New BMPCC owner, initial thoughts

[Francisco Rios]

Axel,

If you can try to find these resolve tutorial from youtube about starting from scratch or LUT ,to share here on forum.

Best.

[Sean Cunningham]

...

 

No, no and no.  But be well.

[chrisso]

 

 

RAW isn't arriving at chicken salad out of chicken shit. 

Raw is what the sensor sees. That's why it's called raw. Everything else is a subjective adjustment of the raw data.

A camera sensor isn't a human eye. Your eye interprets incoming data too. That's why I see differently to you. Some people are colour blind etc...

[Sean Cunningham]

That is not entirely true.  Reference values and hues used to calibrate film and television equipment since the dawn of time are fixed values.  A properly exposed image, be it film or video, will arrive at some approximation of that value.  You want to know how off or on your lab is put a Macbeth chart or some other known quantity in your slate.  Color cast or exposure variance can be quantified and corrected for.  How off or on is not a matter of opinion.  The values coming off the sensor relative to what they represent can also be quantified and are not subjective.  This shit is math, son, and it's all very much non-subjective.

 

This testing of known quantities passing through a camera or sampling system will reveal how it "sees" and how it "sees" can be quantified and measured against the original value.  That's objective, not subjective.  Likewise, since the dawn of the the color display we have had similar means to judge the output of a monitor against known control values and hues.  The better the monitor and test equipment the closer you can get it to display known, fixed, reference values.  This response can also be quantified and is also not subjective.

 

How do you not get this basic concept that in some form or fashion is a part of every camera and every display device and why we have meters and chip charts, color bars and densitometers?  Seriously.  RAW does not wipe away the fact that real, measurable hue and value are are being recorded.  

 

After that the process is subjective.  Without the objective part being dealt with in a meaningful and thoughtful way the result is just operator induced oscillation.  If you'd rather work like that, knock yourself out.

[brianl]

I agree with Burnet. There *is* absolutely such a thing as color accuracy. It's not subjective. There are all sorts of tools to calibrate accurate color. And most of them tend be pricey, starting with a real  calibratable monitor. However that's not to say filmmakers don't deviate from those standards for any number of creative or techy reasons. But there is an objective standard for color. Come on folks. This is Video 101.

[Axel]

Axel,

If you can try to find these resolve tutorial from youtube about starting from scratch or LUT ,to share here on forum.

 

I try. It was from Color Grading Central, but it wasn't in the title, so not easy to find. They applied a Blackmagic Rec709 LUT, and suddenly the washed-out (I think it was:) ProRes looked normal. No news to us. They said, but notice how the details on the bright wall disappeared as well. Sure, you can 'bring them back', but what good is a starting point you have to reverse in parts to get best DR? They did a manual primary CC - no subjective procedure at all, you use the scopes!), took a few seconds, and then they compared the results. 

 

No, no and no.  But be well.

 

I wrote "imho", and I meant it. Knowledge has to substitute opinion. I have the greatest respect for your knowledge, and I wasn't stubborn. It's just literally as I wrote: "I fail to grasp the need" to use FC. 

[Craig Marshall]

ClipToolz COLOR v2.0 is out now. All the power of FC without the pricetag plus a de-noise feature that you don't get in Resolve Lite. It works on low spec computers and now features a great set of 3D LUTs too.

 

[brianl]

Wow only $29. Does it have preset film looks? Preload setting that resemble a certain film stock for example?

[yiomo]

I am glad there are more people who find that the bmpcc is very "film-like" in contrast to other dslr footage, even if this other footage comes from a flat profile. 

 

Since you are a new user, I am interested to hear if you hesitated between the bmpcc and the new GH4.

[brianl]

 

I am glad there are more people who find that the bmpcc is very "film-like" in contrast to other dslr footage, even if this other footage comes from a flat profile. 

 

Since you are a new user, I am interested to hear if you hesitated between the bmpcc and the new GH4.

 

I've done a lot of GH1 and GH2 shooting, so part of it was the desire to try something new. GH4 is more pricey and powerful and all, but bmpcc is unmatched bang for the buck IMO with the strong codec and DR. It's also the closest thing I've come across to a film workflow which floats my boat totally. ZERO regrets. BMPCC is a powerful camera but perhaps a 180 departure from GH4 which appears extremely sophisticate (in a cool way) with the module and 4k and I think it also makes Espresso. BMPCC is like an old Arri 16 or something. Very simple thing.