Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

[Ed_David]

 

Above shot on the new micro camera.  Loving this look.  And the camera, hopefully has a better form factor and battery life than the original BMPCC.

 

 

Sorry this link is from Cinema5d but anyway:

 

 

It seems like there is a smoothness to the image in the Canon 1D C - and has meatiness to the image.

I saw some clips from the Ursa Mini and it again has that blocky, FS7 or F55 feel.  Just doesn't feel as good to me, nor does clips from the C300 ii - just blocky motion:

Here's another beautiful quick clip with the 1D C - 

 

 

 

t feels organic, smooth, and pretty.

I gotta start messing around with this guy.

Thank you Andrew.

Is it the inherient resolution in the 1D C?  How it interpolates the frames?

 

From the little I've seen - I think the blackmagic new pocket camera has nice motion too - who knows what's going on with all this - Maybe I need to see more test videos.

 

 

 

[Cinegain]

Yeah, somehow the 1D C has got it down and got it down good. It might not compete well in the numbers game (well, maybe launch price, ey), but delivers you something that, and I hate myself for saying this, because it's stupid, just looks filmic. It's less robot... less clinical, less emotionless, less efficient, yet sooo efficient... it's more like a living creature that breathes, has soft skin, with some freckles perhaps and when you look the creature into its eyes, it's not pitch dark and empty, but there's something expressive, a spark, a flame. There's emotion. Confidence, richness. I don't like the camera one bit. I'm really all about mirrorless and practical things, lots of digital aids, love specwars and getting the latest and greatest. But I just have to admit... there's something about that 1D C... the footage I've seen that comes out of this is hard to touch and it makes it look so effortless. Maybe everything else there is just trying too hard...

[Ed_David]

Now seeing the blackmagic micro camera in the "micro" spot - that looks really beautiful and smooth as well and sharp - for some reasons these cameras are getting it right. I think the blackmagic cinema pocket is better than the 1d c, cause of raw and higher frame rates.

This may one amazing little $1k camera.

[Cinegain]

Agreed! The pocket was really something, especially when you picked it up in the summersale way back when it was 495 USD and there were rumors it was because they wanted to clear stock before the successor came out... and then none came! That's just insane power for the value. Of course, it's not without its shortcomings... but if your primary target is ending up with gorgeous footage... it sure delivers that!

I've been keeping my eye on the BMD Micro Cinema Camera as well, but unfortunately it's very BMD to have to wait for ages and we're not even sure if they pulled off the global shutter... maybe it's something they've said out to do as a goal and never quite reached it. The cameras they announce are more like predictions it seems... 'we think we'll be able to do this in due time, so just bear with us'. Well... NAB 2016 is just around the corner now... what's up B-M-to-da-Deeds!? Perhaps they did a complete redesign of the sensor and infrastructure, enabling finally both rolling and global shutter operation, the thing they were fighting with... as well as giving it a higher than FHD sensor now (2.5K/4K?). Maybe they'll even add a little screen, or a sweet accessory that will work together with the Video Assist like a charm, making it an ideal set-up... I've said it before, but oh how I would love to use it something like this:

which wouldn't be far off from shooting a caged GH4...

You're right, the footage out of these 1000 bucks Blackmagics are as well very organic looking. The Pocket wouldn't win the numbers game either, it is mirrorless, but doesn't really show all those crazy features we've come to expect from having had Panasonics, Sonys and even Samsung around. Again... maybe this is another testament that others out there are just trying too hard (perhaps even Blackmagic themselves with the URSA Mini?). Focusing on all the numbers and features, upping it with every release and here we have something that just basically has one standing out feature: rich meaty files with loads of embeded character. The benefit of the Pocket and the Micro is... they are great for the mirrorless shooters that now shoot GH3, GH4, G6, G7, GX7, E-M5II, NX1, A7S, A7SII & A7RII. A key benefit of me as Micro Four Thirds shooter is... I already have figured the mount out, so I have tons of native glass and ways to adapt other lenses as well! It's still small and light! And it doesn't break the bank! Maybe you shoot an interview that has to go online as soon as possible and you get things right in-camera and use on-board audio, well, it's great to use something like the GH4. Quick color adjustment here and there, 4K gives you some interesting editting options and bam! If you're a hybrid shooter, shoot some stills as well. But... for those times that you shoot moody stuff, where looks are a key factor and the image has to look, here I go again: filmic, dang, those ProRes or DNG RAW files will get you places!

It's a nice addition for a mirrorless shooter. Currently the typical combo would be GH4 and BMPCC. I can imagine in the next months that will turn to the A6300 and BMMCC. One for the thick moody stuff, the other for all other things including some sweet slowmo!

But first it needs to come out!

[squig]

Quite 'filmic'. The thing that sets the 1Dc apart from most DSLRs is the motion jpeg codec. Real 24 frames per second, and better color than that interpolated interframe H.264 bastardization. The Nikon D90 was mJPEG too, much nicer cadence than interframe codecs. But right now for me nothing short of a 5DMK3 raw, Alexa, or F35 touches the micro cinema camera for an analog look.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

34 minutes ago, squig said:

Quite 'filmic'. The thing that sets the 1Dc apart from most DSLRs is the motion jpeg codec. Real 24 frames per second, and better color than that interpolated interframe H.264 bastardization. The Nikon D90 was mJPEG too, much nicer cadence than interframe codecs. But right now for me nothing short of a 5DMK3 raw, Alexa, or F35 touches the micro cinema camera for an analog look.

I'd check out more footage from the Digital Bolex. Like the BMPC, a lot of people wrote it off when they heard it wasn't good in low light, but that thing has some of the most gorgeous colors I've ever seen from a digital camera. Just beautiful. Global shutter (CCD) and great audio, too.

[squig]

I do like the look of the Digital Bolex but it seems to struggle with highlights and a magenta cast. With the right grade I reckon I can get the BMMCC close to that look with more DR.

[Jonesy Jones]

I love what I'm seeing from the micro cinema too, but I'm absolutely thrilled by the 4.6k stuff too. Both cameras are really nice, but I think the 4.6k sensor is going to completely level the playing field. Just my 2 cents. 

[kaylee]

uhmm this is only slightly off topic lol....

if this is true http://www.canonrumors.com/there-will-be-a-4k-5d-camera-cr2 – that theres a 5d4ish 4k slr coming soon, would you all expect it to shoot motion jpeg for 4k like the 1dxii and 1dc? 

theres definitely something about the motion of the 1dc... it just feels like solid, independent frames to me, like film frames in that sense... hard to explain but i know what you guys mean 

[DPStewart]

Remember folks that LENS choice has a HUGE impact.
The 4k cameras can very easily suffer from TOO sharp an image. That's one reason the NX1 usually dosn't look nearly as smooth as the 1DC or the BMPCC. The Samsung lenses can be extremely sharp. 

Motion cadence is unique to each camera maker usually.
Some folks can see the difference, others can't.
If you ask enough people, the Blackmagic Cinema and Pocket cameras frequently rank very high, as do the Canons if they are shooting an all I-Frame codec

Having seen many test comparisons done, I can tell you this - you'd be shocked by how similar many cameras can look when you put the exact same lens on them and shoot the exact same scene.

[mat33]

5 hours ago, squig said:

I do like the look of the Digital Bolex but it seems to struggle with highlights and a magenta cast. With the right grade I reckon I can get the BMMCC close to that look with more DR.

The latest D16 firmware has fixed the magenta cast issue with iso 100.  Also there is a better understanding now of the the D16 colour space, so some better footage is coming out. I think it looks pretty great, and the D16 skin tones are amazing.

[Mattias Burling]

The problem with the magenta wasnt in camera. It was the NLEs not interpreting the DNGs correctly. Before the latest firmware it was easily fixed by switching to BMD film in Resolve or AE.

[Axel]

I agree with everything stated above. Let me just elaborate on an aspect apparent in any Micro/Pocket-clip and particularly in the Training Day clip: sensor size vs. focus vs. aspect ratio. I think the cinematographer did a good job, considering it was handheld and focussed manually, but ...

For 16x9 (or 17:9, cinema widescreen), S35 (or APS-C, let's not split hairs here) seems (to me) to be the ideal sensor size. Yes, I know, a lot of factors contribute to sDoF, bokeh (aperture with or without the need to compensate for light conditions, pixel size with circle of confusion, sensor dimensions), but generally S16 is an unfortunate choice. Like full frame in the other extreme. Full frame is best for 3:2 photography. When I look at my old Praktika 6x6 stills, how creamy everything flows into focus (but still is soft, you need good resolution for that), it looks threedimensional instantly, very sweet. For scope, however, there is little good in anything else but absolute DoF (exceptions prove the rule). Framing has to do with how the motif is accentuated and therefore it influences focussing.

I totally dislike the artificial look of Sony cameras. Even without prominent artifacts or something I could nail down, the image looks processed. The Micro would have been the answer to everything, had it only a bigger sensor.

 

[squig]

With a speed booster the micro/pocket has a 1.75x crop. The other option is to go fast and wide with an SLR magic 12mm t/1.6 hyperprime. I've already picked up a hyperprime and I'll get a speed booster for my Leica-r lenses and Iscoramas. The S16 sensor size is a non issue.

[Axel]

45 minutes ago, squig said:

The S16 sensor size is a non issue.

Let's put it that way: the speedbooster-Sigma combination is the best compromise for this sensor there is, covering a FoV equivalent from a moderate wideangle to a '50 mm', with very good speed, manageable sDoF, reasonably good focus ring, smooth (almost) parfocal 2 x zoom ability. The 12mm alone is too limited, offering only a 35 mm-equivalent (the reporter lens, as it used to be called) and ugly bokeh with curved focal pane if used wide open and difficult to focus properly. Although Hyperprime and SB+Sigma@18mm cover the same FoV, they look totally different, rendering the SLR useless, imo. Look at the image:

Take off the useless sunhood, exchange the monitor for an EVF, and you still have a box with a sensor inside attached to one of a few lenses suitable for this thing. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Random differently shot, graded and uploaded camera videos are in no way an indication of how they compare. If we count the variables there'd be at least 10. 

Most cameras these days really can look VERY similar with using matching profiles and grading to match, but there definitely are some differences most notably in sharpness and colour science and compression that can make a video seem more cinematic than another. 

Some cameras are really stupid, for example I've been finding that the singular one most important element in making the 1DC image so cinematic is the complete lack of in-camera sharpening, giving a beautifully soft and detailed image, while a camera like an nx1 could really get at least 80% as cinematic if they just let us turn the freaking sharpening off (seeing how I can closely match the resolution and colour rendition with grading). 

Red images are also highly sharper compared to say Alexa/1DC image, much sharper (not just higher resolution), giving red a distinct look. 

I have the 1Dc now and shooting with EOS standard with the default in-camera sharpening & contrast & saturation, the 5D MKII & MKIII (h.264) images are more cinematic, because the 4K resolution with the +3 sharpening is very very sharp, very electronic. 

I'd wait for controlled side by sides for evaluating the URSA 4.6K & C300II images being less cinematic. 
 

[squig]

As I mentioned I'm getting a speed booster for all my Leicas (16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 60, 90, 135) to complement the hyperprime, however you can shoot a whole film with a 35mm equivalent lens; check out the German film 'Victoria' all shot with a 24mm lens on a C300. I checked out the bokeh of the SLR magic and thought it looked really creamy. The Sigma bokeh is very nice too, but I wanted something with a more vintage look to match my 70s era Leicas. Agreed the Sigma is the best compromise.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, kaylee said:

uhmm this is only slightly off topic lol....

if this is true http://www.canonrumors.com/there-will-be-a-4k-5d-camera-cr2 – that theres a 5d4ish 4k slr coming soon, would you all expect it to shoot motion jpeg for 4k like the 1dxii and 1dc? 

theres definitely something about the motion of the 1dc... it just feels like solid, independent frames to me, like film frames in that sense... hard to explain but i know what you guys mean 

It is a CR2 rumor. Or in other words: slightly more reliable than the one I pulled out of my arse about unicorns delivering my next Ultra Ultra UHD 32K camera.

[Axel]

4 minutes ago, squig said:

check out the German film 'Victoria' all shot with a 24mm lens on a C300.

Yes, saw it in the cinema. As a cineaste, I chose row 5. It was cropped to scope (btw.: supports my theory of absolute or almost absolute DoF suggesting wider ARs), had a lot of jerky camera movement (inevitably), and after a few minutes I felt nausea. It deserved an own thread to discuss this film in detail, but if it was exclusively shot with 24mm (didn't know), then because of necessity rather than esthetic choice.

[squig]

It might have been a 25mm Zeiss lens 

Yeah there's some very jerky shots in 'Victoria'. In situations like that when I want to run and gun and still pull focus I use a Steady Tracker. I still get that fast paced handheld type energy in the shot, but it smooths things out enough to keep the audience from puking on each other. The global shutter in the micro cine will be perfect for that scenario. I've got a Ronin-m, but sometimes it's just too smooth to create the frantic energy I want in a shot.