PDA

View Full Version : The Dark Side of the BMC



Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 09:41 AM
Prepping for a lowlight (candles, oil lamps and skintone) shootout between BMC and FS100.

And yeah, I know this is cruel, but I guess a lot of you guys want to know how the BMC holds up against the official "Queen of the Night"

755

--((Admin edit to add direct links))--


https://vimeo.com/48407841

https://vimeo.com/48407841

Jorge De Silva
08-28-2012, 09:49 AM
Niceee.... I want to see what happens here. Low noise on sony... but way more digital that the more noise but organic feel in BMC... :)

Felix
08-28-2012, 09:53 AM
Bring it on!^^

Brian@202020
08-28-2012, 09:59 AM
My guess it the FS100 will do a little better in low light, but the BMCC footage will be able to be fixed in post more than the FS100's footage, so the BMCC will likely get a better finished result.

Trevor Roach
08-28-2012, 10:05 AM
My guess it the FS100 will do a little better in low light, but the BMCC footage will be able to be fixed in post more than the FS100's footage, so the BMCC will likely get a better finished result.

After all these test and playing around with the footage, I'll have to agree. Hopefully we're right!

Appreciate the test! A short film I'm writing right now (shoot hopefully in March) calls for many 'campfire' scenes. Curious how much artificial light I'm going to need to bring in.

Gwangjuboy
08-28-2012, 10:08 AM
Excellent then I can get on with filming my vampire movie with a zippo lighter.

Jason M.
08-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Excellent then I can get on with filming my vampire movie with a zippo lighter.

Awesome. Don't forget to use the occasional smartphone screen as a fill, too.

Felix
08-28-2012, 10:28 AM
Excellent then I can get on with filming my vampire movie with a zippo lighter.

You can even use a match...with some "amplification" ^^

757

Yuns
08-28-2012, 10:38 AM
I am definitely looking forward to seeing the results of this test but I am fully expecting the FS100 to crush the BMCC in lowlight performance.

Felix
08-28-2012, 12:17 PM
I am definitely looking forward to seeing the results of this test but I am fully expecting the FS100 to crush the BMCC in lowlight performance.

When you compare the .MTS and the .DNG files, of course there will be a lot of noise in the RAW files from the BMCC. But (!) denoising the RAW files works so much better than H264 that it could be the same outcome at ISO 800. Above, the FS100 is a killer. It gave me noisefree images at ISO 2000...

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 01:22 PM
Getting dark now - start shooting in a few minutes.

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 01:57 PM
Damed! Just started raining as hell in the middle of the shot.
Had to rush the ProRes takes a bit, the wive started complaining, that I ruin her hair-do with this camera sh..t.

But we got the important parts covered.
Dumping files to the workstation as we speak.

Stay tuned.

randyman
08-28-2012, 02:09 PM
Thank you, Frank, for your selfless sacrifice.

And please thank your wife, too... from all of us. :)

cgurtlinger
08-28-2012, 02:17 PM
Thank you, Frank, for your selfless sacrifice.

And please thank your wife, too... from all of us. :)

+1 many thanks from us all, can't wait to see the footage!

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 04:13 PM
Edit done - looking cool - uploading as we speak.

Chateau
08-28-2012, 04:14 PM
You're the best.

dustylense
08-28-2012, 04:41 PM
Edit done - looking cool - uploading as we speak.
Awesome! Thanks a billion!

FrissionMedia
08-28-2012, 05:12 PM
It's up on his YouTube now btw - think I was the first to view it :D

FrissionMedia
08-28-2012, 05:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9IZePjFRsw&feature=plcp

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 05:14 PM
Sorry for the shaky footage at the FS100 part, but it started raining and I just grabbed the Fs100 and shot the rest hand held in a rush.
I used a Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f2.8 and a Heliopan IR/UV filter.

Lighting was the oil lamp on the table, a oil lamp about 8 ft away on the wall and a garden torch in the background.

Changing the ISO on raw, doesn't make any difference, it`s just metadata (that`s the reason I just used 800 ISO), but makes a difference while ProRes recording.

Of course I could have gone way higher with the ISO on the FS100, but why compare ISO 16000 to ISO 800?
Regarding the speed of the camera, the FS100 wins hands down because of way higher usable ISO. It's the queen of the night, period.
But the BMC gets a way nicer image out of 800 ISO, than the FS100.

The grading was done pretty rudimentary. If I had used masks and secondary grading, I could have get even more out of it.
But this is just to give you guys an idea, what to expect.


Here we go:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9IZePjFRsw&feature=youtu.be

Edit: just saw it looks awful on Youtube. I make the file downloadable and also try Vimeo.

Trevor Roach
08-28-2012, 05:31 PM
Wow, thanks Frank! Appreciate you relaying the info to us!

I'd have to say, The BMC does pretty damn good with the skin tones. It definitely has more latitude with the highlights judging from that lamp, but I really like how it isn't blown out like on the FS100.

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 05:37 PM
I have to say, that because I was running out of time, I forgot to check my menu and used a sub-optimal picture profile for such a scenario - my G-Log Ultimate would have bin a bit better.
But yeah, besides the blowing out lights, skintone lit by flames was my main focus here and the BMC looks pretty pleasing IMHO.

tommygdawg
08-28-2012, 05:37 PM
First post here but avid DVX user. I felt like the highlights in the lamp looked oddly clipped in both the prores and the the FS100...they turned to almost a dark gray (or yellow when graded) rather than a bright white, was this a post-limit on the brightness or did it come out of the camera like this?

Chateau
08-28-2012, 05:40 PM
Frank, is it fair to say that unless you are under an extreme lack of light scenario (moonlight only?), you're better off using the BMC and its post-latitude than the FS100 or other low-light camera?

dustylense
08-28-2012, 05:51 PM
Well, thanks for the test. A LOT! Kinda hard to tell with the compression of Youtube. Now, only having watched it once, I say BMDC won (at the 800ISO you used anyway). Why? 2 reasons. (going off 1 viewing now). Dynamic range and grade ability. 2, that darn sensor flare in the FS100. Just ruined the shot! It seemed that the compression held up better on the BMDC too. I'll go watch it again... Thanks for the test though. How about your thoughts on the handling in your NLE and workflow?

Frank, is there anyway you could load this to Vimeo with a higher bit rate?

EDIT** darn sensor flare in the BMDC to! Oh well, thats why we use lights...

walloux
08-28-2012, 05:55 PM
Thanks for the footage!
The bmcc raw footage is awesome!
But it s an unfair fight achd vs raw

Anyways, that bmcc is the big one! We waited for it for so many years ... it's like christmas !! : )))))

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 05:56 PM
Does anyone know a decent free file hoster, so I can upload the original mp4 file, cause Youtube does some strange things to it.

Frank

Hybaj
08-28-2012, 05:59 PM
What a fun and enjoyable test, Frank!! Hmm sooo I Actually see two very good cameras in that video (without a doubt your g-log ultimate would have been better). Anyway everything shown was much better than the current DSLR plague. But the BMC wins my heart and the FS100 does not leave a bad taste either. A menage a trois would be really fun with these cams.

But there's something on my mind every time I see graded RAW from BMC. Wouldn't it be cool if you had the option to set the recording metadata to a starting LOG look (Like RED does)? So when you open Resolve it starts with a LOG look from which you start grading. I've got this feeling that there's something going on with most people because they tend to over-contrast, over-saturate the RAW BMC footage that's out there - only really few folks did not felt the need to just horribly cripple the image (ok that's subjective.. but the problem is I too have problems grading it from the current starting point).

Same thing with this test video I guess. I like the graded prores footage much more than the graded RAW.

Is it something psychological? I can't really put my finger on it...

dustylense
08-28-2012, 05:59 PM
Does anyone know a decent free file hoster, so I can upload the original mp4 file, cause Youtube does some strange things to it.

Frank
Dropbox and use the public folder. Upload your Master file and then share link.

I'll put this link of a silly BTS were I tested the RX100 while on a shoot. (this was shot for PETA of all clients)...AND YES, that is a man as the model! Just a weird day...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/by96ahlfdw8o9yk/Drag%20rx100%20720%20-%20iPad.m4v

WIth dropbox you could export your master file, but people might have to join to download. It's free to join and I LOVE DROPBOX and so do my clients!

mbeck
08-28-2012, 06:05 PM
If you upload to Vimeo, you can allow people to download the mp4

Ryan P. Kelly
08-28-2012, 06:09 PM
Does anyone know a decent free file hoster, so I can upload the original mp4 file, cause Youtube does some strange things to it.

Frank

www.sugarsync.com

been my favorite out of all of them so far

rheex
08-28-2012, 06:14 PM
Damed! Just started raining as hell in the middle of the shot.
Had to rush the ProRes takes a bit, the wive started complaining, that I ruin her hair-do with this camera sh..t.

But we got the important parts covered.
Dumping files to the workstation as we speak.

Stay tuned.
Hahaha, this is better than Big Brother!

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 06:16 PM
If you upload to Vimeo, you can allow people to download the mp4

Right I totally forgot that.

John Brawley
08-28-2012, 06:17 PM
Dropbox and use the public folder. Upload your Master file and then share link.

I'll put this link of a silly BTS were I tested the RX100 while on a shoot. (this was shot for PETA of all clients)...AND YES, that is a man as the model! Just a weird day...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/by96ahlfdw8o9yk/Drag%20rx100%20720%20-%20iPad.m4v

WIth dropbox you could export your master file, but people might have to join to download. It's free to join and I LOVE DROPBOX and so do my clients!

The problem with dropbox is there is a monthly cap on the bandwidth. I think 10Gb. You'd hit this pretty fast even with ProRes.

I'm afraid, google drive is the best thing Ive found for these kinds of large files. They have no bandwidth cap. They are also fast to download compared to the others I've tried.

Vimeo is FAR FAR better in terms of compression than youtube, and giving you the options for making the original file available to download as well, and is also pretty fast.

jb

dustylense
08-28-2012, 06:18 PM
Right I totally forgot that.
If you upload to Dropbox, people could download the master file, even if you have to shorten it a touch so we don't have to wait as long....:)

pcenginefx
08-28-2012, 06:44 PM
Frank, so are we to assume that your NDA has been lifted since you are allowed to show ProRes footage?

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 06:45 PM
Yes, ProRes was lifted today from the NDA.

Kholi
08-28-2012, 07:09 PM
Vimeo? That'll let people download the Mp4 as well.

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 07:10 PM
Processing. Vimeo version should be up any minute


https://vimeo.com/48407841

Kholi
08-28-2012, 07:21 PM
Dont' forget to leave a vimeo link for those that are on iDevices. xD

Frank Glencairn
08-28-2012, 07:23 PM
Here you go: http://vimeo.com/48407841

mbeck
08-28-2012, 07:27 PM
Here you go: http://vimeo.com/48407841
page not found :(

ubuntujackie
08-28-2012, 07:27 PM
page not found :(

Getting that too.

dustylense
08-28-2012, 07:28 PM
The problem with dropbox is there is a monthly cap on the bandwidth. I think 10Gb. You'd hit this pretty fast even with ProRes.

I'm afraid, google drive is the best thing Ive found for these kinds of large files. They have no bandwidth cap. They are also fast to download compared to the others I've tried.

Vimeo is FAR FAR better in terms of compression than youtube, and giving you the options for making the original file available to download as well, and is also pretty fast.

jb

Only if you are using the PUBLIC FOLDER does bandwidth limit. If you use a non public folder, and share the LINK (important if you fear people snooping around) you can share ALL DAY AND MONTH LONG. Don't use the public folder.

Mark Tierney
08-28-2012, 08:10 PM
Saw it. I'd prefer that was up against an F3, but you just sold me a camera.

Kholi
08-28-2012, 08:19 PM
Okay, so they made a pretty good move sending it to the FS100 king.

I would like to see that 800 and 1600 ProRes Clip without compression, wish there was a place to upload, but the RAW was CLEARLY more detailed/sharp, and really looked awesome.

Thanks for doing that, Frank.

I'm also VERY... VERY surprised to see how it's stacking up against the insane lowlight beast that is the FS100... I wonder if this is an undersell and over-deliver tactic? (I meant the undersell and over-deliver tactic jokingly... no conspiracy theories.)

Mark Tierney
08-28-2012, 08:22 PM
They did it for price reasons. The FS100 is the nearest camera from a major in this price area. And it crushed it, day one, in the FS100's wheelhouse. Again, I'd have preferred to see it against an F3 or C300, but if that's what you're getting out of it from scratch in 24 hours with a $600 lens.....whooboy.

mbeck
08-28-2012, 08:26 PM
page not found :(
working now :)

awbacon
08-28-2012, 08:36 PM
Very close, but to me the FS100 is still a bit better in the low light (and I honestly have not liked the FS100 when I have shot with it) but the BMC is an extremely close second. I am still not sure if it's the performance of the sensor, or the colors that make me feel the FS100 came out a bit on top RAW certainly does kill it against ProRes in this situation with the BMC though. The colors and detail on her dress pop way more (obviously the details will @ RAW)

Side note : Way to really sell a fun test...it had a great vibe to it

dustylense
08-28-2012, 08:37 PM
Frank, would you mind upload a folder of the DNG's of one of the shots?

Kholi
08-28-2012, 08:42 PM
Very close, but to me the FS100 is still a bit better in the low light (and I honestly have not liked the FS100 when I have shot with it) but the BMC is an extremely close second. I am still not sure if it's the performance of the sensor, or the colors that make me feel the FS100 came out a bit on top RAW certainly does kill it against ProRes in this situation with the BMC though. The colors and detail on her dress pop way more (obviously the details will @ RAW)

Side note : Way to really sell a fun test...it had a great vibe to it

The first time I watched it something was off... the second time I realized what it was: The FS100's presets are still baked into the look, the colors are a lot more dynamic lookin' in that footage than the ProRes and RAW stuff, because it needs to be matched to the FS100s warm/cool look versus being entirely warm.

I responded the same way, until I rewatched a few times with that in mind...

Also, repeatedly, my eye always snapped to the lantern in the FS100 footage. Because it's SUPER ugly, and there's NOTHING you can do about that short of a vignette or something. The ProRes/RAW... completely different tale.

Edit:

Frank, I know you've done a lot, if you could swing us a ProRes clip and some DNG frames to let someone like Andrew get ahold of them, that would be sick.

StarCoreFilms
08-28-2012, 08:43 PM
Can we get some DNGs to play around with? lol. :cool: Darn, someone beat me to it. Oh well.

mbeck
08-28-2012, 08:45 PM
Can you upload some Raw Stills and some un-compressed frames from the FS100?

Thanks for all this by the way!

Tim Joy
08-28-2012, 09:44 PM
Wow. Cool. Thanks, Frank!
The thing that struck me right away is that the woman just looked more attractive with the bmc. Perhaps it's just flatness and softness thing. I'm surprised to see such a difference between the prores and Raw. I thought it would be less-so, but maybe has to do with the test and grading.

pcenginefx
08-28-2012, 10:08 PM
Just watched the downloaded 1080p clip from Vimeo on my 60" plasma HDTV. Few questions for Frank when you get the chance:

- So all of the ProRes graded footage didn't look right (too orange/red). Was this done on purpose or a problem with the grading the ProRes clips?
- All of the RAW graded shots from the BMCC looked great, but had way more noticeable noise than the ProRes graded clips. Was this due to underexposure and how much you had to push it in the grade? Or did you add sharpening causing the extra noise? Or was this due to the compression into MP4?

Dan Pears
08-28-2012, 10:32 PM
Just watched the downloaded 1080p MP4 and the raw was looking rad. A bit of noise, but as has been said, more filmic/grainish... Very cool.

yoclay
08-29-2012, 01:05 AM
Well that test certainly fails to impress. Much greater color seperation in the FS100. Perhaps it's just poor grading, but the BMC looked virtually monochromatic in both original and graded files.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 01:20 AM
Well that test certainly fails to impress. Much greater color seperation in the FS100. Perhaps it's just poor grading, but the BMC looked virtually monochromatic in both original and graded files.

Of course it's just that... you don't have to do anything to images derived from cameras that do everything for you.

yoclay
08-29-2012, 01:34 AM
Of course it's just that... you don't have to do anything to images derived from cameras that do everything for you.

Maybe, but I have graded footage from many sources over the years and right now I see a lack of color information to work with in low light on the BMC. It may just be the test, but the FS100 appears to give me more directions to go in with it's footage here and at the end of the day I want choice. So for the moment I am not impressed by the lowlight results of the BMC. I would like to see someone balance out that chart in the grades for both sets of footage using only primaries. I am away from my studio this week or I would do it myself.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 01:41 AM
Maybe, but I have graded footage from many sources over the years and right now I see a lack of color information to work with in low light. It may just be the test, but the FS100 appears to give me more directions to go in with it's footage here and at the end of the day I want choice. So for the moment I am not impressed by the lowlight results of the BMC. I would like to see someone balance out that chart in the grades for both sets of footage using only primaries. I am away from my studio this week or I would do it myself.

You used the term "separation"... if you've handled footage of various types, just looking at the compressed version should tell you that there's ample separation in the raw versions of both ProRes and, well, RAW...

I don't even need a DNG to see that.

dns
08-29-2012, 01:43 AM
Thank you, Frank. Very cool.

Frank Glencairn
08-29-2012, 02:03 AM
- So all of the ProRes graded footage didn't look right (too orange/red). Was this done on purpose or a problem with the grading the ProRes clips?
- All of the RAW graded shots from the BMCC looked great, but had way more noticeable noise than the ProRes graded clips. Was this due to underexposure and how much you had to push it in the grade? Or did you add sharpening causing the extra noise? Or was this due to the compression into MP4?

1. All 3 kinds of footy feel and react pretty different in grading - I tried to do my best to get them as close as I could, to what I saw with my naked eyes.
What you see on Youtube ore Vomeo, is not even close to what I see here on a calibrated production monitor. Even the H264 file is quite a disservice to the material.

As I said, the FS100 could have looked better - especially that blowout problem - when I would have used a better PP.
Also AVCHD doesn't really like the combination of subtle skin tones and low tungsten (or flames). Having it recorded with my Samurai would also lead to a better image (and ability to grade it).

2. The FS100 has a pretty good dynamic noise reduction in camera. So the FS100 image - right out of the box - is the cleanest of them, hands down.
I don't think Prores gets much (if any)noise reduction in camera. Raw has no noise reduction at all, so it depends much on the debaiering algorithm. I used "CF Advanced Detail 3" in FirstLight. Makes things really pop (but also the noise).
I post some DNG frames and Prores and AVCHD frames later, so you can see what mileage you can get out of them.

Frank

yoclay
08-29-2012, 02:07 AM
You used the term "separation"... if you've handled footage of various types, just looking at the compressed version should tell you that there's ample separation in the raw versions of both ProRes and, well, RAW...

I don't even need a DNG to see that.


Great, then I am looking forward to someone balancing out those charts. Until then, the test does not impress. It would be far more useful to see the available gamut with both sets graded to the same reference points using only primaries. This way we can see the transitions and how wide the gamut is under those conditions. I would be glad to do it myself, but away for this week.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 02:39 AM
It would be far more useful to see the available gamut with both sets graded to the same reference points using only primaries. This way we can see the transitions and how wide the gamut is under those conditions. I would be glad to do it myself, but away for this week.

This I can agree on. Along with the same frame/composition (I know Frank was just trying to shoot, not getting on his case.)

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 02:41 AM
oh the joys of publishing one's camera tests.......

jb

Frank Glencairn
08-29-2012, 03:03 AM
Here is some of the material: http://www.filedropper.com/voodoo

Frank Glencairn
08-29-2012, 03:06 AM
oh the joys of publishing one's camera tests.......

jb

LOL, yeah.

Tom
08-29-2012, 04:54 AM
Thank you for taking the time to do these tests Frank.

My thoughts:
In terms of noise, what I could see through the compression on all the shots seemed fine with me. I don't mind a bit of noise in low light, in some circumstances I think its part of the whole aesthetic of darker shots. What stuck out the most for me what the skin tones on the Raw 800 graded shots. I didn't realise what I was missing until I saw those shots.

As a side note, loved the music, presentation and the pretty woman.

Frank Glencairn
08-29-2012, 05:06 AM
Have you looked at the DNG?

Tom
08-29-2012, 05:22 AM
Have you looked at the DNG?


Yea just looked now, was downloading it while commenting.

Simply wonderful. Like I say, I can live with a bit of noise, its the colour rendition in the low light that has really impressed me.

J65Productions
08-29-2012, 06:35 AM
I am at work all day and cannot view videos on a work computer. Can someone please post some .jpg stills from the footage?

Frank Glencairn
08-29-2012, 07:29 AM
Here is a split window comparison - FS100 vs BMC

764

StarCoreFilms
08-29-2012, 07:44 AM
Here's my go at the DNG. 765
766

FloridaDP
08-29-2012, 09:04 AM
You're simply missing the point about the test. If you look at the lantern in the FS100 footage it is blooming/blowout because the sensor simply can't handle those highlights and expose her face. Yes or course the lantern is the source and you would expect it to bloom or blowout. However with the BMC the camera actual holds the detail in the fire light and the lantern housing- all while having her face exposed properly.
This is simply amazing for $3,000 camera.

ianim8
08-29-2012, 09:09 AM
oh the joys of publishing one's camera tests.......

jb

You guys were hand picked by BMD :)
Just like written music or any art form, you have to have thick skin ;)

ubuntujackie
08-29-2012, 09:11 AM
Wow, RAW looks absolutely outstanding. Much sharper even at 720p. Better colors too.
Also, I wouldn't suggest attaching images onto this forum. They seem to be extremely compressed.

pcenginefx
08-29-2012, 11:31 AM
1. All 3 kinds of footy feel and react pretty different in grading - I tried to do my best to get them as close as I could, to what I saw with my naked eyes.
What you see on Youtube ore Vomeo, is not even close to what I see here on a calibrated production monitor. Even the H264 file is quite a disservice to the material.

As I said, the FS100 could have looked better - especially that blowout problem - when I would have used a better PP.
Also AVCHD doesn't really like the combination of subtle skin tones and low tungsten (or flames). Having it recorded with my Samurai would also lead to a better image (and ability to grade it).

2. The FS100 has a pretty good dynamic noise reduction in camera. So the FS100 image - right out of the box - is the cleanest of them, hands down.
I don't think Prores gets much (if any)noise reduction in camera. Raw has no noise reduction at all, so it depends much on the debaiering algorithm. I used "CF Advanced Detail 3" in FirstLight. Makes things really pop (but also the noise).
I post some DNG frames and Prores and AVCHD frames later, so you can see what mileage you can get out of them.

Frank

Thanks for answering my questions Frank. I've been shooting with the FS100 for a while now and watching this direct comparison was extremely helpful (the music was quite enjoyable as well!)

dustylense
08-29-2012, 12:28 PM
Wow, RAW looks absolutely outstanding. Much sharper even at 720p. Better colors too.
Also, I wouldn't suggest attaching images onto this forum. They seem to be extremely compressed.

Well thats the thing. Here we are making critical judgments on both cameras based on super compressed images. What I've seen on my monitor and TV's from the original files of the BMDC seem outstanding. ALexa outstanding? Maybe not. But $3000 camera outstanding? OH YEAH!

Brian@202020
08-29-2012, 05:43 PM
Frank I have a question more about your rig than the footage, the footage looks great by the way. I have the same Tilta rig, I have the baseplate, arms, and top handle. I was wondering about any issues so far with the Tilta set up and the BMCC? I see removing an SSD means taking the BMCC off the baseplate. Anything else I should know? Can you post a few pictures of problem areas and or work arounds if needed? I'm going into the machine shop tomorrow to customize a couple things, and I was wondering what else I might need to customize?

Steve Madsen
08-29-2012, 10:09 PM
Thanks for the test Frank. Is it your opinion that RAW is resolving a good deal more than ProRes? I can't my eyes off your lady's eyes in the graded RAW 800 iso test.

Peter Culley
08-30-2012, 06:51 AM
Frank, just want to thankyou for taking the time to put this up for some subjective poking and preening,
I really liked the tiki theme and styling as well! Very period and very cool and of course the tunes! Can see your eye for the rod culture here loud n clear!

Frank Glencairn
08-30-2012, 09:07 AM
Thanks for your warm words Peter.

Note to myself: Damed you are to cliché and not mysterious enough - work on it.

:cool:

Just kidding, yeah, I'm kind a steeped into 30 to 50 style and culture.
No mater what I do, it always shines trough somehow.

Frank

Frank Glencairn
08-30-2012, 09:16 AM
Frank I have a question more about your rig than the footage, the footage looks great by the way. I have the same Tilta rig, I have the baseplate, arms, and top handle. I was wondering about any issues so far with the Tilta set up and the BMCC? I see removing an SSD means taking the BMCC off the baseplate. Anything else I should know? Can you post a few pictures of problem areas and or work arounds if needed? I'm going into the machine shop tomorrow to customize a couple things, and I was wondering what else I might need to customize?

The rod hight doesn't work. But I think if you turn the rod holder upside down, it could work. Haven't tried it yet, but I pot on the matebox tomorrow, so I will see.
And yeah, I really wish the door for the SSD and the plugs would be vice versa - that would make things way easier.

In the moment, it's quite awkward if you want to use the Tilta rig on the shoulder.

You have the camera way in front (like in super front heavy), so ether your arms fall off after a while, or you need some crazy counterweight scaffolding.
Or you put the camera way back and.... nah that doesn't work at all.
Or you have the camera balanced and need to get 90 deg angled plugs and some solid cable management.

Tilta made a rig for the BMC and so does Bebob.
They work better, but the cable-on-the-worn-side problem is still there.

Wasn't there a do-dad somewhere around here, that routs all the cables over to the other side?

Frank

jaybirch
08-30-2012, 10:26 AM
Thanks Frank... Forgot to look for noise though! To busy being blown away by the skin tones on the BMCC.

nyvz
08-30-2012, 10:38 AM
Interesting test, but the Prores BMCC footage is certainly concerning. As others mentioned, it looks practically monochromatic with quite a bad color cast. Reminds me of footage with heavy infrared contamintion.

The corrected DNGs certainly look a lot better and clearly the BMC handles those highlights better than whatever picture profile the FS100 was set up with. Knowing the FS100 pretty well, that hardly looked like a favorable picture profile compared to what the camera is capable of, though some of the highlight issues that were extreme in that video would still be somewhat present in a tweaked PP but far less so.

Hard to say what went wrong with the prores stuff, but it looks practically unusable and it looks like attempts to correct it were not very successful. If certain shooting environments like this necessitate RAW shooting to get useable footage for some reason, that is certainly worth knowing since BMCC RAW DNG uses 40x as much storage as the FS100's AVCHD, 6x as much as prores, and even 4x as much as the average RED 4k RAW, which could become quite problematic and impractical for some who do not have huge SSDs and really serious professional DIT setups on set and post workflows.

Also worth noting that vimeo/youtube are nearly useless for judging noise since the strong web compression heavily smooths out all noise detail.

gsbe
08-30-2012, 11:57 AM
Also worth noting that vimeo/youtube are nearly useless for judging noise since the strong web compression heavily smooths out all noise detail.I agree with all your concerns save this one. Whether you like the compression/NR they add or not, today Vimeo and Youtube represent a very important delivery format for video. I understand why you would say that but at the end of the day I'm expecting the majority of my work with the BMCC to end up on one of these websites...so it is very useful to see what these images look like there.

For example: most of the university students I work with don't own an HDTV and end up watching the majority of their media from sites like these. Same thing with audio - they don't own a CD player and listen/watch the majority of their audio from YouTube. They rarely complain or even notice the drop in quality. As a result of these changing times, we need to take these delivery formats very seriously as a judge of what the end user will see.

Frank Glencairn
08-30-2012, 12:30 PM
I shot the ProRes part in "film" mode, which is kind of a wannabee C-Log.
If you shoot in "video" it's usable out of the box - no post needed.

Regaring storage space: you guys are spoiled by super compressed codecs..
Look at the price of HDCAM SR tape - 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 at 440 Mbps or 880 Mbps Mpeg4 - that holds half of an hour of material in that whooping quality. That's $106 per hour. Now look at a HDD - 2TB for about the same price, but it holds about 4 hours of uncompressed raw.
Storage space is cheaper than tape.

nyvz
08-30-2012, 01:19 PM
I shot the ProRes part in "film" mode, which is kind of a wannabee C-Log.
If you shoot in "video" it's usable out of the box - no post needed.

Regaring storage space: you guys are spoiled by super compressed codecs..
Look at the price of HDCAM SR tape - 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 at 440 Mbps or 880 Mbps Mpeg4 - that holds half of an hour of material in that whooping quality. That's $106 per hour. Now look at a HDD - 2TB for about the same price, but it holds about 4 hours of uncompressed raw.
Storage space is cheaper than tape.

I understand what you are getting at about tape, but I think the comparison with tape is misguided. Yes file based HDD or SSD storage is less expensive per megabyte than tape and tape is less expensive than film, but each does not necessarily have a bearing on the other. I could say you are spoiled with your HDCAM SR since 60min of S35 Kodak 5219 negative is $4000. The comparison between these costs is far more complicated than the cost per hour of media, and very few productions are choosing tape these days so why compare it. And everyone is spoiled by everything since there is always something more difficult and more expensive, and so it is often not a very productive way of speaking nor a good way of making a point unless you are quite sure it is very practical comparison to your audience.

Also keep in mind that since at current SSD prices, 60min of BMCC RAW DNG is ~$400, 4x as much as the HDCAM SR tape. Of course this is obviously offset by the extremely low cost of duplicating camera original SSDs to low cost HDDs, but that just further illustrates how silly it is to compare formats based entirely on the cost of media. The cost of HDDs pretty much extends to any format since any format can be captured to hard drives and eventually live on hard drives. HDCAM SR camera originals can also be captured to inexpensive hard drives, but neither an HDCAMSR camera nor a BMCC can take advantage of the low cost of 2TB HDDs in-camera. By your numbers, HDCAMSR is actually cheaper than BMCC RAW if, as you have, you do not mention the cost of the equipment, time, and work required to actually get that original footage onto those inexpensive hard drives that we are so spoiled by :)

As for the "film" mode, I was under the impression "film" mode WAS like C-log in that it is not ugly and washed out like real LOG (I've done projects in C-log with little correction and it looks fine, nicely low contrast but still natural looking and relatively saturated), but the prores shots in that video look in dire need of correction. And that doesn't explain why the corrected Prores footage seems to indicate that it *cant* be corrected to a useable image. Is it just that the whitebalance is way off and it wasnt corrected in post either? Why is it so red? Even the highlights are oddly red in the corrected version...

Jahful
08-30-2012, 01:44 PM
Thanks Frank! I wasn't expecting much from the BMCC on the low-light front, but I think those results would totally work for me, so it's just a bonus. Love your model's hair-do, suits the theme.

dustylense
08-30-2012, 01:44 PM
While looking at the very limited prores examples available, I would say that if you are going to shoot anything that is not lit with daylight conditions or balance, it would be very advantageous to shoot any mixed lighting, tungsten lighting or difficult lighting using RAW capture for having confidence and correction once you get into production. but again this is off the very limited prores examples available. J. Brawely's Prores examples look delicious for the pool room scene (I'm actually kinda partial to the prores) because it's shot daylight balance. That is kinda the beauty of this camera. One scene might be captured prores and another scene with difficult situations can jump to RAW.

Brian@202020
08-30-2012, 02:15 PM
The rod hight doesn't work. But I think if you turn the rod holder upside down, it could work. Haven't tried it yet, but I pot on the matebox tomorrow, so I will see.
And yeah, I really wish the door for the SSD and the plugs would be vice versa - that would make things way easier.

In the moment, it's quite awkward if you want to use the Tilta rig on the shoulder.

You have the camera way in front (like in super front heavy), so ether your arms fall off after a while, or you need some crazy counterweight scaffolding.
Or you put the camera way back and.... nah that doesn't work at all.
Or you have the camera balanced and need to get 90 deg angled plugs and some solid cable management.

Tilta made a rig for the BMC and so does Bebob.
They work better, but the cable-on-the-worn-side problem is still there.

Wasn't there a do-dad somewhere around here, that routs all the cables over to the other side?

Frank

Thanks Frank. Is it just the bottom rod that Is in the way, just the top, or both? Could someone make it work better with only one rod?

Frank Glencairn
08-30-2012, 04:17 PM
To give you guys an idea, here is a quick screenshot. Both ProRes - in daylight with the proper WB.
One is recorded with "film" and one is "video"

There is no way to get any texture back in the highlights of the left (video) one.
It`'s all baked in. The right one looks a bit milky, but with some curve tweaking it's quite nice.


799

dustylense
08-30-2012, 04:42 PM
To give you guys an idea, here is a quick screenshot. Both ProRes - in daylight with the proper WB.
One is recorded with "film" and one is "video"

There is no way to get any texture back in the highlights of the left (video) one.
It`'s all baked in. The right one looks a bit milky, but with some curve tweaking it's quite nice.


799
Cool... Thats great to know. How about posting a few seconds of each? That would be lovely. I'm liking the prores function thus far. Just not enough material to judge from in our systems. That video function does in fact look to baked, at least for that scene. Got any color charts you you could shoot in direct sun and open shade, with a model to boot?
Thanks Frank for all the info you're providing.

Dan Pears
08-31-2012, 01:30 AM
To give you guys an idea, here is a quick screenshot. Both ProRes - in daylight with the proper WB.
One is recorded with "film" and one is "video"

There is no way to get any texture back in the highlights of the left (video) one.
It`'s all baked in. The right one looks a bit milky, but with some curve tweaking it's quite nice.


799

Thanks Frank, interesting seeing Video and Film modes side by side.

nyvz
08-31-2012, 11:47 AM
So the real question now is, if the only options are Prores FILM, Prores VIDEO, and RAW DNG, and RAW DNG is unmanageable for many people and VIDEO gamma throws away detail, that means the vast majority will be shooting Prores FILM: If Prores FILM is a Log-style curve that is way washed out and desaturated, how are people expected to expose and monitor properly? You don't want to see a FILM/LOG curve on set since it will result in exposure errors and misjudgements on color and levels. Is there a way to shoot Prores FILM and monitor with a LUT or corrected image?

What about the many people who may want to shoot good looking Prores footage in camera for fast turn-around projects going straight to air/web without correction? Are they doomed to use the VIDEO curve with inferior dynamic range?

Jeff Wood
08-31-2012, 11:54 AM
So the real question now is, if the only options are Prores FILM, Prores VIDEO, and RAW DNG, and RAW DNG is unmanageable for many people and VIDEO gamma throws away detail, that means the vast majority will be shooting Prores FILM: If Prores FILM is a Log-style curve that is way washed out and desaturated, how are people expected to expose and monitor properly? You don't want to see a FILM/LOG curve on set since it will result in exposure errors and misjudgements on color and levels. Is there a way to shoot Prores FILM and monitor with a LUT or corrected image?

What about the many people who may want to shoot good looking Prores footage in camera for fast turn-around projects going straight to air/web without correction? Are they doomed to use the VIDEO curve with inferior dynamic range?

I believe you can set the codec to film and the LCD to video...

Frank Glencairn
08-31-2012, 12:02 PM
Right, you can set the display to video.
But actually you get used to interpret the LOGish image pretty fast.
The human brain is very good in such things.

Abobakr
09-11-2012, 08:46 AM
It's bee a hell of a busy four weeks for me.. and I could barely catch with what's happening with the BMCC.. Finally I had sometime these couples of days to sit and go through the incredible. Of all the tests I have seen, This truly caught me so deep. I have been really looking for this kind of tests under extreme low light conditions and you nailed it. Thank you. I'm so amazed of how the RAW file is a life saver in low light conditions "at least to me"..

I was just pushing raw file to see how far it goes and it impressed me.. really thanks for the test!

968

Jesus
09-14-2012, 12:03 AM
How would this compare to a t2i?

PaPa
09-14-2012, 08:46 AM
How would this compare to a t2i?

You trolling? Lol

Jesus
09-14-2012, 10:31 AM
You trolling? Lol



In low light.

mckajvah
09-14-2012, 11:51 AM
Hi, first post.
I must say I love this camera more and more. RAW files at "movie" framerates is truly something special...

Did some test with one of the files in Lightroom...

First up is the original file exported from Lightroom.
1063


2nd, how I would process the image (I think... too many options to play with in Lightroom)
1061


3rd, taken to the extreme to show how much info there is in the original RAW file.
1062


-Kaj