Q's for beta testers: BMPC4K for HD?

I am strongly considering the Production Camera 4K; it's for short films and online content, with a fair amount of action. I'm interested in feedback from beta testers about the camera when shooting HD instead of 4K UHD.

Questions for the beta testers:

If shooting on the BMPC4K in HD (1080P) mode, do you get less moire and aliasing than on the BMCC?

Shooting HD ProRes, what sort of storage consumption are you getting?

Would love to hear thoughts on the value of the 4K's improved motion - how much of the price bump from $2k for BMCC to $3k for BMPC4K is justified just by the global shutter?

I will be using Twixtor for slomo, and expect that not having to correct for rolling shutter before processing will give cleaner results. Has anyone played with this? Thoughts?

Thanks, all, in advance!

More than one of the BMPC-4K beta testers has reported that its 1080p ProRes HQ recordings have more real detail and less aliasing/moire than BMCC & BMPCC 1080p.

Of course, as expected, BMPC-4K recordings also have somewhat less dynamic range (and the cam has less sensitivity) than the other 2 cams, too.

1080p ProRes HQ data rate is the same regardless of the camera used: Up to 220 megabits/sec at 30p. 4K UHD ProRes HQ data rate is up to 880 megabits/sec at 30p.

The BMPC-4K's 4K ProRes HQ recordings also appear to have less aliasing/moire when viewing the available sample videos.

Note that aliasing/moire can occur with most any camera depending on the objects in a scene, focal length, etc. In general, the higher the native resolution of the camera, the less likely aliasing/moire will be an issue.

As for the value of the BMPC-4K's global shutter, some people value it more than others. I think it's a very valuable feature, just as important as the cam's wider "S35" FOV and 4K capability. James Tonkins' recent video is an excellent example of the benefits of the cam's global shutter:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18787

A cam with a rolling shutter would have recorded almost all of the vertical lines in objects such as passing trains, railings, light poles, etc. as slanted/tilted lines. And the vibration caused by the moving train and handheld camerawork would cause varying amounts of RS "jello". A global shutter has none of those issues (zero), and has other benefits, too.

If you value a small but noticeable increase in dynamic range more than a wider FOV or global shutter, or want to spend less money, the BMCC and BMPCC continue to be incredible values. It's a personal choice; there's no "best" solution, only what appropriate for your preferences, needs and budget.

I'm hoping to receive my BMPC-4K in a few days/weeks (fingers crossed).

I'm curious if the 12 vs 13 stops of dynamic range is a big difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm curious if the 12 vs 13 stops of dynamic range is a big difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Double the dynamic range, that's the difference. And maybe the BMCC/Pocket handles highlight clipping less harshly, judging from the beta footage.

Jules

I'm curious if the 12 vs 13 stops of dynamic range is a big difference

You can see the difference in the footage, including in BMPC-4K, BMCC and BMPCC footage available online. For example, see:
http://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/ ... -camera-2/

Whether or not that aspect of the video is more important ("a big difference") than other considerations is up to you.

Peter - thanks for the replies, and the link out to the other thread. Since I don't really haunt these fora, it's easy to miss things, so I appreciate the recap.

For me, the reduction in artifacts outweighs the loss of dynamic range, but I know that's highly subjective.

I had some concern that much of the improvement is dependent on how they go from sensor to 1080 - I'm glad the improvement is visible in content recorded as 1080 ProRes HQ. I had a quiet fear that we'd need to capture 4K UHD and downscale in post to obtain a benefit, which obviously has a huge impact on storage all down the line.

... I had some concern that much of the improvement is dependent on how they go from sensor to 1080 - I'm glad the improvement is visible in content recorded as 1080 ProRes HQ. I had a quiet fear that we'd need to capture 4K UHD and downscale in post to obtain a benefit, which obviously has a huge impact on storage all down the line.

The BMCC and BMPC4K downscale the image in camera when generating ProRes or DNxHD at 1080 lines. Other cameras may crop the sensor for output of resolutions smaller than the active sensor (which means at smaller resolutions you are getting a reduced angle of view). Grant Petty has indicated that he will not use a sensor crop as he wants you to get the full angle of view you expect of the sensor.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

... I had some concern that much of the improvement is dependent on how they go from sensor to 1080 - I'm glad the improvement is visible in content recorded as 1080 ProRes HQ. I had a quiet fear that we'd need to capture 4K UHD and downscale in post to obtain a benefit, which obviously has a huge impact on storage all down the line.

The BMCC and BMPC4K downscale the image in camera when generating ProRes or DNxHD at 1080 lines. Other cameras may crop the sensor for output of resolutions smaller than the active sensor (which means at smaller resolutions you are getting a reduced angle of view). Grant Petty has indicated that he will not use a sensor crop as he wants you to get the full angle of view you expect of the sensor.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It would be nice if he offered us the option. Sensor cropping would free up some processing for higher frame rates

It would be nice if he offered us the option. Sensor cropping would free up some processing for higher frame rates

Concerning cropping the sensor: (Some) people would complain about the resulting increased noise, because BMD cams don't do in-cam noise reduction.

-

It would be nice if he offered us the option. Sensor cropping would free up some processing for higher frame rates

Concerning cropping the sensor: (Some) people would complain about the resulting increased noise, because BMD cams don't do in-cam noise reduction.

-

Oh I know. It comes down to their ethos. Either give people all the functions and let them sort out/choose what works best for them or limit the scope of features to the performance level you want and have more influence over the user experience.

It's kind of like Apple vs Android. BM's approach is more aligned with Apple's methodology. Very frustrating to those who desire the opposite.

I can go either way.

wait, that sounded bad...

… I can go either way.

wait, that sounded bad...

It's the long Winters.

Back on topic: I can confirm that the BMPC is MUCH cleaner (at either 4K or internal 1080 down rez) in regards to moiré and aliasing than the BMCC does. Basically, you'd be extremely hard pressed to see any aliasing/moiré artifacts at 1080 when shooting with the 4K (and 4K native is very clean too). It was one of the first things I noticed when first beta testing the camera on high frequency test charts. It's super clean with huge amounts of fine detail. You'd never think to believe there's an absence of an OLPF in the 4K. This is one of the many reasons I've been shooting more with the 4K in the last few months than the BMCC, despite the fact the 4K is a stop under. You'll see lens CA, lens diffraction, etc., long before the 4K's sensor would do any harm to the image. It's #%@&ing beautiful.

Back on topic: I can confirm that the BMPC is MUCH cleaner (at either 4K or internal 1080 down rez) in regards to moiré and aliasing than the BMCC does. Basically, you'd be extremely hard pressed to see any aliasing/moiré artifacts at 1080 when shooting with the 4K (and 4K native is very clean too). It was one of the first things I noticed when first beta testing the camera on high frequency test charts. It's super clean with huge amounts of fine detail. You'd never think to believe there's an absence of an OLPF in the 4K. This is one of the many reasons I've been shooting more with the 4K in the last few months than the BMCC, despite the fact the 4K is a stop under. You'll see lens CA, lens diffraction, etc., long before the 4K's sensor would do any harm to the image. It's #%@&ing beautiful.

That's awesome Marco, thanks for the info.

Back on topic: I can confirm that the BMPC is MUCH cleaner (at either 4K or internal 1080 down rez) in regards to moiré and aliasing than the BMCC does. Basically, you'd be extremely hard pressed to see any aliasing/moiré artifacts at 1080 when shooting with the 4K (and 4K native is very clean too). It was one of the first things I noticed when first beta testing the camera on high frequency test charts. It's super clean with huge amounts of fine detail. You'd never think to believe there's an absence of an OLPF in the 4K. This is one of the many reasons I've been shooting more with the 4K in the last few months than the BMCC, despite the fact the 4K is a stop under. You'll see lens CA, lens diffraction, etc., long before the 4K's sensor would do any harm to the image. It's #%@&ing beautiful.

Marco, you make me spend money....

Yeah, Marco,
you're killing me. I had a whole list why I shouldn't get it.

Back on topic: The BMPC is MUCH cleaner at ... 1080 ... in regards to moiré and aliasing than the BMCC... It's #%@&ing beautiful.

Thanks, Marco.

With my sensitivity to artifacts, I've been pricing the BMCC at $2k + $300 = $2300 because it just needs a softening filter. Mosaic hasn't released one that goes on the sensor, or that would probably be a contender.

If what you're saying is the whole truth, and I wouldn't need a filter, then I feel like I'm only paying $700 to go from the BMCC to the 4K.

(Not to mention the convenience of never having to remove/add a filter based on what the actual shot needs.)