Are people going back? ....to S16 ....to MF ....to limitations ....to older cameras?

[kye]

This conversation seems to have wandered into OLD = BAD = DISTORTED and NEW = GOOD = PRISTINE and I think that in many ways this is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, a 1080p sensor creates a lower resolution image than reality, which has infinite resolution, but with the greater resolution cameras there are often sacrifices made along the way.  

Motion Cadence is one of the things that I am thinking of.  Items such as a global shutter don't automatically come with a higher resolution camera.

In this sense, the more modern stuff is worse.

I'm perhaps one of the biggest fans of 'doing it in post' on these forums, but I'm yet to read anywhere about how you can improve motion cadence in post.  As someone who chose very early on to get a neutral capture and process heavily in post I've been consuming every camera review, grading breakdown, lens review, technical white paper, codec quality analysis, etc with the single question in mind of "how do I do this in post?" and I have found that most of the time the various qualities of image that are being talked about are degradations of one kind or other, but not all of them.

I discovered with my Canon 700D that you can't remove the Canon Cripple Hammer in post, and I 'went 4K'.  The XC10 was 4K and high-bitrate (and had those Canon colours!!) but I discovered that you can't simulate a larger aperture (convincingly) in post (yet), you also can't simulate a higher bit-depth in post, and you can't simulate great low-light in post either.  I bought the GH5 but had to go to Voigtlander f0.95 lenses to get the low-light and DoF flexibility that I wanted, but even then the lenses are a little soft wide-open and while you can sharpen them up a little in post to do a quick-and-dirty cover up for a couple of shots, you can't simulate higher resolution or higher contrast lenses in post either.

Don't succumb to oversimplification - newer is better in ways that sell cameras but not in every way that matters to the connoisseurs amongst us.

[tupp]

8 hours ago, Nmccarthy said:

well that's not really practical. that level of cgi can only come from pixar or dreamworks where the whole film is cgi.

Thanks, Captain!

[BTM_Pix]

Out of interest @kye, what is your gut reaction when you A/B footage between your BMMCC and GH5?

Trying to match them exactly is like trying to herd cats so if you just limited yourself to making a clip of the same scene from both of them to each individually look pleasing to your eye without reference to the other, which one do you find the more appealing ?

[kye]

8 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Out of interest @kye, what is your gut reaction when you A/B footage between your BMMCC and GH5?

Trying to match them exactly is like trying to herd cats so if you just limited yourself to making a clip of the same scene from both of them to each individually look pleasing to your eye without reference to the other, which one do you find the more appealing ?

I haven't done that yet, but it's on the list.  I haven't even really shot anything with it yet, except some colour tests.  Disappointing I know, but covid cancelled all my travel plans, my work went through the roof, and the family wore PJs all day and didn't want to be filmed lol.

I was contemplating the GH5 to BMMCC conversion project and was thinking that a more practical pinnacle would be to shoot a bunch of random things with each camera (not A/B of the same thing, just random shots) and grade the GH5 with the BMMCC characteristics and just put up a video saying shot A, shot B, shot C, and then put out a poll asking if people could tell which was which, with options as Definitely BMMCC, maybe BMMCC, not sure, maybe GH5 and definitely GH5, and see if people could pick the shots easily or not.  If they couldn't I'd declare victory.
The rationale is that when we watch something we're not given another version of the same thing shot on some other camera, so side-by-side tests aren't really needed for a successful imitation, only for a perfect replication.

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, kye said:

I haven't done that yet, but it's on the list.  I haven't even really shot anything with it yet, except some colour tests.  Disappointing I know, but covid cancelled all my travel plans, my work went through the roof, and the family wore PJs all day and didn't want to be filmed lol.

I wasn't judging 😉 

2 minutes ago, kye said:

I was contemplating the GH5 to BMMCC conversion project and was thinking that a more practical pinnacle would be to shoot a bunch of random things with each camera (not A/B of the same thing, just random shots) and grade the GH5 with the BMMCC characteristics and just put up a video saying shot A, shot B, shot C, and then put out a poll asking if people could tell which was which, with options as Definitely BMMCC, maybe BMMCC, not sure, maybe GH5 and definitely GH5, and see if people could pick the shots easily or not.  If they couldn't I'd declare victory.

So the objective thus far has really been more a test of your colour matching skills in Resolve than how the cameras themselves "naturally" perform ?

I'm not being snippy there by the way, as its obviously a legitimate exercise particularly if you are going to use both cameras on the same project or even just create a "house" style for yourself so you could use either camera depending on circumstances.

But, yeah, purely for me personally, the random shots thing is better as embracing/acknowledging the differences in cameras rather than trying to equalise them is more interesting.

 

[rawshooter]

On 7/28/2020 at 11:52 AM, Geoff CB said:

Super 16 zoom lenses are cheap and have a very wide range making it easy to get coverage without switching lenses. 

Where are Super 16 zooms cheap? They're not available as cheap photo camera zooms, and Super 16 cine zooms cost about $4000 second-hand.

[kye]

47 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I wasn't judging 😉 

So the objective thus far has really been more a test of your colour matching skills in Resolve than how the cameras themselves "naturally" perform ?

I'm not being snippy there by the way, as its obviously a legitimate exercise particularly if you are going to use both cameras on the same project or even just create a "house" style for yourself so you could use either camera depending on circumstances.

But, yeah, purely for me personally, the random shots thing is better as embracing/acknowledging the differences in cameras rather than trying to equalise them is more interesting.

 

I do feel a bit badly about it because I got it and haven't shot with it yet.  In a sense it's all dressed up with no-where to go!

It's my first true cine camera, so that's taking some adjustment too 🙂 

The goal is actually to understand it.  To understand its colour science, to understand its resolution, to understand it's motion cadence.  Many would be amazed at some of the things that I've found when replicating it.  What it does to skin tones for example.  It pushes around the colour space in ways that shouldn't even work, let alone actually look good.

The BMCC was compared very favourably to the Alexa (as in, it held up!) and there's no way I'm getting an Alexa to play with, so this is a kind of close-second for a no-where-near price.  BM know what they're doing with colour, and comparing the colour charts, and some other things I've done that I don't think I've shared yet, there is some crazy sh*t going on in there.

Once I have learned its secrets, which it's not giving up so easily BTW even after I've matched it almost exactly a couple of times, then I can integrate them into my workflow if I like, so it ads another set of techniques that I can apply if I want.  I typically shoot projects on my phone, an action camera, and the GH5, and I have to match them all, so the more I know about colour the better off I am.

In terms of this thread, I "went back" to use the Micro as a reference for colour science and motion cadence, because it delivers colour a lot less accurately than modern cameras.  Sony wins the accuracy race for colour science, so we should have learned by now that accuracy isn't automatically better.

[Geoff CB]

18 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Where are Super 16 zooms cheap? They're not available as cheap photo camera zooms, and Super 16 cine zooms cost about $4000 second-hand.

??
Many Angenieux zooms can be had for below a grand. Compared to Super35 zooms with similar ranges that cost upwards of $10000 dollars.
 

 

[rawshooter]

8 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

??
Many Angenieux zooms can be had for below a grand. Compared to Super35 zooms with similar ranges that cost upwards of $10000 dollars.
 

 

These are not Super 16-Zooms; they only cover 4:3 16mm. (The two formats are often confused. The BMPCC requires s16 coverage. The maker of the above video probably cropped in post.)

[EduPortas]

For the love of God anything but Mini DV again!!!! 😆

On a more serious note, the "old" camera the OP mentions is 100% digital.

It's only only old by short term technology standards, not by any artist's standards (except maybe if your last name is Nolan or Abrams).

It's YOUR vision. YOU decide if you film it with S16 or a stupid iPhone.

If you're a creator that decision should be liberating, not gut-wrenching.  If it's the latter, you're more of a technician. Nothing wrong with that, just different from the first group.

I recently watched Herzog's latest film/documentary called "Family Romance, LLC".  It's good. Not Grizzly Man good, but on point.

The man shot the entire thing in the middle of Tokyo as a one-man-band with a "crappy" Canon XA50/XF400. He was fascinated by the lowly camcorder because it gave him what he wanted: good AF, XLR inputs, 4K and portability. Check his comments on YouTube. He does not name the brand, but you can see it's a Canon in the production photos. A Canon consumer camcorder in 2020!

 

[leslie]

On 7/28/2020 at 6:59 PM, kye said:

 

....to go back to S16?     never went there

....to go back to MF?     go back ? i have only just arrived

....to shooting slower and more deliberately?   yes.. running around like a mad man, has hairs on it

i bought a 4k cinema camera. Since i dont have a 4k screen it seems like an odd decision.  but i am happy with the hd for now and the laptop manages ok just. No modern lenses here, everything is vintage apart from one ef kit lens. I have a theory that some where between either 4k/hd and vintage glass, i'll find some type of utopia.😎

[MurtlandPhoto]

I'm seeing so many "Is the BMPCC worth it in 2020?????" Youtube videos lately. It seems every year there's a resurgence of people realizing how amazing that little camera is. I still regularly (well COVID hasn't helped) use it as a B or C cam. The footage is so thick with a wonderful grain structure natively. Sharp, but not sharpened. I decided to film a little test today with my new flapjack light. The BMPCC footage cleans up so well and looks amazing when superscaled.

 

[kye]

8 hours ago, EduPortas said:

For the love of God anything but Mini DV again!!!! 😆

On a more serious note, the "old" camera the OP mentions is 100% digital.

It's only only old by short term technology standards, not by any artist's standards (except maybe if your last name is Nolan or Abrams).

It's YOUR vision. YOU decide if you film it with S16 or a stupid iPhone.

If you're a creator that decision should be liberating, not gut-wrenching.  If it's the latter, you're more of a technician. Nothing wrong with that, just different from the first group.

I recently watched Herzog's latest film/documentary called "Family Romance, LLC".  It's good. Not Grizzly Man good, but on point.

The man shot the entire thing in the middle of Tokyo as a one-man-band with a "crappy" Canon XA50/XF400. He was fascinated by the lowly camcorder because it gave him what he wanted: good AF, XLR inputs, 4K and portability. Check his comments on YouTube. He does not name the brand, but you can see it's a Canon in the production photos. A Canon consumer camcorder in 2020!

 

Yes, not old by artist standards, but old digitally.  I guess in the context of the DSLR revolution, and perhaps now the mirrorless cinema camera revolution?, we can 'go back' in some regards but stay modern in others.  I'm not really talking about anyone going back to a huge ENG camera with belt-mounted battery pack and Betamax to get their 240p fix.

Do you have links to Herzog's comments?  I searched youtube a bit and couldn't find an account or which videos he might have been commenting on.  It would be interesting to read them - he's not short of an opinion that's for sure, but they're often piercing and highly relevant.

[EduPortas]

21 hours ago, kye said:

 

Do you have links to Herzog's comments?  I searched youtube a bit and couldn't find an account or which videos he might have been commenting on.  It would be interesting to read them - he's not short of an opinion that's for sure, but they're often piercing and highly relevant.

For the life of me I can't find his comments on YT.

However, if you watch the film on MUBI, you'll get to see an interview with Herzog and Roc Martin, the producer of the film, AFTER the movie ends. It's about 10 minutes long and I suspect is only available on that streaming platform. That's where he mentions he used a "tiny 4K camera with many profesional audio inputs". 

Being a nerd I immediately scoured the internet in search of some additional data on the subject, since Herzog generally talks a lot about cameras and lenses.

I could only find a production photo of the movie. You can clearly see it's a very small Canon 4K cam, most probably an XA50 or XF400 in the second photo starting from the top:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/werner-herzog-family-romance-llc-working-baby-yoda-1301774

[kye]

@EduPortas yeah, on the internet if you find something then you have to bookmark it, or even archive it to your own storage.  If you don't do it at that time then you'll never find it again!

It certainly does look like a very compact setup:

It makes sense as Herzog is on a mission to get the most X content he can, where X is in the realm of crazy / entertaining / ridiculous / cutting / insightful / shocking / etc.  Considering that people are intimidated by equipment and basically stop acting naturally given the slightest reason, you'd want a setup that was so fast that you could always keep up and small enough that the people can forget that they're being filmed.  

Sacha Baron Cohen went to some extreme lengths to get people to feel comfortable while being filmed during Who Is America? and I think what is remarkable in that show is that he managed to get such open responses while people were obviously on set and being interviewed with lights and cameras and the whole setup.

[kye]

On 7/30/2020 at 3:48 AM, MurtlandPhoto said:

I'm seeing so many "Is the BMPCC worth it in 2020?????" Youtube videos lately. It seems every year there's a resurgence of people realizing how amazing that little camera is. I still regularly (well COVID hasn't helped) use it as a B or C cam. The footage is so thick with a wonderful grain structure natively. Sharp, but not sharpened. I decided to film a little test today with my new flapjack light. The BMPCC footage cleans up so well and looks amazing when superscaled.

Yep - nothing wrong with that image!  Nice.

[Tim Sewell]

I'm actually considering picking up a used XA-10 or XF-100 for if I ever get to go on a holiday again so that I can get nice video without lugging my C100/Ninja 2/SmallHD/EVF monstrosity around.

[Avenger 2.0]

28 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

I'm actually considering picking up a used XA-10 or XF-100 for if I ever get to go on a holiday again so that I can get nice video without lugging my C100/Ninja 2/SmallHD/EVF monstrosity around.

Just sold my XA-10. Used it for interviews, but in low light it wasn't that good. Not sure why you would buy it if you don't need the XLR inputs. The touchscreen is resistive and will annoy you. My M50 b-cam had better quality and video options and is cheaper to find. The XF-100 at least has all the physical buttons, but the sensor is the same as the XA-10, so not that great in low light. The C100 is a whole different level on image quality and low light. Couldn't even mix is with the other two as the image quality difference was very obvious.

[Tim Sewell]

I must admit the main thing that was attracting me (the XF-100 more than the XA-10) was that it's relatively affordable and has 4:2:2 recording, which I'd find far more useful than 4K. There's no requirement to cut with the C100. What I'm really looking for is a camcorder that will give me that colour space, that I can get reasonably cheaply, for use on holidays etc where I don't want to lug a bunch of gear around. I have an EM1 mkii, which is lovely, but I've found more and more that I just don't particularly enjoy that form-factor for shooting video. Any suggestions you could make would be most welcome, @Avenger 2.0!

[Avenger 2.0]

17 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

I must admit the main thing that was attracting me (the XF-100 more than the XA-10) was that it's relatively affordable and has 4:2:2 recording, which I'd find far more useful than 4K. There's no requirement to cut with the C100. What I'm really looking for is a camcorder that will give me that colour space, that I can get reasonably cheaply, for use on holidays etc where I don't want to lug a bunch of gear around. I have an EM1 mkii, which is lovely, but I've found more and more that I just don't particularly enjoy that form-factor for shooting video. Any suggestions you could make would be most welcome, @Avenger 2.0!

Certainly not a bad camera the XF100. Just the lack of ND and use of CF cards was a turndown for me.