Blackmagic Ursa Cine 12K LF

I see sharpening outlines on the C12K in the 600% 4K for 4K comparison, just before Carl made the same comment.

I actually don't mind some mild sharpening under the right circumstances...

Totally agree, using a 600% view in editing to judge an image is simply stupid. That may be harsh, but you’re not doing anything valid with that degree of pixel peeking. 200% okay for a peek, but sitting back and viewing the image you deliver is best. You’ll know when it looks right: when it feels right, when it makes a good (emotional) impression.

I keep my sharpening very mild to non-existent. DaVinci Resolve makes it too easy to over-sharpen, but nothing looks worse than being able to see that you’ve applied sharpening.

When it comes to deliverables, demonstrating superior ‘resolution’ is not the goal; the goal is keeping your visual cortex happy and that’s creating a seamless boundary that your brain knows how to discern as ‘reality.’

We don't really agree then. Viewing at 600% or 200% is just a difference of degree. Carl magnified the image to illustrate the potential, and he observed sharpening in the 4k image from the C12K, and so did I. An image constructed from more pixels should have the potential for more sharpening with less artifacting, such as ringing, overshoots, aliasing, edge lines.

The ability to punch in is part of the feature set of a sensor with more pixels, and there's more reasons for doing it than pixel peeping, but pixel peeping is still a valid reason because it's the microscope for applying just the right amount of NR, or spotting flaws from excessive sharpening if used. I wouldn't frame a discussion solely on the need for cortex compliance and not more than fomenting a reality through a pathway of intentionally dulled acuity. Pixel peepers is a mildly derisive term for people who could be inspecting detail at a closer level for technical reasons, so that there are no unfortunate surprises in the finished product destined for that happy cortex and emotional expression.

I'm not indicting the C12K because if I was, it would be for the false concept of attaining more actual resolution from oversampling. 4K is 4K pixels, not resolution.

… pixel peeping is still a valid reason because it's the microscope for applying just the right amount of NR, or spotting flaws from excessive sharpening if used… people who could be inspecting detail at a closer level for technical reasons, so that there are no unfortunate surprises in the finished product destined for that happy cortex and emotional expression...

All good reasons, Tom. Thanks. I think I “shot first and asked questions later.” I’m usually only examining at 200% or at most 300% because I want to see what is really happening as you mention, but no need for me to criticize someone who wants to look deeper.

For instance when importing some graphic files given to me for a music video, probably from Illustrator, I ran through all the options in Project Settings on the scaling page to determine the best approach by zooming into the image. Using the default ‘Sharper’ setting was disastrous for the graphics, but ‘Gaussian’ looked the cleanest and is what I regularly use.

As for relying on zooming in, look at any JPeg file at 600% versus at 100%; all I see are the codec’s techniques but I can’t see the overall image until I go back to 100%.

All good Rick!!! We don't view video one frame at a time either, and any time we do, that's pixel peeping of a different style but as necessary for close inspection as a biopsy slide under a microscope. So it is true in life, pixel peepers, waxers, wannabees..there's always a term coined for people we deem as obsessed over the details, but there can be a purpose.

Ultimately we all view images from a certain viewing distance that pixel peeping becomes meaningless. The general audience doesn't care. As long as they are engaged by the story and characters. This is something we oftentimes need to remember. The general audience doesn't care about the technical details as much as some of us do.

Now, the URSA Cine 12K definitely delivers. The images are fantastic and amazing. I certainly can't wait to be able to shoot with one someday.

Something we all forget is that pixel peeping and pixel detail only truly matters for certain VFX applications. As it helps to have higher resolution for those VFX purposes. But in the end as long as the VFX is invisible and blends into the story unobtrusively then the audience won't care. They care about one thing and I stated it above.

The general audience doesn't care.

Why would any ambitious artist or technician base anything they ever do on what this "general audience" thinks then? Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many hands to carry the load, only so many dollars to put on screen; there will always be compromise and nothing will ever be perfect, that is true. But to say "The masses don't care so why should you?" is such an unambitious attitude. I don't make the work I make because I want it to be the background noise while someone scrolls through their IG/TikTok feed. I make it because it matters to me, and if I do it just right then ideally it'll matter to other people too.

The general audience doesn't care... yeesh. Have some self respect people.

The general audience doesn't care.

Why would any ambitious artist or technician base anything they ever do on what this "general audience" thinks then? Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many hands to carry the load, only so many dollars to put on screen; there will always be compromise and nothing will ever be perfect, that is true. But to say "The masses don't care so why should you?" is such an unambitious attitude. I don't make the work I make because I want it to be the background noise while someone scrolls through their IG/TikTok feed. I make it because it matters to me, and if I do it just right then ideally it'll matter to other people too.

The general audience doesn't care... yeesh. Have some self respect people.

You are taking my quote to of context. The general audience doesn't care about the tech details such as pixel peeping. They care about the story and the characters. That's the blunt truth. It's only us who get caught up in the tech specs. And, when it comes down to it pixel peeping isn't the true measure of what makes an image great.

For me dynamic range, color rendition, and so much more matters more than going 800% into an image to pixel peep. The lighting and composition will have a larger impact on the audience and other artists as opposed to how much you can get close to see the individual pixels.

Don’t buy the 12k to shoot 4k.

Get the 12k to shoot 12k/8k and deliver 4k.

JB

Agree. Hopefully it’s also good advice to shoot 9K to deliver 4K when restricted to Super35 lenses.

"In essence, the new Blackmagic URSA Cine 12K LF sets a new benchmark in terms of features and price.

It comes in second best behind the Sony Venice 2 in the rolling shutter department

It scores superb values in the dynamic range department. When downscaled from 12K to 4K in postproduction, it is actually slightly better on paper (IMATEST) than our current benchmark, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF!

It has 9 stops of exposure latitude, 1 stop worse than our benchmark for full-frame cameras, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF (having 10 stops with some room towards 11). Our current leader in the dynamic range and latitude department is the ARRI Alexa 35, which exhibited 12 stops of exposure latitude."

https://www.cined.com/blackmagic-ursa-c ... -latitude/

"In essence, the new Blackmagic URSA Cine 12K LF sets a new benchmark in terms of features and price.

It comes in second best behind the Sony Venice 2 in the rolling shutter department

It scores superb values in the dynamic range department. When downscaled from 12K to 4K in postproduction, it is actually slightly better on paper (IMATEST) than our current benchmark, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF!

It has 9 stops of exposure latitude, 1 stop worse than our benchmark for full-frame cameras, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF (having 10 stops with some room towards 11). Our current leader in the dynamic range and latitude department is the ARRI Alexa 35, which exhibited 12 stops of exposure latitude."

https://www.cined.com/blackmagic-ursa-c ... -latitude/

That’s exciting to hear. Really exciting. This does mean that Blackmagic has achieved a top of the line camera for a very affordable price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“ We get 13 stops at a signal-to-noise ratio of 2 (SNR) and 14.5 stops at SNR = 1. Wow – these are the best results we ever got from a Blackmagic camera. For comparison, our benchmark so far, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF, scored 13.4 / 14.5 stops at SNR = 2 / 1 in ARRIRAW”

Basically the same DR as an Alexa Mini LF according to their testing.

JB

Basically the same DR as an Alexa Mini LF according to their testing.

Is highlight recovery enabled by default for the UMP12K/UC12K? My understanding is that it isn't, so it's interesting to note that these numbers might not even be telling the whole story...

I’m assuming it isn’t included by them but I’m not sure what their methodology default position would be. Don’t RED have it built into their sensors to always be on for example?

Highlight recovery is not something I would ever count on because it’s always an interpolation. But it’s nice to have a little more as an option.

I’ve always viewed every manufacturer claim of DR as meaningless.

The real test is use and if you’re lucky, comparing to other cameras in the same circumstance.

I’ve had a lot of opportunities to do that and the Cine D tests basically confirm what I’ve seen.

JB

I'll be curious to see if the URSA Cine 17K 65mm has a bump in dynamic range from the slightly larger 65mm sensor? It probably will be the same as the 12K as it is the same sensor tech. But still, it will be very interesting to see the difference that 65mm sensor size makes.

It’s still not final but from a theoretical pov…

Same size photosites. Same performance.

Larger sensor doesn’t really factor EXCEPT that you can super sample down. More resolution also means the image can “take” a more aggressive NR and still not loose detail.

Typically larger resolution/ larger sensor means better DR for those reasons. Not the urban legends that still persist among photo enthusiasts.

JB

I’m assuming it isn’t included by them but I’m not sure what their methodology default position would be. Don’t RED have it built into their sensors to always be on for example?

Not built in to the "sensor" per se, but I'm fairly sure it is enabled by default in the REDRAW SDK and I believe a less precise version of it is performed in-camera when you're recording ProRes. So for a more apples-to-apples comparison between BMD and RED bodies it probably makes sense to enable BRAW highlight recovery.

And TBH I don't think most reasonable people would really depend on the extra information you get from highlight recovery; it's just a nice to have when you've got specular highlights in the frame or something blown out in the background. I'm still not 100% sure why it isn't just enabled by default—I've never seen it make the image any worse in my experience...

I usually don’t use it. I find it often doesn’t help much, and makes the highlights look a little weird to me.

I think it can cause also cause issues when you have super saturated colour when near clipping. LED lights for example.

At least it’s quick to turn on or off.

JB

… I don't think most reasonable people would really depend on the extra information you get from highlight recovery; it's just a nice to have… I've never seen it make the image any worse in my experience...

That’s good, but now I apply it at the clip level rather than across the track because occasionally I would say it can lead to problems with intense theatrical lights. Highlight recovery does a nice job on the background curtains, but not always nice for people and/or instruments. Totally depends on reflected light given the camera angle and subject positions in that particular clip. One angle shows a problem but the other angle can be fine.

I usually don’t use it. I find it often doesn’t help much, and makes the highlights look a little weird to me.

I think it can cause also cause issues when you have super saturated colour when near clipping. LED lights for example.

At least it’s quick to turn on or off.

JB

Agreed. I tend to avoid using Highlight Recovery. I use false color to make sure nothing is clipping. Or if it is clipping that it is something I can live with clipping and don't care about recovering that data anyways. And, by examining older films we used to allow the highlights to clip and fall off into a pleasant white. So for me the most important aspect to the clipped highlights is a pleasant rolloff into the pure white.

[CaptainHook]

I'm still not 100% sure why it isn't just enabled by default—I've never seen it make the image any worse in my experience...

Extra processing will lower playback performance, so while HR is optimised code-wise it does happen for every pixel and we don't consider it something needed for most shots. So rather than negatively impact playback performance for most clips when it's not needed we opted to have it off by default. And as mentioned by others, it's not always a clear improvement.

The general audience doesn't care.

Why would any ambitious artist or technician base anything they ever do on what this "general audience" thinks then? Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many hands to carry the load, only so many dollars to put on screen; there will always be compromise and nothing will ever be perfect, that is true. But to say "The masses don't care so why should you?" is such an unambitious attitude. I don't make the work I make because I want it to be the background noise while someone scrolls through their IG/TikTok feed. I make it because it matters to me, and if I do it just right then ideally it'll matter to other people too.

The general audience doesn't care... yeesh. Have some self respect people.

^100%

The general audience doesn't care.

Why would any ambitious artist or technician base anything they ever do on what this "general audience" thinks then? Sure, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many hands to carry the load, only so many dollars to put on screen; there will always be compromise and nothing will ever be perfect, that is true. But to say "The masses don't care so why should you?" is such an unambitious attitude. I don't make the work I make because I want it to be the background noise while someone scrolls through their IG/TikTok feed. I make it because it matters to me, and if I do it just right then ideally it'll matter to other people too.

The general audience doesn't care... yeesh. Have some self respect people.

^100%

Again, my quote is misrepresented. I said in context that:

Ultimately we all view images from a certain viewing distance that pixel peeping becomes meaningless. The general audience doesn't care. As long as they are engaged by the story and characters. This is something we oftentimes need to remember. The general audience doesn't care about the technical details as much as some of us do.

The point being the general audience doesn't care about pixel peeping. They are not zooming in on an image and dissecting the sharpness of pixels. They are being engaged by the story and the characters. Our job is to tell a story. Use the technical to tell a story.

Tim, this is all I'm going to say about it, but you were not misrepresented. Nobody said anything about the general audience nor how "we all" view things except you. I gave my own reasons for close inspection of picture details, and they are my reasons alone, but you took flight with your own personal rant about about audiences not caring and unrelated pixel peeping. If you are that certain about it you could take your grievance to Carl at ProAV, afterall he posted the 600% crops we are commenting about; surely he assumed there could be interest among the professionals that are his followers or why else would he?

Are the wifi antennas actually usable for a video signal or is it just proxies?

I believe it’s just for WiFi connection.
I truly hope there’s a new Video Assist that can take a wireless signal from the Ursa Cine sometime down the road.

If you are that certain about it you could take your grievance to Carl at ProAV, afterall he posted the 600% crops we are commenting about; surely he assumed there could be interest among the professionals that are his followers or why else would he?

Good question… I assume that the example on ProAV is a 4K timeline.
The 6k of the pyxis is interpolated to 4k on a 4k timeline. The 4k of the Ursa is dropped on a 4k timeline and sits there without further processing . Yet the 4k from the Pyxis -with initially a lot more information- is against all odds softer when the two clips are blown up to 600%. That doesn’t sit to well with me.

So I question if this is what we are looking at. Especially since the 4k of the Ursa Cine looks so sharpened.
The 12K Braw files have an extra option in post. You can choose how you want the files to be processed, as 12k, 8k or 4k. Which is a smart move especially when working on a smaller timeline and less powerful computer.
Drop any 12k clip that BM made available from the 12Kcine as test footage on any timeline and see how the 4k processing will sharpen the footage “without the loss of detail” of the 12k clip.
This processed 4K is not the same as a clip that was shot @ 4k on the Ursa Cine. Yet I think that is what we are looking at. Basically a 12K proxy file.

Lens test by Atlas. Uploaded in 1080p only for some weird reason.

More tests.

This camera is going to shake the industry at different levels, including the high end.

Full-Frame (12K, 8K, 4K) and super35 (9K) in one powerhouse of camera.

I expected to appreciate the colors and motion in this video—and they were fantastic—but what really surprised me was the compression ratio. Shooting something like this, with lots of motion and high-frequency detail, at 18:1 compression wouldn’t have even crossed my mind. Yet, the result looks amazing, even on YouTube! There’s definitely something special about the sensor and codec combination in this camera. I’ve been more than happy with low-motion, moderate-detail narrative work on the UMP12K at 12:1, but now I’m inspired to push the codec harder and revisit 18:1.

Shawn

I was the camera operator/editor for the Basketball & Football test footage that is out there on youtube. Just took ownership of this camera about 2 weeks ago. I am absolutely loving a=everything about it so far. I've been using the Ursa Mini Pro G2 for years before this and decided I wanted to upgrade this year. Couldn't be more impressed with the updates and changes Blackmagic has made with this camera. A lot of people can't seem to fathom the specs and details this camera can produce when they hear the brand "Blackmagic Design". I compare the image and fewel of this camera to the Arri 35 which I've used quite a bit.

That was a proper resolution test.

As I prep for this short film shoot this weekend. I've thought of one thing I hope Blackmagic does with the URSA Cine line...

Project Metadata updates to include more fields. Additional fields I'd like to see added are:
Producer, Cinematographer, Sound Mixer, and 1st AC.

That's mainly the fields that matter most on top of what already is in there. Production Company is also optional. But a large number of these fields would stay consistent throughout a production so once you add them to a camera at the start of production you're not going to be changing them too often.

And, now that DaVinci Resolve can maintain Camera Metadata when syncing with Audio you can have these fields remain with the camera metadata throughout the post-production pipeline.

Now, this also means I would like to see a small update on the Slate Metadata. Primarily Scene for when using 1A having the A being separated in the Metadata. So in Resolve it's "Scene 1" "Shot A" "Take 1" for the fields. Currently it ends up being "Scene 1A" Shot is blank, and "Take 1." Now, the letter could be either Shot or Angle for the fields. But then Shot Type is still taken up by the CU designation. Actually, that may be Angle, but I'll double check that later. The main idea is so that if we use Smart Bins for Scenes & Shots then all of Scene 1 will be Scene 1 instead of getting Scene 1A, Scene 1B, etc. bins. But the Shot of course would have to go within the Scene Smart Bin, and it would be nice to have that checkmark in Resolve for Shot Smart Bins to be parented to Scene Smart Bins.

So the idea behind my Slate Metadata update is just to clear up a few things. Otherwise, the slate metadata does work fine as is and must requires a bit more manual work in Resolve with manual bins or reassigning the metadata to separate fields for use with Smart Bins.

The hope is for the URSA Cine to be more seamless with post production in regards to this metadata. And, I think with the way this will be used on larger sets that it could be very beneficial. Now, this is just from my experience. So maybe you guys can give feedback on the Slate Metadata and Project Metadata field additions or changes based on what you experience.

I will say the benefit of that side AC monitor means an AC doing slate can update the camera's slate metadata without interrupting the operator. Granted you can still do it via Bluetooth. Either way, keeping the Slate Metadata consistent with Slate is the main goal.

This camera is going to shake the industry at different levels, including the high end.

Full-Frame (12K, 8K, 4K) and super35 (9K) in one powerhouse of camera.

I expected to appreciate the colors and motion in this video—and they were fantastic—but what really surprised me was the compression ratio. Shooting something like this, with lots of motion and high-frequency detail, at 18:1 compression wouldn’t have even crossed my mind. Yet, the result looks amazing, even on YouTube! There’s definitely something special about the sensor and codec combination in this camera. I’ve been more than happy with low-motion, moderate-detail narrative work on the UMP12K at 12:1, but now I’m inspired to push the codec harder and revisit 18:1.

Shawn

I was the camera operator/editor for the Basketball & Football test footage that is out there on youtube. Just took ownership of this camera about 2 weeks ago. I am absolutely loving a=everything about it so far. I've been using the Ursa Mini Pro G2 for years before this and decided I wanted to upgrade this year. Couldn't be more impressed with the updates and changes Blackmagic has made with this camera. A lot of people can't seem to fathom the specs and details this camera can produce when they hear the brand "Blackmagic Design". I compare the image and fewel of this camera to the Arri 35 which I've used quite a bit.

I know it sounds trivial, but how does the weight and handling feel compared to the UMPG2? Have you done handheld or shoulder mounted with it yet?

I know it sounds trivial, but how does the weight and handling feel compared to the UMPG2? Have you done handheld or shoulder mounted with it yet?

The Ursa Cine 12K is significantly heavier and larger than the Ursa Mini Pro G2. I personally prefer a heavier setup so I am really liking this new rig. I have shot with it handheld using some wider glass and shoulder mounted with tighter lenses like the Canon 17-120 & 25-250. It balances out really nicely compared to the UMPG2. One of the heaviest camera rigs I’ve used though.

Wooden stuff.

As I prep for this short film shoot this weekend. I've thought of one thing I hope Blackmagic does with the URSA Cine line...

Project Metadata updates to include more fields. Additional fields I'd like to see added are:
Producer, Cinematographer, Sound Mixer, and 1st AC.

That's mainly the fields that matter most on top of what already is in there. Production Company is also optional. But a large number of these fields would stay consistent throughout a production so once you add them to a camera at the start of production you're not going to be changing them too often.

And, now that DaVinci Resolve can maintain Camera Metadata when syncing with Audio you can have these fields remain with the camera metadata throughout the post-production pipeline.

Now, this also means I would like to see a small update on the Slate Metadata. Primarily Scene for when using 1A having the A being separated in the Metadata. So in Resolve it's "Scene 1" "Shot A" "Take 1" for the fields. Currently it ends up being "Scene 1A" Shot is blank, and "Take 1." Now, the letter could be either Shot or Angle for the fields. But then Shot Type is still taken up by the CU designation. Actually, that may be Angle, but I'll double check that later. The main idea is so that if we use Smart Bins for Scenes & Shots then all of Scene 1 will be Scene 1 instead of getting Scene 1A, Scene 1B, etc. bins. But the Shot of course would have to go within the Scene Smart Bin, and it would be nice to have that checkmark in Resolve for Shot Smart Bins to be parented to Scene Smart Bins.

So the idea behind my Slate Metadata update is just to clear up a few things. Otherwise, the slate metadata does work fine as is and must requires a bit more manual work in Resolve with manual bins or reassigning the metadata to separate fields for use with Smart Bins.

The hope is for the URSA Cine to be more seamless with post production in regards to this metadata. And, I think with the way this will be used on larger sets that it could be very beneficial. Now, this is just from my experience. So maybe you guys can give feedback on the Slate Metadata and Project Metadata field additions or changes based on what you experience.

I will say the benefit of that side AC monitor means an AC doing slate can update the camera's slate metadata without interrupting the operator. Granted you can still do it via Bluetooth. Either way, keeping the Slate Metadata consistent with Slate is the main goal.

Follow up on this. I did great updating the Slate Metadata throughout the shoot yesterday. And, yes, each Scene Smart Bin is all the takes for 2A, then 2B in another Bin, and then 2C in another Bin. So, it would be great for this labeling to be fixed in camera. Now, I was using the URSA Mini Pro G2 and Pocket 6K Pro as A & B Cam, but this happened for both cameras.

So I'm definitely all for an update to the URSA Cine 12K & 17K to improve upon this. I'd like all of Scene 2 in a Scene 2 Bin, and inside each set up with all the takes. Maybe Shot Smart Bins inside the parent Scene Smart Bin so that Shot is the letter setup.

I really wish I could have used the URSA Cine 12K for yesterday's short film. Footage looks great, but I'm positive that expanded 16 stops of dynamic range in the 12K would have been superb as we had several high contrast scenes with sunlight and shaded areas.

One note is that I do use the SmallRig side plate replacement on the UMP, and that is so useful for the handle, timecode box, and wireless video. I was using an EasyRig all day and that was attached to the top handle. So that AC Monitor would have been inconvenient. Yet, would have still been very useful for the AC at times. So tough call on how I would have rigged a UC12K for those accessories I was using.

Really hoping for a Blackmagic Wireless Video Assist that can get signal from the built-in Wireless on the UC12K. That would help eliminate the need for a separate wireless transmitter.

Will share footage from yesterday in a separate thread, but still wish I could have captured yesterday with the UC12K.

Uncoupled Elements. Fashion Spec / Blackmagic Ursa Cine 12k LF (Tavian Ord)

I dunno Tim.

Sounds like you’re asking for the SLATE system used ever except the US.

In US slating, it’s

72 Take 1 take 2 etc
For the first setup of Scene 72.

For the second setup it becomes
72A Take1, Take 2 etc.

For the third setup it becomes
72C Take 1

It sounds like what you want is a simple SHOT count which is what the rest of the world does for drama slating.

SHOT 1 Take 1, Take 2 etc.
For the first set up on Day 1.

SHOT 2 Take 1, Take 2 etc for the second setup.

The advantage of this system is that there can be bets on the total number of shots for a given film (or episode) and there are traditional “shouts” of drinks when certain shot numbers are hit. Slate (shot) 100 is usually the directors shot, the electrics in Australia shout at 240 (for 240V) and sound shout at 416 (for the microphone)

JB

* there was this viral video form a few years ago from Inglorious Basterds. It’s common for the 2nd AC to call out a word instead of the letter. This one got adventurous given the story content. Also not double letters which is what happens once you go past 25 setups in a scene…AA becomes setup 26…

***Also note how much Christopher Waltz clearly HATES this ritual. In my view not good form to do this to an actor that’s dropping into a scene…

I dunno Tim.

Sounds like you’re asking for the SLATE system used ever except the US.

In US slating, it’s

72 Take 1 take 2 etc
For the first setup of Scene 72.

For the second setup it becomes
72A Take1, Take 2 etc.

For the third setup it becomes
72C Take 1

It sounds like what you want is a simple SHOT count which is what the rest of the world does for drama slating.

SHOT 1 Take 1, Take 2 etc.
For the first set up on Day 1.

SHOT 2 Take 1, Take 2 etc for the second setup.

The advantage of this system is that there can be bets on the total number of shots for a given film (or episode) and there are traditional “shouts” of drinks when certain shot numbers are hit. Slate (shot) 100 is usually the directors shot, the electrics in Australia shout at 240 (for 240V) and sound shout at 416 (for the microphone)

JB

* there was this viral video form a few years ago from Inglorious Basterds. It’s common for the 2nd AC to call out a word instead of the letter. This one got adventurous given the story content. Also not double letters which is what happens once you go past 25 setups in a scene…AA becomes setup 26…

***Also note how much Christopher Waltz clearly HATES this ritual. In my view not good form to do this to an actor that’s dropping into a scene…

Yes, it depends on the area. I most often do the first shot of the scene as letter A instead of flat out scene. But, I have also done the flat scene number first and then second setup is letter A. Then each setup progresses up letter wise, and then hits double letters should setups for a single scene exceed the alphabet.

I think what I mainly want is for fluidity with the Smart Bin in Resolve. Because it creates a Smart Bin basically for every Set Up within a scene then.

What I've been doing manually is updating the Slate Metadata in Resolve for the letter to now become the Angle after removing it from Scene. That way the Smart Bins put all the setups for Scene 12 in one bin. Usually my Display Name is set up like this too: "Scene '%Scene''%Angle' Take '%Take'" in order to have "Scene 12C Take 1"

So it's mainly the fix for the camera or Resolve that needs to happen. I'd love for the camera to get the fix however and for the Letters to just be "Angle" Metadata. That or "Shot" depending on preference. I prefer Angle at this point.

BMD-Slate

BMD-Slate.jpg (458.1 KiB) Viewed 2158 times

Here's an image of what I'm seeing using the current system. I made no alterations manually. This is how the Smart Bins create multiple Bins for a Scene based on the incremental letters for Set Ups within a Scene. I used the metadata to change the Display Name to "Scene '%Scene' Take '%Take'" to help demonstrate how I updated the Slate Metadata in camera.

BMD Slate Manually Updated

BMD-Slate-Manual.jpg (440.07 KiB) Viewed 2148 times

Now this is the Slate Metadata updated manually in Resolve. In order to reset the Smart Bins I had to go into Preferences and disable Scene Smart Bins, Quit, and then come back and enable Scene Smart Bins. This allowed the now empty Smart Bins for the letters to disappear.

Thus as can be seen by putting the letter for the Set Up in the Scene into "Angle" category the Smart Bin now only creates one bin per scene. And, all the angles and takes are inside that bin.

I updated the Display Name to "Scene '%Scene''Angle' Take '%Take'" to help demonstrate what the updated metadata now contains.

So the hope is that on a camera level the metadata is fixed so that this is cleaner for generating Smart Bins.

More footage.

Anamorphic tests.

Anamorphic tests.

This test is nice. But they should have kept it to only the Anamorphics. Doing the Vespids in the same test inside a 2.4:1 causes major dead space around image. Should have just put the Vespid tests in a different video in 16:9.

Anamorphic tests.

Those shots really show how much those Blazar are affordable.
They really don't do that sensor justice.

I had the A Set for a while, and that's what they : really mushy, no much definition and super cheap affordable anamorphic.

Agreed on th Remus.
You need to stop down to t4 for any clarity.

The “highlight recovery” they did on the windows looks odd, most likely because it was a feathered power window?

I still think it’s something like 70/30 Lens/Camera that makes an image look a certain way. Maybe I’m wrong.

Agreed on th Remus.
You need to stop down to t4 for any clarity.

The “highlight recovery” they did on the windows looks odd, most likely because it was a feathered power window?

I still think it’s something like 70/30 Lens/Camera that makes an image look a certain way. Maybe I’m wrong.

The B set looks better sharpness wise. Was gonna get the 45mm one since its heavily discounted on their Black Friday deal but the 50mm looks way sharper.

I've had them all, including the B set, and there's something that still feels 'low end' to me.
I know they are the most affordable Anamorphics on the market that do what they do, and plenty of people love them, but for me.... I'd rather rent some Atlas Orions or Mercurys.

The B set all seem to have that odd (in my opinion, 'cheap') rainbow flare. It happened too easily for me, especially with the 50mm. But again, that's me. I want something more 'pro-looking' and you can get a used Atlas Orion lens for close to $6000 now.

I also spent years in the DIY anamorphic or "Modular Anamorphic" and I'd take the look of those over the Blazars any day. I do think the best I've seen from them has been with the Nero 1.5x adapter paired with higher-end glass like Leica or an APO lens.

Its harder to rent where I am so I have to rely on owning some of the stuff and just rent for bigger jobs.

With that said, I kinda like the softness of some of the lenses and the flares don't bother me.And I don't think they bother people that much to be honest.

Might be just me but these cheaper softer lenses make BRAW look better (to me) as they take the edge off the slight oversharpening that happens on the Pocket 4K.This is compared to an adapter with a super sharp Sigma 18-35 which I've been using till now.

Everything I’ve seen from the Blazar Remus hasn’t sold me on them. And, I honestly am not sold on the DZOFilm Pavo Anamorphic Lenses either. If it’s not a top tier anamorphic lens then I frankly don’t think it’s worth the hassle. I’d choose spherical first and foremost. Otherwise the affordable anamorphic lenses look cheap.

I definitely would love to shoot some Panavision Anamorphic Lenses. Panavision has a look that just screams major motion picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More Blazar.