Alternatives to original BMPCC (Super 16 look)

[DFason]

On 3/23/2021 at 6:35 PM, kye said:

lol pretty much covers it...

of course, people around here might disagree - I asked the question and people thought that the sensors all look the same and you can use basically any camera to get any look:

I went back to editing some BMMCC footage and just shook my head.

I almost sold my micro the other day with prices so high but I just can't do it. Every time I shoot with outside I am blown away with the IQ. I love my Siii but there is something so nice about the micro. 

[kye]

14 hours ago, DFason said:

I almost sold my micro the other day with prices so high but I just can't do it. Every time I shoot with outside I am blown away with the IQ. I love my Siii but there is something so nice about the micro. 

Interesting observation.

I'm curious what image characteristics you prefer from the Micro over the A7S3?

I watched Potatojets video on the FX3 and was particularly impressed by the DR and handling of highlights in the sunset scene where he was backlit and had the sun in shot:

Is that something to do with the S-Cinetone profile perhaps?  I don't really speak "Sony" so not too sure if that contributes to this look?

When I compare the Micro to the GH5 the things that I really feel stands out on the Micro is the DR and the lack of digital sharpness, which just make everything feel like a Hollywood film straight-out-of-camera.  I've done comparisons where I shoot the same scene with both cameras and match the colours in post, but it's a pretty arduous task and would be pretty difficult to do unless I had shot every scene with the Micro, which kind of defeats the purpose!

Anyway, back to the A7S3 image, it seems to be quite reminiscent of the Micro, at least compared to the GH5 anyway(!) so I'm curious what you're seeing.

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Interesting observation.

I'm curious what image characteristics you prefer from the Micro over the A7S3?

I watched Potatojets video on the FX3 and was particularly impressed by the DR and handling of highlights in the sunset scene where he was backlit and had the sun in shot:

Is that something to do with the S-Cinetone profile perhaps?  I don't really speak "Sony" so not too sure if that contributes to this look?

When I compare the Micro to the GH5 the things that I really feel stands out on the Micro is the DR and the lack of digital sharpness, which just make everything feel like a Hollywood film straight-out-of-camera.  I've done comparisons where I shoot the same scene with both cameras and match the colours in post, but it's a pretty arduous task and would be pretty difficult to do unless I had shot every scene with the Micro, which kind of defeats the purpose!

Anyway, back to the A7S3 image, it seems to be quite reminiscent of the Micro, at least compared to the GH5 anyway(!) so I'm curious what you're seeing.

The A7S3 unfortunately has internal NR and Sharpening that can't be dialed down. 

Its a completely different comparison but comparing my S1's 10 bit codec to REDRAW, in good conditions I don't see much difference. But with harsher conditions the RAW just looks better, everything just rolls off nicer both color and contrast. I assume its the similar with BM CDNG and the A7S3 codec. 

[kye]

2 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

The A7S3 unfortunately has internal NR and Sharpening that can't be dialed down. 

Its a completely different comparison but comparing my S1's 10 bit codec to REDRAW, in good conditions I don't see much difference. But with harsher conditions the RAW just looks better, everything just rolls off nicer both color and contrast. I assume its the similar with BM CDNG and the A7S3 codec. 

That makes sense.  I'm always curious what people are seeing, what they're paying attention to, and what they prioritise.  Much can be learned by understanding how other people see the world.

I think you're right in that under more forgiving situations the differences between cameras are much less.  I think it's unfortunate that most professionals shoot in controlled situations and demand high-quality outputs, so when you say that you're an amateur they assume you're still shooting in controlled conditions but expect a lower-quality output and therefore your camera demands are less, when actually it's the case that we're often shooting in uncontrolled situations so our requirements are (in some cases) actually more than for their shoots.

[Tim Sewell]

14 hours ago, kye said:

Is that something to do with the S-Cinetone profile perhaps?  I don't really speak "Sony" so not too sure if that contributes to this look?

That sequence was graded slog3. He mentioned that later in the video. 

 

[BenEricson]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:08 AM, tupp said:

Your rig reminds me of @ZEEK's EOSM Super 16 setup.  It shoots 2.5K, 10-bit continuously or 2.8K, 10-bit continuously with ML at around 16mm and Super 16 frame sizes.

That's a cool little rig. I think I like the image I see from the pocket more, although I have always loved the files from any ML Canon camera. The ease of ProRes HQ is definitely easier from a work flow perspective.

[BenEricson]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:52 PM, kye said:

I'm curious what image characteristics you prefer from the Micro over the A7S3?

I watched Potatojets video on the FX3 and was particularly impressed by the DR and handling of highlights in the sunset scene where he was backlit and had the sun in shot:

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset.

Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image.

This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get. 

[TomTheDP]

Interesting, the film still looks so nice in the highlights though I am sure the Pocket could as well with different grading. I am gonna take a photo with the S1 to see how it does today, I'll throw it up here. That is if we get any sun here lol. 

[BenEricson]

9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

Interesting, the film still looks so nice in the highlights though I am sure the Pocket could as well with different grading.

You'd have to under expose the pocket quite a bit to get a perfect circle like that. Most digital cameras will produce a blob, rather than the clean circle film produces, (unless you're shooting a silhouette.) RAW would probably get you closer. I always use ProRes on the bmpcc. 

 

 

[kye]

On 3/30/2021 at 2:09 AM, BenEricson said:

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset.

Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image.

This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get. 

Great post and thanks for the images.  That is exactly what I am seeing with my Micro footage - the images just look spectacular without having to do almost anything to them.

I've done tests where I have been able to match the colours from the BM cameras, but only under "easy" conditions where the GH5 sensor was not stressed.  The fact you are talking about the performance under extremely challenging situations only reinforces my impressions.

On 3/30/2021 at 2:21 AM, TomTheDP said:

Interesting, the film still looks so nice in the highlights though I am sure the Pocket could as well with different grading. I am gonna take a photo with the S1 to see how it does today, I'll throw it up here. That is if we get any sun here lol. 

I'll be very curious to see your results.  In my Sony sensor thread everyone was talking about how Sony sensors can be graded to look like anything, but I never see people actually trying, or if they do, it's under the easiest of controlled conditions.  

Here is a test I did a while ago trying to match the GH5 to the BMMCC:

There are differences of course, due to using different lenses for starters, but the results would likely be passable.  

There's no way in hell you can get a good match under more challenging situations.  To put it another way, when the OG BMPCC and BMMCC came out people were talking about cutting them together with Alexa footage and that they matched really easily and nicely with little grading required.  No-one really says that about affordable modern consumer cameras, and what I hear from the professional colourists is that when someone uses a GH5 or a Sony or an iPhone, it's about doing the best the can and putting the majority of effort into managing the clients expectations.