HurtinMinorKey

LOL. peederj.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZeDFwTcnCc     The highlights all had boatloads of headroom on that clip.  You know, you'll feel better if you just break down and get one.  That way you won't have to waste so much time being jealous.  At the very least, you won't sound like a tool to people that actually know how to use the camera. 

Yep, this one had the noise in your clip, but if you look at the scope chart (before fiddling with it) the trees look underexposed (definitely not exposed to the right, as they say).   So that means it was brightened up in your workflow, which introduced the noise. If you rendered it as it was shot (which i did), in BMD Film, it looks quite dark (with no noise).  So i conclude that this noise was introduced by brightening. Here is a version with only slightly less brightening. You'll notice there is less noise.    https://vimeo.com/72162002   I consider this case closed. You're camera should live a long a happy life :D

  I always monitor in video and set peaking to 95%, then expose highlights to peak.  Besides focus I ignore what the screen looks like because i found it to be misleading.  But if you are going to monitor in film mode, it makes a lot more sense to start your grade with the BMD Film LUT, which is what I did when i graded your footage.    And sometimes the DR of a scene is just too much for a camera. I've heard it said that you need 15-16 stops to capture all the information on a bright sunny day when strong shadows are present.  So 13, although great, isn't going get you everything.      *****I took down the clip i posted because it looks like you gave me the footage from 0:20 ish (not 0:32) by mistake, so my comment about the crop is irrelevant. Also, there wasn't too much noise to begin with @ 0:22 *****   It doesn't take much time, so if you want to post the right .dng sequence i'll do it again.        But judging by the waveform, i'd still say my original hypothesis about the noise is correct. 

So here is the original, waveform. This shows you were over exposed. And all the tree detail is compressed down.  But this doesn't appear to have caused the noise in and of itself.  The second picture shows the waveform when i drop the offset. This big gap in the middle(look at the RGB scopes in the upper right panel) shows the difference between your sky and trees. That dead space makes it tough to get an nice contrasty image.          It looks like whatever program you used, tried to inject contrast in an automated fashion where there was none, and broke apart your image, causing noise. 

  Um, i came from photography too. That's one of the reasons i was screaming for raw years ago. My point was that telling a story with a still image, is very different than tell a narrative with a motion picture.  Just looking at Reverie, you wouldn't say any of the frames are necessarily cheesy, but when you put them together the effect is nauseating.   Working with actors, getting emotion from a scene, these things matter. I'm not sure VL got a lot of experience with that shooting from his helicopter.

  II just meant that the single dng should suffice to see the waveform.  I'll have your answer by 11:30PM EST. Have no fear, i can almost guarantee you are screwing something up. :D  

  Lol, i think all we needed was  a single .dng frame, but it will be more fun this way!   I'll view these when I get home to Resolve. In the meantime, where did you do your down sample to 1080 from 2.5K? I didn't notice the aliasing before, buy now that I see it, I think it's a scaling issue. May be related to the strong noise pattern here. Either way, i'd wager something is funky in the workflow.   Cool file share service btw. I get nearly 10MB/s on the download(at my office).

Now this is a good video: I don't care if it's off topic. F-it, it's Friday and my mind is about to melt.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cye-1RP5jso

  Did you monitor in film mode? I always monitor in video mode.

  Key word: Photographer. I rest my case.

  That's funny, because I think the "footage" looks terrible. And the shot selection is nauseating (cheesy doesn't even begin to describe it). Speaking of PB, I know he's not Kubrick, but he makes VL look like an amateur. 

  I responded on your Vimeo profile. To make a long story short, please post a .dng from 0:32

Amen.

Rokinon is coming out with a 16mm t2.2 cine lens. This fills a nice niche and should act like a 35mm on my BMCC. I just hope there isn't too much distortion.   http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/elite-brands-inc-announces-rokinons-newest-16mm-t2-2-cine-lens/  

Absolutely first rate. Badass with a cherry on top.

The flat files were released by John Brawley, out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think this was sanctioned by BMD at all. And if you are interested in buying this camera I think you should download some of this stuff and see the type of versatility you can get over the files in the grade. Are these the most interesting shots ever, no. But Brawley wasn't being paid to shoot a commercial for BMD.   In fact, I'm glad that BMD doesn't waste a bunch of money on marketing. And I'm surprised Brawler leaked these clips again, given the Shitstorm he go got the last time he let clips out (for the BMCC). And to be fair (to you guys), back then I was one of the people screaming bloody murder about the BMCC clips until i realized that John was doing this pro-bono.    Anyway, how helpful (for a potential buyer) would it be to release a bunch of clips with $100K worth of cranes and studio lighting? I think it looks like quite a capable camera. Think about how far we have come. And speaking of overproduced promo vids, lets take a tour through history, shall we?   https://vimeo.com/7151244   I've come to hate this film... and I'm not sure I have a good reason.

  I hardly see any noise, except in the grades where people went totally nuts.       I agree, no one thinking of a 5D3 will get this camera, they may consider the BMCC.

Axel, I was talking about the BMCC, not the pocket camera in response to Kays.   As for the Pocket Camera, In the test footage we got yesterday, there was a huge difference in brightness between the highlights and the shadows. As I mentioned earlier, it's almost as if it was intentionally done that way. Even with film type DR you would have trouble not clipping or crushing, no?   I doubt JB has a ton of experience with the camera and I doubt he is using a monitor with a waveform, so some hit and miss is forgivable.    This is ironic, more than a year ago i was getting flamed on this site for smack talking Brawley's handling of the BMCC. 

Test Batch #2: Not much movement..Yawn   https://vimeo.com/71841230

  I agree that once they go, they go, especially in PRORES.  But if you know what you are doing with the camera, you have to be a complete mutton-head to lose them. Expose to the right and use peaking at 95%. It's not the camera's fault if the operator leaves the lens cap on. 

  But less happy to know that there is virtually no movement by objects within the shots. 

Dammit JB, you're gonna get me fired from work. :D

One thing I think these clips do show is decent DR. It can't be coincidence that there is direct sunlight hitting white objects in each shot, at the same time there are dark objects in the shadows.   And the resolution looks fine to me. The shot of the street taken at 45 degees looks quite detailed to me.  I think if there was more consistent lighting you'd be able to see more contrast within the different objects in the shots. The broad range of lighting makes it hard to make any of the images nice and contrasty without either crushing the shadows or blowing out the highlights. 

  Him and a small army...   But he is legit. He does seem to throw up some random clips.

Here is my take.    https://vimeo.com/71782779   I'll take whatever JB gives me and like it, but geeez.