My last post touched on the processes I have been going through to expand my MFT video camera options and my video growth path generally in some depth.
I have high ISO, stabilising and AF options, tons of lenses and three formats to choose from, but I do not have a powerful codec to call on.
The choice, it seems, has come down to this;
BMPCC4k and a BM 5” 12g Video Assist ($2800au with a cage), so I can have basically any camera as a decent, if not perfectly matched B-cam. BRaw in two cams, one in MFT and one in L or MFT mount, with AF, stabe, high ISO skills etc. All good. This would be the cine-commercial-interview rig, the Pana’s either supporting or as their own thing for other jobs.
This feels like my heart choice, to go “all in” at the budget cine end.
Fears are real, but addressed head on;
The BM could be an occasional use specialist item.
Any time that extra quality assurance of BRaw is needed, it will be a no-brainer. BRaw is the key, not the camera as such. I have more capable cameras in other ways, but not one with access to the “real thing” (ProRes RAW is no good to me as a Resolve user).
The BM could conversely become addictive and my Lumix stable sidelined.
If this is the case, then great, the BM was a good move, but the Lumix cams will still be of use for all the things they do the BM cannot and of course also as stills cameras. With one or more Video Assists, they all get a lift to basically the same quality, so even as faux BM’s or not they will all be useful.
The BM4k is old for a modern video camera.
It seems lately that the shelf life of most hybrid cams is 2-3 years. They have a lot of change to go through as the landscape of sort-of hybrids turns into genuine ones. The P4k is mostly immune to this need for evolution. It is also one of the most explored cams on the market.
What actually is there to upgrade?
Unlike most video cameras in this price point, it does not have stabilising (other than lens or Gyro in post) or any form of AF expectation to improve upon each generation, nor does it need more codecs. Maybe a flip screen, or better in-camera battery life, which would never be enough anyway, a body update, the sensor maybe, but to what end?
It was released as a revelation, well ahead of the pack and not stupidly expensive. It has stayed relevant, but also has dropped in price to the point where there is still no other RAW capable camera in it’s price class.
BM has supported it all it’s life because they know it is suited to it’s intended purpose and as they do with all their products, they give, support and share, often for free.
You are buying into a very real and very relevant Black Magic work flow, with the camera and free software as the key.
With one or two BMVA’s, I can choose from 3 options as BRaw B-cams. This means the matched 7Art Hope lenses can be used together or the Hope and a Spectrum and so on. I need to buy a code, do a firmware upgrade etc, but basically, ready to go.
Pretty happy with this test image from some G9.I test footage from a Hope lens.
This is sitting well and in my shopping cart.
The kicker is, I just want to explore something new, scratch an itch I have been wanting to scratch for a while. A true cinematographers tool, even if a base model and limited, it is still the real thing.
I have been looking at a lot of P4k vs “X” videos, some pitting it against cameras three times it’s price and half it’s age (FX3), some closer to it (GH5s, BGH-1) and it is apparent to me that even now, a veritable age after it’s release, it is still what it was designed to be, a real player in the entry level cine camera space.
Highlight roll-off and colour science is the key I feel. It does this so much better than the equivalent Panasonics, which can look “snappier” but not as smooth or rich.
The Video Assist answers the big issue, which is what camera would be a decent backup for the BM if required. The G9II, S5II and S5 all can.
Buy a pair of Video Assist’s, which of course give me two BRaw/Lumix cams for under the price of the P4k (or three for little more than the P4k), but not fully and not as cleanly, as well as still needing another MFT body. There are a few things kept as proprietary for the BM cams that the BMVA cannot support in other brands, but it is close enough probably.
The only real contender is the GH5s, a camera more practical in some ways, but lacking the magic codec and any form of stabe, but with reliable AF and plenty of cross-compatibility. If I wanted to skip BM and just get a capable M43 camera, this would be it.
Power is always a concern, but that also goes for anything as 1.5hrs is outside of any normal internal camera batts safe range. Only external batteries or DC power will help. I can use NP’s in a rig or even a V-Mount.
*
Ok, how about this.
The reality or maybe the “Head” choice check.
I have two full frame cameras with naturally wider DR than my MFT cameras, three that can potentially take a BMVA if needed, but have been getting by with Flat or Standard profile in .Mov for a while now, V-Log in the reserve and 5 matching cams with access to 10 bit/ProRes/422, and All-i in my G9II.
Below are some recordings of ProRes 422 HQ in Flat and V-Log profile, with no Luts, just the un-graded footage, then a light grade. To be honest, I would not do this. I would use a reflector or lights, or exclude the window, accept the loss, or use a full frame.
The top pair were exposed for the highlights (window) in Flat profile. Good highlight retention and decent shadow recovery (ISO 400). I did not see any real noise at full screen, so “expose to the right” which with wave forms is actually expose for the top line. I found grading this was pretty easy.
The second row is exposing for shadows, the whole window area was well blown in the wave form monitor and there was not recovering it. This was a pain to grade. No highlight recovery, offset or other trick worked without washing out and it did not like white balancing either. Bringing up shadows in Flat looks like the better option.
The last row is V-Log, with both window and shadow detail retained. Enough? My needs would suggest so, but are my skills up to it?
BRaw has a cleaner and more powerful pathway to good quality files from poor quality captures, especially with BM cameras. Poor quality captures are the key.
If this was all you had, Standard profile from a G9.I, would it do the job? If the lighting was set up correctly, white balance and exposure done well, then yes, it would. Would I need Braw in this situation when the end product would be the same?
Question is;
Is there any point in having a single camera that can handle extreme DR and ISO/exposure mistakes, if all the other supporting cams cannot. This is the same reason a GH7 does not appeal. One with Arri-Log is pointless.
Is there much point in getting an MFT cam that could handle interviews well, when I have two FF’s that can?
Would I be regularly running ProRes422 HQ or BRaw in my normal work flow?
I shy away from All-i due to the load (Raw formats are easier to grade though as compression does the harm, so if I were to go higher…….), I even avoid Log when I can because I prefer simpler grading pathways, so it seems that the safety net of BRaw is at odds with my usual work flow (that much effort would deserve better thinking up front anyway) and I have options in the process before shooting that need to be considered (i.e. don’t shoot bad footage).
With a GH5s, I would have a BMPCC4k-like MFT cam, a second G9II (Black Friday bargain) would give me a second ProRes option with BMVA’s possible also.
Ironically, the time I could use the BRaw capable cam is for run-n-gun work (G9II+VA), when light might bite me, but the BMPCC4k is not that cam. For settled and stable situations, any cams would do.
The choice?
GH5S, new from my local chain who had stock for less than the BMPCC4k body. I also have a cage (G9 multi fit), batts (4x G9.1), it has great battery life (2hrs in 1080p), great dynamic range with V-Log-L, All-i recording, full frame-like low light performance, all the video stuff I want and it can go out to a BMVA as boxed.
The AF is solid, better than most other DFD cams and the P4k, the stabe is lens or software reliant, but so was the P4k. At a push, it is also a decent stills cam. With a BMVA I have a long life P4k with AF, but I feel I may never do that. Like the P4k, it offers a cheap high grade MFT video cam, without more of what I have already (I can apparently only hand hold one cam at a time…who knew). This will be the static third cam, the MFT interview and the cine rig cam and the “learn to do without stabe and AF” cam.