EOSHD grades the Blackmagic camera raw CinemaDNG files

[qumite]

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345662752' post='16232']
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]
[/quote]

A quick comment about the video. I would think that sharpening a resolution chart that only has two colors and extremely regular and even shapes isn't a good indicator for how real world footage responds to sharpening algorithms.

I'm more interested to see comparison with real world footage between the two even though I don't think it will be even close based on what I've seen so far.

[FilmMan]

@JCS, I appreciate your point of view.

I jump on the bandwagon, jump off, jump on, etc. I get excited then I get not so excited. Testing needs to be done. I've been playing with different footage from various cameras. Some better, some not so good- although people will beat their chest saying the contrary. Also, how the footage is shot is critical - lighting, lenses, etc. People need to take a step back and look at things OBJECTIVELY and put their possible blind passion aside.

The "detail" in an image is important to me. How the image grades is important. And the list goes on. We'll have to see how the BM story unfolds. I'm staying neutral for now. In the mean time, people should keep a clear head.

[jcs]

When someone makes statements that a device is high resolution, including higher than not just the 5D3 but also the C300 (which has a 3.8K sensor (the amount required for full 1920 sampling without aliasing) vs. the 2.5K BMC, a logical request is for a resolution chart for an non-subjective comparison. I own Sony, Canon, and Panasonic cameras (include a BMD Intensity card). I use what works- they are all tools.

Shooting with similar sharpness lenses side by side is also a good test (but will tend to be more subjective).

Why would anyone not want to see the truth? A resolution chart for cameras is like an MTF chart for lenses: both very useful metrics in understanding hardware performance. Subjective tests are also valid, but completely different tests.

I'm asking for a simple ISO 12233 test chart shot with the BMC to compare with other cameras (GH2, 5D3, F3, FSx00, C300, etc.). Here is a much more detailed independent analysis of the C300: [url="http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon_c300_alan_roberts.pdf"]http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon_c300_alan_roberts.pdf[/url]. Based on the hardware design and test performance, it's not likely that the BMC can match the C300 in resolution and aliasing performance (not comparing cost, only responding to a statement that the BMC produces higher resolution images vs. the C300).

[nahua]

I'll defend JCS in that yes resolution chart tests are needed. But I definitely like the look of this camera. And I've been working awhile now with 5dmkIII, and although you can sharpen the image, it doesn't work for all situations. And you still are dealing with crappy compressed footage, and crazy "mosquito" noise. I like the noise with the BMC, looks very fine indeed. I just wish that this camera was put through its paces with a real director (not some vinbloomyfloosy BTW). I think this camera will really deliver the goods!! Exciting times ahead!

[tabac]

I'm sure nobody here is saying they 'Don't' want to see chart tests, just maybe that's not the only way to judge a camera. No chart will reveal the 'Truth'. It may add to the info available, but I just really like what I see so far. I see it like a pocket Arri SR3, albeit a digital one. And at a price that is damn near risk free. For me it's a total no brainer, I like the 5Dmk3, but this is a totally different animal.

[rommex]

Andrew, before chart-lovers hijack this thread:

You wrote: "I couldn’t get above 1fps in Premiere CS5.5"

I could be saying stupid silly stuff, but I couldn't overcome exactly the same rate -- 1 fps -- in Premire Pro until I realized that imported DNG sequence [u]is interpreted as a 1 fps sequence[/u]. Then I right-clicked my clips in Project Bin and in "Modify > Interpret footage..." pop-up menu changed 1fps to 24 fps. :)

[nickname]

great trolling jcs! really impressed. bringing out the devil to take down the new christ! incredible feat on this blog! look at all the answers you got! you´re the man!

but seriously there is no point to compare this to any dslr. it has a different look and feel and tells a different story. it´s a convincing image. i look at it and don´t think ugh what´s with the highlights, what´s up with the shadows? it´s beautifully uncompressed, it´s everything the 5dmk2+3 are not.

[Shawn_Lights]

[quote name='rommex' timestamp='1345675882' post='16256']
Andrew, before chart-lovers hijack this thread:

You wrote: "I couldn’t get above 1fps in Premiere CS5.5"

I could be saying stupid silly stuff, but I couldn't overcome exactly the same rate -- 1 fps -- in Premire Pro until I realized that imported DNG sequence [u]is interpreted as a 1 fps sequence[/u]. Then I right-clicked my clips in Project Bin and in "Modify > Interpret footage..." pop-up menu changed 1fps to 24 fps. :)
[/quote]

Yep. I stayed away from importing straight to Premiere because it added contrast, crushed black, etc. It did all types of stuff when I imported it for some reason.

I found this workflow to be simple and effective. It's also pretty damn fast too.

This is the same workflow I did: http://cinescopophilia.com/ikonoskop-cinema-dng-workflow/

[John Brawley]

You can actually import DNG's into FCPx but they don't look very good. The way the RAW image is *displayed* is highly variable and it doesn't mean you're getting the full DR of the image. But you can do it if you wish.

I really encourage you to look at Resolve, even if it's only to transcode to your preferred codec.

jb

[pss]

i actually adjusted the raw dngs in aperture and accessed the adjusted files directly within fcpx....
these files look so much better (organic but still crisp without a hint of digital) then anything i have seen from sony (fs100, next, a77) canon (5dII, 5Diii) and nikon (d800)....i had the BMCC on order but cancelled when the fs700 was announced....
the BMCC at 30fps with twixtor should make (reasonable 50/60fps) slo-mo no problem....
i think the still files are even good enough for web and some limited print work (i am mostly a still guy....) res'd up a vertical crop in genuine fractals and a 8x10 might be possible...
i was looking at the scarlet for the same reasons....these files are much better...
for a first gen product...at this price point...insane...

[Xiong]

Im sure we'll be seeing charts later when there in our hands, as for a taste, its enough. I dont think @jcs is trolling, he's right. I take these DNG files just like a teaser, im sure we'll get more tests soon.

[Alex Mand]

I have MKII, MKIII, FS100 and work daily with RED MX footage. I played a bit with the files on resolve and all I can say is... Amazing!

The wow factor is just unbelivable! I pushed really hard and could grade to a level that is only possible with red files and yet this cam costs only a fraction of a RED MX. Sharpness is there and skin colors are just "correct". I don't have a better term...

It's a new world baby! I'm sorry for chart fans but MKIII footage can't even come close to this. And is just the beginning...

This thing is a little monster! Just ordered mine today. BM did a nice job on this one. Bravo!

[hmcindie]

I really like the look of the BMC at the moment. Grading RED was always fun and it looks like BMC is right up there which is AWESOME!

I'm not agreeing with the sharpness or ISO performance yet though. RED Epic iso performance was always sluggish and I believe one of the reasons is that there is no added gain, just post-work ISO. When you take away the ability to give the sensor more electricity and just do it in post it usually ends up backwards.

A lot of people just bake in an ISO with the Epic and shoot and then they cry in the grading room. "Why is that so noisy?" Well you shot it at ISO 1600 and very underexposed, what do you think? You still need to shoot properly exposed, it doesn't take that away at all.

This site claimed that the HX9v is a very sharp cam so... I'll take it with a grain of salt haha.

[galenb]

[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.

[nigelbb]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1345708121' post='16272']I don't think any one said that the BMCC has better "Resolution" then a 5D.[/quote]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.

[Andrew Reid]

I don't understand this request for charts and facts when the evidence is staring one in the face.

The colour red is red, does JCS also need a chart to prove that too?

[Andrew Reid]

[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]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/50362bc9bef44_bmd11cropres.jpg[/img]

This is a 1:1 pixel peeping crop of 2.5k raw with no sharpening applied.

2400x1350.

The C300 has a similar level of resolution to the GH2, around 900 lines.

This looks more like 1100 lines.

What gives you the idea that any 1080p camera exceeds that?

[Andrew Reid]

Also comparing this to the C300 is not apples to apples.

$3000 vs $15,000.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345654901' post='16225']
Yes- how about a resolution chart shot? Then we can compare apples to apples.
[/quote]

A chart will not allow you to compare apples to apples, the 5D Mark III does not have 12bit raw.

It isn't 4-4-4 1080p.

It is downsampling from a 22MP sensor and skipping so much info.

If you want to compare apples to apples, wait for my Blackmagic vs Alexa test in a few weeks.

[markm]

Just had a play with clips 2 and 4 in AE - Resolution, colour correction and bringing back overexposed areas all do what it says on the tin.

This is a GREAT camera and a professional piece of kit at a well affordable price. Really is a game changer.