Blackmagic Forum

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:07 pm**

Look at this:

First picture has bright sunshine, the others not.

A question of trust ...

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:13 pm**

Blackmagic, is there more to say. lol

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:29 pm**

Would you be bothered to learn that those grabs didn't come from the Pocket Cam but from the BMCC?

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:34 pm**

mhood wrote:Would you be bothered to learn that those grabs didn't come from the Pocket Cam but from the BMCC?

A "Common DSLR Shot" is coming from the BMCC? :lol:

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:42 pm**

Panamatom wrote:
mhood wrote:Would you be bothered to learn that those grabs didn't come from the Pocket Cam but from the BMCC?

A "Common DSLR Shot" is coming from the BMCC?

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:06 pm**

Panamatom wrote:Look at this...
First picture has bright sunshine, the others not.

A question of trust ...

Panamatom wrote:A "Common DSLR Shot" is coming from the BMCC?

Greetings. Find the differences in the frame, then you will know the first one it's a different frame from the other two. They come form different cameras, so, different frames, nothing funny, or difficult to do. If you own any BMCC and a DSLR do the test your self, you'll be surprised. Cheers.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:15 pm**

For sure these are different pictures. But if you compare a high dynamic range picture like the first one with bright sunshine (look at the floor) with the pictures with less dynamic range because of the clowdy setup like in the other picture you can demonstrate exactly nothing! Btw, I think, all pictures are coming from the same source.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:23 pm**

wow...I just...I just don't even know where to start with this one! :roll:

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:29 pm**

sean mclennan wrote:wow...I just...I just don't even know where to start with this one!

Don't you think that a comparison of a "common dslr shot" with a shot from the bmcc has to have the same lighting at least? There would be a lot of differences to show, but these pictures are what I wrote: funny

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:31 pm**

Yes i found it too. Its one of many BMD's tricks.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:36 pm**

sean mclennan wrote:wow...I just...I just don't even know where to start with this one!

I'm with you. Who has time for that kind of stuff?

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:45 pm**

Panamatom wrote:For sure these are different pictures. But if you compare a high dynamic range picture like the first one with bright sunshine (look at the floor) with the pictures with less dynamic range because of the clowdy setup like in the other picture you can demonstrate exactly nothing! Btw, I think, all pictures are coming from the same source.

I get your point, but even if the sun hit the floor in the High Dynamic Range frame, the image difference compared to a DSLR in post would be noticeable and the BMCC would be much better corrected. But yes, they should have tried to simulate the lighting conditions in all the shots, perhaps with a HMI Light if the sun moved.

By the way I don't see why they wouldn't use different cameras for that simple test, but, OK, Blackmagic Design has proved they created a superior camera than a DSLR, and comparable to high end cameras as RED and ARRI.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:50 pm**

Who has time for that kind of stuff?

TV-teachers like me! I wanted to show students the difference of 8bit, compressed footage to the new possibilities of 13 stops and remembered this "example" (I didn't have noticed the error before) during lesson ... :oops:

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:52 pm**

All based on memory (very fallible at times) but I *think* this is from footage JB shot going on two years ago with the BMCC-EF to demonstrate the advantages of the camera's dynamic range in raw. I *think* the model's name is Leigh and there were shots of her in the kitchen (these shots) and shots of her putting on her makeup.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:56 pm**

mhood wrote:All based on memory (very fallible at times) but I *think* this is from footage JB shot going on two years ago with the BMCC-EF to demonstrate the advantages of the camera's dynamic range in raw. I *think* the model's name is Leigh and there were shots of her in the kitchen (these shots) and shots of her putting on her makeup.

The same JB who had no issues with sensor blooming? 8-)

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:21 pm**

Panamatom wrote:
Who has time for that kind of stuff?

TV-teachers like me! I wanted to show students the difference of 8bit, compressed footage to the new possibilities of 13 stops and remembered this "example" (I didn't have noticed the error before) during lesson ...

And you chose stills from a web page as an example of the difference between types of footage?

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:56 pm**

Hahaha lol

Really professional

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:03 pm**

Those photos are "marketing" photos. They are an oversimplification, because you need to speak/market to the lower common denominator (regarding knowledge of technology/features)

If I have to actually explain the advantage of RAW or Dynamic Range to a potential customer because they don't know what it means, I'm going to show them in as direct and simple an example as possible. Akin to drawing it in crayon. It's not meant to be a scientific comparison.

All marketing images are designed like this. Have you ever had the pleasure of working with a marketing team? As a creative I can tell you it's a soul sucking experience as they want to make their "message" as obvious as possible...to a fault. Adding text or arrows or highlights to the image to point out what's pretty damn obvious already.

For the record, I do not believe this image is misleading...which correct me if I'm wrong, is the point you're making. While there would be more highlight on the floor and dresser shown with under direct sunlight, it's still representative of the level of highlight that would be saved/usable in the RAW image.

I did my own test comparing my 5DmkII to the BMCC. Using the same lens and the same exposure. Which, truthfully, isn't a fair test anyway as you should expose to the camera's strengths. Especially with RAW. However, since the typical DSLR video doesn't have RAW (calm down ML fans, I said typical) I'll still use this for comparison sake.

Also, please forgive my ugly mug...and remember, I'm NOT a colourist. A pro could get a much nicer image from the BMCC than I did in 5 minutes for this comparison. I still think it clearly shows the benefit of shoot RAW and the extra 1 to 1.5 stops of DR the BMCC has over the "typical" DSLR.

Working with a LOT of marketing people over the years, I have no doubts that the request for images to use for the website was done more hastily than you might think. There's no corrupt intention here. I've seen similar examples from Canon, Sony, Samsung, Apple...

Lastly, I would STRONGLY recommend you teach your students with actual cameras rather than photos from the internet, or at least, create your own images.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:07 pm**

Handsome man ;0)

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:24 pm**

That's a cool example Sean, thanks for putting the effort into shooting it. The detail in the scene outside (behind the window) is just one of the wonderful things about the BMCC.

That and being able to preserve detail in all the important areas of the frame when filming talent with a darker skin tone in an environment with white objects (perhaps more common in South Africa).

And lol @ Robert RED.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:57 pm**

Yea...good job Sean. Would you consider it slightly deceptive to use your images (shot with a BMCC) in an add for another camera?

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:14 pm**

To suggest the h.264 from a standard DSLR could deliver something even close to RAW is pure ignorance.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:45 pm**

mhood wrote:Yea...good job Sean. Would you consider it slightly deceptive to use your images (shot with a BMCC) in an add for another camera?

I know where you guys are going with this...but again, it's not saying "this is a 5D image", rather "this is the results you see from a typical DSLR shot" which is pretty much true.

Is it going to be massaged and tweaked to show the BMCC in the most favourable manner possible? Of course, this is marketing.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:32 pm**

sean mclennan wrote:Is it going to be massaged and tweaked to show the BMCC in the most favourable manner possible? Of course, this is marketing.

This is an ad for the Pocket Cam.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:47 pm**

Lets recall. It has been mentioned before that these are test shots made by Blackmagic Design and John Brawley with a prototipe or first models of the Pocket Cinema Camera, in that time the BMPCC was planned to include a Compressed Lossless RAW CinemaDNG recording mode. Wich never came in the Pocket Camera when it was launched, but they promised it will be included; you can even see the RAW Lossless CinemaDNG label in the packaging and the included note inside it. ¿Why? They are the only ones who know, perhaps they found some issues as they usually do, and thought after to add it by Firmware. In a recent publication of John Brawley's Twitter (Mirrored in a site I can't recall) there he mentioned that the Pocket's lossless RAW CinemaDNG specs was between 2MB to 2.4MB per frame.

So, I might be wrong, but, I don't believe they used a BMCC, making it pass for the Pocket in that image comparison. The initial model could have include the RAW CinemaDNG with the 13 Stops of Dynamic Range.

Besides, when it finally comes out, you may even notice the differences when shooting the Cinema Camera, and comparing to any DSLR in your own test as Sean McLennan did.

I feel it will be a Pocket Camera with an even superior image quality than a DSLR, and this will never matter haha. Cheers.

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:07 am**

sean mclennan wrote:Those photos are "marketing" photos. They are an oversimplification, because you need to speak/market to the lower common denominator (regarding knowledge of technology/features)

If I have to actually explain the advantage of RAW or Dynamic Range to a potential customer because they don't know what it means, I'm going to show them in as direct and simple an example as possible. Akin to drawing it in crayon. It's not meant to be a scientific comparison.

All marketing images are designed like this. Have you ever had the pleasure of working with a marketing team? As a creative I can tell you it's a soul sucking experience as they want to make their "message" as obvious as possible...to a fault. Adding text or arrows or highlights to the image to point out what's pretty damn obvious already.

For the record, I do not believe this image is misleading...which correct me if I'm wrong, is the point you're making. While there would be more highlight on the floor and dresser shown with under direct sunlight, it's still representative of the level of highlight that would be saved/usable in the RAW image.

I did my own test comparing my 5DmkII to the BMCC. Using the same lens and the same exposure. Which, truthfully, isn't a fair test anyway as you should expose to the camera's strengths. Especially with RAW. However, since the typical DSLR video doesn't have RAW (calm down ML fans, I said typical) I'll still use this for comparison sake.

Also, please forgive my ugly mug...and remember, I'm NOT a colourist. A pro could get a much nicer image from the BMCC than I did in 5 minutes for this comparison. I still think it clearly shows the benefit of shoot RAW and the extra 1 to 1.5 stops of DR the BMCC has over the "typical" DSLR.

[Image]

Working with a LOT of marketing people over the years, I have no doubts that the request for images to use for the website was done more hastily than you might think. There's no corrupt intention here. I've seen similar examples from Canon, Sony, Samsung, Apple...

Lastly, I would STRONGLY recommend you teach your students with actual cameras rather than photos from the internet, or at least, create your own images.

Your BMCC corrected shot has a grey cast over it, unlike the Canon which has natural colors.

Also, did you notice that you have eliminated foreground detail (such as the keys on the keyboard, and the text on the monitor) in the process?

My guess is that you audience will be (or should be) looking at what is happening in the foreground, not what is happening in the background outside the window.

If you used those shots in an add campaign, I would call the Canon a winner.

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:15 am**

Natal wrote:
Your BMCC corrected shot has a grey cast over it, unlike the Canon which has natural colors.

Also, did you notice that you have eliminated foreground detail (such as the keys on the keyboard, and the text on the monitor) in the process?

My guess is that you audience will be (or should be) looking at what is happening in the foreground, not what is happening in the background outside the window.

If you used those shots in an add campaign, I would call the Canon a winner.

Did you really post in this thread only to criticize his photo when he specifically said he's not a colorist and that it could be done better?

Back on topic, I highly doubt that BMD didn't realize that those screen grabs exaggerate the difference in dynamic range, what with the sun shining directly into the room only in the DSLR shot.
I do think it's a bit sketchy and perhaps misleading to people that don't know much about cameras, but how many other companies get away with flat out lying about their products in their ads? I understand many forum members live in places outside the US that have more strict regulations on what adverts can and can't claim but, it's very common for things to be greatly exaggerated in ads over here and you should always do your own research.
If anyone ever buys the BMPCC because of that example alone, then I think they deserve the disappointment they'll have when they buy it and realize they can't shoot directly into the sun and end up with a shot like the graded raw version.

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:04 am**

Hey, I said, it is funny! The lesson in university was not about this topic. We came to it in a discussion. Everybody laughs about the situation. Great fun!

But thanks for trying to explain what marketing is or the advantage of Raw or who took the picture or so. I like this.

Posted: **Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:34 am**

My favorite forums to get some good laughs

Blackmagic Forum

Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage

Re: Funny examples of dynamic range on the homepage