Jump to content
Yurolov

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K

Recommended Posts

I'm curious about the footage I shot this morning. Shot in 4K 3:1, but the footage has a strong RGB grain to it in Devinci. 

I exposed the footage as bright as I could without blowing anything out. Is something else wrong here? Or is this just more normal for 4K footage?

There wasn't a lot of contrast this earlier, but I definitely keep things to the right. 

I've included a couple DNGs. 

A002_09272137_C010_000072.dng

A002_09272135_C008_000082.dng

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
4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

"Blackmagic Pocket 4K's ISO10,000 still usable? Yes, with Neat Video.

The noise level in ISO10,000 from the new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K is as noisy as ISO3200 from the Panasonic GH5. The best part about the Pocket 4K's HFR is that there are no signs of banding. Keep in mind that in ProRes, even in 120fps, it is still 10-bit."

source:

https://vimeo.com/294680968

 

And he used the HFR mode, which is essentially a 2 times crop of the sensor (and 4 times crop from FF). Meaning that if he used 4k and applied neat video noise reduction and then  downressed to 1080p, it will be clean as a whistle. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hansel said:

Since everybody is going on about what a masterful knowledge is required to render a "Video" raw file, I am wondering how it differs to  exposing a photo raw? And what other knowledge and skill set is required compared to an experienced photographer?

It depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Turning a RAW photo into a nice picture is basically the same for video.  Perhaps video might be a little harder if theres a single shot where the subject moves between light sources with different colour temperatures, but that's unlikely for most of us.

I think there are two situations where grading does require a very high level of competence:

  1. When you're trying to compare two cameras by grading them to look the same, or trying to make both look as good as possible so the potential of both cameras can be compared, or,
  2. When you're trying to grade a piece of footage so it just looks absolutely stunning.

The first scenario is what the videos in this thread lacks: people that can't match two cameras (or can't even WB both cameras properly) or people that grade one camera nicely and grade the other one very poorly, resulting in that BMPCC4K vs GH5 video where everyone said the GH5 footage looked worse than even average GH5 footage, let alone be good enough to compare to another camera.

The second is a bit less relevant to this thread, but we've talked a lot about the BMPCC videos and how they just looked wonderful with lots of mojo and general awesomeness, and that the BMPCC4K hasn't lived up to that.  Unfortunately, what we're doing is comparing the best results from years of people shooting with the BMPCC - both in terms of people getting to know the cameras modes and best lens combinations, and how to grade it, but also picking those videos where the colourist was quite skilled.  The BMPCC4K hasn't been out long enough for the people who have it to get to know it, test lens combinations and filters, and probability suggests that the best colourists haven't even touched any of the footage yet.
You simply can't compare the best ever footage from one camera with the first few quick films from another.

The videos we've seen so far have been basic colour space conversions, or even just a LUT.  Wait until people really get stuck into the footage.  

The highest level of grading work will have qualifiers to treat skin and various other specific tonalities, will have localised adjustments that will be tracked as objects within the frame move, and these days often some VFX elements, which it's also worth noting that VFX elements don't always mean adding in objects that aren't there, but can also do more subtle things like adding lens flares, digital re-lighting to change a scenes light-source behaviour, digital make-up with face tracking and face enhancements, etc etc.  Lord Of The Rings is obviously a movie with a lot of VFX but IIRC they said that every frame had some VFX on it, even if it was just localised adjustments to dodge-and-burn elements in a landscape or whatnot.

Truly skilled colourists will not only do all the above to make things like nice and give them a look, but they will emphasise and de-emphasise elements and adjust colours according to the psychological effects that these adjustments give, but all in support of the story and characters and entire world of the film.  When we watch a film we become emotionally invested in the world that the film creates, and we cannot help but let this effect the way we see the footage.  A photograph will have more meaning to us if we know the people in it, and so if a great story has characters we care about then the footage will all look better to us because of our emotional engagement.  
This cannot possibly be emulated by random test shots of strangers in parks, models posing, or travel films where the people aren't really featured and certainly don't have any real dialogue.

Have a look at this video which shows a good but still basic colour grade, and note the difference between the first step (LogC to rec709) and the final grade, even though this is a very basic adjustment.

Truly great images will be made from footage recorded with this camera, but the images themselves won't be truly great until they are made into emotionally engaging art.

Otherwise, cameras really would improve our film-making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kye thanks! I know where you are coming from now.

I guess it's the question when a picture/clip is truly finished and different reasoning can be applied for this. E.g. For an 10sec tv ad you would go do a complex grade and effects etc. while on a runngun doc with interviews it is just not sensible to do so for different reasons, and p4k is probably not the right tool anyways.

I guess it's exactly the same for photos in that sense. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hansel said:

@kye thanks! I know where you are coming from now.

I guess it's the question when a picture/clip is truly finished and different reasoning can be applied for this. E.g. For an 10sec tv ad you would go do a complex grade and effects etc. while on a runngun doc with interviews it is just not sensible to do so for different reasons, and p4k is probably not the right tool anyways.

I guess it's exactly the same for photos in that sense. 

People often say that post-production is finished when the deadline is reached or the funding runs out and you send what you have (!), but in a sense this is also not true because the goal is different :)

As you say, for a TV ad you would do more in post than a doc, but in a sense that's appropriate for the story too - an ad normally has to setup a context, a need/want, and a solution, and do so in such a way that you identify with both the problem and also the benefits of their suggested solution, quite a trick in only seconds.  This requires more manipulation and therefore much more careful construction, both in post with editing, sound design, colours, as well as in pre and prod when the right set design, camera angles, script, must be chosen and then executed.

If you're working on a doc then there's a heap more footage and therefore less money-per-second to spend in post, but this also works for the genre as the goal is probably only to create footage that matches reality enough to be believable or to nudge us subtly into how we perceive people and their motives etc.  

Of course, a long video with heaps of post-processing is called a "feature film" 😆😆😆

I would suggest that actually the P4K is probably a fine choice for any of these if you've got a small production, just like most modern cameras.  If you were shooting an ad you might shoot RAW for the flexibility in post (if you were going to heavily process it or do VFX or green screen), shooting a doc might be good because 1080 prores would be lovely to edit with and scrubbing through footage to find good bytes would be painless, and an amateur / indy might shoot a feature in RAW or prores knowing that they are going to do lots of VFX or post work, and have the time to do so because it's a passion project not paid work.
It's not the best camera in the world for everything, certainly, but it is relatively flexible and suits many circumstances, especially if you have a lower budget but still want a big image.

IIRC the P4K can record internally while sending video to an external recorder at the same time?  If so, that's the perfect way to record the master and proxy footage at the same time too, eliminating a time-hungry step from post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 8:43 AM, Inazuma said:

There seems to be a lot of speculation in here about how the original looked more cinematic than the p4k, which I believe. But has anyone shot any side by side videos to prove it? And to ascertain whether it is simply due to the higher resolution or is it something more?

I've only had the P4k for a day, but the first shots I made have a very similar feel to the original pocket. I could do a side by side comparison shooting at 1080 24fps, same lens ISO, ungraded if anybody is interested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

"Blackmagic Pocket 4K's ISO10,000 still usable? Yes, with Neat Video.

The noise level in ISO10,000 from the new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K is as noisy as ISO3200 from the Panasonic GH5. The best part about the Pocket 4K's HFR is that there are no signs of banding. Keep in mind that in ProRes, even in 120fps, it is still 10-bit."

source:

https://vimeo.com/294680968

 

Probably Resolve could do the same or better I guess. Not sure why you would bother with neatvideo as resolve already has awesome noise reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a project where I'm matching the pocket 4K to the Gemini and I created a LUT to match the look of RED's IPP2 color science. I understand that it's not for everyone (BM has more natural colors IMO) but it does have an instant cinematic quality. Download for free here if you're interested:

DOWNLOAD:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6tkqx5ultooq3r/Pocket4K_Film_to_R3D_IPP2.cube?dl=0

BM Film to Extended Video

ExtVid_1.1.2.jpg

BM Film to RED IPP2 LUT

IPP2_1.1.1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AaronChicago said:

I have a project where I'm matching the pocket 4K to the Gemini and I created a LUT to match the look of RED's IPP2 color science. I understand that it's not for everyone (BM has more natural colors IMO) but it does have an instant cinematic quality. Download for free here if you're interested:

DOWNLOAD:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6tkqx5ult...IPP2.cube?dl=0

BM Film to Extended Video

ExtVid_1.1.2.jpg

BM Film to RED IPP2 LUT

IPP2_1.1.1.jpg

Thx, but the link seems dead. 404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, matthere said:

An interesting comparison between P4K and C200

 

C200 all the way.  Much brown in the skin tones on the P4K in this footage.  Granted that's the grade most likely... but I think it's not that hard to tell them apart.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matthere said:

An interesting comparison between P4K and C200

 

That’s not a comparison really, he’s not even saying that they’re doing a comparison. It’s like taking the new Mad Max movie where they used the OG pocket and saying it’s a comparison to the Alexa. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right in that the shots don't compare like for like, as I wait for Blackmagic to provide some more cameras for those who have ordered them, it was an interesting watch. The OP of the video said he will likely post some side by side stuff at some point 👍

Share this post


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

That’s not a comparison really, he’s not even saying that they’re doing a comparison. It’s like taking the new Mad Max movie where they used the OG pocket and saying it’s a comparison to the Alexa. Lol

The Alexa is not God. It's quite an old camera now. Just because its the industry standard doesn't mean to say it has a wide performance advantage to certain other cameras.

I had an interesting bloke from the new Mad Max movie contact me during the production. He was looking for the most compact possible single focus anamorphic for a drone shot and had Google'd Iscorama :)

Small stuff is used all the time in top-flight production, and cuts just fine with an Alexa.

The way people talk about that camera, you'd think it was Alexa, BIG GAP, then everything else. It isn't. Some of the cheaper RAW stuff is right up there.

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...