Sigma 18-35 doesn't seem sharp on Ursa Mini Pro

I bought a Sigma 18-35 last year for my Ursa Mini Pro and haven't been happy with the sharpness results (of course this is just from me eyeballing footage) By Sharp I mean I'm not able to see detail on things like faces that I would normally be able to see if I used a full frame lens on my Ursa Mini Pro

Does anybody have any suggestions of why it is not looking sharp?

I've heard of the Sigma Dock, but I was always under the impression that it only helps with auto focusing, could it also work with fixing potential sharpness issues?

Please don't supply any footage which would make it easier to examin your problem and don't mention any settings you have used on the images which don't seem sharp - we all love to make wild guesses about what's going on...

No, seriously Matt - we need more information from you to be able to help.

I would get a focus target, like this (https://www.amazon.com/DSLRKIT-Focus-Calibration-Alignment-Folding/dp/B00SO6IQ5S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1531869965&sr=8-4&keywords=focus+target) for a few bucks that verifies focus. It also gives you some sharp edges to check sharpness.

Before I switched mirrorless, I just needed to use the dock for setting focus adjustments at different zooms, because of PDAF as opposed to on sensor focus in non-DLSRs. I believe you are correct in not seeing how this would affect sharpness.

Hi Robert, my apologies I've been in a bit of a rush today forgot to include additional info.


its in the middle of wedding season for me, so I haven't had any chance to make any strictly test videos. I'm only going by footage that i've shot Raw at weddings in the past year.

I generally shoot F1.8 - 2.8 depending on the lighting with the Sigma, ISO 800 most times.

Here's a link to two highlight videos I made. Both videos were shot with UMP up until the reception.

I guess my main question is weather the Sigma Dock handles general Sharpness issues, or is it just to fix AF sharpness issues?

The dock won't help, it is only for updating the lens firmware and adjusting auto focus.

So, when you say that is sample footage you shot raw - I guess you don't mean you have shot in RAW CinemaDNG, but this is just uncorrected ProRes footage?

Did you shoot in film log gamma or video gamma? To me it looks like video gamma - am I right?
Did you use a long shutter during the shots inside in low light?

The available light is also very flat and does not help seeing more facial details - that is always a problem in those kind of shooting conditions.

Both Clips where shot in Cinema DNG and Film Gamma and have been color graded in Resolve using a Rec2020 monitor. (I imagine grading the footage for a Rec2020 color space would then make it look more flatter color wise on a Rec709 color space monitor, but I guess that's another question)



The Getting Ready - till outside shots were shot using a 180 degrees shutter.

I've come from using a A7sii with the In camera stabilization, so I wonder if I should use a shorter shutter speed or angle when using the UMP if lighting allows.

I see.
I'd say to me sharpness looks like what you could expect under those type of shooting conditions. And your grading appears quite flat, so that does not help either.

Thanks for getting back to me Robert.

Could you give me a little more of an explanation as far as shooting conditions. Also any advice camera and lens wise in order to maximize sharpness. I'm not sure what f-stop the sigma's "sweet spot" is.


Also, just out of curiosity, what color space were you viewing the video clips I posted in, Rec709 or Rec2020?

I'm wondering if I should continue grading in Rec2020, since most of my client's monitors or TVs only use Rec709.

Im using a Eizo, which has Rec709 and Rec2020 color spaces. I usually edit for how I want it to look in Rec2020, but then when I switch it to Rec709 I notice how washed out it looks.

The Sigma is already very sharp at f1.8 and super sharp at f2.8.
Again, your problem is not the lens. It is the flat low lighting you have in those locations. You need lighting contrast for getting details in faces. Imagine a wooden surface lit by a very soft light source from above. It will look very flat, with little details. Now light it from the side so you get shadows and highlights around all the little uneven parts of the surface - and suddenly it has much more contrast and you can see more details.

I've watched your clips on an iPad Pro in rec709.
You really should do your grading for rec709 as probably none of your clients will have rec2020 anytime soon.

For an example of my Sigma 18-35 on an UM46k you can watch our short film, which was almost entirely shot with that lens. Recorded in ProRes HQ, all shots are lit. Make sure to switch the player to 4k.

Tanks for the reply, I guess I was just worried that I received some kind of Bum copy of the Lens and wanted to rule out any issues I might be causing.

Also I just remembered, I tend to shoot on the UHD 3840 x 2160 setting on the UMP. Will not using the full sensor cause less detail to be captured?

Tanks for the reply, I guess I was just worried that I received some kind of Bum copy of the Lens and wanted to rule out any issues I might be causing.

Also I just remembered, I tend to shoot on the UHD 3840 x 2160 setting on the UMP. Will not using the full sensor cause less detail to be captured?

If you shoot RAW then UHD 3840x2160 is cropped into the sensor, so it might be a little less detail then possible, yes. But it won't show in the final HD version.

However, a face centered on the sensor, either full gate (4.6) or UHD crop is going to be the same number of pixels and thus, will be the same resolution on the face area.
Cheers

Robert's probably right. I use a Sigma 18-35 quite a bit, and it's plenty sharp until its diffraction limit at around f/8. The best way to determine whether or not you have a bum unit is to test shoot a focus chart r a newspaper or magazine and look at the text.

Odds are though that your lighting and grading have more to do with it. If you shoot in flat lighting, then everything tends to look soft.

It looks like some of the shots are underexposed, and you're lifting them up in the grade creating more noise. That doesn't compress well on youtube.

Also maybe you slightly missed focus on some of the dancing shots and therefore almost nothing in the frame is in focus due to where everyone is placed in the shot.

Ursa Mini Pro produces the best image under $10K (imo) but it's not an ideal wedding camera. Maybe in these scenarios a different camera would be optimal because the focus is off when they process down the aisle, and some of the scenarios you're putting the camera in look very dark and not ideal for a camera that uses EI at 800 iso.

I think the new Pocket 4K is going to be a great little wedding coverage camera. If you need continuous AF, consider the GH5S, with the Panny Leica 12-60 Zoom, or the Oly 12-50f/2.8 Zoom, which have IS in the lens, on either camera should do the trick. I prefer the PL 12-60, as it was designed for video work, with its parfocal design and stepless, smooth iris for auto iris changes. Both cameras, using the same dual ISO sensor, are low light situation winners.

Cheers

Someone earlier also had problems with his Sigma 18-35 not being parfocal. The lens is not technically par-focal but extremely close, but his mount needed to be shimmed and then lens had problems with focusing.

If you are using the EF version, then you need the lens dock to correct focus issues, once lens mount is correctly shimmed to it correct FFD.
Cheers

I have found in the past that recalibrating with the dock has helped with sharpness issues on my 18-35 ursa mini combo. Can’t say if there’s any science to that though, I find the blackmagic cameras I’ve owned to be a tad temperamental

The Sigma 18-35 Nikon version also had focusing issues on a Nikon D body, so not just BM. Sigma came up with the dock to allow focus adjustments as well as update firmware. I think the dock is actually adjusting the lens back focus via its focus motor, with micro adjustments to it, or has a magnetic back focus adjustment like a few B4 ENG lenses do for “auto-electronic” back focus adjustments via the camera.
Cheers

I have this lense, EF mount. Great sharpness. Actually I was impressed how sharp it is when i first tried it.

Robert is right in every aspect. Not sure why you'd be grading on a 2020 monitor though.

Fix the grade, prob add some sharpening to taste and be a little easier to see if you would give us some footage where the camera is constantly panning, tilting and racking focus with the lens. From what I saw from 45 sec or so of scrubbing, looks like focus was missed and or creeping so almost impossible to tell anything. I did see a cufflink shot for half a sec that looked fine but again, hard to tell because it was a rack as well.

Shoot a portait of someone not moving and post it. Sure the lens is fine. Sigma has very good QC but of course, every company does produce demos from time to time.

Hi guys thanks for all the posts and advice.

Grading with Rec2020 for clients who overwhelmingly have a Rec709 display was definitely one of those “duh” mistakes that makes sense after you realize. Also I’ve just started grading in Resolve so I didn’t realize that the time line and other color spaces were all set to Rec709 as well.


The flat lighting is definitely a good point The way I shoot weddings is more documentary, but there are ways I can add in better lighting into some of the shots with more by the window shots with some natural lights and some side lighting for details and some reception shots.

I’ll also be buying a chart in order to test softness on the 18-35 I have.

I’ve came from shooting with a Sony A7sii and I’ve noticed on a lot of my pans and tilts that the footage does look less sharp on the UMP then when I used to do them on the Sony. Is this due to the lack of image stabilization on the Ursa or a error on my part. I’ve been shooting 24 frames a second and a 180 degree shutter. Should I try to lower shutter and increase the frame rate to get smoother results?


For sharpening what do you guys recommend a good value for sharpening using the raw controls on Resolve?

Hi guys thanks for all the posts and advice.

Grading with Rec2020 for clients who overwhelmingly have a Rec709 display was definitely one of those “duh” mistakes that makes sense after you realize. Also I’ve just started grading in Resolve so I didn’t realize that the time line and other color spaces were all set to Rec709 as well.


The flat lighting is definitely a good point The way I shoot weddings is more documentary, but there are ways I can add in better lighting into some of the shots with more by the window shots with some natural lights and some side lighting for details and some reception shots.

I’ll also be buying a chart in order to test softness on the 18-35 I have.

I’ve came from shooting with a Sony A7sii and I’ve noticed on a lot of my pans and tilts that the footage does look less sharp on the UMP then when I used to do them on the Sony. Is this due to the lack of image stabilization on the Ursa or a error on my part. I’ve been shooting 24 frames a second and a 180 degree shutter. Should I try to lower shutter and increase the frame rate to get smoother results?


For sharpening what do you guys recommend a good value for sharpening using the raw controls on Resolve?

Fast answer, I'm sure the internal sharpening was cranked up on the Sony. It always is while the UMP might even have it off...which it should be. Easier to sharpen footage when you have the color depth than try to fix overly sharpened stuff. I don't think I've ever shot with it on actually. Wish it was a knob or button so I could destroy it to ever prevent internal sharpening from getting turned on!

I always turn off artificial sharpening in any video capable stills camera I've ever used. Much better to add it in post, if needed at all.

Such in-camera sharpening is like adding salt to a soup: you can always add some, but can't ever take it out…

Is there a reason you switched to Ursa Mini Pro from the A7sii for weddings? Weddings are the thing that probably the Ursa Mini Pro is not so great at. Prores is data-hungry when you want to shoot long ceremonies, 800iso was clearly limited given some of your example footage, no phase detect autofocus or ibis, and I see nothing from those example shots that wouldn't look equally good or better on Sony a7s.

Also are you using the Ursa Mini Pro or the Ursa Mini 4K? I see rolling shutter artifacts when some of the flashes are going off, but that highlight rolloff and dynamic range looks like that of the 4K model. What ISO are you shooting, and how are you grading the footage?

Hi Everybody, thanks for the replies.

Going back to what Denny said, I am actually very interested in the New Pocket 4K coming out in September hopefully. Right now I use the A7Sii as a reception camera, but I would love to use the Pocket 4K as my B Cam & Reception camera.


Before the switch to the UMP, I've used DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras for Weddings for years. I switched to the UMP to try to stay ahead of the trend and try to improve my capabilities at weddings. I'm in the NYC-Lower New York Market and things can get competitive, there are some people I've seen bring Reds and Arris to just shoot a wedding video.

Also, I've been using the UMP's Flip LCD monitor as the sole viewer. Does anybody do this or is it always better to have a better Viewscreen or a Viewfinder like the one Blackmagic makes. I have a Shogun inferno that I'm thinking of attaching to the UMP as a main Viewfinder.

The footage is shot Raw, but 800 is used in camera and I keep it at 800 for editing on Davinchi Resolve (still new at it coming from Premiere for a number of years)

800 is the native ISO I've heard and produces the best Dynamic Range. For situations where there isn't a extreme range in light (Bright sunny outdoors) I'm going to try taking the ISO down to 400 or 200, hoping it will reduce noise and increase detail.


Here's a video that I recently edited while in a Rec709 color profile.



<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/280822933" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Really need to slow down the pans/tilts man. It's really hard to watch to tell the truth. Also need to nail that focus. Way too many shots are blown usually.

Lens looks fine.

The Blackmagic camera does not use gain like other cameras, so instead you can think of 800 as the cameras Exposure Index. The camera really does not have any other ISO settings, and really those ohter ones are almost the same thing as if you push the color correction in post. You can get the same thing with non-raw clips if you go in and use a Color Space transform node to convert the image to xyz linear and use a serial node with gain adjustments before converting back.

You don't necessarily get "more" dynamic range at a certain ISO, but visually, changing the ISO sometimes gives you the opposite effect of what you want, hence why dynamic range appears to be less. It would be more ideal if you got shadow dynamic range when you RAISE the ISO and HIGHLIGHT dynamic range when you lower the ISO since that's what you need when shooting in those conditions, but the opposite happens. So whether or not, you want to change the distribution of DR decides whether you should change the ISO.

If you're using the Blackmagic Rec 709 lut, that's designed for broadcast and does not give you the full dynamic range of the sensor. Some of your highlights look blown, and if you're grading using the standard LUT, you'll probably get worse results than using other cameras and their default color profiles.

I don't still think that for the wedding market, there's any huge advantages the Ursa Mini Pro has over competitor cameras that offer more convenience.

The Blackmagic camera does not use gain like other cameras, so instead you can think of 800 as the cameras Exposure Index. The camera really does not have any other ISO settings, and really those ohter ones are almost the same thing as if you push the color correction in post. You can get the same thing with non-raw clips if you go in and use a Color Space transform node to convert the image to xyz linear and use a serial node with gain adjustments before converting back.

You don't necessarily get "more" dynamic range at a certain ISO, but visually, changing the ISO sometimes gives you the opposite effect of what you want, hence why dynamic range appears to be less. It would be more ideal if you got shadow dynamic range when you RAISE the ISO and HIGHLIGHT dynamic range when you lower the ISO since that's what you need when shooting in those conditions, but the opposite happens. So whether or not, you want to change the distribution of DR decides whether you should change the ISO.

If you're using the Blackmagic Rec 709 lut, that's designed for broadcast and does not give you the full dynamic range of the sensor. Some of your highlights look blown, and if you're grading using the standard LUT, you'll probably get worse results than using other cameras and their default color profiles.

I don't still think that for the wedding market, there's any huge advantages the Ursa Mini Pro has over competitor cameras that offer more convenience.

Thanks Savannah, When shooting Raw I use the "Film Log" option when shooting, not the Video option, not sure if thats what your referring to.

I typically don't use Luts while grading in Resolve (Besides the Film log thats applied in Raw settings) But tweak the Raw options till I get the basic grade then add other things like some slight orange/teal and skin tone stuff on other nodes depending on the clip

That's interesting about how raising the ISO doesn't help shadow dynamic range and visa verse, didn't realize the opposite happened, but that's the good thing with raw I can change the ISO Setting. Good tip, thanks for mentioning!

The title of this post suggests that your lens is sharp on other cameras. Is that the case?. I had an 18-35 that was not parfocal when using a cheap Nikon to MFT adapter so I went to some trouble rebuilding the adapter to reset the back focus distance to achieve parfocality. I used an autocollimator to check my progress.

The Blackmagic camera does not use gain like other cameras, so instead you can think of 800 as the cameras Exposure Index. The camera really does not have any other ISO settings, and really those ohter ones are almost the same thing as if you push the color correction in post. You can get the same thing with non-raw clips if you go in and use a Color Space transform node to convert the image to xyz linear and use a serial node with gain adjustments before converting back.

You don't necessarily get "more" dynamic range at a certain ISO, but visually, changing the ISO sometimes gives you the opposite effect of what you want, hence why dynamic range appears to be less. It would be more ideal if you got shadow dynamic range when you RAISE the ISO and HIGHLIGHT dynamic range when you lower the ISO since that's what you need when shooting in those conditions, but the opposite happens. So whether or not, you want to change the distribution of DR decides whether you should change the ISO.

If you're using the Blackmagic Rec 709 lut, that's designed for broadcast and does not give you the full dynamic range of the sensor. Some of your highlights look blown, and if you're grading using the standard LUT, you'll probably get worse results than using other cameras and their default color profiles.

I don't still think that for the wedding market, there's any huge advantages the Ursa Mini Pro has over competitor cameras that offer more convenience.

Thanks Savannah, When shooting Raw I use the "Film Log" option when shooting, not the Video option, not sure if thats what your referring to.

I typically don't use Luts while grading in Resolve (Besides the Film log thats applied in Raw settings) But tweak the Raw options till I get the basic grade then add other things like some slight orange/teal and skin tone stuff on other nodes depending on the clip

That's interesting about how raising the ISO doesn't help shadow dynamic range and visa verse, didn't realize the opposite happened, but that's the good thing with raw I can change the ISO Setting. Good tip, thanks for mentioning!

In RAW you can change ISO, but it's really only useful if you expose for a certain ISO. The easiest way to describe it, is the camera is ALWAYS at 800 ISO no matter what. The other ISO settings are fake. Just like when a camera has some sort of extended ISO range in the firmware, this is exactly the same thing. It's not real ISO. Instead, it's basically a color correction that is applied to linear sensor data to gain the recorded sensor values. That's why converting Prores film into xyz linear gives you approximately the same result. Because when you gain linear sensor values, you can properly change exposure in the mathematically correct way without bias from the film gamut.

So by exposing for 1600 ISO, it's basically the same thing as a 1 stop underexposed image that's lifted one stop in post, hence why you get 1 extra stop of range in the highlights. An underexposed image gives you more highlight protection. Likewise, a 400 ISO image is the same as overexposing to the right by 1 stop and then grading it back down, hence why you get more shadow detail.

What I was saying, is something about your highlight dynamic range is suspect. It's clipping way to heavily which is suggesting you were doing something in resolve to cause the clipping. If you interpret the RAW files as REC 709 in resolve, then that could be the issue. That color transformation has a very limited dynamic range and is only intended to match the Rec 709 standards for broadcast. Also the BMD 4.6K film curve has extra dynamic range stored in the superwhite areas because otherwise, the film curve would be much flatter due to the high amount of dynamic range the camera has. Certain nodes and corrections will clip this data if you're not careful.

The Blackmagic camera does not use gain like other cameras, so instead you can think of 800 as the cameras Exposure Index. The camera really does not have any other ISO settings, and really those ohter ones are almost the same thing as if you push the color correction in post. You can get the same thing with non-raw clips if you go in and use a Color Space transform node to convert the image to xyz linear and use a serial node with gain adjustments before converting back.

You don't necessarily get "more" dynamic range at a certain ISO, but visually, changing the ISO sometimes gives you the opposite effect of what you want, hence why dynamic range appears to be less. It would be more ideal if you got shadow dynamic range when you RAISE the ISO and HIGHLIGHT dynamic range when you lower the ISO since that's what you need when shooting in those conditions, but the opposite happens. So whether or not, you want to change the distribution of DR decides whether you should change the ISO.

If you're using the Blackmagic Rec 709 lut, that's designed for broadcast and does not give you the full dynamic range of the sensor. Some of your highlights look blown, and if you're grading using the standard LUT, you'll probably get worse results than using other cameras and their default color profiles.

I don't still think that for the wedding market, there's any huge advantages the Ursa Mini Pro has over competitor cameras that offer more convenience.

Thanks Savannah, When shooting Raw I use the "Film Log" option when shooting, not the Video option, not sure if thats what your referring to.

I typically don't use Luts while grading in Resolve (Besides the Film log thats applied in Raw settings) But tweak the Raw options till I get the basic grade then add other things like some slight orange/teal and skin tone stuff on other nodes depending on the clip

That's interesting about how raising the ISO doesn't help shadow dynamic range and visa verse, didn't realize the opposite happened, but that's the good thing with raw I can change the ISO Setting. Good tip, thanks for mentioning!

In RAW you can change ISO, but it's really only useful if you expose for a certain ISO. The easiest way to describe it, is the camera is ALWAYS at 800 ISO no matter what. The other ISO settings are fake. Just like when a camera has some sort of extended ISO range in the firmware, this is exactly the same thing. It's not real ISO. Instead, it's basically a color correction that is applied to linear sensor data to gain the recorded sensor values. That's why converting Prores film into xyz linear gives you approximately the same result. Because when you gain linear sensor values, you can properly change exposure in the mathematically correct way without bias from the film gamut.

So by exposing for 1600 ISO, it's basically the same thing as a 1 stop underexposed image that's lifted one stop in post, hence why you get 1 extra stop of range in the highlights. An underexposed image gives you more highlight protection. Likewise, a 400 ISO image is the same as overexposing to the right by 1 stop and then grading it back down, hence why you get more shadow detail.

What I was saying, is something about your highlight dynamic range is suspect. It's clipping way to heavily which is suggesting you were doing something in resolve to cause the clipping. If you interpret the RAW files as REC 709 in resolve, then that could be the issue. That color transformation has a very limited dynamic range and is only intended to match the Rec 709 standards for broadcast. Also the BMD 4.6K film curve has extra dynamic range stored in the superwhite areas because otherwise, the film curve would be much flatter due to the high amount of dynamic range the camera has. Certain nodes and corrections will clip this data if you're not careful.

Thanks for getting back to me, the Iso analogy helps a lot!


I just wanted to get a quick clarification on something you said in your last post.

What exactly do you mean by "interpreting the Raw files as Rec709"?

Is this referring to the Timeline, Input, or Output Colorspace for the project being set to Rec709?

Or do you mean setting the color space or gamma to Rec709 in the camera raw settings in resolve?



In the last video I posted, some of the clips were, I now come to realize, were exposed improperly. One of the clips I over exposed and clipped the highlights in the sky, hoping I could recover it in post. Another I added a node to clip some highlights in a shot of the couple and a butterfly.

If the images look a bit soft when the lens is wide open but sharper when stopped down, you most likely have a very common backfocus issue. We use some classic Zeiss primes on S35 via a popular focal reducer with a back focus adjustment. We generally check/tweak the backfocus at each lens change. Essential checks when working in low and available light. IMO, all Pro cameras should have a backfocus adjustment built in, just like the Aja Cion has.

Output should be rec709. I was referring to the intepreting of the color settings in the Raw tab.

An interesting tip from Gareth Debruno Austin in one of his videos is to expose for 400 ISO. That way you can underexpose slightly if you want to protect the highlights a bit, but since you're shooting at 400, you can push up to 1 stop of exposure with no noise consequences. So that way in run/gun scenarios you can just make sure you're not clipping to heavily, and if you accidentally underexpose there's more flexibility to fix it.

Sorry, but that' BS.
Rating a camera with 800 base ISO for 400 ISO is not underexposing, but overexposing. You tell the camera it's less sensitive, so you'll expose higher and loose one stop in the highlights.
Please try to forget any notion coming from analog film, where you really changed the film stock. You don't change your sensor in the camera when changing ISO.

The idea is that rating the camera at 400 loses a stop in the highlights, but it gives you protection against underexposing. If you rate the camera at 800 and underexpose, you'll run into problems. If you expose for 400 you are overexposing, but in the case you underexpose at a 400 rating, you still have room to boost. So it's not entirely BS, because ISO is only 1 part of the exposure triangle, and aperture plays a part too.

You are gaining a stop in the shadows too, so you can't always argue that clipping the highlights by one extra stop is always bad thing.

You could argue you can just set the camera to 800 ISO and overexpose. But who wants to be staring at an overexposed image when they're shooting?

The thing is that with the UMP/UM46k setting the ISO does not change the point of highlights clipping.
Shooting RAW - as long as your highlights are not clipped - you can push your image in post anywhere you like.

As I am most of the time shooting ProRes I prefer to stay at ISO400 in bright conditions and expose accordingly. In lower light conditions or with lots of backlight I shoot in ISO800 and in lowest light conditions I'm using ISO1600 and 360° shutter.
For me this makes it possible to throw a preset mix of several curves I made in Premiere Pro onto my footage and get instantly very good looking results without the usage of LUTS. Then I add a RGB curve on top for tweaking color balance and brightness where necessary.

But even with ProRes footage you could easily jump from on ISO step to another in post without any loss in quality.

ISO doesnt change clipping, but it does change the distribution of the dynamic range relative to middle grey, same as with Red or ARRI and well explained by Art Adams here;
https://www.provideocoalition.com/alexa_iso_settings_the_least_you_need_to_know/

From that article: "While you can place those values where you want them in a color grade, there may be more or less contrast separating those tones from others depending on the ISO you choose. For example, light skin tones might separate nicely from a bright background at ISO 800, where a change of one stop of brightness results in 1/7th the distance from middle gray to maximum white, whereas there will be less contrast between those two tones at ISO 200, where each stop results in steps that encompass 1/5th the distance from middle gray to maximum white."

ISO does not change highlights clipping but it does assuming you adjust your exposure and expose for a particular ISO. If you change your ISO in post, then it does not matter. If you expose for 400 ISO, you're also adjusting other settings in-camera so that your exposure is "correct" so you're going to be overexposing relative to the cameras native 800 ISO.

When shooting raw, I just leave the ISO setting at 800, and I don’t apply any LUT to either the viewfinder (which I almost always use) or the flip out monitor. The reason is, altering ISO for raw shooting to my small brain is really just biasing the exposure histogram. The sensor captures what it captures regardless.

There is a whole lot you can do in post if you make full use of Resolve. Given the range of what the UMP captures, there is ample latitude to manipulate exposure, tweak what is highlighted or in focus, etc. Sometimes it is the subtle post-manipulations that make the resulting product rock.

All that said, good glass ain’t a bad thing. For only[!] 3x the price of a Sigma these days, you can get a solid PL Angineiux or Fujinon that has the optics and build quality to deliver the base image to your sensor.

Exactly, no substitute for a good solid Cine lens, be it a zoom or prime!
Cheers

Hi Guy, thanks for all the advice.


A week or so after I posted this I did a wedding and used a lot of the advice and shot some great footage with the UMP and Sigma 18-35. I attached a Atomos Shogun Monitor the the camera to really nail the focus and used the UMP's monitor to keep an eye on the color temperature. I also bought a Decklink to attach my Eizo monitor to in order to better view and grade the footage in the right

I finally had a chance to edit the footage.

I Found There wasn't any issue with my Sigma's Sharpness, only that I wasn't used to the smaller focus throw.

Here's the edited video I shot:

Some nice shots in there, well done!

If I might offer a couple of little bits of advice that you are more than welcome to ignore, just a few tweaks from my time shooting weddings (footnote, glad to be out of that game!)

A couple of small plant cameras (pockets or dslrs) set up on gorilla pods or small tripods during the ceremony and speeches really help to add some coverage and avoid jump cuts during the ceremony for your highlight reels (and the highlight reels plus a good reference are really what got me my next gig). I found the pocket camera excellent for this. You can even set one up on a magic arm on your main camera and capture a wide to play off your close up or mid. Although thankfully I always employed a second shooter to get reverses of what I got. Typically we’d get about 6-8 hours of footage which gave a lot in the edit. We also used to shoot everything at 50p so we always had a sync shot and a slo mo in one go! But don’t think that’s too achievable at 4.6k raw, most of the people who watch it will be on a phone or at best a dvd.

And this one is a personal preference but remember storytelling in your edit- building anticipation ahead of the key moments (bride in makeup for first time, the dress reveal, bride making her entrance, groom waiting anxiously whilst his groomsman try to settle him with light hearted humour, the couple looking into each other’s eyes, the kiss etc) - arty establishing shots the venue, the decorations, bride out of focus whilst the hair and makeup is done, the dress, the shoes, the bouquet, groomsman handing over gifts, father of the bride arriving ... I could go on there’s so much to capture and document, but having it can help create more of a story. I always tried to ensure that we were recording for 95% of the time we were there. And when I was starting out I used to just watch what the photographer was capturing and follow their lead!

Apologies if that was in any way patronising and you knew it already!

Also, to repeat, glad to be out of that game!

... I always tried to ensure that we were recording for 95% of the time we were there.

Looks like I’ll be recording the wedding next weekend with only one camera, URSA Mini 4.6K. I’ll be on the job for 10 am to 10 pm as usual, but only plan to record about 2 ½ hours raw. My shot list is less than that, but there’s always interesting extras to capture that are unplanned.

I’ve got pretty much everything I need to shoot with the BMPCC4K including a Wise SDXC UHS II 128GB Card ... oops, forgot something, everything except the D-tap to 2-pin cable and the camera!

Hey Gavin, thanks for the advice! I like the idea of having a smaller camera on a Magic arm on the same Tripod, I might try that out with the new Pocket 4K when it comes out!


I usually always have a secondary static or stationary camera set up during the ceremony that's continuously running to get a static wide or close up shot. Unfortunately since this was a private residence wedding it wasn't as organized as one at a venue! The Ceremony started 20 minutes late because the photographers were late with formal photos beforehand. I didn't have time to set up the secondary camera at this wedding. (I would have missed the Boat shots if I did!)

I wasn't able to get a lot of B-roll shots of the residence and detail shots as they ended up skipping cocktail hour and just going right into the first dance 5 minutes after the ceremony. (Without letting me know beforehand)



P.S. This time of the Wedding Season makes me wish I was out of the game!

Hi Rick,

I'm curious as to what lenses you might be bringing to that job with the 4.6K. You have the PL Mount?

Matt, your latest video is so much better.

Suggestion:
Now learn to control the impulse to change the focal length too much for a steadier look and try to tell a story when shooting. This will put your work on a whole further level.
I know how hard it is to suppress this impulse but just keep the focal length even if it is not ideal. Because in the end having a shot with less than ideal focal length is better than a shot with jittery adjustments. It takes time to learn to go with the flow of movements, especially when there are several things going on at the same time.
I learned this during the years I did live camera work.

About story telling Gavin already gave some very good tips.

Hi Rick,

I'm curious as to what lenses you might be bringing to that job with the 4.6K. You have the PL Mount?

Ryan, I shall bring either the three SLR Magic APO T2.1 PL lenses (25, 50, 85mm) or the Fujinon T2.4 HA29x7.8B M10 B4 Cine Zoom. Previously I’ve been using the Fujinon and may stick with it as that’s the easiest and most flexible option when you can’t predict a lot of what you might decide to shoot.

I know the APO will give me a better image but our perspective on what is “better” can be different than the client’s. They may not mind a whole lot of faults as long as you capture the action and mood they’ll remember for the rest of their lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Robert, thanks for the advice!


I’ve been making tentative moves to shooting more with primes as opposed to a a lens like a 24-70

This was shot with a 50 and 85 Rokinon Cine as as well as the sigma 18-35. Coming from from always shooting with a zoom, shooting with primes definitely encourages one to move around to get better angles, as opposed to always zooming. (Though there’s nothing wrong with just using a zoom.)


Unfortunately I wasn’t able to get any cinematic b-roll shots or a good portion of the shots I usually get due to the rushed and atypical scheduling of the day! At one point I had to choose between going back and getting the b-roll shots I normally get and getting shots of them on their boat. I chose boat!