PDA

View Full Version : Video Report: Shooting with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera



t.p.
08-29-2012, 08:49 AM
hey guys not sure if anyone has posted this here before , just found this review/report

http://www.moviemachine.tv/video/shooting-with-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera/48431007/

Trevor Roach
08-29-2012, 11:00 AM
Awesome! Thanks!!

Steve4505
08-29-2012, 11:06 AM
hey guys not sure if anyone has posted this here before , just found this review/report

http://www.moviemachine.tv/video/shooting-with-the-blackmagic-cinema-camera/48431007/

I was just about to post the same thing. Would have been smart of you to put the reviewers name and title of the review in your post (because searching for it doesn't bring it up).

Title
SHOOTING WITH THE BLACKMAGIC CINEMA CAMERA
by
Rick Young

Deggen
08-29-2012, 11:26 AM
What a great review. Excellent.

Osslund
08-29-2012, 12:33 PM
What struck me when he talked about the simplicity of the camera was this is not a camera to be excited about by using it. It's more of a rewarding experience when you start to edit grade.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 12:44 PM
I wamt this camera more than I want to watch my wife with another woman in bed!

Osslund
08-29-2012, 12:54 PM
I want this camera to make me money more than bring it to bed and cuddle!

Andrew
08-29-2012, 12:56 PM
What's going on with the footage at 12:12? The highlights on the bird's neck are doing something strange. This really stood out to me. Is this similar to the dark sun spot in Dan Kanes' footage?
http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

Do we just really need to be careful about overexposing the sensor?

rawCAM35
08-29-2012, 01:59 PM
What's going on with the footage at 12:12? The highlights on the bird's neck are doing something strange. This really stood out to me. Is this similar to the dark sun spot in Dan Kanes' footage?
http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

Do we just really need to be careful about overexposing the sensor?

that shot does not look over exposed To me, otherwise the waves will look like a mirror, I think it is a great camera anyway, and I agree with you to not overexpose the sensor.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 02:04 PM
It looks like something he did in resolve but didn't notice because he didn't scrub the frames while "correcting".

=P

Andrew
08-29-2012, 02:05 PM
I'm not saying the overall shot is overexposed, but the pelican's neck is really hot and possibly clipping.

Andrew
08-29-2012, 02:05 PM
It looks like something he did in resolve but didn't notice because he didn't scrub the frames while "correcting".

=P

I hope it's just in the post processing.

bumkicho
08-29-2012, 02:24 PM
If that's the result of clipping, I guess Setting Zebra to 95% is a must.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 02:33 PM
What's going on with the footage at 12:12? The highlights on the bird's neck are doing something strange. This really stood out to me. Is this similar to the dark sun spot in Dan Kanes' footage?
http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

Do we just really need to be careful about overexposing the sensor?
I posted the same thing about 12:12 but then deleted it because if you continue watching there are other similar scenes with the bird that don't exhibit the 12:12 frame. I think it was post processing. About exposure. RAW tends to have more headroom in the highlights. This guy admits he knew nothing of resolve. I think it's just his grades. Exposing to the right on this camera will be better than exposing to for the highlights. It's like negative film, expose for the shadows develop for the highlights.
Why some guys tend to judge a camera by one guys bit of footage when we all have played with many examples from J. Brawley and such is beyond me. Again, this guy stated he knew nothing of resolve when making this. Maybe judge his color correction skills in an unfamiliar program than breaking down the cameras abilities.

Andrew. YOU WILL NOT WANT TO UNDER EXPOSE THIS CAMERA. You will want to carefully keep the highlights in processable limits. But this is not like shooting h.264. RAW holds and retains more info in the highlights than the shadows can. A 1-1.5 stop exposure to the right will have plenty of room to retain the highlights. A 1 to 1.5 stop left and your shadows and blacks will be a problem.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 02:40 PM
A rare occurrence today, Kholi agrees with Chris about something. Eyewitness news has the scoop.

It looks like he tried to punch blue highlights and broke the blue channel in a weird way.

All's well.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm not saying the overall shot is overexposed, but the pelican's neck is really hot and possibly clipping.

How do you know it's not his grading? Come on, were all familiar with the J Brawley shots. In this one that I post the white textured concrete wall was well above 100 IRE. In this grab I intentionally brought the whites down beyond my taste for example. Even the specular highlights of the shiny dress jewels near the models left breast are coming in at 75-78 IRE and the white wall on the right is hitting 70 IRE tops. I think the bird shots are just this guys grading 770

Kholi
08-29-2012, 02:48 PM
I hope it's just in the post processing.

I wouldn't even worry about it.

I am curious, though, of who of those with pre-release cameras aside from Brawley and Laforet have the experience with these types of cameras along with the post processing connections to finish properly.

rick.lang
08-29-2012, 02:57 PM
YOU WILL NOT WANT TO UNDER EXPOSE THIS CAMERA. You will want to carefully keep the highlights in processable limits. But this is not like shooting h.264. RAW holds and retains more info in the highlights than the shadows can. A 1-1.5 stop exposure to the right will have plenty of room to retain the highlights. A 1 to 1.5 stop left and your shadows and blacks will be a problem.

Sorry, but I don't understand these references to exposing right or exposing left. My background is stills photography if that helps you understand my confusion. But I'd rather understand what you mean in terms of the BMCC. Would you be so kind and rephrase your recommendation in terms of how you would expose compared to John Brawley's comment about setting the zebras at 100% and change the exposure just until the zebras are gone? Would you recommend setting the zebras at a lower %? Or would you make a different adjustment? Thanks so much!

dustylense
08-29-2012, 03:47 PM
Sorry, but I don't understand these references to exposing right or exposing left. My background is stills photography if that helps you understand my confusion. But I'd rather understand what you mean in terms of the BMCC. Would you be so kind and rephrase your recommendation in terms of how you would expose compared to John Brawley's comment about setting the zebras at 100% and change the exposure just until the zebras are gone? Would you recommend setting the zebras at a lower %? Or would you make a different adjustment? Thanks so much!
I too an primarily a stills house. Been shooting RAW since RAW came on the scene. Phase one backs, Canon Hdslrs, leica DNG (which this cam reminds me of, just at 2.5k). About exposing left or right. It's the same as over and under expose. If you are familiar with histograms (as a stills shooter) think about moving the histogram left or right. RAW hold far more info in the highlights than the shadows, just more headroom. If you underexpose your low values, even though it's RAW, you still need recored info to get pleasant results. If it's not there in capture, it's just not there. In that frame grab I posted, look at the specular highlights in the dress. They were well above 100 IRE (100% zebra). They came back just fine because the RAW has that headroom. I'm not saying go out and over expose 3 or 4 stops, but you want to capture info in the low values so they don't get noisy recovering and so they gradate smoothly.
Outside of my own studio, I am also hired by a few guys (if I'm available) to manage their stills workflow. My job is to set the exposure to get the most out of the file for the scene they are shooting. One of the guys thought I was nuts because I set his exposure about 2 stops over what he thought he wanted. I had to convince him that RAW shooting is just making sure you get all the info you need for your desired look. After I convinced him he quietly told me that he will trust my judgement in the future.
Just like shooting B&W film on a 4x5 cam. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.
These are some of the guys I tech for most often. We all understand that you must record the info, even if it looks wrong. Feed the sensor!
http://tobypederson.com
http://www.tomburkhartphoto.com
http://sebreephoto.com (this guy calls me daily about tech advise. He was shooting Jpegs until I FORCED him to shoot RAW.)

rick.lang
08-29-2012, 03:55 PM
Thanks! Yes, I understand about moving the histogram to the right to reveal more shadows but not so far as to destroy the highlights hopefully. Is there a zebra setting you would recommend for a scene with lots of highlights and shadows that will favour exposing for the shadows? Or would it just be fine to increase the shutter angle some percentage to achieve the overexposure? I'm trying to avoid opening the iris a stop or so after setting the zebra at 100% because I may not always have that much room if I'm expecting to shoot with a fast aperture to begin with.

Taikonaut
08-29-2012, 03:56 PM
A rare occurrence today, Kholi agrees with Chris about something. Eyewitness news has the scoop.

It looks like he tried to punch blue highlights and broke the blue channel in a weird way.

All's well.

Curious why BMD want to send him a demo production camera for review. Clearly he is doing more harm than good for the image of BMC and such negative press going viral by others who never had a chance to use it for themselves think the camera sensor is a load of crap. Is he a RED owner by any chance:D

jmacfadyen
08-29-2012, 04:18 PM
It's strange watching that video and seeing my day job in the background.. Wish I had known that a BMCC was so close by so that I could go and steal it from him :p

dustylense
08-29-2012, 04:39 PM
Curious why BMD want to send him a demo production camera for review. Clearly he is doing more harm than good for the image of BMC and such negative press going viral by others who never had a chance to use it for themselves think the camera sensor is a load of crap. Is he a RED owner by any chance:D
Leave the guy alone and take the video for what it's worth. Not all people have the same approach to shooting, grading, and whatever. The thing to think about is, DO YOU LIKE THE LOOK and the IDEA behind the camera? Is it going to work for you? I've seen plenty of attempts of coloring the available DNG's online where I think "These guys think that looks good"? With RAW DNG's, you can color it 1000 different ways. This guys is just another example.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 04:43 PM
It's a known bug in Resolve 3 when used with 10.7. I think it's called the OpenCL bug. Nothing to do with the camera.

JB.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 04:49 PM
How do you know it's not his grading? Come on, were all familiar with the J Brawley shots. In this one that I post the white textured concrete wall was well above 100 IRE. In this grab I intentionally brought the whites down beyond my taste for example. Even the specular highlights of the shiny dress jewels near the models left breast are coming in at 75-78 IRE and the white wall on the right is hitting 70 IRE tops. I think the bird shots are just this guys grading 770

I exposed this shot with Zebras set at 100 and the drain on the left was the brightest thing. I wound the expousure down till it was a smidge under zebering (is that a word) and exposure set.

Now if there was a bare bulb or something else hot in the frame then I wouldn't set exposure to that. You have to use your judgement. I've always set video/digital cameras by deciding where I set the clipping point because to me digital highlights always look the most ugly and they can't be fixed once gone.

A zebra at 100% is in effect, like ETTR.

JB.

rick.lang
08-29-2012, 05:17 PM
A zebra at 100% is in effect, like ETTR.

JB.

It took a while, but now I get it! Here's an explanation in Wikipedia that I think John Brawley and dustylense concur with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

dustylense
08-29-2012, 05:28 PM
I exposed this shot with Zebras set at 100 and the drain on the left was the brightest thing. I wound the expousure down till it was a smidge under zebering (is that a word) and exposure set.

Now if there was a bare bulb or something else hot in the frame then I wouldn't set exposure to that. You have to use your judgement. I've always set video/digital cameras by deciding where I set the clipping point because to me digital highlights always look the most ugly and they can't be fixed once gone.

A zebra at 100% is in effect, like ETTR.

JB.

I get it what and how you approached it. Going back to the bird neck in the video here, people are fearing clipping. In the video world for display and such, 100% zebra (IRE) is pure white, what print space, monitor space will display. In the RAW world of stills, I go off numbers. For instance, in lightroom, the spec highlights on the girls dress (the shiny jewels) reads in LR at 99.9%. I drop exposure a full stop (-1.0) in LM, jewels are still 99.9%. Meaning, in RAW stills land they are well above 100% zebra in video land. It's not until I drop exposure in LR -2.0 that I see that 99.9% start to fall. Then, If I drop exposure to -3.0 in LM i get them around 90-93%. This is all without highlight recovery, just using the exposure slider. If I start using highlight sliders at an exposure of -2.3, I can get those spec highlight jewels on the dress to begin separating. I'm also getting the pole highlight left of the word "Lady" from LM 99.9% into 83's-85% (in ansel adams terms, zone 8 1/2) with a smooth gradation to the falloff side of the pole, no banding. (go back to the image I posted on page 2 to see. I intentionally CC'd down for example).
This is why I am stating that although I agree with your assestment of the zebras at 100%, there is actually more room above than contained in the DNG. Lot's more! Which is why I'm advocating NOT to judge your exposure off highlights (still be careful, sure), but to expose for them shadows because they ARE NOT as recoverable as the highlights are. They will be noisy and gradations will just NOT be there. If these DNG's were 16/bit instead of 12/bit we would have better recovery and separation of shadows and even MORE headroom in the highlights. So in essence, the BMDC can even recover over the 100% zebras if we have a contrasty full range scene in front of us. I'm gonna go with a safe 1 to 1.5 stops headroom without having the camera in hands to test for myself.
Good times we are living in. The BMDC is just the start.

Barry Green
08-29-2012, 05:34 PM
In the video world for display and such, 100% zebra (IRE) is pure white
Well, sort of. 100% zebra does represent full brightness, but it's full brightness of the whole composite video signal. The danger is that when you start approaching 100%, any of your color channels (or multiple of your color channels) might already be blown out.

Point being, exposing at 99% doesn't mean you're "safe" from clipping! It depends on what colors go to make up the object that you're exposing that high. The whiter the object is, the safer it is to expose it at brighter levels, because in white, all the color channels are basically the same, so no individual color channel is likely to blow out before the others do. But with skin, exposing at 85 IRE (a presumably "safe" number") will (on many cameras) result in a blown-out red channel, and yellowish skin tones.



This is why I am stating that although I agree with your assestment of the zebras at 100%, there is actually more room above than contained in the DNG.
MAYbe. Not necessarily. If it was skin at 100%, you can be pretty well assured that the red channel is blown all to hell and there's not going to be anything you can do to recover it in the DNG.

Then again, that'd make for a good test for our testers out there, wouldn't it?

dustylense
08-29-2012, 05:49 PM
Well, sort of. 100% zebra does represent full brightness, but it's full brightness of the whole composite video signal. The danger is that when you start approaching 100%, any of your color channels (or multiple of your color channels) might already be blown out.

Point being, exposing at 99% doesn't mean you're "safe" from clipping! It depends on what colors go to make up the object that you're exposing that high. The whiter the object is, the safer it is to expose it at brighter levels, because in white, all the color channels are basically the same, so no individual color channel is likely to blow out before the others do. But with skin, exposing at 85 IRE (a presumably "safe" number") will (on many cameras) result in a blown-out red channel, and yellowish skin tones.



MAYbe. Not necessarily. If it was skin at 100%, you can be pretty well assured that the red channel is blown all to hell and there's not going to be anything you can do to recover it in the DNG.

Then again, that'd make for a good test for our testers out there, wouldn't it?

Who in their right mind is going to expose skin at 100%? I'm talking highlights here. Like in the photo I posted (page 2) of the pole, the dress fabric and jewels, and the concrete wall on the right. I bought all those white items down (the pole mostly) -2 stops in LR before they started dropping under 99%. NO COLOR SHIFT. By the way Barry, the RAW info of the models skin in LM is reading 98%. I see no shifts bringing that back to our conventional 75 IRE. So in fact, theory disproven as John exposed the highlighted forehead of the model at 98%. So now we have the right mind to expose skin at nearly 100% zebra.
GUYS.. FORGET CODECS and what you know about scopes, waveforms and parades and start thinking of this camera as a DNG 12/bit stills camera that shoots bursts up to 30/fps. If it were 16/bit DNG, my lord what we could do. Keep in mind I'm using lightroom to CC these and evaluate because its a DNG! If you guys have lightroom, import the DNG of the balcony shot, drag the exposure down -5 stops, white point the pole, then drag around the exposure and see how this camera can handle info. Look at the shadow under the horizontal wood slats on the tan wall to see how much you can lift it before it starts falling apart.
grade in what ever program you want, but Lightroom will tell you the story...

Kholi
08-29-2012, 05:53 PM
I think Barry had a pretty valid post. Especially here on this forum where a lot of people will be very very green to this stuff.

I'm not assigning any definitive way to work with this camera and exposure until it's A. in my hands (...October cough) and B. sitting in Resolve 9 while my favorite colorist shreds it to pieces. That's how I'll know how to expose it.

Andrew
08-29-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm glad it's just a post processing bug.

Dusty, I'm not running around yelling that the sky is falling, I just pointed out an issue and asked what it might be. I'm glad I did too, instead of assuming the guy messed up in pp, I now know that it's a known glitch.

John, have you had any issues with sunspots? I know this isn't a bmc only issue, but I'm curious how often it occurs.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

771

ps, again I'm curious. I'm not trying to put down the camera. I plan to own and use it as soon as I can. I just want to learn and make sure I know how to best use this tool.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:08 PM
Meaning, in RAW stills land they are well above 100% zebra in video land.


Careful though. Zebra is not the same on the BMCC (OR RED) as it is in other video cameras. In subsampled video Zebra goes to 109% (aka superwhite).

On the BMCC, Zebra is taken from the LINEAR sensor data. 100% Zebra is sensor clipping. It's not recoverable once it clips.




This is why I am stating that although I agree with your assestment of the zebras at 100%, there is actually more room above than contained in the DNG. Lot's more!



No. There is more there because I backed OFF from clipping. I didn't set the whites of that drain at 100%.

Zebra set to 100% on this camera represents sensor clipping (no matter what ISO you set)

jb

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:09 PM
I'm glad it's just a post processing bug.


ps, again I'm curious. I'm not trying to put down the camera. I plan to own and use it as soon as I can. I just want to learn and make sure I know how to best use this tool.


Yes this happens (like it used to on RED) with EXTREME overexposure. For not it's an easy VFX fix and they are working to address it.

jb

dustylense
08-29-2012, 06:09 PM
I'm glad it's just a post processing bug.

Dusty, I'm not running around yelling that the sky is falling, I just pointed out an issue and asked what it might be. I'm glad I did too, instead of assuming the guy messed up in pp, I now know that it's a known glitch.

John, have you had any issues with sunspots? I know this isn't a bmc only issue, but I'm curious how often it occurs.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

771

ps, again I'm curious. I'm not trying to put down the camera. I plan to own and use it as soon as I can. I just want to learn and make sure I know how to best use this tool.
I know andrew. That phenomenon has been around for decades. Not sure about digital but in the film world it's called reciprocity. Ansel Adams has a famous print that exhibited this effect.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:13 PM
GUYS.. FORGET CODECS and what you know about scopes, waveforms and parades and start thinking of this camera as a DNG 12/bit stills camera that shoots bursts up to 30/fps. If it were 16/bit DNG, my lord what we could do. Keep in mind I'm using lightroom to CC these and evaluate because its a DNG! If you guys have lightroom, import the DNG of the balcony shot, drag the exposure down -5 stops, white point the pole, then drag around the exposure and see how this camera can handle info. Look at the shadow under the horizontal wood slats on the tan wall to see how much you can lift it before it starts falling apart.
grade in what ever program you want, but Lightroom will tell you the story...

Guess what....

They actually ARE opened at 16bit DNG's in resolve (check the bit depth in the media tab).

The camera shoots 16Bit Linear, which is compressed to 12 bitLOG for DNG encoding and it's then unpacked to 16 bit Linear by Resolve.

We are afraid of overexposure of skin tones because a lot of cameras (hello AF100) have curves that do wacky things to highlights as you get *near* clipping.

Now as Barry correctly points out, overall clipping might not be happening (luminance) but you might have a colour channel getting close to or actually clipping, but with the camera, the colours TRACK very true. In otherwords, you don't get weird colours from the camera trying to *hold* highlights because it's bending them to a curve that it's processing internally.

It's more resilient to near-clipping is the way I would think of it...

jb

Andrew
08-29-2012, 06:14 PM
I think Barry had a pretty valid post. Especially here on this forum where a lot of people will be very very green to this stuff.

I'm not assigning any definitive way to work with this camera and exposure until it's A. in my hands (...October cough) and B. sitting in Resolve 9 while my favorite colorist shreds it to pieces. That's how I'll know how to expose it.

Yeah, I can't wait to shoot, post, review, and then shoot again and really learn hands on how to make this camera sing!

dustylense
08-29-2012, 06:14 PM
Careful though. Zebra is not the same on the BMCC (OR RED) as it is in other video cameras. In subsampled video Zebra goes to 109% (aka superwhite).

On the BMCC, Zebra is taken from the LINEAR sensor data. 100% Zebra is sensor clipping. It's not recoverable once it clips.






No. There is more there because I backed OFF from clipping. I didn't set the whites of that drain at 100%.

Zebra set to 100% on this camera represents sensor clipping (no matter what ISO you set)

jb

John, if you have lightroom, please read the earlier post and see for yourself that the spec highlights and even the pole will start dropping below 99% in LM with an exposure sliding to the left -1.5 to -2 stops. I know and understand what you did on the monitor of the camera. Those zebras WON't give you zebras past 100%. The models forehead in Lightroom is 98%, and the pole and spec highlights in the dress are brighter, are they not? Just try it...

Andrew
08-29-2012, 06:19 PM
Zebra set to 100% on this camera represents sensor clipping (no matter what ISO you set)

jb

Awesome, I have been wondering about this. So the zebras relate directly to the raw sensor data regardless of iso or whether or not your viewing the lcd in log or 709? I'm really happy to hear that!

dustylense
08-29-2012, 06:20 PM
Guess what....

They actually ARE opened at 16bit DNG's in resolve (check the bit depth in the media tab).

The camera shoots 16Bit Linear, which is compressed to 12 bitLOG for DNG encoding and it's then unpacked to 16 bit Linear by Resolve.

We are afraid of overexposure of skin tones because a lot of cameras (hello AF100) have curves that do wacky things to highlights as you get *near* clipping.

Now as Barry correctly points out, overall clipping might not be happening (luminance) but you might have a colour channel getting close to or actually clipping, but with the camera, the colours TRACK very true. In otherwords, you don't get weird colours from the camera trying to *hold* highlights because it's bending them to a curve that it's processing internally.

It's more resilient to near-clipping is the way I would think of it...

jb

John, I can open an 8/bit jpeg in photoshop as a 16bit. That doesn't mean it has 16 bits of info though. I can transcode h.264 into prores 444 too. Doesn't mean its 444 though. Again, open these DNGs in lightroom or adobe raw. Grade where you want, resolve, apple color, fcpx if you want. Play with them in LR, please...
DNG. Created by Adobe as a future proof RAW file for archival purposes long before cinema cameras thought of using them. DNG is DNG. Canon RAW, Sony RAW, Nikon RAW are all different. DNG was made for long distance archival in the event that those manufactures changed their RAW formats.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 06:20 PM
Now as Barry correctly points out, overall clipping might not be happening (luminance) but you might have a colour channel getting close to or actually clipping, but with the camera, the colours TRACK very true. In otherwords, you don't get weird colours from the camera trying to *hold* highlights because it's bending them to a curve that it's processing internally.

It's more resilient to near-clipping is the way I would think of it...

jb


This part of the post should be a quote in a book that I hope Barry will write. xD

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:24 PM
John, if you have lightroom, please read the earlier post and see for yourself that the spec highlights and even the pole will start dropping below 99% in LM with an exposure sliding to the left -1.5 to -2 stops. I know and understand what you did on the monitor of the camera. Those zebras WON't give you zebras past 100%. The models forehead in Lightroom is 98%, and the pole and spec highlights in the dress are brighter, are they not? Just try it...

I'm not sure what point you're making.

The specular highlights in her dress would have probably been above clipping. When they are that small, it's also hard to see if they register.

it's NORMAL to set an exposure of -2.00 for the image to be correct in the way it's displayed. You shouldn't infer that the image is overexposed by two stops if that's what you're thinking when you slide the exposure tab.

I set the exposure of this shot to have NO CLIPPING as indicated by the camera which has a tool that indicates sensor clipping (zebra @ 100%) aside perhaps form something so small that I couldn't detect it (like the dress sparkles).

The fact that it *presents* with the appearance of overblown highlights that are then recovered doens't mean you're recovering highlights. More that you're calibrating the range to be displayed correctly in the first place.

jb

Kholi
08-29-2012, 06:28 PM
I'm glad it's just a post processing bug.

Dusty, I'm not running around yelling that the sky is falling, I just pointed out an issue and asked what it might be. I'm glad I did too, instead of assuming the guy messed up in pp, I now know that it's a known glitch.

John, have you had any issues with sunspots? I know this isn't a bmc only issue, but I'm curious how often it occurs.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

771

ps, again I'm curious. I'm not trying to put down the camera. I plan to own and use it as soon as I can. I just want to learn and make sure I know how to best use this tool.

You got a little glossed over, but I'll repeat just in case anyone's afraid of this: totally normal. You have to literally point the camera right into the sun to make it appear, and at the same time it's fixable with an update. RED kinda already laid the groundwork for it, anyway, it could be fixed before we even get our hands on the camera.

No sweat, man!

Also, there's nothing wrong with what your'e asking about or pointing out.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Awesome, I have been wondering about this. So the zebras relate directly to the raw sensor data regardless of iso or whether or not your viewing the lcd in log or 709? I'm really happy to hear that!

Yes they are taken from linear sensor data. Which means the 95% setting is actually a lot further away from 100% than it might seem.

jb

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:28 PM
You got a little glossed over, but I'll repeat just in case anyone's afraid of this: totally normal. You have to literally point the camera right into the sun to make it appear, and at the same time it's fixable with an update. RED kinda already laid the groundwork for it, anyway, it could be fixed before we even get our hands on the camera.

No sweat, man!

Correct.

jb

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:30 PM
John, I can open an 8/bit jpeg in photoshop as a 16bit. That doesn't mean it has 16 bits of info though. I can transcode h.264 into prores 444 too. Doesn't mean its 444 though. Again, open these DNGs in lightroom or adobe raw. Grade where you want, resolve, apple color, fcpx if you want. Play with them in LR, please...
DNG. Created by Adobe as a future proof RAW file for archival purposes long before cinema cameras thought of using them. DNG is DNG. Canon RAW, Sony RAW, Nikon RAW are all different. DNG was made for long distance archival in the event that those manufactures changed their RAW formats.

Have you had a play with these files by the way ?


http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/blackmagic-cinema-camera-exposure-brackets/


I should add, i metered off the grey card for the T81/2 half exposure. but that was ASSUMING an ISO of 800. You should be able to work out what ISO you prefer to rate this at by using the Fc reading, which for this scene with my meter was 102Fc.

jb

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 06:31 PM
John, I can open an 8/bit jpeg in photoshop as a 16bit. That doesn't mean it has 16 bits of info though. I can transcode h.264 into prores 444 too. Doesn't mean its 444 though. Again, open these DNGs in lightroom or adobe raw. Grade where you want, resolve, apple color, fcpx if you want. Play with them in LR, please...
DNG. Created by Adobe as a future proof RAW file for archival purposes long before cinema cameras thought of using them. DNG is DNG. Canon RAW, Sony RAW, Nikon RAW are all different. DNG was made for long distance archival in the event that those manufactures changed their RAW formats.


All I'm saying is the files start as 16 bit linear files (the sensor is actually even more than this in bit depth), that are encoded as 12 bit LOG when they get recorded as DNG's.

jb

Kholi
08-29-2012, 06:33 PM
Have you had a play with these files by the way ?


http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/blackmagic-cinema-camera-exposure-brackets/


I should add, i metered off the grey card for the T81/2 half exposure. but that was ASSUMING an ISO of 800. You should be able to work out what ISO you prefer to rate this at by using the Fc reading, which for this scene with my meter was 102Fc.

jb

This is what I meant by getting my hands on the camera. Individual shooter's preference will dictate what each person rates the camera at, and from there they expose. Another thing to learn for some people, but easy to grasp once you understand why you're doing it.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:00 PM
K John,
3 frame grabs here. Lightroom, davinci, and FCPX adjustments. All I did was lower the exposure (although Resolve has no exposure slider so to speak as you well know.

Here is resolve772
Here is FCPX. Yuck right? (just slide exposure down in the color board)773
Here is lightroom (just -4 stop exposure)774

Forget everything you see but the skin tones and more importantly the highlights of the concrete wall and dress. Make special note of the textures that the LR grab does to the concrete wall. Look at ALL that info there. Same thing in the sparkle jewels of the dress.

This is the headroom in the highlights I'm talking about in the DNG file. Highlights to highlights with just bringing down the exposure values, Lightroom wins. Now look at the black painted pole between them. Tell me that the LR verison doesn't have a FAR better gradation?!

Kholi
08-29-2012, 07:04 PM
So lightroom's exposure setting manipulates the image in a different way than the other two?

I'm missing the point, myself.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:07 PM
So lightroom's exposure setting manipulates the image in a different way than the other two?

I'm missing the point, myself.
Highlights and gradation! If you will, import the DNG into resolve and using only exposure/brightness methods (lift, gamma, gain) try and get that wall to separate like the -4 stop Lightroom version I posted. NO MASKS or LOCAL adjustments.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 07:12 PM
Highlights and gradation! If you will, import the DNG and using only exposure/brightness (lift, gamma, gain) try and get that wall to separate like the -4 stop Lightroom version I posted. NO MASKS or LOCAL adjustments.

With Resolve? I'm not saying you're inexperienced, but any experienced colorist could do that with primaries... in a good three seconds.

I think what you're seeing is just a difference in the labeling of specific tools between each individual application.

Lightroom behaves more like "exposure" should, while FCP X is just doing a "brightness" shift, but calling it exposure. Resolve I'm not sure what it's doing, I haven't messed with 9 yet.

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 07:15 PM
K John,
3 frame grabs here. Lightroom, davinci, and FCPX adjustments. All I did was lower the exposure (although Resolve has no exposure slider so to speak as you well know.
!

It does actually have an exposure slider. Perhaps you missed it.

http://i.imgur.com/86Mwm.jpg

I don't see what point you're making other than you'll get different results with different colour correction tools ?

jb

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:16 PM
With Resolve? I'm not saying you're inexperienced, but any experienced colorist could do that with primaries... in a good three seconds.

I think what you're seeing is just a difference in the labeling of specific tools between each individual application.

Lightroom behaves more like "exposure" should, while FCP X is just doing a "brightness" shift, but calling it exposure. Resolve I'm not sure what it's doing, I haven't messed with 9 yet.
Then do it and post it. Use resolve, and without masks bring all the values down with a single gamma, lift, gain tools and separate those highlights. Have your buddy do it. NO MASKS.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 07:16 PM
There y'go. I can't imagine the exposure adjustment in Resolve works any differently than the lightroom version, if not better for the material that's in discussion here because it's paired with the camera.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 07:18 PM
Then do it and post it. Use resolve, and without masks bring all the values down with a single gamma, lift, gain tools and separate those highlights. Have your buddy do it. NO MASKS.

Hahah. It's not like he's sitting right beside me... I'm fairly sure he's probably in the theater correcting something that's actually important right now.

Seriously, though, I'm just saying that this conversation sounds like P3 versus Resolve--although that actually has a bit more merit, and is a much longer conversation.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:25 PM
It does actually have an exposure slider. Perhaps you missed it.

http://i.imgur.com/86Mwm.jpg

I don't see what point you're making other than you'll get different results with different colour correction tools ?

jb

Nice, well there it is. Foot in mouth.
Back to exposure and highlights at 100% zebra though. Are you catching my drift about the headroom? The fact that this camera (as most quality RAW cams) have LOTS of info stored in the highlights?

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:32 PM
Hahah. It's not like he's sitting right beside me... I'm fairly sure he's probably in the theater correcting something that's actually important right now.

Seriously, though, I'm just saying that this conversation sounds like P3 versus Resolve--although that actually has a bit more merit, and is a much longer conversation.

Kohli, at least I have the balls to admit when I'm wrong... You on the other hand....
John showed me and I thank him for it. I never doubted the power of resolve. It's a complicated program and lots of users are looking at a huge learning curve. It's why people get paid to sit at it all day.

Lots of talk about how to expose this camera. I stand FIRM to the law of expose for your shadows develop for your highlights. For the topic of this thread people were raising eyebrows about the highlight clipping of the birds neck. It was obviously grading for him.

STILL HAVE FOOT IN MOUTH JOHN. YOU CAN PUT A FOOT IN UP MY ASS IF WE EVER MEET OVER A BEER. That graphic would have saved a ton of headache. Thanks.

Kholi
08-29-2012, 07:34 PM
Kohli, at least I have the balls to admit when I'm wrong... You on the other hand....

Well you let me know what I'm "wrong" about and I'll be happy to do that, sir.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 07:36 PM
Well you let me know what I'm "wrong" about and I'll be happy to do that, sir.

I will...

Andrew Rieger
08-29-2012, 07:45 PM
Hey John, I'm kinda a newbie with this raw stuff so I was wondering if I could get your take on exposing the BMC's image using zebras in conjunction with an external light meter. It was my idea that when shooting Raw, you want the brightest image possible before the highlights clip (This is just what I was told, tell me if this is wrong).

So if you set the Zebras for 100% does this mean that it indicates clipping at pure white? (clipped highlight, no data can be recovered in post).

So do you set your exposure first with your meter and then open up the lens until right below the point where the zebra pattern starts to show up?

Sorry if this stuff is super basic but i'm just trying to figure out the best way to work with this camera

randyman
08-29-2012, 09:04 PM
Andrew, that sounds like a plan to me *unless* you have something like a single source of much higher luminance... like, say, a bare lightbulb or the sun. Then you might want to look at the highest point in context, and decide what you might be able to sacrifice.

John Caballero
08-29-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't know if this question has been answered, maybe so but I saw in the video review that you press the Iris button and get the aperture automatically? Can you manually select aperture?

RyGuy
08-29-2012, 09:10 PM
Also, I'm not all too impressed with this footage. Looks quite soft to me to be honest. I know that it is capable of more, but this one didn't help. And it's not the Vimeo compression, because whatever camera they're using to film the guy with is much sharper to me.

Edit: Deleted the part about the blue clipping, didn't read the whole thread.

Grug
08-29-2012, 09:19 PM
A nice report. The run through on the menus was great to see, I love how simple the camera is - last time I was that impressed by a camera interface was with the SI-2K's wonderful (albeit substantially more in-depth) touchscreen interface.

dustylense
08-29-2012, 11:01 PM
I just saw another questionable couple frames in the review.. 12:05 to 12:11. Look at the left side of the building. The tannish structure. 776 I don't like the look of that. Thats not in his grading. That is sensor level stuff right there..

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
08-29-2012, 11:16 PM
I don't know if this question has been answered, maybe so but I saw in the video review that you press the Iris button and get the aperture automatically? Can you manually select aperture?

Hi John: Page 15 in the BMCC user manual PDF:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/4720483/Cinema_Camera_Manual.pdf

"Adjusting Settings:

Your Blackmagic Cinema Camera supports electronic iris control and focus peaking and is compatible with cinema style EF, and some ZE mount lenses, all of which have the highest optical quality.

Iris Button and Control:

You can also manually adjust the iris of your lens by using the forward and reverse button on the Transport Control panel.

When shooting using the Video dynamic range, the exposure will set using an average of scene similar to what you're used to on a stills camera. However, in Film dynamic range, the IRIS button adjusts your exposure to ensure that nothing in your scene is clipped. ..."

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 11:24 PM
I just saw another questionable couple frames in the review.. 12:05 to 12:11. Look at the left side of the building. The tannish structure. 776 I don't like the look of that. Thats not in his grading. That is sensor level stuff right there..

Well overexposure....

jb

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 11:24 PM
I don't know if this question has been answered, maybe so but I saw in the video review that you press the Iris button and get the aperture automatically? Can you manually select aperture?

You use the FF and REW buttons to step the iris up and down in 1/3 stop increments

jb

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
08-29-2012, 11:25 PM
... I'm not all too impressed with this footage. Looks quite soft to me ... whatever camera they're using to film the guy with is much sharper to me. ...

I noticed the difference between the 2 cameras, too, but it could be explained by the (probably Sony) camera used to shoot Rick when he's on camera being set with relatively high in-camera sharpening/detail vs. Rick's admittedly beginner skills working with Resolve, and perhaps his not sharpening the BMCC footage "enough" in post, or at least not enough to result in the same amount of sharpening/detail as the other (probably Sony) cam.

In other words, there're a lot of reasons why the 2 cams look different. There are also a lot of ways to make any cam not look as sharp (or as over-sharpened) as another. Time will tell ...

John Brawley
08-29-2012, 11:27 PM
Nice, well there it is. Foot in mouth.
Back to exposure and highlights at 100% zebra though. Are you catching my drift about the headroom? The fact that this camera (as most quality RAW cams) have LOTS of info stored in the highlights?

Overall, yes, like film, they have put the headroom in the highlights. That's how they've designed the "look" of the camera. Most digital cameras have more shadow range than highlight range. Because there is such a high bit depth and it tracks so well up and down that exposure range though, it's not like a hard and fast rule either. With RAW, the middle can be where you would like to put it more or less....

jb

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
08-29-2012, 11:28 PM
Hi John B.: When you have a moment, I'd appreciate an answer to my question in the BMD forum about zebras, even if the answer is "Your question makes no sense.", or, "I don't know.", or, "I'm not at liberty to say." Thanks! :-)
http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?p=1659&sid=0184fc4c29b407ad263a73b5dd653df9#p1659

EDIT: Thanks for your reply there! Cheers!

dustylense
08-30-2012, 12:01 AM
Well overexposure....

jb

Ummmm, I think not. THe white building to the left of it has higher values than the affected area. This is a production unit too. This is a normal late day scene with a contrast my point n shoot can handle. I'm not bashing, just pointing out what I see in those few seconds of footage. Hopefully it's a fluke like the bird neck.

John Brawley
08-30-2012, 12:02 AM
So if you set the Zebras for 100% does this mean that it indicates clipping at pure white? (clipped highlight, no data can be recovered in post).


Hi Andrew.

Yes 100% zebra at any ISO or record setting will always show sensor clipping that is, unrecoverable by any means.





So do you set your exposure first with your meter and then open up the lens until right below the point where the zebra pattern starts to show up?


Well I don't tend to use a meter as much as I used to. The problem is that ISO and a lightmeter is generally telling you how to expose to make something midtone look like it's midtone. With digital imaging, I'm more concerned about how to expose for highlights, which are usually reflected and not able to be measured by an ambient meter. So then pulling out my spotmeter I can measure those, but again, the spotmeter is assuming you're pointing at a grey card and telling you the number to expose at to give you a "grey" grey card at a given ISO.

In a way, ISO is LESS relevant now and to me as a DOP, I'm more interested in where a digital image clips, setting an exposure to that and then slotting my skin tones, and other important exposure information in around that value.

At ISO800 I know I get the most DR, I loko subjectively at the scene and see what's in it. If it's an object that's "meant" to be clipped like a point light source then I'll let that go, but otherwise I'll feed the sensor as much light as I can to get it away from the noise floor.

Now this can lead to trouble because it can also mean you vary the exposure a lot shot to shot and you can find the noise levels change depending on how you expose each shot. So I temper my exposure choice with that knowledge and light TO my stop (rather than chasing a stop).

I'm hoping Frank chimes in here, because it sounds to me like he's come to the same conclusion.

I guess it's just *my* way...I don't know if it's the *right* way though....




Sorry if this stuff is super basic but i'm just trying to figure out the best way to work with this camera

So are we all !

jb

John Brawley
08-30-2012, 12:05 AM
Yeah NO. THe white building to the left of it has higher values than the affected area. This is a production unit too.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's an overexposed part of the scene or you're not happy with how something is is represented in near clipping when something else is clipping ? I couldn't actually find the part of the scene you were describing in your little thumbnail. You're pointing at something and saying "i don't like the look" but what is it exactly that you mean. It's colour ?

jb

Andrew Rieger
08-30-2012, 12:14 AM
So I temper my exposure choice with that knowledge and light TO my stop (rather than chasing a stop).

What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, I've never worked with Raw so all this is a little strange. So you shoot pretty much everything at 800 iso and select a set stop to work at and then increase or decrease you light in order to match?

Also, what exactly to you mean by slotting skin tones. Once you have figured out where to set exposure (slightly below the clip point), how to you adjust the exposure to take the skin tone into account?

Thanks again John, your input is greatly appreciated.

dustylense
08-30-2012, 12:17 AM
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's an overexposed part of the scene or you're not happy with how something is is represented in near clipping when something else is clipping ? I couldn't actually find the part of the scene you were describing in your little thumbnail. You're pointing at something and saying "i don't like the look" but what is it exactly that you mean. It's colour ?

jb

It's at 12:12 to 12:18 for so. Watch it on vimeo, not his blog.

Andrew Rieger
08-30-2012, 12:26 AM
Umm just watched it, I don't see anything. The next clip (Birds) is a tad soft but I think the focus is a little off (Plus vimeo is compressing big time). Not sure what that blue bit on the bird was though. I chalk this up to the fact that the guy just started using the thing. The first thing I shot with my GH2 looked like crap too but I figured out how to get the most out of it over time.

Kholi
08-30-2012, 12:39 AM
It's at 12:12 to 12:18 for so. Watch it on vimeo, not his blog.

Are you talking about the moire/rainbow? I had to stare to see that, and hard. There's no telling what that's from, it could be amplified by sharpening, it could be amplified by compression.

How is that automatically 'sensor-level'?

jmacfadyen
08-30-2012, 02:18 AM
That's the building I work in and the colours look about right and it is ugly as hell. On his blog I can see a bit of moire on there and I'd be amazed if there wasn't because the way they put that building together means that it has huge number of lines covering it. http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3191/2929041692_7aa6781116_z.jpg

Kholi
08-30-2012, 02:43 AM
I'm pretty sure it's moire, judging by the look of it. If someone doesn't like the look of that... I hope they haven't been shooting DSLRs at all...

t.p.
08-30-2012, 02:47 AM
here is another review i found on blackmagic forum its in french and i cant understand a word , but if anyone can , enjoy
i think the video is made by Emmanuel parlent if im not mistaken
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt5amt_blackmagic-agathe_fun

dustylense
08-30-2012, 02:53 AM
It's quite strange and I hope it's a fluke. None of his other shots exhibit it that I saw other than that strange bird neck quirk. Maybe the filter he had on his lens transmitted some phenomenon. I'm hoping to not see that in further footage. Honestly, it was very subtle and I think the benefits of the rest of the footage trumps what we saw there in those frames. Here is hoping Mr. Bloom (love him or hate him) will point this camera at some traditionally difficult patterns and scenes to let us see what this puppy can and cannot handle.

ANd yes Jaymac, that is one ugly design of a building.

t.p.
08-30-2012, 02:56 AM
and i found there is more footage ,dng files for download , posted in bmd forums , ill just link to the forum page where there is links ,so no one says i dont give the correct credit and so on...
http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=427

John Brawley
08-30-2012, 03:10 AM
It's at 12:12 to 12:18 for so. Watch it on vimeo, not his blog.

I do wish you were specific about what I'm meant to be looking at.

I saw some slightly yellow diagonal bands that looked to be aliasing artefacts running from 11 to 4 o clock on the left hand side. Is that what you're asking about ?

jb

DanKanes
08-30-2012, 03:22 AM
If that's the result of clipping, I guess Setting Zebra to 95% is a must.

Actually I have been able to recover detail in things that were to me way past 100 percent zebra when shooting raw... muy interesante.

DanKanes
08-30-2012, 03:24 AM
What's going on with the footage at 12:12? The highlights on the bird's neck are doing something strange. This really stood out to me. Is this similar to the dark sun spot in Dan Kanes' footage?
http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?865-My-First-Few-Hours-with-the-BMCC&p=17860&viewfull=1#post17860

Do we just really need to be careful about overexposing the sensor?

That was intentional to show that you have to watch out when shooting the sun. This is a CMOS camera artifact - and I believe it was possible to have this problem on early Red One M builds. Just a CMOS thing - but it's fixable.

dustylense
08-30-2012, 03:25 AM
I do wish you were specific about what I'm meant to be looking at.

I saw some slightly yellow diagonal bands that looked to be aliasing artefacts running from 11 to 4 o clock on the left hand side. Is that what you're asking about ?

jb
How much more specific is 12:12-12:18 with a description of were to look and a screen grab need to be? And yes, the yellow/pink bands are what I'm talking about. It's not a deal breaker, but it's there. ANd it's not over exposure being that the white building has higher values than the affected area. But I've dismissed it as the advantages of the camera outweigh 6 seconds of hopefully a fluke, possibly due to a poor filter on the lens or whatever.

DanKanes
08-30-2012, 03:27 AM
edit - dropping in a quote

John Brawley
08-30-2012, 03:28 AM
How much more specific is 12:12-12:18 with a description of were to look and a screen grab need to be? And yes, the yellow/pink bands are what I'm talking about. It's not a deal breaker, but it's there. ANd it's not over exposure being that the white building has higher values than the affected area. But I've dismissed it as the advantages of the camera outweigh 6 seconds of hopefully a fluke, possibly due to a poor filter on the lens or whatever.

Yes but you could have said, "hey check out the pink yellow bands on the left hand side". Then I wouldn't have confused it with the "overexposure" issue we were previously discussing. The screen garb wasn't very clear to me.

I don't think anyone is denying that they are there. Looks like aliasing to me on some fine detail.

jb

DanKanes
08-30-2012, 03:33 AM
I wouldn't even worry about it.

I am curious, though, of who of those with pre-release cameras aside from Brawley and Laforet have the experience with these types of cameras along with the post processing connections to finish properly.

Nice sideways sort of slam...

I have the experience, I just don't have time to grade a bunch of footage to be pixel-peeped - but I do barely have enough time to put up some DNG's showing "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" Truth of this camera. You guys can open these DNG's from my zip files in the suite of your choice and see that there is solid information past clipping when the stuff is treated right, and its possible to get very real, very natural imagery from this camera. It's early still and I think they will milk quite a LOT more from this as the firmware develops. Like Brawley said - it's an HONEST camera. Will have some real "pro" stuff up for you when I have the time to.

I think a mapped Prores 4444 in LOG option would be really quite good for what this sensor is capable of.

Kholi
08-30-2012, 03:34 AM
Nice sideways sort of slam...

I have the experience, I just don't have time to grade a bunch of footage to be pixel-peeped - but I do barely have enough time to put up some DNG's showing "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" Truth of this camera. Like Brawley said - it's an HONEST camera. Will have some real "pro" stuff up for you when I have the time to.

Had no idea you would single yourself out and take that personally. Sorry man.

DanKanes
08-30-2012, 03:37 AM
Just was buzzing through this before bedtime and that one caught my eye.

No offense taken - just had to pipe up heh heh.

Pages411
08-30-2012, 04:05 AM
John Brawly,

You have the patience of a tibetan monk,

Thanks for keeping BMC dreamers in the loop. Like all the time.

Zebras, Clippings, Sensor explosions, its paid for. Its Happening.

I would rather rock this then inflated digital rental prices and top ramen.

THANKS DUDE

Taikonaut
08-30-2012, 06:58 AM
John Brawly,

You have the patience of a tibetan monk,



Fire extinguisher on standby then:eek:

John Caballero
08-30-2012, 03:09 PM
Hi John: Page 15 in the BMCC user manual PDF:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/medi...era_Manual.pdf


Thanks Peter.

Dale
08-30-2012, 04:19 PM
John, I'm very impressed with the way you're handling questions.

I don't say much on these forums, but I read a lot.

Certain users have a horrible tone when it comes to speaking to people. I'm all for users voicing their opinions. But do opinions have to then turn into attacks? I may be reading posts with the wrong tone of voice in my head. But some people seem to post everything in a rude manner.

I don't wanna sound old (I turn 21 on Monday), but would it kill for a bit of tact and respect?

Keep on, keeping on.

Juls
08-31-2012, 01:14 AM
I decided to sign up, after reading this forum often for the last couple months just so i could agree with this post.

I think the work of the people putting up footage and answering questions often doesnt receive enough credit or respect.

Half the time i quit out of these forums wondering wtf is wrong with people in general. (Dont get me started on reduser...)

In other news i received a email from the company i pre-ordered this camera with this morning in Melbourne (No.1 on their list) saying my camera was ready to be picked up..

I had 5 minutes of joy before the manager of the store quickly wrang my phone to inform me the email was a mistake and that they arent expecting stock until next week....

Fluoro
08-31-2012, 01:30 AM
I decided to sign up, after reading this forum often for the last couple months just so i could agree with this post.

I think the work of the people putting up footage and answering questions often doesnt receive enough credit or respect.

Half the time i quit out of these forums wondering wtf is wrong with people in general. (Dont get me started on reduser...)

In other news i received a email from the company i pre-ordered this camera with this morning in Melbourne (No.1 on their list) saying my camera was ready to be picked up..

I had 5 minutes of joy before the manager of the store quickly wrang my phone to inform me the email was a mistake and that they arent expecting stock until next week....

Oh that's funny! You should put this anecdote in the shipping thread. The fact they said they are expecting stock next week is hopeful!

Taikonaut
08-31-2012, 03:09 AM
I decided to sign up, after reading this forum often for the last couple months just so i could agree with this post.

I think the work of the people putting up footage and answering questions often doesnt receive enough credit or respect.

Half the time i quit out of these forums wondering wtf is wrong with people in general. (Dont get me started on reduser...)

In other news i received a email from the company i pre-ordered this camera with this morning in Melbourne (No.1 on their list) saying my camera was ready to be picked up..

I had 5 minutes of joy before the manager of the store quickly wrang my phone to inform me the email was a mistake and that they arent expecting stock until next week....

Pretty strange how they changed the news from being ready to pick up to not expecting stock till next week and it seems with BMC next week or even next day never comes for ordinary customers.
Even possible the store manager decide to keep the camera himself for his mate and broke the bad news to you.

Fluoro
08-31-2012, 04:33 AM
Even possible the store manager decide to keep the camera himself for his mate and broke the bad news to you.
That's actually my greatest fear. I was told I was second on the list about four months ago but I wonder if I've dropped down a bit... Yes I am a pessimist. Good thing about that is I'm rarely disappointed and don't expect the camera till January.

Taikonaut
08-31-2012, 05:12 AM
That's actually my greatest fear. I was told I was second on the list about four months ago but I wonder if I've dropped down a bit... Yes I am a pessimist. Good thing about that is I'm rarely disappointed and don't expect the camera till January.

Then it is best if they don't know and not to post about a January expectation on here in case they read about it otherwise you may fall further behind their unofficial waiting list.
If I were you I would have raised hell with them telling them that you have just phoned your film producer Mr Spielberg that you will be available in his latest feature because you were told to collect your camera from the store;)