Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nauticam - BMPCC 4K


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#1 Miru

Miru

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 10:25 PM

I just saw its prototype housing.

It is possible to put SSD, and have extra-batteries.

 

but I see the connectors are too many in such a small space, so I am worring maybe there are no space for HDMI output..

 

Am I right?



#2 Hmmm

Hmmm

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 46 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:46 AM

Got any photos?

#3 Walt Stearns

Walt Stearns

    Manta Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Interests:Diving and underwater photography of course with a little rebreathers, cave diving, marine science and natural history thrown in.

Posted 25 January 2019 - 10:07 AM

There are a few images of it in the Boot 2019 Show Report - http://wetpixel.com/...eport-boot-2019



#4 Hmmm

Hmmm

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 46 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:12 PM

Thanks for the link, Walt.

#5 echo2600

echo2600

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 05:13 PM

Well... there goes this years budget.... LOL

It looks pretty enticing!

Edited by echo2600, 25 January 2019 - 05:14 PM.


#6 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 25 January 2019 - 11:31 PM

looks like a new n85 port too...

 

boot_1-15.jpg

 

Can't find any reference to a port with a cold shoe and extended focus knob on Nauticam.com


Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rigs: Nauticam BMPCC4K, Nauticam Lumix GH5, 14-42mm II, Nauticam WWL-1, Atomos Inferno and DivePro G18 Plus Lighting. Underwater Insta360 One X.

www.richardwait.com / Custom 3D Designed UW Parts


#7 Lionfi2s

Lionfi2s

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 26 January 2019 - 01:34 AM

Very good image quality (at least on land, remains to see how it will work UW) but so many problems and bugs reported by users. I think i ll pass.



#8 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 26 January 2019 - 02:23 AM

Coming from a GH5 (and buying a GH5s) there hasnt been a big improvement to move - yet.

Weve been really spoiled by IBIS. Its something I cant do without now. I sold the GH5s as I kept reaching for the GH5.

Might of. If the BM has ibis

Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rigs: Nauticam BMPCC4K, Nauticam Lumix GH5, 14-42mm II, Nauticam WWL-1, Atomos Inferno and DivePro G18 Plus Lighting. Underwater Insta360 One X.

www.richardwait.com / Custom 3D Designed UW Parts


#9 echo2600

echo2600

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 January 2019 - 05:02 AM

It looks like its a rather pricy bit of kit... I found two places that listed pricing on their websites, at $3950USD and 3435 Euros, that could discourage people from switching over....

http://scubapix.com/...nema-camera-4k/

http://ocean-photos....sing-16501.html

Edited by echo2600, 26 January 2019 - 05:03 AM.


#10 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 27 January 2019 - 07:35 AM

This looks interesting for people that do professional work in camera raw and want a smaller rig than a red camera


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#11 dreifish

dreifish

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 27 January 2019 - 05:26 PM

I'm considering it (housing price obviously being a factor). I'd love to try it out at least, though it may indeed prove to be a minimal upgrade over a GH5/GH5s.

 

The biggest advantages I see are the wider usable dynamic range at 4k60 (12bit raw vs 8-bit h.264 v-log internal gives a lot more color gradation information) and the greater flexibility over white balance that being able to work with the raw files should bring.

 

The bigger monitor would also be a nice advantage.

 

Even if the Nauticam housing ends up costing $3600-$4000, the whole package will still be in the same ballpark price range as a GH5s+Nauticam Housing 

 

Downsides are the lack of in-body stabilization (but the other cinema options like the C200, EVA-1, REDs, Alexa also lack this) and the much larger file sizes that require more storage and processing power than the GH5's 150mb/s files. A lot will depend on just how good the black magic raw is once it gets implemented. And I'd love to see FCPX support for braw.

 

From the comparisons I've seen out there, image quality is really quite close overall with what the C200 puts out, including similar/lower noise at ISO 6400 than the C200 produces, at $5300 for body+housing vs $15000+ for the C200 (more once you factor in pairing it with a WWL-1 vs WACP).  So unless you really need the dual pixel of the C200, or Canon's color science somehow rears it's head again, this seems like a much better buy?



#12 Lionfi2s

Lionfi2s

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 27 January 2019 - 09:45 PM

Agreed Andrei, but like you said we need to see the raw implemented plus they have to sort out the reliability and quality issues they have. There are so many reports and complaints on forums and FB groups. From what I've seen on Youtube videos the image is not so far away from the GH5. Ok, it produces more pleasant skin tones but we are not shooting skin tones underwater. Another area of question is the autofocus system and how it works.



#13 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 28 January 2019 - 12:13 AM

I'm considering it (housing price obviously being a factor). I'd love to try it out at least, though it may indeed prove to be a minimal upgrade over a GH5/GH5s.

 

The biggest advantages I see are the wider usable dynamic range at 4k60 (12bit raw vs 8-bit h.264 v-log internal gives a lot more color gradation information) and the greater flexibility over white balance that being able to work with the raw files should bring.

 

The bigger monitor would also be a nice advantage.

 

Even if the Nauticam housing ends up costing $3600-$4000, the whole package will still be in the same ballpark price range as a GH5s+Nauticam Housing 

 

Downsides are the lack of in-body stabilization (but the other cinema options like the C200, EVA-1, REDs, Alexa also lack this) and the much larger file sizes that require more storage and processing power than the GH5's 150mb/s files. A lot will depend on just how good the black magic raw is once it gets implemented. And I'd love to see FCPX support for braw.

 

From the comparisons I've seen out there, image quality is really quite close overall with what the C200 puts out, including similar/lower noise at ISO 6400 than the C200 produces, at $5300 for body+housing vs $15000+ for the C200 (more once you factor in pairing it with a WWL-1 vs WACP).  So unless you really need the dual pixel of the C200, or Canon's color science somehow rears it's head again, this seems like a much better buy?

 

The image quality, be it 10Bit ProRes or 12Bit CNG are not a million miles away from the already good image coming from the GH5/GH5s - The numerous online videos comparing the BMPCC4K to the GH5/GH5s all attest to this, its better, but not by much - not $5k better? Plus as Lionfi2s said, there seems to be some real qwerts to the FW at the moment too.

 

Even with the GH5, XT3 or A7iii and the like etc - they all produce a lovely image - we really are spoiled with the choice.

 

If I didn't already own a GH5, Inferno, housing etc - Definitely the BMPCC4K setup would be a good choice out of the bunch today, in terms of value and quality - the $1200 price for the body is a steal, and you get access to RAW recording etc etc

Although as a side note - now we have Nauticam going M24 for the HDMI bulkhead on even newer cameras (XT3) - I wouldn't buy a housing now without it - RAW over HDMI seems to be happening...

 

Andrea you know this better than anyone here at the moment :) lighting seems to be a powerful key factor to underwater video, more than 12Bit CNG, ISO3200 performance or skin tones - I can see for myself going from 5000lm to 12000lm lights - this came home to me, on my last trip to Truk, where I had to leave my GH5/GH5s at home and I picked up a Hero7 at the airport (due to luggage constraints) - even that gave me incredible video, when it was lit correctly.

 

I was really disappointed how lacking the GH5s upgrade was for me - hence selling it on and staying with the GH5, and as the BMPCC4K and GH5s are so so similar - I think you will feel the same with the BMPCC4K once you've dropped $5k on it. I know a lot of people harp on about IBIS, but that was a big factor for me (bigger than I imagined) for staying with the GH5, even with my rig being completely neutral underwater (and heavy with the Inferno monitor) - the IBIS definitely add that extra bit of 'something' to the video, I no longer add any post stabilisation etc.

 

 

I'm all for spending (and wasting) my cash on new cameras (I have Alex at Nauticam on direct dial LOL) but i really feel if you own a GH5 or cameras of its generation, money would be better spent on more lights (but you have that covered with 4x Jaunts ;)  or keeping the money for the wave of 8K cameras inbound in 2020.

Just my 2c


Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rigs: Nauticam BMPCC4K, Nauticam Lumix GH5, 14-42mm II, Nauticam WWL-1, Atomos Inferno and DivePro G18 Plus Lighting. Underwater Insta360 One X.

www.richardwait.com / Custom 3D Designed UW Parts


#14 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 28 January 2019 - 01:09 AM

I second the point on correct lighting raw was very exciting for pictures but right now when I take stills most of my corrections have to do with exposure spots and things I do not want in the frame
From what I can see for me is time to invest in some good lights but I dont see the need for 20K lumens

Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#15 bubffm

bubffm

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 January 2019 - 12:04 PM

Coming from a GH5 (and buying a GH5s) there hasnt been a big improvement to move - yet.

Weve been really spoiled by IBIS. Its something I cant do without now. I sold the GH5s as I kept reaching for the GH5.

 

Ha! Great minds think alike... I sold my GH5s as well in December as I felt it did not add anything - and I was missing IBIS...

 

I'll definitely pass on the BMPCC 4K.  I'll still be very interested to see some underwater footage once someone takes it down.



#16 TaxiDiver14

TaxiDiver14

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 08:36 PM

10 bits, 12 bits, RAW, V-Log... At last underwater is more important good lighting than better camera. Better to invest in light tan in camera...



#17 dreifish

dreifish

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 30 January 2019 - 05:40 AM

Agreed Andrei, but like you said we need to see the raw implemented plus they have to sort out the reliability and quality issues they have. There are so many reports and complaints on forums and FB groups. From what I've seen on Youtube videos the image is not so far away from the GH5. Ok, it produces more pleasant skin tones but we are not shooting skin tones underwater. Another area of question is the autofocus system and how it works.

 

Autofocus probably works just fine for focus and lock, which is how I use the GH5 anyway. Don't expect anything different here.

 

 

The image quality, be it 10Bit ProRes or 12Bit CNG are not a million miles away from the already good image coming from the GH5/GH5s - The numerous online videos comparing the BMPCC4K to the GH5/GH5s all attest to this, its better, but not by much - not $5k better? Plus as Lionfi2s said, there seems to be some real qwerts to the FW at the moment too.

 

Even with the GH5, XT3 or A7iii and the like etc - they all produce a lovely image - we really are spoiled with the choice.

 

If I didn't already own a GH5, Inferno, housing etc - Definitely the BMPCC4K setup would be a good choice out of the bunch today, in terms of value and quality - the $1200 price for the body is a steal, and you get access to RAW recording etc etc

Although as a side note - now we have Nauticam going M24 for the HDMI bulkhead on even newer cameras (XT3) - I wouldn't buy a housing now without it - RAW over HDMI seems to be happening...

 

Andrea you know this better than anyone here at the moment :) lighting seems to be a powerful key factor to underwater video, more than 12Bit CNG, ISO3200 performance or skin tones - I can see for myself going from 5000lm to 12000lm lights - this came home to me, on my last trip to Truk, where I had to leave my GH5/GH5s at home and I picked up a Hero7 at the airport (due to luggage constraints) - even that gave me incredible video, when it was lit correctly.

 

I was really disappointed how lacking the GH5s upgrade was for me - hence selling it on and staying with the GH5, and as the BMPCC4K and GH5s are so so similar - I think you will feel the same with the BMPCC4K once you've dropped $5k on it. I know a lot of people harp on about IBIS, but that was a big factor for me (bigger than I imagined) for staying with the GH5, even with my rig being completely neutral underwater (and heavy with the Inferno monitor) - the IBIS definitely add that extra bit of 'something' to the video, I no longer add any post stabilisation etc.

 

 

I'm all for spending (and wasting) my cash on new cameras (I have Alex at Nauticam on direct dial LOL) but i really feel if you own a GH5 or cameras of its generation, money would be better spent on more lights (but you have that covered with 4x Jaunts ;)  or keeping the money for the wave of 8K cameras inbound in 2020.

Just my 2c

 

In terms of image quality, keep in mind that what may be fairly obvious differences when seeing (and grading) original files may mostly be negated by YouTube compression. I have shot the same scene side-by-side underwater with the GH5 and a Red Helium 8k. I can attest that the RED file was significantly sharper and showed much better separation of the sunrays in the sunburst. It wasn't a subtle difference even on a 15" macbook display, which kinda surprised me. Now, sharper lenses and a better dynamic range may have played a big role in that difference and I don't expect to see similar results from the BMPCC4K, but I wouldn't underestimate the amount of detail retained in a lossless cDNG image vs. a compressed 150mb/s file. At least, not without seeing side-by-side originals. 

 

Of course the value proposition is different for someone starting fresh vs. someone considering an "upgrade" from an existing GH5/GH5s setup. But even in an upgrade situation, you'd still be able to re-use most of your existing ports, lenses, etc. and sell your old body & housing, so we're not talking about spending $5000 extra. Perhaps more like $2000. 

 

I am a little bit frustrated with the inconsistent behavior of the GH5's stabilization with the Panasonic 14-42II & WWL-1 truth be told. I don't know if that's due to the camera not understanding the real focal length once you add the WWL-1 to the front of the lens or some other issues, but it does from time to time produce jerky behavior that makes the shots harder to use. So that's why I'd be willing to experiment with an unstabilized body. Then again, I may indeed find that I miss the GH5's stabilization also. Only way to find out is to test it.

 

 

 

I second the point on correct lighting raw was very exciting for pictures but right now when I take stills most of my corrections have to do with exposure spots and things I do not want in the frame
From what I can see for me is time to invest in some good lights but I dont see the need for 20K lumens

 

 

 

Ha! Great minds think alike... I sold my GH5s as well in December as I felt it did not add anything - and I was missing IBIS...

 

I'll definitely pass on the BMPCC 4K.  I'll still be very interested to see some underwater footage once someone takes it down.

 

 

10 bits, 12 bits, RAW, V-Log... At last underwater is more important good lighting than better camera. Better to invest in light tan in camera...

 

I'm as big of a proponent of adding artificial light as anyone around here I think, but it's not always the solution. First, investing in lights isn't really an investment atm -- LED technology is still evolving quickly, and I expect that any lights you buy today are going to be available for half the price in 1-2 year's time. Second, there's just times when you can't use artificial light. Either because it will spook away whatever you're trying to film, the subject is too large to illuminate, or whatever. In those situations, it would be nice to get better behavior with ambient light and custom white balance than what the GH5 provides without a red filter. 



#18 Lionfi2s

Lionfi2s

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 08:28 AM

I am a little bit frustrated with the inconsistent behavior of the GH5's stabilization with the Panasonic 14-42II & WWL-1 truth be told. I don't know if that's due to the camera not understanding the real focal length once you add the WWL-1 to the front of the lens or some other issues, but it does from time to time produce jerky behavior that makes the shots harder to use. So that's why I'd be willing to experiment with an unstabilized body. Then again, I may indeed find that I miss the GH5's stabilization also. Only way to find out is to test it.

 

Have you tried turning all stabilization off for a few dives to see the difference? Also have you tried to manually "tell"the camera that you are using a wider lens than what it thinks? IS lock might be an option too if you are not doing a quick panning shot (havent tried it).



#19 Interceptor121

Interceptor121

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Weybridge, UK

Posted 30 January 2019 - 08:51 AM

Interesting point re stabilisation. What do you have turned on? Dual IS or also electronic (video)

 

In theory at very wide focal length you need stabilisation less so in theory you can disable unwanted behaviours but I don't understand why you would have the issue in the first place!


Check my video, pictures and blog

YouTube Channel

Flickr Sets

Blog


#20 dreifish

dreifish

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 30 January 2019 - 08:19 PM

Have you tried turning all stabilization off for a few dives to see the difference? Also have you tried to manually "tell"the camera that you are using a wider lens than what it thinks? IS lock might be an option too if you are not doing a quick panning shot (havent tried it).

 

 

Interesting point re stabilisation. What do you have turned on? Dual IS or also electronic (video)

 

In theory at very wide focal length you need stabilisation less so in theory you can disable unwanted behaviours but I don't understand why you would have the issue in the first place!

 

 

So I used to shoot with stabilization + e-stabilization on all the time, and I.S. lock for macro shots. Recently, I started keeping e-stabilization off, which I think actually produces less of the weird jerkyness. But it's hard to objectively test.

 

Turning stabilization off entirely definitely produces worse results though. It's quite noticeable.

 

Unfortunately, because the 14-42II is a native lens, there is no way to manually tell the camera to stabilize for a wider focal length to account for the effects of the WWL-1. So it's always stabilizing for what it thinks is a 14mm lens I believe, even though it should be stabilizing for a 5mm lens essentially (i.e. doing less stabilization). My theory is that this is what leads to the over-compensation behavior and the weird jerkiness that happens from time to time.