BM 6K FF FPN/banding

What lens were you using?

Previously had noise issues with my new 6K FF but put it down to the lens (Panny 24-105) but this shadow banding is with a new lens (sigma 28-70 2.8)

If B&H Photo had a cautionary warning about some lenses, did this warning apply to use of the lenses only on the BMCC6K or could it affect other cameras?

BMD does us a great service with their endless testing of media cards for compatibility with their cameras. I’m beginning to wonder if BMD would consider providing a list of lenses that work well on their BMCC6K L-mount. And a list of lenses that are known to be problematic. It may even be possible to offer broad guidelines such as all manual lenses with manual adapters are supported.

I can confirm that lenses do not affect the banding. Makes no difference.

I tried:
- sigma 24-70 2.8 art
- canon FD
- canon k35
- lomo illuminas mkii
- Cooke s4i
- speed panchros

Always they're in the shadows in low light. A simple pan from a dark area to well lit.. banding is there in the dark.

For me this cam is usable at iso 100-250 and 1250 when shooting darker scenes. Which is always advisable since you have lots of info in the shadows and therenis enough light ofcourse. But anything above these and the banding is noticable.

So for docu or event work it might be a hard sell because sometimes you gotta shoot in dark places and you have no control. And not even THAT dark. Just a dark corner in a daylight scene is enough (note: if your frame is just that dark corner though! I know.. why would you do that.. but a pan from dark to light or something for a scene intro is a thing).
You can work around this maybe, but for me its just not acceptable for a new camera to have this issue, since no other cam i've had or shot on in 10 years have had this problem (this bad i mean)

Still hope for good news from BM though * cross fingers*

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ISO 100-1000 are all the same actual ISO, with the camera internally lutting the viewfinder image and changing BRAW metadata only, as opposed to varying sensor gain voltage. If so, there would be no actual benefit from using a higher ISO (in the lower range) in low light.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ISO 100-1000 are all the same actual ISO, with the camera internally lutting the viewfinder image and changing BRAW metadata only, as opposed to varying sensor gain voltage. If so, there would be no actual benefit from using a higher ISO (in the lower range) in low light.

You are definitely correct. But what a "lower ISO" does is making you compensate by using more light which will result in cleaner images, and then the smearing that remains is very minimal or very deep in the black that you're safe(ish). But you dont always have the luxury of adding more light and if your already on iso 1250.. well then your in big trouble because of the smearing.
Plus.. sometimes you dont want to use a lower iso because you "lose alot of highlight info" which you need for saving a blown out window or something. And then being forced to shoot iso 200 bcause of this issue can be annoying and ofcourse not acceptable.

Man, I was going to buy this camera on Tuesday but I'm really worried about this banding.

Man, I was going to buy this camera on Tuesday but I'm really worried about this banding.

Look, you can work around it, and for some it might not be a big issue. For me it also the principle of releasing a camera that obviously has a fault, and I think we're allowed to call it a fault.

I will never say "dont buy this camera" or talk trash. It IS a beautiful camera in terms of image and color. Thats why this situation is a bummer.
But i would suggest to maybe try and test it first somewhere to see how much of a problem it could be for your shooting style/subject.

Reminds me of my Sigma Foveon stills camera. I adore the images when there's a lot of light. But when there's not, results go down the toilet. It's like a camera made specifically to frustrate vampires

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ISO 100-1000 are all the same actual ISO, with the camera internally lutting the viewfinder image and changing BRAW metadata only, as opposed to varying sensor gain voltage. If so, there would be no actual benefit from using a higher ISO (in the lower range) in low light.

You are definitely correct. But what a "lower ISO" does is making you compensate by using more light which will result in cleaner images, and then the smearing that remains is very minimal or very deep in the black that you're safe(ish). But you dont always have the luxury of adding more light and if your already on iso 1250.. well then your in big trouble because of the smearing.
Plus.. sometimes you dont want to use a lower iso because you "lose alot of highlight info" which you need for saving a blown out window or something. And then being forced to shoot iso 200 bcause of this issue can be annoying and ofcourse not acceptable.

If you have completely predictable lighting situations you can work around the camera's defects. But if you're doing documentary for example (unless it's all talking heads) it's going to be problematic, if not unusable.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ISO 100-1000 are all the same actual ISO, with the camera internally lutting the viewfinder image and changing BRAW metadata only, as opposed to varying sensor gain voltage. If so, there would be no actual benefit from using a higher ISO (in the lower range) in low light.

It sounds like it is the second ISO range then?

Unusable?

I think everyone has to make their own judgement.

Vance did this just walking around the NYC subways with no lighting and it works great in my view.

Like rs this is one of those faults that all sensors have to some degree. If you go looking for it’s there but the question is, will it actually play in the finished work?

JB

But you dont always have the luxury of adding more light and if your already on iso 1250.. well then your in big trouble because of the smearing.

Agree but I think the reason you're in big trouble is not because of the smearing but because you don't have enough light for this camera.

Plus.. sometimes you dont want to use a lower iso because you "lose alot of highlight info" which you need for saving a blown out window or something. And then being forced to shoot iso 200 bcause of this issue can be annoying and ofcourse not acceptable.

It's in these kinds of normally exposed shots that the smearing has not been obvious to me. Most of the online videos I've watched that are not completely devoid of light seem to have robust range, including some nighttime shots that Matteo posted. Just my $0.02.

If you have completely predictable lighting situations you can work around the camera's defects. But if you're doing documentary for example (unless it's all talking heads) it's going to be problematic, if not unusable.

Hence the name Cinema Camera. When I think of Cinema camera I don't necessarily think of a camera that is the most convenient or most flexible. Rather I think of a camera that is optimized to give you the most bang for the buck in a controlled circumstance of a narrative shoot. At least that is my interpretation of the Cinema Camera name.

The Vance Burberry video John just posted of NYC by night, would be difficult to fault on any level. It looks just great, and the camera is spectacular in the way it holds onto the richness of colors in the darkness. The FX6 which has been used as a yardstick to compare smearing has never looked this good to me in its nightime footages as I've seen here from the 6K FF.

As I said before. Yes.. you can choose to make excuses or find reasons as to why this isn't a big issue. Be it the price, the shooting conditions you most likely wont find yourself in (aka complete darkness), or there are ways to work around the problems. These are all valid opinions.

But.. for me personally, as someone having shot and owned multiple brands and types of cameras, for big and small projects, this just isn't acceptable. I havent seen this type of "destructive" artifacts in years. Definitely not from Blackmagic cams. So I don't think its strange to be kind of strict about this and let BM know that this is not okay. I'm not hating on BM or this camera. I love what they do and the image and colors of the 6k FF are fantastic. Really beautiful stuff, and I want to love and keep this camera. But that's why this issue is such a bummer and I just hope they can fix this.

As I said before. Yes.. you can choose to make excuses or find reasons as to why this isn't a big issue. Be it the price, the shooting conditions you most likely wont find yourself in (aka complete darkness), or there are ways to work around the problems. These are all valid opinions.

But.. for me personally, as someone having shot and owned multiple brands and types of cameras, for big and small projects, this just isn't acceptable. I havent seen this type of "destructive" artifacts in years. Definitely not from Blackmagic cams. So I don't think its strange to be kind of strict about this and let BM know that this is not okay. I'm not hating on BM or this camera. I love what they do and the image and colors of the 6k FF are fantastic. Really beautiful stuff, and I want to love and keep this camera. But that's why this issue is such a bummer and I just hope they can fix this.

Exactly. I purchased this camera precisely because I love BM’s look/CS. I WANTED this camera to be great. I feel like some folks here are shooting the messenger…

Exactly. I purchased this camera precisely because I love BM’s look/CS. I WANTED this camera to be great. I feel like some folks here are shooting the messenger...

Maybe so, but I'm being impartial. I don't own either camera. And while Stefan has asserted he hasn't seen this artifact from his camera collection, CVP did in their review of the 6K FF, tested alongside S5II and A7SIII, both competitors could be coaxed to show similar smearing artifacts. They even characterized the 6K FF a little better in both noise and low light than both, excepting A7SIII's unicorn 12,800 ISO mode.

If you have completely predictable lighting situations you can work around the camera's defects. But if you're doing documentary for example (unless it's all talking heads) it's going to be problematic, if not unusable.

Hence the name Cinema Camera. When I think of Cinema camera I don't necessarily think of a camera that is the most convenient or most flexible. Rather I think of a camera that is optimized to give you the most bang for the buck in a controlled circumstance of a narrative shoot. At least that is my interpretation of the Cinema Camera name.

From Blackmagic's own copy: "Whether you’re shooting in bright sunlight or in almost no light at all, the 13 stops of dynamic range with dual native ISO up to 25,600 provide stunning low noise images in all lighting conditions."

Some banding on the low iso range of the pocket 6k pro too, especially iso 1000. Timestamp is around 8.50

Gh6 seems similar to the examples in this thread, I wouldn't expect any change on this.

Exactly. I purchased this camera precisely because I love BM’s look/CS. I WANTED this camera to be great. I feel like some folks here are shooting the messenger...

Maybe so, but I'm being impartial. I don't own either camera. And while Stefan has asserted he hasn't seen this artifact from his camera collection, CVP did in their review of the 6K FF, tested alongside S5II and A7SIII, both competitors could be coaxed to show similar smearing artifacts. They even characterized the 6K FF a little better in both noise and low light than both, excepting A7SIII's unicorn 12,800 ISO mode.

I re-watched the CVP review, Tom. The latitude test is really a torture test for all of the sensors. Do you think the footage me and Stefan posted is nearly as underexposed as the CVP test? (I'm not being facetious, just asking your honest opinion)? Also, unlike the CVP test, the issue seems to appear when there is a light source IN or just outside the frame...

I re-watched the CVP review, Tom. The latitude test is really a torture test for all of the sensors. Do you think the footage me and Stefan posted is nearly as underexposed as the CVP test? (I'm not being facetious, just asking your honest opinion)? Also, unlike the CVP test, the issue seems to appear when there is a light source IN or just outside the frame...

I don't know Keif. There are differences of degree. I'd like to see an example of something shot really well, finish graded that you really like, that you'd be proud to represent as your signature art, that were otherwise spoiled by this artifact. So far, the videos exposed and developed to exploit the potential best from the camera don't seem harmed, ever. That's the realm I care about.

They even characterized the 6K FF a little better in both noise and low light than both, excepting A7SIII's unicorn 12,800 ISO mode.

I heard them say the same thing which was interesting given...

CVP.jpg (889.18 KiB) Viewed 215937 times

Good Luck

I re-watched the CVP review, Tom. The latitude test is really a torture test for all of the sensors. Do you think the footage me and Stefan posted is nearly as underexposed as the CVP test? (I'm not being facetious, just asking your honest opinion)? Also, unlike the CVP test, the issue seems to appear when there is a light source IN or just outside the frame...

I don't know Keif. There are differences of degree. I'd like to see an example of something shot really well, finish graded that you really like, that you'd be proud to represent as your signature art, that were otherwise spoiled by this artifact. So far, the videos exposed and developed to exploit the potential best from the camera don't seem harmed, ever. That's the realm I care about.

I hear you, Tom. Thanks for your honest feedback here and on DVXuser...

They even characterized the 6K FF a little better in both noise and low light than both, excepting A7SIII's unicorn 12,800 ISO mode.

I heard them say the same thing which was interesting given...

CVP.jpg

Good Luck

Howard I saw that as well. To be honest outside of the A7SIII, the other three all look terrible. Which just reinforces a couple of known truths.

1. If you are priority is High ISO lowlight shooting the Sony A7SIII camera is going to be your camera of choice.

2. If you care more about 12 bit codec and color the blackmagic cameras are going to be a better choice.

3. There really isn't one camera that is perfect for all scenarios, especially at the entry level price point.

They even characterized the 6K FF a little better in both noise and low light than both, excepting A7SIII's unicorn 12,800 ISO mode.

I heard them say the same thing which was interesting given...

CVP.jpg

Good Luck

That's not noise, those are fireworks..

I heard them say the same thing which was interesting given...

CVP.jpg

Good Luck

I noticed that too and had to rewatch that moment because I thought I must have misunderstood. But their conclusion really does not match the results.

I would think grading the shots and pulling down the black or shadow HDR primary colour wheel in Resolve would fix the background in that comparison.

I just a recorded a music performance for a client with the UM4.6K ISO 800 and the BMPCC4K ISO 1600 shot in horrible conditions with no intentional light falling on the left and right of the stage. Noisy but didn’t have the magenta cast in the dark Howard’s post shows. Using Resolve FX Relight for the first time to bring up the unlit bits that matter. Will need to add Noise Reduction too.

I would think grading the shots and pulling down the black or shadow HDR primary colour wheel in Resolve would fix the background in that comparison.

It won't "fix" it more than pouring tons of sugar into a completely oversalted dish.

The BMCC 6K quite apparently seems to be worse than most cameras in these lighting situations, as now shown in a number of tests by different people.

Some people may feel like it won't affect their kind of shooting all that much but I can absolutely see why others deem this as "unusable" and am surprised by the attempts to downplay this issue.

I would think grading the shots and pulling down the black or shadow HDR primary colour wheel in Resolve would fix the background in that comparison.

It won't "fix" it more than pouring tons of sugar into a completely oversalted dish.

The BMCC 6K quite apparently seems to be worse than most cameras in these lighting situations, as now shown in a number of tests by different people.

Some people may feel like it won't affect their kind of shooting all that much but I can absolutely see why others deem this as "unusable" and am surprised by the attempts to downplay this issue.

The new FF sensor is terrible in low light. Why would BM make a brand new FULL FRAME sensor that theoretically should perform better in low light but in reality is worse than their s35 sensor? I'm hoping this is a manufacturing issue and not design.

Check out the 4:50 mark in this comparison:

Do you think the footage me and Stefan posted is nearly as underexposed as the CVP test? (I'm not being facetious, just asking your honest opinion)? Also, unlike the CVP test, the issue seems to appear when there is a light source IN or just outside the frame...

You can easily determine your self if it's underexposed or not. Turn on the false color and see where you are. The footage of yours I have seen already in blue and purple zone when it's still Raw, after applying LUT, everything goes purple in the dark areas. That's the place where details loss guaranteed.
There the reference from BMPCC manual:
https://documents.blackmagicdesign.com/UserManuals/BlackmagicPocketCinemaCameraManual.pdf?_v=1681714811000#page=48

You can make your own experiments, and see how high you can expose before you start clipping the highlights including highlight recovery in DR. You will see you almost never will be in blue or under. Unless you want a very dark footages as yours.

Put it in this way, you buy an expensive microphone then move the mic far as possible from the sound source (under expose) then in post turn the volume on the hear the sound then surprised the expensive mic has static noise. Not a good practice. Do the other way around.

This is Blackmagic own 6k FF Raw footage. The purple is zone is the dark sky. If you increase ISO and Exposure it also will have a lots of noise. But it meant to be a black sky not sunset. Make sense?

false-color-example_1.3.1-1.jpg (776.62 KiB) Viewed 215607 times

Check out the 4:50 mark in this comparison:

Unfortunately he jumps from ISO 400 straight to the second gain stage. Personally I'm more interested to see if/how severe this issue appears in the 200-640 ISO range.

I can absolutely see why others deem this as "unusable" and am surprised by the attempts to downplay this issue.

Perhaps it’s because using absolute language like “unusable” in low light or uncontrolled lighting in the face of clips that look fine in those situations seems…hyperbolic?

Like RS, you can find these faults. It’s going to depend on your specific shooting situation if it will be a problem for you.

I hadn’t seen the GH6 clip, but it looks like it performs similarly and it makes sense given they are likely the same sensor family. It’s intrinsic to this model.

JB

It’s going to depend on your specific shooting situation if it will be a problem for you.

Hence why I understand if some people deem it as unusable.

I still can't quite tell how sever this is and am happy for all tests and reviews popping up.

EDIT: here's one, vs Sony ZV E1

Relevant scenes are @ 0:53 and 1:40. The BMCC 6K (camera B) fares quite well there.

Okay so today I shot a project on the cam to test it for real. A music video with some dark setups as well so I was curious to see what would happen.

I was able to stay around iso 250 for the darker setups and had just enough light to not cause any problems.

Here is a link to some stills (just extended video lut):
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... 7JFPX-tr0G

Also used it once at iso 2000/2500 because it was getting darker outside but but needed a deeper focus. It still held up nicely with again just enough added lighting (mirror shot) for a pretty clean image.

I must say though... the colors out of this camera are so so good. I think (personally) even nicer than Alexa 35 standard lut if Im honest (shot a tv show with A35 recently so can compare a bit). Skincolors are also fantastic.

Does this mean the banding issue is not a problem? Well.. not really? I mean its still a thing that needs to be looked at, and if possible should be fixed/corrected. I'd be scared to use it as an A-cam for doc or event work. But if you can control the lighting, this camera sure is something special.

Still gonna keep mailing tech for updates and possible fixes though

I was able to stay around iso 250 for the darker setups and had just enough light to not cause any problems.

Best bet would be to stick to the native ISO where possible.

JB

Best bet would be to stick to the native ISO where possible.

Since it was a dark setting I wanted to have as much shadow info as possible. And highlights were safe so i could light for 250 no problem. Gives more room in grade in the end

Here is a link to some stills (just extended video lut):
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... 7JFPX-tr0G

Stefan, that's by far the best stuff I've seen from the BMCC 6K so far, excellent!

Very impressive!

Just spit-balling here (I'm not an electrical engineer), but as a stop-gap solution ...

Might a custom-fitted ferrite bead "collar" around the outside of the mount-end of a problematic lens reduce or eliminate the EMI it produces before it enters the camera's lens mount (so as to not negatively affect the sensor)?

Related info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_bead

Ferrite beads are typically used on computer data cables to reduce EMI, but perhaps could serve a similar purpose with a lens and a BMCC6K?

I realize this is probably a crazy idea.

Stefan, I agree with Michel. What lenses were you using? Was it just the Sigma 24-70 Art L-mount?

I particularly love the backlit silhouette that shows a great deal of detail on the camera-side face. Rather inspirational as I have been approached to shoot a music video (not a performance, just shot to promote the group; I don’t know what the budget will be) which is going to be a thrill and a terrifying challenge. Hope to channel your work to some extent.

Please post the completed music video if and when you can.

Thanks guys.

I used a Canon FD set combined with 1/4 & 1/8 black frost filter. The budget was low, obviously because its a music video For lighting we only had a vortex + chimera, aputure 600x with spotlight mount and astera set of 8. Thats it. Grip was mix of steadicam, tripod and handheld.

I was able to stay around iso 250 for the darker setups and had just enough light to not cause any problems.

Seems similar to how the OG Pocket liked to be exposed, ISO 200-400 gave me best results in all circumstances, it wanted light.

Quick and dirty low light test I did (excuse the shaky cam) with available light at night by my corner bodega. Sigma 28-70 2.8 L mount. ISO 400 and 1250 are the sweet spots IMO with this camera (800 is noisier than 1250) 3200 is usable but a bit too grainy for my taste...
https://vimeo.com/883643955?share=copy

Quick and dirty low light test I did (excuse the shaky cam) with available light at night by my corner bodega. Sigma 28-70 2.8 L mount. ISO 400 and 1250 are the sweet spots IMO with this camera (800 is noisier than 1250) 3200 is usable but a bit too grainy for my taste...
https://vimeo.com/883643955?share=copy

That footage looks good!

Quick and dirty low light test I did (excuse the shaky cam) with available light at night by my corner bodega. Sigma 28-70 2.8 L mount. ISO 400 and 1250 are the sweet spots IMO with this camera (800 is noisier than 1250) 3200 is usable but a bit too grainy for my taste...
https://vimeo.com/883643955?share=copy

That footage looks good!

Thanks. The colors on this cam are really pleasing

Quick and dirty low light test I did (excuse the shaky cam) with available light at night by my corner bodega. Sigma 28-70 2.8 L mount. ISO 400 and 1250 are the sweet spots IMO with this camera (800 is noisier than 1250) 3200 is usable but a bit too grainy for my taste...
https://vimeo.com/883643955?share=copy

This looks good to me for just a quick example.

This also came up for me on FB in the resolve group. Camera is an R6.

The horizontal rail imprints on their heads.

JB

IMG_8006.jpeg (459.62 KiB) Viewed 214734 times

… The horizontal rail imprints on their heads.

JB

The list of the mysterious behaviour of digital video sensor image processing just added a new candidate.

I'm finding my CC6k looks pretty good until I go into the "1250 and above" ISO range.
Noise seems to intensify. the image looks great, otherwise. But for now, I'm finding I need to stick to 400 ISO for most everything.

As far as the BMCC6k shadow/low-light banding, has it been narrowed down to electronic issues with a few Panasonic lenses? Or is it something else?

I haven’t done a ton of testing yet, but for my uses, I haven’t experienced any excessive banding or FPN on my BMCC6k.

As far as the BMCC6k shadow/low-light banding, has it been narrowed down to electronic issues with a few Panasonic lenses? Or is it something else?

I haven’t done a ton of testing yet, but for my uses, I haven’t experienced any excessive banding or FPN on my BMCC6k.

The EMI issue is different. The 6K FF exhibits significantly more horizontal noise banding (CMOS smear?) than than any other previous BM camera in certain low light situations.