The videos posted for this article all look incredibly "blue" for the daylight scenes (much better for the night scenes) ... what's up with that?
This is what a "flat" and/or RAW file looks like before color grading. That's the intention of using one of these cameras or shooting in RAW on a DSLR: all color, saturation, sharpening, and in-camera processing is turned off so that you have the "cleanest" picture to "push" in post processing.
Yup, I'd love to see stuff in full res. That's the major issue for me. It seems there is no way to have it fill the buffer.
You are correct on the iOS problem. I will no longer click on anything Vimeo when I'm using iOS.
RE the UI/UX: Indeed, why even have a timeline, controls, or buffer indicator if nothing actually responds or even works?
Anyway, not your fault. Thanks for the tips. I'll give them a try. Wish me luck (and no burst aneurysms!)
Here's a tip from the days when I was also suffering on an internet connection that was far below broadband speeds.
If you're using Firefox*, get the Ant Video Downloader add-on and download the video to be watched later directly from your computer.
* The main reason i always have Firefox on all of my computers is for the Add-Ons. Safari (and Chrome) are faster for everyday use and I like to keep them "clean"; when you need extensions to do something fast, furious or "nefarious"... I like to have them all in one place and "fire up" Firefox for just this purpose.
Why ND filters? Someone else said it perfumes poorly in low light, so your two views seem possibly somewhat contradictory. Or is this just to target a lower f stop for DOF control.
Just curious (not a cinema guy.)
The latter. And ND filters aren't just for cinema. I use a 3-stop on my EF 50mm prime for stills (allowing me to shoot at around f/2.8 in bright sun). Though I've also been wanting to add a 6-stop to provide even more options.
Why ND filters? Someone else said it perfumes poorly in low light, so your two views seem possibly somewhat contradictory. Or is this just to target a lower f stop for DOF control.
Just curious (not a cinema guy.)
It performs okay in low light but if you want a cinema look bring cinema lighting. The base ISO is 800 but noisy. You can fix in post and its an interesting design difference from DSLR design with a low base ISO that minimizes noise.
Another interesting thing is many cinematographers ETTR while many DSLR shooters tend to do the opposite because blown highlights are harder to recover than shadow detail in stills (yes, when you ETTR you aren't supposed to clip highlights you care about, but...). I guess it's a difference based on what kind of lighting control and setup time you typically have at a shoot. I would guess most videographers have far less lighting control and have to deal with natural lighting conditions shooting events in real time. It's not like you have a bank of lights to control the lighting the way you want it and a couple of chances to dial in the exposure exactly.
Yes, the ND filters are for DOF control. A lot of the preferred lenses are already pretty fast and then a speedbooster is often used.
True, the Metabones Speedbooster is excellent! I've seen the results and with the right Sigma lens you can even get to 0.74f :-D
I should have added to my post I personally invested in four-third lenses a lot prior to purchasing the BMPCC and the crop-factor a 16mm camera introduces is disappointing in my specific case.
But yes, I think that it's better to invest in 35mm or full-frame lenses and use a Speedbooster to hook up the lenses (the SpeedBooster by itself is very expensive). In that case it's not a drawback because you can mount the same lenses on a 'full fledged' 35mm camera.
I'm shooting with a 12mm 1.6f lens, a Voigtlander 25m 0.95f, the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 panny's and the 20mm 1.7f.
I agree with some posts in this thread the camera requires much more to shoot properly. I have an external viewfinder and some other accessories, and a very high-quality ND-filter is key to maintain the preferred shutter angle, e.g 180. Although most cameras don't have ND filters built in.
I'm a fan of Blackmagic's products and I hope they'll take their experience from their entire camera range and use it to build a much improved BMPC MK2.
For everyone who's in the market for a video/film camera, definitely check out this one. I for certain wouldn't have thought this quality was possible for under $1K just over 3 years ago.
Originally Posted by Dazabrit
Hey Dacloo!
I agree with most of your points (especially battery life) but some of these things are subjective so just wanted to throw my hat in to the ring in case people stumble across this and are interested in purchasing!
First off it makes sense for Appleinsider to review this camera (they are a bit late though!) as BlackMagic Design are arguably the closest aligned to Apple in terms of design and hardware support. They have always championed the use of Mac for video production and have supported key technologies such as Thunderbolt from an early stage. Apple have even featured BM products when showcasing the Mac Pro/iMac.
Shooting in 4K is a huge tax on resources/workflow currently due to hardware, storage rates etc and I'd suggest this product and site is aimed at guys starting out in video so 4K is probably something they should avoid for now. A 2.5k pocket camera would be very nice though for more creative cropping/reframing options in post production,
The sensor size is all about preference it's NOT a con. There are groups of people who prefer Micro Four thirds - you get great depth of field (Bokeh) and there are lots of nice lenses and adapters so you can use old cine lenses. The GH2 DSLR was a fantastic M43 product for amateur filmmaking (I wish I still had mine) and the BMPCC is it's spiritual successor IMO!
If you want truly wide shots with this camera you can buy a metabones later on that allows you to attach either EF or Nikon mount lenses, gives you a wider shot and it's better in low light! The transformation is borderline voodoo. Philip Bloom has a great review of the camera which you can see here: http://philipbloom.net/2013/12/02/part3-2/ and he demonstrates the benefits of the Metabones speed booster too, here are a couple of pics from his article:
BEFORE
50mm lens with no Metabones Speedbooster
AFTER
50mm lens with Metabones BMPCC Speedbooster
I do expect we will see an upgrade to the pocket camera soon but there are no guarantees. I usually disagree with holding off on purchases as there's always something new around the corner and this camera is ready to produce great images right now. That said NAB is weeks away so it does make some sense to wait on this occasion and see what's on offer.
For anyone interested in this camera, here are some links to give you a more in depth feel for the product. Plus it's always advisable to take a camera for a spin before you purchase
Good God, Vimeo sucks!
AI, stop using Vimeo to post video. It just doesn't work reliably, which reflects poorly on AI.
Most annoying how Vimeo is such a POS, when I really want to see something, I've essentially given up clicking on any Vimeo link—otherwise I'll end up blowing an artery in my brain or something.
I'd rather see Vimeo support iOS browsers better. I like Vimeo otherwise as it lacks the low grade and viral content that bloats YouTube. Not to mention Google's omnipresent user tracking.
I'd rather see Vimeo support iOS browsers better. I like Vimeo otherwise as it lacks the low grade and viral content that bloats YouTube. Not to mention Google's omnipresent user tracking.
ThePixelDoc has helped me out on this. I realize the big problem is their lack of support for iOS. But they do themselves no favors anywhere else either. They apparently assume they don't have to make their player work properly anywhere and they definitely pay no attention to functioning with lower bandwidth connections. It would be so simple for them to make things usable.
[OTOH, If Vimeo doesn't get spanked by users, what will make them support things better?]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It performs okay in low light but if you want a cinema look bring cinema lighting. The base ISO is 800 but noisy. You can fix in post and its an interesting design difference from DSLR design with a low base ISO that minimizes noise.
Another interesting thing is many cinematographers ETTR while many DSLR shooters tend to do the opposite because blown highlights are harder to recover than shadow detail in stills (yes, when you ETTR you aren't supposed to clip highlights you care about, but...). I guess it's a difference based on what kind of lighting control and setup time you typically have at a shoot. I would guess most videographers have far less lighting control and have to deal with natural lighting conditions shooting events in real time. It's not like you have a bank of lights to control the lighting the way you want it and a couple of chances to dial in the exposure exactly.
Yes, the ND filters are for DOF control. A lot of the preferred lenses are already pretty fast and then a speedbooster is often used.
OK, I've got it now. All about the bokeh.
Yeah, I definitely use ND filters for my LF film work.
Actually ETTR is considered good practice with digital still as well. It's just that most people who are smart enough to care, are people who learned on film, so having switched to digital ETTR is the opposite of what they would expect to get good results. But digital still folks who have made the adjustment would be likely to ETTR, but only so far as blowing out specular highlights and nothing more.
So I assume a "speed booster" is an adaptor to get lenses for bigger cameras on smaller sensor cameras, thus getting a super fast lens without having to pay through the teeth?
*** BTW, I've been hating HD TV lately. Seems everything is shot at Hyperfocal settings. It's very distracting and seems like horrible practice to me. what's the deal? Is there some reason for this? Seems like a tragic esthetic choice. Is it forced on DPs by HD crazy producers, or is it ignorance among some DPs who don't target a cinematic aperture? Is this the new esthetic of TV cinematography?****
[It makes everything look like a soap opera. I read somewhere that it's because of "smoothing algorithms" on new HDTVS, but I don't buy it. It's clearly a result of the filming technique.]
Turn off the artificial interpolation to get true 24p or 25p. You are most likely experiencing the tv's software adding frames in between, some tv's even end up with '200 fps'. It looks absolutely horrible.
question for those who might know:
*** BTW, I've been hating HD TV lately. Seems everything is shot at Hyperfocal settings. It's very distracting and seems like horrible practice to me. what's the deal? Is there some reason for this? Seems like a tragic esthetic choice. Is it forced on DPs by HD crazy producers, or is it ignorance among some DPs who don't target a cinematic aperture? Is this the new esthetic of TV cinematography?**<span style="line-height:22.400001525878906px;">**</span>
<span style="line-height:22.400001525878906px;">[It makes everything look like a soap opera. I read somewhere that it's because of "smoothing </span>
algorithms" on new HDTVS, but I don't buy it. It's clearly a result of the filming technique.]
Turn off the artificial interpolation to get true 24p or 25p. You are most likely experiencing the tv's software adding frames in between, some tv's even end up with '200 fps'. It looks absolutely horrible.
This is a typical feature that nobody wants, yet is difficult to turn off for most people, because it's buried deep in the menus. And most people don't even care or notice. It's just a bullshit assumption that more is better. The salesmen can pull this up while selling a TV, like its a novelty feature. Horrible aesthetics on the TV makers' behalf.
*** BTW, I've been hating HD TV lately. Seems everything is shot at Hyperfocal settings. It's very distracting and seems like horrible practice to me. what's the deal? Is there some reason for this? Seems like a tragic esthetic choice. Is it forced on DPs by HD crazy producers, or is it ignorance among some DPs who don't target a cinematic aperture? Is this the new esthetic of TV cinematography?****
[It makes everything look like a soap opera. I read somewhere that it's because of "smoothing algorithms" on new HDTVS, but I don't buy it. It's clearly a result of the filming technique.]
100% the TV manufacturers dicking with the settings.
I hated the Hobbit in HFR, and I hate TV with HFR!
Comments
This is what a "flat" and/or RAW file looks like before color grading. That's the intention of using one of these cameras or shooting in RAW on a DSLR: all color, saturation, sharpening, and in-camera processing is turned off so that you have the "cleanest" picture to "push" in post processing.
Here's a tip from the days when I was also suffering on an internet connection that was far below broadband speeds.
If you're using Firefox*, get the Ant Video Downloader add-on and download the video to be watched later directly from your computer.
* The main reason i always have Firefox on all of my computers is for the Add-Ons. Safari (and Chrome) are faster for everyday use and I like to keep them "clean"; when you need extensions to do something fast, furious or "nefarious"... I like to have them all in one place and "fire up" Firefox for just this purpose.
Why ND filters? Someone else said it perfumes poorly in low light, so your two views seem possibly somewhat contradictory. Or is this just to target a lower f stop for DOF control.
Just curious (not a cinema guy.)
The latter. And ND filters aren't just for cinema. I use a 3-stop on my EF 50mm prime for stills (allowing me to shoot at around f/2.8 in bright sun). Though I've also been wanting to add a 6-stop to provide even more options.
It performs okay in low light but if you want a cinema look bring cinema lighting. The base ISO is 800 but noisy. You can fix in post and its an interesting design difference from DSLR design with a low base ISO that minimizes noise.
Another interesting thing is many cinematographers ETTR while many DSLR shooters tend to do the opposite because blown highlights are harder to recover than shadow detail in stills (yes, when you ETTR you aren't supposed to clip highlights you care about, but...). I guess it's a difference based on what kind of lighting control and setup time you typically have at a shoot. I would guess most videographers have far less lighting control and have to deal with natural lighting conditions shooting events in real time. It's not like you have a bank of lights to control the lighting the way you want it and a couple of chances to dial in the exposure exactly.
Yes, the ND filters are for DOF control. A lot of the preferred lenses are already pretty fast and then a speedbooster is often used.
Hi Dazabrit!
True, the Metabones Speedbooster is excellent! I've seen the results and with the right Sigma lens you can even get to 0.74f :-D
I should have added to my post I personally invested in four-third lenses a lot prior to purchasing the BMPCC and the crop-factor a 16mm camera introduces is disappointing in my specific case.
But yes, I think that it's better to invest in 35mm or full-frame lenses and use a Speedbooster to hook up the lenses (the SpeedBooster by itself is very expensive). In that case it's not a drawback because you can mount the same lenses on a 'full fledged' 35mm camera.
I'm shooting with a 12mm 1.6f lens, a Voigtlander 25m 0.95f, the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 panny's and the 20mm 1.7f.
I agree with some posts in this thread the camera requires much more to shoot properly. I have an external viewfinder and some other accessories, and a very high-quality ND-filter is key to maintain the preferred shutter angle, e.g 180. Although most cameras don't have ND filters built in.
I'm a fan of Blackmagic's products and I hope they'll take their experience from their entire camera range and use it to build a much improved BMPC MK2.
For everyone who's in the market for a video/film camera, definitely check out this one. I for certain wouldn't have thought this quality was possible for under $1K just over 3 years ago.
Hey Dacloo!
I agree with most of your points (especially battery life) but some of these things are subjective so just wanted to throw my hat in to the ring in case people stumble across this and are interested in purchasing!
First off it makes sense for Appleinsider to review this camera (they are a bit late though!) as BlackMagic Design are arguably the closest aligned to Apple in terms of design and hardware support. They have always championed the use of Mac for video production and have supported key technologies such as Thunderbolt from an early stage. Apple have even featured BM products when showcasing the Mac Pro/iMac.
Shooting in 4K is a huge tax on resources/workflow currently due to hardware, storage rates etc and I'd suggest this product and site is aimed at guys starting out in video so 4K is probably something they should avoid for now. A 2.5k pocket camera would be very nice though for more creative cropping/reframing options in post production,
The sensor size is all about preference it's NOT a con. There are groups of people who prefer Micro Four thirds - you get great depth of field (Bokeh) and there are lots of nice lenses and adapters so you can use old cine lenses. The GH2 DSLR was a fantastic M43 product for amateur filmmaking (I wish I still had mine) and the BMPCC is it's spiritual successor IMO!
If you want truly wide shots with this camera you can buy a metabones later on that allows you to attach either EF or Nikon mount lenses, gives you a wider shot and it's better in low light! The transformation is borderline voodoo. Philip Bloom has a great review of the camera which you can see here: http://philipbloom.net/2013/12/02/part3-2/ and he demonstrates the benefits of the Metabones speed booster too, here are a couple of pics from his article:
BEFORE
50mm lens with no Metabones Speedbooster
AFTER
50mm lens with Metabones BMPCC Speedbooster
I do expect we will see an upgrade to the pocket camera soon but there are no guarantees. I usually disagree with holding off on purchases as there's always something new around the corner and this camera is ready to produce great images right now. That said NAB is weeks away so it does make some sense to wait on this occasion and see what's on offer.
For anyone interested in this camera, here are some links to give you a more in depth feel for the product. Plus it's always advisable to take a camera for a spin before you purchase
Philip Bloom Review
Vimeo (Footage)
BlackMagic
Metabones
BMPCC Camera Rig
I like the Blackmagic cameras.
But, they are not really pro level. Prosumer, sure.
Best camera for the price though...
I'd rather see Vimeo support iOS browsers better. I like Vimeo otherwise as it lacks the low grade and viral content that bloats YouTube. Not to mention Google's omnipresent user tracking.
I'd rather see Vimeo support iOS browsers better. I like Vimeo otherwise as it lacks the low grade and viral content that bloats YouTube. Not to mention Google's omnipresent user tracking.
ThePixelDoc has helped me out on this. I realize the big problem is their lack of support for iOS. But they do themselves no favors anywhere else either. They apparently assume they don't have to make their player work properly anywhere and they definitely pay no attention to functioning with lower bandwidth connections. It would be so simple for them to make things usable.
[OTOH, If Vimeo doesn't get spanked by users, what will make them support things better?]
It performs okay in low light but if you want a cinema look bring cinema lighting. The base ISO is 800 but noisy. You can fix in post and its an interesting design difference from DSLR design with a low base ISO that minimizes noise.
Another interesting thing is many cinematographers ETTR while many DSLR shooters tend to do the opposite because blown highlights are harder to recover than shadow detail in stills (yes, when you ETTR you aren't supposed to clip highlights you care about, but...). I guess it's a difference based on what kind of lighting control and setup time you typically have at a shoot. I would guess most videographers have far less lighting control and have to deal with natural lighting conditions shooting events in real time. It's not like you have a bank of lights to control the lighting the way you want it and a couple of chances to dial in the exposure exactly.
Yes, the ND filters are for DOF control. A lot of the preferred lenses are already pretty fast and then a speedbooster is often used.
OK, I've got it now. All about the bokeh.
Yeah, I definitely use ND filters for my LF film work.
Actually ETTR is considered good practice with digital still as well. It's just that most people who are smart enough to care, are people who learned on film, so having switched to digital ETTR is the opposite of what they would expect to get good results. But digital still folks who have made the adjustment would be likely to ETTR, but only so far as blowing out specular highlights and nothing more.
So I assume a "speed booster" is an adaptor to get lenses for bigger cameras on smaller sensor cameras, thus getting a super fast lens without having to pay through the teeth?
question for those who might know:
*** BTW, I've been hating HD TV lately. Seems everything is shot at Hyperfocal settings. It's very distracting and seems like horrible practice to me. what's the deal? Is there some reason for this? Seems like a tragic esthetic choice. Is it forced on DPs by HD crazy producers, or is it ignorance among some DPs who don't target a cinematic aperture? Is this the new esthetic of TV cinematography?****
[It makes everything look like a soap opera. I read somewhere that it's because of "smoothing algorithms" on new HDTVS, but I don't buy it. It's clearly a result of the filming technique.]
question for those who might know:
*** BTW, I've been hating HD TV lately. Seems everything is shot at Hyperfocal settings. It's very distracting and seems like horrible practice to me. what's the deal? Is there some reason for this? Seems like a tragic esthetic choice. Is it forced on DPs by HD crazy producers, or is it ignorance among some DPs who don't target a cinematic aperture? Is this the new esthetic of TV cinematography?****
[It makes everything look like a soap opera. I read somewhere that it's because of "smoothing algorithms" on new HDTVS, but I don't buy it. It's clearly a result of the filming technique.]
100% the TV manufacturers dicking with the settings.
I hated the Hobbit in HFR, and I hate TV with HFR!