Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

John Brawley posts new Blackmagic Cinema Camera footage

Recommended Posts

This is really impressing.

Yet, we need to see pattern tests. Moire coming from downscaled 2,5k? Wait, when did I recently see a 2,5k video?

As we know, moire is the tip of the iceberg.

And there was something in the first "Graded Screen Grabs" that was repeated here: Noise. And not very decent, watch the red chair between 6 and 13 seconds. The first seconds could have been the vimeo compression, unable to deal with the subtle pattern on the velvet as the camera pans over it. The last seconds are classic mosquito noise, a busy swarm.

You criticize that the clip tries to look like film? Aren't we all looking for a camera that at least doesn't look desperately like [i]video[/i]? We [i]wanted[/i] something sexy like this, and Brawley, one of the new league of the unofficially sponsored camera tester professionals, gives it to us, and just tries to satisfy us a little bit too anxiously ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343401246' post='14628']
The sensor is not that much smaller than s35/APS-C, i haven't done the math, but to get the same as an s35-18mm on this camera you probably need a 14mm or so. A Tokina 11-16 should be quite handy with this camera.
[/quote]

18mm on s35 seems to be 11.5mm at bcc. sensor is a little smaller than 4/3.

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone, this is my first post but I just had to point out something: I used to have a chair like that. It's not actually moire like what happens with a lot of other DSLR footage that's caused by aliasing. This is actually caused naturally by the fact that you are looking through two layers of mesh. It's imposable for the front mesh the line up exactly with the back mesh so you see a moire pattern. It's a completely naturally occurring optical effect that you would see with your naked eye. Another way you can tell this is the case is that the pattern doesn't change or move every frame like normal moire caused by aliasing or the simple fact there is no moire anywhere else.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@galenb

tell that to the fanboys over at REDuser ;)

If I had the money I would buy this camera, but unfortunately I don't. And I can't make my boss buy it for work either, we don't have the money neither (newly founded film/television school). We need more Sony EX's for multi cam first, then lighting, and much more accesories. Then we can talk about buying a cinema styled camera! But that'll be a couple of more years, 4K will probably be standard then. And I don't want a RED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do recognise that chair moire to human vision issue, seen it many times with my own eyes. I think the furniture needed moving around before he shot it :) Natural moire or camera moire? I suspect natural as there are a lot of other fine details, fabric, hair, pool cloth for example and zero moire or false detail there.

The footage - when I play in Chrome to get around a strange compression issue with Vimeo - looks absolutely fantastic on my Epson theatre projector and Dell U2711 2.5K screen. And it isn't even the full 2.5K raw but ProRes. Camera is shaping up great.

In my opinion - the REAL advantage of a full frame sensor = more dynamic range. Not unmanageable shallow focus.

This thing has heaps of dynamic range so the sensor size doesn't concern me in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah i really don't see the issue. I mean even in its compressed state, i'm still seeing things on the other side of the windows. She doesn't look like she's playing pool on a dying star like we usually see with dslr's. I think there's enough d.o.f. to isolate whatever you need to in frame. A lot of that "cinematic" look, is gonna be on you boys... None of us have gotten our hands on this thing with a dolly, or an anamorphic, or a slider yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of my favourite shots I have shot at F5.6 on an anamorphic. Knocking back a distracting background is important, but it doesn't need to be creamed out entirely, that is just boring. In my opinion a backdrop should be like a painting, where you can see the brush strokes and texture but it doesn't distract from the main subject. Excessive shallow DOF has been used and abused too often for my liking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally agree about the overuse/obsession with extremely shallow DOF. However, I think it's like any feature of consumer goods; even though you may never use it, it's nice to know you could if you needed to. In other words, I can understand people not wanting to be limited in any way...

That being said, looking at this footage, I can't really see an issue with the DOF and this camera. That CU shot of the pool balls looks absolutely buttery. It's obvious that you can get nice shallow DOF just as long as the lens your using has a low f stop. I've been seeing so many cameras defy the limitations of small sensors lately (like the Sony RX100) that it's starting to make me question what the real issue is with smaller sensors? If sensor size was everything then the GH2 couldn't perform as well as it has. I'm starting to think that is has more to do with how the CPU takes the data from the sensor and culls it into a pleasing image then anything else. I think that's what Panasonic have done to make the GH2 footage look so good.
Of course, if you're doing green screen work or needing to push in on footage or things like that, then a 4K camera is nice to have. However, Start Wars ep. 1, 2 and 3 were all shot in 2K right? There was a ton of CGI all over those movies so I still don't understand what the issue is. Maybe I'm missing something though?

It seems like the only real issue is that if you already own glass, all your lenses will be croped. But if you know this ahead of time, you just need to plan appropriately. right? I guess if you were shooting skateboard videos and wanted that fish-eye there might be an issue. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1343429219' post='14659']
There's 4 days left in July, so yah, I do wanna bet.
[/quote]

Hey, you said November!!! :)

After downloading this video and scrubbing through it frame by frame I couldn't see any jello effect resulting from rolling shutter issues, which is great news. Not that there's any extreme handheld stuff here, but there's some handheld shots where some of the gentle bumps would have been enough to cause rolling shutter issues on my 7D.
The vimeo file seems to be compressed at 4.5mbps, which is quite low, and there's a lot of compression artifacts, but I doubt any of those were part of the original footage. Even with this compression, the subtle noise/grain seems to be very pleasant.
The resolution is never very sharp, might be from the compression, but as it is it's not nearly as sharp as a GH2, but I don't see that as a negative point, it's soft look is very filmic and detailed.
Dynamic range is also hard to tell since I had no idea how bright the exterior was, but for that we have official details, so it shouldn't be a problem.

With all this said, we don't know what kind of post processing this footage had, so it's very hard to make any serious judgements yet, but so far so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've watched this footage and the older test clips on my 55" TV and it looks good on there. The color looks great and the noise isn't very apparent. My biggest issue with the camera so far is the 2.4X crop factor which really limits the choice of wide lenses and shallow DOF. I'm not saying this might not be a great camera, it's just that it might have some pretty big limitations depending on one's shooting style.

To get anything wider than an almost 50mm FF equivalent it seems you're stuck with zoom lenses: either the Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22. The Tokina is an f/2.8; at 11mm it's about a 26 mm f/6.7 FF equivalent. To get a 24 mm FF equivalent you're stuck with the Canon at 10 mm and f/3.5, which is about equivalent to f/8 on a FF. Until you get up to a 24 mm prime (57 mm FF equivalent) it's difficult to find a good, fast, non-fisheye lens or get a shallow DOF.

I think Black Magic missed the boat on not making this camera with a MFT mount. From a marketing standpoint an EF mount makes sense since there is a ton of Canon glass floating around out there and based on volume of videos on Vimeo it seems there are a lot more people shooting on Canon DLSRs as opposed to MFT. In practice though MFT would have given wider prime lenses and the possibility of shallower depth of field with lenses like the Voigtlanders and SLR Magics.

I'm not really a fan of razor thin DOF (not looking for a 50mm f/1.2 wide open on a 5D), but achieving a desired background blur could be difficult in some circumstances. DOF is acceptable in the sample, but the camera always seems to be right on top of the subject. In practice, this isn't always the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='rygenova' timestamp='1343449361' post='14671']
The Tokina is an f/2.8; at 11mm it's about a 26 mm f/6.7 FF equivalent.
[/quote]

That's not how it works, you don't multiply the aperture by the crop factor, the f stop is the same regardless of the sensor size, smaller sensors don't make lenses slower!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343452192' post='14672']
That's not how it works, you don't multiply the aperture by the crop factor, the f stop is the same regardless of the sensor size, smaller sensors don't make lenses slower!
[/quote]

the calculation is correct. obviously it´s not slower, but has wider dof. f2.8 correspond to roughly f5.6 at a ff body. more interesting though is the comparison to s35 where the difference is not that big. 11mm 2.8 on the bcc correspond to 17.4mm 3.2 at s35. the same field of view on the bcc will have half a stop deeper focus at a given f-stop compared to s35. according to this (nikon 1 sensor): [url="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html"]http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course the DOF changes with the sensor size, what I meant is that it doesn't change the amount of light you need, therefore if you need an aperture of 2.8 to shoot a certain scene, it will be 2.8 regardless of the sensor size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343525799' post='14691']
Yes, of course the DOF changes with the sensor size, what I meant is that it doesn't change the amount of light you need, therefore if you need an aperture of 2.8 to shoot a certain scene, it will be 2.8 regardless of the sensor size.
[/quote]

I didn't claim otherwise regarding the amount of light needed, only DOF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eyes loves girlies but godamit dis girlie is not a pool shark and aint no actris
eye still wants her telefon number but der test is iratatin sexist not sexxy


today in the post modern world we have nasa technology but intellectually,spiritually and aesthetically
we are going back to the stone age.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OKQdp6iGUk[/media]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwSQxlwMzr8&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1343563466' post='14701']
today in the post modern world we have nasa technology but intellectually,spiritually and aesthetically
we are going back to the stone age.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head.

Watch this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ38CcJ-2vw[/media]

It's 1964, that means film, of course (could also fit in the Christopher-Nolan-is-a-demented-analog-fundamentalist-thread). It's somewhere between a "test" and a fragment, the film never got finished.

Here the trailer for the documentation about the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF8q_7hGEYU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we are considering to buy a sony fs-700 but are a little disappointed with its resolution. would you think the BM camera will make a big difference used for a hd production? thanks for any advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...