Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K vs Arri Alexa

you persist in continuing to interpret it as a sort of comparison. Please watch the video again. There's nothing more to explain, really.

Right. I wonder where I got the impression that it was a comparison?

0F22A312-A63E-4837-9A97-946E18E791AB.jpeg (332.34 KiB) Viewed 21420 times

your test doesn't reveal the differences between the cameras

You might have watched another video. Because to me it clearly revealed the differences that needed to be revealed within the scope of the test.

or whether they can be matched.

The cameras can be matched. The traditional method is to grade the better camera to bring it close to the best the B-cam can get.

What the test clearly showed is you can't just slap on the official LUT and put some of these cameras into a live 709 broadcast and expect things to just line-up on scopes or an ARIB bar.

And with no explanation of how the LUTs have affected the test results,

Rec. 709. The only way I can say categorically if LUTs have affected the results is if there is written documentation from the manufacturers stating the LUTs are incorrect, and they don't map Log to standardized Rec. 709.

So take it up with BMD or Arri or Panasonic please.

it's unclear what "newcomers" are supposed to make of it.

Read the YouTube comments. Newcomers can speak for themselves, or do you think they're all idiots?

Not to appear rude, but I think I've already made my point to death here.

Right. I wonder where I got the impression that it was a comparison?

Maybe going by what's actually in the video might be better? Don't judge a book by its cover.

If you go by marketing, then here's something from the first few lines of the BMPCC 4K marketing page (text in red my own):

The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K has a 4/3 size sensor (does it?),
13 stops of dynamic range and dual native ISO up to 25,600 (does it have dual native ISO up to 25,600?). That means you get stunning HDR images and incredible low light performance (It's not a low light camera, otherwise we need a new name for the a7S II ... and so on)

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Sareesh, you wrote that cover to your video yourself!
You can't have it both ways.

You might have watched another video. Because to me it clearly revealed the differences that needed to be revealed within the scope of the test.

The "scope of the test" changes every time you post here. See above.

What the test clearly showed is you can't just slap on the official LUT and put some of these cameras into a live 709 broadcast and expect things to just line-up on scopes or an ARIB bar.

Whoever claimed that rec. 709 normalizing LUTs are supposed to render log footage broadcast ready? Is it this misconception which accounts for all the confusion here?

The only way I can say categorically if LUTs have affected the results is if there is written documentation from the manufacturers stating the LUTs are incorrect, and they don't map Log to standardized Rec. 709.

So take it up with BMD or Arri or Panasonic please.

Nowhere do Arri, Panasonic or BMD claim there's a universally accepted, singular and "correct" method for normalizing and mapping log footage, which is itself proprietary. They all do it differently, unless your only interest is middle grey. And they all leave recoverable data out of bounds, particularly in cases of under and over-exposure, and to varying degrees, which has obvious implications for your comparisons.

Read the YouTube comments. Newcomers can speak for themselves, or do you think they're all idiots?

I did read the youtube comments, where any number of viewers pointed out the errors you're making. To no avail, however.

Hey guys ease up, he's trying to do something helpful. This is not Redused, or BMuser.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Sareesh, you wrote that cover to your video yourself!
You can't have it both ways.

Yes. Yes he did.

Shot himself in the foot with the clickbait title... but also doesn't seem to understand what LUTs do.

Sareesh has many videos which contradict each other. As much as some of them are useful, another ones are more "click videos" for youtube channel.

Sareesh, the least you could do is provide the original files you shot so we can evaluate on our own workflow. There is no demerit on that. You would be extremely helpfull doing that as most of users cant have access to all of these 3 cameras to have a real idea. Dont throw all the hassle you had doing this test relying only on lut aplpaying comparison. Provide the original files for evaluation and you will be much more helpfull and people are gonna be much more gratefull than just complaining about the design of your test, which, being honest, really didnt help much

[CaptainHook]

Rec. 709. The only way I can say categorically if LUTs have affected the results is if there is written documentation from the manufacturers stating the LUTs are incorrect, and they don't map Log to standardized Rec. 709.

So take it up with BMD or Arri or Panasonic please.

Our LUT from camera that is provided in Resolve is called "Video" and not Rec.709 for this reason - it is not standard Rec.709.

How is it different Capt?

Guys, he's done something to show novices that there is a difference. Sure it may not be the ideal example, but it's still useful for that.

Guys, he's done something to show novices that there is a difference. Sure it may not be the ideal example, but it's still useful for that.

The problem is that, the way it is, the differences are mostly caused by a bad post processing making it too hard or even impossible to judge one over the other.

I understand, but to a novice, yes it does show there is better colour in low light or high lights. Though the pocket will be ahead in really low light, it is the colour and professional handeling, options and reliability of the Arri which matters to big production. If 9 times out of ten the Arri is going to survive accidents better, 90% of the time delivery better picture and Brak down 100x less often and survive more heavy work and rough handeling, the $70,000 camera gets the $30 million plus job. It dues sort of show that there are some reasons to buy a $70,000 camera over a $1295 camera when the budget is over $200k a day, and nobody wants to waste time on problems, or days.

Now, I agree, a follow-up comparison like people are asking would be great Sareesh. Thanks again. Love the effort.

I understand, but to a novice, yes it does show there is better colour in low light or high lights. Though the pocket will be ahead in really low light, it is the colour and professional handeling, options and reliability of the Arri which matters to big production. If 9 times out of ten the Arri is going to survive accidents better, 90% of the time delivery better picture and Brak down 100x less often and survive more heavy work and rough handeling, the $70,000 camera gets the $30 million plus job. It dues sort of show that there are some reasons to buy a $70,000 camera over a $1295 camera when the budget is over $200k a day, and nobody wants to waste time on problems, or days.

I agree. But I think that is not what the test shows...

Am I the only one who thinks these over and under exposed tests are just unuseful? Its like they are running out of excuses to justify one camera over the other (image quality wise) and the only thing that would make you see the real benefits is shooting something in extreme conditions no one would ever shoot. I simply cant forget the test (good but not much useful) Slanted lens made with the 4.6k against the Alexa. They simply didnt have any reason to choose one over the other aside personal taste and then they shot each like 6 stops under and over just to show which sensor is better but, come on, who is gonna shoot something 6 stops away from ideal exposure???

I think these days, the good cameras (cheap or expesinve and we can name all) are pretty much good enough that you can shoot shorts, features, commercial and everything high end or not with high quality if you do it right like the old cinematography masters used to. But we are so attatched to specs that we forget to shoot with the heart.

Yes, it only showed one aspect. Yes, the colour is a lot better. No, the pocket and ursa mini are not quite there yet. A big thing in quality is colour constancy, where colors are rendered faithfully over a range of brightness. So, yes colour, and strong colour under trying conditions matters, aswell as how much you have to work the image or lighting to do it. I hear Arri was popular because of this.

Those samples, to the novice audience it shows dramatically how out of range stuff is handeld (which happens in real life filming). But, I would not have kind a bit of detail on how highlights look.

I agree about shooting like the master's, but if you had a 8-10 stop camera, how much work do you want to put into getting the scene into range so not to look awful, in ultra low budget. A good camera allows more concentration on the art at higher pace. I don't notice many masters using Mini DV or other consumer years back, unless you want to count Spike Lee.

They simply didnt have any reason to choose one over the other aside personal taste and then they shot each like 6 stops under and over just to show which sensor is better but, come on, who is gonna shoot something 6 stops away from ideal exposure???

You don’t accidently under/over-expose something by 6 in a professional production. And it’s not the point. Thing is, even if you expose correctly you still have lots of information in both ends of the spectrum. For instance, think of a scene where your character turn from shadow into light. With a Arri sensor it’s much easier to retain nice skin tones in the whole shot, with minimal fill light setup. That’s why you choose the arri sensor. Faster production, less challenge, bigger odds to get a great final image.

I believe it’s possible to shoot “Game of thrones” on a bmpcc4k camera instead of arri alexa, and get almost identical result. But that involves more work and time. Meaning more cost. You would most defiantly need to light different. You also increase the risk of making errors when recording, by not having as much elbow room in post. That’s why I would argue it’s cheaper to use arri alexa in a big budget production. Arri simply increase the odds of ending up with a great image. I guess that was the scope of this test as well.

Anyways, I believe this test could be exaggerated to enhance the fact that the Arri sensor is much better when it comes to retaining nice skin tones in different light conditions.
Look at this test of the arri alexa mini against Red weapon:
In that test I expect the bmpcc4k to do a lot worse than RED weapon, not even get close to the Arri sensor. anything else would surprise me.

I am amused by the desire to make the BMPCC4K do all things for everyone better than anything else for the best price. It looks to be a wonderful tool. But it is not going to compete at the high end for all the reasons stated. It is not going to compete with the GH5 for run and gun handheld shooting. It is a real competitor for the GH5S ( do they have the same sensor and has anyone tested them together ?) I know Sareesh does not like the GH5S but not sure if he has even tested one. I have both and there is a clear image quality difference between the GH5 and the GH5S not just low light performance.

Am I the only one who thinks these over and under exposed tests are just unuseful? Its like they are running out of excuses to justify one camera over the other (image quality wise) and the only thing that would make you see the real benefits is shooting something in extreme conditions no one would ever shoot.

You're not. I'm with you; the vast majority of these comparisons fall into the clickbait category, and most of the people posting them are using the clicks to market the stuff they own... which is why it's almost always the cast that the camera they own "wins" the comparison.

There ARE differences, obviously... though those differences aren't always obvious. We're at the point where image quality wise, the difference is in the DP rather than in the camera.

That's not to say that the cameras are all identical, either; their color rendition reflects their designer's preferences. Arri's look is reminiscent of Kodak's Vision negative film, Panasonic's look more resembles Fuji Astia (I used Astia when I was photographing people in nature on 4x5). Red's reminds me more of Kodak E100G, which I switched to for color when Fuji discontinued Velvia, though Velvia's skin tones weren't quite as natural, because it had such a vivid look (and a whopping 3 stops of dynamic range, unless you had access to a Linotype-Hell drum scanner and someone who knew how to use it).

but, come on, who is gonna shoot something 6 stops away from ideal exposure???

The "run 'n gun" type, mostly.

you can shoot shorts, features, commercial and everything high end or not with high quality if you do it right like the old cinematography masters used to.

Yep. That's exactly it. And exactly why 90% of what we'll see from the new Pocket 4K will be test shoots, followed by excuses for why it's not quite good enough, feature it's missing that they "absolutely need for this film" and so on.

The Pocket 4K removes the barriers for people who are willing to learn the art of cinematography but don't have the bux for a Helium or Varicam or Alexa Mini, but in the hands of the lazy wingdings, it's just going to reveal their incompetence in more detail and with more accurate color than ever before.

Fortunately, the people who have talent or are willing to put the effort into developing it will have stuff to show long after the test shooters get bored with and find another new toy in the hopes that it has a talent button and then we'll see what these cameras can REALLY do in talented hands.

And hopefully by then I'll have a BMPCC4K too

Oyvind, thanks for that comparison video. Pretty impressive results. Now back to my toy camera that I can own and work with effectively regardless.

Rakesh, it may be a little metaphysical but there is talent ‘button’ on the BMD cameras that may be shared by the most expensive cameras. It’s only discovered when you don’t press any of the Auto buttons. If someone doesn’t believe me, press the Auto button in DaVinci Resolve Colour Page. You learn a lot by pressing Auto; you learn to think for yourself.

I know Canon appears to have nailed an auto focus with their cameras, but I wonder if it goofs (just as often as I do which does occur in most shoots) when subjects move out of frame or new subjects appear or when you want the audience to focus on something else. Canon is smart, but it’s not thinking for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point Rick, well put.
Cheers

Now back to my toy camera that I can own and work with effectively regardless.

Hehe yeah, the irony

Remember the zacuto shootout? The shootout that made the big boys tremble in fear by the small “toy cameras”. Remember it was discussed that the industry would be ruined by low budget movies. “Christ, now everyone can do it!!!”… Only problem with that theory is that the big boys use ridiculous amounts of $$$ only advertising and lobbying the crap out of their own movies. Probably a bunch of indie flicks, shot on “toy camera”, that should have made it to the big screen but sadly never will. Content matters… yeah, but only if someone actually see it.

Here is some reading for those who are interested to look at "THE" shootout and perhaps have a good laugh: https://www.eoshd.com/2012/07/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/

Oyvind, thanks for that comparison video. Pretty impressive results. Now back to my toy camera that I can own and work with effectively regardless.

That's probably the part that the new-toy-hunters haven't figured out yet: the best camera is the one right there in your hand. Or on your tripod. (Or whatever it's on.)

Rakesh, it may be a little metaphysical but there is talent ‘button’ on the BMD cameras that may be shared by the most expensive cameras. It’s only discovered when you don’t press any of the Auto buttons. If someone doesn’t believe me, press the Auto button in DaVinci Resolve Colour Page. You learn a lot by pressing Auto; you learn to think for yourself.

What? There's an auto button?

I've never used it... and I only have one lens for my A7r that can autofocus. It's the one lens that I use when climbing, though nowadays I just take my Light L16 on climbs instead.

I know Canon appears to have nailed an auto focus with their cameras, but I wonder if it goofs (just as often as I do which does occur in most shoots) when subjects move out of frame or new subjects appear or when you want the audience to focus on something else. Canon is smart, but it’s not thinking for you.

I've heard that Canon's autofocus is very good, but I'm not convinced that the average indie filmmaker these days understands yet how autofocus differs from focus pulling...

Thanks, Rakesh! Exactly what I'm thinking lately.

Few weeks ago I caught myself watching a drone review on Youtube, which obviously the guy didnt put all the effort because it was a product review, not a feature film, and I though "I like this image. Its pleasant."and started imagining if the same thing was a narrative work. I would travel along no doubt. And the guy was using one of the Sony's mirrorless.
I also dont forget the feature film I watched long time ago shot on a GH2. It just made me feel like watching any other non-blockbuster movie, except that the script sucked. Going even further I remember when Video DSLRs where blossoming and many guys where testing it in theaters and audiences felt as natural as any other movie, and today we get much better than that. I also remember some takes in Captain America: Civil War that looked so videoish to me... it made me think "what the heck?".
We are developing a culture spec dependant in my opinion. The old cliché will always apply":
"You should focus on your story

Now back to my toy camera that I can own and work with effectively regardless.

Hehe yeah, the irony

Remember the zacuto shootout?

Yeah! I was reffering to this period in my comment above.

The remarkable thing about that famous Zacuto shootout was revealing that Francis Ford Coppola, who had worked with two of the greatest DPs ever, was a terrible judge of image quality. What distinguished his choice from the other samples was brash color correction and lighting, at the hands of the GH2 "team", to compensate for its poor DR and color rendering. And he went for it....

"Auteur", indeed!

I think it's interesting that, instead of having that test be a reason for you to reexamine how you think about "image quality" as something beyond dynamic range and pixels, you came to the conclusion that one of the greatest directors of all time must have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the subject.

Exciting news my friends:

While pressing buttons and playing around by accident
I just discovered a secret mode on my brandnew PCC4K,
which seems to be hidden in the firmware for a later release...

You can assign one of the following functions to the 3 custom buttons:

F1 ... dual pixel AF | noise reduction ON/OFF | IBIS ON/OFF | steadym (ROCKSOLID/FLY/HOVER)
F2 ... story mode (WRITE/SHOOT) | talent (GREAT/OSCAR) | light (MORE/EPIC)
F3 ... cam mode (BALLHAUS/DEAKINS/LUBEZKI) | coffee (LIGHT/ESPRESSO/STRONG)

I think it's interesting that, instead of having that test be a reason for you to reexamine how you think about "image quality" as something beyond dynamic range and pixels, you came to the conclusion that one of the greatest directors of all time must have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the subject.

"Just" dynamic range and pixels? Did you see the test? Do you any idea how bad the GH2 sample was, compared to the "professional" cameras included in the "shootout"?

If "reexamining" image qualities means preferring 8-bit sub-HD consumer video because that's what Francis picked in a blind test, thanks to flat, eye popping colors, what are we doing here?

Just shoot with an iphone and worry no longer.

Thanks, Rakesh! Exactly what I'm thinking lately.

More people should think about this... but in film schools these days, all they teach is the Fool of Mediocrity (aka the Fool of Turds), pointless formulas for bland 3-point lighting, and how to plop clips into a timeline in Premiere.

Few weeks ago I caught myself watching a drone review on Youtube, which obviously the guy didnt put all the effort because it was a product review, not a feature film, and I though "I like this image. Its pleasant."and started imagining if the same thing was a narrative work. I would travel along no doubt. And the guy was using one of the Sony's mirrorless.

You can make very good imagery with almost any modern camera. The main differences are in the level of effort required and the freedom to manipulate the footage afterward. I was able to make imagery that looked like it was shot on a Helium using an AJA Cion... but using the Helium is easier because I need a *lot* less light to achieve the same level of brightness, which in turn makes shadow quality, placement, and ratios easier.

I also dont forget the feature film I watched long time ago shot on a GH2. It just made me feel like watching any other non-blockbuster movie, except that the script sucked.

Yep... doesn't matter how much else you get right or wrong if you have a lousy script.

Going even further I remember when Video DSLRs where blossoming and many guys where testing it in theaters and audiences felt as natural as any other movie, and today we get much better than that. I also remember some takes in Captain America: Civil War that looked so videoish to me... it made me think "what the heck?".

The Marvel films have been taking a lot of flak for their quality of their post. I suspect that it's related to trying to raise the number of VFX shots, making their VFX shots more complex at the same time, but not allocating more money or time to executing them.

We are developing a culture spec dependant in my opinion. The old cliché will always apply":
"You should focus on your story

Well said.

Now if only more people would get that through their heads... especially in the indie circles...

"Just" dynamic range and pixels? Did you see the test? Do you any idea how bad the GH2 sample was, compared to the "professional" cameras included in the "shootout"?

C’mon man… I believe you are confusing it with the non-hack GH1 from the first shootout in 2010? That i belive.

The GH2 they used in 2012 was hacked and produced a image that was far better than any of the other DSLR at the time. It was an all intra image with high IQ. 8 bit doesn’t mean you get a poor image, it only mean that you have to be more careful when capturing. Many big budget movies have used the GH2 in its production for a good reason.

C’mon man… I believe you are confusing it with the non-hack GH1 from the first shootout in 2010? That i belive.

The GH2 they used in 2012 was hacked and produced a image that was far better than any of the other DSLR at the time. It was an all intra image with high IQ. 8 bit doesn’t mean you get a poor image, it only mean that you have to be more careful when capturing. Many big budget movies have used the GH2 in its production for a good reason.

Sorry, but there's no confusion. The best case for the GH2 is Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color", which was not a big budget move; I don't what else you might be referring to. And, with no other images for comparison, it was fine. The movie was extremely well shot and the shortcomings of the camera are forgotten or don't even register at all as soon as the eye becomes accustomed to the general feel of it.

However, that's not the point. This a cinematography forum, after all. The idea is to get the best and richest images possible. And even allowing for the primacy of the script (per the discussion above), not many DPs take screenwriting credits, whereas they are held responsible for the look of the thing.

I disliked lying. However, and f you find a hidden mode which says your a dimwit, your ...... Then let us a know.

Anyway, you guys are very negative. The auto features professionally are only assistant functions, to set up or run and gun use. I.E. push, it sets, you fine tune to your way. But some people are over stating the negativity. But, yeah good story, looks better with better equipment which you can use to make it better easier. Simple formular. Not your story is hopeless, get best camera wave it about on primitive auto and hope for an Oscar. But if you are really good, you can go down to the local sewage works with a better camera and produce better footage (Skill is its own story despite content).

The funny thing is, years ago I wanted to post a frame from my around $100 video camera along with frames from a Red of the same scene and asking people what they thought, without telling them there was a second camera in the mix. The pro camera was so poor that after colour grading and matching resolution and posting as jpeg, would anybody pick up in it. Of course, Red has it own reputation for timelines in releasing cameras, so that camera never came (or was that the One MX).

Robert, thanks for the info! I just pre-ordered now that I know there's a coffee button. Too many cameras these days are caught up in insane sensor techno-wizardy while sacrificing the basics that keep us going while looking through the viewfinder. Finally, someone gets it! I'm usually thinking I'd sacrifice two bits or a stop of dynamic range if the damn thing would just make me a latte.

I know, if I had an Arri Alexa....well, an assistant would be on hand to do that for me....

I think we are already in Alexa's old range, even 1 inch, but they don't want to put pro on those handycams. Why I'm annoyed at the 4/3rd sensors being less in range. The Arri max stop maps to human perception, though Red says 16.5 stops. Makes for pleasing photos. But, we get the pocket 13 stops. Soon we should get something as good picture as the Alexa in a pocket. To me 12 stop 2/3rd inch should be consumer.

I think we are already in Alexa's old range, even 1 inch, but they don't want to put pro on those handycams. Why I'm annoyed at the 4/3rd sensors being less in range. The Arri max stop maps to human perception, though Red says 16.5 stops. Makes for pleasing photos. But, we get the pocket 13 stops. Soon we should get something as good picture as the Alexa in a pocket. To me 12 stop 2/3rd inch should be consumer.

I think the thing is: NOW we only tell cam A is better than cam B when you compare them side by side. Ok, thats useful and I like it (shooting 6 stops away is not useful). But think with me, what happened to: Look at the image and tell me if it is pleasant to you or if it distracts you somehow. I agree that specs matter a fair bit. A movie shot with 7, 8 stops of latitude problably wont be so interesting, but come on, 12, 14, 16... I think it wont matter as long as you like it. The most important thing with movies and commercials is you dont get distracted watching it for whatever reason and what you're seeing makes you travel along.

I'm a low end shooter so if I'm wrong please someone give its 2 cents. I'm always open to learn and absorb information and experiences.

what happened to: Look at the image and tell me if it is pleasant to you or if it distracts you somehow. I agree that specs matter a fair bit. The most important thing with movies and commercials is you dont get distracted watching it for whatever reason and what you're seeing makes you travel along.

Yes, alot of this is true. Sometimes we don’t recognise the value of the tool at hand. As to not recognize that the bmpcc4k camera will become a powerful tool, producing great image. Saying otherwise is madness IMO.

If you look back at the pure analog age, when color correction involved chemically development, they often light the sett to enhance contrast. Making the final image less flat. Ironically, the present 8-10stop DSLR cameras would probably be a blessing in those days, oppose to be a hazard in the present.

I guess we are bigger fan of natural light these days, and that is more demanding when it comes to dynamic range. So, we did a 180 turn somewhere. Probably when we realized that it was possible to get “everything”. Seem quite human to always lust for something, even though we have good enough tool. Like from my early post, linking to the test showing the RED “failing” against a arri sensor in the overexpose test… First season of Stranger Things was shot on RED epic (older sensor). That season look film like all over the place. RED epic is a surly a great camera. Who in their right mind would say anything else. But from the test you would almost conclude its crap… goldeneye: "you are like... boys with toys!"

First season of Stranger Things was shot on RED epic (older sensor). That season look film like all over the place. RED epic is a surly a great camera. Who in their right mind would say anything else. But from the test you would almost conclude its crap… goldeneye: "you are like... boys with toys!"

That season looked so good to me. I was really amazed with the result and it was the first thing that drawed my attention right when I started watching it. To me, the 4.6k sensor, shot within normal use (not 6 stops away) looks as good (or even better). The Pocket 4K reminds me more of the BMCC 2.5k look. In this case a side by side comparison will be much useful. But having an updated BMCC is really everything I could ask for. Looking like a DSLR, from an aesthetic point of view, really wouldnt make justice if thats the case. Time will tell.

I think we are already in Alexa's old range, even 1 inch, but they don't want to put pro on those handycams. Why I'm annoyed at the 4/3rd sensors being less in range. The Arri max stop maps to human perception, though Red says 16.5 stops. Makes for pleasing photos. But, we get the pocket 13 stops. Soon we should get something as good picture as the Alexa in a pocket. To me 12 stop 2/3rd inch should be consumer.

I think the thing is: NOW we only tell cam A is better than cam B when you compare them side by side. Ok, thats useful and I like it (shooting 6 stops away is not useful). But think with me, what happened to: Look at the image and tell me if it is pleasant to you or if it distracts you somehow. I agree that specs matter a fair bit. A movie shot with 7, 8 stops of latitude problably wont be so interesting, but come on, 12, 14, 16... I think it wont matter as long as you like it. The most important thing with movies and commercials is you dont get distracted watching it for whatever reason and what you're seeing makes you travel along.

I'm a low end shooter so if I'm wrong please someone give its 2 cents. I'm always open to learn and absorb information and experiences.

But that's what specifications tell you, but we just don't get the full specifications or know how to interpret them properly. Look, I did basically what you said and showed the difference in top BRaw compared to DNG in a simple scene by doing that. Specifications will tell you that too.

People often say bah specs, and eyeball it. But I say what you said. Extra stops means better image and better handeling of highlights. There is a recent Redshark news article on industry push to higher resolution, stating 14k resolution as ideal, because it produces more subtle images. It's true, people can eyeball things and say they can't see things but subconsciously those things make people feel better about the image

Frankly, 12 stops looks not so good, because it is so below normal human vision, but over 14 stops looks much better, and by the time you get to 16, it looks more silky smooth.

Frankly, 12 stops looks not so good, because it is so below normal human vision, but over 14 stops looks much better, and by the time you get to 16, it looks more silky smooth.

That is complete rubbish. Most film stocks have around 12 stops of dynamic range, so anyone claiming that 12 isn't enough is simply full of it.

Perhaps, but film stock is/ was also limited in its dynamic range (which is greater than 12-stops), and your subject had to be lit to be within this range for best results. Same hold true today for our sensors, which ave finally reached, or are coming very close to film for DR. In natural light, you had to decide what you wanted to be within the exposure latitude (Zone System) to get rhe best representation of the actual scene. Yes, our eyes and brain can see a much larger DR due to our “internal” image processing and instant exposure charge (eye iris changes) our eye and brain do in combination to allow us to see.

Every advancement, is a step closer to thst holy grail of photography, “to represent a scene as we see/preceive it”.
Cheers

Frankly, 12 stops looks not so good, because it is so below normal human vision, but over 14 stops looks much better, and by the time you get to 16, it looks more silky smooth.

That is complete rubbish. Most film stocks have around 12 stops of dynamic range, so anyone claiming that 12 isn't enough is simply full of it.

It depends how you measure dynamic range. Overall it is not true, film stock is somewhere near digital 14-15 stops. Photography negative film stock is even more wider. And i agree that all under 12 stops looks like quality TV but not a film.
And from sample videos i see Pocket4K don't reach that 13 stops minimum film limit yet. It may looks clean and sharp, but because that Sony sensor with average DSLR dynamic range it looks more like quality DSLR/GH5 than like Ursa4.6K/Pocket v1/Alexa. Sensor technology is different.

Also when 99% of web filled with crappy low dynamic range footage, so people just start to forget the taste of proper film look.

Sure cinematic image is all about subject. But earlier when people shoot only film, the things where simpler. Huge dynamic range was in every consumer camera on every drunk party and no one noticed it. Technically people always like to see on the screen similar "look" as they see in real life. Try to put camera in front of you and compare the dynamic range you see with your eye to the dynamic range camera can hold. You notice that your eye outperforms any existing camera. Even without light adaptation we can see 18-20 stops or even more, and we want similar response from the camera.
Less dynamic range - less film magic.

And don't mess dynamic range with poor contrast. Things can be High dynamic range and contrast look same time. Just a gentle compressed shadows and highlights without clipping. And you have freedom to adjust it as you like.

But low dynamic range footage always have that contrast look but with hard clipped highlights.

It depends how you measure dynamic range. Overall it is not true, film stock is somewhere near digital 14-15 stops. Photography negative film stock is even more wider. And i agree that all under 12 stops looks like quality TV but not a film.

The only film emulsions I ever shot that were more forgiving than the BMCC raw were black and white negative emulsions (Fuji Acros and Ilford Delta).

And given the number of films shot using film that look gorgeous, it clearly has enough dynamic range to make for beautiful, cinematic imagery.

But low dynamic range footage always have that contrast look but with hard clipped highlights.

Because people don't understand how to work with light...

Professional filmmakers dealt with far less dynamic range than we're now getting access to for peanuts, and yet they've been able to make great looking imagery.

Professional filmmakers dealt with far less dynamic range than we're now getting access to for peanuts, and yet they've been able to make great looking imagery.

It's common for young filmmakers to obsess about gear rather than improve their ability. Easier to blame the camera than blame yourself, I suppose.

It's common for young filmmakers to obsess about gear rather than improve their ability. Easier to blame the camera than blame yourself, I suppose.

You're right about that.

Absolutely agree.. case in point.. me. I havent shot a thing.. other than kid projects for school, and I obsess over the tech specs. Reading all your posts with great interest on DR, moire, etc. Truthfully the BM4K is going to smoke my old T3i in so many ways.. but the T3i was used by a ton of people to shoot fantastic video, so even with a BM4K.. I probably wont come close to doing something as good as years ago T3i footage! For me, a hobbyist, I like the idea that I have the right tools to do the job.. and more so (for now) learn with. Given price/performance value. That doesnt say much.. in the right hands like you said worse gear with less specs in many ways produced amazing results. As I keep trying to tell myself.. story is key, then audio, then visual. Doesnt matter how amazing the video quality is, if the story sucks, and/or the audio is terrible, not many will watch.