June 6, 2013

Micro 4/3 Blackmagic Cinema Camera Shipping Soon, Plus Low-Light Footage from the Pocket Camera

Blackmagic Cinema Camera with Micro 4-3 Mount - AngleIf you are in the US, and you've had a pre-order for the EF-mount version of the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, they are currently in stock at places like B&H. While there aren't infinite quantities, if you've been looking to buy, you can get one right now at a number of different retailers. If you switched your pre-order to the Micro 4/3 version, there might be some light at the end of the tunnel for shipping on that model, especially as it has been some time since the Beta testers got a hold of that model. We've also got more footage shot with the Pocket Cinema Camera from John Brawley (which shares the same sensor technology as the original BMCC). This time he takes the camera into some serious low-light situations and puts the camera through its paces.

Here is Kristian Lam from Blackmagic in their forum (all of these were posted on June 6th):

The Pocket Cinema Camera shares the same sensor technology as the Blackmagic Cinema Camera EF and MFT but the sensor package is physically different. Therefore, sensors for the EF/MFT model cannot be used in the Pocket Cinema Camera and vice versa.

As for Blackmagic Cinema Camera MFTs, you'll be happy to know that they will ship really soon, possibly as early as next week.

And later:

Shipments will leave the factory today so I hope customers will start receiving them from the start of next week.

As far as the possibility of the BMCC getting an active MFT mount after the announcement of the Pocket Camera, Kristian mentioned that as well:

The camera is passive mount as per the specifications on the website.

So there is a bit of good news, but obviously anyone hoping for an active mount to use lenses from Panasonic or Olympus will either have to get their hands on a Pocket Cinema Camera or wait for the next version of the BMCC, which may or may not have active mount (and that's also assuming they make a second version with that sensor). There were some mentions earlier when it was announced that an active Micro 4/3 mount was going to take a bit of work to get into the current body as-is (if it was possible at all), so clearly they've decided not to delay the camera any longer and start getting it to users as soon as possible.

It's unclear how many would actually be shipping from the factory, but there is no question somebody is going to get one within the next few weeks.

We've also got more Pocket Cinema Camera footage from John Brawley. It was shot in ProRes Log, mostly at ISO 1600 (except for the first couple of shots), and no noise reduction or sharpening was applied:

Lens wise I had the Panasonic 14mm F2.5 (first few shots) and the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 (second lot of shots before the ferry travelling  left to right) then I was principally on the Olympus 45mm F1.8 but I also had the 12mm SLR Magic T1.6 and the SLR magic 25mm T0.96

I had the terrific O’Connor 1030Ds head along for the ride too, but that was the only rig.  I shot over 3 hours and used three batteries.

This was all cut and finished in FCPx with a beta version of Nick Shaw’s BMC plugin for converting BMD FILM to REC709.

It should also be noted that the camera got very wet during shooting and was still running like a champ. The Pocket is made to take on a little water, but I imagine it falls well below of weather-sealed cameras like the Canon 1D X or 1D C (as it should at only $1,000). It's going to be a bit more versatile lens-wise than the BMCC MFT, but the Pocket will have a bit less detail in the final image due to starting with only 1080 pixels on the sensor. This definitely one to keep your eye on, especially as it's compatible with tons of Micro 4/3 lenses, and works with image stabilization.

Links:

Disclosure: Blackmagic is a No Film School advertiser.

Your Comment

103 Comments

The footage looks pretty good!

June 6, 2013 at 8:11AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Considering the conditions, that footage is fantastic. It can really come down in Sydney. :-) Shoot native ProRes for under $1k? With RAW down the road?

June 6, 2013 at 11:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
marklondon

Looks soft to me, and muddy. Its not terrible but I wouldn't call it that good.

June 6, 2013 at 1:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

He was shooting wide open, probably. Considering the lack of light, the softness is expected, is it not?

June 6, 2013 at 2:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

No, where its dark there can be the perception of lack of detail but lit areas should still be fine. The other sample footage thats been kicking around also looked soft.

June 6, 2013 at 9:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I'm agree with you, I don't find it is particulary good, my T2i do better I think...

June 6, 2013 at 4:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
mikael_bellina

now that's a good one :)

June 6, 2013 at 5:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
JB

Dude I shoot on the T3i same sensor and You are not going to do better than this in the same night streetlight conditions. And only some of the shots for a few seconds were as soft as your T2i at its best. For a $1,000 bucks this is pretty darn good.

June 6, 2013 at 7:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gary Simmons

Believe me, some will never be convinced they have value for money unless they get an Alexa of $1000. I shoot T21 too, and no way will you ever get such good footage on this puppy at 1600 in such darkness.

June 6, 2013 at 7:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Fiftybob

The BMCC may be on the shelves in North America, however, there are still 11 month backlogs in Europe, UK's biggest reseller is still pending orders from last July. Rumours of the even distribution of units are vastly exagerated.

June 6, 2013 at 8:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
StillWaiting

Is this CVP you're talking about? And you're waiting for an EF model? that seems odd - the 11 month bit. I have several friends who got theirs long ago from them.
Worth noting: they've pre-ordered a huge quantity of the next cams.

June 6, 2013 at 11:27AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
marklondon

Yes, CVP, who are up to June/July 2012 on their pre-orders. For what it matters, they ordered huge numbers of the first one too, doesn't mean they got them, my order is a little over 9 months old.

June 6, 2013 at 11:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
StillWaiting

marklondon

How many is huge?

June 7, 2013 at 1:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Nice footage but seriously either pick a better song or dont add a song at all. That song makes my ears bleed. Mute the music and play Blade Runner Blues off the Blade Runner soundtrack. WORKS 100000 TIMES better.

June 6, 2013 at 10:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
mike

Have you tried mute?

June 6, 2013 at 1:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
gordon casey

Hahahaha

June 6, 2013 at 7:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Fiftybob

mute works.

June 6, 2013 at 3:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
vinceGORTHO

I think it is ok, nice.... but I feel that's something is missing.

June 6, 2013 at 10:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Peter

The camera is missing from the shelves, thats all

June 6, 2013 at 11:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Marcus

LOL.

June 6, 2013 at 6:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
David F

You can always spend $25k on a real camera.

June 7, 2013 at 12:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Dave N.

We live in good times. The camera choices are so numerous these days. Ok, maybe it's not so good, as it is so tough to make a choice...

June 6, 2013 at 10:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Chris H

Sign me up!

June 6, 2013 at 10:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
David F

I was a little dissapointed with how soft it looked, but then I clicked through to Vimeo and it looks much better there. Nice to finally see it stabilized on a rig. Definitely keeping my preorder!

June 6, 2013 at 11:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Scott

With Vimeo always check twice. By default everything you upload is encoded into 720p (even if you have a Plus account). You have to change the settings individually after uploading to convert them to 1080p, and sometimes the uploader forgets to do so.
I've seen many times how viewers complain about how soft a camera is (for instance, "the GH3 is a lot softer than the GH2!) when in fact they've watched a 720p video, not a 1080p one. The fault goes to the uploader if he's got a Plus account.

June 6, 2013 at 11:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

He just hasn't enabled an HD embed for this one at the moment (probably because he re-uploaded it). Clicking off scaling will give you 1:1 pixels, which is usually the best for comparisons or checking for moire/aliasing. If you're looking on a monitor that is 1080 or below, and scaling is off, it will fill the screen (depending on the aspect ratio).

June 6, 2013 at 11:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

ANd this is why I stick to youtube. For a website that markets itself to filmmakers (supposedly), their quality is garbage. Youtube supports 4k.

June 6, 2013 at 1:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
john jeffries

Actually, Vimeo compression is better than YouTube's, but they do have a couple of quirks and if you don't have a Plus account all your videos will be 720p no matter what. That's a shame.

June 6, 2013 at 3:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Yeah, no thanks. I see enough ads thanks to Google, I'll take Vimeo any day of the week.

June 6, 2013 at 7:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Travis

Youtube? Sure, if you enjoy stuttering every 20 seconds and gobs of obnoxious ads.

June 6, 2013 at 11:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Hummer

AdBlock Plus for Firefox. :-)

June 7, 2013 at 1:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

Usually I get stuttering on Vimeo. But yes, it does have higher bitrate. However YouTube is much more responsive overall.

June 7, 2013 at 1:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
PeterK

YouTube did support 4k for a short time. But they stopped and went to down to 2k(if you can call that going down). They say they will go back to 4k when 4k catches on more.

June 7, 2013 at 1:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

That transition back to 4K may have already started. I've watched two videos in the last week on YouTube that were 4096 x 2160. (I checked the video info by right-clicking and selecting "Show video info").

The first was posted on No Film School on Sunday -- the 4K FS700 footage:
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/06/sony-fs700-4k-footage-upgrade-cost-conve...

And the second was this random music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLCOvZOh1o

June 7, 2013 at 5:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Blah

Vimeo's video data rate at 1080p is ~3.75Mbit. YouTube's is ~2.5Mbit. You can easily tell the difference on a 1080p screen.

June 7, 2013 at 6:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I'm surprised nobody complained about the sensor size yet. 3..2..1..

June 6, 2013 at 11:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Marcus

lol

June 6, 2013 at 11:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Scott

Probably because I didn't mention it.

June 6, 2013 at 11:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

yeah, you need to watch it on Vimeo site.

June 6, 2013 at 11:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Peter

Low light pocket footage looked even better than I expected

June 6, 2013 at 1:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Mr. W

Wonderful. I want one. I want to take it to SE Asia and go hog wild. It's crazy a camera can be delivered for a grand that can deliver that kind of imagery.

If it actually does RAW I'll pee myself.

June 6, 2013 at 3:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Matt Stevens

I'm sure this could stop being a 'pocket camera' pretty quick with some of the larger lens choices out there. That Panasonic 14mm F2.5 pancake seems pretty small - could still slide that in a pocket for sure.

June 6, 2013 at 5:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Clayton Arnall

This is crazy I just can't find anything special about the footage. What is pretty it looks so bad in my opinion.
I have my Canon 550D and still happy don't wanna change tor this shit.
It all depends on your editing
if you can edit well even a cheap camera can do the job for you.
But I really like to own 5D III.

June 6, 2013 at 5:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Solvaij

since you cant see the difference stick with your entry level dslr

June 6, 2013 at 6:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Man, I've been shooting on my 550 now for 2 years and I thought this footage was amazing. The wide shots of the boats blow our kit away. This is great for £800.

June 6, 2013 at 6:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Conan

I agree with you. Its looks bad. If it didn't have the word 'Cinema' in the name it wouldn't have received half the hype it has.

June 6, 2013 at 9:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

It looked a bit sharper than most Canon APS-C DSLR video I've seen -- maybe not at a hacked GH2 level of sharpness, but still noticeably better than 550/600D footage. At ISO 1600, the image was much cleaner than I'm used to seeing; one might be able to push it a stop and add only a tiny bit of noise reduction and come out with a very useable image. Color in the image seemed a tad more vivid and "held together" than most 550D-type footage I've seen, as well, though that might partially be a result of the lack of noise, noise pattern, and the higher bit depth. (I own a 600D, which I've used on many low-light projects; I'm familiar with its ISO 1600 performance.)

Do I think the footage looks to be of the same quality as the Cinema Camera, or more expensive cameras like the FS100/700 and C100? No, I don't. But, I do think it looks better than any stock video camera at $1000 or less. Add in the post-production flexibility afforded by 4:2:2 10-bit 220 Mbps footage, and CinemaDNG raw files in the future, and I think it justifies its $1000 price tag.

June 7, 2013 at 6:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Blah

for now..I'm waiting for the 4k from bm

June 6, 2013 at 6:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DIO

+1!

June 7, 2013 at 1:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

This is one of those situations where I honestly am not convinced people are watching the same video as me. This is some of the best low-light footage I've seen on any camera. It seems slightly worse than the Sony F3 or the Canon C series cameras, but other than that it seems like you couldn't do much better this camera without spending more than $30,000. This is the first time I've actually thought about owning a camera for a long time.

I'm very confused as to how two separate people think this compares unfavorably to the Canon 550d, but if this is a common belief I'd gladly sell you a 550d, preferably before someone releases a side-by-side comparison...

June 6, 2013 at 6:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

I think perhaps some people are judging the quality by the low resolution embedded video rather than the HD one available on Vimeo.

June 6, 2013 at 6:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Curtis

I doubt a side by side comparison will help someone who is hell bent on proving things a certain way irrespective of anything. But what's good is that if you find the T2i fantastic, then you are blessed to get a dream Camera at that cost, so make money with it and don't waste a dime on unnecessary tech.

June 6, 2013 at 8:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Fiftybob

Now, make no mistake; I think the 550d IS a dream camera and I think it's only snobbery that convinces people that it isn't good enough to make "real" movies. That doesn't change the fact that the Blackmagic pocket camera outperforms it in every objective measure. The dynamic range effective resolution are noticeably better, and from this test it seems to perform spectacularly in low light. As much as I think the 550d is a good camera even now, it completely falls apart in low light situations like this. I don't see how anyone who has ever used a 550d in low light could possibly find comparison with the Blackmagic camera.

June 7, 2013 at 3:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

It looks real nice under the conditions, vimeo compression, not full HD etc. I like how BM is addressing their low light performance. The way the camera resolves low light performance looks great in my opinion. That whole trying to see in the dark gets old especially when you use lights and see the image become a 100x's better. I want one and it's so cheap I'd buy the steadicam Merlin to go with it, it's so light and compact I'd sleep with it on. Cheers to the folks at BM and JB too. It's a company I'd be proud to get behind no doubt

June 6, 2013 at 8:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Anthony Marino

I'm not Impressed with night footages from this camera........personally I think low end DSLR footages look just the same or better, but for $1000.00 and the name BMPCC would make me say the night footages are better than one on a DSLR.......so don't take my head off..... I'm on the bandwagon.

June 6, 2013 at 8:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Al

wow... all this Raw footage looks futher away from film to me and more like plain video.. besides sudience can care less what its shot with.. the magic happens in the editing room always. i'm with (Solvaij) on this one. My 7d got me in my first festival, if i do upgrade i'd rather get a full frame like 5d mark iii rather than a smaller sensor :(

June 6, 2013 at 10:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lawrence

Whether you can get the same look from a T2i, 5D, or etc - you are still encoding your video in a highly compressed format. This camera allows you to record in 10 Bit ProRes right onto a SD Card with RAW Video support in the near future.

You cannot get a camera like that for $1000.

June 6, 2013 at 10:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
D.L. Watson

*Audience

June 6, 2013 at 10:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lawrence

At the end of the day Dslr's changed and still changing the game thanks the Magic lantern all these other camera companies are just trying to keep up ( 5D Mark iii Raw video hack) with full Frame size sensor... Amazing!!!

June 6, 2013 at 10:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lawrence

Oh God.... I love it when people bring up the full sized sensor ....

June 9, 2013 at 11:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Leland

Yeah, they all have Canon envy. ;-)

June 10, 2013 at 2:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

saying that full frame is better than S16 is like saying that a 70mm lens is better than a 35mm lens. it just reveals that you have no clue of photography.

June 16, 2013 at 8:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
alfred

Lawence this isn't raw. This was shot with prores. If raw is not shipping with the camera, then it will come later in firmware update.

June 6, 2013 at 10:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
David

I went to Brawley's site, found his other Vimeo links, watched this footage in HD - and it's like night and day! (lame pun intended). It looks soft on the imbed but beautiful in (1080P?) HD over there. For a $1K camera, it seems like a major step forward.

June 6, 2013 at 11:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
DLD

HD wasn't originally enabled on the embed but it is now.

June 6, 2013 at 11:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

Focus was off in a few parts and more noise than I was expecting, but outstanding color for sure.

June 7, 2013 at 12:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Razor

I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments. 550D, T2i better than this? I think you guys should change this site's name to 'Trollin' with da Homey's'

June 7, 2013 at 1:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Mordrid

I definitely LOL'd at this, not that I agree or disagree, just that it was funny as hell.

June 7, 2013 at 1:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Kholi

You drank the BM coolaid. There is nothing remarkable about these images. They are fine but thats it. But I'd call people having to use 24mm lens to get a 70-85mm looking shot remarkable.

June 7, 2013 at 3:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

Can you show me some comparable low-light footage from a cheaper camera (or even one under $5,00)? I'm genuinely curious about this.

June 7, 2013 at 3:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

Did you mean to write under $5000 instead of $500 because I absolutely can show you.

June 7, 2013 at 3:51AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Then show.... !

June 7, 2013 at 5:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Uploading footage now I shot last night in Kowloon. I'm just here for 4 nights on a stopover and the place is amazing!! On the way to Africa to shoot a couple of docos. Anyone have any tips for the Congo?? :(

June 7, 2013 at 7:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I'd say that looks as good as my EX3 that still retails for around that mark.

less dof does not necessarily = a nicer picture. I think some people find the images unremarkable is because of that and the image quality is very life like giving it a very unsurprising look as that is how things are and how we are accustomed to seeing them.

The crop factor is evil for people like me and presumably you who have invested in EF lenses but speed booster + the Tokina 11-16 should be roughly about 24-40mm which is in the ball park of wide angle though no IS.

June 7, 2013 at 7:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Chris Lambert

Here you go

https://vimeo.com/67926357

Look at the BM footage and there is no information in the blacks.

I didnt mention what I shot this with because my point wasnt about promoting my own choice of camera but this camera is well under $5000, half that actually.

All shots at ISO 100. There was some fine grain in the clouds (was surprised to be able to see the clouds, even at the end of streets I can see the outlines of buildings against the cloud and that was all shot at midnight) but the upload compression seems to have mushed it away. I added no noise reduction and only graded one shot (not really a grade, rather test to see how much I could retrieve from the blacks).

June 7, 2013 at 10:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I don't know what "information" you're seeing in your footage, but it seems to me that there's a heck of a lot more of it in the Blackmagic sample. If you compare the clouds between the two videos, yours shows off pretty devastating quantization artefacts that the Blackmagic doesn't (although obviously a bit is added to both videos by Vimeo's compression). The banding isn't bad enough to ruin the image, necessarily, but it'd certainly be very disappointing to see in ungraded footage.

The resolution on yours also doesn't hold up very well; the details look extremely muddy and videoey. It's not a BAD image from what looks to be an older camcorder (it definitely doesn't have the look of a Canon DSLR and the detail is worse than, say, a Sony FS100, but other than that I don't have much idea what camera this could be), but I don't think is really comparable to the Blackmagic's footage. There are certainly situations where it would be a good choice, but if the goal is to make a "filmic" image it just doesn't have the right look or the amount of detail.

That said, thanks for taking the time to post this.

June 7, 2013 at 10:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

I promise you there is no banding or artefacts in the original footage and its a lot sharper. I had to compress it that much because the Internet access where I am is slow. It's shot with a DSLR. That shot where I lifted the blacks where I thought it was pure black in the top right corner in the original I can even see brick detail. I will try to re-upload when I can.

June 7, 2013 at 11:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Ps I've been a Vimeo user for years but I'm really starting to hate it. You upload your 1080p footage, then it compresses it to 720 before you get the option to select 1080p when it then recompresses it from the Vimeo settings I selected in Premiere.

June 7, 2013 at 11:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Nah, it's not vimeo's compression that's the problem: both embedded videos (yours and the Blackmagic) are ~256kbs 1080p H.264 mp4s. That means anything that the compression did to yours was done to the Blackmagic one, too.

June 8, 2013 at 12:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

Is this a 5D MkII? Or maybe III, but I'm leaning more towards II.
There's either sharpening in camera from a standard profile it was added in post.
And I think there was a lot more light in those streets than there was where Brawley shot his video, so I don't see how comparable both samples are.

June 8, 2013 at 1:08AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I realise both clips are subject to same compression. I was more commenting on that in this age why such high compression?

Not a 5Dmk2.

Can I just point out again that all that was at ISO 100!! Meaning the camera wasn't even close to be tested for low light. I wanted to see what could be lifted from the blacks so left it on 100.

June 8, 2013 at 1:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

A couple thoughts...why are you comparing 100 ISO to 1600 ISO? These are reasonably standardized numbers, so to replicate John Brawley's exposure you should be on 1600 ISO. if things are blown out at the same f-stop and shutter speed, it means you have more light (which you do).

Second...your highlights are all kinds of supernova. One of the marks of the "video look" is nasty harsh highlights because digital traditionally has poor dynamic range compared with film. So yeah, the Pocket Cam's high dynamic range is another reason it's called a "cinema" camera.

June 8, 2013 at 2:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gabe

I wasn't comparing them, I was simply saying it looked average to me and there was nothing there to get excited about. When asked to show another camera under $5000 that performed well in low light I did (there were a couple of well lit shots in mine but majority were quite dark) frankly I think there are a lot of cameras that look better in low light than the BM. As for ISO that doesn't matter if we are looking at performance in low light, its about getting a result and the camera that can get there with the lowest ISO wins. Again I wasn't uploading a comparison. How could that be possible without shooting next to the other camera at the same time.

June 8, 2013 at 12:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

What the heck? ISO numbers are equivalent...it's a standard system. ISO on one camera matches the exposure on other cameras. If where ever you were shooting was bright enough to shoot at ISO 100 on your camera, then it's bright enough to shoot at ISO 100 on the Pocket Cam, or any other camera that has an ISO setting. That's the whole friggin point of the ISO system.

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

June 8, 2013 at 3:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

Well thats obvious. But not really what I meant. I wasnt comparing ISO 100 to ISO1600. But my comment that the camera that can get there with the lowest ISO was in relation to dynamic range making a difference. I should have been clearer. If one camera has to go to ISO1600 but another can get the result at ISO1250 because it captures more detail in the shadows, thats what I meant.

June 8, 2013 at 9:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Just to be clear, I didn't ask for something that performed "well" in low light, I asked for "comparable low light footage." The footage you posted is indeed comparable in some ways, but in pretty much all measurable respects it compares unfavorably.

As people have pointed out, the ISO information given isn't really enough to figure out how much light was actually present in each case, but even so, I think the difference between the two clips is still pretty telling.

June 8, 2013 at 11:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
cows

I'm sorry man, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say the streets you filmed with tons of neon signs packed everywhere is even remotely comparable to the fairly sparse streetlights in John Brawley's footage.

June 9, 2013 at 3:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

Some day I'll scroll through these threads and not see a Canon-vs.-the-world comment.

June 7, 2013 at 1:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gene

Dare to dream.

June 7, 2013 at 11:36AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

OMG! LOL!! I laughed so hard. And I really needed it tonight. Thanks!

June 8, 2013 at 12:34AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Some of the focus is a touch soft in this video - the previous one John posted doesn't show off as much low light performance, but is another example of how crisp and filmic this camera can be. http://vimeo.com/66955436

June 7, 2013 at 12:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Okay, I'll play along.

WORST CASE SCENARIO, I'll be able to take my prores footage, shot with a wide selection of lenses, drop it straight onto a timeline, grade it without worrying about banding, and it will look at least as good as the 550d etc which have much larger sensors.

I can live with that.

June 7, 2013 at 6:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Another Tim

I wasn't comparing them, I was simply saying it looked average to me and there was nothing there to get excited about. When asked to show another camera under $5000 that performed well in low light I did (there were a couple of well lit shots in mine but majority were quite dark) frankly I think there are a lot of cameras that look better in low light than the BM. As for ISO that doesn't matter if we are looking at performance in low light, its about getting a result and the camera that can get there with the lowest ISO wins. Again I wasn't uploading a comparison. How could that be possible without shooting next to the other camera at the same time.

June 8, 2013 at 11:48AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

How many times did I say it wasn't a comparison? Your too busy blindly defending a camera that you didn't even get what I was saying. You have fun with your point and shoot 'pocket' camera which it sounds you already have on order that you can't fit in a pocket. Well maybe you could without a lens on.

June 9, 2013 at 3:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

So your footage in answer to "cows" request for "comparable" footage, isn't a comparison? Alright then...

June 9, 2013 at 5:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

7
Reply
Gabe

Btw, much of my main paid work is shot on Epic. I recently had the chance to shoot some stuff on a buddy's BMCC, and I was very impressed by how it compared to the Red footage, which is why I'm very interested in having something like the Pocket Cam to carry around with myself. Unfortunately it's not always feasible to rent an Epic for personal projects.

June 9, 2013 at 5:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

So you think the pocket camera compares to the Epic????

I'd like to see your work sometime. Why don't you add the link to your site to your name so we can click on it and check it out?

June 9, 2013 at 5:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Are we really comparing cameras or lenses?

June 9, 2013 at 6:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Cameron Glendinning

I was only talking about cameras but I think it just ended up a pissing contest.

June 9, 2013 at 7:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

No, you turned it into a pissing contest. I don't give a rats ass about your work, and I don't know why anyone should give a rats ass about mine. This is a discussion about the low light performance of the Pocket Cam.

Oh, and yes the BMCC's color and dynamic range compare very favorably with the Epic. Very few cameras have 13 stops of dynamic range.

June 9, 2013 at 5:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gabe

I was genuinely keen to see your work Gabe. I think we can learn more from each other than we can watching dark footage of people in the rain or whatever the latest news about Movi etc.

As for dynamic range I dont believe it. Look at the shot of the guy in the black leather jacket when he turns around, his face is overexposed and the black in his jacket is clashed. Almost all the shots had crushed blacks. There should be some in most of those shots but not as much as there is. I'm Australian and I know that area well and its not as dingy as it looks in this. To me its been graded that way to reduce visible noise but we will see when it eventually starts shipping.

The smaller the sensor the less you should expect in low light.

June 9, 2013 at 9:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I think the BMCC sensor compares very well to the EPIC.

I prefer the DR and better colour science of the BMCC. EPIC is great for other reasons like resolution, higher frame rates, and other *operational* reasons.

jb

June 17, 2013 at 7:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
John Brawley

Inett - The picture were pirfecteon. So creative and wow what a great job. You captured some of their best moments and left them with such great memories. One of the best pictures I have seen in a very long time! Keep up the good work!

March 18, 2014 at 1:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply