Damphousse

Anybody get their Pocket from B&H?  I ordered mine on July 19 with a 7-14 day wait.  It's weird just staring at this speedbooster... 

Ordered from B&H on the 17th of July.  Received it on August 22.  B&H shipping time estimates for the BMPCC are a myth.

 

Hi guys, could I ask your thoughts on using a tilt shift or telephoto long lens for documentary or film?

 

What would you use a tilt shift lens for?  Good tilt shift lenses are expensive and rather specialized.  I've only used them for architecture.  You can also use them for special effects.  Unless I was a architectural photographer or videographer a tilt shift lens would not be my second lens.

As for long lenses you just have to see what works for you.  Obviously you want the camera a comfortable distance away from the talent in an interview.  The 4k crop on the GH4 is 2.2x.  So just do the math.

As far as getting "close" to subjects what you are talking about is a macro lens.  You can get telephoto lenses that are also macro lenses.  Whatever telephoto you get, macro or otherwise, just check what the close focusing distance is.  If you can, see what the magnification is as well.

My biggest problem is lenses.

With Canon I can get a 10-18mm  for €250 ,  50mm 1.8m for €80. Now say how much would it cost to get the same FOV and light on m43 sensor? Or on a Sony-E mount? The sony version of the 50mm 1.8 costs €250 alone and I don't know about the quality, secondly the 10-18mm variant costs €800! So I would need to pay like 10 times for what I have now but with a good 1080p. Thus a good quality 1080p with cheap DSRL form Canon would fix my problems. Am I the only one?

I gave up and bought three bmpccs for $500 a pop.  I've sold one and plan on selling another for a substantial profit.  I'll probably get a speedbooster for $100 off.

I'll keep my T3i for photography.  It' ridiculous though that I've given hundreds of dollars of my money to Blackmagic and Metabones.  All that could have easily gone to Canon.

I'll see how my BMPCC adventures go.  But by basically giving me the camera for free they've ensured I'm not going to be too harsh of a critic.

GH4 and a7s are nice but a free pocket camera can't be passed up.

We'll know in less than one month what Canon wants to do. 

Not much they can do.  Thousands of videographers just got a bmpcc.  I doubt they will come out with anything that competes with the bmpcc for less than $1,000... let alone less than $500.

I have no idea how they operate but I believe this is far from being true. Sony has a semicomductor business where it designes, develops and actually manufactures sensors, to be sold to various other companies including cell phone, medical, research, military, scientific, and camera companies. It's a huge separate business and one that I would believe is based on known business contracts.

Nikon is paying these companies (Sony, Toshiba, Aptina, etc) to make sensors for their highly successful cameras, and these companies are actually competeting to win and be used inside their cameras, I wouldn't believe that the largest sensor fabrication company makes such deals, it's bad for their name. But then again, I have no idea.

Sony probably makes more profit selling sensors to Nikon than selling sensors in their own cameras.  Kind of like how MSFT makes more money from the Andriod market than its own Windows Phone ecosystem.

For me rumor doesn't seem that farfetched. How Canon 50D which never had video officially, got one from Magic Lantern hack?

 

Obviously because the hardware (sensor and processor) were both capable for video but for some marketing or other reasons Canon didn't enabled it. The same idea was in the E-M1 rumor by way, hardware capable for 4K is there, Olympus just enables it now... 

You really have to wonder how many times this needs to be addressed.  Please watch what PANASONIC said about their 4K capable GH4 and 5 axis IBIS.  Start watching at 1:03 (yes, one hour three minutes) in.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/videos/watch/panasonic-gh4-webcast:-live-from-bh/3592519879001

You can tell even the Panasonic guy is fed up with people having this 5 axis stabilization AND 4k in one body for less than $1,700 fantasy.

Please people stop forcing company reps, bloggers, and forum posters to post this FACT.

And the 50D was a completely different situation.  There were other hardware indications that video was to be implemented.  I believe every 50D has an internal mount for a mic.  They were real close to releasing it with video.  They probably just had some quirks they couldn't address to meet a deadline.  And anyone who has used the 50D for video will tell you the video is not ready for mass market.

 

A lot of tutorials say to only film at 1/30 > 1/50 shutter speed. What is the reason for this? Apart from screens and lights not being displayed correctly is there any other reasons?

If I am fliming stuff that doesn't feature artificial lights is it OK to adjust shutter speed accordingly or do I have to purchase an ND filter?

As others have stated it affects how much motion blur you have.  Shooting video is different than shooting photography.   You don't want to vary your shutter speed from shot to shot during the day like you do with shooting stills.  It is going to look weird.  You need to pick a shutter speed and stick to it.    Shutter speed is not an exposure tool in video for the most part.  You can vary it a little for exposure purposes as a compromise but that is not ideal.

You need to experiment.  Try shooting some sports with the standard 180â° shutter rule, double your frame rate.  Then try using a substantial faster shutter speed.  With a faster shutter speed you will get more staccato movement which works great for sports and action sequences, but will just seem odd if utilized throughout a movie.

You can tell low end cell phone video from higher end video productions because you will see this type of staccato movement in cell phone videos shot under bright sunlight.  You need to use ND filters to prevent this from happening.

Ideally you are using shutter angle/shutter speed to control motion blur and that's it.  You use aperture to control depth of field.  And you use ISO and ND filters to control exposure.  Yes you have some wiggle room with the shutter angle and aperture but with aperture on these smaller sensor bodies they get diffraction limited pretty quick and you don't want to stop down past f/11 on good lenses and f/22 is a big no no.

You can skip to the conclusion at the bottom of this page for a discussion about optimal apertures.

OMG!  0:56 into the video some camera totally falls apart while recording that red circle thing in the background.  That camera couldn't handle whatever grading they did to it.  1:10 isn't going to win any awards either.

 

I personally hope it has an oled placed inside the viewfinder in case you want to shoot with electronic shutter, 4K video is a must to be taken seriously, maybe even 120fps 1080p. That would be some action camera.

Lol.  No.  That is quite an extrapolation from one sentence in the whole rumor article.

 

 

I also expect a higher fps rate than the D610/D810 and improved video recording capabilities.

 

How anyone can get 4K and 120fps 1080p from that I don't know.  Knowing Canon and Nikon's history with video it will probably me a couple of tweaks.  By which I mean ML will still provide way more than either company does in their stock devices.

lafilm,

You misunderstood me. I am simply saying I did not see or read Mr. Bloom's review of the 1D X. I can neither confirm nor deny what you posted in regards to that review. However, I did recently watch his review of the a7s and your one out of context quote didn't, IMHO, give the complete picture. I don't have time stamps but he reiterated that the camera displayed rolling shutter something like 10 times in 15 seconds. He then went on to say something like years from now when scientists want to explain to people what rolling shutter is once its been eliminated from the world they will just show them footage from a 1D X. That is significant. Not necessarily a deal breaker. But something that should be mentioned. Unfortunately the technology is such that all these cameras are a compromise. They can't be summed up in one sentence. And certainly not one sentence by Mr. Bloom. He is the master of rambling. I enjoy his videos and get a lot out of them. But I wouldn't just quote one sentence he said in a 48 minute rabbling diatribe. Particular when a later sentence tells any amateur that wants to record their kids game or their kid running around that this camera is not for them. If it works for you great. But as it is, it has at least one serious issue for me.

 

 

D810 vs A7s vs 1D X - these are the 3 best performers. 

 

Odd list.

 

6 months ago, Philip Bloom says the 2 yr old Canon 1D X "is better and more film like than the D800/5D3" (sharper/less aliasing/film look)

 

Maybe he said that... maybe he didn't.  Andrew has produced a ranking that can be found here.

5D3 is substantially cheaper and according to Andrew it's image quality is similar to the 1D X... until you go into beast mode.  Then the 5D3's raw image quality leaps ahead.

So no.  I would not buy a 1D X and effectively cut myself off from the possibility of raw.

I don't know what the moire/aliasing situation is with the D810.

 

 

Today, 8/6/14, Phillip Bloom states in his new Sony A7s review, that the A7s has "The best 1080p HD video he has ever seen".

 

I don't know.  His full statement was more nuanced than that.  He definitely said it is THE low light camera.  But he also went on at length about the rolling shutter.  He said this is not a camera for fast action like sports.  So if you want to shoot your kid's football game you will need another camera.

As always each camera is a bag of trade offs.  Personally I like full frame cameras with working native lenses.  So Canon has a big edge with me.  Canon has the largest native lens line up and excellent in lens IS.

The sony A7s is intriguing.  The low light factor really opens up possibilities for those of us who shoot mostly with available light.

I think you need to do a lot of research and figure out what exactly you want to do with the camera.  The a7s is interesting to an amateur because of the shoot in any light ability.  But we amateurs are also notorious for not always having external stabilization and shooting hand held.  That doesn't seem like a good idea with aht a7s... unless you go into APS-C mode.

Adorama is done.  Price is back up to $995.

Some camera store on Amazon is selling it for $695.  They seem to actually have it in stock.

 I ordered mine on the 17th and just got an email from B&H saying that they have not received any stock from BM nor have a date when they will but will let me know.

Yeah, that sucks.  I am a bit miffed they said 7-10 business days when I ordered and then on business day 14 I still hadn't heard a peep out of them.  I realize stuff happens but you have to keep the customers in the loop.  Would it really hurt to send an email just giving people a heads up?

Is there a Memphis in the UK? I've never heard of one ...  :P

I agree.  It would be helpful if people put the purchase date, ship date, name and location of store, and location where the camera is to be shipped.

Anyone in the UK received their cut-price BMPCC yet? I'm still waiting for CVP to tell me when they expect stock to arrive and whether my unit will be one of them (I'm about 150th in their queue ...  :(

I'm in the US and ordered from B&H on the 17th.  At the time their website said it was backordered and to expect it in 7-10 business days... I have heard nothing.

The sale is over at B&H.

Their site had been saying the sale was through Aug 4th for a few days.

Blackmagic pocket cinema camera is on sale for $495 at B&H.  Order it now and allegely you should have it sometime in September.  B&H website seems to say sale ends today.  I don't know how true that is.

B&H ships overseas if that is an issue.

BMPCC only shoots video but since it is only $495 you can afford to have it and a photography camera too.

 

Unfortunately, however, I'm getting some mushy / jello footage every now and then when filming at long distances. I attached a private Vimeo video with examples. 

 

 

You left out a bunch of information.  My answer is pure conjecture.

I don't own the GH4 and I have never used one.  But what you seem to have there is garden variety camera shake while using a CMOS camera with a telephoto lens.

We need to know what focal lenght you were using (roughly).  What kind of external stabilization you were using (ie tripod, monopod, hand held).  We even need to know what the stabilization was made out of ($800 graphite tripod or cheapy $50 plastic big box store tripod).  Also was there wind?

If you use a long lens it will amplify the smallest vibrations in the image.  And with a rolling shutter CMOS you will get jello.  I don't care if it is a Canon 5D mk III or a T3i.  If you use a long lens bolt that thing to a sturdy tripod.  The best would be a large expensive wooden tripod.  They don't sway as easily in the wind and the wood dampens vibrations vs transmitting them efficiently like metal.

Also use the tripod correctly.  Don't extend the center column excessively... or really at all.  Get a set of sticks (legs) that are talll enough without excessive center column extension.

Here is an older article about photography tripods.

http://www.bythom.com/support.htm

Obviously you will have to get a newer source to find out about the current market and you will need some video centric resources to learn about fluid heads and so forth.

Well if you look at the image I think it speaks for itself...also have yourself a read if you think Cine lenses and L lenses are the same in terms of aesthetics:

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/canon-cn-e-cine-prime-vs-l-series-lenses-c300-jonathan-yi/

Here is the link to the review of the 50mm 1.2...

 

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is the low end 50. It delivers very good image sharpness - especially for the extremely low price. It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light (4.6 oz/130g) and very small (2.7" x 1.6"/68.2mm x 41.0mm - WxL). CA is minimal.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

So it is hardly surprising that $5,000 lens could be sharper than a $100 lens.  Basically the 1.2 is faster than either the 1.8 or 1.4.  It is better built and it has better bokeh.  But no claims of superior sharpness were ever made that I know of.

They're resuscitating the corpse.

If Kodak wants to live they should enter the digital age, otherwise it's getting quite sad pushing that obsolete old technology for a couple of people in hollywood. 

 

Kodak film division still profitable

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/kodak-film-division-still-profitable-1056833

I wonder how their digital camera division is doing.  Kodak has had financial problems in the past but not because you can't make and sell film profitably.  Ilford is doing just fine selling just B&W film.

Thanks guys I appreciate the feedback and new knowledge!

 

I wonder then, why does this guys 5d3 raw footage look as amazing as it does, especially compared to about 95% of the other raw footage coming from comparable cameras?

I am not saying the Cine lenses aren't sharper, better, whatever.  I have no idea.  But would it really surprise you if 95% of what you saw on the internet was incompetent?  So much goes into making the final picture it is hard for me to tell what has gone wrong with people's productions.  All the awfulness I see on the internet can't just be blamed on people being "cheap" and just using L lenses.

Well if you look at the image I think it speaks for itself...also have yourself a read if you think Cine lenses and L lenses are the same in terms of aesthetics:

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/canon-cn-e-cine-prime-vs-l-series-lenses-c300-jonathan-yi/

In regards to the 50mm 1.2 L I don't think anyone says it blows the 50mm 1.4 regular lens out of the water in terms of sharpness.  I don't think that was ever the point of owning the 50mm 1.2 L.  I'll have to look for a link to a lens test for you.  Anyway I could get more detailed shots by investing $5,000 into a better camera, other accessories, and a more modestly priced lens.  It's all about trade offs when money is tight.

With that said, can anyone answer this question? Do the lower .3-1.2 tiffen ND's not have the IR protection that the higher 1.5-2.1 ones do? If you look at the BH site it specifically mentions this feature for the higher ones, but not the lower. But when you buy them altogether in the kit the IR feature is listed as if they all have that feature. Does that make sense?

Whoa!  Didn't notice that.  That seems fishy.  I think I am going to start off with the Tiffen variable IRND filter.  But I am leaning towards getting some Hoya ProND single filters as time goes on and money becomes available.  Like I said this thread was interesting.

I read about the IR contamination issue, but wasn't aware of it before. I checked my BMPCC shots and found the contamination in shots with strong ND and low light tungsten shots, where all colors were off and could not completely be restored in post.

Bought the Tiffen IR-cut and leave it on always. It looks like a yellow color filter. It has the effect that most shots now have a greenish cast that can be easily fixed in post.

I'd say that if you don't ever shoot in bright sunlight or extreme low light, you won't need an IR-filter. Also that a cheap IR is better than none if you do.

Cool.  Thanks for updating with your experience.  I really can't believe in all the bmpcc reviews I've watched no one picked up on the IR issue. Really, from now on this should be something that is tested for with all similar cameras.

Unfortunately I am a hobbyist so I am guilty of shooting a lot with uncontrolled lighting so I am regularly dealing with bright sunlight and also poorly lit scenarios.  I am definitely committed to spending a few hundred dollars for proper filtration.  I don't want to go through the trouble of learning how to use the bmpcc and resolve and still end up with an uncorrectable color cast.

I went for the following combo & really impressed:

Hoya IR/UV cut filter - amazing, it really does the trick.

Genus Eclipse - really surprised me how good it was & saves me a lot of time changing filters.

Yeah I've seen a bunch of solid endorsements of the Hoya IR/UV cut filter on the web.  I will probably get it at some stage.  I think I am going to give the Tiffen IRND variable filter a try and then build out a single ND filter set later.  I will use the single ND filters in combination with the Hoya IR/UV cut filter.  Apparently the Hoya ProND single filters have some IR reduction built in.  It's not advertised as such but people on the internet say it's there.  And they say in combination with the Hoya IR/UV cut filter they get good results.

I really wish someone would have tested all this out the way Dave Dugdale did.  With the flood of bmpccs entering the ecosystem it really would be invaluable.

I have to revise my previous statement.  While I am still interested in the Tiffen variable IR ND filter I think I will pick up some Hoya PROND Cine-ND Filters when I opt for some single filters.  There is a thread on bmcuser regarding ND filters and the people on there are raving about the Hoya PROND filters.  They are using them in conjuction with a Hoya IR cut filter.  Unfortunately the Tiffen variable IR ND filter is too new and they are too obsessed with the Hoya product to have actually done some head to head tests.

I'm surprised more people on this forum didn't come out with more experiences and opinions regarding this IR issue.  Are people not experiencing it or just correcing it in post?

Tiffen recomend for the BMPCC -  The TIFFEN Hot Mirror Infra-Red Neutral Density Combination Filter (or stacking a TIFFEN Hot Mirror and a TIFFEN IRND Filter).

Thanks for that info.  It looks like I am going to get some kind of Tiffen IRND filter to start and then stack the hot mirror later.

This post on the blackmagic forum was interesting.

In the end I think I will have everything.  I will get the variable IRND filter first.  Then the Hot Mirror IR filter when I have the cash and finally some single Water White IRND filters for when I have more time or need stronger filtration.

The variable IR ND 77mm filter is $239!

The hot mirror IR filter is $188.50!

So that is $427 worth of filters for a $495 camera... and that is before I get a $160+ set of individual IRND filters.  Expensive hobby.

Tiffen Water White ND filters all the way , they are the best , Shane Hurlbut just used them on the Film Need For Speed

I NEVER use Vari NDs they are awful , stack your NDs to get the exposure you want - thats how they do it in Hollywood!!

 

http://www.tiffen.com/press_release_hv_filter_kits.html

And the issues with IR?  Do you use a seperate cut filter to address that?

Cool.  Good to know.  To be honest I may end up getting a variable ND to begin with and then some individual NDs if image quality is really that much better.  I am thinking with the rotation hack I may be able to avoid the flat waxy skin look.

Dave Dugdale didn't test the Light Craft Workshop 77mm Fader ND Digi Pro-HD Filter, so you're right.  I may beat out the Tiffen.  It really is odd to me Dave is the only person as far as I can tell that has done an indepth comparison of a lot of these filters.

I got in on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera (bmpcc) fire sale and in preperation for receiving my new camera I have been researching neutral density filters.  What I would like to know is what are people's preferences between single ND filters and variable ND filters.  And also your thoughts on IR filtration for the bmpcc.

I already know if you go the "straight" variable ND route Tiffen seems to be a good trade off as far as quality and price.  Dave Dugdale did an incredible review of "straight" variable ND filters.  Honestly it is amazing it took an amateur like Dave to do such a test.  I see so many posts on the internet from people who could have either saved themselves money or used a higher quality product had someone simply done what Dave did and test them out.  These people are pros mind you!

So the choice was simply, right?  Wrong!  I then came across another video showing IR (near infrared) issues with the BMCC... and other cameras including Alexa products.

So there are numerous solutions.  One could say the near IR pollution thing is nonsense and just get a "straight" Tiffen variable ND.  Or you could go with a set of individual ND filters and skip the variable.  You could also get an IR cut filter and use either single NDs or variable ND.  Or you could get the Tiffen combined IRND variable filter.  Or you could get the single IR ND filter sets.  B&H has a strong three filter set for $164.50.  Okay, that is a lot of options.  The reason I posted is I want to know which one will give you the best results.  I know the variable NDs have the polarization "issue."  Sometimes I like using a polarizer on video so it isn't always an issue for me.  Also there is a hack where by you turn the whole filter assembly en bloc to reduce or get rid of the polarization effect.  I don't know how effective that is.

This guy shows the "hack" to optimize the use of a variable ND filter...

Here is a video showcasing the Tiffen IRND variable filter.

So what should I do?

 

Well, on the good news, BM didn't announce a new camera @ the LA meet.

So, the cut in price is either a clever marketing ploy or........?

 

My only thoughts are: if you didn't buy one, you should have & don't get dragged into making it a hole for your money.

Oh I bought one.  It's a no brainer at that price.  Not sure why it happened but I'm glad it did.