Beautiful 4K Blackmagic Production Camera footage from James Miller

[JHines]

Yet you started this thing by comparing a 720p video from the BMPC and a 1080p video from the 5D. At least rethink your arguments over a new comparison either having them both at 720p or both at 1080p and see how it holds up.

Let's have a look at my first comment - 

"I'll watch the 4K file when it comes out but just comparing the streamed versions of both, 5D3 raw looks more appealing to me, color quality especially. "

 

Vimeo converts any file format you upload to their own file format for streaming. You know what this means? It's called a level playing field. If you shoot something at 6K with a Red Dragon and upload it to Vimeo and you upload another video shot by a 5D3 at 1920 x 1080p, I don't care what Vimeo does, the Red 6K file converted by Vimeo better look more detailed than the 5D3 one, especially if the subject matter is nearly identical.

 

Let's look at my next comment, written minutes later - 

 

"I'm comparing both streamed and downloaded ORIGINAL FILE versions and Genesis blows it away. PERCEIVED RESOLUTION Andrew. Thanks for the update that it was shot in different light. Obviously the 4K will have more resolution on paper and with the original file(4K) but the 5D3 at 1920 x 720 looks more appealing to me than the BMC piece at 1920 x 1080(which is being streamed as of right now). Just my opinion. "

 

Key words to read and comprehend are ORIGINAL FILE. The BMC4K piece original file is 1920 x 1080p and 5D3 piece original file is 1920 x 720p, so I really am not understanding why you think the BMC4K original file downloaded from Vimeo is 720p when it's the 5d3 piece that's 720p. Please clear this up for me. 

[JHines]

I'm done arguing about this. All I wanted to say was that I thought this piece was underwhelming image quality-wise. I hope more footage comes out and makes me completely disregard all of this because I want to buy the BMC4K camera. The specs it offers are absurd for the price point it is at. Looking forward to its raw implementation because I'm sure it's going to be better than the prores it currently only shoots. 

[thedest]

Dont get me wrong. I really like Blackmagic, and I own one (the pocket), but the main problem with those Blackmagic videos is that the colorists deliver a kind of video that wont impress the average viewer. I bet that most people would rather see a video shot by the crappy AX100 than a video like that one. Why?

 

- This video has no blacks, and that creates a muddy look

- It doesnt have enough saturation. It looks lifeless

- There is not enough Lift/Gamma/Gain in the highlights. Again, it makes the video dull

- Its too soft! I dont know what is happening, but lately, it looks like having sharp videos is a sin. I hate oversharpening and halos, but man, I dont like soft videos either. Whats the point of having a great resolution if you are hiding the details?

 

I dont want to sound ungreatful. I really appreciate the work from those reviewers - but please guys, save those vintage looks for vintage works. When reviewing a camera, try to show out the full potential of the camera. And the best way to do that is to try to recreate a natural, realistic and vivid look, just like our eyes can see.

[thedest]

And here is a 4K framegrab graded by me from an original ProRes file from the Blackmagic Production Camera.

 

It was graded to recreate a "real life" look, with enough blacks, lift/gamma/gain, saturation and local contrast

 

CLICK HERE TO SEE IT IN 4K: '>

 

The amount of detail IS amazing. You can see the dials from that womans clock. But then again, you need to bring it to life in post.

 

If anyone is interested, I can share the original graded video, with no youtube recompression.

 

[Michael1]

I think that the main problem is the way that the "pros" grade the footage. They always grade the videos with a soft look, a lot of glow and washed out colors. It looks like they like to recreate that old damaged-film look.

 

I dont know, maybe thats because im young, but I dont like things that look old. Whats the point of buying a high end camera if all of your videos will look like that? I understand doing that once in a while, to create a "look", but every time? And when you are "reviewing" a camera, you need to show its potential, and the videos posted by those guys are not the best way to do that.

 

Here is an example. This first image was graded by James Miller. Most people wouldnt buy a camera that creates that kind of look.

 

 

And here is the same video graded by me. Why cant they post videos with natural looking colors and sharp details?

 

 

I don't think this is a great example of what the video should look like.  She looks like she has a spray on tan, and a bad dye job.

 

I know what you are trying to get at with the dingy colors these days, but this goes a bit too far.

 

Michael

[Ernesto Mantaras]

Let's have a look at my first comment - 

"I'll watch the 4K file when it comes out but just comparing the streamed versions of both, 5D3 raw looks more appealing to me, color quality especially. "

 

Vimeo converts any file format you upload to their own file format for streaming. You know what this means? It's called a level playing field. If you shoot something at 6K with a Red Dragon and upload it to Vimeo and you upload another video shot by a 5D3 at 1920 x 1080p, I don't care what Vimeo does, the Red 6K file converted by Vimeo better look more detailed than the 5D3 one, especially if the subject matter is nearly identical.

 

Let's look at my next comment, written minutes later - 

 

"I'm comparing both streamed and downloaded ORIGINAL FILE versions and Genesis blows it away. PERCEIVED RESOLUTION Andrew. Thanks for the update that it was shot in different light. Obviously the 4K will have more resolution on paper and with the original file(4K) but the 5D3 at 1920 x 720 looks more appealing to me than the BMC piece at 1920 x 1080(which is being streamed as of right now). Just my opinion. "

 

Key words to read and comprehend are ORIGINAL FILE. The BMC4K piece original file is 1920 x 1080p and 5D3 piece original file is 1920 x 720p, so I really am not understanding why you think the BMC4K original file downloaded from Vimeo is 720p when it's the 5d3 piece that's 720p. Please clear this up for me. 

 

Sure, let me clear this up for you.
I read all you comments and, to start clearing things up, I perhaps was confused by your key words to read, which got contradicted when you mentioned that "the 5D3 at 1920 x 720 looks more appealing to me than the BMC piece at 1920 x 1080(which is being streamed as of right now).", since the streamed version was 720p at the time you commented this (and at the time I mentioned that you had watched a 720p file if you only watched the streamed version). So did you actually watch the streamed version at 720p or the original uploaded file at 1080p. To see the answer, jump over the next paragraph.

But, since you were being condescendent to me, let me clear this bit up for you first: Vimeo only converts to 1080p by request of the user and only if he/she is a Plus or Pro member. Do you know what that means? It means Vimeo tries to save bandwidth (and perhaps take care of the users with lesser machines that maybe can't play 1080p right). Well, that's speculation on my part. But you don't care what Vimeo does. So let me tell you: did you know there's a little button to the left of the "full screen" button on the Vimeo player that allows you to see the real pixels (only when you're in full screen, mind you)? Thanks to that you can see whether or not the user who uploaded the video has upgraded it to 1080p or not. James hadn't at the time you started all this (and you could also tell by looking at the download options). But you can tell whether or not a video is 720p or 1080p, right? I mean, since we're coming from 4K, it should be pretty obvious.
Yet, again, the BMPC video at the time of discussion was being streamed at 720p (1280x720 that is) and the 5D video was being streamed at 1080p (1920x720 is 1080p cropped, you see) and you didn't notice there was an obvious difference that could very well be due to Vimeo's de facto system? Oh, right, you don't care what Vimeo does. So why argue?

No argument then. It's enough to just take a look at the pictures you uploaded in >this post, comparing the BMPC video and the 5D video, saying how bad the first one was, how soft and all... You see, that pic tells you off. It comes from a 720p video, even if the file's resolution is 1920x1080. So indeed you were comparing a 720p video next to a 1080p video (and not the 1080p originals like you're trying to make us believe you did) and saying the first one looked soft. Well, of course!

Just to be clearer still, here's your grab next to the current 1080p upgraded streaming version of the BMPC video. You're welcome.

 

 

 

Sorry for my tone, but I don't like being condescended. Your statement was confusing and I thought your opinion on the resolution of the BMPC made no sense, so it had to be that (according to the second part of the conflicting paragraph) you had watched the streamed 720p version of the video to arrive to such conclusion, and not the originally 1080p uploaded file. You confirmed my suspicion with your posted framegrab and still you you denied it and talked down on me. Why not have a little self-criticism?

Now we go back to discussing dynamic range, tonality, grading and all that.

Cheers!

[Marino215]

I think that the main problem is the way that the "pros" grade the footage. They always grade the videos with a soft look, a lot of glow and washed out colors. It looks like they like to recreate that old damaged-film look.
 
I dont know, maybe thats because im young, but I dont like things that look old. Whats the point of buying a high end camera if all of your videos will look like that? I understand doing that once in a while, to create a "look", but every time? And when you are "reviewing" a camera, you need to show its potential, and the videos posted by those guys are not the best way to do that.
 
Here is an example. This first image was graded by James Miller. Most people wouldnt buy a camera that creates that kind of look.
 

 
And here is the same video graded by me. Why cant they post videos with natural looking colors and sharp details?
 

James did what any professional would do in that situation and that's to make the very pretty actress even prettier. No offense I'd hire the actress based off her top print than the bottom print you did. Maybe a jersey shore spinoff i'd consider it. But seriously I'm not trying to be vicious, anyone who follows James tests knows he pushes the image in every direction and sometimes that's what the grade calls for. In this case it's probably just a matter of taste. But always try to make your talent look better than they appear. You get a lot more work that way.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I think that the main problem is the way that the "pros" grade the footage. They always grade the videos with a soft look, a lot of glow and washed out colors. It looks like they like to recreate that old damaged-film look.

I dont know, maybe thats because im young, but I dont like things that look old. Whats the point of buying a high end camera if all of your videos will look like that? I understand doing that once in a while, to create a "look", but every time? And when you are "reviewing" a camera, you need to show its potential, and the videos posted by those guys are not the best way to do that.

Here is an example. This first image was graded by James Miller. Most people wouldnt buy a camera that creates that kind of look.



And here is the same video graded by me. Why cant they post videos with natural looking colors and sharp details?

Oh God that second grade looks terrible :D

[alanpoiuyt]

Grading Contest my entry #3

Nevermind - coudn't get jpg to size correctly :(

Definitely leaning more towards James' grade too.

[hmcindie]

 

- This video has no blacks, and that creates a muddy look

- It doesnt have enough saturation. It looks lifeless

- There is not enough Lift/Gamma/Gain in the highlights. Again, it makes the video dull

- Its too soft!

 

So it basically has the coveted Film Look ;)

[mtheory]

The video is also soft due to missed focus on James' part, as he admits in the video's Vimeo thread:

 

"I wish some people not here but on other forums would view this bearing in mind it was very hard to focus in those conditions and setup needed work it was just a speedy test with family and friends. More of a trip to the beach with a camera. I'll get better footage out of it once I know it's weaknesses and strengths. Had very few clips to cut as battery solution did not hold. Looking at 4k clips I see my focus is off plenty."

[noa]

So "Jhines" initial impression was right all along, the footage was soft for a reason.

[thedest]

I don't think this is a great example of what the video should look like.  She looks like she has a spray on tan, and a bad dye job.

 

I know what you are trying to get at with the dingy colors these days, but this goes a bit too far.

 

Michael

 

Spray tan? Are you using a bad monitor? Have you checked your gamma/saturation settings? Bad dye job? You sound like those blog girls that review make ups and chanel purses. Dont get me wrong, but im a man, and I like to see what the camera can show.

 

When im testing a camera, im not searching for good makeups, im looking for what the camera can capture, including bad skin texture, if the skin is like that.

 

If you are in Africa, shooting an old dude that has been under the sun his entire life, would you like to see a soft-baby skin? Please...

 

Thats not a topic about getting a job on a commercial - and let me tell you, the amount of bad commercials these days is HUGE. Maybe because those producers think like you? Anyway, thats a topic about what the camera can capture.

 

 

James did what any professional would do in that situation and that's to make the very pretty actress even prettier. No offense I'd hire the actress based off her top print than the bottom print you did.

 

Yes, I can se his grading being used on a vodka commercial, but I cant see it selling the camera. When reviewing a camera, they should show everything, not hide skin problems. His skin is blue/green and its glowing with no texture. She looks like an alien. Is it better than a tan? We are not looking at a models portfolio, we are looking at a camera sample. If the model has a bad makeup or a bad skin, the camera needs to show it.

 

And let me tell you another thing guys. If a guy is a pro, it doesnt mean that everything he does looks good. Being a pro only means that you get paid to do something. Please, dont be a fanboy, unless you are getting paid to do it. We are all grown up guys. Being a fan boy is not pretty, if you are a big boy.
 

Those pro gradings look bad, and im pretty sure that every final consumer will think that.

 

Film convert tools and LUTs are a lost cause - and they are the main reason why most prosumers hate Blackmagic cameras. All of those videos look surreal. They are like bad impressionist art. People like to see what their eyes can see.

 

People post bad gradings, with only shades of mid-grey, compressed highlights, bad colors and color casts and use the excuse that its a "filmic" look. ITS NOT!

 

Here is a comparison between film and digital. So stop using that "filmic look" excuse! Its just a grading made by a person with a doubtful taste!

 

[Caleb Genheimer]

Andrew, IMO, Blackmagic needs to just have all their cameras available in one mount. I get that Canon is the logical choice for many, but others want short FFD. Why not EOS-M mount? Id think thatd fit the bill in both cases quite nicely. 

[Homerus]

[Homerus]

Oh God that second grade looks terrible   :D

 

It's really not that bad, but I would've tone it down a little. I think Millers one is worse actually. 

[Oliver Daniel]

 

 

I think the RED Epic looks much better here. (and so it should for the price)

 

The Blackmagic looks too sharp in comparison, and I also saw a purple spot in the highlights?

 

That said, the Blackmagic holds up very well. Unnoticeable difference to the untrained eye. 

[Homerus]

I think the RED Epic looks much better here. (and so it should for the price)

 

The Blackmagic looks too sharp in comparison, and I also saw a purple spot in the highlights?

 

That said, the Blackmagic holds up very well. Unnoticeable difference to the untrained eye. 

 

I tend to disagree. The RED almost looks out of focus most of the time (maybe because it is?). I do like the "look" of the RED better though.

 

Read somewhere that the purple dot which's supposed to be our sun is a bug, they're working on it.

[noa]

Read somewhere that the purple dot which's supposed to be our sun is a bug, they're working on it.

 

That "dot" in the sun is a problem BM is too familiar with yet they manage to send out a new production ready camera again with the same problem?

[Sean Cunningham]

I can't help but ask myself two questions after seeing the BMPC/Epic video: 1) why was all the BMD footage Prores (though it held up)?  and 2) I wonder how much better the RED would have looked if it were linearized through ACES and had the LOG look washed out of it.