Leaderboard

What does chocolate taste like? Sweet? What does sweet taste like?(not trying to sound rude) You know it when you taste it. I would say that filmic, which is a term I use a lot when talking about video is: Has A Surreal feel to it, dream like, definitely not in the present, different from real life Unlike the immediate presence of being "live" whether being live in person or on something like television or video. Plus the other qualities mentioned above DR, sometimes shallow DOF etc.

Monday.

I'd really like us to settle on an acronym for the thing. It's the Blackmagic Production Camera. BMPC. All this nonsense about BMCPC, BM4K, BM 4K, BMPCC4K. Blah. :lol:

To answer one of your questions, the point of using a film emulation lut is due to the fact that color reproduction on film is different than digital. One is a chemical process and the other is electrical after all. As a result shoot a scene with film while have different color tones than digital, While you could grade footage your self to get a more film like color response the emulation luts can do that for you. They are just a starting point however. A proper grade should always follow. Color correction and luts go hand and hand as little or as much of both to get the look your after. As for when you use a lut, generally it is the last step or node since they can crush your black or clip your highlights.

Found these free tutorials helpful, they really gave me a good idea/starting point for how i should be going about things in FCPX: http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pro-x-color-grading-table-of-contents And yes, this forum is all about the tech. If CC does come up (see the BM4K thread attacking James Miller's footage), it normally descends into juvenile muscle flexing rubbish. Its a shame that people don't share more tips for this sort of thing. If you really want to learn more about grading, CC etc...the 2nd edition of this book is excellent & a must buy for anyone wanting to learn or improve - its worth every penny: http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=2855#main or this one by the same author: http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=2856#main

You're suggesting that supersampling introduces aliasing. Mmm-kay, dubious but playing devil's advocate perhaps bad downscaling can introduce aliasing. Yeah. So do it well. Do it right. Use quality software. Work at a high bit depth and use high quality scaling. Folks wanting to cut corners and finish in their editing software, yeah, they might have some issues. Not only does it not introduce aliasing it contributes to noise reduction as well as artifact reduction in the case of AVCHD footage. That's not theory, that's experience. Finishing in something like After Effects from a 32bit linear light workspace does not introduce the artifacts you're describing during down sampling. Nothing negative is introduced. I would hope that something like Resolve would be as capable. Upsampling horizontally also is very forgiving. Even at SD resolutions. This is the defining exploit in our visual system that made the 16:9 anamorphic DVD the highest quality home release you could get of any film until BD. It's what's behind the color sub-sampling present in all broadcast video formats past, present and, looks like, future. With full-sample in the vertical field Sony was able to pull off their amazing con of 2001 convincing certain filmmakers that the original HDCAM was somehow the death-blow for film, with all of its 3:1:1 135Mbit 8-bit codec glory. I will agree that optical does a better job, especially if all you're doing is a naive digital scale by comparison. Saying what you're doing is a viable alternative for folks with 36mm sensors is all fine and good. I've suggested the same, given that, besides a few of the available adapters, large format cameras tend to have more caveats associated with compatible lenses, etc. But the provocative title of this thread and several other statements within the thread go above and beyond claims of having a viable alternative.

To achieve 2.40:1 aspect ratio with the 5D you crop 1080 lines to 800 lines. The 1080 lines of the original 16:9 footage corresponds to 20.25mm of sensor height and after cropping this means an effective vertical sensor size of 15mm. After cropping, a "scoped" 5D represents a 36mm x 15mm sensor. Anamorphic 35mm, however, is 21mm x 17.5mm at the negative which makes it a larger format by more like 16% (*) in the most important dimension with respect to lens selection, to framing, scale and focus distance. Besides the elongated bokeh and horizontal flares (for bent glass up front versus the boring middle and rear anamorphic designs) the fact of it being a larger format plays into its overall aesthetic. This is also a factor in its favor when shooting on smaller format cameras like MFT + 1.33x versus shooting spherical and cropping in the same format (putting aside the oversampling and enhanced detail captured when conforming to flat 1080P). Anamorphic allows the use of the entire sensor height of the 16:9 camera which puts you closer to your subject than you would be when cropping for "scope" format. It's vertical framing that determines your distance to subject after all, not horizontal, when you're dealing with widescreen. Focusing on a subject that is closer to camera means enhanced bokeh (hence why anamorphic of any stripe is bokehlicious on 5D and similar cameras, even if the optics are sometimes harder to wrangle). Yeah it is. Doubly true if you're shooting AVCHD. (*) with only a single decimal place given for anamorphic and the cropped 5D being a whole number the math is a little "roundy" on this point given 15/17.5 = 0.857 --but-- 17.5/15 = 1.166

WOW! I dont think that you know much more than your neighbourhood. There is an entire world out there, my friend. You need to get out of your desk. You just sounded like Hitler right now! That may be one of the most stupid and nonsense comments EVER! Have you ever heard about miscegenation? Let me tell you a secret: even black people can have blue eyes! One of the hottest girls in the planet has a dark skin tone and blue eyes. Let me present you to Adriana Lima.

What camera are you using it on may I ask? :) And is it difficult to balance that near 1kg worth of lens and adapter?

They get to a look, or a representation, but they're still arriving at a subjective guess as to what it should be. There should be no guessing and no series of mouse moves besides loading your clips. When you first see your footage you should be actually seeing your footage properly transformed for viewing and then grading it from there. That's why Academy Color Encoding System is such an exciting development for RAW and why, hopefully sooner rather than later, there will be no reason to not be working this way. Smarter, not harder.

I think over the course of many years, if Hollywood DP's shot on camcorders, and amateurs shot with film then everyone would be after the camcorder look.

I bought a 14mm with a GF3 for a little over $200 on CL (the GF3 is a fun/useful cam by the way). So you may be able to pick up a b-cam panny body for almost nothing with that lens, or the 14-42 as Matt James Smith mentions. These lenses will also work on Blackmagic Cinema cameras. However, the detail from the BMPCC is unreal so the images picks up the smallest camera shake. Therefore, you want lenses with OIS (and that have an external button for it). That makes the Nikon lenses less attractive from that perspective. However, stills are better from an APS-C or full-frame sensor, so the NIkon lenses are a hug plus there. What's great about Nikon is all their lenses work on their digital cameras (unlike Canon). So if you find a manual Nikkor at a garage sale you could use it both on any Nikon or the Panny with Adapter. I agree with Andrew's frustration about the DSLRs. They aren't nearly as easy to use as Panny (as you wrote) and their quality doesn't touch the BMPCC.

* Non-blown out highlights * Good shadow detail * Low frame rates * Scenes with low depth of field * Colors not oversaturated, and corrected to colors reproducible with film * Smooth gamma * Smooth camera motion * Good focus without mid-shot focus adjustments * Less obvious - picture grain * Images without over-sharpening * Wide shots without excessive lens distortion * Low on the "spoilers" such as moirés and aliasing There is certainly subtlety to all this, though, and it has been an interest of mine why some digital cameras subjectively do better at the film look than others out of the box. Having said this, I think 4K video may change the public's perception of what looks good. They may see very sharp 4K footage as preferable over the somewhat softer "filmic look" shown today. They may also like somewhat more saturated colors over time. I was in a TV store recently with two identical model TVs, one over the other on the wall, and a woman pointed to one of the TVs, and said, "What's wrong with that one?". The salesman replied, "It was calibrated." Michael