't think it was as great as that. And that's ok.

Let's just leave it at that.

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

If Skyfall was shot on the cameraman's spare time on the weekend, without professional lighting, and ungraded, then, yes, the 6K Red Dragon video would look better.

Is that fair?

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene

Assuming all or most videos are played at the same resolution on Vimeo the reason the higher res videos look better is because when they convert them down to 1080p or 720p is that you get the smoothest lines/edges basically making the most efficient use of the space. Is that right or wrong guys?

August 15, 2013

1
Reply
Gary

BS, people around the world are going to be using their 1080 hd tvs for at least 10 more years, if they even have got one at all yet. Nobody making a feature film is going to be using a pocket cinema camera even if it had 6k anyways, someone that poor would not be able to pay for even one weeks catering let alone finish a feature film on a pocket cam.

August 16, 2013

0
Reply
Dylan

As the last man on earth to convert to digital, from analog, in professional sound recording, I'm amused by the epidemic of GAS ( Gear Acquisition Syndrome ) I find on these boards. The studio I've worked for, for the last 16 years, only started doing video work two years ago. Not only do we shoot everything on DSLR's, but Pani GH series, and even subs are required to use them.
Presuming you're not producing feature films, and it's dubious that you're a "pro", ( I'll retire in four years, at 55, after 30 years in commercial audio/visual production ), I posit that you're wrong.
Don't get me wrong. The footage is gorgeous. But as someone making a living ( professional ) in video production, you might concentrate more on "talent", then the latest greatest gizmo.
Love, Health, and Money, to you and yours.
Dinosaur

August 20, 2013

0
Reply
Dinosaur

Not bad? NOT Bad? And in this price range? Man the IMAGE is better than any camera sub $8,000 excluding BMCC's obviously. And I don't see any Canon dslr natively shooting anything close to this anytime soon if ever, even with the hack (unusable in a pro setting). Sorry but it's the cold hard truth.

August 8, 2013

0
Reply
Michael Garcia

Tell that to the other pros using it :D.

August 8, 2013

1
Reply
Dan

Yea, seems like the 'unusable for pro setting' is a label being spread by anyone who doesn't own one...

August 8, 2013

0
Reply

Yep... because another cold hard truth, is that 70% of pros are only "pros" because they had access to equipment and tools that others don't have (school, fortunate connection, right-place-right-time, ect.). This changes up the whole game now that it's becoming more of a talent-based meritocracy.

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
bwhitz

You are totally RIGHT!. And if they have a truck full of lighting equipment and a big crew and a best boy or girl to bring coffee they are super PRO. But nowadays and in the future there wont be needs of so much logistics, like in drone wars than they dont need trucks, tents, cooks or WC. Perhaps that kind of PROS are going to disappear like dinosaurs.

August 9, 2013

1
Reply
Simon

It also opens up a lot of the faux-pro youtube culture.

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
Pat

Haha, tru dat

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
Bobkat

Keep telling yourself that, you know, drinking the gear blog kool aid.

If you show up to a job with a hacked DSLR, and you are proud of it, the client/producer is going to drop you and go with the team that has a real camera. It's fine for equipment-focused hobbyists (people that write for NFS and eosHD, haven't really done much else and their vimeos are bland, etc) and your own projects, but don't ever think ML rigs have a place on actual jobs where money and time is on the line, and "oh, my card isnt fast enough, hold on" or "oh, i guess it froze, lemme take the battery out" is not an option. The set has no time for you and your 800 dollar camera from best buy

August 9, 2013

1
Reply
john jeffries

I don´t think that is a valid argument...Sometime ago on FILM SETS the RED EPIC was freezing all the time. They had several replacing cameras to backup while the faulty one went back to be repaired. Also the size thing has no more weight than the people hiring you. If they give you a valid reason to drop you due to the size or name of your equipment is because they didn´t chose you...If they did they have seen your work with that camera and liked it so that was the reason they hired you. I shot commercials with Alexa, Canon 5D, GH3 even some shots on a iphone. Which one is the best camera? All...depending on the look you chose. While we see more and more K´s 2,4,6 we have vimeos and youtubes that gives us a compressed footage that can´t even compare in compression with "old" digibeta camcorders. Until people refuse to see how much creativity weighs in all these matters, the guy with the bigger camera will have all the clients and this is not true for a few years now.

August 15, 2013

0
Reply
Augusto Alves d...

I don't see how it's unusable. I've been using it since it's released.

August 8, 2013

2
Reply
Hubert

I think Michael Garcia meant real pros. Those with budgets, crews, etc.
No one (in their rightt mind) would risk a big $ shoot on a hacked camera.

And, like Pat said, a lot of the 'pros' commenting here, make videos for YouTube.

August 9, 2013

0
Reply
dixter

A lot of modern videography professionals work directly with clients for web based projects and often use YouTube and Vimeo for hosting (allows easy web embedding, etc). Let's be clear here, a professional is someone who makes their living solely off of their work, so if YouTube and Vimeo end up being the primary distribution channels for a videographer, shame on you for your shallow and transparent efforts to make them feel inadequate.

August 9, 2013

-1
Reply
Jules

Well said.

August 10, 2013

0
Reply

Amen!

August 15, 2013

0
Reply
Efren

I second that!!!

August 15, 2013

0
Reply
Augusto Alves d...

OK, let's see then... Jules, Simon Bailey, Efren and Augusto Alves da Sliva make videos for YouTube. Noted.

August 15, 2013

0
Reply
dixter

Dickster why do you not include your website linked to your profile name. Clearly your work must be great to make claims that the web is not for pros. So back it up. I worked with a group on a project for Havianas footwear a few years ago that was solely for the web and the budget was over $150k. But according to you if its for the web your not pro?? Broadcast has been dying a slow death for 15 years but that death has started speeding up the past few years. Its web now.

August 16, 2013

-1
Reply

Very impressive. I would like to combine it with canon raw, but it seems a little tedious.

August 8, 2013

0
Reply
Edgar

Impressive, really ?
Have you downloaded Ruben Kramer's full quality file (500 Mo) on Vimeo ?
I did, and really I find there is a lot of noise (especially in the wide shot, look the trees).
So not impressed for now, I am rather anxious to imagine all my wide shots to "move" like that.
Have to wait for raw files, but for now, I wait before preorder any.

August 8, 2013

1
Reply
Christophe

It might be the film grain level from the filmconvert software?

August 8, 2013

0
Reply
Sotts

That's what I'm thinking. I was also surprised, but the noise is very dense--looks like a grain plate.

August 8, 2013

0
Reply
Kenneth Merrill

The default grain settings on Filmconvertpro put too much grain into the picture. I've experimented and have found that 40% grain yields a more pleasing picture.

But to be honest, I'm preferring the image straight out the BMPCC and color corrected. I don't think it needs Filmconvertpro. I think Filmconvertpro is the best film grain tool out there, but it takes a while to get used to using, and really is great for emulating a film look. But unless you are wanting that specific film look, a proper color corrected image is usually going to be more pleasing to the eye. At least IMHO.

August 9, 2013

2
Reply
FILM VOLTAGE

How long do you think emulating a film look will last?

August 10, 2013

-1
Reply
Gene

Christophe, the noise you're referring to is a filmgrain plate which is part of the FilmConvert software. That piece of software processes the image to make it look like specified film stocks, including the correct grain. That's what you're seeing.

To judge the footage without the added grain I suggest taking a look at my second grading test of BMPCC footage at http://vimeo.com/71853739 ... hope to have been of help ;-)

August 9, 2013

0
Reply

Thanks Ruben, will give it a try right now !

August 11, 2013

0
Reply
Christophe

I must have spent an hour wading through the various color grading clips last night and found the Pocket Cam performance to be a disappointment.

August 8, 2013

-1
Reply
DLD

Pages