kye

An average monitor that's been calibrated will be better than the most expensive monitor available that hasn't been calibrated.
There is no such thing as an "accurate" monitor without calibration.  Buy a calibration device and then go looking for a monitor.  When you do this you can calibrate your laptop screen as well.

Well, we all know how optimistic those manufacturers dynamic range specs are, but yes, Sony are up there in DR.

AUS only issue - that sounds about right!

It has always worked for me Kye…and it seems it still does!

"If it looks good, it is good" - common mantra from professional colourists.

Well, we all know how optimistic those manufacturers dynamic range specs are, but yes, Sony are up there in DR.

AUS only issue - that sounds about right!

https://www.cined.com/canon-eos-c70-firmware-update-1-0-3-1-adds-cinema-raw-light-capabilities/

Update: I pried the fucking thing off with a screwdriver. Everything still works properly, but I added a few scuff and scratched to the aperture ring. But now I have to get to work, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow to shoot some actual test footage.

Tripods and heads should make you some good money. @webrunner5

I think we over think a lot of this stuff. I follow a lot of people on YouTube and most of them, well all of them are just regular people, mostly with a GoPro and a Drone and since it is them and their content I overlook a lot of editing because the content is so interesting. And surprisingly their editing isn't that bad. The more you do the better you get.
 I don't think if it were shot on an Arri it would be much better. Not when you are knocking out videos every day or so. I just look forward to new content and consider some almost like family I have following them so long. I am even a Patreon on most of them.

I'm starting to test out raw shooting with this camera again. The mlvapp workflow is definitely faster with my Macbook Air M1 than with my old PC when I first tried out raw 5 years ago. I just got a good deal on an Angenieux 8-64mm f/1.9 (as well as a loupe and pistol grip for Super 8 style shooting) that I'm dying to try out.

You have to have a Really stable tripod and a good fluid head to get the best out of the lens. A B4 lens like it will cover m4/3 with a 2x doubler. It will cover the s16 senor at medium to long lengths without even using the doubler. That lens cost like $8000.00 40 years ago. They are super good quality.
They make normal a camera look like a toy. But they weigh a lot, but that is a good thing for stability on an ENG camera that weighs a lot also. The ENG rig I used the most weighed over 20 pounds. But you get used to it, and they were rock solid once you used them for a few weeks. Hardest thing was learning how to walk backwards fast, which you did more than forward it seemed. I covered a lot of courthouse cases. Really hectic stuff in the hallways. My rig cost close to $100,000.00 new, $20,000.00 tripod and fluid head, that was in 1980's money. 3 Tube 2/3" tape cameras, a whopping 480i was my first one. Never got to 1080p ENG wise, I bought a lot of Sony CCD ones later on my own. I had a company that shot TV commercials for about 5 years. My writer quit and so did I lol. It takes a very special talent to come up with new stuff to do.

Couple shots of my BMPCC with my 14x Fujinon.

The 3:1 compressed raw is a good compromise between ProRes HQ and uncompressed CDNG raw; you get nearly all the latitude of uncompressed raw without the ginormous file sizes. I've been shooting 3:1 raw on the BMMCC for a few years now and liking it, although Prores HQ is no slouch and can take a lot of grading and adjustment of white balance etc. as kye noted above.
My favourite monitor with this camera is the SmallHD Focus, which is discontinued but presumably very much available on the used market. I also have the Atomos Shinobi, which works but I much prefer SmallHD (better UI, more and better-implemented features). I have the 5" video assist as well but only use it if I need a recorder.
In addition to using it for video, I've been having fun using it for stills: the actual CDNG files are only 2 megapixels in resolution so it's far from ideal, but if I'm shooting portraits I'll bring my BMMCC along and just let it run, going through the footage afterward and stopping on a good frame, grading it in Resolve, grabbing a still, exporting a TIFF, and the upscaling it in any photo processing app like Affinity Photo or ON1. When your camera is capturing 24 or more frames per second, there's a good chance it'll catch the moments you just missed with a stills camera. If you set the shutter angle to 45 degrees you'll get terrible video (herky jerky like the beginning moments of Saving Private Ryan) but better stills since they'll have less motion blur. Unless you want motion blur, which I sometimes do.
 
 

I think this is the fate of many cameras.  
The camera market seems to be oriented around camera size being a prerequisite for image quality, despite the fact it doesn't have to be (as evidenced by BMMCC and OG BMPCC which were affordable a decade ago).  This means that there is little support in-post for the lighter cameras and less reputation.
This creates a feedback loop where people who want to shoot light don't make good-looking videos because the expectation isn't there, and people who have the expectation of great images shoot with larger cameras, reinforcing the concept that small and budget friendly isn't the way to go.  
In response to this completely made up size=quality concept, BM decided to make the BMPCC 4K literally 3x the total size of the OG BMPCC and abandoned the delightful S16 sensor for one that looks like any other camera, and almost all evidence that small could be great was swept under the rug.  
Those who shoot small typically shoot in uncontrolled conditions where the lighting is mixed colour temperature and lighting ratios are difficult to deal with, leaving those who shoot in the most difficult conditions and have the least ability in post production to shoot with the cameras least able to handle those conditions, and unaware that it could have been any different.

I thought this video was interesting...  
 

Well that might be a reason even a simple commercial on TV has a crew of 50 people involved. No one on here is going to become some master of every trade involved to make top notch videos. Sure we all need to get better, but there is a limit to talent, ergo intelligence, mine is getting worse by the day, and time involved.
  We hardly ever talk about audio on here, heck it is just as important as the video at times if not more important.

I have noticed that there seems to be a world of subtle timing with editing and the edit points themselves.
All edits have a rhythm and pace of their own, music or no music.  Try clapping your hands to an edit, any edit, and you may be able to "find" that pace.  
So, edit points can happen on the beat, slightly before/after it, deliberately off the beat (either on the off-beat or intentionally nowhere near any beat and therefore unexpected).  When there is music then there is a time signature involved and there will be bars, where the first beat in that bar is more important than the other beats and may be emphasised.  So then you can have edits aligned to the first beat in a bar, or the third beat in a bar, etc.  
So much variation....  but it's hard to really "see" them, because our hearing is much more time sensitive than our vision.
Here's a super niche trick to 'hear' the edits in Resolve.
start with an edit with separate clips.  use the Scene Cut Detect if you need to get a sound file with a short sound and put it in a bin on its own (a short beep sound is good) duplicate the audio part of all the clips in your edit to another track highlight them all and disable the Conform Lock Enabled option on them (and ensure it's on for all other clips) right-click on your timeline and select Timelines -> Reconform from Bins on the Conform Bins, unselect all bins except the one with your beep sound in it in the Conform Options, select only Codec (that's the only setting I found that works) hit ok every clip that you disabled the Conform Lock on in your timeline should now be your beep sound, and if you've trimmed it right then you will now have a track that beeps every time there's an edit point adjust volume on the track to be something sensible watch your footage and be able to 'hear' the edits Let me know if you actually do this and what you find.  I'm currently looking at Mustafa Bhagats work on Parts Unknown and he has a fantastic sense of rhythm and timing (being a musician in addition to an editor probably helps with this) so I'm hoping to learn from these.

I've been persevering with analysing editing, and the more I do this the more I recommend it to anyone who wants to improve their skills.
One piece of advice I would give, which seems actually kind of painful, is to cut up the video yourself manually.
I cut up a show using the auto-magical tool and set it to be pessimistic (so it misses some cuts rather than has false-cuts on strong action) and then made a pass to manually add-in the rest of the cuts that it missed.  This manual pass made me examine, frame by frame, some of the faster more complex parts of the edit.  I'm cutting up travel shows with stylistic edits, and I have been noticing all kinds of tiny details in the editing.
Some things I've found include:
digital punch-ins for one or two frames before / after an edit to add a zoom effect or glitch effect (if the punch-ins were offset in X and Y from each other) jump-cuts to remove maybe 2-4 frames in some shots to add pace and style to b-roll shots with movement in faster montages barn door / sliding door effects on edits 'burst edits' where there is a longer shot, 1 black frame, 2 frames b-roll shot, 1 black frame, 2 frames b-roll shot, 1 black frame, longer shot whip pan transition wipe transition where a blurry object moves rapidly across the screen to obscure the first shot and reveals the second shot whip pan transition with a single frame of crazy motion-blur between the two shots - the single frame wasn't at all similar to the others so it kind of creates a flash effect fades...   the combination of fade-out / fade-in is used (noticing when it's used is interesting) but fade-out / hard cut in from black was another combination I saw, interesting aesthetic colour grading variations - sometimes the colour was one way and sometimes another - seeing this choice of different looks was very interesting This might sound super-trendy but it wasn't from a travel YT video - this was from a major TV travel show episode that won multiple awards for editing. 
There are probably other things in there I haven't noticed yet either, but there are cuts in there that I've spent whole minutes just rolling back and forth and looking at and thinking about.
Also in addition to seeing things at the micro-level with individual cuts, I'm noticing things at the structural level where the relationship of scenes within the final edit is laid-out.  if you're making up the edit then the relative structure becomes visually obvious and the act of doing this makes you think about what a scene really is.  Do the shots that get you to and from a location count in this scene?  What is a "location" - some "scenes" might move between rooms or buildings and others might just stay put.  The analysis forces you to notice these things.  Sometimes they might have one scene that moves around and another that doesn't - trying to understand why is very useful.
It is having several effects on me:
It is making me realise how shallow the level of skill is on things like wedding videos (despite them being perfect for many of these innovative techniques) as they're multi-layered and very stylised It is making me realise how little is actually required to get a nice edit - some of the videos I've really enjoyed watching have been very very simple edits just having a simple structure and just music and no other sounds It is showing me how much you can get away with - knowing what is in an edit frame-by-frame and then re-watching it and not seeing what you know is there (or removing a single frame and re-watching it and not noticing a difference) it really shows you what is perceptible and what isn't** It is adding more and more tools to my editing toolkit I'm realising the importance of sound design I'm learning so much by watching the cinematography too ** yes I have checked that my editing setup is playing all the frames (I've actually examined the latency and jitter on my setup by filming my laptop screen and external monitor with my iPhone at 240fps and verified that the image timing is identical on both screens and also that each frame is visible for a similar amount of time, ie ~10 frames at 240fps per frame of 24p).
I cannot recommend this type of analysis highly enough.  We watch so much content and yet so much of the artistry is simply not apparent until we go deep and really look, frame-by-frame, at what the masters are doing.  Pick something done by the people at the pinnacle of the craft and go deep on it and see what you find.  You won't regret it - I find it's actually more entertaining than just watching TV or a movie so it's not a chore at all, but like opening a window to new ideas you wish you knew earlier.

I've been persevering with analysing editing, and the more I do this the more I recommend it to anyone who wants to improve their skills.
One piece of advice I would give, which seems actually kind of painful, is to cut up the video yourself manually.
I cut up a show using the auto-magical tool and set it to be pessimistic (so it misses some cuts rather than has false-cuts on strong action) and then made a pass to manually add-in the rest of the cuts that it missed.  This manual pass made me examine, frame by frame, some of the faster more complex parts of the edit.  I'm cutting up travel shows with stylistic edits, and I have been noticing all kinds of tiny details in the editing.
Some things I've found include:
digital punch-ins for one or two frames before / after an edit to add a zoom effect or glitch effect (if the punch-ins were offset in X and Y from each other) jump-cuts to remove maybe 2-4 frames in some shots to add pace and style to b-roll shots with movement in faster montages barn door / sliding door effects on edits 'burst edits' where there is a longer shot, 1 black frame, 2 frames b-roll shot, 1 black frame, 2 frames b-roll shot, 1 black frame, longer shot whip pan transition wipe transition where a blurry object moves rapidly across the screen to obscure the first shot and reveals the second shot whip pan transition with a single frame of crazy motion-blur between the two shots - the single frame wasn't at all similar to the others so it kind of creates a flash effect fades...   the combination of fade-out / fade-in is used (noticing when it's used is interesting) but fade-out / hard cut in from black was another combination I saw, interesting aesthetic colour grading variations - sometimes the colour was one way and sometimes another - seeing this choice of different looks was very interesting This might sound super-trendy but it wasn't from a travel YT video - this was from a major TV travel show episode that won multiple awards for editing. 
There are probably other things in there I haven't noticed yet either, but there are cuts in there that I've spent whole minutes just rolling back and forth and looking at and thinking about.
Also in addition to seeing things at the micro-level with individual cuts, I'm noticing things at the structural level where the relationship of scenes within the final edit is laid-out.  if you're making up the edit then the relative structure becomes visually obvious and the act of doing this makes you think about what a scene really is.  Do the shots that get you to and from a location count in this scene?  What is a "location" - some "scenes" might move between rooms or buildings and others might just stay put.  The analysis forces you to notice these things.  Sometimes they might have one scene that moves around and another that doesn't - trying to understand why is very useful.
It is having several effects on me:
It is making me realise how shallow the level of skill is on things like wedding videos (despite them being perfect for many of these innovative techniques) as they're multi-layered and very stylised It is making me realise how little is actually required to get a nice edit - some of the videos I've really enjoyed watching have been very very simple edits just having a simple structure and just music and no other sounds It is showing me how much you can get away with - knowing what is in an edit frame-by-frame and then re-watching it and not seeing what you know is there (or removing a single frame and re-watching it and not noticing a difference) it really shows you what is perceptible and what isn't** It is adding more and more tools to my editing toolkit I'm realising the importance of sound design I'm learning so much by watching the cinematography too ** yes I have checked that my editing setup is playing all the frames (I've actually examined the latency and jitter on my setup by filming my laptop screen and external monitor with my iPhone at 240fps and verified that the image timing is identical on both screens and also that each frame is visible for a similar amount of time, ie ~10 frames at 240fps per frame of 24p).
I cannot recommend this type of analysis highly enough.  We watch so much content and yet so much of the artistry is simply not apparent until we go deep and really look, frame-by-frame, at what the masters are doing.  Pick something done by the people at the pinnacle of the craft and go deep on it and see what you find.  You won't regret it - I find it's actually more entertaining than just watching TV or a movie so it's not a chore at all, but like opening a window to new ideas you wish you knew earlier.

The moire was in Prores 50p when testing. The actual filmshoot was in 25p. I used a different lens and focal length, also changed the lighting to put less emphasize.
You can still screw up on BM cameras easily, even in RAW if you shoot under Tungsten light with warm effect gels or under high IR pollution if you don´t use an IR Cut filter.:)

Yeah when you shoot Raw on the early BM cameras it is pretty hard to just screw it up. They are very forgiving and about as easy to shoot as any camera I have ever owned when you get used to them. Amazing cameras for a first try.

Some months ago I switched from focusing on new cameras to understanding lenses and colour science, and you'd be surprised how many times I was looking for compatibility between some lens format and some other camera and EOSHD links kept coming up in google.
If you put in "bmpcc c-mount" into google the EOSHD thread talking about compatibility and vignetting is not only the top hit, but also by far the most useful.
It seems that EOSHD is the centre of the internet for a number of very specific things in video-making, especially topics that focus on the benefits and modern use of vintage or older technology rather than just the relentless regurgitation of specs of new cameras.
When I post here, I am often thinking of these threads as a panel discussion where there is an audience of people who don't post or aren't registered who are looking for information on the topic.

I wouldn't think that the 50p readout would be different to the normal readout - both RAW outputs are at full sensor resolution with no processing, so there's no downsampling or anything going on.
I prefer to shoot in Prores on this as it does a great job of removing moire etc (BM engineers are better than I am!) but it is still prone to it on sharp lenses and fine detail.
I'd suggest that the only reason to change the settings in camera are to change frame-rate, otherwise you can just set it and then simply adjust aperture / focus / ND shot-to-shot, so it's a very straight-forward experience actually.  If you're shooting Prores rather than RAW then in theory you should be adjusting WB too, but if you are shooting outside then there's a good argument to be made for just setting to 5600K and then when things are warmer/cooler in reality then they will show up like that on the files and that's appropriate because that's actually how it was.  If you're using artificial lights then just set for those and forget.
IIRC I read somewhere that the WB latitude on the Prores HQ was as good as it was in the RAW, so that's probably something else that's worth a test to confirm, but certainly my experience changing WB in-post was just lovely and I did some quite strong changes as I was shooting at and around sunset so was dealing with some quite strong WB shifts and it was all very straight-forwards and a pleasant experience.