KarimNassar

Yesss Andrew, give this underrated beast a try!!
You can install the hack safely, I'm using the 64 mbps in the last month without any issue, except the playback problem of course.
I'm in Berlin too, I'm curious to see what will you shoot and what will you say!

I will  be making extensive posts on lenses.... new... old, vintage... cheap and expensive and what their main good points are and how to get the best out of them.
And also some useful articles on general lens use that will help improve your shooting and make things more dare I say more 'cinematic' and less 'video' which seems to be what alot are asking for.
so say tuned folks and watch this space......

very interesting thank you.
 
Can you share just 1 frame of the original 4k and the same frame downsample to 2k 10bit?
 
Just to experiment in post to test the difference 

very interesting thank you.
 
Can you share just 1 frame of the original 4k and the same frame downsample to 2k 10bit?
 
Just to experiment in post to test the difference 

very interesting thank you.
 
Can you share just 1 frame of the original 4k and the same frame downsample to 2k 10bit?
 
Just to experiment in post to test the difference 

Hey guys, I've written a really simple command line app for Mac that will resample GH4 footage from 4K 4:2:0 to 2K 4:4:4 using pixel summing. This will give you real 10 bit data in the luminance channel, so it's not just doing a brute-force bump from 8 bits to 10 bits. There actually is some interesting pixel finagling going on here:
 
http://www.mediafire.com/download/f7h950spj5hrn9f/gh444.dmg
 
There's no GUI, so you'll need to run it from the terminal. Do this by copying the app into the directory that contains the GH4 MOV files and using the following command in a terminal:
./gh444 INPUTFILE.MOV Make sure you cd to the current directory first if necessary. You can do this by typing "cd" into the terminal, add a space, and then drag the folder containing the MOV files into the terminal window. It will automatically add the path to the cd command. It'll look like this:
cd /path/to/gh4/files The app will spit numbered DPX frames out in a folder named "dpx_out."
 
I'd love for you guys to give it a try and see if you find it useful!

very good specs and design, again blackmagic impresses on paper as usual,
 
I would be saving money right now if that camera was from sony, panasonic etc...
but it's from blackmagic, which means they won't likely deliver nowhere near on the schedule they claim and it will most likely have a lot of issues.
 
I'll just quote some of the comments on nofilmschool:
 
"Personally, I’m very skeptical of anything BM puts out. My friend got the BM 4K and it’s pretty bad IMO. Yes, it’s cheap but the vertical banding, black hole sun and white pixel issues which he got all of on his tests makes it borderline not unusable in a real shoot, at least until the issues are fixed."
 
"Agree 100%, I’ve been testing multiple 4K BMPC models, and all of them have sensor issues – some are better than others, but some are not usable in any lighting scenario."
 
and that is after being what, 1 year late?
 
blackmagic is all hype and they don't deliver imo.
 
But I do very much like how they put a lot of pressure on the market and shake things up, that is awesome.

The red dragon has out performed the mighty d800e sensor.
According to dxo mark it has the best performance, beating any dslr and medium format camera.
 
And that is at 6k ff at 82 frames per second.
 

 
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier/Overall-score-Epic-Dragon-takes-first-place-101-points
 
-As the new leader in this category, the prototype Epic Dragon surpasses the Phase One P65+ and P65+ HR models in color sensitivity, and it marginally exceeds the mighty Phase One IQ180 digital back in our rankings.   -While every effort was made to ensure the Epic Dragon adhered to our rigid testing protocols and that the results passed all the tests we performed, it’s clear the scores reflect a significantly different approach to image acquisition.   -It’s also worth noting that the Dragon’s native sensitivity is ISO 250 and measured at 104, while all other sensitivities were obtained by digital gain.   -For the tests, the camera was set to full 6k resolution at 23.98 fps, 16 bit and RC 5:1 compression.   -The highest color sensitivity ever measured: exceptionally low noise at the base ISO.   -The headline news is, of course, that of the Dragon’s exceptionally low noise levels. The SNR (signal/noise ratio) curve shown above is simply outstanding - it’s higher than the Nikon D4’s curve for the whole of that sensor’s signal response. The shape of the response curve is interesting as well.   -Close to saturation point, it shows a kind of plateau or leveling off, which indicates that the SNR is mostly limited by some pixel response non uniformity and not by the photonic noise. This noise curve, coupled with a good color response, leads to a very high color sensitivity. At the pixel level (screen mode), the color sensitivity is simply the best ever measured. We normally calculate color sensitivity using an 8-bit output sRGB colorspace. In this case, however, the 8-bit sRGB color space was not large enough to accurately represent the color sensitivity of the Epic Dragon. As a result, we had to switch to a 16-bit sRGB color space!   -Conventional DSLRs benefit from Analog gain that seems to amplify read noise and fix pattern noise in a smaller way than a pure digital Gain. This explains, despite its quality, why the Epic Dragon has lower low-light performances than the top DSLRs. So for cameras, where the lighting can’t be controlled, analog gain is preferred. That’s not such a high priority with a cinema camera, but the Epic Dragon produces very clean looking files and can be used safely up to nearby ISO 3000, with an excellent image quality.

Yes it's me, I was kinda worried but my childish instincts made me take the risk  :rolleyes: , the d800 is my workhorse. So far everything is smoother, no more macroblocking.
I will update the first post later.

All engineers for the broadcast industry strife to let their cameras (lenses, post-pipelines etc.) reproduce reality as best as possible. All fictional filmmakers try to make their images look as stylized as possible. The approach is different. Reality is where you park your car. 

*  Non-blown out highlights
*  Good shadow detail
*  Low frame rates
*  Scenes with low depth of field
*  Colors not oversaturated, and corrected to colors reproducible with film
*  Smooth gamma
*  Smooth camera motion
*  Good focus without mid-shot focus adjustments
*  Less obvious - picture grain
*  Images without over-sharpening
*  Wide shots without excessive lens distortion
*  Low on the "spoilers" such as moirés and aliasing
 
There is certainly subtlety to all this, though, and it has been an interest of mine why some digital cameras subjectively do better at the film look than others out of the box.
 
Having said this, I think 4K video may change the public's perception of what looks good.  They may see very sharp 4K footage as preferable over the somewhat softer "filmic look" shown today.  They may also like somewhat more saturated colors over time.
 
I was in a TV store recently with two identical model TVs, one over the other on the wall, and a woman pointed to one of the TVs, and said, "What's wrong with that one?".  The salesman replied, "It was calibrated."
 
Michael

*edit removed condescending phrasing that was uncalled for
 
it's actually very different
 
00:31 blown out mushy highlights on bmcc not on canon
00:58 high crop factor on bmcc
01:10 terrible shadow performance on the bmcc (if you want to see how bad it truly is watch in full screen)
1:27 global shutter on bmcc better than rolling on canon
 
they differ in highlight performance, crop factor, shadow performance, and global shutter vs rolling shutter.
Completely different.

I think that Cineform Studio free version (now called GoPro Studio 2.0) can do this.  In step 1, convert your file to CFHD (in the same resolution).  It is inflated to a 10-bit file.  Step 2, select file.  Step 3, export to custom settings, choose MOV container, scale down to 1080p, you can choose Film scan 2, which is the highest quality that can preserve the details of a 4:4:4 footage.
 
Update: Just tried this with my Galaxy Note 3 which shoots 4K 4:2:0 8-bit at 50Mbps AVC.  Looks a million times better than native 1080p.  I also tried dropping the same 4K file into After Effects CC working in 16bpc.  Created a sequence and exported to DNx 350X or 440X 4:4:4 10-bit...Looks different than Cineform (CFHD) workflow above.  Not sure which is better to be honest.

I was limited by the speed of my card so I could not record any higher than I did.
What I meant by full hd is the ability to record continuously, not super short clips.
I based that statement off this chart:

 
but things move very fast in magic lantern so maybe with the mlv format the capacities have been extended

Thanks, I'm not the one to ask for magiclantern workflows as I have only used it once in that vid.
 
But I can tell you that the new .mlv module is very handy.
You can preview your files in camera and watch them on your computer with the mlv player.
So that is a big improvement over the old .raw format.
 
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7122.0
 
Regarding post-production workflow I always use the same.
I have a creative cloud subscription so I always use; premiere, speedgrade, and after effects.

Thanks, I'm not the one to ask for magiclantern workflows as I have only used it once in that vid.
 
But I can tell you that the new .mlv module is very handy.
You can preview your files in camera and watch them on your computer with the mlv player.
So that is a big improvement over the old .raw format.
 
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7122.0
 
Regarding post-production workflow I always use the same.
I have a creative cloud subscription so I always use; premiere, speedgrade, and after effects.

Based on a pre-production model

Since the GH1 I have been shooting with Panasonic's mirrorless system for video. Without this series of affordable cameras my early work as a cinematographer and filmmaker simply wouldn't be the same. The GH4 marks a much needed major leap for the line, the first to shoot 4K to an efficient internal codec AND output 10bit 4:2:2 1080p over HDMI to an affordable external recorder like the Atomos Ninja!

On a visit to Panasonic I got to see the camera, see 4K sample footage and give my feedback. Here's an account of what I saw...

Read the full article here

Check EOSHD 5am GMT Friday 7th

Just shot this with the mark 2 raw at high iso, quality is pretty good:
 
According to magic lantern forums, the 5d mark 3 is the way to go for shooting raw though.
It has better low light performance, and it can shoot full hd when the mark 2 cannot.
 
The only reason I used the mark 2 here is because it was what was available to me.
Really interested to try the raw on the mark 3, must be pretty amazing.
 
I don't see any reason why the mark 2 footage would look better, actually I assume it must be the opposite.
 

I had been a projectionist for a long time (now this profession has died), and from 2000 on I had also been a digital projectionist. Until 2011, when automation finally killed the job, I used to compare my own stuff to the DCPs, side by side on the big screens, in the last two years also as DCPs, when easyDCP and openDCP became available. The largest screen was 78 feet x 32 feet (that's for scope, for 16:9 the width then was 58 feet).
 
First thing I noticed is that resolution doesn't influence sharpness to the expected degree. And it also doesn't influence subjective quality very much. In fact, an upscaled SD DVD ( anamorph pixels with scope-crop, really the worst way to treat a video) could be shown to a big audience, and (back then) nobody complained, the class-A hardware scalers made it look good. I know this is hard to believe, but we once had a festival with student films, ranging from DVD, BD to genuine DCP (a Red!), and the one best looking was a masterfully graded HVX200 short, played from SD DVD.
 
On the other hand, there was a way to know instantaneously what was film and what was video: Colors. 

 
I know this comparison is only 8-bit, but I have to find a way to describe aesthetic subtleties here. With a camera like the GH2 ("Musgo"), for example, one would be well advised to fill the frame with detail, textures (resolution, that's the GH2s strength) and not with skies and other big areas of glorious colors.
 
Right now we grade for 8-bit, so 12-bit raw is *just* a bigger palette for grading. Color depth seems to add a new dimension to our video. It's fun to tear the, er, bloom off the images and to dive through the colors. Would it stand against an Alexa? I can't tell, really, but I'm convinced it would do better than many others.
 
I can't wait to see a DCP with the 12-bit preserved in my old cinema.

Hi folks,
everyone have a nice christmas!

I have the Pocket, the Pocket Speedbooster and the Sigma 18-35mm now for a couple of days and - of course - made some test shots. A lot of them, to be precise.

I will upload anything worth showing as soon as I'll have figured out how to do it right. All my preoccupations have vanished. This camera is great fun for me.

My computer can't yet handle raw with Resolve, so I'm using ACR within AAE (slooow), until I have decided whether I will upgrade my current machine or buy a new. However, I was not yet able to produce any moire, I found ETTR to be the correct way of exposing (I was able to produce noise, when not overexposing), I think there is a way to deal with everything.

The display isn't as bad as was hawked, it just needs a Z-finder (similar products by Kinotehnik and Kamerar). No need for a rig with the Sigma. I just drew a nylon strap (leftover from one of my various camera bags) through the slit of my ACE plate.

I basically hold the lens, not the camera. Together with the Z-finder, I will have 3-point stabilization.


To all purchasers who wait in doubt and despair: Don't worry.

EDIT: Definite workaround for the "ETTR-issue". In raw, set ISO to 400, this will lower the gamma at which the image is displayed in display and later on the computer (manner of speaking, actually the gamma point is set to a higher value, the lever exposure in ACR is a gamma-corrected curve). Expose as bright as possible without 100% zebra flashing. The ISO settings have only influence on the metadata in raw. Proof: If you switch through 200-400-800-1600, the subjective brightness changes, but the zebra areas stay the same. It actually is easier to expose with the Pocket.

I've skipped through the couple articles about this camera and I feel you are wrongly judging this camera Andrew.
 
I feel you are acting and over analyzing this as if it is the latest and best camera from Nikon and represents the future or direction the brand wants to go in.
 
But it is not.
 
It is a specialized camera targeted at a specific nostalgic type of consumers that can afford it.  A side "cool" "retro" camera so to speak.
 
And it is a retro camera, so obviously it will be retro in terms of features and by definition does not represent the future.
 

Hello everyone,
 
I started testing my 16F on my red one mx.
 
The 4k anamorphic mode is quite handy, gives the correct aspect ratio with the 2x squeeze of the 16f.
And it directly feeds desqueezed footage out of the camera no need for a monitor that has this function.
 
Tested on the 50mm and 85mm.
Need to see if it is possible to go lower.
It should be because there is a 3k and 2k anamode that crops into the sensor so I feel like even if 28mm shows vignetting at 4k, it might not at 3 or 2.
 
Here is the first vid shot with the 4k ana mode:
 

 
 
https://vimeo.com/66549568
 
 
This one was shot with the 4k widescreen mode, giving a wider aspect ratio.
And a close to 9k image when desqueezing horizontally...
 

 
https://vimeo.com/66459473
 
 

Hello everyone,
I worked as a dp on this short by Remo Pini.
 
It was with the bmcc 2k version, my first time using this camera.
 
If you have any questions let me know
 
http://vimeo.com/72492685
 

I stumbled on this video and it displays perfectly the biggest flaw that I had the displeasure to work with on that camera:
 
https://vimeo.com/76824060
 
*** EDIT WITH WORKAROUND ***
 
There is a clever trick to work around this issue.
Thanks to Axel for digging it up.
 
Since the bmcc records raw, and when shooting raw you keep the actual recorded footage of the sensor, and an adjustment such as iso, is only kept written alongside the file in the metadata, what you can do is lower the iso until your image becomes decent.
 
In post you can then bring it back down to the native 800iso.
 
Not a perfect fix, as we would need to know how much of an increment we would need to exactly counter the screen displayed over exposure, but a nice workaround.
 
*** EDIT WITH WORKAROUND ***
 
 
When you work as a dp on a film,
 
You need the best visual feedback possible through the monitor in order to frame and work on your lighting adequately.
Does not need to be perfectly accurate, but the more the better, especially when working with lighting equipment to adjust your lighting.
You need proper feedback of how soft your fill light is, how strong your rim light and with what fall off etc...
 
And you need to have the vectorscope, as the visual feedback fools you in terms of recorded data, to get the best exposure possible on your camera, and make decisions on what you want to preserve, whether highlights or shadow or a balance of both, if the situation demands it.
 
Now with the bmcc, you have to extremely over expose your image to get best image quality.
The result is a completely washed out image through the monitor, good luck properly fine tuning your different lights with that.
 
And you have to disregard the vectorscope, because if you use it to expose properly you will actually be underexposed.
You have instead to completely over expose until you see zebras, meaning no proper control over exposure.
 
This is a major flaw, no professional camera should disregard the vectorscope and provide such inaccurate visual feedback.
 
Now let me know if I missed something here