Marco Tecno Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Wow, cool results ;-) I wonder how other cameras would have fared in this test (5d, gh4, nx1...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 You're right about D being best for talent. Smooth midtones. I'm shocked that C was D16. It looks super soft and larger sensor than Super 16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volker Schmidt Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Yes, E is the best...!And congratulations to nougat, you nailed it ( I have the same results, but have transposed digits). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 9, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 9, 2015 Oh another lesson learnt, people hate small sensor camcorders. But it did get alot of votes so treated right it's probably good.Also I recently used it for a mini documentary at work and man do I miss the camcorder form factor and buttons sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 9, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 9, 2015 Well, Mattias correctly summed up that our viewing habits/preferences are now more tuned to digital cinema images. Conversely, I'd claim that few people still know what chemical film looks like. Most people associate it with an Instagram/retro filter look rather than with the real look of, for example, Kodak Vision3 or Fuji Eterna. (Even the more saturated and crushed reversal stock like Ektachrome and Provia doesn't look like digital retro filters.)I still shoot and develop film for stills and I agree, it doesn't look like instagram. But I must say that Filmconvert if eased of a little is really good at mimicking the film I use. Atleast color wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 9, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 9, 2015 You're right about D being best for talent. Smooth midtones. I'm shocked that C was D16. It looks super soft and larger sensor than Super 16.It's also the only camera in the lot with zero digital sharpening. I'm in no way the man to explain the details but as I've been told the bmpcc has some sort of sharpening added in its debayering. I like the detail but not sharpened image, but I get why some don't.In this video it's a bit better conditions for it. After the first bit (shot with gm1 btw) it's the D16 handheld with the 35mm that the gm1 used in the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I still shoot and develop film for stills and I agree, it doesn't look like instagram. But I must say that Filmconvert if eased of a little is really good at mimicking the film I use. Atleast color wise. Yes. But now comes my "Yehova" cry (remember "The Life of Brian"): The images from the Bolex D16 in your film look like Instagram to me, not like film at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I never fell in love with the Bolex despite wanting to, to the point of driving 4 hours to shoot one. It just didn't get to me. No first the images coming out of it do not have an instagram look, if you see any of that it's the grade, the camera has very neutral and pleasing colour, normal. The sensor although 2K it gives a very detailed final 2K image but without any signs of sharpening, much like how the 1DC 4K image is soft, and when sharpened it can look as modern/tack-sharp as the new cameras. Resolution it's not an issue here at all. The issues are the dealbreakers, the small sensor with deep DOF and s16 aesthetic vs s35, the sensitivity of 200/400 ISO max, and the design of the camera is atrocious to use compared to say a C100 (yet much much more stylish I'll give it that!). The dynamic range is the third deal breaker, when I approached it I thought raw, ability to push image and get high DR, but the darks are not at all pushable that much and the highlights are NOT brought down at all, once it's gone, it's gone in one of the most very videoish roll offs I've seen, which struck me as strange as highlight film like response and raw pushability were supposed to be the key point of the Bolex. At the end of the day you find your self working with a VERY dark sensor, with a limited window of range, and needs many accessories to use normally even for simple framing and focusing/audio/handheld. It wasn't a pleasant experience, Maybe those who like shooting at 200 ISO and like the deeper DOF and s16 lenses would find it more appealing than I did. But for me, high sensitivity, s35 sensor and ergonomic body with effecient compressed codecs and good audio is the type for me, just makes things SO much easier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnymossville Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The little GM1 looked great across the board to me, especially in the outdoors shot and DR. Though I picked the blackmagic in the first scene as best. Liam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 You're right about D being best for talent. Smooth midtones. I'm shocked that C was D16. It looks super soft and larger sensor than Super 16.I really don't understand why anyone would prefer D (in the chewing gum part). It looks absolutely terrible... Digital artefacts all over the place, too dark and it looks like upscaled sd from a VHS tape... johnnymossville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 9, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yes. But now comes my "Yehova" cry (remember "The Life of Brian"): The images from the Bolex D16 in your film look like Instagram to me, not like film at all.Never intended them to look like film. That would have screwed up the test big time.The instructions and reason to why is in the beginning of the video.EDIT: Oh whait, you mean in the alphatron video? Thats not intended to look like anything.Anyway, what stock are you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 9, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 9, 2015 I really don't understand why anyone would prefer D (in the chewing gum part). It looks absolutely terrible... Digital artefacts all over the place, too dark and it looks like upscaled sd from a VHS tape... Because your not the Talent, so your not supposed to understand either.My point is, sometimes its your customer who decides and they view them self with their own eyes. That you must understand if you care about your job :) johnnymossville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Because your not the Talent, so your not supposed to understand either.My point is, sometimes its your customer who decides and they view them self with their own eyes. That you must understand if you care about your job I don't agree. I always fought that concept, that image quality is a magical matter and is not quantifiable or assessable based on technical data. That's why I wrote this: There is high image quality, and there's low image quality, no matter how a viewer might see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted June 10, 2015 Author Super Members Share Posted June 10, 2015 I don't agree. I always fought that concept, that image quality is a magical matter and is not quantifiable or assessable based on technical data. That's why I wrote this: There is high image quality, and there's low image quality, no matter how a viewer might see it.You do what you want but a camera man that I hire will be fired if I hear that he/she mouthed of to a client and didn't respect their opinion and wishes. And for me a nice image quality is as measurable as what ice-cream flavor that tastes the best. Depends on who you ask. My test is hard evidence and is showing it in an undisputable way. All images got votes. So no image was "best". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.