thedest

I only use the fast color corrector to do my WB - nothing else. My color correction is made mainly with tonemapping tools - and its far more powerfull than any of those options combined. If you want masks, if you want to saturate or change individual tones, play with gamma/gain you dont need any of those tools. All of that can be made with the stock software. Programs like Premiere Pro have tons of stock plugins. I have yet to see something on Colorista, Looks, Film Convert and LUTs that cannot be done with the basic plugins. All of those tools are made by smart people that want your money. They use the same engine and algorythms of the original software to create easy pre-sets. And most people just add those pre-sets with no fine-tune. Pre-sets will never be optimized for 99% of your scenes - and if you know how to fine tune, you are better off with the basic plugins. I may have 3 shots with HDR halos, and that was my mistake - barely noticeable for those that have never played with HDR image. Its pretty easy to remove 100% of the halos. Its just a matter of increasing the shadow/highlight radius. I really like that look though - I can see 2 scenes where I would change it though, because they create a highlight over the subject. Since thats just an exercise, its acceptable. And most of the shots are extremely natural and organic. The first thing that I fine tune on all of my videos is the lumma. I always use the full range, so in every single shot I have real whites and blacks. And you dont need a calibrated monitor to tell, just open your Y-Waveform. If your whites are off, there is no doubt that your monitor is not calibrated. Whats the point of buying a high-end camera in 2014 and simulate a vintage look on 100% of your videos? I can see someone doing that once in a while, but if you do that with all of your videos, I think its just an excuse for those who have no idea how to correct a video. And again, those "film stocks" can also be created with the basic plugins. Those guys create those softwares using basic tools. They just add a new interface - there is nothing new. As I said, there are lots of tools for sharpening a video. Some of them are better and some are worse. One important thing is that there is no point on delivering a ProRes without sharpening. You are just hiding detal. I have added a great amount of sharpening in my video and its still very organic. And BTW, Im not using "shapening tools" or "unsharpen masks", im using a "local contrast" tool for the job. I agree. I have lots of videos with artistic looks, far from reality. They can have a purpose. But please, 99% of the BMPCC videos look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzTqbex_YO4 That looks like a broken camera. People post this and say: "cinematic grading". If you search for iphone video samples you will see better stuff. Not taken. ;) Sorry, but I had to remove my last post. I was invited to do some stuff on another site - the guy who invited me wants to repost some stuff there.

10 chars!

Im not even talking about good content. Im talking about being able to do a decent grade. Grading ProRes is easy as hell. RAW is even easier. I only need 5 basic steps to get a decent ProRes footage: Those 2 DNGs are very decent. Do you have a link for your videos? It looks like for most people its IMPOSSIBLE to get a real-life look. The WB is always off, the footage is always dull, with no real blacks or whites, no contrast and the colors look totally wrong because the only thing they do is just to raise the global contrast, and thats not the right way to do it. So they use the excuse that they did a "cinematic grading". Bullshit. Its just a bad grading. To do a cinematic grading the first step should be to recreate a natural grading, then you add your split toning etc. Most people are not using ProRes now and they are only using RAW, wich is overkill in many situations - and they are doing that because they dont want to learn how to work with it. ProRes is simply perfect. Is it really that hard going from LOG to LINEAR? That was done in seconds and im only a hobbyist.

Am I the only one scared about how much crappy footage from the BMPCC people are posting? Its insane. The ProRes files that people are posting makes me scared. I thought that with RAW things would be better, but people can destroy even a RAW file. Thank God I know the science behind this camera, because if I was choosing a camera based on user samples posted on youtube or vimeo I would say that the BMPCC is the worst camera in the human history. And the funny thing is that people always post : "Nah.. is just a test. I did just a quick grade." or "Thats just a sample. Its not even graded just for you guys to see how awesome it is." When I read that what I think they are saying is: "Dude, I have no idea what I am doing! People say this camera is good, so im buying it and posting, even if it looks like crap. But I will say it was just a test so things will be ok!" And who wants to see an ungraded ProRes? PLEASE! I imagine that 99% of the BMPCC owners are probably frustrated with the camera, because they have no idea how to use it. Please people, study a little bit about post processing. Read about color science and THEN start posting something decent. People are making the camera look bad, when its probably one of the best cameras released in the last years for that price.

I agree about how good the ProRes is. He also says that having ProRes HQ is useless and that the LQ would be enough. About RAW, there are so many advantages. You can fine tune the exposure, you can recover more shadow and highlights, you have more detail, you can push it harder, you can add more sharpness, saturation, grade it better etc Honnestly, I can see it as being overkill for my mom, because she just want to get the picture. But for those who need to play with the image, for those who want to create a look and for those who want the best possible IQ, RAW WILL make a difference.

I was really surprise with that review. I really like PB, but saying things like "the only advantage of RAW is on hard lighting situations" makes me worried about some of his opinions. I dont know if he is reviewing the camera as a pro-camera, or as an enthusiast-camera. A good example is when he talks about the battery life. With the new batteries from the Blackmagic you can get 50min of juice - so with 3 batteries you can get more recording time than most mirrorless and DSLRs (and those batteries are cheap and small). Pro's usually use external power, so it woudnt be a big problem. I dont know. It looks like he is angry with the camera for some reason. I know that the pocket is not a good camera for him, because he can work with cameras like the EPIC or the ALEXA. But for ordinary people those cameras are not accessible. So for us, having that kind of image quality for that price is something new. I think he made a review aimed at guys like him, not at 99% of his public. BTW, im still waiting for Andrew's RAW pocket video. Im a big fan of your images.

LOL thats exactly what I thought, but I think that there is more than alcohol going on..

But the most important thing is: who is going to post the first (decent) RAW video from the BMPCC? A lot of guys are posting DNG samples. We want to see them moving :D The only thing online I think its a 20 second video of a wall. edit: LOL. There is also a shaky-video of half a face in the bus. So you guys buy a 1k RAW camera to do that? Just kidding :D

Do you guys think that Panasonic will be brave enough to release a sub 2,000USD that can compete in IQ with the BMPCC - the GH5? I dont think they are worried about BM since they made a camera that is hard to use for most users. Thats a shame. I thought that the new BM would make everyone desperate for a better camera, but there are lots of enthusiasts (fanboys- cough!) saying that their GH3s are almost as good - and its NOT!   3,000USD + lens is not cheap. But even at that price I dont believe its going to be launched because they will risk their more expensive cameras. Panasonic and Sony are not as crazy as those guys from Blackmagic. They simply dont care doing a 1k camera with the same quality as the most expensive ones.

  Yes they are. They are saying that he should work with charts or start doing only artistic videos. They say his tests are too in between.   Life would be perfect if you could always have a controlled environment, but unless you are James Cameron, you wont have that. We have lots of amateur shooters (like me). Actually, most of us are hobbyists. We dont work with lights and reflectors. We shoot trips, family stuff etc. When I go to the beach with my girlfriend I dont go with lights and reflectors in my back. Journalists dont shoot in controlled environments. Most of us dont have a crew. And please, if you have a crew, why are you shooting with a GH3? If you want to go pro, you should use a real pro camera.

  I think you're in the wrong forum. We are talking about technical data. If you want to see pretty stuff, go to another place.   The video posted from the GH3 was shot in a place with controlled lighting and had really low contrast. An iphone video could handle that situation. If you can be fooled by pretty girls doing a making of in a pretty place, you shouldnt be looking for technical data.   My video shows:   1. Landscape shot to evaluate the amount of detal the camera renders 2. Focus pull @ 150mm (50mm f1.4 lens) to show how easy it is to focus with the BMPCC 3. Panning shot in a brick wall to see artifacts 4. A lot of high contrast scenes, where most 8-bit cameras would start to struggle, and that includes the GH3, with no reflectors or lights to help 5. Before/After grading - without creating a "look". Real life colors/contrast   Most people can be fooled by pretty images made in controlled environments. Watch the zacuto shootouts and you will understand that. But thats not a forum for the average person. Thats a forum for enthusiasts, and we are not fools.   And how do you guys dare to complain about the test Andrew made? He does some of the best real life tests on the internet. I really apreciate test charts, but Andrews tests are more applicable. They give us a realistic difference between the cameras. He shares that without charging you and you have the guts to complain? Please...

Astro, I wonder what are you doing in this topic. Do you think that a camera test with objects not moving is something entertaining? Is this a topic about camera performance or about content and entertainment?   If you are a talented shooter, you just have to look to the camera performance and judge for yourself. If its good, buy one and make better videos. Please, make a topic about awesome content and wait for the answers. ;)   And please, look at that beautiful painting while you read my text, so you can be entertained and appreciate some art. I dont want to waste your time with technical stuff.    

Here you can see some Blackmagic Pocket videos graded by me. The GH3 could never create images like that. The video posted in the last page looks totally artificial and he pushed the grading so much that the video is falling apart.   Look how those images are true to life. You have great gradations in the highlights, midtones and in the shadows.   Just ignore what I wrote in the video. I was just kidding with some guy in another forum. Some shots  are not graded because they are just a sound test.   [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzaQaPI4BwM[/video]

You guys are not getting the REAL concept of dynamic range. You guys are thinking that a great dynamic range is just a detailed sky or detailed shadow. Nope! When we talk about dynamic range we are talking about highlights, midtones and shadows - and the gradations between them - those are the steps of dynamic range.   If your camera has 8 stops of dynamic range in video mode, it doesnt matter what you will do in post, it will still have 8 stops.   When you expose your GH3 for the highlights and recover the shadows, you are NOT increasing your dynamic range. You have the same amount of stops. You are just favoring the highlights and the shadows. What happens then? You simply crush and destroy the midtones. In the video posted above you can clearly see that. In the video, everything looks like its made of plastic. You have no gradation in the midtones. The cars look like a colored stain.   The image is NOT cinematic at all. In the BMPCC you will have beautiful gradations well distributed in the highlights, shadows and midtones, and thats why they look cinematic.   So remember, good dynamic range is not about seeing the clouds or whats in the shadows, its all about having great gradations from the bottom to the top!

Andrew, you seem to have problems grading the low light footage from the BMPCC. You crushed the DR and got bad colors. I wonder if you can share the original low light shot of the BMPCC so we can see if there is a better way out. Im not having those problems in low light. I can grade them without throwing away good dynamic range. And I can recover more color info than that.   Great test BTW

At first I thought that those videos were overexposed. But an overexposed video should have a lot of shadow detail. Then I realized that the shadows were crushed. How many stops of DR does this camera have? 5?   The video of the city skyline shows A LOT of crushed midtones.   I wonder if those videos were shot with a cellphone.

words cannot express how bad those videos look

As some of you may know, Im about to buy a new camera to play with 4K RAW videos. Since I have to wait until the end of September/October for the release of a possible new version of that camera I decided to do an exercise to understand where I am, and where Im going to. So I did some comparison test shots. With the same camera and the same lens I shot the same scene with different settings: 1st shot - 1080p h264 - FULL AUTOMATIC CONTROL (Exposure, Picture Profile etc) and no post processing. 2nd shot - 1080p h264 - FULL MANUAL CONTROL + Custom flat Picture Profile (Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation all the way down) 3rd shot - 1080p h264 - FULL MANUAL CONTROL + Custom flat Picture Profile (Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation all the way down) - USING HDR CORRECTION IN PREMIERE PRO 4th shot - Compressed 4k - FULL MANUAL CONTROL + Custom flat Picture Profile (Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation all the way down 5th shot - 4K RAW - 13 stops of DR - FULL MANUAL CONTROL ............................................................................................................ . I did SEVERAL tests in many different conditions, but I only uploaded 3 of them. . [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOLz1bnQXkg[/media] . ............................................................................................................ . ORIGINAL 4K VIDEO . https://mega.co.nz/#!4p1DHZoA!UXV36VwTFy_KpA_cvMLPNg5ssupI74e7h7MNj-zVkFU . MAKE SURE YOU DOWNLOAD THAT TO SEE THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1080P AND 4K . ............................................................................................................ . MY CONCLUSIONS 1. After doing that test I realized that I will never ever again spend more money in a new 1080p h264 camera. NEVER EVER AGAIN. 2. As everybody knows, the Dynamic Range of the RAW is AMAZING. BUT, if you have a video with a good compression method and if you use MANUAL MODE and a good PICTURE PROFILE, in scenes where you dont have EXTREME CONTRAST, RAW dynamic range is not essential. 3. The color reproduction in the RAW file cant be matched. The compressed 4K have great colors, MUCH better than your average AVCHD video. I could live with that color depth. But the RAW is simply BEAUTIFUL. 4. The color reproduction in h264 videos is bad. They look artificial and they lack color gradation. 5. When you use h264 + picture profile + post processing you can have a much better dynamic range than when you shoot full auto videos. The problem is that when you process the video you bring A LOT of artifacts 6. A 1080p RAW video has much more detail than our ordinary 1080p AVCHD. I couldn't see the difference in detail between the 4K compressed and the 4K RAW, obviously because im using a 1080p monitor 7. I've seen people saying that when you shoot RAW, you have to watch out for blown out highlights. They say that its better to underexpose. THATS WRONG!! Its easier to recover blown out highlights than shadows. When you recover the shadows you bring a lot of artifacts. When you recover the highlights you bring NOTHING. So to have the best Dynamic Range in your shot, using RAW, you should OVEREXPOSE a little bit your highlights because you can ALWAYS recover a good amount of blown out highlights ............................................................................................................ All the videos were made with a Sony NEX-5R. I used some tweaks to extract a really fast 4K video. Its a low frame rate video, it lasts only 1 second and it overheats the camera, but it was a nice exercise.    

I really like how the BMPCC video looks, although I dont like john brawleys videos, specially the first one from the market. He makes the videos from the BMPCC looks less special, specially for those who dont have a good eye for judging videos   Anyway, here is my test grading from 2 of his videos. They were made using a custom HDR plugin im working on. Note that you can recover a lot of info in the shadows and in the highlights.   [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6W_hBM3wo[/media]

Never mind. And the answer is no. I have the J3 manual in my hands and the burst mode of the J3 is a shame next to the V2, so for 4K video the only way is to go with the V2.   But the doubt about the SD card continues. The price difference between the 80MB/s and the 95MB/s is huge. Will I have a better performance with the last one? Is the writing speed limited by the SD card or by the camera processor?

One more thing. Whats the recommended SD card? Will I have a hit in the performance from different class 10 cards? What will be the difference between the 45MB/s to the 80MB/s and the 95MB/s?

Does the J3 has the same specs of the V2 in burst mode? (full manual control, 40frames @ 60fps, higher sd card writing speeds)