PYXIS 6K

. If there are advantages to BMD sensor technology -- even if at a level beyond the color grading capabilities of most of its customers -- it's not all that unreasonable to ask for a demonstration.

The problem is it’s a disingenuous ask. The last time it happened with this poster it was asked as if from a genuine notion of discovery. And to even draw BMD to appear to be endorsing his already decided upon agenda and views. Theres only a pretence of true “scientific” discovery and method.

Hes trolling. I’m just calling it out.

JB

I'm truly not, and I don't think I've behaved as such. If I can discern a PQ advantage in the Cine 12K, I will readily note it. If it delivers more than 14 usable stops at less than $20k, that's something to trumpet.

Pyxis 6k How Much Does it Really Cost? - Buying New VS Buying Used Accessories (That Camera Nerd, UK)

If you think of the most striking and emotionally impactful images, none of them are accurate.

Cinema is not visually accurate.

Accuracy is a road to banality.

No digital camera is 100% accurate.

JB

The resultant image, "cinema" /= the captured data. The camera is a tool, it's neither creative nor "banal". That's up to how someone uses the tool.

The photographer that desires their capture device to be accurate need be no less creative than the colorist who desires that their display device is accurate.

And so much the better if it isn't.... Not relevant to the discussion, but external constraints exist at every turn, and without them, the work will be deadly boring or incomprehensible. I could cite examples, but this thread isn't the place.

This is definitely an interesting topic, and as I've spent more of my life drawing and painting and writing, than operating a camera, one I deal with almost daily. I will only say that external limitations don't guarantee "art" any more than a lack of limitations exclude it. If your thesis were true, then a solo piano would be inherently more interesting and comprehensible than an 80 piece orchestra. Or a screenplay would be inherently more interesting and comprehensible than a novel. Or B&W photography would always trump color. Obviously, not true and there are great artists that don't need external constraints to be great.

As a very real world example, I now "paint" almost exclusively on an iPad. (As do a great many artists.) A tool in which I can do almost anything. But I choose to limit myself on any given piece. The constraints are artificial. Is the painting I do with oils more valid than the painting I do with the iPad? I wonder if you could even tell the difference if I shared 2 of them?

I don't need a camera to tell me what colors I'm allowed to see, I just need it to faithfully record the scene with enough data that I can impose my vision on it at the time of capture or in post.

It’s not terribly difficult to be reasonably comfortable with the different looks of Canon versus Sony versus Panasonic and so on. They all can look different out of the camera. The last thing we want in a camera is a ‘perfectly accurate’ reproduction of reality. We want art and beauty (or horror). Look at those paintings above; that’s a complete artistic fantasy in terms of colour and light levels, but that’s a good thing because we are moved by the painting, we understand what the artist intended.

The debate is not whether or not someone wants to deliver a perfectly accurate representation of a scene, the debate is about who wants be making the creative decision, and how, at the time the scene is recorded.

Some people like to have their tools limit their decision or impose someone else's vision that they like. (An "opinionated" tool.) They like vintage glass, they like certain film stocks, etc. There is nothing wrong with this way of getting to your vision. (Though note that just shooting this way and not bringing anything to the table is as lazy as slapping a LUT on an image in post.)

But there are others that want to build their "look" a different way. They "paint" with lighting and composition and art direction and then just want the capture device to faithfully record what they put in front of it. They may nail it in camera, or they may continue building that image in post. Regardless, wanting the camera to be a "neutral observer" is an equally valid way of working.

This is definitely an interesting topic, and as I've spent more of my life drawing and painting and writing, than operating a camera, one I deal with almost daily. I will only say that external limitations don't guarantee "art" any more than a lack of limitations exclude it. If your thesis were true, then a solo piano would be inherently more interesting and comprehensible than an 80 piece orchestra. Or a screenplay would be inherently more interesting and comprehensible than a novel. Or B&W photography would always trump color. Obviously, not true and there are great artists that don't need external constraints to be great.

I don't have a "thesis" but you're misreading it. You offered the romantic notion that artists require the "freedom" which a camera with "accurate" color rendition would grant them. This is plainly at odds with 120+ years of cinematography. Not only wasn't accuracy necessary, it wasn't, in retrospect, desirable. The very peculiarities of film created new art forms. Your own example makes this point: B&W film, which isn't what anyone would describe as realistic color rendition, created a unique art form for that very reason. Meanwhile color film, which is anything but accurate or artifact free remains the choice of Scorsese, P.T. Anderson and Christopher Nolan. Why? Mere nostalgia? Or embrace of "external constraints" which, over time, have refined the art?

Hell, form is itself a limitation, and great artists absolutely do require it. Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas, not 32 piano doodlings, 32 random musing or 32 improvisations. Similarly, novelistic technique demands far more than the mechanics of screenplay form, consequently there are far more great novels than great screenplays. The form demands it.

One could go on, but this is way way OT, and art is long and talk is cheap.....

…et vita brevis.

Is that the reason why the old BMCC2.5k with cDNG and false details is still sought after for its "film look"?

With the cameras available today, even at budget levels, it's pretty near impossible to blame them for your piece not looking 'cinematic' enough.

There still are differences, Imo the biggest is how easy it is to get to a great look. Imo Alexas still provide the most solid base but BMD are not that far behind.

DR is not just important to capture scenes but more DR enables to dial in more mid-tone contrast without compressing/losing too much at the ends. Resolution has less relevance than coarse structure contrast imo - something Arri understood from the get-go.

I never liked the Sony-sensor-BMD-cams, even though Gen5 makes the most of it. I think it's great that BMD work on their own sensor and hope it makes its way in a Pyxis body one day.

I never liked the Sony-sensor-BMD-cams, even though Gen5 makes the most of it. I think it's great that BMD work on their own sensor and hope it makes its way in a Pyxis body one day.

It is somewhat of an anathema to me, Michel, as a mainly offline/grading online editor, who shoots too, to talk about inherent sensor looks; when I have to make them look all the same most of the time. I think a lot of shooters must simply not grade at all; and rely entirely on the Luts and looks of their footage.

A lot of footage I work with comes from Sony cameras and out of the box I really dislike that muted dull look. But you can make them look great; in fact anyway you want with a proper grade. A camera lut is a starting point in our workflows, and not something locked in. In fact quite often we completely disregard them, and grade from base log. (I should add, for clarity, this is broadcast where they rarely afford the luxury to the DP of having a say in the post development of their work, as say in features)

I really like the look though of my 'Sony sensor' Ursa Broadcast G2 log out of the box; the same sensor as the Super35 6K pockets. But then also everything looks the same to me on YouTube these days; because a lot of people are aping the popular trends, of the moment; whatever the camera and the tortuous comparisons so subtle, to me as to be virtually meaningless. 15 years ago there was a very big difference between the quality of the image from prosumer and professional cameras; now that is no longer the case; just the quality of construction and facilities.

Also you have to consider that just about any camera now vastly exceeds any display medium in terms of the colourspace and DR it can capture. The very best HDR 30K+ reference grading panels are 10 bit and a little more than P3 in their CS reach. And although DCP projectors are outside my professional experience, I believe they can not be any better either. There are no 12bit panels in existence yet. I seriously doubt most people have a need or can see a huge difference beyond 12 stops of DR too, for most situations. Log is just old fashioned compansion; the scene's vast DR is compressed with a curve on capture to the available SNR of the camera and expanded back out, on the timeline with a lut. That's why proper more meaningful DR camera tests should be SNR in db, ultimately. There is little actual colour science in 'Color Science' too, as marketed by manufacturers; merely a subjective 'nice' looking sauce, within the bounds of the sensor's characteristics.

A lot of footage I work with comes from Sony cameras and out of the box I really dislike that muted dull look. But you can make them look great;

Steve, that's what I wrote

There still are differences, Imo the biggest is how easy it is to get to a great look.

Coming from BMCC and BMPCC, the Sony sensor BMD cameras did change my perception of the image. Since I didn't care for sensors back then and didn't know they changed them, it couldn't have been a bias. But, as stated, Gen5 was a great improvement imo.

You offered the romantic notion that artists require the "freedom" which a camera with "accurate" color rendition would grant them.

No, I didn't state that artists require that freedom - only that artists don't require tight constraints any more than they are required to have had a life of tragedy. (Another common trope when trying to understand what makes great artists great.) Constraints are most definitely helpful, when harnessed, but they are not required.

It's as valid for Nolan to choose to shoot on IMAX as it is for Edwards to shoot on an FX3. It's as valid for Anderson to choose film as it is for Garland to choose a Ronin 4D. It is valid for one DP to choose a camera for a look it imposes, and it is equally valid for another to want to work with a "transparent" camera. What is not valid is implying that someone that chooses the latter is creatively deficient.

Is that the reason why the old BMCC2.5k with cDNG and false details is still sought after for its "film look"?

Some people prefer 8mm film (and are willing to spend $5500 for a new Super 8 camera). Some people believe analog film and vinyl records have infinite resolution. Preferences and beliefs.

We can't tell them their preference is wrong, it's theirs. We can point out where facts contradict beliefs - though doing so is dangerous. (You want to make a room full of audiophiles angry? Do a blind A-B test of expensive speaker cables and lamp wire.)

The less we understand about something, the more we're willing to accept the magic of it. Not that long ago, we needed gods to explain why it rained. Now, there's very little left - except evidently camera "color science" - that we're asked to just accept on faith.

Steve, that's what I wrote

Sorry Michel, so you did It wasn't aimed at you though, my friend, it was a general Fishwickism; not that I can see it has any bearing nor will stem the flow of nonsense, in a thread that should be taking the Pyxis seriously, first and foremost

Is that the reason why the old BMCC2.5k with cDNG and false details is still sought after for its "film look"?

Some people prefer 8mm film (and are willing to spend $5500 for a new Super 8 camera). Some people believe analog film and vinyl records have infinite resolution. Preferences and beliefs.

Joe, I have a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII; a very rare one all black, with an Angenieux 7-80mm zoom and 80fps slo mo. It is in the most exceptional condition; even the Ni-Cad batteries still works well. Restored by a grumpy old barsteward long since gone. I have too all the accessories, the wind back and crystal sync. I love it but the image is Sh1t now. Compared to SD video back in the day it was clearly superior; but things have moved on. I still love it nonetheless; especially since I started my filmmaking journey over 40 years ago, as a poor working class kid, in love with film; and could only dream then of owning such a camera - they were the price of a brand new Mini Cooper then. I have to say, though a Super 8 frame has infinite deep focus, yet it is still film, unmistakeably!

Sorry Michel, so you did It wasn't aimed at you though, my friend, it was a general Fishwickism;

Haha, all good, a little Fishwickism can never be wrong, cheers mate

It is valid for one DP to choose a camera for a look it imposes, and it is equally valid for another to want to work with a "transparent" camera.

I agree with a point of this statement about a transparent camera, if not about what you would attribute to validity. You have your own definition for what that is, I assume to be 709 for the sake of argument.

But while 709 is one definitive standard among others, is it transparently what you see in every scene? Is 709-A wrong? Is SRGB wrong? Is CIE 1932 100%? NIST? EBU? There are standards we can start with from a baseline, but the only thing making one more right than another is what we agree to use for a baseline, and the rules if any concerning deviation.

I've seen how the Calibrate hanging cube and color charts don't perfectly align to the vectorscope. Cameras are not the only devices that vary in acceptable matters of detail. In 6 years of paid shooting, it has never been an issue. Other matters such as "broadcast safe, legal levels," have come up.

Still trying to image mentally what a transparent camera image would be ...

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

getting started with a Pyxis shouldn't be too expensive, if you've come from owning other cameras.
CF Express media is relatively cheap, compared to CFast 2.0.
A really good monitor with some brightness is a really good investment. I've owned a SmallHD 702 Touch for years and it's never failed.
L Mount is the way to go, but I’d probably hold off on really sturdy adapters like metabones until there’s a cage to help support it. That’s just me though.
So that just leaves battery options and I've seen people talk about buying used batteries and that just seems like a terrible idea.
So I would say for a couple hundred dollars you should be up and running, if you don't have those accessories already.

(I'm really tempted to make an anti-youtube YouTube page or something, haha. Just one that isn't a bearded guy with a podcast mic with blue lights in the background with goofy thumbnails.)

I agree with a point of this statement about a transparent camera, if not about what you would attribute to validity. You have your own definition for what that is, I assume to be 709 for the sake of argument.

But while 709 is one definitive standard among others, is it transparently what you see in every scene? Is 709-A wrong? Is SRGB wrong? Is CIE 1932 100%? NIST? EBU? There are standards we can start with from a baseline, but the only thing making one more right than another is what we agree to use for a baseline, and the rules if any concerning deviation.

I've seen how the Calibrate hanging cube and color charts don't perfectly align to the vectorscope. Cameras are not the only devices that vary in acceptable matters of detail. In 6 years of paid shooting, it has never been an issue. Other matters such as "broadcast safe, legal levels," have come up.

Ideally, a "transparent" camera would attempt to record values faithful to the highest quality applicable reference standard within the largest applicable color space. The transform to a smaller space like REC709 is best handled after artistic manipulation by a tool like Resolve.

All that said, if you were to pin me down to pick one, a practical target for a camera today would be REC2020.

PS. Don't even get me started on the variation between color charts with even just the simple six vectorscope patches! Try to get manufacturers to tell you what the values should be and their accepted tolerances. It's maddening when trying to match cameras or brand standards - something I have to do often.

(I'm really tempted to make an anti-youtube YouTube page or something, haha. Just one that isn't a bearded guy with a podcast mic with blue lights in the background with goofy thumbnails.)

Don't forget the obligatory reverse baseball cap neither when you do, Adam. It always irrationally annoys me that filmmakers resort to a massive studio condenser mike in front of their mouths, in these cases, too. When we should be at least be able to conceal the means of recording good VO, in our line of work.

All that said, if you were to pin me down to pick one, a practical target for a camera today would be REC2020.

As I said earlier, Rec 2020 is not even vaguely possible on any current or potential display medium, in existence. It is always good to have more for capture but it may be meaningless through post.

Still trying to image mentally what a transparent camera image would be ...

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

Ha. For my part, "transparent" is simply a way of saying that it imposes the least opinion on the image. Another word might be "neutral."

I want the camera to get out of the way, to be an unbiased, predictable observer revealing the creative decisions of the artists on set and leaving room for further creative exploration by the artists in post.

And again, I'm not saying this is the only right way to design a camera, I'm just saying it is one valid way to do so. One that I prefer, but others may not.

All that said, if you were to pin me down to pick one, a practical target for a camera today would be REC2020.

As I said earlier, Rec 2020 is not even vaguely possible on any current or potential display medium, in existence. It is always good to have more for capture but it may be meaningless through post.

That's exactly why it's a good objective future proof target.

PS. There are currently shipping laser projectors capable of reproducing more than 80% of REC2020.

That's exactly why it's a good objective future proof target.

I understand; though the value of 'future-proofing' to me is more in the content than pixel; but as I already alluded to, just about any digital cinema camera; whether prosumer or professional, will already capture usefully more colourspace, than we can currently display for the foreseeable future; regardless almost of settings.

It always irrationally annoys me that filmmakers resort to a massive studio condenser mike in front of their mouths, in these cases, too. When we should be at least be able to conceal the means of recording good VO, in our line of work.

Remember that these YouTubers aren't really filmmakers, they only babble about it and buy gear.

I especially enjoy the "How to light XYZ" from these guys, you can really see that they got their first film light just 2 weeks ago and instantly felt the urge to gift us a tutorial on "cinematic lighting".

Absolutely Michel I'll refrain from any more grumpy Fishwickisms - don't get me started!

I want the camera to get out of the way, to be an unbiased, predictable observer revealing the creative decisions of the artists on set and leaving room for further creative exploration by the artists in post.

Out of the way? When there's nothing *but* the camera? This is rather like saying you want a violin or piano to have no unique characteristics, as if the sound of the violin or piano is knowable and distinct from any particular instrument.

A sensor is no less determinative; it's a physical object with material limitations, not a heavenly lens on reality. Add to that perceptual differences among viewers and the effect of ambiance and the monitor itself, and this ambition would seem to be folly -- a rigor, even if it could be achieved, which is unsustainable as soon as we're dealing with a monitor, a room and a pair of eyes.

And to top it off, accuracy is not even wanted in the end -- it's a movie, not a color test. And then there's this thing called post-production..... Where, like, you change the colors of stuff however you want.....

Forgive me, but what is so precious about this particular artistic endeavor that you need some kind ur-camera to "accurately" capture a staged reality already corrupted by lighting, the limits of production design, one's own limited abilities, etc. etc. etc.?

I understand; though the value of 'future-proofing' to me is more in the content than pixel; but as I already alluded to, just about any digital cinema camera; whether prosumer or professional, will already capture usefully more colourspace, than we can currently display for the foreseeable future; regardless almost of settings.

Right. They can record a lot of colors within big color spaces, but they don't necessarily do so accurately. In fact, in most cases they probably don't. They impose an opinion on it outside of any recognized standard.

I want the camera to get out of the way, to be an unbiased, predictable observer revealing the creative decisions of the artists on set and leaving room for further creative exploration by the artists in post.

Out of the way? When there's nothing *but* the camera? This is rather like saying you want a violin or piano to have no unique characteristics, as if the sound of the violin or piano is knowable and distinct from any particular instrument.

A sensor is no less determinative; it's a physical object with material limitations, not a heavenly lens on reality. Add to that perceptual differences among viewers and the effect of ambiance and the monitor itself, and this ambition would seem to be folly -- a rigor, even if it could be achieved, which is unsustainable as soon as we're dealing with a monitor, a room and a pair of eyes.

And to top it off, accuracy is not even wanted in the end -- it's a movie, not a color test. And then there's this thing called post-production..... Where, like, you change the colors of stuff however you want.....

Forgive me, but what is so precious about this particular artistic endeavor that you need some kind ur-camera to "accurately" capture a staged reality already corrupted by lighting, the limits of production design, one's own limited abilities, etc. etc. etc.?

I don't romanticize tools, at least not digital tools. I don't think the "character" of a measuring device at input need be deterministic to the artistic quality of the output. I'm not right and you're not wrong. Different artists interact with their tools in different ways.

Stretch your thinking just one degree to either side to find benefits to taking "color science" out of a black box:
1. Repeatable color accuracy to a known standard makes matching cameras easier.
2. Repeatable color accuracy to a known standard makes matching "memory" colors easier.
3. Repeatable color accuracy to a known standard makes matching "intent" easier for a colorist.
3. Repeatable color accuracy to a known standard makes integrating VFX easier.

A color accurate camera need not impact creativity. It need not make a DPs work less "cinematic" any more than a Sony BVM-xxx makes a colorist's work less "cinematic".

Right. They can record a lot of colors within big color spaces, but they don't necessarily do so accurately. In fact, in most cases they probably don't. They impose an opinion on it outside of any recognized standard.

I'm trying to gently point to the fact, for all intents and purposes, you're talking practical nonsense, Joe. There is no such thing as 'accurate' colour, as JB pointed out before; just as there is no such thing as 'Reality' TV, that I've had to teach new directors. And absolutely any look can be achieved in post with any camera, so it is doubly meaningless to me too. But that is where I'll leave the senselessness.

I don't romanticize tools,.

You want a perceptual uniformity which is not possible from one sample of any given camera to another, much less among different brands and manufacturers.

And for what? In this age of powerful post-production tools, you really think your movies would be "better" if the camera "didn't get in the way"? Since you've never had such a camera, what's the basis of this belief?

And are we talking about cinema or some imaginary endeavor where "accuracy" is primary? Thinking back to film finishes, you really have to laugh: filmmakers were at the mercy of the film stock, the vagaries of the developer bath, the print stock and the timer. And that was cinema for 100+ years. Anyone who went through it, particularly at the low end budget, knows full well how little was repeatable, predictable, under control....

But you're worried about lack of uniformity and repeatability you can easily fix in post? Why?

And we haven't even spoken of the shortcomings of the production. The ambition is to meticulously capture a low-budget film set full of poor choices and practical constraints? To what end? To immortalize the haphazard and imperfect?

I'm trying to gently point to the fact, for all intents and purposes, you're talking practical nonsense, Joe. There is no such thing as 'accurate' colour, as JB pointed out before; just as there is no such thing as 'Reality' TV, that I've had to teach new directors. And absolutely any look can be achieved in post with any camera, so it is doubly meaningless to me too. But that is where I'll leave the senselessness.

No, it's not nonsense. Would you be happy if each individual Pyxis camera handled color in a different way? Of course not, they are all calibrated within a certain tolerance to match to an internal standard.

So why is it so unacceptable to desire a camera to record color to an accepted public standard?

I would agree with Joe on this, for tv and broadcast a 709 camera should be expected to hit the vector scope marks for BGRYMC primaries/compliments. Do the BMD broadcast cameras do this? It could be a different expectation than for the cinema line.

I would agree with Joe on this, for tv and broadcast a 709 camera should be expected to hit the vector scope marks for BGRYMC primaries/compliments. Do the BMD broadcast cameras do this? It could be a different expectation than for the cinema line.

As a matter of fact, non of the BMD cameras do that, Tom; they are not alone in that. It's a small matter to bring any camera back in line, that has nothing to do with I what talking about, if that's what you're referring to.

You want a perceptual uniformity which is not possible from one sample of any given camera to another, much less among different brands and manufacturers.

Once we define and agree upon an acceptable deviation, it is absolutely possible. It's well understood that that the delta for differences that are perceptible is higher than that for which is measurable.

Would you be okay if BMD had zero QC and every Pyxis rendered color differently enough to be easily observed? Most people wouldn't be. BMD delivers a certain uniformity from camera to camera. Hell, they even match very well from model to model with vastly different sensors. They simply match to an internal standard (colloquially knowns as Gen5) instead of a public one.

If a camera manufacturer wanted to, they could provide a profile that matched (in practical terms) an objective standard. In fact, they could even do so and still provide multiple other "looks" to make people that like to shoot that way happy, too.

You don't want a clinically accurate camera. Many people don't. That's fine, but that doesn't make such a beast technically impossible.

I would agree with Joe on this, for tv and broadcast a 709 camera should be expected to hit the vector scope marks for BGRYMC primaries/compliments. Do the BMD broadcast cameras do this? It could be a different expectation than for the cinema line.

As a matter of fact, non of the BMD cameras do that, Tom; they are not alone in that. It's a small matter to bring any camera back in line, that has nothing to do with I what talking about, if that's what you're referring to.

It's a small matter to shift the hue of six vectors at a certain luminosity and a certain saturation. Now try to do that across even a relatively small sampling of 256 colors of varying saturation and brightness. Not a small matter at all because the matrix transforms performed by the camera are unknown. If it were easy, there wouldn't be countless "Alexa-like" LUTs for sale and a new generation of AI tools devoted to matching cameras.

Do you sit in a grading suite, Joe? Do you deliver for broadcast to delivery specs like I do often? I don't even recognise what you're talking about friend.

"Accurate" is as defined as "cinematic".

I get the underlying idea of a "public standard" but don't think it's worth the effort and surely don't think camera manufacturers have any interest in it.

After so many words being batted back and forth on this topic, I think it bears mentioning that as of Gen 5, BMDs stock transforms are actually fairly accurate. Sony and RED both moved this direction with their current generation, too, and Nikon has always been there. Canon is clearly happy with orange faces.

Accurate, accurate? No, they are all still noticeably opinionated with varying degree of their own special sauce - but generation over generation they have been moving closer to a standard, not farther from it.

As a matter of fact, non of the BMD cameras do that, Tom; they are not alone in that. It's a small matter to bring any camera back in line, that has nothing to do with I what talking about, if that's what you're referring to.

I was not referring to that, but opining in general, if a camera claims 709 output it should hit the marks for the primaries. AFAIK, BMD Film, Video and Extended Video do not claim compliance. For example, for live streaming I would not want to have to do color management separately in the broadcast chain if 709 compliance was mandated and the camera could not.

My Sony F55 has an assortment of output options, LC709A, and various other 709 'looks' but only 1 straight up 709 output selection. But anyone shooting with it for beauty if not in log or custom color matrix is probably going to choose LC709A because that's the lut Art Adams designed to mimic Arri.

Do you sit in a grading suite, Joe? Do you deliver for broadcast to delivery specs like I do often? I don't even recognise what you're talking about friend.

Yes, I do. Rarely for broadcast, but to streamers' specs or a DCP, yeah. And in a past life I did a lot of product work. (Ryobi green became the bane of my existence, which is why there is a Ryobi screwdriver in my basic test scene.)

So different than broadcast requirements, but same concepts. What don't you recognize?

So different than broadcast requirements, but same concepts. What don't you recognize?

Then you can hardly know as much about Rec.709 as I have for the last 30 years, I warrant.

It's a small matter to shift the hue of six vectors at a certain luminosity and a certain saturation. Now try to do that across even a relatively small sampling of 256 colors of varying saturation and brightness. Not a small matter at all because the matrix transforms performed by the camera are unknown. If it were easy, there wouldn't be countless "Alexa-like" LUTs for sale and a new generation of AI tools devoted to matching cameras.

You're not shooting a chromacity chart, you're shooting a patch chart.

"Accurate" is as defined as "cinematic".

Well, since no two people agree on what "cinematic" means, marketing departments can have a field day claiming their camera is more "cinematic" than the other guy's without fear of anyone putting their claims to the test.

...surely don't think camera manufacturers have any interest in it.

Probably the truest thing anyone has said in this whole thread.

I understand I'm tilting at windmills. Even people who get super hung up comparing DR empirically from camera to camera (thank you Cine-D) happily accept marketing blah-blah about "better color science".

I was not referring to that, but opining in general, if a camera claims 709 output it should hit the marks for the primaries. AFAIK, BMD Film, Video and Extended Video do not claim compliance. For example, for live streaming I would not want to have to do color management separately in the broadcast chain if 709 compliance was mandated and the camera could not.

Fair enough, Tom. I don't want to get into a debate with you nor no one again. Our answers often are not direct but general and I'm guilty of that more than most

Then you can hardly know as much about Rec.709 as I have for the last 30 years, I warrant.

Okay. Let's say that's a given. What is it that I'm saying that you don't recognize? (Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand what you're asking or what point you're trying to make?)

You're not shooting a chromacity chart, you're shooting a patch chart.

Yeah...uh, that describes all calibration targets whether you're talking about a camera, a scanner a printer or a monitor.

(Not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand what you're asking or what point you're trying to make?)

I appreciate that Joe, and you have always been respectful and polite. The point I am trying to make is 'accuracy' has gone out of the window in these 'digital film' times. In the days of ENG broadcast cameras, for example, Rec 709 was very accurate. But again accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody but nobody wants it actually - as JB was saying very clearly. You have for example on every BMD camera 'Video' (ostensibly Rec. 709) and extended Video (I suppose meant to be full swing Rec. 709) Only it isn't on my UBG2, not on a scope and not that I recognise.

It doesn't matter because I think one is crazy not to shoot in Log or 'Film' as BMD call it, for all cases be it broadcast or film, these days. And our job, which I'd like to believe we are more than capable of is to bring it in, within Rec.709 UK broadcast - we are spoilt now because it can look wonderful, as you know, even in that crippled space. Hope I am making myself clear here.

You're not shooting a chromacity chart, you're shooting a patch chart.

Yeah...uh, that describes all calibration targets whether you're talking about a camera, a scanner a printer or a monitor.

But to your point of luts and looks, transparency as seen from lit patch charts, doesn't seem like proof was something you would be capable of, and in light of your agenda to disprove the "revolutionary RGBW 12K sensor," in a sad way, laughable.

So yes. There's the marketing. The claim is for revolutionary. Is it? Well, it's patented, no one else has it. It hasn't been described as superior in too many specific ways, but there's this; I have the pocket 6K (orig), it has great color, but I can see a difference, maybe not on a chart, maybe not in one instance, but overall it has a different look, worlds better than anything that I've been able to extract from my F55 and Sony AXSM raw. I think it's a valid enough claim, nothing provable. So who cares unless you are gnawed by envy, and griped that it appears primed to advance farther with the Ursa Cine-12K and 17K-65mm. What other reason for you to troll it?