galenb

There's a new low light test shootout between the MBCC and FS100: http://vimeo.com/48407841 The original is there for download but not the original ProRes files.

[quote name='syberfilm' timestamp='1346030425' post='16568'] Look at how much detail is in here. Kind of looks like HDR video. Before and after video. [color=#666666][size=2][background=transparent][background=transparent][/background][/background][/size][/color][/quote] Holy Somalians!! I messed around with the image for a while but I never got it looking that nice. Huge props to you! You got some Grading skills.

I've looked before but then I realized... Doh! All the other canon mount cameras are either APS-C or full size. On those cameras there would be a visible crop on the image because the m43 lens mount is so much smaller then FD mount. Obviously with the BMCC, the sensor is smaller and might not have an issue with the crop... However, I think the flange distance is really the biggest issue. The m4/3 mount is right up against the sensor (just like C-mount lenses are really close to the film gate). If the lens mount you are trying to adapt has a longer flange distance, you can just add that to your adaptor. But if the flange distance is shorter (like with canon to m4/3) you would basically have to carve away into the body to make that happen work. But hey, you never know. Maybe some crazy guy will pull off the front of the BMCC and make a whole new replacement front with M4/3 mount on it instead. I suppose it's possible at any rate.

Hey I was born that way! Alright fine.... [click, click, click] There. Happy now?

You know, I think shooting in RAW will be kind of nifty and it will be nice to have when you need it but, I have a feeling that a lot of people will choose ProRes. Now granted, we haven't seen any ProRes files from the camera yet but if they are anything like what you get when you convert the Raw files to ProRes, it's still going to be a huge step up in quality from DSLRs and even most large sensor video cameras like the FS700 or VG20. I have a feeling people are going to be really surprised by the quality and flexibility of ProRes.

Oops, I was thinking of the 5DII. Sorry. :-)

Looks like the original video might be private.

!!! AWESOME !!! That's hilarious! You should make a whole short with you punishing food. Actually that's a great treatment for a music video. I'm sure someone would buy into that. The FS700 high speed stuff always looks so nice.

[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345715976' post='16276'] In the blog entry Andrew in fact wrote "Resolution is superb. Best I have ever seen for the price. Better than the C300 and better than the GH2." I seriously doubt that BMCC has better resolution than the C300. [/quote] Oh... Sorry. Missed that. ;-) At any rate, I still hold that it's Detail or sharpness or whatever. Maybe I've got it all wrong but resolution in my head is a concrete term that refers to the number of pixels in a given image.

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345662752' post='16232'] No need for a subjective debate, here's a reasonable 5D Mark III resolution chart test for an empirical comparison*. Look forward to seeing what the BMC can do. Resolution is very important to many folks- a chart will show us a good deal of info regarding resolution, acuity, and aliasing performance. Resolution has been huge source of debate on this site. Recall the images I processed showing the non-OLPF removed footage closely matching OLPF-removed footage before it was decided OLPF-removal wasn't helpful. I also showed sharpened 5D3 footage from Tonis' early 5D3 footage was decent, before sharpening was considered an acceptable option (for many folks it wasn't and still isn't). Therefore, it is reasonable to request a resolution chart test for the BMC when it is claimed it is much high resolution than the 5D3, which has been heavily bashed on this site for poor resolution. 2.5K native Bayer isn't enough for 1920x1080: we need to sample at least 2x, or 3840x2160 per photosite (RGB), per Nyquist sampling theory. Again, a resolution chart will show us how far they got via Bayer interpolation. [url="https://vimeo.com/39517721"]https://vimeo.com/39517721[/url] * folks can decide for themselves the method of extinction of detail, using the same metric for both devices. [/quote] I don't think any one said that the BMCC has better "Resolution" then a 5D. Better "Detail", yes. To put an even finer point on it, I'd use the term "Detail retention." And I think that's pretty evident. Even a hacked GH2 has better detail retention then a 5D. But this is due to the fact that the GH2 hack overcomes the 5D's only weak point: Compression. The5D may have a larger sensor and it might have a superior sampling method but the compression throws away so much detail that you would never know. Of course, this whole argument is mute because the 5D has many other strengths. Some cameras are good for some things and other for other things. For instance, I would't try and shoot a skateboard video with a BMCC. Why? Because one of the hallmarks of those videos is the ubiquitous fisheye lens. With the crop on a BMCC it's going to be pretty hard to get the results that clients expecting. And this is a perfect example where I would use a 5D. Speaking of photosites and Nyquist and all that, I personally have never actually seen anything that says exactly how many photosites the BMCC sensor actually has. Sure we know how many pixels there are in an image. But I doubt, looking at these images, that we are seeing a one to one sensor to image pixel sampling. Most CMOS cameras start with a higher resolution sensor and down-sample or super-sample to get an image for 1080p. Right? I could be wrong but I think it's the same with the BMCC too.

Oh and new Blackmagic forum too! http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com

[b] [url="http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/afterglow-dngs-are-out-in-the-wild/"]AFTERGLOW – DNG’s are out in the wild[/url][/b] Now available John Brawley's blog, the first CinemaDNG files from the Blackmagic cinema camera have been publicly released. [url="http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/afterglow-dngs-are-out-in-the-wild/"][img]http://johnbrawley.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/p8170022.jpg?w=640&h=480[/img][/url] Check it out! I'm sure there will be a lot to say about this...

This guy does some of the craziest torture tests during reviews. I know it's not the same lens but I think you should check it out anyway just because it's a great technical read: [url="http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/02/samyang-75mm-f35-fisheye-lens-review.html"]http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/02/samyang-75mm-f35-fisheye-lens-review.html[/url]

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345282269' post='15955'] or see the description on the site: [url="http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three"]http://www.zacuto.co...tout-part-three[/url] "[color=#000000][font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana][size=3]In Part One we issued a challenge to the viewer to pick their favorite shot in a blind line up of all nine cameras, where you could only relay on creativity and your own personal taste. Part Two shocked and surprised you when we revealed which camera was which, and the debate began over how much creativity of the cinematographer plays a part in the final image.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana][size=3]Now in the reveal in Part Three, the final piece of the puzzle fits into place. The pixel peepers will finally breathe a sigh of relief to see how the cameras stack up against one another under the same grueling conditions. [b]We put each of the nine cameras through three different shots with the same rigorous lighting designed by Bruce Logan, ASC.[/b][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana][size=3]We’ll give you glimpses of the RAW ungraded footage side-by-side with the graded, to show you what each camera is natively capable of. You’ll also see two brand new shots that better illustrate the differences between each camera. We’ll also give you a comparison between the original lighting and how each DP changed their shot for their creative version.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana][size=3]As we come full circle with the conclusion of the “Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout 2012” we hope that we’ve inspired you to go out and continue learning and developing yourself as a filmmaker."[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] OMG! I can't believe I didn't read that! Yep, it's oficial, I'm kinda slow. I feel like a fool for making a fuss over nothing at all. ;-) Thanks evil_thought2!

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345264586' post='15947'] That was part 2. In part 3 every camera had to use identical lighting. No one was allowed to change the lighting in any of the test in part 3. Part 3 was real test of cameras performance. Part 2 was just the subjective interpretation of the scene by the DPs. [/quote] Can you point me to where it explains that? I can't seem to find any mention of that in the video.

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345231888' post='15926'] That's what you expect from fanboys Their favorite camera didn't do well? Time to find why the test is flawed. Notice no one tried to find flaws in part 2 when they were happy with their camera's performance. Remember the negative reaction to Zacuto on reduser boad? As you see all fanboys react the same way. [/quote] Even though I disagree with your tone, I do feel like there is a shred of truth to what you say. I don't even have a GH2 though. But I have to admit that my opinion of the test is swayed a bit by being a big fan of the GH2. Even so, I still don't think the results are indicative of what you can actually get out of that camera. Have you've seen that youtube video of Drew [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPHIEU1X1Bo&list=UU2YdiXc72fMA_d16NDJi41A&index=1&feature=plcp"]showing off the latitude of the GH2[/url]? Because of that, I was surprised by the results in the Zacuto test. It makes me wonder if the footage was converted at some point in the process after coming out of the camera and thereby loosing all it's dynamic range in the process? or maybe there was some bad tone mapping or something... Lets face it, there's still a lot of confusion around the proper way to work with GH2 footage (AVCHD and quicktime on a Mac issues) and it doesn't look like there's any end in sight. [quote name='dbp' timestamp='1345231080' post='15925'] I feel bad for Zacuto. They clearly went to a great deal of effort to make this project to benefit the community, and it's getting ripped up pretty good by a lot of people. I suppose that's to be expected, though. I thought they did the best that you could hope. If the only did part 2, or only part 3... I think there'd be lots of room to complain. Giving both views is as honest an assessment of the cameras that you can give. You get to see how they work in non ideal conditions, and how they work when the stars align. Part 3 did reaffirm why the high end cost what what they do, but the price difference is so astronomical that it doesn't diminish the low end, imo. The GH2, 7D, I Phone cost the same as a small accessory on some of these other cameras. I do wish people would not get so emotional when their piece of sacred gear doesn't come out looking so favourable in a specific test. [/quote] Maybe I feel a little bad for them but... I don't think it was the best they could have done. I think the best they could have done was to just do what they did in the last shootout. I thought that one was great. I think it was way better in showing off a more raw unbiased truth about these cameras. Especially since they used film as their base line in those older shootouts. I feel like this one just went off the road in a big way. It was mostly about how everyone in the industry has very widely differing opinions on everything. That and how in the end, the only thing that matters is that the pice that you make with these cameras is compelling enough to watch. Which is all true enough. But, if that's the case, doesn't that negate the whole concept of doing a shootout?! ;-) I don't know, maybe I'm looking at it all wrong...

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345182347' post='15863'] Part 3 is real test of each camera's ability. Every camera was using identical lighting .. [/quote] Wait... I'm pretty sure that in part 2 they show that each DP was allowed to change the lighting to better suit the camera. That was the whole point of this shootout. They wanted to show what each camera could do when in the hands of a person who was experienced with it and knew how to get the most out of it. And, that's exactly what I dislike about this shootout because it assumes that the DP knew what he was doing. This is also important because it shows people are always going to pick the shots that were lit the best not which camera responds the best to the same lighting conditions. Really, I see no point in doing this test other then trying to confuse the viewers.

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1345095861' post='15789'] Has anyone mentioned what profile was used on the GH2? Didn't look like Nostalgic to me... and was the Mac gamma shift/clipping issue part of the problem for the GH2? [/quote] Indeed! I was thinking the same thing! I know I've seen GH2 footage look better then this.

So, I think I understand the concept of what they were trying to do. I have a feeling that the last few shootouts were criticized for not having people who knew how to get the best out of each camera involved. This newest one was an attempt to be as even handed as they could (evenhandedness seems to be the theme of this whole shootout). But, the problem in my eyes is that each DP had a slightly different take on the lighting and camera setup. I feel like this puts to much of the DP's talents or lack there of, into the footage. So now, as you look at the footage, your opinion of how it looks is influenced by how good or bad a DP is. I understand that some of the cameras needed to have the right lighting conditions to really succeed but I think they went over board. Plus, it looks to me from looking at the ungraded footage, that it was exposed for the shadows instead of the highlights. I've seen the GH2 pull deatails out of dark shadows in post but not blown out highlights. All of this had a pretty big effect on how I perceived each camera's results. As I watched, I kept thinking, "Oh yeah, this shot looks way better then the other ones" but as I watched it over and over again, I realized that in some cases what I didn't like about a particular camera had more to do with weather the shot was to dark or to bright or washed out. I feel like this had very little to do with the camera at hand. I don't know if anyone else feels this way though. another big one for me was, It seemed like the DP's using the Higher end cameras where just more experienced. So I think that affected the results as well. The three things I got from this is: 1.) the 7D footage looked terrible. 2.) The GH2 footage look pretty bad too. I question the DP's tactics. Maybe the same is true for the 7D but I doubt it since I've used this camera and can attest to it's ugliness. But I can't believe anyone would pick this as their favorite. 3.) Leaving out "Film" as a comparison this time took away an important water mark that I felt was essential in properly evaluating these cameras. Are they trying to say that film is now no longer important? 4.) The Vimeo compression this time around was totally out of control. It actually got in the way and made it really hard to tell what was really going on. And finally... Alright alright alright already!! I get it! Please stop bashing me over the head with, "The camera is just a tool, it's all up to you to make it look good." Alright I get it. I already know this. But really, if you guys really believe this, then why do a shootout at all. I mean, if it doesn't matter what camera you use, why do you care enough to make a 3 part movie about it? Why not make a movie about how to make better movies?! Ultimately, I feel the film asks the question: What is the answer? The answer is, there is no answer.

The final installment, part three, is up now. [url="http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three"][img]http://philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-15-at-13.36.29.png[/img][/url] [url="http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-part-three"]revenge of the great camera shootout part three[/url]

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1345056886' post='15775'] Nobody is forcing him to stop using AF, but I'm pretty sure it's just a fact that AF is never going to be perfect in a situation like this. So if you want to use AF you have to accept the fact that sometimes it will hunt, no setting is going to change that. It's just the way autofocus works. It needs contrast, there might be a moment when there is not enough contrast on the AF points, the camera will lose focus, it has to start searching and the hunting starts. [/quote] Agreed, but you see, this is a much more helpful answer then asking why he's using AF or just telling him he shouldn't. Right? I like when this community is helpful is all.

Oh you guys. I think if he wants to use AF and it's been working for him for the most part, just let him use AF. What's the big deal? Anyway, I have no idea what might be causing the issues off hand. Are there any common circumstances between the shots where it fails? Like, Low-light situations, moving at higher speed then usual, or low contrast in the shot etc?

Hi Chris, Yeah, I absolutely intend on getting the training. I watched an hour long training video already so I know it's not just running around all willy nilly. ;-) The video is actually linked in the original post and is really fun to watch. Especially once you get past the setup and into the shooting. I really don't know what to do. I mean, I totally see what you're saying about just going for the real thing. It makes more sense from a professional standpoint. The more I read about these Steadicam competitors (not just the ones mentioned above but also Vericam, glidecam, floatcam), it seems the arm is the place where "Steadicam" makes the most difference. But, I just can't help feeling like the chinese made one is still a good way to get into steadicam operating with the aim that later, I could get a real one. But I don't know. My main fear is that I would affect the perception of my professionalism. I guess I could always paint over the labels. :-) Also, I'm not sure I'm totally on board with Axil's views that all chinese made goods a crap. I really wish there were some reviews of these products. Not that this is conformation or anything but there's a post by someone who said they've seen a Leopard and thought that the arm was better machined then the Flyer: [url="http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/stabilizers-steadicam-etc/507024-leopard-ii-magic-stabilizer.html"]Link to post[/url]. (as far as I can tell, the Leopard is the same as the M-01 above) Here's a little more on [url="http://cheesycam.com/wondlan-demo-leopard-stabilizer/"]CheesyCam[/url] page But admitadly, this is really the only outside information I've seen. :-(

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1344868051' post='15516'] This is the intuit focus, a special follow focus for steadicams. [/quote] Oh Yeah! I've seen these remote focus units before but only ever mounted on a tripod. Thanks! [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1344868051' post='15516'] It is widely known that chinese products are cheap and look convincing, but are of inferior quality. There are no exceptions, even a simple design like a plastic ball for kids can't be recommended. If it is a technical challenge like a car, a camera or any kind of rig and has a hinge or a screw involved - forget it. You might consider the simplest and smallest steadicam available for your camera, so that you can hold it without vest and arm. Few days of practice and a task for a steady shot are more than half the battle. Then there is software like Warp stabilizer, Mercalli or Smoothcam, with which you can make [i]almost[/i] smooth clips perfectly smooth. Read this: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/757-cheap-method-for-tracking-shot-and-dolly-shots-on-the-gh2"]http://www.eoshd.com...hots-on-the-gh2[/url] [/quote] Thanks for you input Axil! So first off, I don't want to get the low load bearing ones because here in town, most people use RED and these can get pretty heavy. Those are some pretty cool rigs though. :-) Second, I forgot to mention that I'm actually thinking of trying to rent myself out as a steadicam operator if I get good at it. So the unit I get has to be able to handle wide variety of loads. My question is, do you think the fact that I had an off-brand steadicam would make me seem unprofessional? Asked another way, if you were shooting a commercial and there was a steadicam shot, would you not hire me because I didn't have a "real" steadicam, even though my reel was fine?

Yeah, I agree. It's a gray area to be sure. You know though, the same might be true the other way around too. A local supplier finds some cheap equipment from china (or even gets a license to sell it in the US), slaps a new label on it and jacks up the price. We might not even know any better. Actually, this has happened to me now that I think about it. Many years ago I was going to buy a Dell laptop until I discovered that Dell was only licensing that particular model from an Asian company called Scepter and sticking their label on it. So I just bought one from the original company and saved about $500. [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1344833336' post='15466'] Btw, shipping is pretty expensive on this one. [/quote] This place has them for even cheaper: [url="http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/shooting-steadicam-M-01-shooting-kit-camcorder-photography-kit-steadycam/812281_577308147.html"]www.aliexpress.com[/url] $1144 + $189.47 for shipping still come out to be $1,333.47 so that's still a super low price to pay for all that. Plus, it comes with it's own foam packed flight case, and mounting stand. BTW, I ran into this old amazingly informative [url="http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTYyNTI3OTQ4.html"]Steadicam video.[/url] I think it's something that came with the system to teach new owners how to setup and operate one. It even covers advanced topics like how to achieve certain moves and proper posture and all sorts of stuff. Man, those guys are huffing all the way through it while lugging around a huge Betacam.