KarimNassar

With raw photography, with a conservative exposure, 'ETTC', you also get a misrepresantation and end up in having to change the exposure in post and eventually reduce some noise. Why? 
 
 
Because what we have here is a 12-bit image. Without any curve applied to the quantization (for the preview!), an 8-bit image can only show less than 5 stops of latitude (256-128-64-32-16, anything below 16 becomes indistinguishable on any common 8-bit display, and in reality none can show values above 240 as well). This is an extremely low dynamic range, and even with a new tone-mapping, the values visible then are a fantasy and by no means represent the true relation between, say, 1354 and 11433 (just above 3 stops in the infathomably depth of 12-bit). 
 
What we are demanding when we call the washed-out images a 'flaw' is effectively a display with an upstream LUT to let us see an incorrect, very much compressed image that we are used to in our tiny 8-bit universe. Something like this is probably built into an Alexa or the like.
 
The workaround to shove the ISOs down also (in the preview) just grabs a very narrow range of what we actually record. The same is true for external devices, if their monitoring is not capable of processing 12-bit raw (which is?), for whatever reason, like Germys Atomos Samurai, which would be suitable for 10-bit, for which the built-in histogram should be reliable, but of course not any LCD viewer.
 
As a digital projectionist from 2000 until 2011, I very often compared the MJEPG2000 DCPs (typically 12-bit) to my own 8-bit ambitious amateur stuff. And no matter if I had used opendcp to convert it or just plugged a laptop to the scaler, the differences were huge. It never was an issue of spacial resolution!
 
Three deliberately provocative theses on where we stand with our appreciation of raw:
 
1. All DSLR bodies have a lot of knobs, buttons and dials as well as complicated menu options and presets. All of these gadgets are phony ways to cripple (potentially) high quality images to some pleasing-looking consumer-jpegs or mpegs. White balance, ISO, looks for different conditions:
Crooks!
There are two things that count, and neither of them live in the camera's body: Focus ring, aperture ring (EDIT: Well, one: 'shutter').
 
2. We still record, grade and view in 8-bit. To shoot raw in order to get a better 8-bit video seems comparable to killing a whale for a cup of cod liver. And we hunt the whale with blindfolds.  
 
3. ETTR will have highlights and some midtones. That the graded images look naturalistic although there are no real shadows could very well be limited to 8-bit. 
 
Germy1979 wrote:
 
Unfortunately, afaik, Neat can not neat raw video. Removing noise (useless, redundant data) should be the first step. To do everything right, there is probably no alternative for the BMPCC buyers to buy a full version of Resolve as well. Or ETTR for 8-bit.

It is only that extreme when you open the footage in camera raw.
Camera raw does not interpret the footage correctly.
 
But when shooting you are heavily over exposing till you hit zebras and you are discovering what your footage actually looks like when you open it on the computer.
Which is a bad workflow imo and I have not experienced this with any other camera.
 
Maybe this video is to extreme to illustrate my point.

Probably the same Tom says on the BM forum:
 
 

That sets my mind at rest: In raw mode, you can use every ISO you want, without changing the exposure of the clip.
 

Karim,
 
The BMCC gives you two basic monitoring options: Film and Video, which can be used for any recording mode. I think by monitoring in FILM Mode (log), you will get a much more useful monitoring image for the purpose of lighting  Was all this stuff monitored in Video Mode? It looks like it.
 
If you want to see all of the detail you are capturing, Film mode is the only way to go. It won't look pretty, and you may want to punch up the contrast and saturation on your monitor, but it's definitely better than looking at the over-exposed video mode monitor.

The intention of the video in the original post is to show how far to the right one can shoot in 2.5k RAW.. However, shooting this way does also produce the best image quality out of the camera.. This isn't directed at the original post but to the others talking about "the best image quality" from the BMCC.
 

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

Anybody who has the opportunity please try it on a full frame sensor. Mark III with magic lantern or scarlet if you have access to one.
Get your step rings ready, back filter size is 50mm so get the one you need to screw on your 50mm focal length lens :-)
thanks!

Pricing is very good.
Still have to see what the new flares look like though.
 
Any 50mm full frame footage coming?

It
It said in the article the rear glass element is 50mm and the filter on the 35mm is 52mm so most likely 52.

Andrew states it has a 50mm rear element, comparing it to the Iscorama 54.  In the picture where he's holding it with the Panasonic 20mm pancake lens attached you can clearly see a 46mm->52mm step-up ring.  So the rear threads are 52mm, which makes this essentially the same size as a Century Optics adapter.

From SLRmagic @ personal View it will have a 77mm front thread:
 
 
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4466/most-wanted-anamorphic-lens/p28

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
 

Nice work man, I like the colours and rendering :)

Beautiful ! I love One MX, not so easy to handle, but I kinda prefer the look to Epic (don't tell anyone) ;)

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 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
 
 

And a quick macro test during a rainy Saturday afternoon.
 
http://vimeo.com/65995146
 

I just found this: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/12/seiki-50-inch-4k-1300/
 
Seiki 50" Class 2160p 120Hz LED HDTV
3840 x 2160, 16:9, 120Hz, 5000:1 Native, 6.5ms, 3x HDMI, VGA (SE50UY04)
 
- A 4k / Ultra HD capable monitor for $1300 USD!
 
Reduser forum discussion: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?98027-1299-Seiki-UHDTV-50-quot-SE50UY04-Bought-it-today
 
- One reduser poster says this as well: "I bet that nobody noticed this: it is a 10 bit Color monitor too.. (correct me if I am wrong).."
 
Personal-view about it: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/6658/1299-uhdtv-seiki-50-se50uy04-/p1
 
It's going to be interesting to see if someone makes a proper review on this one! Guess affordable 4k is coming sooner than I had expected :)

Only pretty sure?

did everyone that paid a year ago get the original model.
did they get a refund.
did they solve the issues.
are black magic using monies camera purchase monies  over a 5-10 month window to pay china part costs.
a posh clever corporate version of a kickstarter.
not flaming or defaming just fuckin askin  :)

I would assume the production value of the sets, make up and costumes is very high on this film if not among the best of the industry.
And we all now how good weta is at cgi.
So I guess if there is anything to blame on the "tv look" it has everything to do with the frame rate and nothing else.
 
Also I'm not sure it is something "we will get used to".
Because I don't think tv will lower frame rates or lose oversharp hd pictures anytime soon so anything that looks like that will look like tv to us.
 
I need to see it for myself to make judgment but just because it's new doesn't mean it is better.
Have to give credit to Peter Jackson for trying new things and trying to make the craft evolve though.

ALEXA:
 
Have a read of this .....good interview here
[url="http://www.afcinema.com/Cinematographer-Charlotte-Bruus-Christensen-discusses-her-work-on-Thomas-Vinterberg-s-The-Hunt.html?lang=fr"]http://www.afcinema.com/Cinematographer-Charlotte-Bruus-Christensen-discusses-her-work-on-Thomas-Vinterberg-s-The-Hunt.html?lang=fr[/url]
 
 
 
What camera equipment did you choose ?
CBC : As concerns the camera, given the limited number of spotlights and Thomas’ wish to film in an almost documentary-like style, we first thought we would film on 35mm. But we didn’t have the budget for it. The [url="http://www.afcinema.com/Alexa.html"]Alexa[/url] took the place of a 35mm camera, and I had to adapt my style to that device. As far as lenses are concerned, I wanted to film with Cooke S2 lenses, but the sensitivity of the sensor to the colour [url="http://www.afcinema.com/Camera-Red.html"]red[/url] and the lack of uniformity within that series made me change my mind. After a couple of tests, I chose to film with the new Cooke Panchros, a series of lenses that reproduces a soft “vintage” feeling and that only open at 2.8. As I was saying, Thomas Vinterberg is very close to his characters, and the number one priority for me in terms of lighting was enhancing faces and eyes.
(Interview conducted by François Reumont for the AFC and translated from French by Alex Raiffe)
  NotesCaméra : Arri Alexa
Lenses : Cooke Panchro series

so are they shipping yet?

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable).

I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon.

The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are:
> They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger.
> They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to.
> They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

Hello everyone, I was lucky to take part in a two days digital cinema workshop presented by Marquise technologies and Free Studio in Geneva.

I will not try to relay all the information we received in this thread as I am not qualified and it would be a daunting task, but I will rather give you my thoughts on the workshop and give you a little wrap up of the event.

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/9u9u9.jpg[/img]

The workshop covered dailies management and data handling, debayering, the ACES color space, post-production, and DCP.
Special guests were Jean-Piere Beauviala founder of Aaton and DP Caroline Champetier (holy motors).

It also included a shootout between the following cameras that we compared on the second day from the dcp files in a movie theater:

Red epic, Arri Alexa, Sony F65 and Aaton Delta

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/alh7g.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/u9qde.jpg[/img]

The first thing that surprised me was how big the F65 was.
I did not tape measure them but I felt size wise from smallest to biggest was like this:
red epic, arri alexa, AAton Delta, Sony F65

Here another view of the fully equiped Sony beast:
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/a3qc9.jpg[/img]

Each camera was presented to us and when discussing their features the most intriguing one was the Delta.
A couple things separate it from the others:

- An optical viewfinder,
- a very big ventilator to reduce sound emission
- integrated ssd recorder (4 of them stacked up in raid 0) non proprietary you can use the brand of your choice
- a little screen on the other side of the camera with the basic info so you can check them on both sides
- mechanical rotating mirror shutter
- the sensor that physically moves from half a pixel during recording

more info here: [url="http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons-penelope-delta-camera/"]http://nofilmschool....e-delta-camera/[/url]

The last feature was the most interesting one but we could sadly not see it in action as the prototype camera did not feature it yet.
According to the founder of Aaton, the variation in the image this shift produces forces our brain to stay more focused on the images.

You can see the big ventilator and small side screen here:

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/5wb3y.jpg[/img]

Another interesting feature was on the Sony F65, which has a special pixel array arranged in bee hive structure.
Which adds up to an odd ratio of 8192 by 2160 pixels even though the final aspect ratio is 17:9 close to 2:1.

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xb0_SirmzNI/TaLAb4d68EI/AAAAAAAAAy0/HJfBv7uuAbU/s1600/Sony+F65+CFA.JPG[/img]

explained in detail here: [url="http://camerarentalz.com/sony-f65-6k-sensor/"]http://camerarentalz...-f65-6k-sensor/[/url]

An interesting anecdotal info comes from DP Caroline Champetier who had a very harsh view on the Arri Alexa.

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/z4ysu.jpg[/img]

She tested the camera among others before shooting one of her films and really dislikes it.
The skin tones and color rendition are terrible in her opinion.
She says that that camera is a very good television camera but definitively not a cinema camera.

I was quite surprised at how categorical she was on the Alexa because of how good Skyfall looked to me.
So I was looking forward to seeing that "television" camera compared in the theater on the next day.

But it was no fair fight.
They received a faulty Gemini so they had to record prores instead of raw on the Alexa.
And it showed.

In theater camera comparison:

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/7qnai.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/45taz.jpg[/img]

The subject is very subjective of course but there are a couple things that showed clearly and are not subjective:

- On one of the shots with half of a wooden box in the shade, the Alexa and Epic showed no information what so ever, pure black.
On the Delta and F65 the wood texture and details were clearly visible, a big difference in visible dynamic range there.
Now of course on the epic you would be able to pull some info from the blacks. But straight out of the cam was pure black.

- ProRes is not good enough for cinema. It looked very bad. The colors on the girl skin tones and hair were very weak and the clouds looked really muddy. You could really tell the difference. Wish they had shot with ArriRaw so that it would have been more fair.

- The Aaton displayed a very smooth gradation between shades of grey. Not a huge difference with the f65, but it was very smooth.

Now the rest is subjective:

In my opinion there was two groups, the bottom group with the alexa (sadly ProRes) and the Epic.
And the top group with the Delta and F65.

The F65 red haired woman shot was simply superb!
The skintones and hair color and detail rendition were amazing.
The Delta delivered a more contrasted image which I liked less.

Interestingly the colorist that was presenting the shots said he would rather grade a more contrasted shot like the Delta instead of having to add contrast and the guess work that comes with it like on the f65.

[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/wwgbh.jpg[/img]

Both theses cameras displayed a superior dynamic range and most importantly superior colors imo.
(The sony was shifting towards yellow in the highlights a bit)

The camera that delivered the most complete and appealing image to me was the F65.
But when discussing this with the other attendees as you would expect everybody had a different favorite.

All in all it was a very fascinating workshop.
Big thank you to Marquise Technologies and Free Studios for this.