Blackmagic Micro Cinema Super Guide and Why It Still Matters

[TomTheDP]

3 hours ago, PPNS said:

In the past, if you wanted to be a good dp, you would have to know about film processing techniques, and have good relations with the people at the film lab to get the exact results you wished for. now you have the ability to capture more, and more pliable data, and you need to work with colorists to get the exact look you want. The look you’re aiming for tends to come from preproduction anyway, so I’m not actually sure how much changed.

 

the alexa also looks clean and modern imo.

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.


 

[kye]

2 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.

Great post - I just wanted to add to this from a colour grading perspective.

I did a colour grading masterclass with Walter Volpatto, a hugely respected senior colourist at Company 3, and it changed my entire concept of how colour grading should be approached.

His basic concept was this:

1. You transform the cameras footage into the right colour space so it can be viewed, and apply any colour treatments that the Director has indicated (like replicating view LUTs or PFEs etc) - this is for the whole timeline
2. You make a QC pass of the footage to make sure it's all good and perhaps even out any small irregularities (e.g if they picked up some outdoor shots and the light changed)
3. At this stage you might develop a few look ideas in preparation for the first review with the Director
4. Then you work with the Director to implement their vision

The idea was that they would have likely shot everything with the lighting ratios and levels that they wanted, so all you have to do is transform it and then you can fine-tune from there.  Contrary to the BS process of grading each shot in sequence that YouTube colourists seem to follow, this process gives you a watchable film in a day or so.  Then you work on the overall look, then perhaps apply different variations on a location/scene basis, and then fine-tune particular shots if you have time.  He was absolutely clear that the job of the colourist was to simply help the Director get one step closer to realising their vision, the last thing you want to do as a colourist is to try and get noticed.

It really introduced me to the concept that they chose the camera package and lenses based on the look they wanted, then lit each scene according to the creative intent from the Director, and so the job of a colourist is to take the creativity that is encapsulated into the files and transform them in such a way that the overall rendering is faithful to what the Director and Cinematographer were thinking would happen to their footage after it had been shot.  Walter mentioned that you can literally colour grade a whole feature in under a week if that's how the Director likes to operate.

I have taken to this process in my own work now too.  I build a node tree that transforms the footage, and applies whatever specific look elements I want from each camera I shoot with, and then it's simply a matter of performing some overall adjustments to the look, and then fine-tuning each shot to make them blend together nicely.

In this way, I think that the process of getting things right up front probably hasn't changed much for a large percentage of productions.

[And1]

@PPNSI'd take any older cinema camera, eg Arri Alexa Classic, Red Epic, Sony F55, Ursa etc, as well as the BMMCC (which, for whoever has used it extensively, is a cinema camera, regardless the initial 'crash camera' marketing) over any newer Mirrorless (Lumix (I love their cameras by the way), Sony (haven't used the A7s III so I can't comment), Canon, Fuji, etc), at any type of work (of course not necessarily Instagram run and gun etc)   But that's just me, based on years of testing. Every other opinion is welcomed of course. 

But since we're talking about the BMMCC here, yes it's a perfectly cinema camera for me. 

@kye& @TomTheDPcool posts!

[odie]

film is a different medium

nothing  to do with digital

 

if you like the look of film just shoot on film

it's easy

has an amazing image and sensation you'll never forget

and is profitable work wise

[TomTheDP]

3 hours ago, odie said:

film is a different medium

nothing  to do with digital

 

if you like the look of film just shoot on film

it's easy

has an amazing image and sensation you'll never forget

and is profitable work wise

It is rarely within the scope of the budget. All the projects I have seen that were shot on film shouldn't have been as they ended up cutting the budget for every other department severely.

[Benjamin Hilton]

On 6/12/2023 at 10:01 AM, kye said:

Great post - I just wanted to add to this from a colour grading perspective.

I did a colour grading masterclass with Walter Volpatto, a hugely respected senior colourist at Company 3, and it changed my entire concept of how colour grading should be approached.

His basic concept was this:

1. You transform the cameras footage into the right colour space so it can be viewed, and apply any colour treatments that the Director has indicated (like replicating view LUTs or PFEs etc) - this is for the whole timeline
2. You make a QC pass of the footage to make sure it's all good and perhaps even out any small irregularities (e.g if they picked up some outdoor shots and the light changed)
3. At this stage you might develop a few look ideas in preparation for the first review with the Director
4. Then you work with the Director to implement their vision

The idea was that they would have likely shot everything with the lighting ratios and levels that they wanted, so all you have to do is transform it and then you can fine-tune from there.  Contrary to the BS process of grading each shot in sequence that YouTube colourists seem to follow, this process gives you a watchable film in a day or so.  Then you work on the overall look, then perhaps apply different variations on a location/scene basis, and then fine-tune particular shots if you have time.  He was absolutely clear that the job of the colourist was to simply help the Director get one step closer to realising their vision, the last thing you want to do as a colourist is to try and get noticed.

It really introduced me to the concept that they chose the camera package and lenses based on the look they wanted, then lit each scene according to the creative intent from the Director, and so the job of a colourist is to take the creativity that is encapsulated into the files and transform them in such a way that the overall rendering is faithful to what the Director and Cinematographer were thinking would happen to their footage after it had been shot.  Walter mentioned that you can literally colour grade a whole feature in under a week if that's how the Director likes to operate.

I have taken to this process in my own work now too.  I build a node tree that transforms the footage, and applies whatever specific look elements I want from each camera I shoot with, and then it's simply a matter of performing some overall adjustments to the look, and then fine-tuning each shot to make them blend together nicely.

In this way, I think that the process of getting things right up front probably hasn't changed much for a large percentage of productions.

This is 100% spot on. I have a workflow I use for specific cameras. My standard color science is dropped onto my 5" monitor via LUT. In post I apply the same color science with minimal corrections. Sometimes I go on to do a specific grade, but 90% of the time I stick with that because it looks fantastic. This workflow is really awesome because I can really trust what I see on the monitor and fix problems in camera as I go.

[NKfromNK]

Curious if there's any update to the memory card issue? What cards are on the market now that I could use?

[kye]

On 1/30/2024 at 4:34 AM, NKfromNK said:

Curious if there's any update to the memory card issue? What cards are on the market now that I could use?

I don't think any updates are coming - these are old cameras now.  Even in the Blackmagic Camera groups on FB if you say "OG BMPCC" people think you're talking about the BMPCC 4K.

I can't confirm these, but in the FB group for the OG BMPCC multiple people like the Kingston Canvas Select Plus but don't get the V30 version - you need the V60 or better.  Also, apparently there's an Angelbird card specifically for it (it might have it on their website?).

[bjohn]

On 1/29/2024 at 3:34 PM, NKfromNK said:

Curious if there's any update to the memory card issue? What cards are on the market now that I could use?

I actually just learned that the Sony Tough V90 64mb 300mb/s (read) 299mb/s (write) card works in the OG BMPCC and BMPCC and I happen to have one here so I popped it in and guess what, it works! I haven't tested it at all framerates in the BMMCC, which would take a while as dropped frames often don't happen right away so you need to record at least 10-15 minutes at each framerate in CDNG (and CDNG 3:1 at 60fps) to be sure. But it should work for all framerates on the OG BMPCC. These cards are readily available and not as expensive as the Angelbirds. I have two of the 128 GB Angelbirds and those are fantastic but expensive. The Kingston Canvas Selects that I bought died after a few months so I'd be wary of that solution, although some people are happy with them.

[NKfromNK]

Oh - thanks!

[kye]

7 hours ago, bjohn said:

The Kingston Canvas Selects that I bought died after a few months so I'd be wary of that solution, although some people are happy with them.

Died completely?  and were they the V30 (green) ones, or faster ones?

There were reports of people using the green ones and after a while they start dropping frames, but other people said that they would format the card each time they put it in the camera and they had no issues.  

Dropped frames sounds to me like the card speed was only borderline, but everything these days is made to a price..

[bjohn]

10 hours ago, kye said:

Died completely?  and were they the V30 (green) ones, or faster ones?

Died completely as in they could no longer be formatted and inserting them in the camera gave the No Card error. I couldn't use them on any other camera or format/rescue them with desktop software. And they were the faster versions; the ones recommended for the BMPCC; I had two of them and they both died. They were reliable while they worked and never dropped frames. In contrast I'm still using the SanDisk cards I bought in 2016 for my OG BMPCC, which have been reformatted hundreds of times, and they still perform like champs. (I don't think any card made by SanDisk today will work in the OG BMPCC or BMMCC). The Angelbirds and now my Sony will take over once those SanDisks finally bite the dust.

[kye]

3 hours ago, bjohn said:

Died completely as in they could no longer be formatted and inserting them in the camera gave the No Card error. I couldn't use them on any other camera or format/rescue them with desktop software. And they were the faster versions; the ones recommended for the BMPCC; I had two of them and they both died. They were reliable while they worked and never dropped frames. In contrast I'm still using the SanDisk cards I bought in 2016 for my OG BMPCC, which have been reformatted hundreds of times, and they still perform like champs. (I don't think any card made by SanDisk today will work in the OG BMPCC or BMMCC). The Angelbirds and now my Sony will take over once those SanDisks finally bite the dust.

Wow..  good to know the Kingstons aren't reliable over the long term.

My dad does a lot with Raspberry Pi computers, which use SD cards for storage, and apparently they chew through the cheap SD cards, but the Samsung ones are reliable over time, so they must also be made properly.  I haven't heard much discussion about them, but I have a Samsung EVO card that I use with my other cameras and seems ok.  I haven't tested it with the BM cameras though.

[bjohn]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

 good to know the Kingstons aren't reliable over the long term.

Well, I'm just a sample size of one. I bought these two at the same time, so they might have been from a bad production batch. Lots of people seem happy with them; I was too for the first 8-9 months. One more reason why long-term reviews are often more useful than reviews after a person has used a product for a few days or weeks.

[QuickHitRecord]

@bjohnAssuming that this happened to you fairly recently and it wasn't your post, I've read about the Kingston cards dying before on another forum.

[bjohn]

16 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

@bjohnAssuming that this happened to you fairly recently and it wasn't your post, I've read about the Kingston cards dying before on another forum.

This was a few years ago, can't remember when exactly, but probably 2019 or 2020.

[kye]

Still loved.

 

[PannySVHS]

17 hours ago, kye said:

Still loved.

 

Have been using mine the fourth day in the row now. Having a blast. It's a very pure experience, having to be set with four puny batteries, which last for about 30 to 35min of footage. Today I was using the 12-32 zoom, on the first three days a 25mm C-mount lens, the latter with a 360 shutter unfortunately! Not using Nds at all is a pretty big confession to choosing a desired depth of field. It provides me with some challenges I have to master and which make me reflect a good deal about my framing and sujet. Handheld panning and tilting with the 25mm is quiete an exercise as well.

[bjohn]

2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Not using Nds at all is a pretty big confession to choosing a desired depth of field.

Just be careful to avoid stopping down too much, because diffraction softening sets in pretty quickly on this tiny sensor. In general I try not to go above f5.6; with some lenses I can go to 8 but the image starts getting soft in an ugly way.

I used my OG Pocket earlier this year to film some music performance in a very dark club, and it worked! I used my Micro Cinema Camera last week to film a 2-hour evening concert and that worked out well too. I'll be using my two Micros and the OG Pocket later this summer for an all-weekend filming and photography gig. They're still great tools. I think stabilization is really the biggest challenge...for handheld I'm using a Zacuto Marauder Mini, which is no longer made, but it works pretty well for stabilizing while giving a handheld look. I also have a glidecam and might ultimately get a gimbal but I'd rather not have yet another thing that requires batteries and charging.

[PannySVHS]

@bjohn  Awesome! Cannot wait to see some of that footage if you come around to post some. I also have two micros and one pocket.  On one of the micros I got a Rawlite filter, unfortunately not on the other two cameras. Diffraction limit kicks in mercilessly, of course. I enjoy the look of F2.8 on my Lumix LX15 which in 4K mode is a 2/3" camera. It is an honest deep focus look without any nasties. On S16 it translates to a F4, S35 to a F8 and FF to F11. Yesterday the 12-32 went up to F19.😂

Stabilization in post would be rather needed for barebones handheld og pocket footage and it works pretty well. A bmmcc with a pistol grip can do without post stabilization imho, going for the raw classic handheld look. The Ois of the 12 32 on the pocket comes really handy in that regard. AF only on this lens. Quirky has been my middle name the last four days. Fun was my first name.😊