Jump to content

osmanovic

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by osmanovic

  1. The SD cards slow down over time or it comes dropped frames. The solution was to first do an LLF (LowLevelFormat) on the card and then format it in the camera. Try it. 

    Sometimes it was enough just to reformat the SD card in the camera again.

    We purchased angelbird SD cards some time ago. But these are very expensive. Then a colleague told us that the Canvas Select Plus (white green sticker) works just as well. We tested at 30fps raw (for an hour) and there were no drpped frames. 

    If we had another alternative to og-bmpcc, we would certainly not buy rawlite, but another camera. But we chose it because og-bmpcc is still a great camera. 🙂 

  2. There are a lot of people who think that the pocket or micro with the small super16 means retro look. But that is not true. What makes the old blackmagic cameras special is the sensor. The sensor is equipped with large photosite and a dual-gain architecture (the same as ALEV sensor).The development of such sensors took place at that time for arri. The goal at that time was to keep the analog Arri look, with the digtal sensor. And the fairchild sensor is the same, only in small (pocket and micro, super16), large photosite with 6.5microns, dual gain and strangely the image is also very close to the arri.

  3. 3 hours ago, kye said:

    and now that I have a BMMCC and my OG BMPCC is on its way, I will add that the footage from these cameras also grades absolutely beautifully straight-out-of-camera - they too (as well as Fairchild who made the sensor) did a great job on the colour science.  The P4K/P6K footage is radically different and doesn't share the same look at all.

    Agree. The fairchild sensor is very good. The different look on the new Blackmagic cameras, is a big reason why we're passing on it.

  4. On 5/20/2019 at 2:01 AM, CaptainHook said:

    Ignoring the made up numbers here, in terms of debayer quality the method for cDNG is much older as not anywhere near as good as Blackmagic RAW. I see a lot of people mistake the artefacts of the DNG debayer as sharpness. Its not that the cDNG debayer is necessarily keeping more details, but it IS creating false detail. An interesting comparison was just posted here that's worth looking at :

    https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=510320#p510320

    Especially this image - what you're seeing on the DNG is not real information the DNG retained, it's CREATING it (falsely) and it can look like sharpness/detail when it's over areas of real detail, but it's a very "hard" and digital feeling look IMHO :

    1731-Noise-Noise.jpg

    But also pay really close attention to the resolution image at the above link. You can see on the right hand side the artefacts between the red and yellow resolution lines and around the edges of the circle. These artefacts are not real detail or sharpness that you lose with Blackmagic RAW, they are created in error.

    Something to consider as well is we get a lot of feedback from customers that 4.6K Blackmagic RAW still has more resolution than some "other" cameras 8K RAW images - likely because of strong optical low pass filtering that without could produce similar artefacts as shown in DNG.

     

    The highlights and shadows sliders in cDNG are NOT debayering RAW controls and work on debayered data only. They are the exact same (mathematically) as the ones in the primaries tab and work exactly the same on Blackmagic RAW as the DNG RAW tab ones. I demonstrated this for someone on Facebook last year..

     

    I would like to return to this contribution.

    Here it is claimed that the cDNG example is false details. I quote "Especially this image - what you're seeing on the DNG is not real information the DNG retained, it's CREATING it (falsely) and it can look like sharpness/detail when it's over areas of real detail, but it's a very "hard" and digital feeling look IMHO"

    That's not correct. The solution can also be found in your Blackmagic forum:  http://54.172.192.242/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936&start=350#p310046

    Or: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=75290

    The solution is very simple: "use the "pan/tilt" setting in the Color Tab (same values of 0.5 each)" 

    Thanks to Dmitry Shijan for the advice!

    If DNG does false details, why is it that they are back by simple correction without affecting the sharpness? 

    This is probably a firmware bug that has not been fixed by the Blackmagic team. 
     

     

  5. 4 hours ago, osmanovic said:

    You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

    There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

     

    As a better explanation, I would like to add that: http://rubenkremer.nl/2013/08/27/theoretical-light-sensitivity-of-the-pocket-cinema-camera/

    "Down to the micrometers

    The sensor of the 550D is 22.2mm wide and has a height of 14.8mm. It's resolution it 5.184 × 3.456 pixels. Simple math will tell us the pixels are 4,28 × 4,28µm. 

    The legendary Canon EOS 5D Mk. II has a large fullframe sensor, one of the (relatively) few. It's measures 36 × 24mm and has a resolution of 5.616 × 3.744 pixels. Zooming in on the actual pixels on that sensor we're getting a pixelsize of 6,41 × 6,41µm. That's 150% of the 550D's pixel size. This makes perfect sense and is in-line with the expectations.

    Now we're coming to the interesting part: what's going on on the surface of the Super16 sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? The sensor measures 12,48 × 7,02mm. It has a resolution of (merely) 1920 × 1080 pixels, because it doesn't need to take 21 megapixel stills - only (just over) 2 megapixel video. When we do the math we get a pixel size of 6,5 × 6,5µm.

    And the winner is...

    The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera! Theoretically.

    Wait! What just happened there?!

    So, there it is. If we consider each individual pixel on the sensor as a sensor of its own - the camera with the largest sensors is actually the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It's pixels are 1,4% bigger than those of the Canon 5D Mark II and 52% bigger than the pixels on the 550D/T2i. So theoretically, solely based on the numbers - the BMPCC should theoretically have a better light sensitivity than practically all DSLR's on the market today.

    "

    Therefore, old Pocket and Micro, with  up-scaling from 1080P to 4K, is still very good today. But with Blackmagic RAW this wouldn't be as good as with CinemaDNG, because Blackmagic RAW is less sharp. If Blackmagic RAW is also released for Blackmagic Micro and Pocket, I will not upgrade. That CinemaDNG is better is my personal conviction and opinion. It shouldn't speak for everyone at all.

    I hope this is now understandable.

  6. 57 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

    That video doesn't show the point you're trying to make. You're comparing cDNG to Braw, but he states in the test that he's shooting ProRes - which if anything will be closer to Braw than to cDNG on any camera.

    You're right, it has something to do with pixel size. Correction: Another reason is that the older Blackmagic cameras with a no-Sony sensor have better image sharpness (due to the pixel size) than the 4K Sony sensor. 

    There are new picture comparisons between CinemaDNG and BRAW: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91466&start=100#p510511

     

  7. 1 hour ago, anonim said:

    Thanks, so I guess right this time :) So, cDNG sometimes really has more detail, but not necessarily... Now we have to learn how often and when...

    I'm personally interested for the simple reason: being extremely satisfied with form factor, rigging possibility and image of Micro 1080p cDNG, I'm not so satisfied with possibility that for similar 1080p quality I have to shot 4k in P4K. Also, if result of super (up)scaling Micro's 1080p to 4K is similar or identical with 4k of P4K, there's not too much advantage rest with P4K except framing. (I always shot rigged with external small audio recorder and Atomos recorders for the backup reason.)

    CinemaDNG offers significantly more details. The comparison pictures BRAW and CinemaDNG also show that BRAW has no finest details. The image information is lost at both 4K and 1080P and cannot be restored. CinemaDNG is different, because it contains the finest details and you can see how good this is when you scale up 1080P to 4K. 

     

    BRAW is also not an OLPF, the moiré improvement can be seen minimally in the horizontal area.  You can do similar things with CinemaDNG by applying "Gaussian Blur" filter (H/V Strength: 0.333) to CinemaDNG. 

  8. CinemaDNG is real RAW. This looks like this on the example picture, because CinemaDNG does not filter the finest details (which are reproduced by analog-to-digital conversion (ADC)). With BRAW, the finest details are filtered internally. RAW should remain RAW and the processing of RAW should be left to anyone, who has bought a camera because of RAW and also expects real RAW.

    When I put on the CinemaDNG example image in DR some "Gaussian Blur"-filter (H/V Strength: 0.333), it looks similar to BRAW.  And yes THAT has something to do with sharpness.

  9. Honest opinion?

    I don't think a new screen is the reason you can't downgrade the firmware. New screen has nothing to do with BRAW or CinemaDNG. Blackmagic Design simply does what they want. The customer is not asked or informed in advance. The customer is condemned to endure the problems with the CinemaDNG patent. BRAW was served to the customer as a sedative tablet and not because it is a better alternative to CinemaDNG.

    They can still take pictures in CinemaDNG using the "stills button". And the screen has no problems with that?

  10. I didn't mean the sharpness (the old pocket and micro, is also surprisingly good in the sharpness) but the colours, the highlights, the contrast. This seems to be more organic or more natural with the old sensor. So the internal process, the conversion from analog to digital, is fantastic. 
    Too much digital, makes it look video, and that's the case with the new Pocket. The digital look, doesn't change after colorgrading, it remains there because the internal process in the camera (the conversion from analog to digital) is no longer manipulable afterwards, because it comes from the sensor as it comes.

    Is my statement so correct?

  11. Hello everybody,

    I expected the new Blackmagic Pocket 4K to be slightly better than the old one, but I was wrong and returned the camera. The old Blackmagic Pocket simply has better image quality. Colorgrading works better, many different colorstyles are possible.  The Pocket 4K somehow has a video look, it has a lot of noise in the shade and is very big without any special advantages. It's plastic.  The display is nice, but I don't use it anyway, because I can connect another screen and move it in any direction. In practice, it's only used for menu. So not really an argument. More FPS is also good... but everything together is not an argument if the picture quality hardly differs from my iPhone. Probably because iPhone also has a Sony sensor?

    Are you of the same conviction?

    Friendly greetings.

×
×
  • Create New...