BMCC 2.5 footage looks so much better than BMPCC4K....

[kiliksun]

The BMCC image as awesome for sure. But the lack of any overcranking really makes it unusable for, like 90% of the projects I want to do. I would be tempted to shoot say, a personal feature, or shot film, on one over the Pocket4k, but for any client work... music videos... ect. it's a no go. No matter what the "slow-mo" haters say you're going to need AT LEAST 60fps cranking if you're doing any modern professional work. I REALLY wish Blackmagic would have released a BMCC v2.0 with better cooling and 60 or 96 fps a few years ago... but oh well. The Pocket 4k does have some amazing looking stuff on it. I'm gonna have to shoot on one myself to really make a final comparisons.

I agree with this 100% and probably is the main deciding factor for most. If there's no party to impress, then almost decent 2k, less than perfect color and a crappy 13 stops is more than enough. When there's no jury, what's left is everything else. It's sort of like when designers/artists insist a [insert property] should fall away, support the project and be mostly transparent to the viewer/user. Now if it weren't for this BS magic everyone sees, the P4K would be a default opt just because it sort of does everything.

[joe12south]

I’m with you, the 2.5 looks better than the 4k and p4k, heck it almost looks better than the 4.6. There was something about the 2.5’s cadence and quality, I shot on the 2.5 for years and every now and then a shot would blow my mind, shooting on the 4.6 I have never had one of those moments.

I sold my 2.5 when I got a 4.6, but i’ve been thinking about picking one up again.

Oh Good Lord. As if "cinematic" wasn't bad enough, now we're trotting out "cadence." Hold on everyone, next up is "magic" and "mojo".

Excuse me while I go take a Polaroid of my vinyl records.

[tclark513]

Oh Good Lord. As if "cinematic" wasn't bad enough, now we're trotting out "cadence." Hold on everyone, next up is "magic" and "mojo".

Excuse me while I go take a Polaroid of my vinyl records.

Who elected you the true descriptor of all?? We're allowed to have an opinion! Don't like people's opinion? Move on...

[dop16mm]

There is no one definition of a cinema look. Even among directors that still shoot film there is a wide range. Darren Aronofsky shoots super16, Christopher Nolan loves IMAX in between there are guys that only shoot anamorphic, vs super35 or even 2perf for widescreen. Although I haven't tried it yet the new p4k seems to address most of the limitations of the original, while still being small enough to continue the shooting style I have developed. For what its worth the look of cinema has evolved to clean and noise free, and isn't going back.

[alex.stefani]

I still prefer the 2.5k's image, however...
I think that the 4K is a different tool, more versatile, it's fantastic in low light...I think it's the real "pocket", you can pick the camera and bring it in situation where you cannot bring much lighting and still have great footage...an excellent camera for documentaries, spots, and even narrative work with a "modern" look...
For that price, is a great tool.

For narrative projects, sincerely, I will still use my Ursa Mini Pro, it's a great camera, it destroys the BMPCC4k's latitude, "thick" negative, very good colors...
I was hoping for a S16mm "cut "of the original Ursa Mini Pro sensor in the Pocket II, but hey guys, the bmpcc 4k is a camera for the masses, a great tool for videographers, which gives you at the same time a tremendous amount of flexiblity with raw and an image that prety good out of the box for the average videographer. Maybe the original pocket was conceived as camera for the masses too, however the truth is that most of its buyers did not use that fantastic (yet light-demanding) sensor at its best....

My opinion here is...if you have a tight budget and you want a tool for commercials, even narrative short projects, the bmpcc 4k is a great tool..
if you're shooting a short film/feature buy or rent an ursa mini pro...
if you're shooting a narrative short film project but for some reason you have a limited budget..the old bmpcc is the way to go! I'd prefer this camera over the bmpcc 4k in controlled environment and exterior daylight..

As for the "cinematic look", I agree with dop16mm, film look has evolved in the last 20 years, now a more clean look is generally accepted if not preferred and the new generations of viewers are maybe more confortable with that clean image..
I think that there is still room for improvements in digital colors, and that would be beneficial even for "digital-trained" eyes... in the last two years I've noticed better colors on digital film, especially on the big screen..even though the camera is always the same (the old good Alexa)! I think that top colorists are still improving their workflows day after day to make colors on the big screen "great again". If you think of many top films shot in the last decade, colors were milky, desaturated, lifeless..many pointed digital cameras as the cause..it's only partly true..some weeks ago it happened to me watch Bohemian Rhapsody on the big screen, shot on the Alexa 65... I'm a Kodak-addicted, but..hey guys colors on that film were great!

[Chris Adler]

Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.

[MurtlandPhoto]

Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.

Unfortunately no. Panasonic users do the same thing.

[Flabasha]

Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.

To be fair, this is literally a discussion board about these cameras. I'm not sure what else you expect to find here, instructions on how to fix a muffler?

[Myownfriend]

Who elected you the true descriptor of all?? We're allowed to have an opinion! Don't like people's opinion? Move on...

Nobody but his point was that people keep using useless terms. There's a whole group of people that constantly seem to talk about stuff like motion cadence and mojo and other crap that's either not real or meaningless. Motion cadence has to do with shutter speed and framerate. If you have two cameras shooting 24 fps with the shutter set to 1/48th, then they'll both expose the sensor to light for 1/48th of a second 24 times a second in 41.6ms intervals. In other words, it doesn't differ between cameras but there are people that swear it does.

Some would say rolling shutter would effect motion cadence and while that has nothing to do with cadence, it definitely effects motion. The thing about that is that we can measure which cameras have rolling shutters and there's nothing subjective about what amount of rolling shutter is more filmic. It would simply be which ever cameras have RS closer to 5ms. Though I'm sure this is one of the few instances where people would prefer that their camera be better than film and just have a global shutter.

[Chris Adler]

To be fair, this is literally a discussion board about these cameras. I'm not sure what else you expect to find here, instructions on how to fix a muffler?

Fair point. I guess I'd expect discussion, not pure opinion. People that plan to never use the camera because it doesn't do x as well as camera y really are just a waste of everyone's time and energy.