Blackmagic Forum

Hey all,

I've recently bought the BMPCC4K and I'm loving it. Only downside at this moment for me is that it's less sharp than anything I've worked with. I've read that BRAW in general just less sharp than CinemaDNG for instance.

Anyway it's still RAW so it has a lot of possibilities. I'm using DaVinci Resolve to grade and Premiere to edit. What do you guys recommend for sharpening my BRAW footage? Or is there anything in the camera settings I can adjust so that my footage comes out as sharp as I'm used to?

Very curious!

Change lens, close a bit the iris, but not too much to avoid diffraction, use Q0 quality
two weeks ago i did a shooting with pocket4k, and result are tack sharp, sharper than i need.


frames braw extracted by Resolve.

remember that a too sharp footage is stroboscopic footage.

What cameras are you comparing it to? How are you viewing your footage? are you viewing it 1:1 or downscalled?

You don't say what you're used to, but if what you want is consumer-level artificial sharpness, there's a sharpness setting in the camera itself. Just turn it on and up.

It's funny, because I routinely add a mist effect to BMPCC 4K material, if I don't have a Promist filter available at the time. The UHD braw footage is too sharp for my taste, even viewed at HD resolution.

You're probably doing something wrong during acquisition. My 4K BRAW footage is actually distractingly sharp.

One scene with good light may be very sharp and next one (dark with noise) very soft. It's a beauty of BRAW and its fairly poor auto de-noising.

psychodusk wrote:Hey all,

I've recently bought the BMPCC4K and I'm loving it. Only downside at this moment for me is that it's less sharp than anything I've worked with. I've read that BRAW in general just less sharp than CinemaDNG for instance.

Anyway it's still RAW so it has a lot of possibilities. I'm using DaVinci Resolve to grade and Premiere to edit. What do you guys recommend for sharpening my BRAW footage? Or is there anything in the camera settings I can adjust so that my footage comes out as sharp as I'm used to?

Very curious!

If you shoot with low light BRAW is fairly heavily de-noised and it looses sharpness. Not much you can do about it as there is no control over it. Use better light or sharpen it in BRAW setting (although you can't really bring back original details killed by de-nosing).

psychodusk wrote:What do you guys recommend for sharpening my BRAW footage?

4K footage does not need sharpening.

If it is not sharp, then either you use substandard lenses or your shot was out of focus.

Lower light, lower iso
higher iso, higher noise mean more stronger noise reduction, but....
check these picture extracted from my shooting, when you shoot Q0 at 5000 iso keep the noise and keep dectails on the wall (usually i not shot at 5000iso, it's a stress test). Not sharp like first where i exposed correctly.
i cannot put on forum for size, here the direct link to 4k picture.

http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... wQ5_01.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... BrawQ0.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... wQ0_02.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... wQ0_02.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... wQ0_03.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... BrawQ5.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... BrawQ0.jpg
http://www.macchiavello.com/wp/wp-conte ... .48.1.jpeg
the last is again Q0 at 1250 iso

keep lower iso to keep low the noise and later up the picture in post with gain.

Cary Knoop wrote:

psychodusk wrote:What do you guys recommend for sharpening my BRAW footage?

4K footage does not need sharpening.

If it is not sharp, then either you use substandard lenses or your shot was out of focus.

Well this is good to know. I'm using a Metabones speedbooster into a Canon L 24-70mm f2.8 so I'm definitely not using substandard lenses. I am just noticing a shift in sharpness between CinemaDNG/ProRes and BRAW on the same camera.

Maybe my lens needs a thorough cleaning. Just adding a tad of sharpening (0.01 - 0.02 points) also works well I noticed.

BRAW does internal de-nosing wich kills fine details as well. It's not your lens.

psychodusk wrote:I am just noticing a shift in sharpness between CinemaDNG/ProRes and BRAW on the same camera.

Noticing how? Actually watching footage, or with still images zoomed in at least 3x? This thread

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91802

offers a well controlled assessment of the differences between the two formats, which can reasonably be described as "microscopic". Also note that cDNG defaults to added sharpening in the raw tab, an option not present for braw.

All that aside, 4K braw is subjectively sharp, often unpleasantly so. If projected 35mm film aesthetics are the standard, it's already far too sharp.

John Paines wrote:

psychodusk wrote:I am just noticing a shift in sharpness between CinemaDNG/ProRes and BRAW on the same camera.

Noticing how? Actually watching footage, or with still images zoomed in at least 3x? This thread

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91802

offers a well controlled assessment of the differences between the two formats, which can reasonably be described as "microscopic". Also note that cDNG defaults to added sharpening in the raw tab, an option not present for braw.

All that aside, 4K braw is subjectively sharp, often unpleasantly so. If projected 35mm film aesthetics are the standard, it's already far too sharp.

Actually watching footage it's noticeable, but not obvious. When zooming in it's very well noticeable.

I didn't know cDNG defaults to added sharpening. Good to know.

carlomacchiavello wrote:Change lens, close a bit the iris, but not too much to avoid diffraction, use Q0 quality
two weeks ago i did a shooting with pocket4k, and result are tack sharp, sharper than i need.

TestSharpness01668368.jpg

TestSharpness01669877.jpg

frames braw extracted by Resolve.

remember that a too sharp footage is stroboscopic footage.

Just noticed that these images are indeed very sharp. What lens did you use?

And why should I use Q0 quality?

BRAW does a lot behind your back and this is "main problem". Any comparison will heavily depend on shooting condition- the less light and more noise the bigger difference. At some point it's not that microscopic.
Whole color difference (drop in blue channel) and halo described in mentioned thread are side effects of de-noising (blue channel is always noisiest, so it's de-noised stronger). BM needs de-noising to maintain BRAW data rate.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:BRAW does internal de-nosing wich kills fine details as well. It's not your lens.

Is there a way to control the amount of de-noising BRAW does on it’s own (besides lowering the ISO in the camera and/or lighting the shadows)?

What ISO to set in the camera before BRAW’s de-noising starts lowering the image sharpness?

psychodusk wrote:And why should I use Q0 quality?

It retains the most detail, compared to higher compression options. You may also note that Prores HQ is sharper than the higher compression braw options. But if you can see the difference in normal viewing, with well lit properly exposed shots, your eyes are better than mine.

John Paines wrote:

psychodusk wrote:And why should I use Q0 quality?

It retains the most detail, compared to higher compression options. You may also note that Prores HQ is sharper than the higher compression braw options. But if you can see the difference in normal viewing, with well lit properly exposed shots, your eyes are better than mine.

I find this very weird. I noticed ProRes HQ is indeed sharper than BRAW. How so? How can ProRes, which is essentially worse than BRAW, be sharper? I don't understand this.

On more time:
BRAW does internal de-noising wich kills fine details as well. Problem is not BRAW compression itself, but other pre-processing wich is happening behind the scenes.

Joshua_G wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:BRAW does internal de-nosing wich kills fine details as well. It's not your lens.

Is there a way to control the amount of de-noising BRAW does on it’s own (besides lowering the ISO in the camera and/or lighting the shadows)?

What ISO to set in the camera before BRAW’s de-noising starts lowering the image sharpness?

No and I would say this is the weakest point of BRAW. We could get eg. at least 2 settings for de-noising strength. Problem is that when BM weakens de-noising, bitrate for Q modes will raise (it can be a lot for noisy footage), so this may cause recording issues. It's not like de-noising is there for no reason

Thanks, Andrew.

psychodusk wrote:

carlomacchiavello wrote:Change lens, close a bit the iris, but not too much to avoid diffraction, use Q0 quality
two weeks ago i did a shooting with pocket4k, and result are tack sharp, sharper than i need.

TestSharpness01668368.jpg

TestSharpness01669877.jpg

frames braw extracted by Resolve.

remember that a too sharp footage is stroboscopic footage.

Just noticed that these images are indeed very sharp. What lens did you use?

And why should I use Q0 quality?

Sorry i see only today your answer, i used 17-55 2.8 Canon ef-s.
I use Q0 be cause is very near to old 3:1 cdng about sharpness without eating high freq dectails, and... it's a test for an article where i use pocket4k like super long shooting photos camera, extracting later braw frames from shooting.

Well, that's pretty much a kit lens and you may need to stop it down a bit.

That said, DNG is delivering a lot of false detail due to the lack of an OLPF, which will suggest sharpness to the eye that is not true information. BRAW's denoising is eliminating some of it.

After I got an OLPF for my UMP G1, the two codecs are much closer and the pictures are beautiful. No biting sharpness any more, more like one of the Red cameras, which have pretty conservative filtering. But I'm referring to moving images, I don't use it for high-res stills photography.

Hi

I kind of noticed the same issue. Comparing footage from the bmpcc4k with metabones .64x to a gh5 with the same adapter, the footage from the bmpcc4k is not as sharp...

Any tips?

jw4949 wrote:Hi

I kind of noticed the same issue. Comparing footage from the bmpcc4k with metabones .64x to a gh5 with the same adapter, the footage from the bmpcc4k is not as sharp...

Any tips?

gh5 or gh5s?
gh5 is 21mpx against 9mpx of pocket4k.
anyway are you sure are in focus? i had both gh5 and pocket4k and with right lens both are sharp.
without speedbooster, sorry i forget to told it.

The BMPCC4K has different Metabones adapters because the sensor glass thickness is different.

I put the BMPCC4k 0.64x Metabones SB on a BMCC MFT and it appears to work fine. I don't have the older BMCC MFT to EF Metabones SB to compare. Should there be a different?

WahWay wrote:I put the BMPCC4k 0.64x Metabones SB on a BMCC MFT and it appears to work fine. I don't have the older BMCC MFT to EF Metabones SB to compare. Should there be a different?

yes, there is a specific issue about old speedbooster with bmpcc4k where you loss sharpness

carlomacchiavello wrote:

WahWay wrote:I put the BMPCC4k 0.64x Metabones SB on a BMCC MFT and it appears to work fine. I don't have the older BMCC MFT to EF Metabones SB to compare. Should there be a different?

yes, there is a specific issue about old speedbooster with bmpcc4k where you loss sharpness

What about the other way, using the BMPCC4k Metabones SB 0.64x on the BMCC MFT?

WahWay wrote:

carlomacchiavello wrote:

WahWay wrote:I put the BMPCC4k 0.64x Metabones SB on a BMCC MFT and it appears to work fine. I don't have the older BMCC MFT to EF Metabones SB to compare. Should there be a different?

yes, there is a specific issue about old speedbooster with bmpcc4k where you loss sharpness

What about the other way, using the BMPCC4k Metabones SB 0.64x on the BMCC MFT?

To be honest, I read on metabone website about this issue (me too i had pocket4k) be cause i found a lots of used speedbooster for bmpcc and i checked to buy for me, but i not know if it work.
The best is to ask directly to metabone.
anyway they build this chart

carlomacchiavello wrote:

WahWay wrote:I put the BMPCC4k 0.64x Metabones SB on a BMCC MFT and it appears to work fine. I don't have the older BMCC MFT to EF Metabones SB to compare. Should there be a different?

yes, there is a specific issue about old speedbooster with bmpcc4k where you loss sharpness

This issue was confined to the edges of the frame and only with certain lenses.

I would take a guess, because the BMPCC4K Metabones SB covers a bigger sensor area than the BMCC sensor it will work just the same as the BMCC Metabones SB on the BMCC MFT but no the other away.

WahWay wrote:I would take a guess, because the BMPCC4K Metabones SB covers a bigger sensor area than the BMCC sensor it will work just the same as the BMCC Metabones SB on the BMCC MFT but no the other away.

no, because the lens of the speedbooster cannot produce a good result in either direction.

Mark Foster wrote:

WahWay wrote:I would take a guess, because the BMPCC4K Metabones SB covers a bigger sensor area than the BMCC sensor it will work just the same as the BMCC Metabones SB on the BMCC MFT but no the other away.

no, because the lens of the speedbooster cannot produce a good result in either direction.

As long as the BMPCC4k SB can cover the BMCC sensor it should produce the same result as the SB design for the BMCC on a BMCC camera. The BMCC SB however does not cover the larger sensor on the BMPCC4k. Do you get what I mean?

no, through the lens you still get distortions when you use the SB of the 4k on the original BMPCC.
conversely, the cover also adds to this problem.

psychodusk wrote:I've recently bought the BMPCC4K and I'm loving it. Only downside at this moment for me is that it's less sharp than anything I've worked with.

What other cameras have you worked with? For me, L Series lenses are not as sharp as the Sigmas but have a great reputation for stills not video. This speaks to what sharp is and how subjective it can be after a certain point.

This brings up an interesting point that has NOTHING to do with the original Post. How many of you have had a client or a friend say these fateful words: "Why does YOUR video look so washed out? My Samsung s10/iPhone version whatever makes the colors really pop!" I used to get really annoyed by the question because you can't explain to someone what they see is wrong..., maybe because they are not wrong, this speaks to how subjective sharpness is and the ways to get it For me, these kinds of questions IMO are actually a trap to put the listener on the defensive. If you are coming from using a A7S III then coming to a BM product can be a tough transition since the Sony does so much for you.

drknsss wrote:

psychodusk wrote:I've recently bought the BMPCC4K and I'm loving it. Only downside at this moment for me is that it's less sharp than anything I've worked with.

What other cameras have you worked with? For me, L Series lenses are not as sharp as the Sigmas but have a great reputation for stills not video. This speaks to what sharp is and how subjective it can be after a certain point.

This brings up an interesting point that has NOTHING to do with the original Post. How many of you have had a client or a friend say these fateful words: "Why does YOUR video look so washed out? My Samsung s10/iPhone version whatever makes the colors really pop!" I used to get really annoyed by the question because you can't explain to someone what they see is wrong..., maybe because they are not wrong, this speaks to how subjective sharpness is and the ways to get it For me, these kinds of questions IMO are actually a trap to put the listener on the defensive. If you are coming from using a A7S III then coming to a BM product can be a tough transition since the Sony does so much for you.

I don’t believe the OP uses L-mount lenses since those are full frame. AFAIK, the BMPCC 4K is an MFT mount cinema camera and the number of of crazy sharp native and adapted lenses that can be used with MFT is unlimited. Sigma designs and manufactures L-mount lenses. The 85 1.4 DG DN is just one example of an incredibly sharp L mount lens that I happen to be familiar with because I own the E-mount version and it is sizzlingly sharp. From what I’ve read, reasons one might choose L-mount lenses for video include controlled focus breathing, linear focus rings, weather sealing, standard filter thread size, aperture ring, distance scale, large number of aperture blades. It is unclear what you mean when you say L-mount lenses are not sharp enough and not good for video, but I don’t own any and once again, they are not MFT mount, so irrelevant to the discussion.

Allow me to add that if my friends, family and clients were to tell me that my videos looked washed out, then my videos probably are washed out. When a subscriber to my YT channel tells me that my skin tones are red or that my videos are too contrasty, I listen to their criticisms and make changes. Constructive criticism is not a trap intended to put anyone on the defensive: it is offered sincerely, with no ill intent. And I welcome such criticism because it helps me improve my work.

I fail to understand what comparison you are making mentioning the a7s III and a smartphone in the same breath, or what you mean when you say that the Sony does so much for you, but it seems like you’ve got it backwards, because according to what I’ve heard, Blackmagic cameras require less work in post, not more.

Red cameras have been dissed in the beginning when folks in the industry had only seen Sony Cinealta footage for being soft. They simply had proper AA filtering. The now classic Arri Alexa had even less resolution and clean filtering.
Look where these camera lines are now, they are more or less Hollywood standard.

If you need to educate your clients, rent one of these for a few hours, shoot some demo footage carefully side by side with a Sony Alpha or the like. Now prepare a comparison with proper grading and let your clients decide. If they want the Sony, give them the Sony and save on rentals

Uli Plank wrote:Red cameras have been dissed in the beginning when folks in the industry had only seen Sony Cinealta footage for being soft. They simply had proper AA filtering. The now classic Arri Alexa had even less resolution and clean filtering.
Look where these camera lines are now, they are more or less Hollywood standard.

If you need to educate your clients, rent one of these for a few hours, shoot some demo footage carefully side by side with a Sony Alpha or the like. Now prepare a comparison with proper grading and let your clients decide. If they want the Sony, give them the Sony and save on rentals

Rent an Arri or RED and spend several hours comparing them to a Sony alpha camera to educate your clients? RED cameras were dissed for being soft? Arri and RED are now more or less Hollywood standard? What has any of this got to do with the OP’s predicament? He doesn’t shoot Sony, Arri or RED.

I was answering to Gordon's statement, not the OP's. But let's put this to a rest, it has been discussed ad nauseam.

JonPais wrote: It is unclear what you mean when you say L-mount lenses are not sharp enough and not good for video, but I don’t own any and once again, they are not MFT mount, so irrelevant to the discussion....., Constructive criticism is not a trap intended to put anyone on the defensive: it is offered I fail to understand what comparison you are making mentioning the a7s III and a smartphone in the same breath, or what you mean when you say that the Sony does so much for you, but it seems like you’ve got it backwards, because according to what I’ve heard, Blackmagic cameras require less work in post, not more.

The point I was trying to make is that everyone has their own opinion and some aspects of shooting, CC, and editing are completely subjective. For some people, BM video files are MORE work because they don't have the experience, so when I see a question like this the OP is trying to find an easy answer for a complex and subjective challenge.

A statement like "BRAW is not so sharp" is not constructive criticism IMO but you may disagree. See how that works.

I have and have rented L Series Lenses and I don't believe the hype when I look at the results..., but that's just me. EF lenses fit on the P4k with a speedbooster so I'm not sure what you mean by that is irrelevant...,

drknsss wrote:

JonPais wrote: It is unclear what you mean when you say L-mount lenses are not sharp enough and not good for video, but I don’t own any and once again, they are not MFT mount, so irrelevant to the discussion....., Constructive criticism is not a trap intended to put anyone on the defensive: it is offered I fail to understand what comparison you are making mentioning the a7s III and a smartphone in the same breath, or what you mean when you say that the Sony does so much for you, but it seems like you’ve got it backwards, because according to what I’ve heard, Blackmagic cameras require less work in post, not more.

The point I was trying to make is that everyone has their own opinion and some aspects of shooting, CC, and editing are completely subjective. For some people, BM video files are MORE work because they don't have the experience, so when I see a question like this the OP is trying to find an easy answer for a complex and subjective challenge.

A statement like "BRAW is not so sharp" is not constructive criticism IMO but you may disagree. See how that works.

I have and have rented L Series Lenses and I don't believe the hype when I look at the results..., but that's just me. EF lenses fit on the P4k with a speedbooster so I'm not sure what you mean by that is irrelevant...,

(1) Regardless of whatever point it is that you claim you were trying to get across, the picture you are painting is that of someone incapable of accepting friendly advice. If my friends, subscribers and clients are telling me my work is washed out, the work is probably washed out. When my friends or subscribers offer suggestions, there is not some dark, sinister intent like you seem to imply with the words "a trap to put the listener on the defensive." The other day I actually re-graded and re-uploaded a short clip that one of my subscribers said was too contrasty and I thanked him at the end of the video.

(2) My only experience with BRAW was downloading John Brawley's 12K footage and putting it on the timeline of DaVinci Resolve and it looked superb with next to no work at all, whereas I have a not insignificant amount of familiarity with a7s III ProRes RAW and it still takes a few seconds to get it looking awesome.

(3) I don't recall any particular hype surrounding L-mount lenses. Nearly all manufacturers make great lenses nowadays and all brands have their advocates. If you can't get sharp images using L-mount lenses, chances are it's a case of user error!

(4) Finally, I've got to say that I don't appreciate your dismissal of the OP as someone "trying to find an easy answer for a complex and subjective challenge," and I don't think any reasonable person would either. The OP seems to be open-minded, eager to learn, he's accepted suggestions graciously and nowhere do we see him saying anything about not wanting to put in any effort - which is not to say that the solution to his problem is not rather simple and straightforward, either. How to properly sharpen BRAW is not exactly rocket science, after all!

Mark Foster wrote:no, through the lens you still get distortions when you use the SB of the 4k on the original BMPCC.
conversely, the cover also adds to this problem.

I was not referring to the original BMPCC.
The SB sensor cover on the BMPCC4K is larger than the BMCC and I detect no distortion on the BMCC.

The sensor cover glass is thinner on the BMPCC4k vs standard M43 cameras and thus creates a different optical path for light rays at the edge of the sensor where they are oblique. M43 standard sensors and BMPCC4k have different aspect ratios but both fit inside the same image circle of projection so sensor size is not the reason for a dedicated BMPCC4k speedbooster. No idea what the sensor size is of the original BMCC. All focal reducers are a tradeoff and behave differently on different lens designs.
The issue with the BMPCC4k is that it's a low resolution (8mp) sensor with 1:1 sampling and no LPF so readily shows aliasing artefacts and actually benefits from any softening either from BRAW or the lens or better still a 3rd party OLPF such as Rawlite. If you want a camera for more resolution and detail and not 'sharpness' get a P6k or any of the other sensors that resample from higher pixels to 4k.

WahWay wrote:I was not referring to the original BMPCC.
The SB sensor cover on the BMPCC4K is larger than the BMCC and I detect no distortion on the BMCC.

you will also see a difference with a SB for MFT (pana) and the special SB for the BMPCC4k
because of different glas in the SB.

but all of this is offtopic here.

.

Mark Foster wrote:

WahWay wrote:I was not referring to the original BMPCC.
The SB sensor cover on the BMPCC4K is larger than the BMCC and I detect no distortion on the BMCC.

you will also see a difference with a SB for MFT (pana) and the special SB for the BMPCC4k
because of different glas in the SB.

but all of this is offtopic here.

.

The glass cover of the BMPCC4k and BMCC is of similar thickness. Seems to be the only disadvantge is if you are usinge the SB design for the BMCC and use it on the BMPCC4k because the sensor cover is not large enough and certain lens might show a softening on the edges. This does not appear to be an issue when using SB from the BMPCC4k on the BMCC as it easily cover the smaller sensor.

Hopefully I will get hold of a SB for the BMCC and test the two on both cameras.