4.6k beta tester footage

Looking forward to seeing some ungraded and graded (without the application of a LUT) raw footage.

Unfortunately, after many similar requests the testers on BMCuser stated that's embargoed until BM finalizes the out of the box color science of the new sensor. But according to the reports thus far, the footage looks better SootC (colors, levels, saturation, etc.) than the BMCC or other cams, while still being flat enough to accommodate the greater DR, and is as easy or easier to grade than the previous standard, Alexa ProRes, with a bit of getting used to. Of course, that's all based on the opinion of a few beta testers, so take it what you will.

Any questions?

(preferably asking opinions rather than tech specs etc - BM are the best people to ask about that)

how does this camera compare to other "pro" cameras you have used ?

Think I see the FPN people are talking about. Though it looks very tightly packed that even with youtube codec it would take me 5 seconds to remove in post. As these are Beta Cameras I'm not really worried. FPN is a normal thing and this looks like it is nowhere near the old issues that were dealt with.

I have not seen any FPN (other than what one expect from any camera when pushing 1600 5 stops higher )

Roman on another forum explains that

I actually had some smudges on my ND filter from rain, that I only noticed after the fact. So there are 2 consistent blobs tracking from the left side of frame as I pan

Is this what people are seeing?


and also:

Noise / Low light: I have 2 night shots (the last 2 night ones in the video) which were at 1600 ISO. I decided not to use neat video or reduce the noise so you could see what that looks like. At 800 though, it's amazing and so contained it becomes a HUGE sigh of relief knowing I can go under by 1-2 stops, bring it up and see about as much noise as the 2.5K exposed properly @800. When exposed properly, it goes from good to perfect. Like... the noise is so well handled that adding in extra grain might be attractive for some (but it sure doesn't need it). In the video, there's quite a number of underexposed shots that I brought up 1-2.5 stops without doing anything to reduce noise and it was still looking solid.

Based on what I have seen of 1600 footage - I suspect that we are looking at some shots which have been pushed further than 1600.

It could be any end of variables, there's even a chance it's my monitor yet if it's what I'm seeing it's so negligible and a really bad case of pixel peeping.

I think I saw it, it was in the top left hand corner of the time he posted (2:50?) but I put that to it being shot at 1600 ASA and being pushed in post.

Still absolutely love the footage and can't wait to get my hands on the camera!

It could be any end of variables, there's even a chance it's my monitor yet if it's what I'm seeing it's so negligible and a really bad case of pixel peeping.

Needless to day - apart from when I pushed my footage about 5 stops up when filming in almost complete darkness - I have not seen any FPN yet.

Will FPN increase with resolution (4.6k) and/or with Raw?

Will FPN increase with resolution (4.6k) and/or with Raw?

I guess if you viewed the 4.6k or 4k footage on a 4k monitor - any noise/grain will be more visible. But again - you will only ever see FPN if you underexpose and push the footage way beyond 1600 ASA.

Mind blown - can't wait to give that baby a testride.

Frank. I saw on the Xeen website that you have tested some of their lenses. I am thinking about buying the PL versions for the 4.6 Ursa mini PL. Can you post any test footage of the lenses or share a more in depth experience of them. The footage on the internet is limited. Would appreciate it.

Many thanks.

Hey Tom,
the ProRes 444XQ is implemented right now?

Where the most important??

Looking forward to seeing some ungraded and graded (without the application of a LUT) raw footage.

+1

Based on the graded clips so far I would have a hard time believing the 15 stop claim as the shadows seem pushed down a bit too far for that. It could be that everything was shot to protect the highlights and/or in the grade they were covering noisy shadows. Early claims were made comparing this sensor to the Alexa and in terms of color it seems right on, but in terms of dynamic range and soft rolloff (especially in the shadows), it is not possible to determine in any of the video released so far. What we really need is to have access to even a single raw frame and then we'd be able to evaluate the image better.

Many thanks to the beta testers for the releases so far! Lovely work!

Looking forward to seeing some ungraded and graded (without the application of a LUT) raw footage.

+1

Based on the graded clips so far I would have a hard time believing the 15 stop claim as the shadows seem pushed down a bit too far for that. It could be that everything was shot to protect the highlights and/or in the grade they were covering noisy shadows. Early claims were made comparing this sensor to the Alexa and in terms of color it seems right on, but in terms of dynamic range and soft rolloff (especially in the shadows), it is not possible to determine in any of the video released so far. What we really need is to have access to even a single raw frame and then we'd be able to evaluate the image better.

Many thanks to the beta testers for the releases so far! Lovely work!

The shadows are fairly lifted on this one:



I assure you (because it would very soon be apparent if I was incorrect) that it hasn't been graded to hide noisy shadows.

Personally I have tried to keep the grades fairly neutral and natural - not crunched and not low contrast - just to the point at which it looks real to my eyes. This is just to try and give a balanced first impression for people.

It's actually not very easy to distribute such a large range into a graded image - without making the top end too flat, or the shadows too milky. When you start with the log image, you have to make some decisions as to how to remap the range into a non-log image. So far I have been putting the higher end close to 100% and the lower end just a bit above 0%.

As soon as we can share some raw or ungraded shots - I am sure your concerns will be addressed to your satisfaction.

I hope this reassures you.

Not to be nit-picky, since I appreciate the upload. But question about the "fog in formby" footage, is that some moire going on at the :23-:24 mark. Just under the "fitness first" text on the backpack?

So far I like the skintones. And overall it has a very blackmagic feel, with a natural look.

Not to be nit-picky, since I appreciate the upload. But question about the "fog in formby" footage, is that some moire going on at the :23-:24 mark. Just under the "fitness first" text on the backpack?

So far I like the skintones. And overall it has a very blackmagic feel, with a natural look.

Looks like it. I wonder if that's in the raw footage.

Either way, I would have never noticed it. For me personally, I kinda don't really care. It's a concern, but not a big one. I bet that's a rare case. There are steps that can be taken to combat this type of stuff, obviously, as you know.

Either way, I would have never noticed it. For me personally, I kinda don't really care. It's a concern, but not a big one. I bet that's a rare case. There are steps that can be taken to combat this type of stuff, obviously, as you know.

There are steps to combat it, but I'm tired of worrying with those personally. I'm hoping this is a one-off case, since the fabric pattern on that backpack is extremely fine. I like the look of the camera overall, but I sure hope moire is a rare occasion.

Either way, I would have never noticed it. For me personally, I kinda don't really care. It's a concern, but not a big one. I bet that's a rare case. There are steps that can be taken to combat this type of stuff, obviously, as you know.

There are steps to combat it, but I'm tired of worrying with those personally. I'm hoping this is a one-off case, since the fabric pattern on that backpack is extremely fine. I like the look of the camera overall, but I sure hope moire is a rare occasion.

I hear you. I'm speaking from my own personal opinion. For some, moire is a huge deal. Rare moire like this for me isn't. I use Leica R glass so I rarely come across this issue on the Ursa 4k.

On a side note, I don't think people should be afraid of softening the image out of these cameras. The Dragon is actually softer on skin than the C500 4k. I wouldn't hesitate about putting a Hollywood Blackmagic 1/8 or even 1/4 in front of my Leica glass.

If the audience is looking at the moire they're looking at the wrong thing.

But when it's your job to make the best possible images, both technically and artistically, if you're not looking at the moire, you're looking at the wrong thing...

It's one thing to want a great camera for fun. But it's another to use it as a professional. People can disagree with me, but it's our job to be nit picky.

if you're not looking at the moire, you're looking at the wrong thing...

This is such an absolute statement that just does not line up with practical experience on set. In drama you test for this stuff with wardrobe during PRE-production so that wardrobe can swap out anything distracting. Looking at moire while actually shooting is very low on the list of things I want my attention on, but if something is so distracting to be obvious, you get art department or wardrobe to swap it out. Or you do it yourself depending on the job.

And even then by the time things are downscaled for broadcast, moire that does NOT exist in the master can manifest on the broadcast. I see it constantly. People don't even notice or care.

People can disagree with me, but it's our job to be nit picky.

Personally I consider the job to execute the vision that serves the project. And that means balancing any technical concerns with the creative, not arbitrarily always being nit picky, but instead being so when appropriate. Which in my experience, is far less often a concern than when it is.

Educating yourself on a camera and where it breaks I agree with, but most of the time what gets posted on forums like these as absolute deal breakers out on set in the real world barely register as a concern. People love being overly dramatic and really play up technical limitations that historically people just workaround on rare occasions they need to. So many people crying rivers over small stuff instead of just getting it done. The world has become so "babied" and scared of things that 90% of the time don't matter.

"28 Days Later" was shot primarily on standard definition PAL mini DV and it was ghastly, horrific and ugly, because that was the appropriate look for that movie...until it needed to be lush, then they used Super35 Kodak film. Ugliness as a stulistic choice. Not that Ursa Mini footage is ugly.

"Star Trek: The Next Generation" was shot on 35mm film in 4:3, TC'd to SD tape and, by the time it hit the air, suffered from several generations of detail loss. But, it was the number one show in a lot of places for years. After the HD remaster it's like watching a brand new show, albeit a pillarboxed one. The wardrobe has texture, the ship shots look marvelous, the skintones are flattering...the show looks as great as it should. They were remastered in 4K, however, so downscaling to HD introduces moire and aliasing. It's subtle, but it's there. But watching them via compressed Netflix delivery makes those go away. But I liked the show when it was 9 generations of smeary SD mess...on a little black and white television that used to be a Commodore 64 monitor. Ahh, the 80's.

Script, direction, performance, execution are paramount. If they're looking at the moire they're looking at the wrong thing.

Not to be nit-picky, since I appreciate the upload. But question about the "fog in formby" footage, is that some moire going on at the :23-:24 mark. Just under the "fitness first" text on the backpack?

So far I like the skintones. And overall it has a very blackmagic feel, with a natural look.

Yes - I think what you can see there is some slight moire.

Moire is probably going to be more visible when shooting downscaled in camera and also I did apply sharpening in post.

The stitching is very very find on the bag.

There is no OLPF on the camera - and just like with cameras which DO have an OLPF - it will sometimes appear.

Looking forward to seeing some ungraded and graded (without the application of a LUT) raw footage.

+1

Based on the graded clips so far I would have a hard time believing the 15 stop claim as the shadows seem pushed down a bit too far for that. It could be that everything was shot to protect the highlights and/or in the grade they were covering noisy shadows. Early claims were made comparing this sensor to the Alexa and in terms of color it seems right on, but in terms of dynamic range and soft rolloff (especially in the shadows), it is not possible to determine in any of the video released so far. What we really need is to have access to even a single raw frame and then we'd be able to evaluate the image better.

Many thanks to the beta testers for the releases so far! Lovely work!

The shadows are fairly lifted on this one:



I assure you (because it would very soon be apparent if I was incorrect) that it hasn't been graded to hide noisy shadows.

Personally I have tried to keep the grades fairly neutral and natural - not crunched and not low contrast - just to the point at which it looks real to my eyes. This is just to try and give a balanced first impression for people.

It's actually not very easy to distribute such a large range into a graded image - without making the top end too flat, or the shadows too milky. When you start with the log image, you have to make some decisions as to how to remap the range into a non-log image. So far I have been putting the higher end close to 100% and the lower end just a bit above 0%.

As soon as we can share some raw or ungraded shots - I am sure your concerns will be addressed to your satisfaction.

I hope this reassures you.

Glad to hear it! Thanks Tom!

This is such an absolute statement that just does not line up with practical experience on set.

It's not an absolute statement. It's a play on Jason’s statement meant to serve as alternate viewpoint to the idea that such things have no import.

And because it doesn’t line up with your practical experience, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t line up with mine.

If I have the option of several other cameras that won't display moire or FPN in the same situations, all other things being equal, I will choose them over one that does. If those are things that are not wanted in the images. That's what camera and wardrobe tests are for. I never began to suggest that a DP’s job should be to sacrifice the creative process in order to nitpick over small flaws. I’m saying you do the tests to know how your equipment handles all that will be put in front of it and where it falls apart so that you don’t have to worry about it on set or be surprised by technical issues. I get paid to make those decisions so that it doesn’t cost people down the road.

And, in my opinion, there’s a big difference between choosing (or having no choice but to use) a piece of equipment despite, or even because of, its flaws, and glossing over technical issues in a piece of equipment that shouldn’t have them or because you didn’t do your job and were surprised by them. Which is what I see more often than not.

My point in responding to Jason’s statement at all being: we are in a camera forum watching camera tests and looking for clues as to how they perform. We should be looking for these things. Not glossing over them. And, yes, of course these are beta cameras. Of course these are highly compressed web videos. Of course there are many other factors that can degrade the master images after the fact.

And of course script, direction, performance and execution are paramount. But again, we’re not in a directing forum, or a screenwriting forum. We are in a camera forum.

I don’t really care either way if there’s moire of FPN or anything else. I’ll just use something else if I find that any of these things are a problem. Or if I want something with crazy FPN as an effect, I know that I can shoot with one of the BM cameras (whether or not it’s going to be a problem with the 4.6k is is with several of the others) at 3200 and push it and get what I’m looking for.

Will moire, which frankly I didn't even notice in this clip, be a problem most of the time? Probably not. Are there ways to reduce or eliminate it in your masters? Yes. Should we take note of it when watching camera tests and other people's footage? In my opinion, yes. As we should take note of anything else that stands out. Positive or negative. To be aware of going into your own tests to see if they will be a problem or benefit for you.

But we’re either always trying to to the best work we can and make the best choices we can, or we’re not. I try to actively choose the former. Whether that best choice, or the right choice, or the only choice, is a tube video camera or 16mm film or a Sony F65. But I’ll learn as much as I can about how each of those systems performs and where they break before I get on set. Either to avoid those breaks, or to use them creatively.

Again, just my opinions.

Looking forward to seeing some ungraded and graded (without the application of a LUT) raw footage.

Unfortunately, after many similar requests the testers on BMCuser stated that's embargoed until BM finalizes the out of the box color science of the new sensor. But according to the reports thus far, the footage looks better SootC (colors, levels, saturation, etc.) than the BMCC or other cams, while still being flat enough to accommodate the greater DR, and is as easy or easier to grade than the previous standard, Alexa ProRes, with a bit of getting used to. Of course, that's all based on the opinion of a few beta testers, so take it what you will.

Thanks. I was trying to figure out why testers were only using ProRes 422. I don't think I have ever used ProRes 422 on my BM cameras. Maybe 422 HQ for an interview.

Thanks. I was trying to figure out why testers were only using ProRes 422. I don't think I have ever used ProRes 422 on my BM cameras. Maybe 422 HQ for an interview.

A very good question. That got asked more than once over the course of the 26 page BMCuser thread, and if I recall correctly one tester answered that it was due to storage space, so he could shoot more test footage and get a sense for how well the prores graded. But NDA could have something to do with it since BM definitely said no to releasing the actual DNGs or ungraded footage. That's the best answer I've got, at this point...looking forward to seeing more myself.

I'd imagine that we'd both agree that the true test of any Raw shooting camera is getting to work with the actual original sensor data--a lot of people were complaining about whites being clipped or shadows being crushed in the Youtube/Vimeo output, when the testers made clear that they generally weren't in the original. Takes a lot of the guesswork and assumptions out of the process, especially in this day and age were footage imperfections in the final product are much less obvious or clear cut.

Seeing as how most people don't have 4K screens...4K test footage is not as important....even if you have a 4K screen, the chances of having a PROPER 4K screen is slim.

I'm sorry but currently 4K is not a big noticeable difference unless your sitting 4 ft away from an 80+ in screen with Rec2020 and HDR. That's a reality. The "Tech"
People will disagree but that just because they are "tech" people.

Btw, currently, without H.265, 4K compression is FAR MORE degrading than HD compressions, so all the "benefits" of 4K are gone at that point.

Seeing as how most people don't have 4K screens...4K test footage is not as important....even if you have a 4K screen, the chances of having a PROPER 4K screen is slim.

I'm sorry but currently 4K is not a big noticeable difference unless your sitting 4 ft away from an 80+ in screen with Rec2020 and HDR. That's a reality. The "Tech"
People will disagree but that just because they are "tech" people.

I'm not sure where in the thread you are referring to, but I don't see where any of us mentioned "4K" specifically in the context of needing to see said footage, and this discussion has nothing to do with distribution. The big thing it seems Mr. Stacey and myself, as well as others were discussing was the possibility of Raw test footage as opposed to more limited Prores, which would allow maximum flexibility in grading. Given the big claim of the new 4.6K sensor is the 15 stops of DR, a lot of people are curious to see how that stacks up based on real, raw sensor data, as well as other aspects (color science and noise, particularly).

I think you'd consider me a "tech" person, but I've never been big on the merits of 4K for distribution in and of itself for the present day. Where 4K and RAW really come in handy is on the acquisition side of things, allowing for reframing, stabilization, zooming (potentially double the focal length range of your lenses, like a 2x TC), camera moves, pulling cleaner keys, and of course much better looking downscaled 1080p footage (due to the limitations of Bayer array sensors etc.). I was rather skeptical myself about 4K period until I read an article by Andrew Reid over at EOSHD. However, all this is beside the point, which is that 4K wasn't the big thing anyone was looking for. Though, the point can be made that if you are buying a 4.6K camera, it would be nice if it performed well up to that resolution, or otherwise you may as well get a BMCC for 1/4 the price.

Btw, currently, without H.265, 4K compression is FAR MORE degrading than HD compressions, so all the "benefits" of 4K are gone at that point.

Not at an equivalent bitrate it isn't. Taking Youtube as an example, their 4K bitrates are reputed to be easily 4x their 1080p bitrates, which still means better quality regardless, and bit for original bit perhaps even better so. The difference is very clearly noticible even on a 1920 x 1200 monitor.

Yes, acquisition is dead on. Sorry for the misread, your above info is solid.

Yes, acquisition is dead on. Sorry for the misread, your above info is solid.

Thanks. But yeah I definitely agree with you if we're talking the vast majority of consumer viewing scenarios. I guess the one reason to go 4K is if you are distributing via the web (Youtube), then you get like a 20 mbps bitrate (or so I hear) which should at least deliver some really high quality 1080p60.

Thank you very much for the footages! They seems good even if we need to see more.

I have a question for the beta testers. Do you know somethig about the color space of the 4,6K sensor? Is it REC 709, P3, REC 2020? Thank you.

I have a question for the beta testers. Do you know somethig about the color space of the 4,6K sensor? Is it REC 709, P3, REC 2020? Thank you.

The testers did say...

Any questions?
(preferably asking opinions rather than tech specs etc - BM are the best people to ask about that)

As to the question itself, I myself don't have the definitive answer, but from what limited information I was able to find, even old DSLRs at least theoretically have a color space fairly close to that of ProPhotoRGB, which handily encompasses 709 (almost anything does) and P3 (still not too hard) and is still somewhat larger than 2020. But again, with variances in how the color space of a camera can be mapped to a display/output color space, as well as what a camera can actually sense under varying conditions, its a really tricky question to answer, so take the above with a grain of salt. But is is pretty safe to say that in that aspect, it (like any modern sensor) should be reasonably sufficient for almost all common output media in current use, and that color accuracy and luminescence range (DR) are likely much more important considerations.

Thanks Kholi


this is amazing!!!

the highlights at 01.36 is typical Alexa territory! Wow

Thanks Kholi


this is amazing!!!

the highlights at 01.36 is typical Alexa territory! Wow

this looks GREAT.

Now we´re talking! Amazing shots!

Thanks Kholi


this is amazing!!!

the highlights at 01.36 is typical Alexa territory! Wow

Looks very nice. All we need now is for BMD to take over the North Pole and get the elves to help with production to get these shipped asap

The "Tech"
People will disagree but that just because they are "tech" people.
.

Haha - love that statement, and I gonna steal it, than use it against the tech people.

For either one, the solution is the same for the user without analog ISO: larger physical aperture lenses, longer shutter speeds, or NR in post.

Longer shutter speeds for normal filming are pretty much out if the equation as motion pictures are shot with a 1/48 or 180° shutter at 24 FPS.

Fast lenses are generally expensive, especially when you start talking about Arri PL mount.

Noise reduction software (Neat Video) or color grading software with built-in noise reduction filters (Resolve) are a common fix for those of us with the time and appropriate day rate.

Thanks Kholi


this is amazing!!!

the highlights at 01.36 is typical Alexa territory! Wow

Looks very nice. All we need now is for BMD to take over the North Pole and get the elves to help with production to get these shipped asap

Very nice!

Longer shutter speeds for normal filming are pretty much out if the equation as motion pictures are shot with a 1/48 or 180° shutter at 24 FPS.

Fast lenses are generally expensive, especially when you start talking about Arri PL mount.

Indeed, indeed. Earlier in my little dissertation I did mention the crucial way to improve low light in camera was better sensor efficiency rather than the other two, since (implicitly) iris and shutter both involve obvious tradeoffs. Just trying to help explain how they each contribute to sensor noise from a (too?) technical perspective. As a young and foolish "tech" person haha, that whole spiel was mostly prompted by a lot of folks confusing FPN with other very different types of noise.

Might be a good time for Mr. Glencairn to use his "stolen" quote haha... I am the perfect target, after all. Though, to be fair, I do use his signature quote about ETTR/100% zebras to counter the (usually) less technical who continue to insist on traditional exposure methods shooting Raw.

I never expose to the right.

I didn't mean to refer to you, hope you didn't take that the wrong way ! and I don't want to start some kind of ETTR vs. ETTM war here. But since you are someone who's clearly very experienced and accomplished especially relative to a young grasshopper like myself, I'd be curious to understand your perspective on that, since it seems pretty distinct from others I've heard like Mr. Glencairn and what they all tell you in RAW photography. That's why I'm here, after all, to try to glean what I can from the masters of the craft (outside of regurgitating a bit of technical info now and again, in signature C.A.M. fashion).

Remember Tom has begun to take another look at exposure technique with the URSA Mini 4.6K he is testing; he feels the new sensor may have enough latitude to expose for the scene in a more traditional manner (scene average, middle grey) and just let the latitude of the sensor handle highlights with improved roll off. So ETTM may be making a comeback for many.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No offense taken. Nonono. I'm one of the light-hearted ones 'round here.

I don't ETTR, ETTM...I expose correctly based on whatever is appropriate for the scene. If anything I might whip out my lightmeter and expose for the highlights then lift the mids and shadows with lighting. I come from 35mm stills photography and used to develop my own film. I learned that getting the image right in-camera meant faster post-production, which means less darkroom time...even if that darkroom today is Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CC on my sexy 27" 2014 iMac. I choose not to fix in post or use some rule of thumb to dictate how I shoot because not every situation will benefit. That's why I carry a lightmeter. That's why I carry flashguns when shooting stills. That's why I have a small arsenal of movie lights, bounce cards and C-stands for motion picture work.

Now, if you run-and-gun, those rules of thumb are fine sometimes, just like WB presets, but that's only because you don't have time to meter apart from zebras or a histogram. But if you have the time, why not spend it getting the picture right on the day so your post production workflow is less tedious and, therefore, your work gets done faster and your clients are happier. Then you get to work again.

Thankfully, unless it's docu b-roll I usually am afforded the time to properly direct the photography of a project.

I remember shooting a short film a few years back with a young director. He asked me why I was taking the time to light the scene instead of just opening up the iris and using ISO3200 or something. I asked him, "you want your movie to look like a movie, right?" He said, "Oh, yeah" and let me work. Now he could have indoor scenes where you can still look out the window and see details in the sun-lit areas outside. People talk about crushing blacks and tinting highlights, but those aren't appropriate for every project.

Also, I can think like an engineer and be textbook for every situation, or I can be an artist and do whatever feels right, or I can try to manage both methods and attempt to achieve emotional yet technically proficient imagery in a consistent manner. I choose the latter because I like to keep working and food tastes better when it's not imaginary. lol

ETTM may be making a comeback for many.

Is there one for "Expose For Skintones?"

I am with you Jason, tried ETTR, works in some cases, but does not replace good basic exposure skills, especially,when you have people in the shot, you want the skin tones correctly exposed. Lights/reflectors can solve the rest.

Yes sir. Old school is the best school. And Mozart was the first rock star if you think about it.

Tom, Kholi,

Is there more of a sense of how much DR is available when shooting global shutter as opposed to rolling? I've heard rumors of "13.5 stops vs 15", but that was awhile back. Was curious if there's any clearer idea of what we give up shooting global shutter other than 30fps max vs 60.

First off, what's so amazing about this day and age is not just the incredible cameras and gear we have relatively inexpensive access to, but that a young padawan like me can go on the internet and not only soak in the discussions of learned and and experienced shooters and DoPs, but even ask my own questions and pick their brains on occasion. Truly an inspiring thing.

In any case, that all makes a ton of sense—when you're talking exposure for anything scripted (or that can otherwise afford it), its a heck of a less about one's camera's exposure, and a lot more about actually lighting a scene properly, whether through simple reflectors and mods or big HMI lights. ETT-anything is no replacement for that for the types of productions where one can get away with proper lighting, of course, and is not meant to. But it seems that the great thing about the new 4.6K as people are saying is one can worry even less about the technical limitations of the camera system, and more about just lighting your scene in a way that looks the way you want, and knowing your camera will capture that, along with enough information to make any final tweaks.

I guess this different way of thinking about things—exposure as a creative variable one can manipulate, rather than something set in stone that must be captured precisly—kind of mirrors a similar transition I'm going through in my photography. When I started out shooting for the magazine I work for, I was all about the latter--fast zooms, dual high speed bodies, bursting down shots PJ style, and spending a lot of time in PP culling and getting shots closer to the look I wanted. I was able to capture the moment most of the time, but not always as good as it could have been, and at great cost to my time in post.

However, over the summer I picked up a set of radio-controlled manual speedlights and ebayed/DIYed some light mods, and my photography for the mag totally changed over the past few issues. Instead of spraying and praying 300 shots and laboriously culling that down to 6 PP'ed finals, I was taking the time when shooting to carefully select, think through, set up, and light just the shots I needed, and end up with far less to do afterward, and a much higher minimum standard of quality and a much more satisfying and meaningful outcome, with photos that were both more compelling and purposeful. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't still grab quick candids when called for, but even then they are more carefully chosen and often lit when needed and viable.

And the whole experience so far has taught me to see light in a whole new way, to allow me to begin the long, long learning process of how to create, direct, shape, and color it. This journey has no true end, and I am at the very start, but without stopping to slow down and stop just trying to get the "right" exposure, composition and the like and start making my own, without pausing to listen to those who have decades of experience and wisdom behind them, I could never had begun. Hopefully, I can now bring over that same spirit into this discipline, which for a lot longer than I've ever been shooting stills has been stuck at essentially the same place my photography had been at first. And, of course, I couldn't have found a better group of folks to watch, listen to and learn from, given everything I've seen.

But I, as I usually do, digress...and really, this whole thing is a reminder that sometimes, I just really need to shut up and listen to people who really know what they are talking about, rather than keep talking. Like now, for instance.