Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BMCC 2.5 footage looks so much better than BMPCC4K....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

    Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Chris Adler View Post
      Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

      Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.

      Unfortunately no. Panasonic users do the same thing.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Chris Adler View Post
        Are Blackmagic cameras the only ones where people feel compelled to spew their opinions and sadness because xx isn't the way it was on a different camera, and they demand their expectations be met since a $1200 camera is a MASSIVE investment?

        Holy crap these discussions are getting so old. If you like it, use it. If you'd rather use something else, use that. Nobody really cares what anybody else thinks about the camera.
        To be fair, this is literally a discussion board about these cameras. I'm not sure what else you expect to find here, instructions on how to fix a muffler?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by tclark513 View Post
          Who elected you the true descriptor of all?? We're allowed to have an opinion! Don't like people's opinion? Move on...
          Nobody but his point was that people keep using useless terms. There's a whole group of people that constantly seem to talk about stuff like motion cadence and mojo and other crap that's either not real or meaningless. Motion cadence has to do with shutter speed and framerate. If you have two cameras shooting 24 fps with the shutter set to 1/48th, then they'll both expose the sensor to light for 1/48th of a second 24 times a second in 41.6ms intervals. In other words, it doesn't differ between cameras but there are people that swear it does.

          Some would say rolling shutter would effect motion cadence and while that has nothing to do with cadence, it definitely effects motion. The thing about that is that we can measure which cameras have rolling shutters and there's nothing subjective about what amount of rolling shutter is more filmic. It would simply be which ever cameras have RS closer to 5ms. Though I'm sure this is one of the few instances where people would prefer that their camera be better than film and just have a global shutter.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Flabasha View Post
            To be fair, this is literally a discussion board about these cameras. I'm not sure what else you expect to find here, instructions on how to fix a muffler?
            Fair point. I guess I'd expect discussion, not pure opinion. People that plan to never use the camera because it doesn't do x as well as camera y really are just a waste of everyone's time and energy.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by joe12south View Post
              Oh Good Lord. As if "cinematic" wasn't bad enough, now we're trotting out "cadence." Hold on everyone, next up is "magic" and "mojo".

              Excuse me while I go take a Polaroid of my vinyl records.
              Can we stop the subtle bullying ffs? Or can I not use the word bullying because that makes me a snowflake and hipster in your book?
              Btw, "cinematic" is even used by Blackmagic Design themselves to describe their cameras.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                Nobody but his point was that people keep using useless terms. There's a whole group of people that constantly seem to talk about stuff like motion cadence and mojo and other crap that's either not real or meaningless. Motion cadence has to do with shutter speed and framerate. If you have two cameras shooting 24 fps with the shutter set to 1/48th, then they'll both expose the sensor to light for 1/48th of a second 24 times a second in 41.6ms intervals. In other words, it doesn't differ between cameras but there are people that swear it does.

                Some would say rolling shutter would effect motion cadence and while that has nothing to do with cadence, it definitely effects motion. The thing about that is that we can measure which cameras have rolling shutters and there's nothing subjective about what amount of rolling shutter is more filmic. It would simply be which ever cameras have RS closer to 5ms. Though I'm sure this is one of the few instances where people would prefer that their camera be better than film and just have a global shutter.
                I always thinking that Motion cadence is pretty objective term. Digital sensors produce different motion blur type than real film. There is a lot of test explanation about this subject at Tessive TIME FILTER http://tessive.com/the-time-filter/ http://tessive.com/time-filter-technical-explanation/
                At 24fps different sensors may produce different type of motion blur shape. Some looks harder with more strobo effect, some looks slightly smoother. High Resolution, and High sharpness always affect overall look to harder side. Lower resolution and OLPF filter makes it slightly smoother. But those are minor differences and nothing close to real film motion blur/motion cadence look.



                Last edited by shijan; 11-13-2018, 11:54 AM.
                All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by shijan View Post
                  I always thinking that Motion cadence is pretty objective term. Digital sensors produce different motion blur type than real film. There is a lot of test explanation about this subject at Tessive TIME FILTER http://tessive.com/the-time-filter/ http://tessive.com/time-filter-technical-explanation/
                  At 24fps different sensors may produce different type of motion blur shape. Some looks harder with more strobo effect, some looks slightly smoother. High Resolution, and High sharpness always affect overall look to harder side. Lower resolution and OLPF filter makes it slightly smoother. But those are minor differences and nothing close to real film motion blur/motion cadence look.
                  That's really interesting and seems like something that could be done with an electronic ND.

                  That being said, this video even explains that the exposure over time curve of film and electronic sensor are nearly identical and certainly identical enough that we wouldn't notice differences in movement between them. The fact that all of the cameras that everyone is talking about here all use an electronic shutter means that there aren't in fact any differences in motion cadence between them and that what many are seeing as a difference in motion cadence is in fact something else. People even claimed differences in motion cadence in the Ursa Mini Pro after they first used BRAW but all that was changed was compression and the method of debayering.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by tclark513 View Post
                    Who elected you the true descriptor of all?? We're allowed to have an opinion! Don't like people's opinion? Move on...
                    Relax. Next time I'll add 17 emojis.



                    See. Better?
                    Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                    Pocketluts Store

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                      That's really interesting and seems like something that could be done with an electronic ND.

                      That being said, this video even explains that the exposure over time curve of film and electronic sensor are nearly identical and certainly identical enough that we wouldn't notice differences in movement between them. The fact that all of the cameras that everyone is talking about here all use an electronic shutter means that there aren't in fact any differences in motion cadence between them and that what many are seeing as a difference in motion cadence is in fact something else. People even claimed differences in motion cadence in the Ursa Mini Pro after they first used BRAW but all that was changed was compression and the method of debayering.
                      Nope, that chart represents electronic shutter vs electronic shutter combined with mechanical shutter (aka Sony F65) vs Tessive Filter (aka RED motion mount nowadays). Real Film motion curve is same smooth as Tessive filter.

                      Electronic shutter probably also may be different from sensor to sensor generation. Rolling shutter speed may affect it somehow. But it just a guesses. I never able to make so complicated compare tests.

                      They have another great video explains motion aliasing between electronic Shutter and LCD display refresh rate during playback, but Vimeo link is locked now.
                      Last edited by shijan; 11-13-2018, 01:44 PM.
                      All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by alex.stefani View Post
                        I still prefer the 2.5k's image, however...
                        I think that the 4K is a different tool, more versatile, it's fantastic in low light...I think it's the real "pocket", you can pick the camera and bring it in situation where you cannot bring much lighting and still have great footage...an excellent camera for documentaries, spots, and even narrative work with a "modern" look...
                        For that price, is a great tool.

                        For narrative projects, sincerely, I will still use my Ursa Mini Pro, it's a great camera, it destroys the BMPCC4k's latitude, "thick" negative, very good colors...
                        I was hoping for a S16mm "cut "of the original Ursa Mini Pro sensor in the Pocket II, but hey guys, the bmpcc 4k is a camera for the masses, a great tool for videographers, which gives you at the same time a tremendous amount of flexiblity with raw and an image that prety good out of the box for the average videographer. Maybe the original pocket was conceived as camera for the masses too, however the truth is that most of its buyers did not use that fantastic (yet light-demanding) sensor at its best....

                        My opinion here is...if you have a tight budget and you want a tool for commercials, even narrative short projects, the bmpcc 4k is a great tool..
                        if you're shooting a short film/feature buy or rent an ursa mini pro...
                        if you're shooting a narrative short film project but for some reason you have a limited budget..the old bmpcc is the way to go! I'd prefer this camera over the bmpcc 4k in controlled environment and exterior daylight..
                        "Destroys"? Really. I doubt you (or anyone else) could consistently differentiate the final image of any two 4K modern cameras, let alone the UMP and the P4K, in a controlled blind test. (Pros can't even do so between the RED Dragon and the GH5.) We are talking about empirically small differences, which is part of the reason we're left arguing about undefinable intangibles.
                        Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                        Pocketluts Store

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Everyone please refer to the definition of "cadence." It means something very specific, it doesn't mean any vague feeling you have about "motion" capture.

                          Apologies for being such an old grump in this thread, but it's a near perfect storm of vague BMD mumbo-jumbo.
                          Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                          Pocketluts Store

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by stip View Post
                            Can we stop the subtle bullying ffs? Or can I not use the word bullying because that makes me a snowflake and hipster in your book?
                            Btw, "cinematic" is even used by Blackmagic Design themselves to describe their cameras.
                            So, has BMD apologized because the P4k is less "cinematic" than their previous cameras? Did they roll back v4 color because it is less "cinematic"?

                            No? Then, just taking a wild guess, but it seems they do not believe that low resolution, milky, brown images /= "cinematic" any more than 16mm is more "cinematic" than IMAX.

                            All snark aside (I'm trying, I'm really trying) we've hit a point on the curve where objectively better digital cameras are now considered worse. There's absolutely an element of nostalgia here, not at all unlike fetishizing vinyl records.
                            Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                            Pocketluts Store

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by joe12south View Post
                              Everyone please refer to the definition of "cadence." It means something very specific, it doesn't mean any vague feeling you have about "motion" capture.

                              Apologies for being such an old grump in this thread, but it's a near perfect storm of vague BMD mumbo-jumbo.
                              Right. If it has nothing to do with timing then it doesn't have to do with cadence.

                              Originally posted by joe12south View Post
                              So, has BMD apologized because the P4k is less "cinematic" than their previous cameras? Did they roll back v4 color because it is less "cinematic"?

                              No? Then, just taking a wild guess, but it seems they do not believe that low resolution, milky, brown images /= "cinematic" any more than 16mm is more "cinematic" than IMAX.

                              All snark aside (I'm trying, I'm really trying) we've hit a point on the curve where objectively better digital cameras are now considered worse. There's absolutely an element of nostalgia here, not at all unlike fetishizing vinyl records.
                              When the first Pocket 4K footage came out and all this talk about it's image looking "digital" came out I spoke to a guy on a forum claiming the same thing, said he liked the look of the old cameras more but he admitted it might just be nostalgia. I told him that sounds a lot like people who were against digital audio because it sounded more "digital" and said they could hear the difference between magnetic tape and a CD. Sure enough, that same guy goes "It DOES sound better than CDs." I mean, scientifically, we know that digital audio is at sample rate that exceeds what we're capable of hearing and this guy was fighting science because he liked the hiss and all that of old formats.

                              So not only are there a lot of parallels but it's often the same people complaining about these things.

                              There has to be some name for that phenomena. I mean, things like hiss, wow, and all those flaws that can happen to analog mediums can be recorded or added and stored digitally and it would sound the same to our ears, they just aren't inherent to the medium. Likewise, noise, desaturation, blur, contrasty gamma curves and everything that people like about the original BMPCC can all be added to P4K footage not the other way around.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                                There has to be some name for that phenomena. I mean, things like hiss, wow, and all those flaws that can happen to analog mediums can be recorded or added and stored digitally and it would sound the same to our ears, they just aren't inherent to the medium. Likewise, noise, desaturation, blur, contrasty gamma curves and everything that people like about the original BMPCC can all be added to P4K footage not the other way around.
                                I have a buddy that owns an audio mix studio here in Nashville. Almost nobody actually mixes on an analog board any more, but people still pay to run their finished album through his board because "Abbey Road" was mixed on it. One could simply sample the output of that board to pick-up those particular imperfections., but instead they pay silly money hoping the "mojo" will rub-off on their mediocre tracks. Even after failing an A/B test both approaches, they would still do it.
                                Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                                Pocketluts Store

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X