No BMD announcement of any kind., strange

Maybe just me but it seems like BMD is behind now, compared to the competition.

As I understand it the major criticism of… excessive noise reduction and sharpening. For HEIC images and HEVC/ProRes videos... Sadly it's very visible in the videos I've seen shot in ProRes. For ProRaw images you can do what you want in other supported editing apps of course.

One workaround if you use the Live Photos feature with HEIC compression is that you can select another frame as the key frame. This new key frame won't have the excessive sharpening...

Thanks for the tip. Too bad raw video isn’t supported although perhaps Filmic Pro will give it a try.

I guess REDs patent applies to video cameras in smartphones as well, so that's still a no-go.

Maybe just me but it seems like BMD is behind now, compared to the competition.

No way. The UMP12k is a top tier cinema camera. Its dynamic range is on par with the FX6 & FX9, slightly below Red Komodo, and on par with Red Komodo when subsampling 12K to 4K (CineD is my source for this.)

The UMP12k also offers 3 cameras in one. It’s a 12K camera, it’s an 8K camera, and it’s a 4K camera, all using the full sensor to record RAW. No other camera offers versatility like that. It also delivers full sensor 8K at 120fps! You’d have to get a $25K+ Red Raptor to match that.

And the UMP12K is out there playing with the big boys. The Disney film Rise was filmed on the UMP12K and it looks amazing (https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/05/disney-original-film-rise-was-shot-on-ursa-mini-pro-12k/.) Also, the film The Desperate Hour was shot on the UMP12K and it looks fantastic. You wouldn’t know that these films were shot on anything less than the highest priced cinema cameras.

Blackmagic is so far ahead of the game in terms of image quality. The Alexa would be the only camera out there to give Blackmagic a run for its money. The BMPCC6K is quickly becoming an industry standard as a C Cam for Alexa because they match so well. You’ll find the BMPCC6Ks all over Marvel BTS videos and images.

Are there a few things I'd like to see Blackmagic add? Sure, I'd like to see single stop ND filters for one. But Blackmagic is killing it for the most part. They are the only camera manufactured that figured out a way around Red's compressed RAW patent! That alone places them ahead of the pack. Sure Sony, and still camera manufactures, have more gimmicks that I don't need, but Blackmagic delivers above and beyond on the one thing I do need, image quality.

The Disney film Rise was filmed on the UMP12K and it looks amazing (https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/05/disney-original-film-rise-was-shot-on-ursa-mini-pro-12k/.)

I actually think it looks bad. Plasticky soap opera aesthetics and not representative of what the 12K is capable of imo.
I mean, ugh:

2022-09-16 .jpg (353.9 KiB) Viewed 4594 times

Maybe just me but it seems like BMD is behind now, compared to the competition.

No way. The UMP12k is a top tier cinema camera. Its dynamic range is on par with the FX6 & FX9, slightly below Red Komodo, and on par with Red Komodo when subsampling 12K to 4K (CineD is my source for this.)

The UMP12k also offers 3 cameras in one. It’s a 12K camera, it’s an 8K camera, and it’s a 4K camera, all using the full sensor to record RAW. No other camera offers versatility like that. It also delivers full sensor 8K at 120fps! You’d have to get a $25K+ Red Raptor to match that.

And the UMP12K is out there playing with the big boys. The Disney film Rise was filmed on the UMP12K and it looks amazing (https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/05/disney-original-film-rise-was-shot-on-ursa-mini-pro-12k/.) Also, the film The Desperate Hour was shot on the UMP12K and it looks fantastic. You wouldn’t know that these films were shot on anything less than the highest priced cinema cameras.

Blackmagic is so far ahead of the game in terms of image quality. The Alexa would be the only camera out there to give Blackmagic a run for its money. The BMPCC6K is quickly becoming an industry standard as a C Cam for Alexa because they match so well. You’ll find the BMPCC6Ks all over Marvel BTS videos and images.

It's good to be a keen supporter of the brand but I think this is pushing it a bit I don't think either the 12K or the Komodo are really up there with the Alexas and Venices and a crash cam is not the same thing as an A cam, in high end features.

It's not because any of these cameras are not great cameras and not capable of great images in the rights hands, like a John Brawley, for example, but when the best is at hand through budget and choice, there has to be a special reason and authority to choose otherwise.

Things like dynamic range, resolution and colour are very nuanced between most reasonable cameras today, and I fail to understand the value or obsession with testing particularly the former, since screen and monitor technology lags a good deal behind in accommodating most of it anyway. The Alexas though are still clearly are a step up, in the overall quality and purity of image, not just DR. As subtle as it sometimes may seem to be on YT, it is substantial in the industry and workflow, where it matters. This is not even to mention the physical layout and durable build tailored for large scale production.

Wow, the UMP12K was chosen as an A-Camera on a large $72million Disney production and the response from Blackmagic users is to trash the cinematographer? Talk about how other cameras are better? With fans like these…

We should be praising anyone who is rolling Blackmagic into the highest end of mainstream. More of this eventually means more money in every Blackmagic user’s pocket. The more Blackmagic starts becoming a high end standard, the more opportunity it creates.

And to be honest, I’ve done a lot of post work with Sony cameras, from the FS7 to the Venice, for years, and in a heartbeat I would say that the UMP12K has a better overall IQ & texture. I would rank Sony with Red, and Blackmagic with Alexa. Not that any of these cameras are bad, but IMHO the UMP12k shines above all but one.

And to be honest, I’ve done a lot of post work with Sony cameras, from the FS7 to the Venice, for years, and in a heartbeat I would say that the UMP12K has a better overall IQ & texture. I would rank Sony with Red, and Blackmagic with Alexa. Not that any of these cameras are bad, but IMHO the UMP12k shines above all but one.

I don't know what you're grooving on but I want some my friend

Wow, the UMP12K was chosen as an A-Camera on a large $72million Disney production and the response from Blackmagic users is to trash the cinematographer? Talk about how other cameras are better? With fans like these…

The choice for a camera is not an indication that the larger the budget the better it is. The quality comes off from the people who are using the equipment with knowledge and skill, not the camera itself. The UMP12K is not an Alexa. In fact, the UMP4.6K G2 is more likely to be a better choice for matching shots with the Alexa as a b/c cam but again not comparing with it. IMO, I would use the G2 as an A-cam because it generates a more organic look than the UMP12K for which have nicer resolution and sharpness but the IQ looks more digital than filmic.

We should be praising anyone who is rolling Blackmagic into the highest end of mainstream. More of this eventually means more money in every Blackmagic user’s pocket. The more Blackmagic starts becoming a high end standard, the more opportunity it creates.

That’s fanboy talk. I’m a Blackmagic user and owner since they came out with their first cameras. I like them and would recommend them when working on budget constrains project; however would not tout them an a replacement for the Alexa or Sony Venice.

And to be honest, I’ve done a lot of post work with Sony cameras, from the FS7 to the Venice, for years, and in a heartbeat I would say that the UMP12K has a better overall IQ & texture. I would rank Sony with Red, and Blackmagic with Alexa. Not that any of these cameras are bad, but IMHO the UMP12k shines above all but one.

Like Steve said, I don’t know too what you’re grooving on but I want it too.
That’s wishful thinking. The G2 would be a filmmaker’s choice over the UMP12K for its filmic IQ. To me, the UMP12K resolution and sharpness are better off for TV style movies, such as daytime SOAP Operas and such. Personally, I don’t fancy that look, or the “Disney look” as well - kind of plasticky look. BTW, the UMP12K is not on Netflix camera list, but the UMP4.6K G2 is. Not that it matters but there should be a reason why they choose one of them only.

Good luck!

At the risk of repeating myself endlessly on these camera threads — for movies with a budget level like Rise, whatever you may like or not like about the aesthetics of the finished image has virtually zero to do with the camera choice and nearly everything to do with the production design, lighting, lenses, filters and most especially the color grade. Rise went with a video style color grade. Personally, I don’t care for that look in a dramatic film, but that was the creative choice made. Take a look at the film Marshall released a couple years ago. It was shot on an Alexa 65, yet the filmmakers went with a very video style color grade (which I found odd for a period piece, but that appears to be the preferred aesthetic of that director in general) so the result has a quite similar look to Rise, despite totally different cameras being used. There are many reasons to choose a particular camera over another, but thinking the camera choice inherently determines anything meaningful about the specific finished look, as if it were a film print stock, is simply nonsense.

Well, even film stock has next to nothing to do with the eventual look, compared to production values. There are thousands and thousands of poorly lit 16mm and 35mm movies, not at all "filmic" or "cinematic". Many of them could pass for video, especially after Kodak introduced T-grain. And among well lit/shot stuff, no two [good] films look the same, despite using the same stocks over and over again.

The main difference between **** and erotic art film has always been lighting.

I see some hate for the UMP12K. I don’t understand why? I have seen incredible results from the camera. I think it looks maxing. On par with the UMPG2 and possibly better. I haven’t done a side by side test, but I maybe I should rent one and do it.

Here’s the thing about Rise, it looks like a Movie of the Week because that’s how they made it look on purpose. As Jamie said above, it’s the production design, lighting, lensing, and color grade. Nothing to do with the camera choice. And yet, as a Disney movie on Disney+ this makes a lot of sense that they would go for the MOW look.

I had a fellow filmmaker recently tell me on the phone that he wasn’t a fan of a local cinematographer because all his stuff looks like Hallmark Channel MOW. Ironically the guy shoots a lot of that, and there’s a reason he’s being hired to make movies look like that. The guy is making a living, and the other filmmaker has different aspirations. That’s completely fine. Now bashing the other cinematographer for how he treats crew is a different story because I have experienced that and many others in town have. So no one likes to work with him because of that. Nonetheless the guy makes a living and is hired to do certain projects for a reason.

I’m just going to say that the lack of new camera releases doesn’t mean that Blackmagic isn’t working on something. Even with shortages they are designing and working out what they need to bring their next camera to market. Let them bring it out when they are ready. In the meantime we can all continue to make suggestions.

In fact, I’m working on a new pitch that is also an old one because I forgot to pitch if a few months back. But with the recent IBC Announcements I think it’s a perfect time to revisit it. I’ll be sharing the ideas in a new thread soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the risk of repeating myself endlessly on these camera threads — for movies with a budget level like Rise, whatever you may like or not like about the aesthetics of the finished image has virtually zero to do with the camera choice and nearly everything to do with the production design, lighting, lenses, filters and most especially the color grade. Rise went with a video style color grade. Personally, I don’t care for that look in a dramatic film, but that was the creative choice made. Take a look at the film Marshall released a couple years ago. It was shot on an Alexa 65, yet the filmmakers went with a very video style color grade (which I found odd for a period piece, but that appears to be the preferred aesthetic of that director in general) so the result has a quite similar look to Rise, despite totally different cameras being used. There are many reasons to choose a particular camera over another, but thinking the camera choice inherently determines anything meaningful about the specific finished look, as if it were a film print stock, is simply nonsense.

I agree entirely with what Jamie said here. Although I said that there are substantial differences between a BlackMagic and an ARRI that allows image control, IQ is everything what Jamie said and then some.

I see some hate for the UMP12K. I don’t understand why? I have seen incredible results from the camera. I think it looks maxing. On par with the UMPG2 and possibly better. I haven’t done a side by side test, but I maybe I should rent one and do it.

I think “hate” is a strong word and I don’t think there is hate for the UMP12K. I think it is more of one’s taste. I think, out of the box, the UMP12K produces more clarity and sharpness with more vivid colors that the image almost has this digital and video look. The UMP G2, for what the sensor can give, has less of that making the image look more like film. However, as with what Jamie has said, in the right hands and environment, both can just produce any image the director, the cinematographer, and the colorist want it to look. Again, I only did this once, but it was easy to shot match an Alexa footage to a UMP G2, almost like it was easy to match an Alexa footage to a BMPCC original in CDNG way back when. My 2 cents. And there’s no hate here for the UMP12K.

I have to say I shot enough film to happily be done with it. The visceral dislike shown in many places for any image that is outside of "filmic" seems to me, to be rather like worshipping the Glorious Past.

And that past, in reality, was a nasty hard mess.

Personally, I'd rather see something new. I find images with a variety of rich colors to be often quite interesting to view.

We have so much more image "feel" available to us now. I cannot understand why we must limit colors to that which film imposed on us.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I see some hate for the UMP12K. I don’t understand why? I have seen incredible results from the camera. I think it looks maxing. On par with the UMPG2 and possibly better. I haven’t done a side by side test, but I maybe I should rent one and do it.

Absolutely no hate from me Tim. I think the Ursas are very underrated in the industry IMV, both in TV and film - they are just invisible here in the UK. They are, for me truly great cameras, very capable of shooting professional big budget features and episodic TV, and as I have said, because I grade these Sonys everyday, better to me in every way, than FS7s and FX9s. The UMPG2 is Netflix approved for that reason. Believe me I have tried many times to persuade Broadcast to move to Ursas from FS7s and FX9s, they simply will not.

In broadcast, for example, the next and only choice in 4K 2/3" Eng cameras are the PXW-450/750, some $30-40000. The PXW-450 is a single, non global sensor like the UBG2. The 750 is a global 3 chip. But the image to my eyes on the UBG2 is better than both. Would a BBC choose the UBG2 over these Sony's - I doubt it. Both BTW are approved by Netflix the UBG2 not.

But comparing a $6000 camera to a $60/80000 camera something has to give. Are the Alexas 10+ times better than the 12K Ursas - I doubt it, but to claim that there is only the Alexa and 12K up there, and perhaps the Venice, when it comes to the best is to say the least somewhat hyperbole. We must be realistic in our love of these tools.

As I have said, DR, resolution and colour, are so close in cameras from $2000 - $80,000 these days, especially in terms of ultimate screen technology, that these tests on the internet are meaningless. Even RS is not really a great issue in a lot of cameras. The FX9 is 20ms, for example, yet it is favoured by broadcasters. That's why idiots in the comments, on testing sites, argue defensively over them - No one can really see the difference! Moiré, aliasing and up/down sampling are still with us and no one is properly testing that. Look at Alan Roberts EBU test on one of the early UMPs, to see what I mean, still approved by Netflix btw also, that I only keep mentioning because you can see the problem with bad and, non-transparent testing/approval: Alan could not recommend this camera for Teir 1 UHD acquisition.

I watched 'The King' the other night on Netflix, in DV/HDR on my very fine Panasonic TV. For me it was simply the best images I have ever seen from modern digital cinema cameras. Not in terms of cinematography necessarily, although that was stellar, but in the beautiful undefinable quality of those Alexa 65 shots. It can't be resolution, can it? - that's only 6.5K, down converted to 4K. Nor DR, for the same reasons. So what is it and why is it? I have not seen that quality from any Ursa footage I have looked at, though I am sure someone like JB could achieve it. But generally there is you get what you pay for, in all walks of life, or nobody would bother wasting cash on high end gear.

So what is it and why is it? I have not seen that quality from any Ursa footage I have looked at, though I am sure someone like JB could achieve it. But generally there is you get what you pay for, in all walks of life, or nobody would bother wasting cash on high end gear.

I keep repeating myself, but in my opinion the fundamental difference is the way Arri has approached digital imagery from the get go: with the sole focus on aesthetics.

People who say the camera doesn't matter are right and wrong at the same time.
There is a reason the Alexa is the most used camera for quality drama and narrative for the past century, by a mile. Workflow, reliability but more than anything, an aesthetic image, pleasing to the human eye/brain.

Like any other camera you can get it to look bad, but interestingly it's harder to do with an Arri camera.

The bitter negativity here is exhausting and doesn’t make much sense. Too many people seem to downright hate Blackmagic & Ursa. I am shocked over people on this forum acting offended over UMP12K being chosen over the Arri & Sony on a $72million film, which is something any normal fanbase would be excited over. Did Red have you guys come here to kill the community by squashing any hype or excitement surrounding Blackmagic? Blackmagic needs to put more effort into community building, because this negativity is sad.

There is a reason the Alexa is the most used camera for quality drama and narrative for the past century, by a mile.

Well I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

Most used Vs most sold......

Panavision might have something to say about that claim of most used. Mitchel too for anything pre 1950, which is what Panavision's evolved from...

Arri have long been more likely used for action / crash cameras rather than studio cameras for sync sound. They only made their first sync sound camera, the 35BL1 in the early 70's, around the same time Panavision were making their first Panaflex. Arri made a few updates, a BL2, BL4 and then variants like the BL4 which were quite popular.

I worked in a rental company that had several BL's (and they made a 16BL too) and we used to joke that BL stood for "Bloody Loud" because even though they were supposedly "blimped" they really were still noisy if you were trying to record sound. They almost always required the camera to wear a leather barney, a kind of sound proof jacket that you'd wrap the camera in for each take. Here's a barney for an Arri 16 SR, which is the camera they made AFTER the BL16. SR stood for silent running or silent reflex, but err...https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/146904

Before these two cameras, sync sound cameras meant huge and silent (like the Mitchell). The alternative was small and noisy and Arri made plenty of those.

With Mr Godard recently passing the whole French new wave reference comes back into focus...(his work drove a lot of the desire for smaller lighter cameras)

Eclair Camefelx were also big in 35mm...they evolved into Aaton...
Here's a fascinating article that even talks about the 35BL....

https://cinemagodardcinema.wordpress.co ... uc-godard/

Austrian company Moviecam should be included in there too who were later bought by Arri. In fact Arri's biggest pig of a camera was the 535A and 535B. You almost never seem them used and they kind of flopped big time because they were freaking huge and heavy. You never see them around. Arri then bought Moviecam and basically combined a Moviecam with an 535 and made it smaller again and called it an Arricam....

Not to diss Arri, they sure have been around a long time, but I don't think you can say they are the "most used" filmmakers camera. They have been very successful with the Alexa fort sure and it saved the company. They were about to go under, and many people forget before Alexa there was a D20 and D21 and while interesting, they had a few years where they didn't exactly set the world on fire before the Alexa.

Also, as a rental tech in the 90's, I handled a lot of Arri as well as Aaron and Moviecam. The Arri was the least reliable camera brand by far. I did a shoot on 16mm of the Melbourne Cup in the mid 90's and we had eight Aaton XTR's and a couple of Arri SR's. Both Arris broke down on the day.

I've also had Alexa's and Alexa mini's break down. They're not invulnerable and we have them on this pedestal. They are just one of many choices we can make as filmakers. They're a great tool for sure, but not for everything, and I'm sure JLG would agree...

JB

There is a reason the Alexa is the most used camera for quality drama and narrative for the past century, by a mile.

Well I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

Most used Vs most sold......

Oh damn, I meant decade, not century! Not my first language, sorry! But we got a great summary of camera history!

You may be interested or not, to know in my long and non-illustrious career, I once had the 'pleasure' to meet Richard Leacock, at MIT. We were shooting a BBC 40 minutes, in Boston and we had a camera failure (Arri SR) and MIT at that time rented out gear too. Now Leacock was my hero, he and Pennebaker, basically invented crystal sync that liberated the camera from the umbilical connection to sound and led to some of those fabulous Verite documentaries. Anyways Leacock was a grumpy nasty old barsteward and that was that. I only say this in reference to what John alluded to, some of those Aatons and Eclairs had a fabulous form factor. And yes what happened to the great Panavision, they have sadly lost their way. They started with a load of x studio Mitchells, the greatest 35mm pin registration steadiness that ever was and developed them into the big white cameras. That 1920s movement remained unchanged to the end of film, or I should say it is still being used on those films still shot on film.

Cool people to meet....

But....

Now Leacock was my hero, he and Pennebaker, basically invented crystal sync that liberated the camera from the umbilical connection to sound and led to some of those fabulous Verite documentaries.

Kind of.

I think Jean Pierre Beauviala, the founder of Aaton *really* did the inventing of crystal sync out of a WANT from filmmakers like Leacock and Pennebaker when he was working at Eclair...

What those early filmmakers were doing BEFORE the crystal sync was hacking early proto-electronic wrist watches that used TUNING FORKS!

"Ricky, who had studied physics at Harvard, was visiting a friend who had just shot a promotional film for the Bulova Accutron watch, which used a 360-cycle (Hz to you young people) tuning fork as a timebase. It was more accurate than most watches, and became standard issue for railroad men and astronauts. Ricky said he was walking by St. Patrick’s Cathedral when it hit him — it was all a time base problem. A hacked Accutron could be used to drive an AC inverter that would drive the Auricon’s AC sync motor. A second Accutron could be used to provide a 60-cycle sync tone that would be recorded on the sync track of the 1/4” recorder (by then a Nagra III — better than the Perfectone, and NeoPilotone was much better than Rangertone). You could tell if you were having sync problems if the watches weren’t in sync.

It worked. Not perfectly, but it worked. Mitch Bogdanowicz, the great engineer, soon migrated this to temperature controlled tuning forks that worked at higher frequencies — all of this was before integrated circuits.

Ricky, Penny (D.A. Pennebaker), and Al Maysles all had special black-face Accutrons, and wore them for many years. I can post a photo of Ricky’s if you like — Penny has lost his."


History of that development...
https://lsv.uky.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A3=1 ... 2&pending=



- History of Accutron watches
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/reinv ... nisQ_BztYQ

some of those Aatons and Eclairs had a fabulous form factor. And yes what happened to the great Panavision, they have sadly lost their way.

It's very sad to me that no one making cameras today really thinks about the way we actually operate and hold these objects.

Panavision are doing great. They still have massive and unmatched inventory of lenses and optics that will keep them in business forever.

After the debacle of the Genesis camera leading to Sony releasing their own version (the F35) they parted ways. Panavison have tried twice to make a digital cinema camera and both times failed to get it good enough to be released. The Primo 70mm lenses with their internal motors was designed to work with this camera as was the HDR viewfinder (another first).

When they abandoned that camera they panavised a Red and called it a DXL....

Making cameras is really really really hard. Aaton went broke trying to do it. Panavison nearly. So have many others.

JB

Your a master of film history John and I bow to you. Obviously I tell it that way to any one who wants to listen since it sounds good

The 16mm Aaton was not blimped, unlike the Arri and Eclair. The precision engineering meant it was silent. It had a very unusual form factor, over the shoulder, which was ergonomically most comfortable. It was a veritable feat of precision engineering.

The 16mm Aaton was not blimped, unlike the Arri and Eclair. The precision engineering meant it was silent. It had a very unusual form factor, over the shoulder, which was ergonomically most comfortable. It was a veritable feat of precision engineering.

I still try to mimic this with my hand held setups. Basically you want the centre of gravity LOWER than where the camera sits on your shoulder.

I see crazy builds that are going to be just impossible to hand hold in a steady way all the time.

Here's a tip...if the lens is above where your eye rests then you have a problem....

JB

Here's a tip...if the lens is above where your eye rests then you have a problem....

Aye fella, you're carrying on the tradition! That's why an old dinosaur like me loves the UBG2. The ENG cameras from the 80s and 90s basically continued that 16mm thing and a shoulder mount camera you have on your shoulder, is the only thing I know. It falls naturally if you've set it up right. Right hand steady, left hand rack focus and aperture, all manual mind.

Thanks, gents. Great history lesson.

Thanks, gents. Great history lesson.

Very cool! Glad I said 'century' when I meant 'decade', that lesson would have been less intriguing

Basically you want the centre of gravity LOWER than where the camera sits on your shoulder.

Yes!

Agree with Rick, some great and fascinating history here!

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I love that JB always drops the best history lessons.

John, can I ask what are some of your dream features you'd like to see brought to the next Blackmagic Camera? I'd love to hear what you want improved and/or changed.

Your a master of film history John and I bow to you. Obviously I tell it that way to any one who wants to listen since it sounds good

The 16mm Aaton was not blimped, unlike the Arri and Eclair. The precision engineering meant it was silent. It had a very unusual form factor, over the shoulder, which was ergonomically most comfortable. It was a veritable feat of precision engineering.

They also were really the first to really push super 16 as well, making their cameras super 16 / STD 16 switchable. Arri didn't really care about Super 16 till the SR3 which was much later. A few companies would do an after market modification to an SR2 to make it super 16.
And the first to do timecode on film, recording a barcode matrix in-between the perforations to make slateless double system automatic syncing possible and this was in the 1980's !

JPB was a true man ahead of his time. When Aaton went bust trying to deliver Penelope, they had some preliminary talks with BMD as a possible buyer. JPB told me he imagined taking the sensor from the micro cinema camera and putting into an A-minima as a very small digital super 16 film style digital camera with a mechanical (global) shutter.

https://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/aatons ... lta-camera

and the film a-minima which I did a lot of beta testing on back in the late 90's
https://www.camtec.tv/aaton-aminima

In the end JPB decided he wanted to sell Aaton to a French company, Transvideo. I think it was a mistake, but he thought an owner like BMD wouldn't be as "French" and understand the company as well....Sadly I think Transvideo only wanted Aaton for their successful Cantar sound recoding platform and had zero interest in making cameras.
https://www.aaton.com/store/cantar

JPB was still working on the "little" digital camera up till his death.

JB

As this thread has taken a useful and interesting turn toward the the legacy of film cameras, I'd like to reply to this earlier statement about the aesthetics of film.

I have to say I shot enough film to happily be done with it. The visceral dislike shown in many places for any image that is outside of "filmic" seems to me, to be rather like worshipping the Glorious Past.

And that past, in reality, was a nasty hard mess.

Personally, I'd rather see something new. I find images with a variety of rich colors to be often quite interesting to view.

We have so much more image "feel" available to us now. I cannot understand why we must limit colors to that which film imposed on us.

If we're taking about slavishly following an aesthetic out of some kind of twee nostalgia, I agree that has limited utility. If instead what's being proposed here is that we discard more than a century of imaging science that itself was built upon aesthetics that trace back all the way to the early painters, I think we would be really foolish to do that.

At it's height, Kodak had more employees studying the aethetics of color and the human visual system than they had chemists. Once you get past the halation, grain and gate weave, the rest of the look of a film print was carefully and deliberately engineered to be as aethetically pleasing to the human visual system as possible. It's not simply an accident of the medium nor is a preference for the look it delivered just nostalgia for the past.

Read this fascinating post by Chris Brejon where he explains how digital VFX and animation have had to relearn some crucial aspects of image processing that color scientists had engineered into film.
https://chrisbrejon.com/articles/ocio-display-transforms-and-misconceptions/

Even in 2022, digital capture and processing are still missing some tricks in delivering an aesthetically pleasing look. Check out this color clipping that was baked into a high budget digital production, yet on film this would have never been an issue.

Obi-Wan-Kenobi-Blue-LED-Lightsaber-Clipping-Problem.png (896.75 KiB) Viewed 3403 times

Digital gives us more control, and no one is talking about going backwards to film, but in moving forwards, digital artists have had to take a couple steps back to relearn old lessons when film has been too hastily tossed aside.

Luckily, the top colorists and color scientists working on movies today have not forgotten. Name any successful movie that was finished digitally, and it's a virtual certainly that it was graded under either a direct film print emulation or a transform specfically built to improve upon the aethetics of one in a modern color pipeline.

While the physical medium of film may one day be gone completely, its aesthetics will be with us forever because those aesthetics were always about us and our brains, not an inherent property of the medium itself.

I lived and worked through the film era, and spent a lot of time reading the tech discussions of the design and creation of film negative and positive emulsions. Including how the different ones were created to distinguish between various uses, or to be used together to create specific effects or looks.

It was interesting and intensely detailed. So I'm not lacking whatsoever in understanding what went into the thought process for the designers.

One very key point: film, or better, silver halide emulsions, both as a capture and delivery item, had major and distinct limitations as to what they *could* capture and reproduce.

So a very large part of the design was in the attempt to get around, mitigate, or make less obvious the inherent failures or limitations of the medium.

Certain hues simply could not possibly be captured. Have you ever tried to reproduce high-end oil or acrylic paintings, for example?

There were various pigments and hues that galleries and art agents would suggest painters avoid because they could not actually correctly be represented in a catalog.

Film capture was like having a 16 color Crayola box. Maybe you can swap out a few with changes here or there in the emulsion design, but you only had that big of a box.

And the amazing technical people working behind the scenes to create those emulsions did an amazing job of sorting out how to effectively "represent" hues, perhaps "imply" them, without our brains registering that something was actually missing.

Forging a process to effectively reproduce "reality", within a reality of a very limited range of hues and saturation. Yes, that was incredibly difficult and they did an amazing job.

But you should be able to see why so much study of human visual perception, coupled with the resultant emotional response, was necessary.

They had a very small box to fit everything into.

Digital capture and display can include colors and saturation way outside of what film could. All those hues and colors at once.

Yes, the film emulsions design people did amazing and wondrous studies. "No one is saying" we should ditch or ignore them.

They are still applicable in many ways, and colorists especially should study them.

But we now work with a 128 crayon color box. With crayons that can hold far deeper color. Why not use it?

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

Great discussion now here!

They had a very small box to fit everything into.

Digital capture and display can include colors and saturation way outside of what film could. All those hues and colors at once

I don't fully agree here. I think film became so visually pleasing BECAUSE the box was very small.
With the endless possibilities today, I see much more unaesthetic results.

Like Michael Haneke said: 'It's easy to make it complicated, but it's hard to make it simple.'

So a very large part of the design was in the attempt to get around, mitigate, or make less obvious the inherent failures or limitations of the medium.

And here's celebrating both the achievement and the limitations. People talk about the marvels of digital, but to me, the real miracle is getting an analog medium to reproduce a simulacrum of reality with astonishing fidelity and (as it turns out) offer deep [aesthetic, as it turns out] satisfactions in the process. Small wonder zeros and ones can capture music, since you can never run out of numbers to do the damn measurements. But the idea that you can put music in a groove of vinyl, actually observe its undulations if you look closely enough and then recover glorious sound intact with a diamond needle is just plain astonishing. And then film emulsions..... Sharp as a tack, way larger than life, projected across long distances from a tiny rectangle. Miraculous!

They had a very small box to fit everything into.

Here's arguing that you want a small box (for art). 16 crayons is enough to create a world, and still give the brain something to do. A million and one hues may be fun for an amusement park ride, but for a work of the imagination, which requires engagement (rather than drowning the brain in sensation) I'm not sure there's much for them to do, except distract and get in the way.

HDR is, to my mind, the equivalent of network TV: not actual drama, but an acting out of a drama, where there's nothing below the surface -- or there's only surface --because anything but a literal presentation would distract viewers from the commercials. Okay, that's overbroad and too general, sooner or later somebody will come up with an HDR masterpiece, but you get my drift. Limitation is the soul of art!

Here's arguing that you want a small box (for art). 16 crayons is enough to create a world, and still give the brain something to do. A million and one hues may be fun for an amusement park ride, but for a work of the imagination, which requires engagement (rather than drowning the brain in sensation) I'm not sure there's much for them to do, except distract and get in the way.

HDR is, to my mind, the equivalent of network TV: not actual drama, but an acting out of a drama, where there's nothing below the surface -- or there's only surface --because anything but a literal presentation would distract viewers from the commercials. Okay, that's overbroad and too general, sooner or later somebody will come up with an HDR masterpiece, but you get my drift. Limitation is the soul of art!

John, my friend, you speak right from my soul.

the real miracle is getting an analog medium to reproduce a simulacrum of reality with astonishing fidelity and (as it turns out) offer deep satisfactions in the process.

I think that we're largely in agrement....

There's two ways to think about this. A lot of time everyone THINKS that they want accurate representation of colour. We spend a lot of time with colour charts and white balance tools, trying to achieved "accurate" colour fidelity. Resolution continues to add to the "reality" to the point of there being almost too much detail to absorb...

but...

What we mostly want in narrative and creative work (adverts music clips, films etc) is an EMOTIONAL response to the image, that typically means that it's VERY FAR from accurate colour.

There's accurate colour and then there's good colour...they aren't the same EVER...

The easiest example I can think of is to look at BTS videos and compare them to the final graded result.

So yes you have this idealised camera that is supposed to be as accurate as possible and YET we also then want the images to creatively support other aesthetic goals that mean that skin tone accuracy and reproduction just isn't relevant anymore.

We actually don't want reality, we want what looks good.

Film was always an altered reality, intrinsically....

Consider black and white photography. that's very far from accurate colour and yet, for many audiences, it's considered a more evolved or heightened "other" reality...a way to say to an audience that this is a representation, a manufactured image and process, not a duplication of a reality...

Which is also what acting is...

I think this chase for more accurate more resolution ACES IDT glory has to always be tempered with getting the best END result, which is usually not accurate at all !

I've never once gone into a grade on a show and looking at a close up of a lead actor said, can we make it look more like a realistic representation of what was there? I guess that could happen for the right kind of storytelling motivation, but it's just not ever what you want. You want it to seamlessly elevate the storytelling and audience emotional engagement without drawing attention to itself.

That's not accurate colour. That's where the stupid language we have around things being cinematic, textured, organic etc come from to try and describe these aesthetic but not accurate choices come from.

JB

What I meant was, it's a wonder that music in a groove, or color recorded in an emulsion, can be recovered with a reproduction which is even recognizable..... In that sense, "fidelity".

But of course, what we're hearing/seeing is artifice, not reality, and is special for not being reality. If movies actually looked like life, there'd be little interest in watching them.

There's accurate colour and then there's good colour...they aren't the same EVER...

The easiest example I can think of is to look at BTS videos and compare them to the final graded result.

So yes you have this idealised camera that is supposed to be as accurate as possible and YET we also then want the images to creatively support other aesthetic goals that mean that skin tone accuracy and reproduction just isn't relevant anymore.

We actually don't want reality, we want what looks good.

Film was always an altered reality, intrinsically....

Consider black and white photography. that's very far from accurate colour and yet, for many audiences, it's considered a more evolved or heightened "other" reality...a way to say to an audience that this is a representation, a manufactured image and process, not a duplication of a reality...

…

I think this chase for more accurate more resolution ACES IDT glory has to always be tempered with getting the best END result, which is usually not accurate at all !

I've never once gone into a grade on a show and looking at a close up of a lead actor said, can we make it look more like a realistic representation of what was there? I guess that could happen for the right kind of storytelling motivation, but it's just not ever what you want. You want it to seamlessly elevate the storytelling and audience emotional engagement without drawing attention to itself.

That's not accurate colour. That's where the stupid language we have around things being cinematic, textured, organic etc come from to try and describe these aesthetic but not accurate choices come from.

JB

Well put. I couldn’t disagree more.

What we mostly want in narrative and creative work (adverts music clips, films etc) is an EMOTIONAL response to the image, that typically means that it's VERY FAR from accurate colour.

There's accurate colour and then there's good colour...they aren't the same EVER...

The easiest example I can think of is to look at BTS videos and compare them to the final graded result.

So yes you have this idealised camera that is supposed to be as accurate as possible and YET we also then want the images to creatively support other aesthetic goals that mean that skin tone accuracy and reproduction just isn't relevant anymore.

We actually don't want reality, we want what looks good.

100% this. Perfectly stated JB.

That's where the stupid language we have around things being cinematic, textured, organic etc come from to try and describe these aesthetic but not accurate choices come from.

Yes, most discussions about cameras and color are often not so precise. On top of the difference between "good" color and "accurate" color, there's an important distinction between accurate measurement in a digital sensor or scope (measuring the physics of light) versus "perceptually accurate" color (the result of that light being interpreted by our eyes + brains). While film color processing and printing was well engineered for human perception, many of our traditional digital color tools are unfortunately not perceptually based, which can easily lead to some less than aesthetically pleasing results.

As one example of that, Adobe recently posted an interesting article about updating their own design standards to do a better job of aligning with color perception (and I wish they would adapt this thinking into the color tools of their video apps). There's a good explanation in there of how hue values in standard color models have to shift non-linearly to appear uniform.
https://adobe.design/stories/design-for-scale/reinventing-adobe-spectrum-s-colors

Thanks for the link, that is a fascinating read.

And because there seems to be some naturally trained bias, and some perhaps errant assumptions going on, I'll clarify a bit.

I have never said that a limited palette shouldn't be used. Or implied that in any way.

There are times when the very limited palette of say, Saving Private Ryan, is beautiful *and appropriate*.

Plus as someone who's done more than a few hundred 4x5 BW sheet film exposures, I clearly appreciate the *very* limited palette of BW imagery.

My point ... is that the intention to never stray from what film could do seems ludicrous to me.

My college study was English Lit. So I am *very* familiar with those whose high level of training, in the end, serves as much as a limitation on their ability to appreciate something "different", as it provides a basis for them to work. Or to place judgements on the work of others.

It's something my best profs back then stressed to work at avoiding. While being careful not to become detached from any worthwhile professional standards.

But ... to be able to reassess, when our opinions on a standard might usefully be adjusted.

Is there a definitive comment on this? Of course not. Everyone's mileage always varies. Our opinions should always be different from each other.

Because it's in listening to those odd and different ideas, that the seeds of new ideas are given a bed to grow in.

We have more colors available now. More tools for telling stories, for evoking responses. I'm simply suggesting that trying something outside past "proper aesthetic Ideals" might ... just might ... be a useful thing to try.

I would note (as music was brought up in comparison) that shock and punk rock are certainly well outside the aesthetic of Classical composition.

The "jarring" nature of both is entirely intentional, as part of the aesthetic of that music. I'm not a fan of either, yet I recognize both genres can have highly capable and effective performers.

Beloved by those who emotionally appreciate that aesthetic.

So as to the above dismissal of a clip as "garish" ... I think it's perhaps wise to realize our individual aesthetic sense is not ... necessarily ... Universal. In that show referenced above, on viewing it, my personal opinion might be identical, thatvthe clip is garish.

But it may also have been a perfect representation, to get the "feel" of the moment across to a segment of those viewing it, for the aesthetic intention of the creators.

Just a a punk rock act ain't my cuppa, but is another's favorite music. And I'm not anyone's "boss" for aesthetics. Only my own.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

… sooner or later somebody will come up with an HDR masterpiece, but you get my drift. Limitation is the soul of art!

That’s a marvelous post, John. I might have said, “Imagination is the soul of art.”

Meaning that the created work is a suggestion of a reality in the way the work stimulates a response in the viewer that is greater than the sum of its parts due to how our imagination captures what is presented. That “willing suspension of disbelief” of the factual limitations that nevertheless fully create an enriched new world in our view.

There's accurate colour and then there's good colour...they aren't the same EVER...

…..

We actually don't want reality, we want what looks good.

…..

JB

This two quotes from JB is clearly my thinking of color and aesthetics of THE PICTURE.
If I like the color, if the color, aesthetics, and the story looks and speaks to me, that’s all I care. That’s my art. Those who watch and enjoy the same with me are my audience. Those who are not, well ask me if I care what their critics are. Of course they can enjoy the arts of others. Hence, the philosophy of good color and what looks good in my world, my art. That’s the very essence why I do this, passionately.

For example, I can get the color card, gray card to white balance it, do all I can do to color accurate it to some standards, then I feel that I could throw a bit of yellow on it as that appeals my image, my envisioned look for the story, then that is my color, my aesthetics. That being no longer accurate become irrelevant to me and I am good with that.

There's accurate colour and then there's good colour...they aren't the same EVER...

Speaking with my grading hat on and having to often calibrate reference monitors, I can say that there is hardly such a thing as accurate colours. I watched the engineer at one facility carefully calibrate 3 FSI DM240s, with Calman, very good professional monitors still for SDR. They all looked different afterwards, even though the probe was itself calibrated. He said which one do you want?, I said the one with better contrast please, ha ha.

When it comes to cameras, I would warrant, no one wants accurate colours. They want pleasing colours, with often wild 3D Luts, hopefully with white balance, done carefully in relation to that. There is one maker of a camera who claims his camera produces accurate colours. I would ask against what and on what monitor can you properly judge this? It is theoretically possible to calibrate a camera more accurately and use Colorcheckers at the beginning of takes, but as I say who really wants that? What time of day are you shooting, what kind of lighting? Colour temp changes all the time through intensity, distance and angle of lighting. Then in grading accuracy is only for consistency between facilities and broadcasters and the accuracy of what you are doing when you change colours - WYSIWYG can of thing - you grade creatively often changing the look and therefore the accuracy of colours markedly.

In post there is largely two standards now Rec. 709, for SDR and DCI-P3 for HDR TV and cinema. There are no 12 bit monitors available for any price and none goes much beyond DCI-P3. Yet even most lowly cameras can capture Rec. 2020 and record in 12 bit log.

We have more colors available now. More tools for telling stories, for evoking responses. I'm simply suggesting that trying something outside past "proper aesthetic Ideals" might ... just might ... be a useful thing to try.

I get that point and agree in principle. But up until today, I think those endless possibilities have not led to aesthetically more pleasing images from any digital camera's output compared to film (with the exception of Arri's Alexa imo, I prefer any Roger Deakins film he shot on Alexa over actual film).

Quite the opposite actually. Because the basic principle stays the same - endless possibilities more often than not lead to less desirable results UNLESS you are a master at what you do - and there are far less actual masters that mediocre players in any field.

Considering "more tools for telling stories": having more tools is an easy recipe for undesirable outcomes, especially when starting out. Many no and low budget film's lighting for example falls short because film lights are simply overused and they would have been better off just shooting with the practicals that are already there.

I agree with you in principle, but if possibilities get endless it requires even more mastery to achieve desirable results and - at least so far - I have seen more bad than good (film can look aesthetically bad too, but it's a lot harder - think about 70's p0rn ).

And about different human perception, anyone remember the dress debate?
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-o ... lor-dress/

I know exactly which cinema camera you're talking about that claims to have the most accurate colour workflow, and I feel the same about the utility of that.

And yes the primacy of the end of observer....
https://www.sciencealert.com/crazy-opti ... hite-photo

Yes of course we want a good starting place from which to depart....

Because of the photochemical process of film it was possible to also mess with that and get in-accurate but amazing results.

You may have seen "bleach bypass" which was basically skipping a whole chemical processing bath that resulted in a mistake if you talk to a Kodak rep or the deeply glossy beautiful blacks and shifted highlights of Seven, City of lost children (same DP) Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report to name a few....

Saving Private Ryan also had a camera detuned so that the film was still advancing as the shutter was opening. Normally the film should be perfectly still, but if it's moving as it lands or departs the gate just as the shutter is opening and closing, you get theses horizontal streaks on highlights.

https://cms-assets.theasc.com/Saving-Pr ... 0703000134

Now to a camera designer and camera rental technician, that's a terrible mistake to be avoided at all cost. But here we are using that "mistake" to add dramatic and emotional impact to a scene.

How do you even do that with digital? What is the digital equivalent of this step? There isn't one. YES, we desperately try to replicate these mistakes using modern digital VFX and grading techniques...

But in the digital imaging chain, where is the possibility to use imaging process mistakes like this for creative effect? Digital cameras work, or they don't....They look the same everywhere, no matter if you use it anywhere on the planet (regional film processing labs could also contribute to the imaging process in unexpected ways)

I think for a lot of cinematographers who are used to and came up shooting on film, one of the reasons we mourn using film is because we have lost the ability as creatives to be able to screw with the whole image process from exposure to delivery in a way that produces unexpected and beautiful faults or mistakes.

We get called snobs for this.

Harris Savides, a fabulous Cinematographer, famously baked film before he put in the camera on the film The Yards. He had a recipe, putting cans of film into a low temperature oven for a certain amount of time, and then photographing with it.

"but what I learnt as a painter is that you never squeeze black paint out of the tube and brush it straight onto the canvas. You don't do that because that doesn't exist in real life, you always have to mix it with a brown or a blue because black absorbs light. It doesn't exist in real life unless you are sitting in a dark room with the door closed, that isn't a painting. So, in order to get that painterly look we had to break the back of the film. We did a lot of screwy things, we baked the film at 110 degrees for 15 minutes which broke down the film's ability to form the sharpest picture. It gave it almost a period look because the stock looks more like it used to look, it looks older."

If you put your 12K in the oven it wouldn't affect the image in any way.

I think digital imaging really struggles to give creatives the same detours to explore with the illusion of being better... but it's really only in one main highway of image look that we now ALL start from pretty much the same place.... They close off all the back roads you might be able to take to get to the same destination, with a perhaps more interesting journey along the way....

JB

I think for a lot of cinematographers who are used to and came up shooting on film, one of the reasons we mourn using film is because we have lost the ability as creatives to be able to screw with the whole image process from exposure to delivery in a way that produces unexpected and beautiful faults or mistakes.

Absolutely John... What is it the late great Geoff Boyle, always said, "F... the numbers".

That’s why the Alexa 35 has „Textures“, as Arri calls them. Some look pretty well baked

One striking feature of going between film projection and digital is the obvious one -- how flat and 2 dimensional digital can looks by comparison. Any youngish doubters, try it some time at a film festival (where they can still project film). (I'd also argue that film projection is much less fatiguing and far more engaging, but that's another issue...)

The explanation could be grain, gate weave, stochastic disturbances, etc. but I think it also goes back at least in part to "translucence" -- light actually shining through a strip of film. As mentioned in another thread, Gordon Willis would underexpose by 2/3rds of a stop and then push process the negative to heighten that effect. In some scenes it's as if you're seeing *through* the image, almost holographic. It gives the light itself a certain depth. Not available on any sensor, and if there's a plugin, it's yet to be invented.

What is it the late great Geoff Boyle, always said, "F... the numbers".

Add David Simon's (creator of The Wire) advice of "F.. the audience" and the foundation for something actually engaging is laid.

What is it the late great Geoff Boyle, always said, "F... the numbers".

Add David Simon's (creator of The Wire) advice of "F.. the audience" and the foundation for something actually engaging is laid.

Well, without the audience, what good is it to make movies? I disagree with that advice unless it is for a hermit who makes film for just themselves. It that case, he can just revert back to Geoff Boyce’s advice for himself.

"F.. the audience" On YouTube and platforms alike I really hope there would be more of that attitude, but no, everything is put to same format, with same cookbook to optimise the cashflow in a secured way, and movies are no different.

I do not thing the "F.. the audience" is to create something that no one wants to see, but not be limited by what the audience is used to see.

I don’t consider YouTube, Facebook, and like platforms as channels for films. It’s a free for all none “Cine” content platforms. IMO, while others have theirs, YouTubers are not filmmakers in the traditional sense and I don’t really care if they make $$$ or are dubbed as so called influencers. I don’t even know or care what that means. It’s a generation trend, while production films have been around for ages, Again, I’m saying my peace, others have their opinions. If YouTube or Vimeo is used for production pictures, I think its use is good to market contents, such as trailers or the like.