Blackmagic Update - 14th September 2023 19:00 CET

[PannySVHS]

11 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

Interesting thing about file sizes. I shot an event with the S5 II in IPB (it doesn't shoot All-I) in 4K and the Pocket 6K in Q5 in 16:9 6K and the Pocket 6K file sizes ended up a fraction smaller at 6K as the S5 did at 4k. Really amazing compression.

Blackmagic states 65 to 162 MB per second, that's around 500 to 1300 Mbit per second. Long Gop of Lumix S series is 150 Mbps, so a third to an eigth of the numbers from BMs website for Q5.

Completely different numbers! But would love me some internal braw q5 on the next S camera. And punsh-in focus during recording.😊

[PannySVHS]

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I do reckon @Jedi Master should take a second look at the Panasonic S1H (or the BS1H, which is the same camera, but in a different form factor). 

Acually he should give Canon R7 a try. Supposely nice colours and Pdaf. I find S1 series not effortless in Grading. One can achieve any thinkable look but it takes work. Jedi Master wants a heavy expensive camera. He now has to decide which one, if he finds time to do so.:)

[kye]

4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Blackmagic states 65 to 162 MB per second, that's around 500 to 1300 Mbit per second. Long Gop of Lumix S series is 150 Mbps, so a third to an eigth of the numbers from BMs website for Q5.

Completely different numbers! But would love me some internal braw q5 on the next S camera. And punsh-in focus during recording.😊

Yeah, this is one of the other hidden costs of higher resolutions - the lack of ability to have reasonable bitrates with the higher resolutions.

Obviously RAW scales with the resolution of the image, but so does the bitrates of the Prores codecs too...  but here's the issue - the screens don't get bigger! and your vision doesn't get better either!   

You: I'd like to buy a higher resolution camera please.
Shopkeeper: Sure.  Here is a stack of larger hard drives, here is a huge new computer, here are the blazing media cards, here is ........

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

there is nothing to cater to experienced shooters working professionally

The URSA Mini Pro G2 is a good choice. 

7 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

After owning a few BMD cameras, as soon as I started shooting professionally for others, it was clear I needed to ditch BMD for Sony. 
Productions want what they know fits their workflow rather than a camera that has  slightly better colours or highlight rolloff. 

But I fully agree, if you want a camera with the best ROI to get the most work then go for a Sony FX6 (or FX9. Or heck, even an older Sony FS7. Or even a Canon C70/C300mk2/C300mk3 would be a better choice than BMD cameras, although I wouldn't recommend Canon unless you're in some niche where it is more popular). 

But if you're working in house, or focused more in the narrative space or music videos, etc, then sure, go for an URSA Mini. 

[seanzzxx]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The URSA Mini Pro G2 is a good choice.

I was doubting about getting a mini pro g2 instead of the 6k, because we use the Ursa's at work and I LOVE their form factor, but the G2 is in such a weird space. It's still 'current', as in they're available new on the BM website, but they haven't been updated in years, so all the new features (gen5, gyro stabilisation, new UI) haven't been available and I doubt they ever will be. Also some quality of life features from the 12k (especially higher nit screen) are not on there. Just a weird model.

[JulioD]

16 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, this is one of the other hidden costs of higher resolutions - the lack of ability to have reasonable bitrates with the higher resolutions.

Obviously RAW scales with the resolution of the image, but so does the bitrates of the Prores codecs too...  but here's the issue - the screens don't get bigger! and your vision doesn't get better either!   

You: I'd like to buy a higher resolution camera please.
Shopkeeper: Sure.  Here is a stack of larger hard drives, here is a huge new computer, here are the blazing media cards, here is ........

I shoot the 12K a lot and the funny thing is that you can shoot 1 hour of 12K for about 1TB.  Think about that.  That's the same as shooting an hour of Arri RAW at 4.6K.  BRAW is an amazing codec in that regard, and the damn files playback on very old machines no problem.  

 

[JulioD]

8 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

I was doubting about getting a mini pro g2 instead of the 6k, because we use the Ursa's at work and I LOVE their form factor, but the G2 is in such a weird space. It's still 'current', as in they're available new on the BM website, but they haven't been updated in years, so all the new features (gen5, gyro stabilisation, new UI) haven't been available and I doubt they ever will be. Also some quality of life features from the 12k (especially higher nit screen) are not on there. Just a weird model.

Yeah unless you really need ProRes, the 12K is better supported.  I had a G2 for a long time but they left so much stuff off.  Can't even do dual card.

[A_Urquhart]

20 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The URSA Mini Pro G2 is a good choice.

Yeah…..but I really don’t like the form factor and ‘only’ having two channels of audio is soooooo last decade. 

[kye]

6 hours ago, JulioD said:

I shoot the 12K a lot and the funny thing is that you can shoot 1 hour of 12K for about 1TB.  Think about that.  That's the same as shooting an hour of Arri RAW at 4.6K.  BRAW is an amazing codec in that regard, and the damn files playback on very old machines no problem.  

Yeah, high resolution is great if you want high resolution.

Not so good if you are interested in making a meaningful final film.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Yeah…..but I really don’t like the form factor and ‘only’ having two channels of audio is soooooo last decade. 

Is my memory wrong, but can't you have two external sources plus two internal scratch mics? That's a good enough compromise in my opinion 

[JulioD]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, high resolution is great if you want high resolution.

Not so good if you are interested in making a meaningful final film.

I’m not sure what you mean?

Ive come to the conclusion that more resolution in this case makes the camera more transparent. You don’t see the tech you just have a more subtle beautiful result. I’ve had make up artists freak out and it actually has the opposite effect.
 

It looks beautiful in close ups.  I’ve shot Oscar winning older ladies with it, and it actually helps rather than hinders. 

If a sensor is a grid of photosites, having more density means you see and feel the grid less.  Super sampling is real.

Everytime someone make this kind of comment I have to ask, have you actually used it and shot with it? Because mostly they haven’t.  Maybe you have?

It’s not just about it being 12k. That’s like…a side effect.  The sensor has some serious color magic. 

I wish it did ProRes and I have had to buy an OLPF.  like any camera it has its downsides.  

Bit it’s hard to beat for image beauty and color separation 

 

[seanzzxx]

I think Kye hasn't shot in a professional capacity for the last few decades at least? I don't mean to be rude and feel free to correct me, @kye, but I see a lot of authoritative statements from him but I'm pretty sure he just shoots home videos?

[kye]

3 hours ago, JulioD said:

I’m not sure what you mean?

Ive come to the conclusion that more resolution in this case makes the camera more transparent. You don’t see the tech you just have a more subtle beautiful result. I’ve had make up artists freak out and it actually has the opposite effect.
 

It looks beautiful in close ups.  I’ve shot Oscar winning older ladies with it, and it actually helps rather than hinders. 

If a sensor is a grid of photosites, having more density means you see and feel the grid less.  Super sampling is real.

Everytime someone make this kind of comment I have to ask, have you actually used it and shot with it? Because mostly they haven’t.  Maybe you have?

It’s not just about it being 12k. That’s like…a side effect.  The sensor has some serious color magic. 

I wish it did ProRes and I have had to buy an OLPF.  like any camera it has its downsides.  

Bit it’s hard to beat for image beauty and color separation 

I was being a bit provocative, mostly just to challenge the blind pursuit of specifications over anything actually meaningful, which unfortunately is a bit like trying to hold back the ocean.

I have seen a lot of footage from the UMP12K and the image truly is lovely, that's for sure.  Especially, looking at the videos from Matteo Bertoli shoots with UMP12K and the BMPCC6K, because it's the same person shooting and grading both so the comparison has a lot less external factors, the 12K has a certain look that the P6K doesn't quite reach.  The P6K is also a great image too, so a high standard to beat.

The idea of massively oversampling is a valid one, and I guess it depends on the aesthetic you're attempting to create.  In a professional situation having a RAW 12K image is a very very neutral starting position in todays context.

I say "in todays context" because since we went to digital, the fundamental nature of resolution has changed.  In film, when you exposed it to a series of lines of decreasing size (and therefore higher frequencies) at a certain point the contrast starts to decrease as the frequency rises, to the point where the contrast was indistinguishable.  The MTF curve of film shows a slope down as frequency goes up.

In digital, the MTF curve is flat until aliasing kicks in, where it might dip up and down a bit and then it will fall off a cliff when the frequency reaches half the pixel distance.  In audio this would be the Nyquist frequency, and OLPFs are designed to make this a nicer transition from full contrast to zero contrast.

While there is no right and wrong, this type of response is decidedly unnatural - virtually nothing in the physical world operates like this, which I believe is one of the reasons that the digital look is so distinctive.  

The resolution that the contrast starts to decrease on Kodak 500T is somewhere around 500-1000 pixels across, so the difference in contrast on detail (otherwise called 'sharpness') is significant by the time you get to 4K and up.

So to have a 12K RAW image is to have pixels that are significantly smaller than human perception (by a looong way) so in a sense it takes the OLPF and moire and associated effects, of "the grid" as you say, out of the equation, but it also creates an unnatural MTF / frequency response curve.  In professional circles, this flat MTF curve would be softened by filters, the lens, and then by the colourist.  If you look at how cinematographers choose lenses, their resolution-limiting characteristics is often a significantly desirable trait in guiding these decisions.

Going in the opposite direction, away from very high resolutions with deliberately limited MTF properties that Hollywood normally chooses, we have the low resolutions which limit MTF in their own ways.  For example, a native 1080p sensor won't appear as sharp as a 1080p image downsampled from a higher resolution source.  1080p is around the limits of human vision in normal viewing conditions (cinemas, TVs, phones).  

In a practical sense, when people these days are filming at resolutions around 1080p, MTF control from filters and un-sharpening in post is normally absent, and even most budget lenses are sharper than 1080p (2MP!) so this needs some active treatment to knock the digital edge off things.  The other challenge is that these images are likely to be sharpened and compressed in-camera, so will have digital looking artefacts to deal with, these are often best un-sharpened too as they are often related to the pixel-size.

4K is perhaps the worst of all worlds.  It isn't enough resolution to be significantly greater than human vision and have no grid effects, but also has a flat MTF curve that extends waaay further than appears natural.  Folks who are obsessed with the resolution of their camera are also more likely to resist softening the MTF curve, so are essentially pushing everything into the digital realm and having the image resemble the physical world the least.  I find that "cinematic" videos on YT shot in 4K are the most digital / least analog / least cinematic images, with those shot in 1080p normally being better, and with the ones shot in 6K or greater being the best (because up until recently those were limited to people who understand that sharpness and sharpening aren't infinitely desirable).  

The advantage that 4K has over 1080p is that the compression artefacts from poor codecs tend to be smaller, and are therefore less visually offensive and more easily obscured by un-sharpening in post.

Ironically, a flat MTF curve is just like if you filmed with ultra-low-noise film and then performed a massive sharpening operation on it.  The resulting MTF curve is the same.

I'm happy to provide more info if you're curious.  I've written lots of posts around various aspects of this subject.

1 hour ago, seanzzxx said:

I think Kye hasn't shot in a professional capacity for the last few decades at least? I don't mean to be rude and feel free to correct me, @kye, but I see a lot of authoritative statements from him but I'm pretty sure he just shoots home videos?

Yep, massively overenthusiastic amateur here.

I mostly limit myself to speaking about things that I have personal experience with, but I work really hard behind the scenes, shooting my own tests, reading books, doing paid courses, and asking questions and listening to professionals.  I challenge myself regularly, fact-check myself before making statements in posts, and have done dozens / hundreds of camera and lens tests to try and isolate various aspects of the image and how it works.  I have qualifications and deep experience in some relevant fields.  I also have a pretty good testing setup, do blind tests on myself using it, and (sadly!) rank cameras in blind test by increasing order of cost!  😂😂😂

I'm happy to be questioned, as normally I have either tested something myself, or can provide references, or both.  Sadly, most people don't have the interest, attention span, or capacity to go deep on these things, so I try and make things as brief as possible, so they end up sounding like wild statements unless you already understand the topic.

Unlike many professionals, I manage the whole production pipeline from beginning to end and have developed understandings of things that span departments and often fall through the cracks or involve changing something in one part of the pipeline and compensating for it at a later point in the image pipeline.  Anything that spans several departments would rarely be tested except on large budget productions where the cinematographer is able to shoot tests and then worked with a large post house, which unfortunately is the exception rather than the norm.

Ironically, because I shoot with massively compromised equipment in very challenging situations, I work harder than most to extract the most from my equipment by pushing it to breaking and beyond and trying to salvage things.  Professional colourists are, unfortunately, used to dealing with very compromised footage from lower-end productions, but they are rarely consulted before production to give tips on how to maximise things and prevent issues.

[kye]

Just to round up the reason I was talking about MTF and digital having an in-natural resolution response, the primary function of the "look" of a film is to support the content of the subject matter.  In most cases this will be to be slightly sharper or softer than a neutral point, but for it to not stand out and call attention to itself unless an artificial feel was deliberately being added, like if a scene was set in a fake reality etc.

I would suggest that film was a relatively neutral reference in terms of the aesthetic.  We didn't go to theatres and think "oh my god the whole thing is a soft blurry mess!" so by having something massively sharper I would suggest it's diverging from an ideal neutral position.

Thus my comment about resolution vs "making a meaningful final film" which is meaningful because of the content.

[JulioD]

   ... 

[seanzzxx]

On 11/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, PannySVHS said:

Blackmagic states 65 to 162 MB per second, that's around 500 to 1300 Mbit per second. Long Gop of Lumix S series is 150 Mbps, so a third to an eigth of the numbers from BMs website for Q5.

Completely different numbers! But would love me some internal braw q5 on the next S camera. And punsh-in focus during recording.😊

So I already suspected Blackmagic is conservative about the minimum bitrates they list and this really confirms that. The 4k ipb Panasonic file is 109gigs, the 6k Blackmagic raw Q5 file is 114 gigs. Similar runtime down to a minute (94 minute record time). So yeah, completely different numbers, but in Blackmagic their favor.

[PannySVHS]

That seems very off. 20 MBps, eq to 160Mbit per second seems off for 6K "Raw" file. That's smaller than the 6K 200mbit h265 10bit 420 from the S cameras.

It's also a third of the lowest of Blackmagics official numbers, which range from 500 to 1300 Mbit. @seanzzxx

But all cool with me, wonders of the world.:)

Good dynamic range and great color response and grading potential seem a no brainer for lovers of the full frame image. It's a S16, S35 and FF camera in one. Pretty neat.

[kye]

Slashcam footage of BMCC 6K FF camera.  Looks pretty nice to me!  Especially the anamorphic images 🙂 

 

 

[PannySVHS]

Mavo LF is a beautiful image taker. Talking even about version 1. If this camera is in the same league I would be very impressed. But it seems it's Bmpcc 6K territory, which is nice but doesn't sing to me like Mavo LF footage. Samples from BM website look great though. But they are always providing great and well shot footage from their cameras.

[Jedi Master]

11 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Samples from BM website look great though. But they are always providing great and well shot footage from their cameras.

This is one of my pet peeves: manufacturers who don't provide sample footage for their cameras that show them off to best advantage. The footage provided by Kinefinity is particularly bad. The samples from BMD are much better. Ditto for RED.