Low Light Performance

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 12:32 am

Seen that video of C300 long time ago, loved seeing what the C300 could do in low light, I'm not sure why you would use it as any comparison to the BMC since it costs $13,999.00 on sale now, that would be $10,999.00 more than the BMCC, in case you didn't notice.
As for the scarlet I wouldn't waste my money on it, even If i could afford one,
Epic... maybe if I sold my truck :D .
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2139
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 12:54 am

Christian Kane Black wrote:Stop being sarcastic and full of yourself.



Maybe we can stop with personal attacks...

I'm not really sure about the point you're trying to make.

It seems you want to say...

The BMCC should be rated at ISO 200
The BMCC isn't good for low light
RAW isn't a very good workflow because of the onerous costs and most professionals choose to shoot ProRes.

Have I go that correct ? You endlessly post links to other forums and blogs without really making a point. For example, your link to Ryan Walters test is a good example. You seem to think it shows the BMCC in a poor light while I think it shows the opposite.

What is it you're trying to say, spell it out. What do YOU think ?

jb
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Randy Walters

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:28 am
  • Location: Bristol, RI USA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 1:09 am

I've been wrong on the BMC forums before. I will be again. I may be now. But here's some additional info that may shed a little light on Mr. "Christian Kane Black."

Google doesn't return anyone by that name. Period.

However, it does return Christian Kane.

eliot-spencer-pic.jpg
eliot-spencer-pic.jpg (27.77 KiB) Viewed 9348 times


Christian Kane is an actor who played a character named Eliot Spencer on an excellent series, "Leverage."

He's a good actor, and I've thought he'd make a great choice to play the late author, David Foster Wallace.

On Leverage, he played one of a team of grifters; very, very proficient con artists. Which may tell us something about what "Mr. Black" is doing here.

I doubt we're going to see any work from "Mr. Black", because I doubt he exists. The person behind the name is probably 14 or 15, lacking social skills, and entertaining himself by trolling various forums.

As I said, I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong now. But I doubt it.
Last edited by Randy Walters on Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:38 am, edited 6 times in total.
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 1:23 am

Randy Walters wrote:I've been wrong on the BMC forums before. I will be again. I may be now. But here's a little additional info that may shed a little light on Mr. "Christian Kane Black."

Google doesn't return anyone by that name. Period.

However, it does return Christian Kane.

eliot-spencer-pic.jpg


Christian Kane is an actor who played a character named Eliot Spencer on an excellent series, "Leverage."

He's a good actor, and I've thought he'd make a great choice to play the late author, David Foster Wallace.

In Leverage, he played one of a team of grifters; very, very proficient con artists. Which may tell us something about what "Mr. Black" is doing here.

I doubt we're going to see any work from "Mr. Black", because I doubt he exists. The person behind the name is probably 14 or 15, lacking social skills, and entertaining himself by trolling various forums.

As I said, I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong now. But I doubt it.


lol Randy :mrgreen:
Online
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2686
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 1:46 am

John Brawley wrote:
Christian Kane Black wrote:RAW isn't a very good workflow because of the onerous costs and most professionals choose to shoot ProRes.


Although I have no experience (yet) with cinematic RAW, I suspect that most professionals will end up shooting ProRes, because for most project let's be honest, RAW is going to be overkill.

That said, having the option for when you need it will be very nice, and one project I have coming up will probably benefit quite a bit from RAW, since it's going to involve a lot of landscape photography, and I'll be basically shooting in a style similar to what I shoot with my 4x5. Short of shelling out megabux for a Red Epic with a Dragon sensor or a Sony F65, the closest thing I've ever seen to capturing the same feeling of exquisite detail and living color of a 4x5 sheet of Astia or E100G with motion for less than an Arri Alexa has been the BMCC.

I'm going to be shooting a promo with my loaner BMCC next weekend... it's going to be interesting. I can't wait for mine to arrive though :)
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/2070 Max-Q
Offline

Soeren Mueller

  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:21 pm
  • Location: Düsseldorf, Germany

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 8:58 am

Christian Kane Black wrote:there's no way I will let someone, who ever it is to disrespect me or to judge me, even on a forum on internet. So read this very carefully who ever it is from Düssedorf, actually I do prefer to be the british butler than the german kapo.


Dude, you're really hilarious :) but I doubt it's intentional.. as you clearly seem to have some severe personal issues effecting your ability for social interaction.
Perhaps you should recheck who started the personal attacks in this thread. Or have fun trolling..
Offline

metaljesus

  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 3:42 pm

I stopped reading this thread after Christian's response to the night scenes in OneRiver Media's 5D MK III comparison was:

Christian Kane Black wrote:Hence, it seems that the B.C.C. cannot handle very well low light situation actually.


No interest in that kind of conversation. Though I did just think I'd check back and see if anything interesting had happened in 6 pages. Turns out it is an entertaining read. :)
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 5:39 pm

Darryl Gregory wrote:[...]it costs $13,999.00 on sale now, that would be $10,999.00 more than the BMCC,[...]As for the scarlet I wouldn't waste my money on it, even If i could afford one,[...]

You don't have to buy a Canon C300, you can rent it.

Randy Walters wrote:[...]Google doesn't return anyone by that name. Period.

Try "Bing" instead.
By the way talking about research on Google : http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/09/20/developer-randy-walters-pleads-guilty-of-bank-fraud-faces-roughly-two-years-in-federal-prison

Randy Walters wrote:[...]lacking social skills, and entertaining himself by trolling various forums.[...]

Speak for yourself.

Soeren Mueller wrote:[...]Or have fun trolling..

Having fun too accusing me of trolling, who ever it is from Düssedorf.

metaljesus wrote:[...]A GH3 is almost certainly going to produce 'useable' images in some situations where the BMCC cannot,[...]

Sure. This is what I'm talking about actually.
--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline
User avatar

Trevor Zuck

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:37 pm
  • Location: the 515

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:06 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:
Randy Walters wrote:[...]Google doesn't return anyone by that name. Period.

Try "Bing" instead.
By the way talking about research on Google : http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/09/20/developer-randy-walters-pleads-guilty-of-bank-fraud-faces-roughly-two-years-in-federal-prison


dude that's not the same Randy Walters... I live in Des Moines, I know who that article is about.
- TZ

Visual FX and Post Production Artist
Screenscape Studios
Offline
User avatar

Randy Walters

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:28 am
  • Location: Bristol, RI USA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:16 pm

No "Christian Kane Black" on Bing either... did you really think no one would check?
Offline

bhook

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:19 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:19 pm

Randy Walters wrote:No "Christian Kane Black" on Bing either... did you really think no one would check?


That's the first thing I did...still looking for a reason to believe.
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:20 pm

John Brawley wrote:Maybe we can stop with personal attacks...
[...]
It seems you want to say...
The BMCC should be rated at ISO 200
The BMCC isn't good for low light
RAW isn't a very good workflow because of the onerous costs and most professionals choose to shoot ProRes.

Have I go that correct ? You endlessly post links to other forums and blogs without really making a point. For example, your link to Ryan Walters test is a good example. You seem to think it shows the BMCC in a poor light while I think it shows the opposite.

What is it you're trying to say, spell it out. What do YOU think ?

jb

To be honest, a lot of people expect having a "Penelope Delta" for $2990 !
And those people think that Apple ProRes and Avid DNxHD are absolutely useless since there is the Adobe CinemaDNG RAW format.

Ryan Walters gives a very good background about understanding the issues when filming in low light conditions. And he has a very positive opinion about the B.C.C. indeed.
But I think you will also understand when he says for example :
"[...]- I also have a hunch that the camera does not have an OLPF.[...]"
"[...]- Some kind of diffusion is needed when filming talent to make the image more pleasing and forgiving."
"- The "overly sharp" images may also be contribute to a "video" look if not addressed.[...]"
(from "Some Like It RAW. Part 02: Low Light")
http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blog.php?id=9049127231958145004
--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:36 pm

mhood wrote:
Randy Walters wrote:No "Christian Kane Black" on Bing either... did you really think no one would check?


That's the first thing I did...still looking for a reason to believe.

Don't imitate who ever it is behind the name of "Ryan Walters" !
And be careful because stalking can be considered as a third degree felony.
But still, you can make a last try at IMDb.
--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:38 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:
mhood wrote:
Randy Walters wrote:No "Christian Kane Black" on Bing either... did you really think no one would check?


That's the first thing I did...still looking for a reason to believe.

Don't imitate who ever it is behind the name of "Ryan Walters" !
And be careful because stalking can be considered as a third degree felony.
But still, you can make a last try at IMDb.



haha! Searching for someone via google/bing = Stalking
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline

bhook

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:19 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 6:39 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:
mhood wrote:
Randy Walters wrote:No "Christian Kane Black" on Bing either... did you really think no one would check?


That's the first thing I did...still looking for a reason to believe.

Don't imitate who ever it is behind the name of "Ryan Walters" !
And be careful because stalking can be considered as a third degree felony.
But still, you can make a last try at IMDb.


"Stalking"? LOL!

I don't care that much...but when you suggest your name can be found on Bing and I have some spare time, I'll give it a look. Got a direct URL to your bio so we can skip all the nonsense?
Offline
User avatar

Randy Walters

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:28 am
  • Location: Bristol, RI USA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 7:04 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:Don't imitate who ever it is behind the name of "Ryan Walters" !


um... I believe in this case, you meant "Randy Walters."

I know; in all this excitement and prevarication, it's hard to keep track. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave" and all that. Still, we want to be sure the right person gets charged with those felonies now, don't we?

And you're a lawyer, too? My, my, my. A veritable renaissance man. You'd think your name would have shown up somewhere on the planet, other than this site. Lucky us!
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 7:52 pm

mhood wrote:[...]
"Stalking"? LOL!

I don't care that much...but when you suggest your name can be found on Bing and I have some spare time, I'll give it a look. Got a direct URL to your bio so we can skip all the nonsense?

I never suggested that my name could be found on "Bing", it was 2nd degree, you interpreted this wrong and by the way this is...
OFF TOPIC !
Tom wrote:[...]haha! Searching for someone via google/bing = Stalking

OFF TOPIC !
TZuck wrote:dude that's not the same Randy Walters... I live in Des Moines,[...]

OFF TOPIC !
Randy Walters wrote:"Oh, what a tangled web we weave" and all that. Still, we want to be sure the right person gets charged with those felonies now, don't we?

And you're a lawyer, too? My, my, my. A veritable renaissance man. You'd think your name would have shown up somewhere on the planet, other than this site. Lucky us!


Image

http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6344
--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 8:19 pm

Tamerlin wrote:[...]
Although I have no experience (yet) with cinematic RAW, I suspect that most professionals will end up shooting ProRes, because for most project let's be honest, RAW is going to be overkill.

That said, having the option for when you need it will be very nice, and one project I have coming up will probably benefit quite a bit from RAW, since it's going to involve a lot of landscape photography, and I'll be basically shooting in a style similar to what I shoot with my 4x5. Short of shelling out megabux for a Red Epic with a Dragon sensor or a Sony F65, the closest thing I've ever seen to capturing the same feeling of exquisite detail and living color of a 4x5 sheet of Astia or E100G with motion for less than an Arri Alexa has been the BMCC.

I'm going to be shooting a promo with my loaner BMCC next weekend... it's going to be interesting. I can't wait for mine to arrive though :)

Don't forget to give tips from this shooting experience and some feedback (positive and/or negative).

------



--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2139
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 8:38 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:
Ryan Walters gives a very good background about understanding the issues when filming in low light conditions. And he has a very positive opinion about the B.C.C. indeed.
But I think you will also understand when he says for example :
"[...]- I also have a hunch that the camera does not have an OLPF.[...]"


nothing to understand. This is correct.

Christian Kane Black wrote:"[...]- Some kind of diffusion is needed when filming talent to make the image more pleasing and forgiving."


I always shoot with diffusion on an Epic as well. Lots of people do with even the kindest of formats like film. What is your point ?

You're pointing out one bloggers *subjective* opinion about the sharpness of the bmcc camera. And you didn't address the topic of the thread, which I asked you about.

There is no other camera for any cost that gives you uncompressed DNG, ProRes and DNx in the one internally recording camera period. You can choose to shoot any codec on the same disk. How is this a bad thing ?

You have an issue with DNG for some reason, but if you have all three to shoot, then why is it an issue that you care about ?

If the camera is terrible in low light then those that need that area of performance will shoot something else.

Delta is also performing worse than a BMCC in low light and at a measurable level, but you can still use it. I've got some nice DNGs shot at dusk from it. And it's barely even shipping. I think they've built 5 so far.

The sad news for Aaton is that very few are going to be prepared to pay their premium price for a global shutter s35 optical VF DNG camera. As good as it is, not many will be prepared to pay for it.

I'm genuinely trying to understand the point of your posts. I can give you as many reasons not to shoot on the BMCC if you like, just like I can for an Alexa, Delta and a C300.

I can also say that the low light performance of this camera for the style of shooting I do is very useable. It's not as good as others out there but I think everyone knows that now.

the camera performs better when You ETTR but that doesn't change what the native ISO of the camera is. That changes with how you choose to expose the camera.

You know that Epic / Scarlet is 320 right ? But everyone shoots at 800 on that camera to protect the highlights. You don't do that with the BMCC because it has so much more highlight range. Every camera is different. Its not that hard to understand is it ?


JB.
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Christian

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:02 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 9:41 pm

John Brawley wrote:
Christian Kane Black wrote:
Ryan Walters gives a very good background about understanding the issues when filming in low light conditions. And he has a very positive opinion about the B.C.C. indeed.
But I think you will also understand when he says for example :
"[...]- I also have a hunch that the camera does not have an OLPF.[...]"


nothing to understand. This is correct.
[...]

When I wrote understand I meant agree.
John Brawley wrote:[...]There is no other camera for any cost that gives you uncompressed DNG, ProRes and DNx in the one internally recording camera period. You can choose to shoot any codec on the same disk. How is this a bad thing ?[...]

A lot of people refer to RAW as the only way of shooting.
Personally, I don't want to shoot RAW only, I want also to be able to use ProRes as well (with FCP) in good conditions.

John Brawley wrote:[...]You have an issue with DNG for some reason[...]

That's true.
And if I have to use RAW, I would prefer to use Cineform rather than Adobe.

Beside, a lot of professionals out there will stick with ProRes, and will have to deal with shooting in low light conditions for sure.

Since Blackmagicdesign is emerging from shipping, sensor and flange depth issues,
maybe it was not the right time to introduce such a delicate subject.
--------------------------
- Christian Kane Black
Offline
User avatar

Tom

  • Posts: 1626
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:08 am
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Low Light Performance

PostSun Mar 24, 2013 10:21 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:
John Brawley wrote:[...]You have an issue with DNG for some reason[...]

That's true.
And if I have to use RAW, I would prefer to use Cineform rather than Adobe.
.



Strictly speaking, although very very good, Cineform RAW is not true raw, because it uses lossy compression.

Cinema DNG is bit for bit exactly what you get from the sensor so slightly better.

I have found a great workflow is Cinema DNG (acquisition) > cineform RAW (DI) > Delivery format.
Tom Majerski
http://tetragrade.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5157752/
Offline
User avatar

Frank Glencairn

  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:07 am
  • Location: Germany

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 12:56 am

Christian Kane Black wrote:Beside, a lot of professionals out there will stick with ProRes, and will have to deal with shooting in low light conditions for sure.


LOL, who cares what "a lot of professionals" out there gonna do? (I take it, you made a proper survey with "a lot of professionals", so you are qualified to make this statement - no?)

Anyway.

While you keep telling us (for some strange reason) why you don't like the BMC and what is not possible, I'm bussy shooting in low light and without OPLF in raw, and get the most excellent results, that all my clients are crazy about. Just wrapped an other commercial for a big Munich newspaper today. The agency and the client completely fell in love with the images.
http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

I told you so :-)
Offline
User avatar

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

  • Posts: 2286
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 6:17 am

I never thought I'd use this forum's "foe" feature (in the User Control Panel), but with great reluctance, I have now. Aaack.



-
http://www.peterdv.com
Offline

Darryl Gregory

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:49 am
  • Location: LA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 6:30 am

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:I never thought I'd use this forum's "foe" feature (in the User Control Panel), but with great reluctance, I have now. Aaack.



-

No worries Peter, in as many posts I have ranted on, I finally had to use the "Foe" feature, But my worry is how many members used it on me :lol:

I'm trading my Ego in for a newer model, I didn't like how the old one handled the road, I need to maneuver the road better these days, and accept the fact "I don't know" as much as I think I do :mrgreen:

I think we all need to leave our ego's at the door, We should relish the fact BMD has opened this forum up for us to come together and discuss their products openly and honestly.
Offline

Soeren Mueller

  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:21 pm
  • Location: Düsseldorf, Germany

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 9:53 am

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:I never thought I'd use this forum's "foe" feature (in the User Control Panel), but with great reluctance, I have now. Aaack.


I'm right there with you Peter.. didn't think I'd ever need it but I guess this time it's inevitable :(
Offline

Dennis Nomer

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 10:30 am

I have a few comments on some of the comparison references. I really appreciate the detailed work of Ryan E Walters in comparing the BMCC against a couple of very high end cameras, including a fairly solid low light comparison, in which the BMCC came out stellar against these very high end cameras. That matches with my personal experience with my BMCC. I have shot a fair amount of low light stuff, and I really like the noise of the BMCC. Ryan made the comment that you have to boost the saturation of the BMCC when using RAW (as with the Alexa, actually also), but that is no problem. You just boost it. By contrast, I found the 522 Productions comparison to be thoroughly flawed in a few respects. In the comparison, no attempt was made to match the grades. This is inexcusable. Any fool can make one camera look better than another by messing with the grade. They also glossed a key strength of the BMCC by stating that when shooting toward a window 'they all performed really well,' yet in looking at their footage, the BMCC thoroughly beat the F5 in that respect. He prefers the F5 menu system because he is used to it. That has no bearing on others. He did comment at the end that in post the BMCC clearly beat the other two cameras, but that was not the presenter's area of expertise, so it was just mentioned.

Ryan E Walters mentioned that the BMCC is pretty sharp, and in many cases you will want to reduce that sharpness. That, to me, is a very nice problem to have. It is totally easy to reduce sharpness (sharpness based on actual light, not 'artificially sharpened' sharpness) in post. People spend big dollars to buy glass and focus pullers that can deliver a sharp, clean image, but the reverse is not true. If you start out blurry, you cannot sharpen in post without creating artifacts. Others have commented that the nice sharp image of the BMCC can be combined with lower cost lenses to produce nice images, which is a great advantage, in my view.

And Darryl, fear not! I have seen you get agitated by someone on occasion, but you have made quite a few significant contributions to this forum in a few areas, and I for one look forward to your posts. Keep up the good stuff!
Dennis Nomer
Offline

Soeren Mueller

  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:21 pm
  • Location: Düsseldorf, Germany

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 11:14 am

DNomer wrote:Ryan E Walters mentioned that the BMCC is pretty sharp, and in many cases you will want to reduce that sharpness. That, to me, is a very nice problem to have. It is totally easy to reduce sharpness (sharpness based on actual light, not 'artificially sharpened' sharpness) in post. People spend big dollars to buy glass and focus pullers that can deliver a sharp, clean image, but the reverse is not true. If you start out blurry, you cannot sharpen in post without creating artifacts. Others have commented that the nice sharp image of the BMCC can be combined with lower cost lenses to produce nice images, which is a great advantage, in my view.


Absolutely there with you!
I personally think that the importance of this can't be stretched enough. Especially if you ever tried shooting "professionally" with any DSLR it's just such a nice difference.
It's always possible to soften pictures - but artificial sharpening never works if the resolution isn't there to begin with! It's not so much about sharpness but mainly just details. For example if I scale down a full frame captured from the BMCC and one from a 5D to something like 720p - even then the BMCCs image resolves a bunch more details.

I'm really quite pleasantly surprised by the BMCCs image. I worked with several RED cameras in the past and even with the Epic I encountered a number of shots from time to time where the "real" resolution, at least to my eyes, wasn't exactly the stated 4 or 5k. Downscaled to 2K/FullHD everything was fine of course. But especially very bright areas and perhaps also because of REDs compression there were sometimes quite "muddy" spots in some image areas.
To be honest the last job I did with an Epic where it had to handle a bunch of slightly blown out highlights/reflections... I was really unhappy with how the system/sensor handled the situation. It just didn't have a real smooth/nice "rolloff"... of course this is "big-time whining" ;) .. but seeing what's possible nowadays with a sensor like the BMCC uses... this can really be improved. (but perhaps they will do just that with the "Dragon")
Offline
User avatar

Randy Walters

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:28 am
  • Location: Bristol, RI USA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 1:06 pm

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:I never thought I'd use this forum's "foe" feature (in the User Control Panel), but with great reluctance, I have now. Aaack.
-


Thanks for mentioning the “foes" list... wish I'd remembered it sooner myself.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2139
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 1:12 pm

Christian Kane Black wrote:

When I wrote understand I meant agree.



But it's never been in dispute !

Christian Kane Black wrote:
John Brawley wrote:[...]You have an issue with DNG for some reason[...]

That's true.
And if I have to use RAW, I would prefer to use Cineform rather than Adobe.



You can convert your DNG's to cineform if you wish. You seem to think DNG's cause "banding" whereas Cineform won't on the same file ?

Christian Kane Black wrote:Beside, a lot of professionals out there will stick with ProRes, and will have to deal with shooting in low light conditions for sure.



Yeah. Most people will probably shoot ProRes. I'm shooting an nationally broadcast episodic TV drama series right now in ProRes and with plenty of low light. I just graded the fifth episode tonight. The entire opening sequence of the episode is all shot BMC in low light and ProRes. It looks awesome. We shot a lot of EPIC and BMCC in the opening and in the edit, they chose 100% BMCC for the way it *felt*. The producers just complimented me on the scene (without knowing how it was shot on set and not EPIC). The previous series I shot was EPIC and DNG.

So make sure you avoid using ProRes and lowlight, cause it doesn't work.


Christian Kane Black wrote:
Since Blackmagicdesign is emerging from shipping, sensor and flange depth issues,
maybe it was not the right time to introduce such a delicate subject.


What's delicate ? That's your interpretation really. You don't think the camera is good in low light. You don't think DNG is a good workflow because it introduces banding.

I just gave you several examples as an end user of the camera that don't really line up with your opinion.

Your opinion is formed, not from direct actual use or experience, but from looking at other users opinions and drawing conclusions from that (which are also different to even the users you link to)

You should expect debate when you post an opinion that flies directly in the face of several users actual experience, on a forum that is hosted by the company that sells the camera, especially when you don't have any actual personal experience shooting with the camera yourself, nor are you prepared to out yourself as to your actual identity. Are you really surprised ? It's not being *sensitive*.

You're just being called upon to prove those that have used the camera wrong.....

jb
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Christine Peterson

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:00 pm
  • Location: Boston, MA

Re: Low Light Performance

PostMon Mar 25, 2013 2:09 pm

Locking this thread. Everyone, please remember to be respectful of each other.
Christine Peterson

(Previously Community Relations Manager for Blackmagic Design)
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jerrygladh, Note Suwanchote, Rakesh Malik, Steve Holmlund and 33 guests