Savannah Miller

2 hours ago, ade towell said:

John Brawley has said they are still tweaking the IR filter and it will be a different one on the final camera release

From.dvxuser.com

IR filtering is still being tweaked. My comments wouldn’t mean much because I had a prototype camera that had a different IR filter than what will ship so that’s a bit difficult to draw conclusions from.

I used all internal ND’s on my shoot. There was also a calibration difference with my camera that wasn’t picked up till recently. Most of the RAW files are shot at the default WB of 5600K +10, which is the “standard” BMD daylight default.

BUT

When you start to go into he RAW tab you’ll find it’s really about -500K to -1000K (Less warm) and -5 to -10 tint (less magenta)

I didn’t change these on my initial clips, but I have on these ones...

https://vimeo.com/440479199

Which also by the way show the 8K and 4K modes 🙂

That is the best news ever. I believe blackmagic has used the same IR filter in every camera they've ever put out so this time they might have strong enough IR filtration for once.

4 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

I wasn't saying you should fix IR in post as a rule--just that this specific instance didn't seem to lose much. 

My experience with Canon has been mostly good, especially in regards to pleasing color.  However, the extended ND settings on the C200 invariably needed an IR cut to decontaminate the shadows. On the 2 commercial projects I've shot with newer Canons, I've run into issues with cycs lit by blue LEDs turning purple. Turns out I'm not the only one--there's a whole topic about it on DVX User (the answer from Canon: "the camera is operating within spec" lmao). And while rather pleasing at first glance, the color isn't what you'd call accurate. It took a ton of secondary work in post to get the company colors dead on without fucking up everything else. 

All I'm really driving at is that every camera (and brand) has its issues to mitigate, be it form factor, color accuracy, IR, codec, sensitivity, etc. In the scheme of things, considering what the 12K offers, remembering to use some IR cut is pretty damn manageable.

 

At least for my kind of work. Ymmv.

I think what would be even better than all of this is if someone could design a replacement IR cut for the blackmagic camera. John Brawley uses rawlite OLPFs in his cameras but he mainly benefits from the IR cut it provides. I would LOVE to see a replacement IR cut for blackmagic which has slightly better IR cut without being harsh. Just enough IR cut that you don't see any when using the internal ND or when shooting under tungsten

52 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

That's not how IR pollution works though. Raw might help you slightly, but you'll spend hours applying masks to the effected areas. 

I'm not sure BM ever even officially announced the IR pollution issues with the bmpcc or bmmcc, even though the camera is basically unusable without one.

For what it's worth, I use the C300 Mk2s constantly and have never seen a trace of IR pollution. The baked in color profiles on a Canon C series camera are pretty damn close to "perfect color out of the box." 

That's because there's two ways to handle IR Pollution. Hard IR cut or gentle. Gentle gives you an more accurate color at the expense of needing to use IRND filters.  ARRI uses gentle IR cut and so did RED up until their newer cameras. Blackmagic used gentle IR cut but it's a little too weak so you sometimes may see IR cut without even using ND filters.  Blackmagic is either lazy or for whatever reason they haven't bothered to source a better IR filter. Because blackmagic uses a softer IR cut you end up having to screw on your own which defeats the purpose of using smooth IR cut in the first place. A lot of blackmagic's early camera choices were inferior copies of what ARRI was doing and a few of them have stuck throughout all their cameras.

What patents does RED have that blackmagic would infringe upon? BRAW uses in camera partial demosaicing so the raw format they record gets around RED;s patent. Unless there are other patents I am unaware of

There are 2 types of ND filters you can use to control IR pollution. IRND (full spectrum) and hot mirror filters which have IR cut built into them. Blackmagic does NOT use ND filters with IR cut built into them but rather full spectrum ND filters. What that means is you do get IR pollution when using them since they're not perfect and that's really unnavoidable.

12 hours ago, Super8 said:

I know magenta cast or IR contamination can be removed. 

IR contamination shouldn't be in that 12K footage.   I'm sure @John Brawley should have seen it.  He wrote up that blog about it.  I'm sure BM has a few great colorist that should have caught it. Heck, the built in ND's are supposed to eliminate IR contamination. 

This is the reason ARRI, Canon and RED have clean color.   No company is perfect but these 3 companies seem to understand color science and working with the right sensor foundation. 

Black Magic seems to get the most out of sensors for lowest cost compared to any other camera company.   Instead of cutting corners they should just make sensors and cameras that get the best results at any cost. 

I'm begging to wonder if they have the engineers to pull of great color science. 

Take a look at the picture from BM website, someone thought that IR contamination was acceptable to showcase.

Blackmagic's IR pollution is not a color science issue and it's not a complicated issue at all. The IR filter they use over the sensor (it is the same one in all models) does not do a strong IR cutoff so that you get more "pure" color. As you add ND filter and use full spectrum IRND ones, in theory you shouldn't get IR pollution.

The reason you get some is IRND are not perfect and the blackmagic IR cut filter is a touch too weak. Also in most scenarios without ND the IR pollution is fine but under strong hot lighting like tungsten, IR can show up even without ND.  Blackmagic is very stubborn on this issue and it's something you have to accept. They won't change.

One other issue is that the speedbooster manufacturers and others have claimed that the glass that blackmagic uses for their IR cut is too thin and creates focusing and Chromatic aberration problems as well. That's why ever blackmagic camera with a speedbooster has always had to have a custom designed one.

A lot of BM users rock IR cut for every shot or even use internal IR cut replacements like the rawlite OLPF.

Something interesting is on linkedin I see quite a few "computer vision" engineers working for blackmagic design in colorado city, colorado. Not sure what they do but it could be related to autofocus. Unless blackmagic has bigger goals

There is some abnormally strong chromatic aberration in the images too if you zoom in close. I have no idea how much of that is due to blackmagic's same filter thickness of the camera or what is due to the lens.

The camera is amazing but there are a few things, no OLPF, not strong enough IR cut, and odd filter thickness which will exist throughout every blackmagic model and that's just part of the look.

2 hours ago, McSaint said:

Can't grade it on a PC as of right now. Why so confrontational?

3 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

please show us this affirmation, download the footage, do the correct color grade and upload here again, so Super8 will be able to see the magenta issue is easily removable.

I've seen the grades posted on reduser and from my guess it is a combination of IR pollution and something else slightly tinting the hair. The hair is the same color as her tank top strap which is also black. In the shot of the guy you not only see magenta in his hair but on the stand holding up the plant (which I assume is black).  Blackmagic uses the same IR filter in all of their cameras and they have recieved a lot of complaints in the past of seeing IR pollution even when not using ND filters. With the internal filters on the UMP there was definitely IR pollution when  using the built-in ND filters but it wasn't horrendous.

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Where did I say it was an adapter rather than a mod?

The clue that it is a mod is in the actual name of the product.

I didn't produce his list though, I showed the list of the existing adapters. His mod fleshes that list out pretty well which reinforces the original point I made about the limited choice with an adapter.

The announcement of the Bezamod being available for the Pocket6K was post the discussion you've quoted by the way and I'm not sure it would've moved the needle much as it does not have a release date and remains some way short of being funded and even then only carries an estimated earliest shipping date of February 2020.

It forces it with one specific lens type.

The same way that Blackmagic have announced a Super16 windowed mode for the Pocket 4K if you want to use those lenses where, again, you need an adapter.

If you want to use it with EF lenses then it won't be cropped and you can use a speedbooster as well if you want.

Without a mod.

And you can use it with PL lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

Or Leica M lenses for fast, compact lenses with a simple adapter.

Without a mod.

I can see we won't agree on this (and nor do we have to so thats fine) so I'll leave it here but I can see one negative of retaining the mft mount versus several negatives to the EF mount.

BM have access to way more data than I do so I'm sure they've made the most logical choice for their needs based on that data.

 

Bezamod is a real product and already existing. He stopped making it when the ursa mini pro came out. The Lucadapters speedbooster is a real product too that already works. The design of the Pocket 6K one is only going to be improved.

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm completely relaxed thanks.

I was debating a point with a complete idiot that was reducing the collective IQ of the forum every time he posted but if you want to open up the subject again..

From my experience with the JVC LS300, most lenses are able to do 90-94% coverage of the sensor so the windowed mode would be minimal (both in terms of FOV and resolution loss) and a fair compromise for the ability to use lightweight mft lenses. 

I don't know where the E mount or RF mount come into it as I never mentioned those as being a viable option for BM to incorporate.

Its a fair point about the original BMCC but that was also at a time when electronic mft EF adapters didn't exist so people were buying them because it was a shallower mount and more adaptable.

There is no reason why the new mount would not be active as per the Pocket 4K and there are now plenty of electronic EF adapters on the market though so its a bit of a moot point in the context of the point about this camera today.

The lens landscape in terms of quality and range for mft lenses is also significantly different between now and then.

For a camera with such rudimentary AF, there is no loss of performance in using an adapter versus native, only a loss of flexibility in having the option of both.

For the sake of a 90% windowed mode only when using the small lightweight lenses, I don't think there would have been a huge pushback at that compromise, particularly as it would also then allow the use of PL lenses amongst others. 

With regard to PL compatibility, this is a list from the SLR Magic PL Adapter and is actually quite a bit more extensive than other adapters that carry the same core list

• SLR Magic
• SLR Magic ANAMORPHOT-CINE 35mm/50mm/70mm
• SLR Magic APO-HyperPrime 25/50/85
• Century Optics
• Century Optics S2000 150-600mm - Canon
• Century Optics 200 mm T 2 - Canon
• Nikkor
• Nikkor Micro 200 mm T 4
• Nikkor 800 mm T 5.6
• Nikkor 300 mm T 2
• Nikkor 200 mm T 2
• Cooke Optics
• Cooke 18-100 mm T 3
• Canon
• Canon 800 mm T 5.6
• Canon 400 mm T 2.8
• Canon 300 mm T 2.8
• Canon 20-35mm T4
• Angenieux
• Angenieux 20-120 mm
• Angenieux 7-81 mm T 2.4 HR
• Angenieux 17-102 mm T 2.9
• Angenieux 24-290 mm T 2.8
• Angenieux Optimo 24-290 mm
• Angenieux Optimo 28-70 mm
• Angenieux Optimo 17-80 mm T 2.2
• Angenieux Optimo 15-40 mm T 2.6
• Angenieux Optimo 45-120mm
• Angenieux Optimo 28-340mm
• Angenieux Optimo 19.5-94mm
• Focus Optics
• Ruby 14-24mm T2.8
• AllStar
• Allstar 135mm T1.9
• Allstar 80-200mm T3
• Allstar 50mm T1.5
• Allstar 18-35 T1.8
•  

Hang on, you're asking if I'm sure "a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?" and then immediately talking about a product that exists purely to address that issue!

With regard to the speed booster, I don't know who's original quote that is as it's not mine, but there is a big difference between that statement and the Lucadapters solution.

Both products, as smart as they are, are offering solutions that need not have been there had BM continued with the mft mount and are nowhere near as convenient as the solutions on offer if they had.

I'm not saying that EF was a flat out bad choice (and it might actually have resulted in more attraction for people who don't like the mft mount) but it was certainly the less flexible and I don't recall a massive backlash towards the Pocket 4K for having an mft mount in terms of lack of sales of it.

By the way, for what its worth, I'm quite an advocate of thinking outside the box when it comes to BM cameras.

Way outside of it  

 

The Bezamod is not an adapter, it's actually more of a MOD for mounting PL lenses. The list is small because the guy who makes it likely hasn't tested very many lenses. This is different than most PL-EF adapters.

If the camera was MFT mount, most people would complain. Some of the biggest arguments against the Pocket 4K were people that did not like the EF Mount. Making a camera that has a mount that forces some sort of windowed mode is against how Blackmagic operates. I don't think Blackmagic would ever sell a camera that forces people to buy an adapter to not window their camera.

Looking at the P4K groups on facebook, very few people are using native lenses. Almost everyone wants the extra sensitivity and larger format that the speedbooster offers. From a value perspective, if you own no lenses, the 17-55  F2.8 from Canon is the best value if you can only afford 1 lens.

On 8/17/2019 at 1:16 PM, BTM_Pix said:

For fucks sake.

I have you on ignore, how can I see this post ?

Seeing that I can....just for old times sake and for ONE post only I'm going to respond.

READ THE FUCKING FACTS IN MY POST YOU FUCKING MORON

The lens options for EF mount are not endless if you want to use PL mount lenses.

You want to talk about serious cine shooters an yet want to pretend that PL lenses wouldn't somehow fit in that area ?

Seriously ?

I'm going to repeat this one more time so you can try and understand it.

There is no lens that you can put on an EF mount camera that you can't put on an MFT mount camera but there are plenty of lenses that you can put on an MFT camera that you can't put on an EF mount camera.

Therefore, the lens options for EF aren't "endless" as they literally end at any lens with a flange distance less than 44mm.

As for the rest of your post well I'll leave you to your "spreading false information" and the "unless you feel threatened" fantasies like the pound shop Donald Trump you clearly are.

Fuckity bye.

RELAX. MFT lenses do not cover the Pocket 6K, so it's an odd mount, especially with Blackmagic RAW being one of the main selling points. No one wants a windowed sensor. Other mounts like E-Mount, etc. are proprietary and the only manufacturers that make them other than Sony, produce DUMB mounts which are useless. The only logical mount that could have been used is RF instead of EF, which we don't know if Blackmagic could deliver in such a short time.
 

There's unfortunately not to many mount choices that BM can use, and they chose to take the safe route. Nothing wrong with that.

Wasn't the original BMCC a PASSIVE M4/3 mount? That camera came out at a time when very few people were using anything other than Canon, and no one wanted a Passive mount or to use M4/3 lenses.

Are you sure a lot of the PL mount lenses will not work with the PL mount adapter?
 

People just don't think outside the box. "You can't mount a lot of PL lenses on the Pocket 6K." Well now you can.

"You can't put a speedbooster inside an EF mount because you need 4mm of clearance that you don't have." Remove the IR glass in front of the sensor and you have all the clearance you need. ala Lucadapters

5 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

BM cams just aren't ready for prime time.

Blackmagic cameras are not perfect, but they put out a solid product. Their only real competitors are Kinefinity and Z-Cam and they put out much more "beta" products with hope of future firmware fixes. The first Z-Cam cameras were so bad, and even the Z-Cam E2 was not much better when it released. If you look at the original BMCC, it was not a perfect camera, but the first cams from Kinefinity and Z-Cam were terrible.

One thing that I feel is the only real advantage Blackmagic has (which is admittedly huge) is that they shoot Blackmagic Raw and Prores. If similar, partially debayered RAW and Prores were intoduced into Panasonic or Olympus cameras, Blackmagic would have likely very little advantage. A lot of the mirrorless cameras have IBIS, phase-detect AF, battery life, smaller, etc. Even the Z-Cam E2 and the newer cameras from Z-Cam can now shoot ZRAW and Prores, which almost puts them on the level of some BM cameras, especially with their really high framerates.

Blackmagic now delivers a really solid product with minimal issues, especially with their newer cameras, but their biggest downfall is they are too conservative in how they build their cameras.  They play it safe and build a solid, well-rounded product at a good price, but Blackmagic doesn't really push any sort of technological boundaries like some other manufacturers. Z-cam only started making cameras just a few years ago and they are already in many ways pushing ahead of  Blackmagic in many ways.

1 minute ago, Shaocaholica said:

Ffmpeg is not a codec.

Are you suggesting someone develop a new prores-like codec that is NOT prores?

21 hours ago, Shaocaholica said:

Why doesn’t prores have a license free open source alternative?  It’s not that complicated of a feature set.  Any of the major camera makers could roll one out pretty easily.

There is. It's called FFMPEG. Selling cameras with unlicensed Prores is risky business and no one wants to mess with Apple.

5 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Is it? Where did you see it?

I am consider getting the X0.64 version for using my Samyangs.

There are some pictures floating around of the difference between the Pocket speedbooster and the original M4/3 one and there's a general haze over the image on the original one. The pocket speedbooster is a lot sharper, but it doesn't work optimally with any other m4/3 cameras, so less flexible.

I think the usual m4/3 filter thickness is very thick(8mm?), and Blackmagic uses a rather thin IR cut filter.

5 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

The new BMPCC4k speedbooster is indeed sharper, but the regular one is still very high performing. I've seen no credible complaints about the performance of the Ultra .71 on the BMPCC4k until the new one came out for people to compare it against. Again, my own experience is that every one of my lenses has become sharper with the MB on my cameras. YMMV.

That's true, but maybe then you have to compare the best M4/3 glass to the best EF speedboosted glass since it's a little unfair to compare the center cut of a lens. But anyways, yes the quality of EF does generally improve, but I'm surprised how much of a drastic improvement the Blackmagic version was. I thought it was just a money grab, but the difference is quite noticeable.

I am debating whether to buy a Lucadapter for the Pocket 6K or invest in lower cost ef-s lenses like 17-55 2.8, etc.

1 hour ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Thank you. I've found that the two main detractors of speedboosters either have never used one or have used an inferior one. My Metabones improves every lens I put it on.

That's not entirely true. The new pocket 4K speedbooster that just released is noticeably sharper when the lens is wide open due to the different thickness of the IR glass on BM cameras. Technically, with the old speedbooster and the pocket 4K, the wide open performance is soft.

But with something like the Lucadapter on the Pocket 6K you should see some good performance.

Blackmagic probably sells more than 10x what Kinefinity does.  Kinefinity cancelled an entire camera (Terra 5K) which supposedly had a 5K dual-gain sensor.  Where were they getting a 5K dual-gain sensor with 15 stops of dynamic range when the one in the 4.6K had to be custom-designed because Fairchild Imaging didn't make one large enough.

Kinefinity cameras have too high-end of an attempted feature set and price without nailing the image and basic operation like Blackmagic has done.

I am definitely not surprised if Blackmagic is already working on a new camera with this Sony sensor, and if they are,  it will be much cheaper.  They are probably working on continuous autofocus too.

19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

So? This has happened multiple times with BMD camera releases as well.

 

The BMPCC was the only camera I can remember that shipped without RAW enabled from the start.  Most of their newer cameras have shipped without huge issues.  Kinefinity doesn't even fix basic problems like monitor lag but continues to increase the specs of their cameras.  I'm actually suspecting that the delays and lack of footage from the Pocket 4K is because they switched from the Sony IMX294 sensor to the slightly newer IMX299 variant.

A couple things:

Blackmagic cameras have kinks (for sure) but Kinefinity sees to release cameras that are even more unfinished than Blackmagic cameras.  The Terra 4K was out months before it even could record cinemadng raw.

Secondly, the Pocket 4K's power draw is pretty much on par or better than the Terra 4K.  Blackmagic has mastered the FGPA very well.

Blackmagic cameras do not have an OLPF which means no OLFP artifacts such as the red dot flares that affect Kinefinity cameras.  The new BRAW codec has significantly reduced moire/aliasing that it's not really a problem anymore.

Blackmagic seems siginificantly ahead in color science and creating beautiful images.  Kinefinity cameras are all about size/specs (just like RED cameras to some extent) but Blackmagic is reliable and delivers where it counts.

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:28 AM, Raafi Rivero said:

I'll have an answer for you soon - I'm shooting the official launch film for it .

Here's my unboxing of the Mavo LF - the first one to land in the US - with a tiny bit of actual production footage at the end of the video. (sorry for the audio. I'm deep in pre-pro and was rushing to get the unboxing out while in the midst of other prep). 

 

This couldn't be further from the truth. At a base price of ~$12k it's a fraction of the cost of full-frame competitors - Monstro VV =$80,000, ALEXA LF = $98,000, Canon C700= $33,000, Sony Venice = $42,500. it's a dual-native ISO 800/5120, a feature none of the competitors offer (the Varicam has a similar dual native, but isn't full-frame). Also it's a fraction of the size/weight of all those other cameras. But, yeah, nothing special.

Been shooting tests all week, production starts on Saturday.

 

 

I disagree.  Kinefinity released the Terra 4K for $4000+ and then Blackmagic turned around and released a BETTER camera (Pocket 4K) for $1295 with more features and better codecs/color science (Blackmagic RAW future update).  I wouldn't be surprised once the MAVO LF comes out that Blackmagic is already making a better camera with the same sensor for half the cost.  The new BRAW codec makes it possible for Blackmagic to now do higher resolutions such as 6K without the need for heavy storage.  The new sensor profiling they do siginificantly reduces Aliasing/Moire as well as Fixed Pattern noise so they can get a significant dynamic range increase over competitors using the same sensor.  Kinefinity cameras are too expensive for a small manufacturer, because at that price point you can now buy other well-established camera brands like RED, CANON, and even Blackmagic.

On top of that, Ursa Mini Pro is practically a more usable camera for professional production because it matches much closer to the industry standard Arri Alexa and has a very good color science.  

MAVO LF looks like a really good camera but they need to drop their price to around $8000 to be competitive with other mid-range priced cameras because Kinefinity is not a well-established brand yet.  I would be very worried if Blackmagic is also designing a camera with this sensor.  Since the Ursa Mini Pro used a custom-designed sensor t hat cost millions of dollars to develop, the camera was priced at $6000.  Since this Sony sensor would be "off the shelf," Blackmagic could easily price the camera at $4000 in an UMP body since they don't care about market segmentation. 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A heat sink cannot be separate to the stuff it is cooling, so if water or whatever (spiders!?) is going in that massive hole on both top AND bottom it is going to meet up with vital stuff.

I don't think that's true.   A lot of blackmagic cameras have exposed holes, but all of the stuff that is vital to the camera (FGPA, Sensor, etc.) are sealed from dust/weather, etc.

I do think that the Pocket 4K is a better option for professional cinema use, but for everyday users I don't think Blackmagic cameras are ideal.  Autofocus, IBIS, rotating screen, etc. are huge features that will greatly benefit the average user more than raw will.

If another brand of mirrorless camera would incorporate the BRAW codec then there would be very little reason to buy a Blackmagic cam anymore.

3 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

Sorry, I forgot to write the word 'RAW' in my message (I've edited it now). Because that's really the key:

 

You cannot downsample in RAW. The Pocket will shoot downsampled 1080P in Prores (up to 80fps I believe?) and will only crop at the absolute highest framerates.

Yes you can downsample RAW. How do you think the 5DMarkIII is able to shoot full sensor 1080p raw?  Pixel binning is a very valid way of downsampling RAW images.  If you have to, you can also line skip which will of course create some artifacts, but Pixel Binning is very usable.