Blackmagic Micro Cinema Super Guide and Why It Still Matters

[PannySVHS]

You are too cool and kind! @Emanuel Though, I must admit, a certain cheek in tongue is always within your words, my poet friend. 🙂 

I did the shots quick and with a warm heart. Nothing wrong with that.;)

A 2.5K version up to 60p, with GX85 battery life and full HDMI would be my dream cam, seriously. Would´t need anything else.

[TomTheDP]

Does anyone have any modern solutions for SD cards on the micro for RAW shooting. Was going to sell mine but might keep it if I can find some media for it.

[bjohn]

52 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

Does anyone have any modern solutions for SD cards on the micro for RAW shooting. Was going to sell mine but might keep it if I can find some media for it.

The most reliable ones I've found so far are the Angelbird cards, which they have only tested for the original Pocket but I can vouch that they work on the BMMCC although I haven't tested 60fps since I almost never use slow motion. I got two of the 128 gig cards from them a couple of years ago and they've been rock solid. If I remember correctly 60fps is not available in uncompressed raw anyway, I think you can shoot it in CDNG raw 3:1 and ProRes, but I haven't checked the manual to confirm. You may have to check with Angelbird directly to see if they still have these cards available; for a while they had removed them from their website but when I wrote to them they said they still had a good number of them and sold two to me.

As far as I know, no new cards support 60fps on the BMMCC; only the old SanDisk ones that were approved by BMD. I have a stash of those that I use along with the Angelbirds.

The cheapest cards I found that worked were the Kingston Canvas Select, but mine only lasted a year before giving up the ghost. Those were reliable for ProRes and CDNG up to 30fps but I did occasionally get frame drops in raw at 30fps and even once or twice with ProRes.

If you don't mind ProRes, the way to extend the lifetime of this camera is to get one of BMD's newer video assists or another external monitor/recorder that records ProRes; those can accept modern SD cards.

[kye]

5 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Does anyone have any modern solutions for SD cards on the micro for RAW shooting. Was going to sell mine but might keep it if I can find some media for it.

To further reinforce @bjohn s comment about Prores, my experience with it has been that it's as easy to grade as the RAW, and doesn't seem more processed, so if you haven't tried it then it's worth giving it a go and seeing what you think.

I'm happy to shoot a few test clips if you're not able to.

[TomTheDP]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

To further reinforce @bjohn s comment about Prores, my experience with it has been that it's as easy to grade as the RAW, and doesn't seem more processed, so if you haven't tried it then it's worth giving it a go and seeing what you think.

I'm happy to shoot a few test clips if you're not able to.

I could do prores, the cards I have tested won't work in any format though.

[bjohn]

I haven't shot uncompressed raw except to experiment, but I've shot a lot of 3:1 compressed raw on the BMMCC, which results in actually slightly smaller file sizes than Prores HQ. The main reason I do it is to avoid having to set white balance in camera (which is a pain on the BMMCC unless you have a remote), but I've made significant changes in white balance in Prores with no ill effects.

[bjohn]

7 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

I could do prores, the cards I have tested won't work in any format though.

There are a couple of threads on the BMD cinematography forum with details on which cards work for which formats, and I saw a link to a youtube video as well. Here is the youtube:

 

[kye]

7 minutes ago, bjohn said:

I haven't shot uncompressed raw except to experiment, but I've shot a lot of 3:1 compressed raw on the BMMCC, which results in actually slightly smaller file sizes than Prores HQ. The main reason I do it is to avoid having to set white balance in camera (which is a pain on the BMMCC unless you have a remote), but I've made significant changes in white balance in Prores with no ill effects.

I've shot projects in prores where I've changed the WB in post, often significantly, and found it to be really easy to work with.  So easy to work with that it made me quite angry with the entire rest of the camera industry for not implementing codecs and colour science that was easier to work with.  If BM can do it with a Prores file in 2013 then WTF are the manufs doing in 2023 when the WB slider is just a slider to make footage look like crap...  It's one of the things that made me realise that all the modern cameras are flawed crap and the reason we use them is that we have Stockholm'd ourselves into being ok with it.

[PannySVHS]

C300II gets it right, but then not completely so with its mush under certain lowlight conditions. @kye  Which exact conditions that would be, I´ve always been wondering about ever since though. They srcewed that one up more than called for.:) Cine 4K seems allright. Or recording externally like with the Cinealta F3 but then you could get a F3 instead, the F3 being much cheaper and providing an HD image just as beautiful without the mush. Too bad no 2K just HD. No 4K is fine with me. Like with the BMMCC, to get back on topic. That one should have had 2K I must complain!:)

[FHDcrew]

3 hours ago, kye said:

I've shot projects in prores where I've changed the WB in post, often significantly, and found it to be really easy to work with.

And in Davinci Resolve you can use the chromatic adaptation mode to get color-space-aware WB changes. 

[Emanuel]

On 6/4/2023 at 10:01 PM, PannySVHS said:

You are too cool and kind! @Emanuel Though, I must admit, a certain cheek in tongue is always within your words, my poet friend. 🙂 

I did the shots quick and with a warm heart. Nothing wrong with that.;)

A 2.5K version up to 60p, with GX85 battery life and full HDMI would be my dream cam, seriously. Would´t need anything else.

The problem on this geeky locations we all share is that we spend much time to discuss the next one to arrive... not you anyway ;- )

[kye]

Just to confirm for the eagle-eyed amongst you, yes, I have commenced shooting on a super-secret project to be shot on the P2K and M2K cameras.

These are the current rigs, but are likely to evolve over the course of production, which is scheduled to last all winter...

 

[And1]

Tested it again in Prores 422, against GH5, G9 (which I love), A7iii, Eos R, all in Log 4k, and it's night and day. I only tested it against those cameras because these are the ones I've had available.

I really wouldn't believe the difference if someone would have told me without seeing it with my own two eyes. 

Tested it against Bmpcc6k (in Braw) as well, and just loved the character it had once again and if exposed well (because I shoot in Prores), many of the times I prefer it.

Bmpcc6k is easier to use though, in Braw, with built in false colors as well, but I love the sensor on the BMMCC.

They did an excellent job on that sensor. 

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, And1 said:

Tested it again in Prores 422, against GH5, G9 (which I love), A7iii, Eos R, all in Log 4k, and it's night and day. I only tested it against those cameras because these are the ones I've had available.

I really wouldn't believe the difference if someone would have told me without seeing it with my own two eyes. 

Tested it against Bmpcc6k (in Braw) as well, and just loved the character it had once again and if exposed well (because I shoot in Prores), many of the times I prefer it.

Bmpcc6k is easier to use though, in Braw, with built in false colors as well, but I love the sensor on the BMMCC.

They did an excellent job on that sensor. 

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅

I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

[kye]

9 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅

I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

I also wish they'd continue pursuing the look.

It wouldn't be too difficult either, as you can design a camera that has both looks - modern and classic.  

It's been shown that the Alexa is simply a high-quality Linear photometry device, and that the colour science is in the processing rather than in the camera.  This leads me to think that you should be able to design a sensor to be highly-linear and then just have processing presets that let you choose a more modern image vs a more organic one.  

Depending on the sensor tech, you could even design a sensor to have a 1:1 readout for the modern look, and some kind of alternative read-out where the resolution is reduced on-sensor to match the look of film, which might even be a faster read-out mode and give the benefit of reduced RS.  Obviously I'm not a sensor designer, so this might be a technical fantasy, but it would be worth exploring.  Otherwise, cameras like the GH5 have shown that you can re-sample (either down or up) in-camera, so that sort of processing could be used to tune the image for a more organic look.

[PPNS]

13 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅

I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

In the past, if you wanted to be a good dp, you would have to know about film processing techniques, and have good relations with the people at the film lab to get the exact results you wished for. now you have the ability to capture more, and more pliable data, and you need to work with colorists to get the exact look you want. The look you’re aiming for tends to come from preproduction anyway, so I’m not actually sure how much changed.

 

the alexa also looks clean and modern imo.

[kye]

53 minutes ago, PPNS said:

In the past, if you wanted to be a good dp, you would have to know about film processing techniques, and have good relations with the people at the film lab to get the exact results you wished for. now you have the ability to capture more, and more pliable data, and you need to work with colorists to get the exact look you want. The look you’re aiming for tends to come from preproduction anyway, so I’m not actually sure how much changed.

 

the alexa also looks clean and modern imo.

I don't have any technical information or data to confirm this, but my theory is that Sony sensors are technically inferior in some regard, and this is what prevents the more organic look from the majority of modern cameras.

My understanding is that these are the only non-Sony-sensor video-capable cameras:

• ARRI (partners with ON Semiconductor to make sensors to their own demanding specifications)
• Canon
• BM OG cameras (OG BMPCC and BMMCC)
• Digital Bolex (Kodak CCD sensor)
• Nikon (a minority of models - link)
• RED (there's lots of talk about who makes their sensors, but it's hard to know what is true, so I mention them for completeness but won't discuss them further)

What is interesting about this list is that, to my understanding at least, all these cameras are borderline legendary for how organic and non-digital their images look.  Canon deserves a special mention as its earlier sensors are really only evaluated when the footage is viewed RAW, either taking RAW stills or using the Magic Lantern hack).

There are questions if it could be related to CCD vs CMOS sensor tech.  This thread about CCD sensors from Pentax contains dozens/hundreds of images that make a compelling case for that theory.

I have both the OG BMPCC and BMMCC as well as the GX85, GH5, Canon XC10, Canon 700D, and other lesser cameras and have tried on many occasions to match those to the images from the BM cameras, and although I managed to get the images to look almost indistinguishable (in specific situations) they still lacked the organic nature that seems to be shared across the range of cameras mentioned above.

I regularly see images from my own work with the Panasonic cameras and my iPhone, as well as OG BM camera images and RAW images from the 5Dmk3 and Magic Lantern (courtesy of @mercer) and once you get dialled into the look of these non-Sony sensors, it's hard not to notice that the rest all look digital in some way that isn't desirable.

[PPNS]

i dont really want to turn this into an annoying self repeating argument, and frankly i dont have a lot of experience with most of the cameras mentioned here.

bmd sensor wise, i do know that you missed the ursa mini 4.6k, the ump and ump g2, which are made by the same sensor company as the og bmpcc and bmmcc. The 12k might be canon, and a belgian company did the dogshit sensor for their global shutter cameras.

i do have some experience with both the original pocket as well as the 4k (and the 6k for that matter), and from what i can tell is that the original just has the kodak 2383 characteristics embedded in its luts/color space transfers in resolve. You can very clearly tell that, while the 4k and 6k dont, they have a way more neutral r709-ish starting point. That doesnt mean that they cant look like that, you just need to apply the cst to cineon (or gen 1) + kodak lut in resolve, and add some extra grain, to basically get the same result. You can even export that look as a lut, and embed it in the 4k and 6k to have it displayed while its shooting. The data is all there, you just have to know how to finesse it to get it to look right to your eyes.

what this means to me, is that those older cameras are just less flexible if you ever do want to get a more neutral look out of them, or go for something different. They might have some digital noise that may remind you of film grain, but it is pretty clear that they just perform worse imo. When the ursa minis were updated to gen 4, they also had a more normal r709-ish looking profile that matches the look of the 4k and 6k more closely. 

Give me a while and i’ll post something that was shot on a sony sensor, and was graded by me to look a bit more like how i wanted it to. Let me know what the concrete “sony sensor characteristics” will be please.

 

[And1]

To be honest, it's a bit naive at this point to just say I'll put a lut on it and make it look like I want it. No offence. Plus, it's a whole different story to try and match cameras and something else to speak of the quality of the image.

The same way, you can match Arri Alexa Mini and Bmpcc 6k footage, but what would you choose to shoot on if you could? (I love the Bmpcc 6k quality as well)

(by the way, the 12k sensor is made in house)

These all are different cameras, and that's the beauty of it. But as far as my previous post, as far as color science and color depth goes, I've made my tests in different circumstances, and I can honestly say there is a big difference between the HD footage from the BMMCC (in Prores no less) and the one coming from these mirrorless cameras I mentioned above. That is not to say they are not good. 

Different tools for different jobs.

 

[PPNS]

1 hour ago, PPNS said:

Give me a while and i’ll post something that was shot on a sony sensor, and was graded by me to look a bit more like how i wanted it to. Let me know what the concrete “sony sensor characteristics” will be please.

here it is, a rejected music video for a demo of my band's song: 

pw: buster
 

27 minutes ago, And1 said:

To be honest, it's a bit naive at this point to just say I'll put a lut on it and make it look like I want it. No offence. Plus, it's a whole different story to try and match cameras and something else to speak of the quality of the image.

 

luckily that's not what i said. i said that it's not that much work to match two cameras shooting at least 10 bit log 422 files in a rec709 color space if you know the right technical transforms and have some grading proficiency, in case you're shooting the same scene. i said that it's also not hard to make a display lut for a monitor to give you an image that is more similar to the og bmpcc on the 4k and 6k if you figured that previous step out.

32 minutes ago, And1 said:

The same way, you can match Arri Alexa Mini and Bmpcc 6k footage, but what would you choose to shoot on if you could? (I love the Bmpcc 6k quality as well)

 

depends on the production. of course an arri would be nice, but i'm not going to turn down a shoot if that's the last minute change in a camera package. 

35 minutes ago, And1 said:

(by the way, the 12k sensor is made in house)

 

they say that, and i'm sure they've had a huge hand in designing it, but i find it hard to believe, especially since the sensor dimensions match the komodo's exactly, and it's not exactly easy to become a sensor manufacturer.

38 minutes ago, And1 said:

Different tools for different jobs.

exactly. the bmmcc was made as a crash, drone, or awkward angle cam, with an ok sensor, and 2 good for the time codecs that made it possible to get a close match to better cameras of the time. 

but if you really think the image you get out of that is per definition better than any of the newer bmd cams combined with a good colorist? that I think, is a bit naive too.