BMPCC4K 4K DCI RAW LOSSLESS 60P Video

A few days ago I took the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K out to do a test shooting 4K DCI RAW Lossless at 60P.

I was recording using Cfast 2.0 and whilst it dropped frames each time after 10sec, being such a heavy format, I still manage to shoot quite a bit.

Shot in Film, then applied a Pocket 4k to Extended Video LUT in Davinci 15 and exported Prores 422 HQ to edit.

Here is a link to download the DNG files of two of the clips for you to have a look:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v2oljnwoalza ... Nzb9a?dl=0

Let me know if you have any questions
Cheers,
Florent

Wow! Looking great there!
Would you mind mentioning if you used a speedbooster or not? if yes which one?
What lenses did you use?

That’s a good proof of concept, Florent. Nothing wrong with shooting a 4K 60p feature with clips 10s or less. Just takes a lot of planning, but that’s probably longer than Mad Max: Fury Road’s average clip duration. Would be fine on a 60P timeline as well as most people won’t have an issue playing 60p on their monitors or televisions.

I’ve been thinking about the criticism levelled at Peter Jackson when he was shooting with a project rate of 60p I believe it was. Or was it 48p? Drumbull suggested that the problem was not that 48/60p was too fast for audiences accustomed to 24/25p, but that it wasn’t fast enough. He thought 120p would be better.

I’m going to try shooting movement with the Pocket4K at 120 fps now that DaVinci Resolve 15 supports that as a Project Frame Rate and hope my 2009 Samsung HD television can play it back. I usually shoot 30 fps for deliverables. 120 fps may be beyond the limit that our eyes/brain can see a difference in real time so it would certainly seem ‘real' in terms of motion. Maybe Magic Realism?

I think the aesthetic, although different, may have its place, besides sports. Does anyone think this isn’t feasible to test?

I’ve been thinking about the criticism levelled at Peter Jackson when he was shooting with a project rate of 60p I believe it was. Or was it 48p? Drumbull suggested that the problem was not that 48/60p was too fast for audiences accustomed to 24/25p, but that it wasn’t fast enough. He thought 120p would be better.

The HFR showings of The Hobbit were 48. A couple years ago Ang Lee was showing something in 4K 120fps, but I haven't heard much about HFR since.

Thanks, Jack.

The HFR showings of The Hobbit were 48. A couple years ago Ang Lee was showing something in 4K 120fps, but I haven't heard much about HFR since.

That was "Billy Lynne's Long Halftime Walk" shot in 120fps, 4K stereo. It introduced all sorts of unexpected challenges, like not being able to have makeup on the actors, and redesigning all of their props because the high frame rate and resolution combined with 3D presentation made details too obvious.

I saw part of it during the NAB demo; it was... different. It was a great demo of what the Christie laser projectors could do, but it also didn't feel at all like a movie. More like you were really there, like in a game.

Wow! Looking great there!
Would you mind mentioning if you used a speedbooster or not? if yes which one?
What lenses did you use?

Hi, thanks .

I didn't use a speed booster, just the Lumix 12-35mm 2.8.

Cheers

120 fps may be beyond the limit that our eyes/brain can see a difference in real time so it would certainly seem ‘real' in terms of motion.

the human eye can see 30-60 fps which begs the question why shoot in anything above 60, let alone double that. slow-mo is the only thing that comes to mind but I'm a beginner at this.

If I recall correctly then 16 fps is what human eyes and brain can sense as continuous movement without it feeling as stop motion but after that it is more about more fluid witch your brain can sense and there are debates about how high fps you can really sense.