andrgl

I used this combo (except for Metabones Speedbooster) in the video @ 0:10-0:13
 

i don't know why you are using autofocus at all. its a computer, even the best autofocus has no clue what you want! if you bought a camera with a professional purpose and only use it in auto mode, then send it back and get a refund. these cameras were meant to be used with the operator in full control and the bmpcc only has auto functions as a bonus feature. you should not rely on it for serious work

Hi guys,

 
i shot a short "wedding music video" for an friend of me in "indie style" - hope you´ll like it!
 
 

 
LOCATION: Kulturgut Wrechen
DATE: 10.8.2013
EQUIPMENT: Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 35 2.0 IS | Canon 50 1.4 | Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II | Canon 100 2.8 Makro | Canon 85 1.8 | Tamron 24-70 2.8 | Tokina 11-16 2.8 | Panasonic GH2 | Olympus 12 2.0 | Voigtländer Nokton 25 0.95 mft, | Manfrotto Stativ | Manfrotto Einbein | Eightline Slilder | China LED Kopflicht | Edelkrone Followfocus |  Edelkrone Pocketrig | Genius Eclipse Varia ND
EDITING + GRADING: Final Cut Pro 10.1
MUSIC: Youth Lagoon - Afternoon (itunes.apple.com/de/artist/youth-lagoon/id457870121)
 
Any Feedback welcome! 

A website featuring stills from films and their corresponding color palettes. 
A tool to promote learning and inspiration. Updated daily.
 
 
http://moviesincolor.com/
 

You don't have to. I've used a few systems that could handle h.264. Mine however, and most other machines I've worked from, typically suffer from laggy h.264 playback.
 
If you're using a Windows based machine, try DNxHD. It's available as an export option in Resolve under Video Format > QuickTime. Then under Codec choose any of the DNxHD profiles.
 
 
Not to be obnoxious. But the Blackmagic subforum for Davinci Resolve could net you more accurate answers. :) (Though sometimes you get none.)

I don't think an iMac is worth it.
 
Can you replace the RAM? Apple will do it. (Assuming you buy now before the refresh. The 2014 model has its RAM soldered on.)
Can you add more HDD space? Not internally without voiding the warranty.
Can you add in a GPU? Nope.
Can you upgrade to a higher resolution monitor when prices fall bellow 300? You can plug one in.
 
 
To it's strength, Final Cut Pro is only $300. That is definitely a huge advantage for the Mac. But you don't need to own an iMac to reap that benefit.

"Without compensating technologies, smaller pixels have lower dynamic range, lower fill factor, worse low light sensitivity, higher dark signal, and higher non-uniformity."
Source: Standford Research Paper

Shot this earlier this week during the Feast of St Joan.  I think it came out pretty cool.
 

I used to use iResolution, but it makes edges of trees and grass too sharp. It's basically like the Clarity slider in Lightroom.
 
The other stuff.. I use iDynamic on High usually. It really brings out a lot of range.
Then +2 shadows, -2 highlights. This is useful when outdoors and you want some more detail in the sky and dark areas. However it can sometimes make skin look a little too flat.
And finally, I use Neutral picture style with -2,-5,-3,-5 (Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, NR).
 

 
 
And then graded with a Fuji 400 LUT and some tweaking with Colorista:
 

 
By the way, did you end up getting the Panasonic 14-50mm?

The topic was: "put your imagination in the form of a sensor".. 
 
Imagine that you're just a sensel in a sea of endless sensels. Would you want to collect light, what would be the point? 

I'm sorry, it sounded like you were saying you couldn't get an actual 4k sized image after de-bayering, I think I took the part about the "Nyquist 2x sample theory" and "A 4K Bayer sensor can't actually capture 4K- it's some percentage less, perhaps 3.2K-3.8K" a little too literally. I can see now that you were just saying that it's not true trichroic RGB. And you think with 5k to 2k, the de-bayering factor is less important than 2k to 2k.
 
Got spammed with an interesting article on 4k today from RedShark news.
 
"Before we all leap into 4K, maybe we need to understand resolution better!"
 
http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/1799-before-we-all-leap-into-4k,-we-need-to-understand-resolution-better?utm_source=www.lwks.com+subscribers&utm_campaign=fe5b3d60da-RSN_June27_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_079aaa3026-fe5b3d60da-76206849
 
Essentially he's making a point about motion and how higher resolutions change the perception of motion.

In simple terms, it's possible to get decent reconstruction using statistical analysis (vs. simpler methods such as bilinear interpolation (which is easy to code and is very fast)). If one starts with super high resolution, such as with RED (say 5K) and are targeting 2K, the quality of the debayer step is less important than say 5D3 RAW 2K debayered to 2K (ACR and Resolve do a much better job than the on-camera hardware+firmware: much sharper and more detailed images when debayered in post). Interestingly , RED Epic at 5K debayered (and without any sharpening) looks softer and less detailed than GH4 4K H.264 compressed (100Mbps): 

I find it best to put your imagination in the form of a sensor.  Each pixel of your eye sees either red, green or blue.
 
Keep this grid in mind for a 20x5 sensor R=Red, G=Green, B=Blue
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
 
   
 If you're out in a field and shoot a landscape with a power-line glinting in the sun, how does the sensor "see" it?  If the line is perfectly horizontal to the sensor and is two pixels high, then each sensel is debayering using the same light.  The 4 sensels get full values for Red, Green and Blue.  They de-bayer them and each comes up with white light.  The power line will look perfect.  These are the pixels that "see" the line
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
  Now let's imagine that the line is only one pixel high.  That means you might have full red, green, red, green, and NO light from the line on green, blue, green blue, etc.  So what happens when you de-bayer each block of 4 pixels?  Naturally, you get a redish tint because the power line didn't register on the blue pixels.
 
RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG
 
 If the line is on the green. blue line of the sensor, you get bluish (because it's missing red).  Keep in mind, the field is green, so the sensor isn't going to figure out the missing red or blue if it doesn't register it.  
 
These are the sensels the register
 
GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG
 
Usually, "lines" fall above and blow sensor pixels.  If you look at any video with these cameras and look as thin lines you will usually see some form of chromatic distortion because, as jcs says, the camera isn't resolving enough detail (color samples).
 
In general, there are issues with missing color at all stated resolutions for bayer sensors.  It blends in when we don't have sharp edges that fall between a minimum of 3 pixels we need to properly ascertain the color

Yes about Resolve, and the 290X is sorta? Workstation cards seem to net better results. Plus DualGPU cards and crossfire/sli setups run laps around one card.
 
Anyway, it's not unusable by any stretch. I leave NR on its own node and disable it, until I need to render the clips. Then it's pretty much real time, even with secondaries on.

They are different in some cases, but they also have overlap in the context of light in a scene, transparency of film, or sensitivity of a digital sensor.
 
References:
 
"Dynamic range, abbreviated DR or DNR,[1] is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity, such as in signals like sound and light. It is measured as a ratio, or as a base-10 (decibel) or base-2 (doublings, bits or stops) logarithmic value."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
 
"In photography, exposure range may refer to any of several types of dynamic range..   The Light sensitivity range of photographic film, paper, or digital camera sensors. The luminosity range of a scene being photographed. The opacity range of developed film images The reflectance range of images on photographic papers."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_range  
 
No but, in the real world, you can measure relative exposure of anything that emits or reflects light, like between a sheet of white paper and direct sunlight (with a spectroradiometer), which is actually quite huge. Captured by a digital camera, which has it's own dynamic range, and recorded into 8 bit (which has a max of 256 luma levels), the sheet of paper and sun would likely read the same value of 255. So your usable stops have been clipped by your maximum bit depth. If recorded or filmed with a wide dynamic range and encoded into a 10bit Log format (for example) the paper could read as "white" but below 685 (white) and the sun could read over 685, or "over white". LDR and HDR files / workflows refer to dynamic range in this other context. See Cineon, DPX, OpenEXR or LDR vs HDR rendering pipelines etc.
 
Reference:
 
"Conversion of DPX code values to relative scene luminance relative luminance = 10 ^ ( (dpx code value – white point) * 0.002 * negative gamma ) Commonly, the negative gamma is assumed to be 0.6 (density) and the white point is set to 685. The result is relative luminance where the reference white is placed at 1.0. To convert into a format like 16 bit TIFF the luminance values are multiplied by 4095 leaving a headroom of 4 stops for the highlights."  
http://www.acvl.org/digital_intermediates/dicompanion/ch03.html
 
 
 
The dynamic range of the camera doesn't change, but the range or color depth of what you've recorded does, which has a direct impact on how much you can push the footage in post and the level of dynamic range you can effectively use. 
 
Anyway, I think the post above sums up what I'm saying about bit depth: "8bit log produces banding. This must be for recorders.".

8bit log produces banding. This must be for recorders.

Doomed. Isn't Resolve OpenCL enabled? The R9 290X is pretty much a high-end card.

"Making of" MiniCyclops - First Outdoors Test (14x14 inches "sensor" size Motion Camera)

0915d0b7cba81c03a0d6a5d2246f06bd

There are close to one million books published globally, every year.  There are over 40,000 full-length audio releases.  If you want to check each one out it would take your 53 hours per day (weekends included).  Want to watch every movie?  32 hours per day.  In short,  artists produce more content then anyone can keep up with.  Again, that's just listening/watching once to see if you like it. Then there are magazines, TV, art shows, lectures, etc.  All this content has a simple effect on many people--it makes them anxious.  Big companies grow on the back of that anxiety.  They select a few (if even using political methods) which gives people MORE time to enjoy that art, and less time trying to keep up with all the artists vying for their attention.
 
There are only so many hours in the day.
 
Art hasn't changed since the dawn of time.  From my favorite poet on the subject of the artistic way of life, from H. S. Mauberley, by Ezra Pound (1920)
 
Here are a couple of selections:
 
MR. NIXON
In the cream gilded cabin of his steam yacht
Mr. Nixon advised me kindly, to advance with fewer 
Dangers of delay. "Consider
          "Carefully the reviewer.
"I was as poor as you are;
"When I began I got, of course,
"Advance on royalties, fifty at first," said Mr. Nixon, 
"Follow me, and take a column, 
"Even if you have to work free.
"Butter reviewers. From fifty to three hundred
"I rose in eighteen months;
"The hardest nut I had to crack
"Was Dr. Dundas.
"I never mentioned a man but with the view
"Of selling my own works.
"The tip's a good one, as for literature
"It gives no man a sinecure.
"And no one knows, at sight, a masterpiece.
"And give up verse, my boy,
"There's nothing in it."
...
Beneath the sagging roof
The stylist has taken shelter,
Unpaid, uncelebrated,
At last from the world's welter
Nature receives him;
With a placid and uneducated mistress
He exercises his talents
And the soil meets his distress.
 
 
Yes, no one at sight knows a masterpiece and most artists' work is pissing in the wind--I can tell you mine is  ;)

Gonzalo, quando crear version para steadicam? Haha. :P Es increible, awesome work. And what a massive monster! Cyclops es nombre perfecto.

(Sorry for my bad Spanish.)

Looked pretty good to me. Anything I didn't like was very easy to iron out in Resolve.

Looked pretty good to me. Anything I didn't like was very easy to iron out in Resolve.

The BMCC still has one of the most beautiful images available short of an Alexa. 
 
The 13-stops of DR is gorgeous, the oversampling results in a crisp image, you have RAW when you want loads of flexibility. 
 
If I'm on a budget: indy films or music vidz, I would want a BMCC. If I am doing corporate video on a budget, I'd want the GH4.

GH4 is as sharp as you want it or as soft as you want it.
 
It is however, more detailed than 1080p, because it's 4K. This is not hard to figure out is it!?
 

 
Download the above 1080p file Michael and take a look at the resolution from both cameras.
 
5D3 actually has a little bit more aliasing on high contrast edges.
 
Sharpness between the two is identical. The GH4 does not look 'over-sharpened' and those sloping edges are actually softer on the GH4 (top) to 5D3 (bottom, more jagged).
 

 
Facts are facts.
 
Personally I find a use for both. Prefer 5D3 for raw 1080p, GH4 for 4K video. Not better. They're different.
 
A7S I am very much looking forward to, for low light.
 
Each has a use!