Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K vs Arri Alexa

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

Yes. Analog film “only” introduce grain when overexposed, but keep information further than any digital camera at present day. That’s why most analog film still seem more appealing IMO. Any human will recognise an overexposed (clipped) image as odd, because its unnatural. However, many digital cameras seem to have an advantage when underexposed. Keeping information into the shadows. Its rather easy. None of us look into the sun to see gradients… but we do have the ability to look into the shadows to see barely or nothing at all. That’s why I try to avoid overexpose an image at all cost, but rather underexpose anything that’s not interesting. Leaving the picture more natural.

Hard to make a comparison video with different lenses... you should uave used ultra primes on all.

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.

Exactly!

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.

Very well resumed!

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.

You do like being negative about things. You have worked in film industry, and would know the effort to get a 14 stop+ scene into 12 stops enough to make it look good. It's the bottom end of professional, but the bottom end should be closer to what the eye sees, not outdated technology. Even modern film stock can go far above 12 stops.

Justin. Yes. Trying to work the lighting of the scene produces better results. But less dynamic range pickup than the eye in internal scene (there are a range of values quoted which I'll have too look at) is less professional. Having better pickup simply makes things better in time and allows you to do more with the image, hence professional efficiencies.

But, isn't there a magic lantern raw hack for your camera. I've glanced at a few different camera raw hack clips, and the images were interesting.

Re-edit: While people say film has this or that range, it's not the entire picture. There are a number of different film formulations with different characteristics. So, you swap around film stock to get the look you want. But a good sensor gives you good results compared to many things, without having to swap the sensor. However, until we get something good enough, filters and lighting are still in to tool set to set the base line of a quality image in a difficult situation. I'm a pragmatist, so I'm looking forwards to a time when things are so good you don't need the extras, and just concentrate on the real art in front of the camera.

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.

There are tons of situations when you can't control the light and when camera dynamic range matters.

BTW here are some nice new samples. Pocket4k is just like GH5s with better codec. Nothing close to Ursa4.6k and other cameras with dual gain BAE sensors. Author of the review also not impressed http://tide.film/blackmagic-pocket-cine ... onic-gh5s/
This camera is step forward in ergonomics and screen but step backwards in image sensor.



PS. You can always compare this to similar lighting conditions sample from Pocket v1 camera:

Does Christian say what lenses were used? I do like the example of that car on the well lit street, but both the lighting and the lens seem quite different to me. And possibly the original Pocket image has been processed differently in post. Did ‘t he say he used a LUT? Well then both old and new cameras need to use the same LUT. Back to the comparison of the Pocket4K and the GHSs, they do look more similar than I would have expected in spite of using different codecs. I’m not coming to any conclusion at this point. It still needs to be graded in post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO there’s is no doubt that its easier to obtain a filmic look with v.1 bmpcc. But if you are skilled in post and expose carefully for what you need, then I believe the bmpcc4k can outdo it when it comes to the final image.

I kind of like some of the takes in this one, for its modern sharp filmlook:

IMO there’s is no doubt that its easier to obtain a filmic look with v.1 bmpcc. But if you are skilled in post and expose carefully for what you need, then I believe the bmpcc4k can outdo it when it comes to the final image

After testing it with a couple of Sigma Art lenses and Olympic Pro lenses I put 25, 35 and 50mm vintage primes on it and easily got a classic (cinema camera/original pocket) BM look - only better.

People will find that this camera w/ new color science and BlackMagic...well, magic, has even smoother high end roll-off; even in ProRes HQ which is all I've shot so far, UHD and HD.

All I did, because I was on the fly for a deadline, was bring it into FCPX, apply one of my regular BMMCC LUTs (which seemed logical) and then pull down the saturation a ton. With a quick color balance and grade, It looks better than any Pocket footage we've ever shot.

Thanks, Jim and Oyvind. You’ve brought me back from the abyss of watching that BMPCC4K versus GHSs footage that had left me in a very dark place it was so hopelessly devoid of art. Now I have an idea what Hell is like, but on the same day, we also find a hint of Heaven.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a matter of how much you could work it to look as good as worked footage from the original pocket if required for extra quality. The advent on BRaw may enhance this.

You’ve brought me back from the abyss of watching that BMPCC4K versus GHSs footage that had left me in a very dark place it was so hopelessly devoid of art. Now I have an idea what Hell is like, but on the same day, we also find a hint of Heaven.

Hehe… Oh man, I find that comment hilarious.

So, we got this camera… and wondering if its crap or gold. Or at least some do.

This whole chain of discussion cloud the truth that this camera in fact is far superior than most equipment that made great cinema in the first place.

I urge anyone to watch through this little golden piece called “How Kubrick achieved the beautiful cinematography of Barry Lyndon”. Barry Lyndon was shot on Eastman EXR 100T film, that give about 13stop DR. And they used mostly natural light. Than ask if the bmpcc4k camera is good enough. Because really… its not about the camera. Its about the devotion of making the movie with the tool you got.

I'm not a DP but as a storyteller I shot a lot of film, reversal, negative, ECN-2 .... blah, blah ... What I've seen that the magic of the film resides not only in latitude, but also in how it manages the color on it, which works as watercolor (something that I think Alexa cameras tries to emulate). What makes BM cameras interesting to me is their nice roll-off compared to DSLRs. I think it is a very good tool, however, far from the film color yet.
What makes great film yet is that great latitude that allow vibrant and contrasted look if it want, not like digital that become weird look if push it too much.
Just my way to see it.

No make sense talk about digital vs film again, however the true is every digital movie camera wanna be like film, isn't?

The painterly image can exist in digital, but I agree with your observation Roberto. Perhaps even from an unretouched iPhone snap. It’s about the light.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oyvind. Barry who? I barely every remember even hearing about that films name. I hope it's not like the other end best I watch. I get that people think no technically and effort, how great he was, but watching the stuff it's not. However, I do like the cinematography examples here, it's like the guerrilla lighting I advocated back in the old days, except the film camera with the film stock wasn't good enough. It looks like it was shoot on a pocket 1st gen and graded.

It isn't that crash hot. I can relate more to depth of feild lens adaptor samples more, as the shots were set up to show off the technicality and of the lens in an artistic way that moved the viewer like a story. You can't speak great cinematography without speaking great story from the image. Otherwise you are tracking stuff other people are doing and trying to keep it in bounds. Technically, great, but story wise. So, it is an interplay between story and lens, and then post editing and grading etc. So, it is a sequence of qualities from ideas, narrative, story, scenes and so called intangible elements of objects and ideas interplay, onto setup with the right cast etc before you even start filming, which leads to the quality of the product. Not to mention all the other facets and crew who go along with it. So, setting up this interplay is important. It is strange to hear a man who meticulously tried to control scenes talk like this, missing in one of the big factors, interplay between acted and lens. So mean sure, get down on the ground or whatever to get the best shot of the action at hand, but don't discount also using setting up interplay as another element.

Now, you notice the compensation for him there. There is a filter on sky's to stop them burning out. Too many candels, gels, lights, special custom lens mechanism to deal with sensitivity and latitude issues. Realise that looks like a heavily graded rerelease which might have latitude extension and recovery technologies. Yeah sure guys, get all that stuff together to film with the pocket 1st gen on your next film to the standard of Barry Lyndon. What, your not, it's too much effort, thats why we want better cameras. The pocket 4k would hopefully handle lowlight better. But, wouldn't it be better to use Alexa, Helium or Mini 4.6k on this film today? Maybe even an 8k hydrogen cinema module.

The poor light in that country helps the look compared to here. You need less latitude. Even so, you see to expose properly well lit areas, that shadows go dark, like a one trick wonder art film style, or light colours are burned out. You see heavy contrast between lit and non lit parts of actors heads. Ok, if it is the look you are going for. It looks a bit too much like video.

PS. I believe I read that Alexa colour science was aimed at a specific film look. It might have been this film stock.

Rick, I notice the lack of shade

Alexa is the classic example of painterly image from a digital film camera. It's hard to believe they couldn't make a 4k version of the pocket FullHD, or mini 4.6k, sensor if they were going to go fir a camera body as big as the 4k.

I suspect BRaw is meant to deliver even more pleasing images than we have seen on the pocket. Oh, for 15 stops.

Dude, never state you barely remember Barry Lyndon on a cinematography forum, and NEVER criticise its imagery - we would all be lucky to get a frame or two in a lifetime like Kubrick.

Wayne, Using the bmpcc4k as a first pic on a big budget movie like Barry Lyndon is obviously ridicules. There are better cameras today for that kind of work. Point is… They put a lot of efford into the making of Barry Lyndon. Using all sorts of trick and creative solutions. This would probably also happen today in some other extend. But today we can buy a camera for about 1k$ and get better image quality than what they had at the time. And yes, we have much more expensive equipment that can to it even better.

Roberto, I agree that the celluloid filmic quality is something we strive for even to this day. However, many modern movies shot on alexa, red etc emulate film pretty good. Going back pre 2010 and we talked about a trained eye, someone able to spot out what is film and what’s digital. That is almost impossible today. Most of us can be fooled quite easy with modern digital cameras. Sadly, it will take a talent to make the bmpcc4k sensor emulate a film stock. I think most of us are convinced of that by now… that’s a step back from the v1 pocket camera sensor, which look quite filmic on almost anything you throw at it, as long as you exposed correctly.

Wayne, Using the bmpcc4k as a first pic on a big budget movie like Barry Lyndon is obviously ridicules. There are better cameras today for that kind of work. Point is… They put a lot of efford into the making of Barry Lyndon. Using all sorts of trick and creative solutions....

...and let's not forget the famous 'Barry Lyndon' Zeiss lens.

IMO, the Glass comes first and Camera second. If you want to see something really Cinematic on TV, take a look at the new 'Doctor Who' series shot on Cooke/Alexa.

In one of the media interviews at IBC 2018, where the BMD rep is talking about BRAW, it is mentioned that BRAW allowed BMD to add "a stop or a stop and a half” of latitude in the shadows. I didn’t remember that the first time I watched the interview and I don’t recall anyone discussing that on the forum. If true, then the BMPCC4K is a stop closer to matching the Alexa. The AVPro tests on the street and in the market did seem to work well in both well lit and lowlight areas of the frame.

Multiple different points are being discussed, and I think we are getting a few different ones at cross ends Oyvind.

One point. As far as film performance, you could get similar performance out of pocket. There is a guy here who was part of the team that spent 18 months grading Empire, who tells how over a hundred or two hundred thousand was spent working on the $20,000 film clerks, to get it's visual quality up. The clips used above in the doco look like they went through a lot of work to get them to look that good too. If you spent that amount of money on either of the pocket footage you could get images like that, and with less effort in filming with the new pocket definitely (iso, low light, low noise). But there are better cameras, and Barry L does not prove film's superiority like some are liking here. I'm sorry I have to challenge people's perceptions, but they are a dream. Sure, if you swap around film stocks on the fly I would think people could likely beat most digital cameras, but that's like saying you should swap around sensors or cameras on the fly, and the call should be closer. You see what I mean? My point is, if you spent that sort of effort on set and in post, you could get this even on these cameras, the master touch they are talking about. But who has a Kubrik budget and time (6 years to shoot A Full Metal Jacket, and I don't even know if I go ished the film). It's like watching a hospital some stuff. I mean I'm the same vein as Kubrik perfectionism, but I don't see that as art, I imagine he didn't either. I don't want to spend that amount of time on that rather than the real emotional art. But respect to him for the utter extreme technical efforts he put in, an award or more for that. But professionals mistake their technical 'art' for art of the story (part of). If it was true every good camera person could be a good director or cinematographer, but I had better stop before I get strung up. The art of the story goes beyond the technical, it's about how you use the technical to make a story.

Now, if you tried to film Barry L here in mid summer, where they filmed the Thin Red Line (in winter most likely) in normal light it wouldn't work so well on that setup and stock, and you would have similar problems with the pocket 4k, as the light is just too harsh at that time. I mean the light here has picked up amazingly last month within weeks, and it's only getting worse. The darkest of winter here is probably like the brightest of summer there, only better. The angle of the sun is shallow affecting watts per square metre and colour temperature. This is going to affect the lattitude if the scene.

People complain about digital, but a previous mistake in digital is using the wrong colour temperature of light, using lighting that suites film more. You see in Barry L they are strongly favouring that (even worse). If you are a real master you should be able to make it work with a bluer colour temperature, but that would take away what he was trying to achieve in look. But the issue is, that golden glow looks nicer, bluer glow looks colder, hence it would be an accomplishment to be able to achieve joy in blue. (Which might more reflect how cold it was on set up there. That was a joke.). So, when shot right fur the medium and graded afterwards, how good is any single film stock compared to the best digital cinema camera these days?

Praising the IQ of the first pocket but lets not forget the BMCC 2.5k which is/was even better. It got a bad reputation back then but today most people respect it for the great tool it was/is. Maybe because it was the first and needed to build an reputation first and BMD not so special quality control on first units.

Anyway, I think its too soon to label the new pocket. Now that its getting in the wild is a matter of days till we see proper tests and proper shot footage with original files to play with. I think there is a great potential based on what I saw so far. BMD will certainly enhance it with fw updates and Im not even considering BRAW.

Dude, never state you barely remember Barry Lyndon on a cinematography forum, and NEVER criticise its imagery - we would all be lucky to get a frame or two in a lifetime like Kubrick.

Yes, cinematography fan club, I think more pro video.

See the reply to Oyvind. It's just has a look that suites the medium using natural light. As for the frame above it looks like one of the Dutch artist paintings mentioned in the documentary, only contrived. Kubrik is a very smart man, look at the awkward held choreographed positions of the characters, how the guy is like he is going slide off the chair. But here he uses a lovely bluish colour temperature of light streaming in. I don't know the context of the scene, but I think Kubrik probably was thinking to send up the poses of the painting. If you have a look at his work, you notice a slant there in sub story in places against certain things. A clock work orange, with the eyes wired open was having a go at one thing, and his last film, eyes wired shut. The guy was very very clever. With these people things happen on a subliminal level you have to watch carefully for.

Did anybody see my post about the interview on the other thread? People having being finding samples of poorer image of Bbraw 3:1 Q0 compared to CDNG 4:1. But the interview (not with Grant) clearly states better image in the areas that samples are portraying the opposite in. So, I'm believing that there is something up, and BRaw is actually better than the samples portray (as I don't think the BM person is mistaken). My first reaction to the red frabric test was I must be looking at 12:1 when I was looking at the 3:1. So, I'm hoping that. Bingo, I got it, the current samples are shot on a 4.6k which is noisier and not built for noise removal and the sample was dim. But in a brighter scene it might be much better, but on the Pocket 4k it might be better a lot of the time.

That 1-1 1/2 stop gain in the shadows has got to come from somewhere. Likely noise handeling on the 4.6k. With the pocket 4k you start with a much cleaner image normally, so you might not get as much enhancement.

Did anybody see my post about the interview on the other thread? People having being finding samples of poorer image of Bbraw 3:1 Q0 compared to CDNG 4:1. But the interview (not with Grant) clearly states better image in the areas that samples are portraying the opposite in. So, I'm believing that there is something up, and BRaw is actually better than the samples portray (as I don't think the BM person is mistaken). My first reaction to the red frabric test was I must be looking at 12:1 when I was looking at the 3:1. So, I'm hoping that. Bingo, I got it, the current samples are shot on a 4.6k which is noisier and not built for noise removal and the sample was dim. But in a brighter scene it might be much better, but on the Pocket 4k it might be better a lot of the time.

That 1-1 1/2 stop gain in the shadows has got to come from somewhere. Likely noise handeling on the 4.6k. With the pocket 4k you start with a much cleaner image normally, so you might not get as much enhancement.

And its still in beta. It will certainly get better over time with updates.

2.5 years, it certainly shouldn't get much better like that. Strange. It might just be some mix-up, or just the sample. Still, the macro blocking is interesting.

Wayne, Using the bmpcc4k as a first pic on a big budget movie like Barry Lyndon is obviously ridicules. There are better cameras today for that kind of work. Point is… They put a lot of efford into the making of Barry Lyndon. Using all sorts of trick and creative solutions. This would probably also happen today in some other extend. But today we can buy a camera for about 1k$ and get better image quality than what they had at the time. And yes, we have much more expensive equipment that can to it even better.

Roberto, I agree that the celluloid filmic quality is something we strive for even to this day. However, many modern movies shot on alexa, red etc emulate film pretty good. Going back pre 2010 and we talked about a trained eye, someone able to spot out what is film and what’s digital. That is almost impossible today. Most of us can be fooled quite easy with modern digital cameras. Sadly, it will take a talent to make the bmpcc4k sensor emulate a film stock. I think most of us are convinced of that by now… that’s a step back from the v1 pocket camera sensor, which look quite filmic on almost anything you throw at it, as long as you exposed correctly.

Yeah, there’s a lot of features shot in digital that looks like film. But I think we should focus on homemade films for now, I mean if you are involve in a huge production, those fears about film look not make sense at all because you can do whatever you want …. Or just shot 500T film in sunset with a crew of 4 guys around you like Malick…just kidding

I think Is not film VS digital, is add to digital the beneficies of film and keep off the uglies issues of film stock.
I’m sure BM can do a great 6ms shutter, subtractive color science, huge latitude and all that, but the cameras not gonna be cheaper = not democratic tool for Independent filmmakers.

All well and good, but as Barry Lyndon shows, it is lighting first, lens, then camera last. Yes the camera has to be up to the task, like the mods Kubrick made to his camera to use that Zeiss NASA Lens for the candlelight scenes. But the scene needs to be lit to where the camera being used can record the detail as you want it to look. Like Kubrick did in Barry Lyndon, making his scenes look like paintings from the era.

...which look quite filmic on almost anything you throw at it, as long as you exposed correctly.

This can be said for most good cameras, even the Panny AF100, lighting snd exposing correctly are the key here, regardless of the camera used.
Cheers

As I was saying, Barry L example compared to Pockets, just proves that film is not so precious. I was not really advocating use of the pockets as primaries on major pictures, just illustrating similarity.

Now, yes, stock uglies, is reality. You could afford to buy multiple different cameras with the money spent on film in features. So, how much advantage? Without changing out the film stock, you have a lot less performance.

Barry L was shot with 70's film stock without 8K scans, CC softwares with denoise like we have right now. No make sense this discussion.
For instance Apocalypse Now was shot with 100 ISO film stock. I think it's impossible compare those with the actual digital ISOs performances.

Attached a crap frame scan of 35mm Kodak Vision 3 250D (no CC) I shot, for sure it could look much better that any digital camera with a good scan, even just 2K scan.
Modern film stock is awesome, just depends of the scan.
But yes, film is expensive and not make sense right now as independent filmmaker.

Yeah, there’s a lot of features shot in digital that looks like film. But I think we should focus on homemade films for now, I mean if you are involve in a huge production, those fears about film look not make sense at all because you can do whatever you want …. Or just shot 500T film in sunset with a crew of 4 guys around you like Malick…just kidding

I totally agree. And that’s also the irony in this whole discussion. The Bmpcc4k seem to be a competitor tool against a lot of great cameras out there. I’m not saying for its price point, but a filmcamera in general. Downside is, it needs a bit of talent to make it produce a filmic looking image.

Blackmagic first bmpcc produce a surprisingly filmic looking image straight out of the box, just like with a film and its own stock. add a curve an you got something. The bmpcc4k on the other hand seem not to produce that straight of. But its possible to colorize it to that degree if you have the skill. To me that’s a good thing. A tool that are good in many worlds. Narratives, documentary, tv and so on. I’m concluding, that what you leave with the bmpcc v1 is an easy road to a filmic looking image. But what you get from the bmpcc4k is a versatile image for different types of production with better IQ. And you can make it just as filmic, or even better, if you have the talent to do so. Question is, will the homemade film guy/girl find that attractive? Maybe.

Yeah, there’s a lot of features shot in digital that looks like film. But I think we should focus on homemade films for now, I mean if you are involve in a huge production, those fears about film look not make sense at all because you can do whatever you want …. Or just shot 500T film in sunset with a crew of 4 guys around you like Malick…just kidding

I totally agree. And that’s also the irony in this whole discussion. The Bmpcc4k seem to be a competitor tool against a lot of great cameras out there. I’m not saying for its price point, but a filmcamera in general. Downside is, it needs a bit of talent to make it produce a filmic looking image.

Blackmagic first bmpcc produce a surprisingly filmic looking image straight out of the box, just like with a film and its own stock. add a curve an you got something. The bmpcc4k on the other hand seem not to produce that straight of. But its possible to colorize it to that degree if you have the skill. To me that’s a good thing. A tool that are good in many worlds. Narratives, documentary, tv and so on. I’m concluding, that what you leave with the bmpcc v1 is an easy road to a filmic looking image. But what you get from the bmpcc4k is a versatile image for different types of production with better IQ. And you can make it just as filmic, or even better, if you have the talent to do so. Question is, will the homemade film guy/girl find that attractive? Maybe.

I have the Pocket v1. Is a great camera and can hold "filmic look" if keep soft CC, washed desaturated look, but not so when push it to vibrant color mood. In resume, to me Pocket v1 have great roll-off and bad color and resolution performance. It makes many pro DPs and colorist avoid work with BM cameras because it takes extra work.

I think P4K is better camera than V1. I dunno, we must stop thinking that film look is soft. I have read a lot about film look: grain, soft, not much resolution...and many bull ****.
To me film can be 10K with super highlights latitude allow overexpose for shadows, beautiful subtractive color and roll off... and global shutter as well.

So we just should keep in mind: dynamic range, roll-off, shutter and great color. 2K, 4K, 8K no matter at all.

Well, I don't wanna sound categoric, it's just my point of view, not the absolute truth

Roberto, I think my point was that Barry L was not the best example (as you said, old stock), likely reprocessed in those clips, and similar to what the pockets could do with such great effort, but that I was comparing digital to a film stock. Meaning, not a film camera with whatever stock, but any particular film stock. Making the point, that digital replaces a number of film stocks in one sensor, which is great flexibility and some handeling cost saving. Do any of the film stock match the range and colour digital is capable of, I haven't seen. But there was a old sensor with over 27 stops of colour correctness. Puts Arri to shame, and a company like this should have a look at something like that. That's what Arri did, they tracked down nice technogies which tells it's age. That sensor went above 27 stops too. I forget, butnI think one was around 34 stops. It could do low light, but maybe no better than film stocks you could use in the day. That's very old technology. So, which film stocks can handle the nearly full range of human vision (something full range of normal vision plus nearly as good as night vision)? We buy toys.

Now, I wasn't aware till recently conventional film stock had made some more gain in the last x years. Let's speak of the hateful 8. I liked how it could render the frame and skies like wide dynamic range car crash cams I've seen. They were advertising around 20 stops, I forget which technology they were using though. I dont hear about any stock to match the sevaues I'm talking about. The recent film stock quoted is more like a hiccup, nice today, but will there be better tomorrow to compete with better sensors coming? But let's go one further.

I am a technologist, and have seen a number of useful technogies. So I am going to tell you about an ultimate film camera design I was looking at doing. Not so ultimate now, but this is many years back. In the 80's the ANU came up with the blue disk technogy. It was a disk of various rare earth elements I think, could store millions of frequencies extremely sensitive, goes blue when exposed to daylight. The effect however, was short lived before the data would dissapear, so was refreshed in the caching storage system it was used in. It had I forget how many millions of times higher data density than a compact dusk if the time, but way more than even now.

It occured to me I could use it as film, in alternating frames and maybe a small loop, I forget. While a frame is exposed another is scanned, and then it is reused. Maybe just one frame would work. But effectively, a film camera with digital scanning of a small number of frames of film.

That frame reminds me a bit of my hdr smalsensor based credit card camera, which maybe some if the technogy in the Alexa. So, it was miday, and the light was weak? So, ynnit much range was needed. So, could you get a proper digital film camera to do that, I wouldn't object to somebody thinking they could. But I think a normal camera is a little compromised, even from the colour filter.

Anyway, anybody here that did that alcohol like commercial with the bottle on stand table with golden yellow glow? Which reminds me of Barry L colour and the best of Alexa.

Just one little remark here: analog wasn't really global shutter, but the RS was minimal.

Quite true... it seems not a lot of people these days understand how rotating shutters work.

Quite true... it seems not a lot of people these days understand how rotating shutters work.

C'mon guys! we're talking serious or what?


Wayne Steven,
Interesting point of view.

Not sure if you're referring about my frame. If yes, it was shot almost night,T4 250 ISO.

Hey, guys. Take a look:



To me, its simply beautiful.

I think P4K is better camera than V1. I dunno, we must stop thinking that film look is soft. I have read a lot about film look: grain, soft, not much resolution...and many bull ****.
To me film can be 10K with super highlights latitude allow overexpose for shadows, beautiful subtractive color and roll off... and global shutter as well.

So we just should keep in mind: dynamic range, roll-off, shutter and great color. 2K, 4K, 8K no matter at all.

Well, I don't wanna sound categoric, it's just my point of view, not the absolute truth

Valid point of view, that i happen to agree on. Film do not need to be soft/low res by any means. Look at Dunkirk, shot on 70mm. It got an organic resolution that many argue is much higher than 10k res from any digital camera today. Still, there is a sublime calm “smooth”’nes to the picture that is really appealing. IQ detail/texture, not sharpens. What I like about the bmpcc4k so far is that it delivers nice texture/detail, not artifical sharpnes.

Kind of interesting to look back and think of that they tried to make 16mm film a conventional camera but failed against video: vhs,beta, umatic etc. What if 16mm became the big hit back than for the common man… hmm.

The issue with 16mm being a “common persons” format, was even back in the 60s when I show 16mm, it was expensive to buy, and process compared to 8mm and later Super 8, which kind of killed 16mm as mass market medium, it was more of a film student, news, and documentary film format for professionals, Super 16 more so.
Cheers

The issue with 16mm being a “common persons” format, was even back in the 60s when I show 16mm, it was expensive to buy, and process compared to 8mm and later Super 8, which kind of killed 16mm as mass market medium, it was more of a film student, news, and documentary film format for professionals, Super 16 more so.
Cheers

All true. Sadly, the price never got down to a reasonable level even though they tried. Kind of killed itself in that regard.

I think P4K is better camera than V1. I dunno, we must stop thinking that film look is soft. I have read a lot about film look: grain, soft, not much resolution...and many bull ****.
To me film can be 10K with super highlights latitude allow overexpose for shadows, beautiful subtractive color and roll off... and global shutter as well.

So we just should keep in mind: dynamic range, roll-off, shutter and great color. 2K, 4K, 8K no matter at all.

Well, I don't wanna sound categoric, it's just my point of view, not the absolute truth

Valid point of view, that i happen to agree on. Film do not need to be soft/low res by any means. Look at Dunkirk, shot on 70mm. It got an organic resolution that many argue is much higher than 10k res from any digital camera today. Still, there is a sublime calm “smooth”’nes to the picture that is really appealing. IQ detail/texture, not sharpens. What I like about the bmpcc4k so far is that it delivers nice texture/detail, not artifical sharpnes.

Kind of interesting to look back and think of that they tried to make 16mm film a conventional camera but failed against video: vhs,beta, umatic etc. What if 16mm became the big hit back than for the common man… hmm.

Agree. 70mm is just amazing to watch in a huge screen.

I have shot R16mm anamorphic, but I had a bad experience. Expired film stock, bad develop, worst scan...bfff. Anyway, not fault by the film himself, just my bad experience make me lose money. Rage because it cost a few bucks. But I see S16mm stuff well scanned and look awesome. Even S8mm with negative film stock, denoise, stabilized and look great as well.

Is pretty funny when the first time I shot stills with TriX 400 I thought it gonna look like Sebastiao Salgado pictures, and you know what? my pictures looked like from a digital camera, EOS or something...too sharp, clean...LOL

Obviously digital is more clean and sharp, but not so when push it to the color latitude of film. Maybe this point could make the difference between a good digital camera with a great digital one.
Just to take a chat with a pro colorist and he gonna tell us which camera work better.
I remember one saying, BM is a great camera if you're using as if had 10 stops.
I guess he told about BMCC 2.5K, is something from a few years ago.

I was very enthusiastic about 16mm in the 70s/80s. But nothing was easy. Have the camera. Film and precessing was expensive and took time when you had to rely on the mail. And then there’s editing. Started with a simple splicer but ended on a multi-reel flatbed editor that did not belong to me so access was very limited. Always loved the results shooting film, but not the difficulty bringing it all together. Much rather use today’s tools. But agree more care is needed today to get a filmic look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should have tried feeding a 35mm cine csmera with film, especially a high speed one like I have. Was used to get slowmo shots, but that think could eat film very quickly! Never could afford to feed it, my Godfsther who left it to me on,unused it a few times for the same reason it cost $$$
Cheers

Hey, guys. Take a look:



To me, its simply beautiful.

Nice! Thanks.
This one sold me the camera.
I know this is not the best digital camera but could be a great tool for storytelling.
I'd like have hype for new cameras, but not.

I was very enthusiastic about 16mm in the 70s/80s. But nothing was easy. Have the camera. Film and precessing was expensive and took time when you had to rely on the mail. And then there’s editing. Started with a simple splicer but ended on a multi-reel flatbed editor that did not belong to me so access was very limited. Always loved the results shooting film, but not the difficulty bringing it all together. Much rather use today’s tools. But agree more care is needed today to get a filmic look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's was great. Experience makes better eye as filmmaker. I born in 70's, so with 10 years old VHS occupied the entire market. Until 90's I did not start experimenting with film. And now digital color grading is a very interesting new world.

The issue with 16mm being a “common persons” format, was even back in the 60s when I show 16mm, it was expensive to buy, and process compared to 8mm and later Super 8, which kind of killed 16mm as mass market medium, it was more of a film student, news, and documentary film format for professionals, Super 16 more so.
Cheers

All true. Sadly, the price never got down to a reasonable level even though they tried. Kind of killed itself in that regard.

Even 8mm was a bit big.

I think P4K is better camera than V1. I dunno, we must stop thinking that film look is soft. I have read a lot about film look: grain, soft, not much resolution...and many bull ****.
To me film can be 10K with super highlights latitude allow overexpose for shadows, beautiful subtractive color and roll off... and global shutter as well.

So we just should keep in mind: dynamic range, roll-off, shutter and great color. 2K, 4K, 8K no matter at all.

Well, I don't wanna sound categoric, it's just my point of view, not the absolute truth

Valid point of view, that i happen to agree on. Film do not need to be soft/low res by any means. Look at Dunkirk, shot on 70mm. It got an organic resolution that many argue is much higher than 10k res from any digital camera today. Still, there is a sublime calm “smooth”’nes to the picture that is really appealing. IQ detail/texture, not sharpens. What I like about the bmpcc4k so far is that it delivers nice texture/detail, not artifical sharpnes.

Kind of interesting to look back and think of that they tried to make 16mm film a conventional camera but failed against video: vhs,beta, umatic etc. What if 16mm became the big hit back than for the common man… hmm.

You would have to compare to various debayering (bayers effectively end scanning product here) and olpf. What you see here is Bayer lousiness. Bayer works better massive oversampled. So, 16k might produce great 8k. Red has used a high degree of resolution recovery, BM used no olpf, producing lots of issues on gappy Bayer colour pattern. Sony used it's rotated diamond based pixels with sort of 8k. Is there any digital cinema camera which does it right. You would have to compare it to a top digital camera that does 4:4:4 per pixel. Only two companies might still do that, but neither uses the best digital technology. Bingo, I was just thinking about it earlier today. Use three monochrome digital cameras hooked up through beam splitter and appropriate doliochitic colour filters, to seperate out a red green and blue image to each, then recombine them. I was thinking if this to produce reference images to judge the performance of vertical colour filter sensor like the Sigma Foveon X3. But unless you are talking about a 10k resolution pixel are from film being able to produce enough grain information to get 12-16+ bits of information is it really that good (plus colour information). If you are talking about there is one distinct grain per pixel, thats going be likely worse than Bayer 10k. If it is a 10k scan to pick up odd grain positions, if there is any grain in a pixel boundary at all, that's bad. Bayer regularity helps with pixel information recovery, film grain irregularities are not so calculable to recovering information, and oversampling a scan to capture grain information is not the same as true constant resolution. I could argue I could capture resolution from such a device by measuring the position of atoms in the film, but of yet this is useless to us.

If you are shooting 10k film and watching it on a 2k projection, of course it's going look good. If you shoot 10k next year on Red you could expect it to look a lot better at cinema too. Is the 10k newer film stock, the numbers 10 years ago were a lot less.

Obviously digital is more clean and sharp, but not so when push it to the color latitude of film. Maybe this point could make the difference between a good digital camera with a great digital one.
Just to take a chat with a pro colorist and he gonna tell us which camera work better.
I remember one saying, BM is a great camera if you're using as if had 10 stops.
I guess he told about BMCC 2.5K, is something from a few years ago.

Hence why I say you need 14 stops+ to grade better. Why I also say at least 14 stops, and preferably 16 stops+ latitude. Hence I said, Pocket 4k was not going be that pristine, and extra work would be needed to get better results. Thankfully it turned out that way, and not like the initial models hosted video samples.

If we are used to judging scenes based on 16 stop+ vision, and you stick a maybe 13 stop camera out in broad daylight which has way more than 16 stops, of course the highlights are going look a bit harsh.

Hence I said, Pocket 4k was not going be that pristine, and extra work would be needed to get better results. Thankfully it turned out that way, and not like the initial models hosted video samples.

The Pocket 4K will be great for people with talent but no budget.

If we are used to judging scenes based on 16 stop+ vision, and you stick a maybe 13 stop camera out in broad daylight which has way more than 16 stops, of course the highlights are going look a bit harsh.

If you end up with harsh highlights using a BMD camera (especially a recent one) it's time to upgrade your cinematographer. Seriously... 13 stops with BMD's improved color science and highlight rolloff should be enough to do great work. 16 stops is a luxury, not a requirement.