thebrothersthre3

Just now, Super8 said:

I searched the EOS after this happened and couldn't find very much discussion about it.  It kinda seems like it's the 'let's don't talk about that issue" kinda thing.

I remember people thinking the P4K wouldn't need IR cut filters. Not sure if Blackmagic was saying that or what. Nothing is mentioned on the Official BMD Pocket 4k page. I think its less pronounced than on the URSA mini but you definitely still need it. Lots of stuff comes up on google about it.

5 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I agree, issues grading P4K or P6K are in most cases user error in capturing the footage in the first place.  I shoot BRAW with mine all the time as do nearly all other users whose work I see posted on Facebook and other forums.  With its range of compression presets, theres little reason to go ProRes in my opinion, unless handing over footage to people who don't use Resolve, or prefer ProRes.

I am interested in how RAW will be implemented in the R5.  I've heard conflicting stuff about Canon and RAW from cameras like the C200.  I'm not sure what to believe, over how useful a codec it is.

Most Canon fanboys though are going nuts over 8K.  I am more fascinated by RAW in 4K and the workflow using it. 

Yeah that's the amazing thing about BM RAW as well as REDcode, you can get RAW files smaller than prores. That'll be the downfall for RAW on the R5 for many, probably huge files especially in 8K

I am sure a lot of bad footage you see online from blackmagic cameras is from people not using IR cut filters.  All blackmagic cameras even the Pocket cameras need them. Another issue is just white balance that is off. Unless shooting RAW if you rely on a faulty auto white balance or simply don't manually white balance correctly you will have funky colors. I've seen plenty Canon footage that looks pretty whacky that I attribute to bad WB, same with Fuji. One of the huge advantages of RAW, probably the biggest for me at least. 

Honestly that is one of my big issues with Black Magic. Their reasons for not including IR cut filters built in are stupid. Thankfully you can install one in the Ursa mini without having to use ones you put infront of the lens. 

 

33 minutes ago, Django said:

well they use the same sensors to begin with... other than that I'm not really a fan of such tests it's like pixel peeping for color.

thankfully there is no color accuracy category at film award shows  

when you referred to Sony being the most accurate is that just from personal experience? 

@Django

Check out this list 
https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

TBH I am really confused as the Fuji's are up at the top directly followed by Sony. How can they both be super color accurate while both being very different?

I personally don't see why Sony couldn't put out an A7S3 with full frame 10 bit 422 4k. 

People wouldn't suddenly not buy the FX9. Will people stop buying the C500 and C300 when the R5 comes out? The R5 can do 10 bit and RAW like both those cameras plus it does even higher resolutions. 

typical Canon Sony discussion 

11 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

The one I'm considering is an EF version

Thats a good deal man. Mine was $1600 but its PL and the rear SDI's are dead. Still got the front one though so no biggie. 

8 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Cheapest C200 on eBay that has sold was US$4K
There is a local URSA Mini 4.6K I've been considering which is for sale for US$1.75
That puts it at closer to C100mk2 prices! (US$1.5K)
I know which I'd prefer

The Ursa’s that go cheaper usually seem to be PL which is a bit crippling if you are trying to keep things cheap. That said it’s still a high cost/performance ratio. It’s really nice to have Prores 422 at different resolutions with high dynamic range 

3 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The Canon 1DX III would be the better comparison to the URSA Mini Pro 4.6 G2

The 1DX III is still miles ahead of anything BM offers.   Everyone can disagree with my comments about which cameras are easier to color grade but look at the footage that Canon produces and look at Blackmagic footage. 

Since we are talking about Canon in this thread and people are dogging Canon for GREAT specs, saying the cripple hammers is coming.  All that said that might want to look at image quality and color next time they think about buying or renting a camera for that next gig or client. 

At the end of the day no one care what you shot your footage with they just care how it looks and what you created. 

The 1DX MK3 form factor is different though. DSLR body which makes for weird rigging, no internal ND's. I wish Canon had that sensor/specs in a cine body at that price point. 

The 1DX MK3, C500 MK2, C300 MK3, and the soon to come Canon R5 all have great specs though. The work I do is really low end though and Canon doesn't offer anything in a price range that makes sense for me. The EOS R is affordable but it just would really be a step down in many ways even if the color science is much better. 

5 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Don't be disappointed with the URSA.  Footage can be color corrected to look really really good.  This is true with all cameras. 

If you could see what I'm correcting right now from the BMP6K it would blow your mind.

Thats good to hear. I have to work on my color correction skills.

49 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The URSA Mini Pro 4.6K G2 is $5,995 and that would be almost half the price.   I'm not sure if you guys remember your comments defending Blackmagic and I know people have said it blows away the C500.

As I said in my last few post, I'm not going to get technical about scope readings or power windows or what percentage of correction and labor goes into fixing certain footage.  For 1) It's a sliding scale based on a lot of factors 2) It's about what cameras have the best balanced color value and color luma, this doesn't over ride the fact that footage can be over or under exposed 3) I have shot BMP6K footage that looked amazing with great color. 4) I might suck as a colorist but I know what I've seen with various footage that I've corrected that had to match and live in the same edit. 

 

Well the C500 mk2 is 16,000 while the Ursa G2 is 6,000, a little more than twice the price. 

You can find used Ursa Mini pro 4.6k (with BRAW) for around $3500 these days though. In that price range the C200 is the competitor not the C500.  The C200 RAW files are big though and it has no intermediate 10 bit codec and less dynamic range. The C200 also doesn't have some pro features like time code. It also goes for more used, usually $4500 upwards. 

One of the things that sold me on getting the URSA besides the crazy cheap price($1600) was after seeing some footage from it that I was editing. It was just shot in prores LT 1080p, but the files looked really good. That said it was under nice lighting conditions so it wasn't really a good test of color. 

Honestly after hearing what you've had to say about the URSA, I am pretty disappointed. I've heard a lot of people say the URSA comes close to an Alexa but it sounds like that was all hype. 

50 minutes ago, Deadcode said:

It's not easy to vlog on an Arri.

Sure it has nice IQ, but really that's the only thing that matters? (however you can match a BMPCC4K easily...)

I don't think its really that easy to match a Pocket 4k or any other camera. Canon comes close color wise but even they have some funky stuff going on. 

Sure its not a vlogging camera. However throw the thing on your shoulder and you'll get great images. There is almost no rolling shutter. 

Certainly for vlogging some type of software stabilization would be ideal. Would need to be super advanced though, doubt anything will come close by 2025. Something like an Osmo pocket but with a larger sensor seems more attainable. But vlogging isn't really my thing. 

But again I think what I asked for is a pretty tall order. 

Arri Alexa image in an DJI osmo body with canon PDAF, with high frame rates, resolutions, and usable 25,000 iso image. If that is available in 2025 I promise I won't be complaining one bit lol. 
 

I don't know, the Arri Alexa came out 10 years ago and I'd probably still rather own that than any other camera at its price point.... 

6 hours ago, Super8 said:

I do think the EOS is filled with BM Ursa Mini 4.6 owners that have said the BM Ursa Mini 4.6 and other BM cameras are better than Canon cameras and have better color science.  Now all of a sudden when you see evidence that Canon color science is real and better than BM you say the Canon camera cost to much? 

 

So really what we have is the case that Black Magic camera doesn't have a true cinema camera that we can buy?  

Black Magic doesn't have a camera that can match something 3x its price, no. But a cinema camera is more than just color. Ergonomics have a lot to do with it. 

My reasons for purchasing an Ursa were many. Low rolling shutter at high resolutions, high speed at high resolutions, incredibly cheap price point (used at $1600), really good dynamic range, RAW at all frame rates and resolutions. Of course I was told by many it has great color science which maybe isn't true. 
 

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So once again, you're doing this:
 

 

6 hours ago, Super8 said:

Like your comment about BRAW files you're looking at this too legalistically.

I think both of you are just running in circles at this point. 

Informing a person by saying "this is better and I know due to my experience", is often a poor way to convince someone. Its kind of like my dad saying "listen to me because I am your father", (older more experienced).

If something is definitively true it should be able to be proven by scientific means. 

Maybe Super8 simply doesn't have the technical knowledge to explain his opinion. That of course doesn't mean he is wrong. A colorist just needs to know what looks good and how to achieve it, having the technical background to prove it isn't needed. I can say gravity exists and be right without being able to explain how and why. 

I certainly know how to expose an image and use a camera, but if you were to ask how that camera works my knowledge is very limited. 

To put things into perspective digital only caught up to feel (arguably) since the Arri Alexa came out 2010. No other company has really been able to top Arri in terms of color reproduction and dynamic range to this day. 

I'd say probably the best overall camera on the market is the C300 MK3 

and even that doesn't have the convenient compressed RAW that Black magic or Red have, it has less dynamic range than an Arri (significantly less in the highlights), not as good color reproduction, and is a relatively large camera. 

It has auto focus going for it and is definitely smaller and more ergonomic than a rigged up Arri and of course way less expensive. But again its not checking all the boxes I'd want. I'd also say most of the stuff I want or need has been around for years just not all in one small package. I'd still say film is superior if you have the money and resources. 

3 hours ago, Deadcode said:

So like a C500 Mk 2?

Or an R5?

Come on guys, you just writing spec that are mostly exist today. (except Kye :P)

5 years from now these spec are really appealing to you? i mean you would spend money 5 years from now on camera with 2020 spec?

On different aspect: why would not everyone of you rush to buy the 5 years old dream camera the A7s mk I or GH4? for 2015 both had insane spec! And it cost only 800-900 eur (500 or less for GH4) nowdays...

So the R5 for example in 2025 will probably be obsolete.

Are you kidding ? The C500 mk2 doesn’t come close to the A7s in low light, doesn’t have arri dynamic range, doesn’t have arri color, doesn’t have 4k 120p, no compressed Raw and is a huge camera certainly not Osmo size... Again at some point you hit a law of diminishing returns, we aren’t there yet though.

The tech for an ideal cameras is out there for me it just needs to be combined. 

Arri color

Arri Dynamic range 

Canon PDAF

Sony lowlight 

RED or BM RAW

Just advance things so all that tech can be put in a small body say like an Osmo pocket(could be bigger but you get the idea) with a nice built in ff 28-70 2.8 equivalent, oh yeah with 4k 120fps and 2k up to 240fps

😄😄😄

 

1 minute ago, Trek of Joy said:

That's a $3200 camera, Sony isn't cutting the price on any mythical a7s3, not going to happen. Ever. That's the territory of the a73 and its eventual replacement.

Chris

They may not even do an A7s3 could just be an A74 considering they already have an A7r4

21 minutes ago, Super8 said:

DP's don't mention color because they don't need to mention color.  Big budget film have a colorist if needed but it that colorist need to fix color on a film, fix mistakes, then that's costly.  We also don't talk about cine cameras that much on the EOS. We tend to get the most out of cameras we can afford.

What’s the downside of using something like lut calc to transform say slog to arri log. 

39 minutes ago, Super8 said:

No not really.  I posted another video with the BM Ursa mini 4.6 G2 and that color falls apart also compared to Canon. 

Canon color does not fall apart or is less with the EOS-R.  

Do I need to find the threads with people saying the P6K is a true cine camera? and it compare to the RED and Canon cine line-up? 

Probably the biggest deterrent for me from the EOS R was the rolling shutter. Subpar high ISO performance and lack of 10 bit internal or full frame 4k was also a bummer. 

Do you have any experience with old Blackmagic cameras? A lot of people rave about the color from the original Pocket (1080p version). 

Some of what you say sounds a bit over the top but at the end the day the majority of the industry seems to agree with you as Arri is the golden standard next to Canon, for high end work that is(if the Oscars are a good example of high end)

8 minutes ago, currensheldon said:

So why does Sony only have raw to external recorders and Panasonic doesn't have any internal raw? 

The Sigma FP has internal RAW

The Sony A7S3

oh wait nevermind...

9 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

Dream on Sony lovers.

Here's Sony's answer to canon's raw on C500 MKII :https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/30/atomos-sony-fx9-raw-recording-details-announced/

The FX9 should be doing internal RAW. Makes no sense that it can't in that huge ass body. Incredibly stupid imho

I think all they need to sell is an A73 with 10 bit 4k 24p and 8 bit 4k 60p. 

If the a7s3 or whatever they call it is priced around $2500 and the R6 is around $4-5000 it will sell well due to the price alone. People will also buy it over the S1/S1H simply for the Auto focus. 

Now what I'd really like to see from Sony is something with the low light performance of the original A7S, combined with 10 bit and 4k 60p and internal NDs. 
 

On 4/28/2020 at 10:38 AM, C100M2 Shooter said:

I am very happy with my bouth C100 and C100 Mark II and they do very pleasent work together unless you don't need 4K. Nowdays there is a lot of second hand option but if you need a new one here on Amazon 

https://amzn.to/2W4nt68

If you need more info about it let me know. Thanks

spam.....