Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

More details on global shutter and possible Blackmagic sensor supplier CMOSIS

Recommended Posts

If only we knew their production capacity and backorder quantities, then I could make my decision.  However, its looking promising, in the vimeo interview posted yesterday the BM guys seemed pretty confident that the production problems were history and they could now get on with business.  A part of me is still sorely tempted to hit the pre-order button on the MFT version and everytime I gaze open-mouthed at the dumbed down low bit-rate examples on vimeo etc, that part of me shouts just a little louder.  I must admit, watching a £2K camera go toe to toe with an Alexa and come out ok is quite something.

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



Regarding the 1080p full sensor size output I wonder if this achived by a smart selection of pixels in the global shutter reads. Maybe this is a way to avoid huge scaling cpu loads and loss of definition.

Ciao

 

 

I suppose since it's not rolling there's no need to "line skip", so it could be either scaling a capture from all of the pixels in realtime with a scaling algorithm, or skipping in a mosaic pattern of some kind, though you'd think that'd mean artifacts.

 

They've said it's a little less sharp than the 2.5K version, I'm not sad about that, excessive sharpness is too video and kinda over-rated i think. I'd rather a slightly softer image that has a great motion feel and colour rendition.

 

That's why Alexa look is so popular still compared to Epic i think, despite all the resolution obsession in the latter and the hire price being the same, Alexa just has a unique feel, like a special type of film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detail and sharpness are separate things really. Like JG says, too much sharpness = video.

 

But there are many complicating factors.

 

For example if you have a 50mm on the 60D and shoot some actors or people at reasonably close range with a reasonably shallow depth of field, that really helps to mask any resolution shortcoming. Then you put an ultra wide angle lens on it and focus to infinity - it ain't pretty. Same camera. Why does one shot come out so much cleaner than the other?

 

60d-moire.jpg

 

I mean, you're not going to notice 4K in the bokeh are you!?

 

Sometimes you just DON'T NEED a high resolving power or 4K. A high detail level is more important for shots at infinity focus with lots of very high contrast fine detail.

 

We tend to band about the word 'sharp' as a catch all phrase for high resolution, high detail, sharp lens, sharp image, etc. 'High resolution' would be a better phrase. A 4K film scan is high resolution without being too sharp looking. With high sharpness you get a very high contrast between pixels and that can be quite fatiguing for the eye in motion and un-film like. Too much micro-contrast is bad for motion cadence with digital. What is also important is the integrity of the detail you're seeing. If it is falling apart like on a Canon DSLR with false detail and moire, that to me is unacceptable for certain types of shot... Like the one above... But less noticeable with soft lighting and people!

 

A lot of my work had cityscapes, vistas and wide shots which is why I went for the GH2 over the 60D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perfect example of excessive sharpness for me is The Hobbit.

 

Watching that on BluRay after a while you feel like your eyes have been sanded!

 

It certainly doesn't have the feel of the original Kodak-shot trilogy, and it's most noticable, as you say, with portraits, where the edges of the hair become distracting from the actual scene!

 

It's brittle compared to the rounded organic detail of celluloid, with its uneven grain structure.

 

If all sensors were foveon -style stacked, it'd be a start. No debayering would be nice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Andrew!

This Sharpness thing has been annoying me for ages - its all you hear & is completely irrelevant compared to the question of whether something keeps its resolution. Its all about resolution, resolution, resolution!

This is true of Cameras & Lenses alike - "Is it sharp?" is all you hear.

I chose my 60D for the opposite reasons to Andrew & for the photography side as well.

 

Here's a v.good example of a lens with high resolution, but not the sharpest - Angenieux 35-70mm (look through to find the 100% crop pictures on p3+4 - they're stunning!):

 

http://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-2-5-3-3-35-70mm-leica-r-mount-t19877.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perfect example of excessive sharpness for me is The Hobbit.

 

Then you're gonna hate 'Oblivion' just as much as I just did. Expensive, over-produced plastic-looking garbage of a movie shot on Sony F65. ( At least 'Hobbit' had some trees. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Sharpness thing has been annoying me for ages - its all you hear & is completely irrelevant compared to the question of whether something keeps its resolution. Its all about resolution, resolution, resolution!

 

True. I've said this before, but I've worked with many high end Super 35mm film scans and they don't look sharp, not at all.

They probably compare to a Canon 5Dmk3 in terms of sharpness at most, and they're often sharpened in post.

 

That softness is an important part of film's aesthetic. We don't necessarily have to mimic film with digital, digital is a different look, and should be taken advantage of for what it is, but many people focus on the wrong aspects IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. I've said this before, but I've worked with many high end Super 35mm film scans and they don't look sharp, not at all.

They probably compare to a Canon 5Dmk3 in terms of sharpness at most, and they're often sharpened in post.

 

That softness is an important part of film's aesthetic. We don't necessarily have to mimic film with digital, digital is a different look, and should be taken advantage of for what it is, but many people focus on the wrong aspects IMO.

 

I never had anyone complain about the softness of the 550D (i have the filter to kill the aliasing, which people did notice), but someone did moan about the RX100 footage looking "too cheap", by which they meant video like, or like a camcorder.

 

Stats and specs are one thing, but what really matters is how the image makes your audience feel! sometimes sharp is the right choice, sometimes not. 

 

That's why pre-ordering is such a gamble. It could be great on paper but a practical nightmare! Just have to wait and see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats and specs are one thing, but what really matters is how the image makes your audience feel! sometimes sharp is the right choice, sometimes not. 

 

That's why pre-ordering is such a gamble. It could be great on paper but a practical nightmare! Just have to wait and see...

 

Given Black Magic experience in editing, approach seen on BMCC, sensor producer DNA and first footage seen at NAB looks like we can expect something really interesting. As the first pre production or production cameras will be soon tested by the press, by being  able to get an original BMCC in a short time just in case well...  I do not see such a risk.

 

Regarding the "too sharp" "too much definition" ... I really do not agree here at all. Not at all... Black Magic Cameras seams to me just great 24P / 30P photographic tools able to produce very interesting organic looking visuals. 4K will improve this and the rest will be a matter of artistic aesthetics and skills.

 

Has anyone really complained of the jump taken by Nikon in terms of resolved pixels with the switch from D700 to D800? Is this making any Nikon photographer looking like Peter Jackson in the Hobbit because of the added pixels? Well... there is much more to be or not to be Cinematic and involving.

 

I want a greatly resolved image with wide DR all in RAW/Prores to start from there to build my very personal visual expression. Those über compressed, über blurred days will be gone soon.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the point on the pixel size for the sensor as it relates to resolution of the Pocket Cinema Camera Super 16 vs the 4K Super 35.  I have a Canon consumer camcorder, HF-M500 with a 1/3 sensor, and it can give my T3i APS-C a run for its money in low light because of the smaller pixel count. It is not as clean in low light of course but does much better then you would expect for a smaller sensor. 

 

As resolutions go up pixel counts get larger leading to smaller sized pixels and less light sensitivity.  The Alexa is a great low light camera putting a 2.7K image on a Super 35 sensor as opposed to a 4k or higher on the same sized sensor.  This is something to be mindful of with companies now pushing such high resolutions, 4K and above, with Super 35.  When does resolution itself become more important then light sensitivity? Maybe the more important question is when is resolution so high that it makes the image too "real" and takes you out of the fantasy world of film? 

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...