Jump to content


Photo

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera | Hands On


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 06 December 2013 - 08:19 PM

Thought would be good a space to discuss good practices and issues related to the new BMPCC, as we users, experienced cinematographers or not, are all "begginers" with this baby.

I just got mine today. Oh yeah. Played a little bit using my Kern Switar primes. Loved the looks.

My fisrt question is at the same time "silly", but I have to ask.
When using ADAPTERS.... I have the metabones Arri to M43 and C-Mount to m-43... And when putting it in the BMPCC, it's really hard and tight to put it, which is somehow "good". But I noticed it scratched the metal surface where lenses and adapters sit in th camera... I know I shouldn't ever use any lubbing in that part because of the sensor, etc. but is there anything to be done regarding this, to avoid scratching in excesss? Or it's part of the process?

Edited by flavio filho, 06 December 2013 - 08:20 PM.

  • 0

#2 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 15 December 2013 - 10:25 AM

I have a similar concern, but more with the data contacts within the BMPCC lens mount, I'm currently using all manual lenses with it, but don't want to knacker the contacts in case I want to put any Lumix (etc.) glass on it.


  • 0

#3 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 28 December 2013 - 04:12 PM

Bump!


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3706 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:12 AM

I've been pretty successful with my camera so far, though its an all-new kit with EOS mount primes, instead of having to adapt older glass. 

 

I've learned a lot about the camera in recent shoots, most of it has been positive, but some has been annoying. I still love the camera's quality, its sheer image quality is staggering for how small the body is. But I shoot wild and it can be a bit tricky to deal with. Not having any automation is rough, no option for auto iris OR a zoom lens is kinda frustrating when trying to grab that quick shot. However, I've come up with solutions for most things, I know which of my primes will work well in certain shooting environments and understand how to deal with mess-up's in post. 

 

I'm going to schedule a short narrative film soon, I need to try shooting in a more controlled environment and see what happens. I have two more episodes of my dirt bike series (in the other thread) to finish and then I'm going to be onto a new subject. 

 

I shot with my friends 5DMKIII this weekend, holy crap, what a piece of junk compared to the BMPCC... yes, I just said that. :)


  • 0

#5 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 12:04 PM

hi Tyler.

Yes, I've just seen your footage on your links in another post. Really great takes, congrats.

Believe or not, I've got my pocket cam, mic, sound recorder, tripod, merlin steadycam, and so far haven't used them yet.

I have great primes to use, and I'm keeping myself of doing it for now. Yes, crazy I know... I was craving for the pocket. But now I'm studying and learning one by one of my components in theory to know how to operate. Then I will go for practice in field and make some tests.

 

I still have to find a ND FILTER for my kit (am in Brazil now, summer, so VERY important). I need one that could fit my 4x3 matte box.
If you guys have a suggestions of a god one for a good price, please let me know.

 

Keep on the Black Magic revolution.

 

F


  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 30 December 2013 - 12:12 PM

4x3 mattebox? I don't think i've ever seen one in that size. If it's 4x4 then I'd honestly pick up a good tiffen or schneider. If you were only getting one to knock down exposure during the day, something like a 1.2NDIR would serve you well. It may be pricy-ish, I suppose, but I'd never want to cheap out on such things.

Another option would be super cheap 4x4 gel filters which'd get destroyed over-time, but hell, better than nothing.


  • 0

#7 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:48 PM

Hi

Sorry. Of course, a 4x4.

Thanks for the tips. Will try to find one. Sun is really shining in here.

 

Just os I know. What sort of GEL filters I could use? What model, type, etc?


Best,
F


  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 30 December 2013 - 01:52 PM

I believe Lee makes them (or made them). Kodak did as well.
you can get something like this:

http://www.bhphotovi...ter_Filter.html

probably won't last nearly as long as a glass set, and I dunno how good it'd be all in all since I've only used gels for stills where it's not as important for quality. But better than nothing and one of those things if it's trashed, well, you can replace.


  • 0

#9 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 03:50 PM

You'd have to be very careful with using gels on the lens, any scratches or creases which are easily got on gels, no matter how careful you are with them, will show up on the picture, they'll also pick up a lot more dust and particles due to the nature of the material.

 

I have a set of 4x4 Formatt ND's .3, .6, .9 and they've done me pretty well thus far, could do with a 1.2 in there as well, but will probably make sure I go for an IRND as IR becomes more apparent at that point, so if you can afford to go for IRNDs do it, as Adrian says, Tiffen or Schneider both decent filters, Tiffen was the first place I looked, however budget took over and had to forgo those, but then as I say, the Formatt ones IMO are a decent affordable alternative.


  • 0

#10 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 04:00 PM

Great Stuff, Matt. Thanks!

OK... As IRND are way too expensive... Then would benefit to get a .9 ND, as you said?
I just need one for now, for very sunny days as in Brazil is 90% of the time. Then in the future could get a .6, etc.

Thanks a lot! Very helpful!


  • 0

#11 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 04:19 PM

If you're gonna be doing a lot of outdoors in sunlight, then yeah a .9 would probably be a good place to start, all depends on what you what you want to achieve with your shots really. Obviously a .9 will help you get a shallower dof in brighter light, may give you issues on duller days tho, (hence the need for other densities).

 

Another option could be to look at a lower ND and a polariser.. a polar is a solid purchase whatever, especially for sunny day work. Keep in mind adding ND to polar can give you unwanted artefacts (for want of the actual work I'm looking for).

 

Actually, I'd say a polar is possibly an even better 1st buy, you've still got your ISO, Aperture and Shutter to control exposure, I does really come down to what and how you want to shoot


  • 0

#12 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:20 PM

Thanks again, Matt.

But a polarizer wouldn't sort properly the light vs aperture issue, would it?
I will mostly be shoot ing documentaries. But for example, in a sunny day, a medium/close shot would look more interesting with a larger aperture so leaving the background out of focus.
A polarizer would help anyhow? I thought was only to control color density?


  • 0

#13 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:34 PM

A polariser is designed to help with balancing the light hitting the sensor/film, however it also does reduce the light transmission, so you will lose *about* 2 stops with just a polar, roughly the same as a .6ND (2-stops)


  • 1

#14 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 05:37 PM

Also think about your composition, if you're shooting doco then you could well get away with ramping up the shutter speed if you need to. Especially in a standard M/S interview shot. depending on what you've got going on in the background. As a starting point, I think it's worth you considering


  • 1

#15 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:17 PM

Awesome advice Matt.

I was concerned about the polariser, when shooting RAW, that would "polarise" the colours too much.... 
My background in Still Photography, when using polarisers, was basically to get more colors from the blue sky, or add/remove reflex from window glass, etc.

So I can go comfortably for a polariser then, instead of a ND Filter...?


Edited by flavio filho, 30 December 2013 - 06:17 PM.

  • 0

#16 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:21 PM

Polas are great as they kill reflections and darken blue skies and take away 2 stops,  however, as you move the camera the effect will either get more pronounced or less and the amount of stop loss will also fluctuate (a bit, not much).

I had Formatt filters and couldn't wait to get rid of them-- their ND set gave everything a green cast which was horrible-- now they may well had reformulated it these days and it is very camera specific but you gotta check (same with NDIRs-- they reproduce differently across different sensors).

That said, maybe I was too hard on the formatts, because, hell, may have just been myself driving myself batty. certainly no one else noticed it.


  • 0

#17 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:21 PM

That's not what I'm saying, a polar and ND serve different purposes. What I'm saying is a polar is a worthwhile investment in it's own right, and as you're saying you're going to be doing a lot of sunny daylight exteriors, it would help give some more punch to those images, while also helping you slightly with reducing the light transmission.

 

A polar is not instead of a set of NDs


  • 0

#18 Matt Grover

Matt Grover
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • West Sussex, England

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:26 PM

Adrian, trust me I'd like to have a decent set of Tiffen NDs, but annoyingly they cost quite a lot more ;)

 

Thus far I've been happy with the Formatt ones, I got them new late last year. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave you a colour cast, they are after all more budget range, for me however, it's not been a problem with the cameras and shoots I've used them on.

 

IRNDs are slightly different I think and can be sensor specific, but I'm not totally au fait with them at the mo, just know the basics behind them.


  • 0

#19 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 30 December 2013 - 06:31 PM

I think we've all been in that spot where we've used a pola as an ND-- lord knows I got into that a few times Just trying to make folks aware of things to keep in mind working with them.

 

I think CML ran some tests of NDIRs across differing sensors, but I may be wrong and it may've been reduser (and red specific, I think) but yeah, since each NDIR is going to hit a specific wavelength, it'd be highly sensor specific on an academic level, and mildly so on a more everyday level. I know my Schneider NDIRs look worst- to me- on Red Mysteriums.


  • 0

#20 flavio filho

flavio filho
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 30 December 2013 - 07:44 PM

Hey Matt.

I've got what you mean. The polarizer would still give a punch AND reducing light transmission.
I'm inclined to get one. Price is the problem. On BH they cost more than the ND filter. So I will give a thought.

Wow, nice thread this one. Lights, lights... Cool. Like it.


  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Opal

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Opal

Visual Products

CineLab

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc