Blackmagic Cinema Camera shutter angles explained

[P4INKiller]

It really pains me that they didn't decide to go with a m4/3 friendly mount.
It's the only thing stopping me from throwing money at them.

My wallet or income isn't big enough for me to stock up on EF glass.

[Shian Storm]

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1343155766' post='14432']
Looks like someone has photoshopped it with a skin smoother filter :o
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bmc-small.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I graded this, and I can assure you photoshop was not used. This was graded using ColorGHear Toolkit for After Effects. The skin smoothing effect is a feature in ColorGHear called GHrain Killer which can be used to reduce noise and/or smooth out skin detail depending on how you adjust the settings. In this case, because they were stills, I chose not to do any power windows or masks that would normally require a lot of tracking - just to kinda keep the grade honest and simple. As a result you can actually see the GHrain Killer reducing some of the detail on her jacket as well. Normally I would have tracked her face, and only applied the GK to her skin.

[Shian Storm]

[quote name='P4INKiller' timestamp='1343229744' post='14490']
It really pains me that they didn't decide to go with a m4/3 friendly mount.
It's the only thing stopping me from throwing money at them.

My wallet or income isn't big enough for me to stock up on EF glass.
[/quote]

I agree. I think a m43 option would have been the most versatile, and allowed the largest selection of lenses possible with adapters. But I'm told, future versions will have other mount options including m43 and PL. But we'll just have to wait.

If they were really aggressive they would have released with a m43 mount, and with both a PL to m43 adaptor, and an EF adaptor with electronics.

Micro 4/3 really should become the standard as it accommodates so many different flange distance options without having to hard mount anything.

I'm playing the waiting game with this cam. Could be awesome, could be a nightmare, I guess we'll see.

[Bruno]

http://filmmakeriq.com/2012/07/exclusive-blackmagic-answers-your-questions-about-their-new-cinema-camera/

It sounds like the cameras are pretty much ready and waiting for all the paper work to be finished.
As regarding future features, it sounds like nothing had been decided, it will all depend on how well this camera does.

I'm curious about the sensor though, there have been reports of bad rolling shutter issues, but on the other hand the rumored sensor has a global shutter mode, so I guess we'll have to wait and see...

The EF mount can still be adapted to a lot of different lenses, it's not like you can only use EF lenses.

[bwhitz]

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343234344' post='14494']
I'm curious about the sensor though, there have been reports of bad rolling shutter issues, but on the other hand the rumored sensor has a global shutter mode, so I guess we'll have to wait and see...
[/quote]

It should be no worse than a RedMX/Scarlet... and definitley not as bad as the original RedOne. NOW THAT was a rolling shutter MACHINE.

Besides, rolling shutter really isn't that bad... it was just a negative buzz-term created by digruntled old gear-heads like Barry Green who are jelous of new tools and want everyone to go back to shooting on $40,000 Vari-cams. It pains the older guys and "the established" that our generation has pocket-sized 35mm cameras and soon-to-be sub $5k RAW. It basically just levels the playing field and they hate it. Just don't buy into this "rolling shutter" non-sense. It's there, sure. But it's mostly just disgruntled scape-goat-ism. Hell, even the Alexa has rolling shutter... but you'll never hear about it. Because in the end, no matter what anybody tells you, "they" just don't want you to use cheap cameras that look good. "They" want you to belive that only $70,000 Alexa's can make quality pictures. It's just better business for them. It just creates more competition when 20-year-olds with a just few grand can rival thier production values. ...and they'd rather just put an end to it than compete.

You really think that if the images doesn't "skew" a tiny bit durring whip-pans that your footage will look any better? Not a chance. It's just one more excuse in the bag for bad-filmakers... :)

[Bruno]

It can be pretty nasty on handheld footage, more than the skew effect, the jello effect can get quite ugly. To me it's as bad and serious as the aliasing issues on the Canon DSLRs.

[Andrew Reid]

The only time rolling shutter has ever been a problem for me was on fast moving subway train going past the camera on the platform. If you are whipping the camera around handheld to such an extent as to evoke noticeable rolling shutter issues then just switch to a smaller chip camcorder for those shots, then back to the BMD or DSLR for the main stuff. A film with constant whip pans is not nice. It isn't really my cup of tea. I prefer locked down stuff or gentle, subtle handheld work.

[Bruno]

It's quite noticeable on handheld footage, and it doesn't even have to be that extreme.
IS lenses can help a lot with this though, and of course, the wider the lens, the lesser the issue, but try handheld with a 50mm or longer on an APS-C sized sensor and you'll see the rolling shutter stick out it's ugly head.

It wasn't a deal breaker on the first generation of video DSLRs, but I'd expect improvements on this (as well as other features) before upgrading.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='Shian Storm' timestamp='1343231245' post='14491']
I graded this, and I can assure you photoshop was not used. This was graded using ColorGHear Toolkit for After Effects. The skin smoothing effect is a feature in ColorGHear called GHrain Killer which can be used to reduce noise and/or smooth out skin detail depending on how you adjust the settings. In this case, because they were stills, I chose not to do any power windows or masks that would normally require a lot of tracking - just to kinda keep the grade honest and simple. As a result you can actually see the GHrain Killer reducing some of the detail on her jacket as well. Normally I would have tracked her face, and only applied the GK to her skin.
[/quote]

The grade was great. I preferred it to John's actually. The skin, the muted tones and a very classic movie look...

[Shian Storm]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343252070' post='14506']
The grade was great. I preferred it to John's actually. The skin, the muted tones and a very classic movie look...
[/quote]

Thanks, Andrew.

[DanielJ]

My only concern so far is with wide angle lenses without much distortion. Any thoughts about solutions that will get us back into the 24-28mm range of full frame?

[andy lee]

Use a Magna Com!

I use Isco and Schnieders and they are optically amazing !
Takes those fast primes and makes them useable on a GH2 .
I got the idea from seeing Stanley Kubrick using a Kollmorgen Magna Com in the 70's on his infamous 50mm Nasa Zeiss lens to make it wider approx 35mm focal length.

So I went out and bought a Schneider Magna Com ! stunning glass! then an Isco ! also stunning!

It works... I use them on the Tecnoir Rig!!

[Simco123]

[quote name='Shian Storm' timestamp='1343231245' post='14491']
I graded this, and I can assure you photoshop was not used. This was graded using ColorGHear Toolkit for After Effects. The skin smoothing effect is a feature in ColorGHear called GHrain Killer which can be used to reduce noise and/or smooth out skin detail depending on how you adjust the settings. In this case, because they were stills, I chose not to do any power windows or masks that would normally require a lot of tracking - just to kinda keep the grade honest and simple. As a result you can actually see the GHrain Killer reducing some of the detail on her jacket as well. Normally I would have tracked her face, and only applied the GK to her skin.
[/quote]

The NR and smoothing for me had a negative effect because it actually looks closer to the 5DMkII video.
For stills I can understand a temptation to glam up a photo of a lady but for moving images noise and skin blemish is less of an issue than if it were stills. The human eye has a natural NR filter when viewing moving images there is no need to add any more smoothing otherwise the video looks flat.

[Germy1979]

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1343194760' post='14466']
The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing...


Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;)

My running list so far is:

-Form factor
[i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all.

-Size
[i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i]
This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it.

-Price
"it's not expensive enought to be professional"
Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering.

-Too much dynamic range
"detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks)
These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors.

-ISO
[i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i]
Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys.

-RAW
yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and consuses the "clients""

That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come.
[/quote]

Lol. Truth be told bud, 9 times outta 10 you do get what you pay for. I can see the skepticism to some degree... Digital cinema cameras are weird though.

[Shian Storm]

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1343260707' post='14514']
The NR and smoothing for me had a negative effect because it actually looks closer to the 5DMkII video.
For stills I can understand a temptation to glam up a photo of a lady but for moving images noise and skin blemish is less of an issue than if it were stills. The human eye has a natural NR filter when viewing moving images there is no need to add any more smoothing otherwise the video looks flat.
[/quote]

There's been a long standing debate about the sharpness of digital being TOO sharp. Speaking as someone who was involved in the leading edge of the digital revolution when I worked as a Colorist. We could instantly see that the Genesis, Viper, and RED footage was too sharp. It didn't look like film, but everyone was okay with that because, at the time, there were no digital cinemas, so we knew our final output would be film. So when we printed the DI out to film, the ultra sharp "video" would pick up the grain and softness inherent in the emulsion process of film, and the final product would look the way it was intended.

Now with everything moving towards a pure digital workflow - from acquisition to projection, there is a need to digitally give this new medium that softer look in order to maintain that magical feel of film. You are looking at a still, but I can tell you, when the process is applied to moving images, it is very filmic, as opposed to no "smart" softening. I say smart softening, because there is a marked difference between the soft look of the 5D, and the soft look of film.

The grade I did on this footage is not the be all end all of video grading, and was done as a test, and not the kind of look I'd apply to something that was intended for delivery. I could go back and do that, but in this case it was just a quick examination of what had been made available.

[Andrew Reid]

Very interesting. When the GH2 came out, a number of people complained about the high level of detail, claiming it was too sharp and less cinematic than the softer GH1. Equally I am sure when people watch The Hobbit for the first time they will be shocked at how un-cinematic it looks and how sharp and smooth and digital the image will be at 4K 48fps.

Certainly that soft muddy 5D footage look is not the same as the film emulsion process and organic softness.

The GH2 strikes me as a good chance to experiment with softening the image in post. Right now everyone is trying to get the sharpest image possible. It would be great to see some tests with different noise overlays and experimental softening techniques.

Just don't try it with the 5D Mark III!!!! :D

One of the things I love about anamorphic is that it softens detail, but doesn't decrease it.

[Bruno]

An ungraded super-35 2k movie film scan doesn't look any sharper than what comes out of a 5Dmk3.
If you shoot with a 5Dmk3 using the cinestyle profile, it actually looks a lot like a film scan.
Film always needs to be graded and sharpened, if you don't do anything to it, it won't look that great, whereas in DSLRs people demand that the footage looks amazing straight out of the box (which it actually does, considering).

Obviously, the 5Dmk3 in video mode doesn't have the same dynamic range as film, but it does respond pretty well to sharpening, therefore I don't see the resolution as that much of an issue, and they sorted the aliasing. Only big issue (for me) is the rolling shutter (and also the fact that I'm not a big fan of the full frame look).

Using BMD's camera raw will require a lot more steps to make the footage look good, a lot more hardware and resources too, and some grading knowledge, it's a cinema camera, and it comes with all that that entails.
That might be a problem for many people who complain about the 5D just because they need to sharpen it in post.

[roller]

"Those settings are really there for the ProRes recording mode...but even in the 220Mbit ProRes mode, colour, ISO sensitivity and white balance are far less baked into the final image..."

What?! Have you worked with Alexa Prores footage?
This way you say: "no matter what your ISO, no matter what your WB setting is, prores will save you"
This is not true. ISO, and WB are baked in. Fully. Yes, you can grade, you can lift, you can do a lot of things. But these settings are baked in, and if someone shoots at ISO400 and it should have been ISO800, they have to push the footage hard.

[bwhitz]

[quote name='Shian Storm' timestamp='1343263365' post='14521']
I say smart softening, because there is a marked difference between the soft look of the 5D, and the soft look of film.
[/quote]

+1

Even if film is soft in certain scenarios... it's always very [i]detailed[/i]. The 5D's have no detail whatsoever... they're just mushy and muddy. There just isn't any detail in there.


[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1343309809' post='14543']
An ungraded super-35 2k movie film scan doesn't look any sharper than what comes out of a 5Dmk3.
[/quote]

Maybe not "sharper" right away... but it's about 8x more [i]detailed[/i]. There is a BIG difference between "detail" and "sharp".

If I were you, I would go shoot a few things on the hacked GH2 for a bit... it's like a gatway drug to the world of "detailed" images that the BM cam will improve upon even furthur. If you shoot a short on the GH2, then go back to the 5D, it will look like iphone video. No joke. I thought I was going to be able to switch between my GH2 and 5D depending on the project, but there is just no way I can go back to the 5D. I cringe everytime I have to watch 5D footage full-screen in my timelime. The canon DSLRs just don't even get in the ballpark of a real detailed 1080p image.

The GH2 in 720p with a variable ND filter and a 30mm 1.4 lense wide open in the day time is a pretty "soft" image. Yet there is still a TON more detail than my 5D or 7D. And noticeably less artifacting as well. I used to be a BIG canon DSLR fan myself, but after working with hacked GH2, Red, and a bit of Alexa footage... you'll start to see the big difference between "soft and detailed" and "muddy and sharp". You can make almost anything "sharp" in post... but you can't fake detail.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1343331469' post='14549']
+1

Even if film is soft in certain scenarios... it's always very [i]detailed[/i]. The 5D's have no detail whatsoever... they're just mushy and muddy. There just isn't any detail in there.

The GH2 in 720p with a variable ND filter and a 30mm 1.4 lense wide open in the day time is a pretty "soft" image. Yet there is still a TON more detail than my 5D or 7D. And noticeably less artifacting as well. I used to be a BIG canon DSLR fan myself, but after working with hacked GH2, Red, and a bit of Alexa footage... you'll start to see the big difference between "soft and detailed" and "muddy and sharp". You can make almost anything "sharp" in post... but you can't fake detail.
[/quote]

Well put, agree soft and organic but detailed is cinematic. The beauty of the GH2 is that although it is sharp out of the box and very HD, it resolves so much detail that even if you are using a soft lens to make it less clinical, you still end up with enough fine texture and an image that still pops off the screen.

Sure you can soften the 7D but it makes the muddiness worse.
Sure you can sharpen the 5D but it makes the aliasing worse.
Sure you can sharpen any camera digitally but you risk halos and a very electronic looking image with a high contrast look.

With the GH2 you just need to soften it or use a lens with character like an anamorphic or Nokton F0.95. That is far easier and more enjoyable than trying to reconstruct detail that isn't even resolved in the first place, or overcome some awful flaw like aliasing.