Jump to content
mercer

BlackMagic Micro Cinema Update?

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
On May 26, 2016 at 3:40 AM, squig said:

slashCAM are dreaming. The Micro has less usable DR than the 5D MK3 raw which is rated at 11.7 stops by DXOmark. It's also clear that the Micro is slightly noisier than the Pocket.

The C300ii says 15 but there is serious noise issue.

The 5D3 in my experience has higher DR than the pocket or micro, just because it is so clean in the shadows. It's pretty amazing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

That's a problem with every bayer camera.

Why only blue and not also red?
I ask because I only knew that since the filter pattern is 50% green, 25%  red and 25% blue, green screen work better then blue screen with digital cameras, but other then that I'm totally ignorant about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JazzBox said:

Why only blue and not also red?
I ask because I only knew that since the filter pattern is 50% green, 25%  red and 25% blue, green screen work better then blue screen with digital cameras, but other then that I'm totally ignorant about it.

I think the blue filter lets through less light. Another thing is that depending on the light, there can be very little blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:25 AM, raf702 said:

What are you guys using for sdxc? I'm looking between the 95mbs extreme pro 64gb, or lexar 64gb 1000x 150mbs. Or will either one suffice? 

Only use SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s, & at least 64GB size. Use nothing else that is smaller than this.

 

Remember many of those which claim a fast speed are just referring to the read speed. And not the all important write speed, which they often unfortunately have as slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering what the consensus is on post? Are you guys using a BMDFilm input LUT as a starting point? 

With my first few tests with it, I found that just a simple exposure, color correction/balance, and boost in saturation brought me to a nice natural image to grade with later if I want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I went out today and tried Raw 3:1 for the first time... And used Resolve for the first time as well. Resolve automatically puts into a Rec709 color space? Unsure how to change that, or if I'm supposed to? I'll have to watch some tutorials. Anyway, here's a screengrab from my very first attempt...

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mercer said:

So, I went out today and tried Raw 3:1 for the first time... And used Resolve for the first time as well. Resolve automatically puts into a Rec709 color space? Unsure how to change that, or if I'm supposed to? I'll have to watch some tutorials. Anyway, here's a screengrab from my very first attempt...

image.jpeg

Looks beautiful. I don't use Resolve enough to remember all the terms but there is a field in the Color page that you switch from Rec709 to BMD Film. Then you can add luts and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Looks beautiful. I don't use Resolve enough to remember all the terms but there is a field in the Color page that you switch from Rec709 to BMD Film. Then you can add luts and stuff.

Thanks Jonesy, I was going for a 60s Technicolor look. I am so used to FCPX, that Resolve looks like Greek to me. I'll check out the BMDFilm option. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After using Raw 3:1 for a few days I have come to a couple conclusions... The IQ seems to be considerably better than ProRes and it seems like it handles noise better than ProRes. In fact, I have found that you don't necessarily need to ETTR to protect shadow noise. Has anyone noticed the same things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mercer said:

After using Raw 3:1 for a few days I have come to a couple conclusions... The IQ seems to be considerably better than ProRes and it seems like it handles noise better than ProRes. In fact, I have found that you don't necessarily need to ETTR to protect shadow noise. Has anyone noticed the same things?

I shot a ton of stuff with the histogram right in the middle with the pocket/pro res. The image looks great, the Sony FS700/7Q, you kinda need to peg the histogram to the right or the image just gets so noisy and gross. 

I do think well shot RAW when you have a ton of time to process just ends up looking better, but the struggle/time/work flow can end up ruining the creative process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dbp said:

After using the BMPCC for a while, I still go back and forth on RAW and Pro Res. 

RAW is of course, fantastic. But I do think the Pro Res is underrated, and the workflow is such a delight.

And that is my main issue... Having to use Resolve for the Raw processing is a burden since I am so unfamiliar with how it works. I just got used to FCPX, so I do really want to shoot in ProRes, but I can see a pretty significant bump in quality shooting Raw 3:1. I really need to do a more controlled test where I get all of the variables in line so I can see exactly how much better it is. Today I went to the trouble of tweaking a few things in Raw in Resolve and then exporting to ProRes so I could use FCPX and Color Finale to do the color work... Talk about tedious and time consuming. 

Or find some good tutorials for Resolve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it is. It's not THAT bad, but with enough shots, enough work and just wanting to get things done, it adds up.

I shoot RAW sometimes for work that doesn't require it. Just to play around. Then deadlines come and I always regret it. While I'm glad Resolve is adding some editing features, I still find it clunky and sluggish compared to Premiere CC...especially Premiere CC with a codec like Pro Res.

So yeah, no doubt we all agree that RAW is better. It's just always hard to decide how much better, and how worth it it is for any given shot/project. I love having the option though. I'll definitely use it for challenging lighting situations 100% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dbp said:

So yeah, no doubt we all agree that RAW is better. It's just always hard to decide how much better, and how worth it it is for any given shot/project. I love having the option though. I'll definitely use it for challenging lighting situations 100% of the time.

Will you combine raw footage and ProRes footage in the same timeline?

Also, do you shoot in camera with ISO 800 with ProRes?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...