2.5k raw vs 4k prores

I'm shooting a short film in a month and I was wondering what would be better for online delivery. The bmcc raw or 4k prores with the production camera. I'm looking for rich vibrant colors and overall grade-ability.

Any thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a difficult choice, but I'd say go with a 2.5k RAW for the purpose that RAW gives you more Gradability & Dynamic Range, and the fact that when you go for online delivery you'll downres to 1080P Anyway. If you can try and get a speedbooster with it for that extra bit of low-light kick and FoV.

The 4k is probably better for outdoor shooting & for shots where you intend to crop the frame down.

Do you think that they would be easily mach-able in post? I have a wedding coming up and i really want the best result I can get. Hoping the 4k handles the lower light good enough...hoping...

It really doesn't. It's not "slow" by the standards of film, at 400, but it's certainly not the camera I'd take anywhere without the ability to light-- that extra little stop to 800 is a bit of a big deal when you're dealing with something which may only be twinkle lights and candles.

Well I bought the 4k...so I guess I'll just find out. I never shoot 1600asa on the bmcc...never...Actually I leave it on 800asa 100% of the time. control the rest with aperture and ND. I'll leave the 4k at 400asa forever too I'm sure. Always looking to push it that much further.


Any idea how much difference the 1 stop of dynamic range makes?

Well I bought the 4k...so I guess I'll just find out. I never shoot 1600asa on the bmcc...never...Actually I leave it on 800asa 100% of the time. control the rest with aperture and ND. I'll leave the 4k at 400asa forever too I'm sure. Always looking to push it that much further.


Any idea how much difference the 1 stop of dynamic range makes?

It means the BMCC is twice as sensitive at low light.

And if you have a SpeedBooster, like I do, it gets twice as sensitive again. It would worry me to move to a 400asa (or 600asa) camera, I'd definitely need a lot more lighting budget.

Jules

There's a video I saw on the BMCC Vimeo (FOUND IT!)

http://blog.planet5d.com/2014/02/death-match-between-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-vs-blackmagic-4k-production-camera/

to be honest, I wouldn't notice a major difference outside of no-light settings.

My suggestion with any digital camera shooting RAW is to overexpose rather than underexpose - that is doubly so with the BM 4k as people have noticed FPN & other issues in lower light settings.

There's a video I saw on the BMCC Vimeo (FOUND IT!)

http://blog.planet5d.com/2014/02/death-match-between-blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-vs-blackmagic-4k-production-camera/

to be honest, I wouldn't notice a major difference outside of no-light settings.

My suggestion with any digital camera shooting RAW is to overexpose rather than underexpose - that is doubly so with the BM 4k as people have noticed FPN & other issues in lower light settings.

But here were both cameras recording ProRes... If you would record RAW with the Pocket Camera it would have clearly beaten the 4k after downsampling...

The video also shows what I also saw when I was testing my 4K (before returning it...): I don't like the look of the ProRes after grading... My results shooting RAW with the 2.5K were much (!!) better and even my Magic Lanterned Canon 5D MKII gives me better looking results.

But here were both cameras recording ProRes... If you would record RAW with the Pocket Camera it would have clearly beaten the 4k after downsampling...

The video also shows what I also saw when I was testing my 4K (before returning it...): I don't like the look of the ProRes after grading... My results shooting RAW with the 2.5K were much (!!) better and even my Magic Lanterned Canon 5D MKII gives me better looking results.

It's a debate that people are having regarding Resolution vs. Dynamic Range. I don't think very many projects are mastering in 4K or having 4K Material Distributed ( I know Netflix plans to do so sometime this year). The problem mentioned by a lot of people at NAB is that the 4K medium lacks Dynamic Range which when sitting at an adequate distance away is more noticeable than Resolution.

I think when they get the RAW working the 4K camera will be excellent for more controlled lighting situations. Too bad that there currently really isn't a major distribution method for 4K material, I think in 5-6 years they may up the standard from 1080P to 4k, but it'll start broadcasting in the next 2 years hopefully.

4K for anything other than cinema is just overkill. I personally feel that the move to 4k will be slower than the move to HD was.

A lot people have only switched to HD in the past few years and won't want to upgrade again, many will feel that HD is good enough and will stick with it to save money, and lastly eventually the buzz will wear off and consumers might wise up to the fact that 4K for your home television is just not practical.

With the size of televisions people have and the viewing distance they use 4K doens't make any difference over HD, even more so on phones or computers most people don't even have HD monitors. I have seen 4k TV's in person they look great up close on the floor but be practical and move back to the distance you will actually be watching from and the benefits of 4k go away but the higher price tag doesn't. There are only 2 reasons why my next TV would be 4k, either its the only option and is forced on me or in order to get passive 3D in HD.

For me the only reason I would consider the 4K is for the global shutter, besides I have seen and used techniques for scaling 2.5K raw to 4K and I doubt anyone here would be able to tell it wasn't shot 4K.

That, the speedbooster giving it a s35 sensor, and higher ISO is why I chose the 2.5K.

I personally find that 1080p is a little soft of wide landscape shots and just wider shots in general. I plan to use 4k for wide shots just to retain the extra detail and then transcode for 1080p in post.

I personally find that 1080p is a little soft of wide landscape shots and just wider shots in general. I plan to use 4k for wide shots just to retain the extra detail and then transcode for 1080p in post.

I do agree there is some benefit for shooting in 4k to down sample to a higher quality HD but not really for 4K delivery. I would be curious to see how 4K raw when available down converted to HD compares to 2.5K raw when down converted. I think the 2.5K raw will beat or be on par with 4K prores from the little 4k footage I have been able to get my hands on.

I haven't been able to really tell a huge difference in the dynamic range...yet. Some really hard highlights look a little too harsh. But I think it's controllable. In most situations.

2.5k camera has much more DR ! I love my 4K for the detail and global shutter but it has not more than 9/10 stops at the moment, it is my opinion looking my footages. I hope it will be better with the next update.
Finally I love both.