Blackmagic Forum

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:34 am**

So the footage you can get out of this thing is quite amazing... BUT there is vertical streaking/banding/static noise in ALL the footage.

It shows up in the low end of the exposure. It's harder to see in daylight footage with a low ISO where most everything is in the mids, but it's definitely still there..

I know a few other people have posted about this but what's the response? Is this just a bad sensor and I should get it replaced or are they all like this?

BTW I have the latest firmware.
Here is an extreme example of ISO 800 and boosted in post to show you what I mean.

(EDIT: VIMEO LINK TO FOOTAGE LOWER)

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:48 am**

Don't use ISO 800. If you use ISO 400 and push in post, you will have much better results.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:54 am**

Yeah, I think its the same with everyone

As Scott said, dont use 800, and you will get better results.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:04 am**

As I said, the extreme example I posted is just so you can see it on the forum in a still. It's in ALL the footage no matter the ISO, white balance or the exposure. Mind you it's harder to see in some circumstances, but it's there.

Using a lower ISO, de-noising in post and crushing out all the shadow information are not a usable fixes. If all the cameras are like this, then I'm afraid this "production" camera might be nothing more than a toy for hobbyist...

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:15 am**

Here's the footage! It's so damn nice. Almost perfect...

FOOTAGE LINK -

h.264 compression kinda killed the grain structure. Which is quite nice despite the vertical streaks

Shot in 1080p25 Prores - FILM

Post Workflow: Custom Built Input LUT - Slight Exposure Tweaks - Kodak Film Emulation Output LUT

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:03 pm**

I've got the same issue. Vertical line in the mid and low colors.

http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19280

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:23 pm**

if it's in all the cameras, then maybe we need this...

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/black- ... alibration

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:47 pm**

Expose in insufficient light and boost the signal in post on any camera and you will get artefacts.

Share an example where you have exposed correctly in sufficient lighting and have not boosted the signal in post, where you can also see problems and I would agree that there is a malfunction.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:27 pm**

Tom wrote:Expose in insufficient light and boost the signal in post on any camera and you will get artefacts.

Share an example where you have exposed correctly in sufficient lighting and have not boosted the signal in post, where you can also see problems and I would agree that there is a malfunction.

ad infinitum :roll:

Did you bother to watch the footage Patrick Jennings posted!?

It is clearly there, and NOT just in the under exposed scenes.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:03 pm**

Theodore Prentice wrote:
Tom wrote:Expose in insufficient light and boost the signal in post on any camera and you will get artefacts.

Share an example where you have exposed correctly in sufficient lighting and have not boosted the signal in post, where you can also see problems and I would agree that there is a malfunction.

ad infinitum

Did you bother to watch the footage Patrick Jennings posted!?

It is clearly there, and NOT just in the under exposed scenes.

I did watch it yes.
The footage looked to have lifted blacks throughout, IE: Boosted signal.
The artefacts only appeared to be visible in the very dark and clearly underexposed and underlit shots.
The footage is even described has having its exposure tweaked.

In other words:
Not exposed correctly and or insufficient lighting.

I am not saying the problem does not exist, I am saying that I would expect to see such problems from any camera when used in this way. If examples of properly lit and exposed shots contain such artefacts, then perhaps there is a problem.

Speaking of ad infinitum -

This thread is exactly the same wave of thread that popped up with the launch of the BMCC, Launch of the BMCC MFT, Launch of the pocket camera and now launch of the 4k camera.

If people are sure they have a problem, they contact BMD or their reseller.
If they are unsure as to whether it is a problem, they post on this public support forum. I am far more concerned with assisting with ascertaining whether or not there is a fault or whether it is simply being used incorrectly/out of suitable conditions than just to immediately conclude there must be a fault.

It is a far better outcome for any user to find out their camera is not faulty and save themselves the trouble of having to send it back for no reason, or to confirm that it is faulty and save any further diagnostic time.

The simple and easy test for anyone finding artefacts in their images is to whether or not they appear in normal conditions. If it does, the next part of the process is to eliminate external or environmental factors. Once this has been looked into, then it can be fair to assess whether something is indeed faulty. If a user wishes to forgo this self diagnostic process, they are free to simply contact their reseller and be done with it. If on the other hand, as evidenced by the fact that this user has posted on a public support forum, a user wishes to ask for assistance, I am more than willing to take time to assist.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:33 pm**

Tom, I dont always agree with everything you say, but I've sure learned a lot reading your posts, and watching your video tests online.

Even if this board is not always polite (not sayong you Tom) a vigorous debate is good for all of us. Scientific method is similarly adversarial.

Keep it up guys, Im learning new stuff here every day!

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:58 pm**

NYCcomposer wrote:Tom, I dont always agree with everything you say, but I've sure learned a lot reading your posts, and watching your video tests online.

Even if this board is not always polite (not sayong you Tom) a vigorous debate is good for all of us. Scientific method is similarly adversarial.

Keep it up guys, Im learning new stuff here every day!

Very true! and thanks :-)

There is no doubt in my mind that there will be faulty cameras of every kind that end up getting shipped out, it happens. BMD have made some great products by they are not infallible. I think that when someone points out that something might not actually be a fault, they get accused of irrationally defending the company in question - ie: Fanboyism
However, in my previous work many years ago as a technical support assistant, 60% of the time, it is a user error. As such my method is to first eliminate such a possibility. This is not meant to sound insulting or patronising to anyone, especially not the OP - but user errors are bound to occur with brand new cameras - heck, I know I have been guilty of such things many times before. No one can be an expert on something without any experience - even with years and years of general filming experience.

Patrick, if you are certain that your camera is faulty, I advise you to speak to your reseller, most major camera resellers are pretty good with their support. I am sure this will quickly resolve the situation for you. On the other hand, if you would like some more support from this forum, could you share some more controlled examples at various exposure levels and lighting levels so that we can see what kind of conditions will bring out the artefacts, or if indeed they are present in every situation.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:39 am**

Tom wrote:
Theodore Prentice wrote:
Tom wrote:Expose in insufficient light and boost the signal in post on any camera and you will get artefacts.

Share an example where you have exposed correctly in sufficient lighting and have not boosted the signal in post, where you can also see problems and I would agree that there is a malfunction.

ad infinitum

Did you bother to watch the footage Patrick Jennings posted!?

It is clearly there, and NOT just in the under exposed scenes.

I did watch it yes.
The footage looked to have lifted blacks throughout, IE: Boosted signal.
The artefacts only appeared to be visible in the very dark and clearly underexposed and underlit shots.
The footage is even described has having its exposure tweaked.

In other words:
Not exposed correctly and or insufficient lighting.

I am not saying the problem does not exist...

way to verbose, but here goes...
Footage is described as "slight exposure tweaks" ( some reason you constantly cherry pick when you respond to something?)

I see scenes that look to be exposed properly in the footage ( and have seen similar in other shots put out by others ) where the pattern is clearly visible. It is there.

As for your other long winded comments, i have seen time and time again on this forum where you have second guessed people who ended up having issues with their camera (as diagnosed and repaired by BMD, you know, the guys that actually make and service the cameras?)

If people did not speak up about, say, white orbs, or sun spots, not hitting infinity on original bmcc, perhaps bmd would not have been so quick to respond to those issues.

You dont work for bmd and you clearly dont know every technical detail of these devices like you try to pass off.
There arent any rules about people posting their problems with their cameras, and im glad people spoke up with their concerns of the pocket BEFORE i bought one, and same here.. Before I go plunking more $ on the 4k ( which will make 3 of 3 of the bmd camereas owned by me)

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:33 am**

I have the same problem. There are other cameras out there you can push and not see this type of artifact. Just the nature of a film mode sets it up for much post color correction as does as master codec like prores. if it cant be pushed then that is weak and very unexpected in my case from Black Magic.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:34 am**

Geoff Baxter wrote:Boring... do you think that just once you could post a discussion on a subject without making a personal attack on the character of a poster?

And here folks, the coalition to derail the valid concerns of people whom have bought these camreas has arrived, right on schedule.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:51 am**

Geoff Baxter wrote:
Theodore Prentice wrote:
Geoff Baxter wrote:Boring... do you think that just once you could post a discussion on a subject without making a personal attack on the character of a poster?

And here folks, the coalition to derail the valid concerns of people whom have bought these camreas has arrived, right on schedule.

Well, there you go again. You can't help yourself can you?

I don't have any issue with the existence of the problem, my only issue is your rude attacks on anybody whose opinion differs from yours. You are simply, a forum bully.

Hi guy, i was responding to the issue posted by the person that started the topic.. And you are?

Can you find a way to stay on topic, ever?

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:18 am**

Theodore Prentice wrote:As for your other long winded comments, i have seen time and time again on this forum where you have second guessed people who ended up having issues with their camera (as diagnosed and repaired by BMD, you know, the guys that actually make and service the cameras?)

How about we stick to addressing the post / issue instead of the sledging of a very useful member of this community ? And yeah. Your very first post in this thread slagged off Tom.

Cause all it does is drive someone like Tom away from responding. And he's just doing his due diligence by making sure it's not a user fault or an issue of expectations.

I know I hesitate to respond more often than not. It's not worth the aggravation.

jb

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:22 am**

interesting. I dont see any in my cam....yet

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:29 am**

Cousinducky wrote:interesting. I dont see any in my cam....yet

I didn't see it right away either

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:07 am**

Tom wrote:Expose in insufficient light and boost the signal in post on any camera and you will get artefacts.

Share an example where you have exposed correctly in sufficient lighting and have not boosted the signal in post, where you can also see problems and I would agree that there is a malfunction.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19359

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:14 am**

So, what I do is just block/foe people who continually annoy me and resist the urge to click on their comments should they opine in threads I'm participating. Makes visiting here nicer. Anyway, I agree with Tom about the artifacts in boosted signals bit. Carry on.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:30 pm**

just here to add onto the pile, same problem here with our camera. I have never seen any issue like this before in any red, phantom, canon, sony, or any other camera I have had/used. Yes, boosting in blacks gets you noise, but never vertical banding and geometric shapes.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:47 pm**

ryanJenkins wrote:just here to add onto the pile, same problem here with our camera. I have never seen any issue like this before in any red, phantom, canon, sony, or any other camera I have had/used. Yes, boosting in blacks gets you noise, but never vertical banding and geometric shapes.

I can get vertical banding very easily on every other RAW camera I have ever owned when boosting the signal with insufficient lighting.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:01 pm**

Gh2. No vertical lines.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:12 pm**

Dmitry Kitsov wrote:Gh2. No vertical lines.

My GH2 does not record RAW video (hacked or unhacked). Does yours?

Most cameras perform in-camera noise reduction (even if it's set to its minimum setting or "off"). BMD cameras do not feature noise reduction.

If your BMD camera footage requires noise reduction, apply it in post. Or shoot with more fill light, and/or open the lens, or use a different camera, etc.

Or, if your BMD camera is actually defective (it may or may not be), contact BMD directly so they can fix it.

When BMD hears about an issue that's actually fixable via firmware (some aren't), there's ample evidence that they'll do that, eventually, but there's no guarantee.

-

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:18 pm**

Tom wrote:
ryanJenkins wrote:just here to add onto the pile, same problem here with our camera. I have never seen any issue like this before in any red, phantom, canon, sony, or any other camera I have had/used. Yes, boosting in blacks gets you noise, but never vertical banding and geometric shapes.

I can get vertical banding very easily on every other RAW camera I have ever owned when boosting the signal with insufficient lighting.

i have not seen anything like this with my epic(dragon/scarlet) work, or phantom work. Nothing this incredibly severe while still in 200asa with more than decent lighting. Maybe you are better at pushing cameras than me? don't know... Regardless, at 200asa with definitely usable lighting I would consider this a serious issue.

My banding also changes over time with the camera left on for extended periods. If i leave settings and lighting the same the camera banding is significantly lower the longer the camera is on.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:37 pm**

Tom wrote:
ryanJenkins wrote:just here to add onto the pile, same problem here with our camera. I have never seen any issue like this before in any red, phantom, canon, sony, or any other camera I have had/used. Yes, boosting in blacks gets you noise, but never vertical banding and geometric shapes.

I can get vertical banding very easily on every other RAW camera I have ever owned when boosting the signal with insufficient lighting.

Sure, but it is not normal to get banding on unboosted correctly exposed images.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:48 pm**

ryanJenkins wrote:
Tom wrote:
ryanJenkins wrote:just here to add onto the pile, same problem here with our camera. I have never seen any issue like this before in any red, phantom, canon, sony, or any other camera I have had/used. Yes, boosting in blacks gets you noise, but never vertical banding and geometric shapes.

I can get vertical banding very easily on every other RAW camera I have ever owned when boosting the signal with insufficient lighting.

i have not seen anything like this with my epic(dragon/scarlet) work, or phantom work. Nothing this incredibly severe while still in 200asa with more than decent lighting. Maybe you are better at pushing cameras than me? don't know... Regardless, at 200asa with definitely usable lighting I would consider this a serious issue.

My banding also changes over time with the camera left on for extended periods. If i leave settings and lighting the same the camera banding is significantly lower the longer the camera is on.

I cannot possibly comment on other cameras or on how you grade.

What I can say is that digitally pushed ASA 100 footage can have noise in it. The ASA/ISO pertains to the overall sensitivity rather than noise performance. I have yet to see untouched ProRes footage from the 4k camera with sufficient lighting exhibit vertical streaking/banding. Is there a problem? Perhaps - it would not shock me to see problems with a brand new camera. Have I seen strong evidence for such a problem? No.

The goal is of course not to convince me, but to ascertain whether or not the cause of any unwanted artefacts are the result of either:

a) Environmental factors (Temperature, interference etc)
b) Unsuitable filming conditions (Insufficient lighting for example)
c) A Faulty unit.
d) A fault somewhere else in the chain (faulty SSD dock, graphics card etc)

If such a person wishes to confirm which one of these factors is the cause of their issue, they are best suited sharing untouched and correctly exposed ProRes footage which exhibit the problem.
If they simply wish to raise awareness that they believe there to be a problem, without wishing to fully verify the veracity of their claims - then myself and others simply wish to offer the alternative explanation. Not to needlessly defend blackmagic, there is no purpose in doing that- but to prevent others from being concerned that their camera may in fact be faulty -when there is a chance it is not.

When the BMCC EF first came out, like with the 4k cam, many "faults" were reported but ended up being related to other factors such as severe underexposure or not using the recommended SSD's or faulty docks. Such "faults" can easily be demonstrated now on fully functional units - which at the time were sent back for no reason, resulting in the user being inconvenienced.

Prevention of inconvenience to the user is my only reason for offering to assist with these posts.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:39 pm**

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:
Dmitry Kitsov wrote:Gh2. No vertical lines.

My GH2 does not record RAW video (hacked or unhacked). Does yours?

Most cameras perform in-camera noise reduction (even if it's set to its minimum setting or "off"). BMD cameras do not feature noise reduction.

If your BMD camera footage requires noise reduction, apply it in post. Or shoot with more fill light, and/or open the lens, or use a different camera, etc.

Or, if your BMD camera is actually defective (it may or may not be), contact BMD directly so they can fix it.

When BMD hears about an issue that's actually fixable via firmware (some aren't), there's ample evidence that they'll do that, eventually, but there's no guarantee.

-

Neither does BMC4K at the moment. Noise reduction will not work on the fixed pattern noise or on banding (as the one we are looking at) that does not change from frame to frame. Black balance/heat offset must be performed, preferably in camera. Saying that these bands are normal for every camera is disingenuous.
The only other time I would see similar issues would be canon cameras such as 7D and 5DMII. But that was because they were skipping and binning.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:48 pm**

I would certainly say the problem looks like a faulty black balance on the image-- or something which should be cured by that. I have never seen anything remotely similar on any other camera-- not even the Alexa in Arri Raw really pushed-- which is actually, you know raw, unlike the RED which is also pretty heavily compressed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:18 pm**

Although you have to be pretty far under to see it on RED, it does exist. Especially MX. Having pretty much owned a pair oF MX's and shot with them extensively, FPN was not uncommon at all.

Someone mentioned a GH2... I don't know if that was a joke or not...

That said, I can see it being a problem if it's not just underexposed, but all over. I haven't had anything show up for me that's worrysome when shooting 400ISO with the production release camera.

Naturally anything that BMD can do to reduce it (save losing Dynamic Range) then why not?

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:56 pm**

Kholi wrote:Although you have to be pretty far under to see it on RED, it does exist. Especially MX. Having pretty much owned a pair oF MX's and shot with them extensively, FPN was not uncommon at all.

Someone mentioned a GH2... I don't know if that was a joke or not...

That said, I can see it being a problem if it's not just underexposed, but all over. I haven't had anything show up for me that's worrysome when shooting 400ISO with the production release camera.

Naturally anything that BMD can do to reduce it (save losing Dynamic Range) then why not?

I mentioned a gh2 as a response to someone saying that every single camera exhibits it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:06 am**

Dmitry Kitsov wrote:I mentioned a gh2 as a response to someone saying that every single camera exhibits it.

It happens with the GH2, 5D Mkii, 550d, D80, D90, 60D, BMCC, 600D, 5d MKIII.....

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:13 am**

Is this type of pattern consistent between uses of the camera? If so then it is theoretically possible to capture the pattern and subtract it from the image. If it changes every time then that is a lot trickier.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:18 am**

Scott Pultz wrote:Is this type of pattern consistent between uses of the camera? If so then it is theoretically possible to capture the pattern and subtract it from the image. If it changes every time then that is a lot trickier.

When pushing the BMCC footage to the point where FPN is visible, spatial NR works well to remove it to a point. Enough to push it from 800 4 stops to 12,800 anyway.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:13 am**

Tom wrote:When pushing the BMCC footage to the point where FPN is visible, spatial NR works well to remove it to a point. Enough to push it from 800 4 stops to 12,800 anyway.

Neat video works great. I've been using it extensively to clean up all kinds of footage including my 550D, 5DmkII and BMCC. With the DSLR's I was mostly trying to cover up the DSLR-ness, but with the BMCC, I really only need it when I lacked enough light in a dark scene or was pushing the grade a bit too much. Also, I mostly shoot ProRes and Neat comes in very handy removing chroma noise, as well. But, yes, it's mostly operator error or the fact that many of the projects I work on simply can't afford big lighting packages and so I have to open the lenses as wide as they'll go and try not to shoot past 800asa. Even then, just a slight touch of Neat with grain added back and a nice grade will add production value back into the scenes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:06 pm**

It is really a shame my Production camera can't go beyond 400ASA without risking artifacts. Low light is a big trade-off for the Production camera. At the moment I like my BMCC more and will thinking about returning the 4K camera before 30 days is up. Raw might be better or maybe a future firmware upgrade, but I am not going to count on that. If anybody want my camera, I will sale it locally in Houston Texas. Same price, less Davinci Resolve.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:11 pm**

Cinematographers and DPs typically get paid to light scenes, not to film darkness.

The BMPC-4K as-is appears capable of fantastic results when scenes are lit appropriately. "Fantastic" as in: Looks great side-by-side or intercut with Epic, Alexa, 1DC, and so forth. For $3K (including full versions of Resolve & UltraScope) that's my definition of fantastic.

However, if that's not good enough (and it might not), then use a different camera. Seems like a pretty simple decision really.

-
http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/ ... rly-users/

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:09 pm**

The 4K simply has issues with its sensor that restricts its sensitivity, period. All the discussions about if it does or does not produce unwelcome artefacts as a result of anything to do with its sensor, are just not going to get anyone anywhere. The camera simply does not do low light, high ISO, of which 800 is not high by anyone else's standards, and is pretty poor in the shadows of properly lit and exposed scenes.

Raw will not make a blind bit of difference to this situation, it will just give you more latitude to push and pull the problems, as the problem is not the codec. Maybe a firmware update could help to mask or process the data between the lens and codec, but this is no different to a cheap Sony being sharpened in camara.

My money is on the global shutter. Remember, a proper global shutter is mechanical and this one is totally electronic at the sensor. Whatever has to be done with the sensor for global shutter, is probably the cause of the sensitivity. This is a surmise on my part, as even the Pocket beats it for sensor sensitivity and low light noise and shadow noise. It could be the pixel pitch and density, but a GoPro 3+ beats it in many respects and it's pitch and density is probably worse.

There's a good reason why BM camera produced outputs always have a "Certain Look". To me, most of it is washed and is produced by people who don't really understand either the process or workflow of grading. The next time I read a post where someone is loading footage into Resolve to grade it before going to an NLE, it is bound to be a BM user.

The simple fact is that all BM cameras are fantastic value for the money. But they are riddled with problems that no other manufacturer would ever get away with, as King BM is wearing new clothes that his court won't question. You can make great looking stuff with BM cameras, but have to work way harder to get it looking great compared to any other camera.

Take all the BM cameras for what they are, and if you buy into them then don't moan that they are not performing like Reds. If you want a Red buy a Red. If you want a cheap camera that does have great features but is not easy to use and has known problems, then buy into BM cameras and work with their strengths and not their weaknesses. For my money, the best BM camera on balance, is the Pocket.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:13 am**

I Got the same banding issue with my BMPC4K

I'm going to contact my reseller for this, because I Don't think, a firmware upgrade gonna do the trick.

Test Footage:

pass: test4k

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:05 am**

Not that I disagree with you, David, but I have different experiences: when I don't have to use a qualifier to get where I want to go (skin, in particular) then I'm already working ten times less harder in post than most cameras on the market.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:54 am**

Hi Kholi. I was more referring to working Raw and black holes and having to re sync audio etc.

Working with DNG is not easy, and does really restrict you in what you can use them with as an immediate start to your post workflow. Unlike as a for instance, R3D or even ProTune. I find the easiest way to deal with DNG is to turn them into CineForm.

The black holes and now magenta are real show stoppers, no matter what anyone says this problem totally restricts the DP and director. As for banding and noise being introduced by the sensor, the answer is not to treat it in post and further extend your post workflow and more importantly, time.

Having to record audio externally due to bad converters in a camera, and no input waveform monitoring, is a real 101 mistake in this age. This biggest misinformation that I see on audio and cameras, is that you should use an external audio mixer and recorder because it's better. This is totally wrong. Any camera that is able to record with a good ADC and can record uncompressed as PCM at a minimum of 16Bits and a sample frequency that matches your target output, is just the same. One isn't better than the other, and you don't need a mixer when using only 1 or 2 microphones. This can all be done in camera even without balanced inputs or phantom powering.

The list is pretty endless as to the issues of the BM cameras, and while other cameras have their issues too, they are not as crippling in post or creativity. While I appreciate that on a personal level, you have a workflow that works for you, and this is great for you. None of the BM cameras are as easy to use as nearly any other camera, due to the above. I can go out with an iphone a GoPro and an ex3, and have them all being edited in a single timeline with great audio, all before a lengthy DNG transcode session, and the extra audio post and then problem masking that is involved with certain BM workflows.

I am not bashing the BM cameras, just being realistic from a commercial point of view.

To be real clear. I think the tone out of all three cameras is brilliant, and that's before you look at price. But they are noisy and footage created is never the sharpest, and for the best part are not low light cameras. I worked on a couple of features shot on 16mm a while back. And although this is not intentional, the BM cameras have a similar look, not overly sharp and a drop off in resolution on blow up. I personally could work with the look of the BM's all day long in the right situation. But as I said before, they are not Red, meaning that they are far from the best pro camera you can use in a single camera all environment shoot.

They are what they are and should be taken as that. You are not going to get anything else that gives you great film like qualities for £700 or anything that will do 4K with removable SSD media and interchangeable lenses for £2300. If you have a lot of sun and don't point at it, or have a proper lit scene, don't mind shooting at low ISO, and don't mind drop off in shadows and detail at blow up, and don't mind the lack of proper audio. Then fill your boots with BM cameras, because in this situation they simply can't be beat.

Cheers,
Dave.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:16 am**

BMPC4k VS Canon 600D - ISO, Dynamic Range & Contrast
Just for fun

600D
Format: 1080p25 h.246
Lens: 35mm Nikon at f/2.0
ISO: 200
Shutter: 1/50th
Picture Profile: Vision Tech (Very Very close to Neutral Dialled Down - Just a bit warmer in the pinks)

BMPC4K
Format: 4k Prores 25p (scaled down to 1080p in premier)
Lens: 35mm Nikon at f/2.0
ISO: 400
Shutter: 180 Degrees (1/50th)
Dynamic Range: FILM
Note: I have boosted the saturation and pulled a tiny amount of green out in post to match. No adjustment to contrast or exposure what so ever.

Analysis: Almost identical. Look at the highlight on the lamp. They're both JUST blowing out... Look at the shadow under the TV and under the old man. They're both sitting at about the same level with the BM having slightly more detail. Exposure mid point is about the same.

Personal Conclusion: This is pretty consistent with what I've been seeing with my daylight tests. The BMPC4k Has about the same highlight range as a 600D. It's ISO/Mid range exposure is about 1 stop under. It does have more shadow range, but when you push it you start to see the vertical fixed pattern noise... Lowlight and Dynamic range on this camera are a bit less than I'd hoped for...

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:59 am**

That's all well and good, but you are comparing the 4K to a 1080 shot that is using a heavily compressed codec at 8bit. Although the target is only 8 bit, the differences in source bit depth, resolution and colour space, is massive.

As another slant here is a link to a clip comparing the 4K to a Sony AX100. Although it is similarly very subjective, it does fit the bill of the real world question "what does X look like compared to Z".

Here is the 4K BM demo footage with a simple first pass colour correction, it shows the original full frame of 4k being squeezed to 1080, and then various static and pan scanned variations at 1:1, if you download the 1080 version and watch its on a TV, you can see some interesting stuff in the 1:1 PS's.

While these are not ideal, as with any web encode. They are at 1080 and they were uploaded as uncompressed 1080 8bit files, so their resolution only has a minimal difference, although the YouTube compression does take a bit out of the equation.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:12 pm**

haha

I know there's no real comparison here, but it's interesting and informative none the less. The canons are all about the same and a good base point for most people to reference from.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:25 pm**

Hi Patrick.

Sorry mate, please don't misunderstand me, I was actually agreeing with your test but just pointing out the obvious.

Just as your test is questionable in a way, so is mine. Yours is leaning toward favouring the 4K over the 600. My test is really the oposite, and quite clearly shows the AX as having certain better characteristics over the BM.

Out of interest here is a test with the 600. On first glance it does have a BM type quality to it, at least in my opinion.

Cheers,
Dave.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:10 pm**

Patrick Jennings wrote:BMPC4k VS Canon 600D - ISO, Dynamic Range & Contrast
Just for fun

600D
Format: 1080p25 h.246
Lens: 35mm Nikon at f/2.0
ISO: 200
Shutter: 1/50th
Picture Profile: Vision Tech (Very Very close to Neutral Dialled Down - Just a bit warmer in the pinks)

BMPC4K
Format: 4k Prores 25p (scaled down to 1080p in premier)
Lens: 35mm Nikon at f/2.0
ISO: 400
Shutter: 180 Degrees (1/50th)
Dynamic Range: FILM
Note: I have boosted the saturation and pulled a tiny amount of green out in post to match. No adjustment to contrast or exposure what so ever.

Analysis: Almost identical. Look at the highlight on the lamp. They're both JUST blowing out... Look at the shadow under the TV and under the old man. They're both sitting at about the same level with the BM having slightly more detail. Exposure mid point is about the same.

Personal Conclusion: This is pretty consistent with what I've been seeing with my daylight tests. The BMPC4k Has about the same highlight range as a 600D. It's ISO/Mid range exposure is about 1 stop under. It does have more shadow range, but when you push it you start to see the vertical fixed pattern noise... Lowlight and Dynamic range on this camera are a bit less than I'd hoped for...

Thanks for sharing an interesting comparison between a decent stills camera with an "HD" video feature, and the BMPC-4K (a 4K UHD video camera that doesn't have a stills feature per se).

Obviously, if all one wants to do is take uncorrected video straight out of the cameras and post it directly to the web, then the results in many cases will be similar, as your example shows.

But that would be largely a waste of the BMPC-4K many additional capabilities as a video camera. Including its 4K UHD or 1080p recording formats, global shutter, much higher real resolution & detail, extremely low aliasing/moire, balanced audio inputs, 6G-SDI output, LANC, and so forth. And the very real benefits of working with 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes HQ in post for such things as color-correction/grading, effects, chromakeying, scaling/cropping, and so forth. Plus, the BMPC-4K includes the full version of Resolve & UltraScope. And BMPC-4K compressed 12-bit RAW is due "soon" as a free firmware update. Some very nice BMPC-4K video samples are here:
http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/ ... -red-epic/

In fairness to the 600D (T3i), since it's a DSLR, I would imagine it's a superior time lapse camera, correct?

The reason I put the 600D's "HD" video feature in quotes is because it's well known that almost all DSLRs resolve less than 1080p real resolution in their video recordings. Their "HD" is in a 1080p video data stream, but typically resolves closer to about 720p (and sometimes less). Much of the apparent "detail" in DSLR video footage is actually aliasing (false detail). I have no doubt that BMPC-4K UHD video recordings can easily be rendered to full 1080p resolution with little or no aliasing, and its in-camera 1080p footage likely contains far more real resolution and detail than most if not all DSLRs.

Obviously a DSLR makes for a superior stills camera experience, and in most cases, superior stills results, too.

One can also think of the BMPC-4K as an 8MP "stills" camera with an infinite burst mode, although with a very limited range of shutter speeds and no AF, etc. :-)

Cheers.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:40 pm**

So, which is better? Canon dslr or bmd camera with these bugs? I have eos M, i thought to buy bm 4k camera but not anymore with these bugs/problems...

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:06 pm**

Well what do you need?
What do your clients need?
Do you need anything right now?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, then wait and see how things play out until you need something. It would be silly to buy a camera just to sit on it without any demand being generated.
Hell my own Pocket camera was bought specifically for a shoot which basically covered the whole expense (for a buddy for 2 days, so you can't charge 'em full rate) as well as with the specific purpose of getting my S16mm lenses working again. Were it not for those two events I'd've not bought anything.

Hell It took my years to pick up a DSLR as well (GH2) and I didn't until I had to.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:44 pm**

Zjaz wrote:I Got the same banding issue with my BMPC4K
I'm going to contact my reseller for this, because I Don't think, a firmware upgrade gonna do the trick.

Test Footage

I think the sensor has some issues dealing with shadows in your case here?
maybe an update would solve it.

I hope it is not hardware related *Fingers Crossed*

Blackmagic Forum

BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Banding

BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Banding

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin

Re: BMPC4k - Great Footage.... BUT Vertical Streaking/Bandin