Blackmagic Forum

John Brawley wrote:

Couple of things.

The bmcc sensor is more than 16 bit. The RAW sensor data is encoded into a 16bit LIN file which is then encoded into a 12 bit LOG file before becoming a DNG. You'll notice the DNG file unpacks as a 16 bit file in ACR and Resolve.

Is this also going to be the case with the BMPCC when capturing compressed DNG's.

Andrew Deme wrote:

João Gomes wrote:No doubt the hacked 5D looks very good but... come on... Canon 24-105mm L glass vs Tokina´s...

Yep, excellent quality canon glass on a full frame 5D III, recording at a decent bit depth, resolution and bit rate......it's really not fair hey !

I´m not getting your point... I will explain mine, since you didn´t seem to understand.

I´m also excited with whats going on with ML but to shoot a comparison video with one lens that is clearly inferior is biased. The blue kimono is much sharper on the 5D and completely soft on the BMCC, and if there´s one thing we know about the BMCC is that it´s not soft at all.
The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

João Gomes wrote:The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

THIS^ . This ML baby has barely been out of the womb and people are jumping to conclusions that their dreams have been answered. The "right now" attitude is out of control these days. Things will suss out. I'm sure issues will pop up for both sides of the fence and people will either fix them or work within whatever the limitations are. Making a snap decision this week is pointless.

rockroadpix wrote:

João Gomes wrote:The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

THIS^ . This ML baby has barely been out of the womb and people are jumping to conclusions that their dreams have been answered. The "right now" attitude is out of control these days. Things will suss out. I'm sure issues will pop up for both sides of the fence and people will either fix them or work within whatever the limitations are. Making a snap decision this week is pointless.

I am as happy to make a snap decision to buy a BMPCC as I am to have a crack at the ML code for the Canon.

Can't they both exist and we all feel proud that we are part of a step change in th world of video and for the more gifted, TV and Cinema.

StephenH wrote:John Brawley wrote:

Couple of things.

The bmcc sensor is more than 16 bit. The RAW sensor data is encoded into a 16bit LIN file which is then encoded into a 12 bit LOG file before becoming a DNG. You'll notice the DNG file unpacks as a 16 bit file in ACR and Resolve.

Is this also going to be the case with the BMPCC when capturing compressed DNG's.

I would guess yes. The compression on the pocket is lossless. I don't see that they would change the bit depth.

jb

John Brawley wrote:

would guess yes. The compression on the pocket is lossless. I don't see that they would change the bit depth.

jb

Thanks!

Steve.

João Gomes wrote:I´m not getting your point... I will explain mine, since you didn´t seem to understand.

I´m also excited with whats going on with ML but to shoot a comparison video with one lens that is clearly inferior is biased. The blue kimono is much sharper on the 5D and completely soft on the BMCC, and if there´s one thing we know about the BMCC is that it´s not soft at all.
The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

Ok, you mean it is more fair if we use the Canon 24mm 1.4 on the BMCC and the equivalent Zeiss 85mm 1.4 on the Canon?

The 24-105mm is a nice 700 Euro lens but not extremely exciting, not is it very expensive. On full frame it has unsharpness and CA in the edges, way more than the 2.8 version.

Well, that Tokina is basically the Canon lens translated in the 2,3 crop world, when real world usage is considered.

And when the Canon 24mm 1.4, Zeiss 35mm 1.4 is pulled out on the full frame then you will not even find a lens available for competition..

John Waldorff wrote:

João Gomes wrote:I´m not getting your point... I will explain mine, since you didn´t seem to understand.

I´m also excited with whats going on with ML but to shoot a comparison video with one lens that is clearly inferior is biased. The blue kimono is much sharper on the 5D and completely soft on the BMCC, and if there´s one thing we know about the BMCC is that it´s not soft at all.
The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

Ok, you mean it is more fair if we use the Canon 24mm 1.4 on the BMCC and the equivalent Zeiss 85mm 1.4 on the Canon?

The 24-105mm is a nice 700 Euro lens but not extremely exciting, not is it very expensive. On full frame it has unsharpness and CA in the edges, way more than the 2.8 version.

Well, that Tokina is basically the Canon lens translated in the 2,3 crop world, when real world usage is considered.

And when the Canon 24mm 1.4, Zeiss 35mm 1.4 is pulled out on the full frame then you will not even find a lens available for competition..

You´re missing my point. i´m talking about glass quality not focal length. How about using the same lens brand (zeiss or Canon L) or even the same lens on both and play with distance from subject. All i´m saying is that these lenses (Canon and Tokina) produce very different results in any camera and on any format.
I appreciate the test but it only goes so far as to correctly compare sharpness and detail.

PS: Canon 24-105mm f4 - 857.949€ (taken from B&H)

João Gomes wrote:

John Waldorff wrote:

João Gomes wrote:I´m not getting your point... I will explain mine, since you didn´t seem to understand.

I´m also excited with whats going on with ML but to shoot a comparison video with one lens that is clearly inferior is biased. The blue kimono is much sharper on the 5D and completely soft on the BMCC, and if there´s one thing we know about the BMCC is that it´s not soft at all.
The dynamic range seems interesting but as for sharpness and skin tones, a more rigorous test remains to be seen.

Ok, you mean it is more fair if we use the Canon 24mm 1.4 on the BMCC and the equivalent Zeiss 85mm 1.4 on the Canon?

The 24-105mm is a nice 700 Euro lens but not extremely exciting, not is it very expensive. On full frame it has unsharpness and CA in the edges, way more than the 2.8 version.

Well, that Tokina is basically the Canon lens translated in the 2,3 crop world, when real world usage is considered.

And when the Canon 24mm 1.4, Zeiss 35mm 1.4 is pulled out on the full frame then you will not even find a lens available for competition..

You´re missing my point. i´m talking about glass quality not focal length. How about using the same lens brand (zeiss or Canon L) or even the same lens on both and play with distance from subject. All i´m saying is that these lenses (Canon and Tokina) produce very different results in any camera and on any format.
I appreciate the test but it only goes so far as to correctly compare sharpness and detail.

PS: Canon 24-105mm f4 - 857.949€ (taken from B&H)

Using the same lenses will not get the same results
Canon lenses are optimized for FF sensor size
Using Canon mount on a small sensor was not a very clever option.. leads to less detail, and more internal light reflections (unpleasant flares)
The only reason BM uses canon mount is because someone thought Market placement is more important than Optical Quality.

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:Using the same lenses will not get the same results
Canon lenses are optimized for FF sensor size
Using Canon mount on a small sensor was not a very clever option.. leads to less detail, and more internal light reflections (unpleasant flares)
The only reason BM uses canon mount is because someone thought Market placement is more important than Optical Quality.

I´m pretty sure it won´t get the same results but still...
I get what you´re saying about the back circle of the lens being bigger so there is a lot of extra light bouncing around the smaller sensor but still, the 24 -105 is known to be a very sharp lens on the 5D and the Tokina isn´t the sharpest lens around and is prone to a lot of CA in any sensor, even the native APS-C.

Ahh forget it... maybe i´m going crazy....

João Gomes wrote:

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:Using the same lenses will not get the same results
Canon lenses are optimized for FF sensor size
Using Canon mount on a small sensor was not a very clever option.. leads to less detail, and more internal light reflections (unpleasant flares)
The only reason BM uses canon mount is because someone thought Market placement is more important than Optical Quality.

I´m pretty sure it won´t get the same results but still...
I get what you´re saying about the back circle of the lens being bigger so there is a lot of extra light bouncing around the smaller sensor but still, the 24 -105 is known to be a very sharp lens on the 5D and the Tokina isn´t the sharpest lens around and is prone to a lot of CA in any sensor, even the native APS-C.

Ahh forget it... maybe i´m going crazy....

But to compare real world use you need to compare what will actually be used to get the same results. One note of the BM cameras is that it harder to get very good results while shooting wide due to lens choice. So different lenses must be used in comparisons.

João Gomes wrote:

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:Using the same lenses will not get the same results
Canon lenses are optimized for FF sensor size
Using Canon mount on a small sensor was not a very clever option.. leads to less detail, and more internal light reflections (unpleasant flares)
The only reason BM uses canon mount is because someone thought Market placement is more important than Optical Quality.

I´m pretty sure it won´t get the same results but still...
I get what you´re saying about the back circle of the lens being bigger so there is a lot of extra light bouncing around the smaller sensor but still, the 24 -105 is known to be a very sharp lens on the 5D and the Tokina isn´t the sharpest lens around and is prone to a lot of CA in any sensor, even the native APS-C.

Ahh forget it... maybe i´m going crazy....

According to these professional tests tokina center resolution (BM sensor) is even better than canon

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/274-tok ... ew?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/184-can ... ew?start=1

Of course as i said canon camera takes advantage of having a proper lens mount for it´s sensor size.
Cinematography/Photography is based on science.. BM is based on Market placement.
.

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:

João Gomes wrote:

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:Using the same lenses will not get the same results
Canon lenses are optimized for FF sensor size
Using Canon mount on a small sensor was not a very clever option.. leads to less detail, and more internal light reflections (unpleasant flares)
The only reason BM uses canon mount is because someone thought Market placement is more important than Optical Quality.

I´m pretty sure it won´t get the same results but still...
I get what you´re saying about the back circle of the lens being bigger so there is a lot of extra light bouncing around the smaller sensor but still, the 24 -105 is known to be a very sharp lens on the 5D and the Tokina isn´t the sharpest lens around and is prone to a lot of CA in any sensor, even the native APS-C.

Ahh forget it... maybe i´m going crazy....

According to these professional tests tokina center resolution (BM sensor) is even better than canon

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/274-tok ... ew?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/184-can ... ew?start=1

Of course as i said canon camera takes advantage of having a proper lens mount for it´s sensor size.
Cinematography/Photography is based on science.. BM is based on Market placement.
.

Yes according to those tests the Tokina center sharpness is better on a APS-C sensor. But if you read ahead it also says that is prone to CA.
All i´m saying is that you have one camera (the 5D) with a known to be optimal lens on, against the BMCC equipped with a less than optimal lens. I´m pretty sure that if you mounted a Zeiss on both of them you
wouldn´t see the same difference in sharpness that you see on the test.

CA is Chromatic Aberration.
From your commets i see you were talking about sharpness and detail
I do not see any visible Chromatic issue in any of the cameras
.

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:CA is Chromatic Aberration.
From your commets i see you were talking about sharpness and detail
I do not see any visible Chromatic issue in any of the cameras
.

Thanks for your precious information about what CA means.
I´m thinking that CA attests to the quality of the glass and the construction of the lens.

Also CA can be controlled by stopping down the lens
We do not know about the iris position used.. but being a 800 iso camera i doubt it was shot wide open

Regardless of knowing the aperture used...the opening shot in that "test" showed MASSIVE CA and refraction on the BMCC sample.

That was the Tokina lens, not the camera. People who don't know or understand CA will simply think the BMCC is producing a crappy image.

For "camera" testing, you should be using the same lens on both.

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:Also CA can be controlled by stopping down the lens
We do not know about the iris position used.. but being a 800 iso camera i doubt it was shot wide open

I´ve worked with both for a TV series (on 5D ad 7D) and we decided not to use the Tokina´s because of the CA and softness on the edge of the frame. Miles away from the 24- 105, even at F4.

JerryBruck wrote:Marc? mhood?? You out there anywhere? Tell me if you can then, geezer-to-geezer, just why these fellows can't love one another? Especially since these hacks & gizmos don't even exist yet, who knows when or if they ever really will? Or is it time for another Grant Petty Update? Maybe he can put the Smile back.

Jerry, I think the "young guns" take themselves way too seriously. Cameras come and cameras go...20 years ago, I would have thought Ikegami would have locked up the camera market by now.

Also, 20 years ago, we didn't shop for cameras that were "coming in July". We trialed cameras that were available for rental at Victor Duncan. If we had the money and could make a business case, we'd buy...but only cameras that were available.

This discussing the merits of cameras that don't exist yet is interesting but really pretty much useless.

mhood wrote:This discussing the merits of cameras that don't exist yet is interesting but really pretty much useless.

So very true!

mhood wrote:... This discussing the merits of cameras that don't exist yet is interesting but really pretty much useless.

I hear you, Marc, and don't entirely disagree, but other than the BMCC-EF -- if your "pretty much useless" assessment is correct -- there's no reason for any of to be in this forum at all.

I think there's constructive territory that can be covered discussing cameras (or firmware hacks) that haven't shipped yet, based on specs, reports, preliminary tests, etc. A lot of useful knowledge can be shared & learned.

True, some of that knowledge may need to be set aside, at least temporarily when cams/firmware don't ship on time, or never ship, or even if you decide to use a different cam. But eventually the info finds a good use.

Cheers.

-

João Gomes wrote:You´re missing my point. i´m talking about glass quality not focal length. How about using the same lens brand (zeiss or Canon L) or even the same lens on both and play with distance from subject. All i´m saying is that these lenses (Canon and Tokina) produce very different results in any camera and on any format.
I appreciate the test but it only goes so far as to correctly compare sharpness and detail.

PS: Canon 24-105mm f4 - 857.949€ (taken from B&H)

Wrong, it is only 557 Euro, you go to B&H which is a very expensive site.
http://geizhals.at/eu/canon-objektiv-ef ... 64219.html

You mean 100 meter away to produce the same image? The foggy air will pollute your test.
lol just kidding.

John Waldorff wrote:

João Gomes wrote:You´re missing my point. i´m talking about glass quality not focal length. How about using the same lens brand (zeiss or Canon L) or even the same lens on both and play with distance from subject. All i´m saying is that these lenses (Canon and Tokina) produce very different results in any camera and on any format.
I appreciate the test but it only goes so far as to correctly compare sharpness and detail.

PS: Canon 24-105mm f4 - 857.949€ (taken from B&H)

Wrong, it is only 557 Euro, you go to B&H which is a very expensive site.
http://geizhals.at/eu/canon-objektiv-ef ... 64219.html

You mean 100 meter away to produce the same image? The foggy air will pollute your test.
lol just kidding.

I´m talking about a reputable dealer that i know. Maybe we should start a thread about how cheap can you get a lens. I can even get cheaper... i can go around a neighbourhood i know and "talk to some guys". What´s the point?
The people who wanted to believe this test have already made up their minds. Good for them.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:

mhood wrote:... This discussing the merits of cameras that don't exist yet is interesting but really pretty much useless.

I hear you, Marc, and don't entirely disagree, but other than the BMCC-EF -- if your "pretty much useless" assessment is correct -- there's no reason for any of to be in this forum at all.

I said discussing "the merits". I also said that it is "interesting". I enjoy reading it (but I also enjoy Family Guy and Robot Chicken). I didn't mean to slam any threads on the forum...just meant to state my opinion that they can't really accomplish much because THE CAMERAS (AND HACKS) DON'T EXIST YET...and that's okay...everybody deserves a hobby.

mhood wrote:

Peter J. DeCrescenzo wrote:

mhood wrote:... This discussing the merits of cameras that don't exist yet is interesting but really pretty much useless.

I hear you, Marc, and don't entirely disagree, but other than the BMCC-EF -- if your "pretty much useless" assessment is correct -- there's no reason for any of to be in this forum at all.

I said discussing "the merits". I also said that it is "interesting". I enjoy reading it (but I also enjoy Family Guy and Robot Chicken). I didn't mean to slam any threads on the forum...just meant to state my opinion that they can't really accomplish much because THE CAMERAS (AND HACKS) DON'T EXIST YET...and that's okay...everybody deserves a hobby.

It happens everywhere, people get excited and see previews and get behind a product to defend it with all their being. Rather silly I think.

It's great the 5DIII will shoot "raw" but it's just cementing its place in the market. It's not a BMCC killer because it doesn't offer everything the BMCC does and many people want those additional features.

The only BMCC killer I see is the BMPC. So, I choose to own both.

This thread should be locked soon ?

It goes like my samsung will kill your iphone

Different objectives for users really.

Jason R. Johnston wrote:The only BMCC killer I see is the BMPC. So, I choose to own both.

This.

Margus Voll wrote:This thread should be locked soon ?

It goes like my samsung will kill your iphone

Different objectives for users really.

Probably went something like this back in the day of cave paintings :-

So then he sucked the paint into his mouth, put his hand on the wall and then sprayed the paint all over his hand....quality was amazing, was like his hand was still there, on the wall....and I just sit there all day and stare at it.

Meanwhile, Ughh says.....sprayed with his mouth...that's funny, obviously has never heard of a brush....got one on back order. Much higher resolution !

Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

iban wrote:Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

Wow looking good

iban wrote:Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

Raw? This video have bad dinamic range.

iban wrote:Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

Really? I'm guessing you want people to talk you into a BMCC/PC . It's a nice looking clip. However, I could get those images out of my hacked GH2. I'm sure you could get them out of the BMPocket, as well.

Manu Gil wrote:

iban wrote:Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

Raw? This video have bad dinamic range.

12 stops is 12 stops man. You can't magic stuff back. It was shot in that style too... I think it looks great.

Some DNG's

neumannfilms.net/2013/05/14/magic-lantern-dng-footage/

Well that was fast.

Already put the alpha build on my 5dmk2.

I'll see what I can get from a 266x (maybe on a good day) card tomorrow.

paulkosmala wrote:Well that was fast.

Already put the alpha build on my 5dmk2.

I'll see what I can get from a 266x (maybe on a good day) card tomorrow.

nothing impressive, just posting to show that ETTR is okay to do. handheld. the glitches are likely because the global draw was on. hopefully it will be more stable soon.

iban wrote:Hi.. I was thinking to adquire a BMCC .. but this video have great footage...

That video shows exactly, why you want a camera with high dynamic range and 10 or 12 bits recording. Though the shots are beautifull, the highlights are blown out, and the shadows swallow some of the scenes details. That's ok for this clip, giving it a certain "style". But it's not ok, if your camera forces you to accept clipped highlights and unliftable shadows. The choice should be made in postproduction, not by your camera (-personel).

For f**k sake. I'm glad to see all of you so active, but please, not more pointless arguments. The BMCC is a good camera, the same goes for the 5D mark III. Would the BMCC stop working because another camera shot raw? of course not. Better yet, it is for good of all of us to have more options.

Now. for those who are not getting the right information about what is happenig with the new raw_rec coded that ML has developed.
The 5d is recording the information via live view mode. Which means that the camera no longer has to do the heavy duty of converting the footage to H.264, letting it run smooth. Beeing said that, it cause less heat, since the camera is consuming less energy. There is nothing else to know for now. it is on the the very early state. The just unlock .wav sound recording, live view play back. currently working on digital panning, and a couple of thing more. But please by patient. wait until the deliver the official coded and then you can say all sort of mad things if you like... Or enjoy?

Until then

Isn´t it funny???.
Non paid people at Magic Lantern do better than BM or even Canon software developers
Just the same as Linux.. a system developed without profit in mind works much better than windows a multimillioner company.

BM pretended to be bringing us cinematography freedom, but they only wanted profit. And that´s gonna build their grave as camera manufactures

When Jean-Pierre Beauviala (what some people here would call a Hommer Simpson) developed s16mm, Eclair, and later Aaton, he brought freedom, because of his work we have the work of people like Godard or Trufaut.. or the british free cinema movement.
Of course he got huge profit out of it.. but a fair one because his mind was about progress of filmmaking.
Now his company, like kodak, is about to break because they can not stand against the unfair trade from unfair companies that do nothing for us but sell smoke.
Kodak had 140.000 workers. Their maket value can be compared to instagram, that had 6 workers and was sold for billions.

i think it is fair to expect some fare profit.. but only based on fare behaviours.
I love the english expression: "Penny wise, Pound foolish"

Isn´t it beautiful the footage shot with magic lantern hack??
That is free cinema!!

but you still need to have a camera and it is not free?

Margus Voll wrote:but you still need to have a camera and it is not free?

but now i can have a camera that exist.. not just an empty promise

You can buy from us online shops.

I do not see a problem?

With tax it gives you about the same price as from eu.

Fulgencio Martínez wrote:
Isn´t it beautiful the footage shot with magic lantern hack??
That is free cinema!!

You're right. I'm still using my 5D Mark III with ML hack. But too bad BMCC got me for the most affordable real Cinema Camera. I love both camera but BMCC give me another taste for cinematic result. That' all

I have never believed in canon thus never got 5d or 7d as it seemed bad for video.

Now i'm also getting bmc as i can not see why to buy 5d as i do not own one yet.

Would prefer some Leica for photography.

But that is just me.

2.5k Raw Anamorphic with the 5k hack. What do you guys think of this? Pretty impressive in my opinion.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/10450/2-5k ... d-mark-iii

Another thing I keep seeing is about how you are gonna be able to record with it. Well I don't have a 5d but I do work with DSLR's a lot for photography and I have this,http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Wireless-Built-In-Streaming-STCK1000100/dp/B00AQRUW4Q, for when I'm out in the field and for my iphone. It works wirelessly and you can get a thunderbolt adaptor. I originally was hoping that I could attach it to my BMCC and it could be an external hard drive (I'm still waiting for them to open source this stuff, since it looks like ML is gonna destroy them), but they don't let you capture straight from thunderbolt. My thought is, that if the 5d has wifi ability you could pop open the casing on the seagate and put an SSD drive in there (already done this, its really easy), then have 480 gigs to record on through the air or USB, if this is possible. I dont have a 5d so I have no clue, but that would be a major game changers.

[quote="Fulgencio Martínez"][quote="Margus Voll"]You can buy from us online shops.

>If you import by yourself a camera from the US you have no warranty at all.

Why you say no warranty ?

I see no issue unless BM will say no warranty.

As far as i know there is global warranty.

The footage I have seen from the 5D III Raw is amazing compared to a stock camera. It still has aliasing and banding artifacts however. Unless this can be fixed in the debayer software, we are still on a quest for an aliasing free image Hopefully the BMPC 4K will deliver that.

T_mrdr wrote:2.5k Raw Anamorphic with the 5k hack. What do you guys think of this? Pretty impressive in my opinion.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/10450/2-5k ... d-mark-iii

i looked at the dngs, and from what I see i like the highlight rolloff better on the bmcc. and theres just something else about the look of it that i cant quite point my finger on that still shouts canon, and not cinema. At the same time though it is impressive footage, and you gotta love them lens flares

I´m afraid Christine is not a lawyer.. so i do not know if she can answer you
Let´s see
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/product ... /techspecs
There you have the US BMCC info
as you can read "12 Month Limited Manufacturer's Warranty."
What does limited mean?? no idea!! try to ask...
If there is any kind of limitation i guess one of them would be personal exporting of goods

Now lets take a look at the EU law
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consu ... ces_en.htm
"The 2-year guarantee is an EU-wide minimum, and the laws in some EU countries may offer you longer limitation periods."
So.. BM is forced, as any other company, to give 2 years of warranty in the EU without setting their personal limitations.

BM used to give 3 i remember.