Shirozina

22 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

i think i will priorize resolve as working on photoshop takes less time.

i  mean rendering is really long when retouching is so fast compared to, so even if i loose a little time on photoshop i will gain a lot on resolve.

sounds good to you ?

 

Robin makes a good point - what 4k camera files are you going to be working with. Highly compressed H.264 codecs use a lot of CPU power. 

12 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

 

he had many issues with the camera going 20% to shutting off with no warning what so ever

 

I've noticed this with the included BM battery but the Canon batteries seem to be more predictable.

"Although a tilting mechanism should, in my opinion, have been added" 

A 5" screen generates lot of heat and the fan is is very likley there for cooling this rather than the sensor so a tilting mechanism would not be possible without a much bigger body and more expense.

14 hours ago, thephoenix said:

around 1500€

i have ssds so no need for new ones

Buy a used GTX1080ti - plenty going quite cheap on ebay from currency miners and now the new models have come to the market. For data storage you will need fast access and write speeds and lots of storage so at the moment the best cost /benefit that means traditional 7200rpm HD's in RAID 0. 4 of these will get you enough speed and size but as there is no redundancy ( if one drive fails you loose it all) so you will also need to have daily backups to ideally multiple disks. 4 x 2tb will get you 7.25Tb actual storage space and then get a couple of 8tb external drives for backup and backup of backup ( depending on how paranoid you are). Use a 256gb SSD for your C drive and any spare SSD's for scratch/cache. Even put these in RAID 0 for even faster performance. I'd say you need a minimum of 32gb  RAM. CPU and motherboard - get the best you can afford with what's left in your budget......

This advice comes from experience of running several workstations for video and stills. Again if you are using Resolve you need a top end GPU. If you are using Premier you can get away with something more modest. Stills apps hardly touch the GPU and also you need Resolve Studio to fully exploit the GPU and work in 4k (I guess you know this though)

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Indeed... nuff said, Dual ISO talks : -)

This is a stupid test. DR goes down ( quite significantly) as you ramp up gain from zero ( Ramp up ISO from base) so any overexposure is going to hit highlight clipping faster - DOH!

Who in any semi-competent use of this or any camera is going to overexpose by 3 stops anyway and expect to recover highlights esp highlights in skintones? In a real world situation the clipping highlights on skintones would have been obvious from the zebras or scopes so the user would have brought the exposure down.

As ISO gain reduces DR the real world test would be a more ETTR based exposure method ( esp with RAW) and the differences between cameras and/ or ISO's would be to look at the shadow recovery.

Repeat - this is not a test that in anyway represents a real world situation to anyone competent or even remotely aware of how to expose footage correctly.

Due to the DR limitations when you move away from base ISO I just avoid it as much as possible - increase you lighting or open up the aperture or use a faster lens. The P4k has very respectable DR at base ISO but start to deviate from it and you are quickly into the kind of DR you get with a mobile phone! 

7 hours ago, thephoenix said:

hi

 

i need to change my pc so i can work with 4k and da vinci resolve.

what's the best processor and config for that ?

think ryzen are a good deal especially the 2700x but as i am working on photoshop as well so need some advices

hard drive i have.

need to buy processor, ram, motherboard, gc

 

For Resolve you need the best GPU you can afford. If you can't afford a top end GPU then your 4k editing experience will be frustrating. What is your budget?

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

You speak for yourself. I can tell the difference on my TV set. Especially when there is lots of fine detail, such as vegetation. Vegetation shows up lack of detail right away.

I think any particular persons take on this really depends on their eyesight. If someone does not wear glasses with an accurate prescription then they likely have less than perfect vision and don't know it. They think the world looks like that, but it does not, so when they see actual detail it looks unnatural to them. For them the world would look soft, so they likely think that video is supposed to look like that too. But if you do have an accurate prescription you sure as hell can tell the difference. I have yet to see any 4K video camera resolve to the level my eyes can. The best I have seen has been Samsung's NX1 but even that does not get where I want it to be. What I want is an 8K camera (probably more, so it can be oversampled), with a 65 - 80" 8K TV to go with it. If you are concerned about aliasing and artifacts like that then you need a pixel count significantly beneath eye resolution. If you do that you will get no visible artifacts.

A big problem is that people have been raised watching movies that have been shot at low resolution. They have been conditioned to think that is the "proper" way for movies to look so they try to emulate that without understanding that movies looked that way because of the limitations of the technology that was available at the time. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, with new generations doing the same thing and consequently influencing the next generation to do it as well.

In camera "sharpening" is a product of the debeyering algorithm weighting. There is no additional computation happening. A raw pixel will record red blue or green depending on what filter is over that particular pixel. To work out the actual color the debeyering algorithm takes information from adjacent raw pixels to generate a color. To get an accurate color you need a wider weighting, but that smears your detail over that area as well, resulting in a softer image. If you want to maximize detail then the debeyering algorithm uses a smaller weighting. That results in more accurate luma but the color is less accurate. When you are at an edge that color inaccuracy would result in false color around the edge, hence the halos.

What about when the image is resampled to a smaller scale as with say the GH5? 

Also 'good' sharpening that doesn't introduce artefacts takes a lot of processing power and is not going to happen in-camera so what you see is crude but CPU light sharpening thus all the halos and nasty edges. I'm not even sure if the sharpening filters in Premier and Resolve are that good and certainly nothing as sophisticated as 'smart sharpen' in Photoshop.

4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The real story is that sharpness in 4K is a bad thing, not a good thing!

Sharpness is not a substitute for resolution.

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Yes, like most Canon FF cameras. 

XT series lacks an AA filter (thanks to X-trans sensor) which makes for sharper / more detail IQ.

Depending on what you're shooting, one may serve you better than the other.

An AA filter designed for stills shooting and 1:1 pixels sampling in 4k - vs X trans with no filter and 4k subsampling  - case closed......

30 minutes ago, PabloB said:

 

Basically shows the Eos R as soft with the default sharpening at 0 but looking better and matching the x-t3 at 4 and above

It doesn't match as the sharpened EOS R footage shows obvious sharpening halo's around the  fine details ( lettering). Does the EOS R have an anti aliasing filter over the sensor?

Not sure if this is related but I had issues with my XC10 in LOG in that it was very soft but I put that down to excessive in camera NR. The effect was most noticable on foliage and it's quite an obvious artifact when you know what it looks like. 

9 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

Kinda defeats the purpose of the MASSIVE monitor on the BMPCC4K then. 

Not everyone shoots outside and a good  hood or loupe fixes it. 

1 minute ago, CaptainHook said:

Historically (not that we've made cameras THAT long) we've always converted internally to YUV/YCbCr no matter the codec for SDI output etc. It's then convenient and easier on resources to do image statistics on just luma for zebras/false colour and that has not changed. RGB would be more ideal, yes. Personally I always set zebras to 95% for some slight headroom (even before I worked for the company and learnt how it worked) and after i joined and we added false colour, the "red" (highlight clipping) on false colour is actually at 95% for the same reason.

Thanks for that clarification and I'll set my Zebras accordingly.

2 minutes ago, CaptainHook said:

Zebras are currently based on Luma or the Y channel of YUV (as it has been since the first BMCC).

I can't view Luma on a a display and most NLE's work in an RGB working space. Also what about RAW capture which is not YUV? YUV is just the codec colour recording system for ProRes etc.

Also the screen has a very warm tone so don't use this as a WB guide either. I wonder if BM will incorporate a screen colour balancing feature in a future firmware update?

Messing around with my external monitor and looking at the scopes I can see that the zebras are linked to the red channel so all the more reason to make sure you WB correctly to avoid clipped highlights if you are using the zebras to ETTR. The GH5 along with many other cameras have the zebras linked to the green channel. Maybe BM want to avoid the user clipping skin tones above all else? Never understood why manufacturers need to just link zebras to a single channel and not have it work when any channel clips????

Just checked now (without the 1:2.40 frame guides) and yes there is a very slight corner shading wide open at the wide end but I wouldn't call it a problem and nothing that can't be fixed in the grade. Maybe on the Metabones it's different though?

https://news.panasonic.com/jp/press/data/2018/10/jn181026-1/jn181026-1.html

I'm certain this will make it's way into the GH6..........

9 hours ago, photographer-at-large said:

Great discussion....wish there were stabilized lenses for BMPCC4K users.

Stabilisation works on native M43 lens with the BMPCC4K.

3 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

For people getting their hopes up, this is slightly misleading. My experience has been the following:

The 18-35 will vignette even on a .71x ('ultra') speedbooster until about 20mm in DCI 4K (only barely and not worth mentioning in Ultra HD). It's sort of usable but the vignette is definitely there across the whole left and right side and it's relatively severe.

It will basically be unusable on full frame on my A7RII until 35mm, at which point you might as well use the lighter, better, brighter 35mm 1.4 ART.

Not seen any problem with my Viltrox .71 and yes it will be unusable on full frame as it's an APS-C lens.

DR advantages are only useful if you can expose the footage accurately enough to exploit it and exp controls on the P4k are pretty basic (Even the GH5 has a waveform). I'd like to see an RGB parade display on the P4k.....

I've had one of these for a while 

https://www.atomos.com/power-station

It can power the camera via the included dummy LP-E6 battery or possibly from the USB outlet? It will also power an EVF or Ext monitor. It's a bit big and awkward though and I never found a very satisfactory way of using it with my other cameras without it going on a fully rigged rod system. For this reason I'm just going to buy more LP-E6 batteries for my P4k.

I've now only got one question to answer about the P4k and that is ProRes vs RAW? - oh to have such a choice!

I fixed the loose mount issue by bending the spring tabs with a screwdriver and lenses now fit nice and snug with no play.

17 minutes ago, tonysss said:

Yes, unfortunately ?  ,  my OT BMPCC is visibly +2 stops DR up from my GH5. I see it in all videos of new pockets, dynamic range that is noticeably down ?

It's DR that is as good or better than any other camera you can buy for similar money - why is this a reason to be upset?