Leaderboard

One thing to note.  ACR applies sharpening by default on dng files.  So if you haven't zeroed it the noise does get lifted a bit.

a new capitalist revolution my friend i pay you to take my tin products and i thank you as well. how dare you call it a clamp it is a screw on adapter. it is the curvy scarlett johanhanssonson of the clamp i mean adapter world. scarlet from a few years ago when she was in japan with bill murray. my adapters will be young un fresh . not like dog tired  brad pitts and angelina jolly smokin bong dope stoned with 20 kids running around a french chateau . fresh and sleek like young scarlett of old : )

Yeah, this forum has become like that, but i was expecting a listing straight away after he got confirmation!

Sorry for loosing your 666 post status but good for the forum you post again. Interestring that you were searching the perfect 8mm anamorphic. Perfection is hard to find. For sure many of us are addicted to anamorphics. Searching, collecting, selling. It is not so easy to be happy with what you have. You own or have owned many anamorphics I think (Iscorama, Lomos...) Great that you found the full package now!  :) I like the tiny Bolex Möller so much: Lightweight and very easy to use instead of double focussing. After one day of practice you can do some rack focussing as well.  :wub:

pleassse please for the love of sweet baby jesus no :) not that link any link but that even a tin of spam luncheon meat anything but that liar. edit if the seller of that optic is a member here sorry i got carried away but stop calling it iscorama already. it not honest decent or true is it.

EOSHD is right. What a time wasting argument.    Some of us come on forums like this to learn, and discussions like this just makes that process damn confusing.   Wrong information should be deleted.

Gain can be applied in an analogue way to the sensor A/D converters or it can be applied digitally after the data leaves the sensor at the native ISO.   So this guy araucaria is increasing the gain digitally.   And gets annoyed at the noise.   That is really this argument in a nutshell. Utter time wasting.

  ISO is an analogy for the sensitivity of film stock. The use of this term is *helpful* for estimating the relative sensitivity of a sensor with a certain gain chosen. But actually vague and incorrect. Native ISO means the signal is neither amplified nor attenuated.

Tony i am not doing less than accusing you of making me buy two möllers! Haha, Francisco before learning any new vocabulary i have to learn speaking :)

An oldy but goldy, but worth another look if you've seen it before   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ  

Here's the actual exposure at ISO 200.   Now you see how far this anonymous forum guy 'araucaria' has lifted the shadows in his example, only to complain about the noise!  

  You are right. It is a default Photoshop preset applied to every raw file. And setting it from "25" to "0" practically eliminates what is described as "noise". Keep in mind, that camcorders with intelligent compression algorithms also develop raw images under the hood, that they add gain, NR and sharpening. But sharpening must be applied to the BMPCC images, obviously. Perhaps there are better methods (.i.e. in Resolve, as a last step of grading then, there are also discussions everywhere whether to apply NR first or last, plainly the right answer is first, the node model makes it easy to get the order right - only that there is no denoiser in Lite :( ), but I guess it just needs some understanding on how the tools work:       This is from here. Hystery begone!

Hello friends, I am new here, long time lurker. Thank you sincerely for the discourse; it's extremely educational to me.   After a brief analysis of these .dng files in ACR my reaction is, in a word...pleasure~! These images feel naturalistic to me in a way that the BMPCC prores for the most part does not, not to shit on the prores and say it's worthless––it's very fine. But there is a certain character to these that I far prefer, perhaps because of the added effective dynamic range [when properly processed]? I'm really not sure; I appreciate all of your comments as they help me get a grasp on what is going on here. I would like to understand the 'why' of digital cinema as much as possible and ultimately I am just a beginner.   Anyway, again, ACR produced pleasing results for me with minimal effort, and a little noise reduction goes a long way if that's the look you're going for. I didn't find what I would consider to be an unexpected amount of noise in any part of the images based on my perception of the exposure and lighting conditions.   I'm looking forward to seeing more raw imagery from the BMPCC and I look forward to seeing the analysis here on this board, thank you guys.   Cheers!

Yes! :) Indeed , you can do some rack focus... So we can expand our "....limited cinematic vocabulary and grammar...."  ;)    Great you are back QHR. Best.

don't say that i have been accused of being a no nothing racist for droning on about the baby moller.   and yet it is unique 1958 technology that is state of the art today. but what do i nose A.

  I say, let's wait for some moving images. Noise is hard to evaluate from a single image. Yes, if it was a stills camera ...   It may be bad, it may actually look good. You know, all the high bitrate - small GOP hacks of the GH2 never added any real detail to the images, they dithered obscure parts in a way like film did, creating so called 'temporal samples'.   Yes, I know, iso noise is fundamentally different from film grain. But, like Andrew wrote, it still is something people add voluntarily to make their videos look more organic (they add random film grain simulation, which like iso noise, has nothing to do with the pixels in the image, it's an artificial layer).   If it really turns out to be an 'issue', there is a good chance that tools like Neat (or the pro version of Resolve?) can fix it easily.   Raw photography is also not free from noise. Adobe Raw within Photoshop has it's own NR filter. The noise you detected on the ship is nothing I would have found in original size (1080 viewed on a 1080 monitor from a viewing distance appropriate to, er, cinema), my guess is that it is negligible for video in most situations. In this photo, the noise disappeares completely with a mild 18% luma NR (visible in 400%), no big deal, since one has to treat the raw with several agents anyway.   What is more, the sensor is said to be comparable to that of the BMCC. The first Brawley demos also showed some noise, but it isn't discussed as problem anymore, afaik. Maybe it can be avoided altogether, maybe not. No reason to despair.   Paramount for me, I like the images, I am not for missing the wood for the trees. Or worse, to ignore the path underneath your feet! 

I really haven't had much of a chance to play with this lens, unfortunately. But if our Government remains closed next week, I may have a few days off and perhaps I will get around to it.   It really does seem to be the full package, at least for my purposes. I think that mine looks pretty great at f/2.8. In my opinion, it has more character than many of the more popular and sought-after anamorphics out there.   (And by answering this, I am losing my '666 posts' status that I have been hanging on to for a while. Rock and roll.)