HurtinMinorKey

LOL. peederj. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZeDFwTcnCc

The highlights all had boatloads of headroom on that clip.  You know, you'll feel better if you just break down and get one.  That way you won't have to waste so much time being jealous.  At the very least, you won't sound like a tool to people that actually know how to use the camera. 

Yep, this one had the noise in your clip, but if you look at the scope chart (before fiddling with it) the trees look underexposed (definitely not exposed to the right, as they say).

So that means it was brightened up in your workflow, which introduced the noise. If you rendered it as it was shot (which i did), in BMD Film, it looks quite dark (with no noise).  So i conclude that this noise was introduced by brightening. Here is a version with only slightly less brightening. You'll notice there is less noise. 

https://vimeo.com/72162002

I consider this case closed. You're camera should live a long a happy life :D

Thank you! I'm using AE to grade, and ACR to import. I can do the switch to Resolve, however what bothers me now is that i was not over exposed on the camera when i shot it. I was in film display mode and it was balanced decent. So i'm not sure what to do about that. Thank you for taking the time to do this

I always monitor in video and set peaking to 95%, then expose highlights to peak.  Besides focus I ignore what the screen looks like because i found it to be misleading.  But if you are going to monitor in film mode, it makes a lot more sense to start your grade with the BMD Film LUT, which is what I did when i graded your footage. 

And sometimes the DR of a scene is just too much for a camera. I've heard it said that you need 15-16 stops to capture all the information on a bright sunny day when strong shadows are present.  So 13, although great, isn't going get you everything. 

*****I took down the clip i posted because it looks like you gave me the footage from 0:20 ish (not 0:32) by mistake, so my comment about the crop is irrelevant. Also, there wasn't too much noise to begin with @ 0:22 *****

It doesn't take much time, so if you want to post the right .dng sequence i'll do it again. 

But judging by the waveform, i'd still say my original hypothesis about the noise is correct. 

So here is the original, waveform. This shows you were over exposed. And all the tree detail is compressed down.  But this doesn't appear to have caused the noise in and of itself. 

The second picture shows the waveform when i drop the offset. This big gap in the middle(look at the RGB scopes in the upper right panel) shows the difference between your sky and trees. That dead space makes it tough to get an nice contrasty image. 

It looks like whatever program you used, tried to inject contrast in an automated fashion where there was none, and broke apart your image, causing noise. 

What the f? Photographers (especially professional ones) tend to make WAY more beautiful pictures than regular "cameradudes". I noticed a huge boom here in Finland with photographers grabbing a 5dmkII and making way more beautiful musicvideos/short films than working professional DP's when the DSLR craze started. But people here are bashing photographers? I've seen a bunch of "professional" DP's make horrible images that all copy one another. Just look at regular network tv. Basic stuff.

 

A professional photographer - like Vincent happens to be - will make beautiful images. Axel's ludicrous "I love shit inside arthouse exhibitions"- is bullshit at the highest order. 

Um, i came from photography too. That's one of the reasons i was screaming for raw years ago. My point was that telling a story with a still image, is very different than tell a narrative with a motion picture.  Just looking at Reverie, you wouldn't say any of the frames are necessarily cheesy, but when you put them together the effect is nauseating.

Working with actors, getting emotion from a scene, these things matter. I'm not sure VL got a lot of experience with that shooting from his helicopter.

You won't see it on a single dng. It's like static and the footage has to be in motion. I'm really hoping I screwed something up here in the workflow, because it will be a pain in the ass making a round trip to BMD. Lol. On my last video, i had to use Neatvideo on every single shot. It was easy because it had large enough areas of a single color to sample and tune.

II just meant that the single dng should suffice to see the waveform.  I'll have your answer by 11:30PM EST. Have no fear, i can almost guarantee you are screwing something up. :D
 

Here is a link to the raw dng sequence from :32 guys. Thanks Julian for the Wetransfer tip:)

https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/b43eaf3a2721b02139f27ce1997d245020130810150128/e68052f9a1e8100b5e809cc7f5864f5a20130810150128/c553fb

It's zipped at 1.37gb. Like I said, I appreciate the help guys. It's overexposed but that wasn't what I was looking at when I hit record.
Have a look when you have time and let me know what you see.

Andrew I will try Resolve lite. Did you guys notice the aliasing in the water as well?

Lol, i think all we needed was  a single .dng frame, but it will be more fun this way!

I'll view these when I get home to Resolve. In the meantime, where did you do your down sample to 1080 from 2.5K? I didn't notice the aliasing before, buy now that I see it, I think it's a scaling issue. May be related to the strong noise pattern here. Either way, i'd wager something is funky in the workflow.

Cool file share service btw. I get nearly 10MB/s on the download(at my office).

Now this is a good video: I don't care if it's off topic. F-it, it's Friday and my mind is about to melt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cye-1RP5jso

Amen. Thanks guys i appreciate your help.... I'll put up a DNG sequence when i get home. The one thing i forgot to mention was actually another issue i had. I exposed for the zebras, then i pulled down a little more to hold the highlights, but maintain some shadow detail. It was all native asa 800 too. On the bmc screen, it looked well balanced. When i pulled it in adobe camera raw, it was blown out to hell. I took off all auto exposure, sharpness, any "auto" anything i could think of. I didn't push the shadows at all actually. It's pretty misleading that the shot looks nothing like what i'd seen when i hit record. I'm coming from a gh2, 5d2, and a C100. I'm new at this camera and raw, but i still tried to expose correctly regardless and not rely on raw 12 bit 13 stops, so that's why i'm confused. This just doesn't sound, or look very good to me at all.

Did you monitor in film mode? I always monitor in video mode.

Vincent Laforet is about 1000 times as good a filmmaker as Philip Bloom. I can't even imagine the comparison is being made. That's a Pulitzer prize-winning NY Times photographer vs. an ordinary broadcast news cameraman.

Key word: Photographer. I rest my case.

 

Though I honestly doubt anyone in this thread has ever shot footage in their entire lives that is as good as Reverie.

 

That's funny, because I think the "footage" looks terrible. And the shot selection is nauseating (cheesy doesn't even begin to describe it). Speaking of PB, I know he's not Kubrick, but he makes VL look like an amateur. 

I responded on your Vimeo profile. To make a long story short, please post a .dng from 0:32

 As a short film it's quite lame

Amen.

Rokinon is coming out with a 16mm t2.2 cine lens. This fills a nice niche and should act like a 35mm on my BMCC. I just hope there isn't too much distortion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/elite-brands-inc-announces-rokinons-newest-16mm-t2-2-cine-lens/

My latest (and last) 1 v1 RAW video.

 

Absolutely first rate. Badass with a cherry on top. 

The flat files were released by John Brawley, out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think this was sanctioned by BMD at all. And if you are interested in buying this camera I think you should download some of this stuff and see the type of versatility you can get over the files in the grade. Are these the most interesting shots ever, no. But Brawley wasn't being paid to shoot a commercial for BMD.

In fact, I'm glad that BMD doesn't waste a bunch of money on marketing. And I'm surprised Brawler leaked these clips again, given the Shitstorm he go got the last time he let clips out (for the BMCC). And to be fair (to you guys), back then I was one of the people screaming bloody murder about the BMCC clips until i realized that John was doing this pro-bono. 

Anyway, how helpful (for a potential buyer) would it be to release a bunch of clips with $100K worth of cranes and studio lighting? I think it looks like quite a capable camera. Think about how far we have come. And speaking of overproduced promo vids, lets take a tour through history, shall we?

https://vimeo.com/7151244

I've come to hate this film... and I'm not sure I have a good reason.

do i see a lot of "noise" or it's my idea?

I hardly see any noise, except in the grades where people went totally nuts.

Noise doesn't seem bad, but many cameras have noise reduction (which sometimes cannot be completely disabled).
Of Course it will not compete with 5d mk3 though.

I agree, no one thinking of a 5D3 will get this camera, they may consider the BMCC.

Axel, I was talking about the BMCC, not the pocket camera in response to Kays.

As for the Pocket Camera, In the test footage we got yesterday, there was a huge difference in brightness between the highlights and the shadows. As I mentioned earlier, it's almost as if it was intentionally done that way. Even with film type DR you would have trouble not clipping or crushing, no?

I doubt JB has a ton of experience with the camera and I doubt he is using a monitor with a waveform, so some hit and miss is forgivable. 

This is ironic, more than a year ago i was getting flamed on this site for smack talking Brawley's handling of the BMCC. 

Test Batch #2: Not much movement..Yawn

https://vimeo.com/71841230

This has been my experience with the BMCC actually. Image looks great as long as one is very mindful of the highlights, because once they go, they really go and look very noticeable even to a non-video person.

I agree that once they go, they go, especially in PRORES.  But if you know what you are doing with the camera, you have to be a complete mutton-head to lose them. Expose to the right and use peaking at 95%. It's not the camera's fault if the operator leaves the lens cap on. 

I'm sure most people will be happy to know that a tripod was used on this batch.

But less happy to know that there is virtually no movement by objects within the shots. 

Dammit JB, you're gonna get me fired from work. :D

One thing I think these clips do show is decent DR. It can't be coincidence that there is direct sunlight hitting white objects in each shot, at the same time there are dark objects in the shadows.

And the resolution looks fine to me. The shot of the street taken at 45 degees looks quite detailed to me.  I think if there was more consistent lighting you'd be able to see more contrast within the different objects in the shots. The broad range of lighting makes it hard to make any of the images nice and contrasty without either crushing the shadows or blowing out the highlights. 

Bothered seeing what else he has shot other than BMCC test footage?

 

Here's something he recently shot. https://vimeo.com/70027687

Him and a small army...

But he is legit. He does seem to throw up some random clips.

Here is my take. 

https://vimeo.com/71782779

I'll take whatever JB gives me and like it, but geeez.