Blackmagic Forum

I was in a cabin in the Black Forest over the weekend - of course I took the BMC with me (just in case).

So one morning I woke up early, about an hour before the sunrise.
And there was this magical light and eerie mood. Actually it was almost no light at all.
But it was snowing a bit and the snow reflected a very soft blue-ish light
into that old dark wooden cabin. It was so dim, hard to really see much with the naked eye inside.

Just for the sake of it, I grabbed the BMC and got some shots while still in my pajamas..
Oh boy, did I mention, that I love this camera?

The subtle shades and reflections, the richness of the textures where blowing me away.
I always wanted to be able, to catch this sort of special morning mood, but no camera ever let me, not even the FS100.

Since I was just handheld, playing around with the BMC that morning, I did not plan to show that in motion to anyone, but I know you guys, you gonna twist my arm anyway.

So I quick-n-dirty bolted together some sort of artsy-fartsy collage

Wow! Very nice, Frank. Thank you for sharing. Last shot was breathtaking, but my favorite was the brief glimpse through the window in the distance from inside that showed the snow falling outside.

That's lovely, Frank. I've been nothing but impressed so far at the quality of the Cinema Camera's image. There's nothing about this video that doesn't look like you shot it on film. Magic hour looks magical again! How much trouble did you have grading the footage?

Looks great Frank! I really like the exteriors with the snow covered hill and trees.. and of course the last shot.. pure magic!

Jason R. Johnston wrote: How much trouble did you have grading the footage?

Nothing to write home about - just a reverse curve (BMC FILM), Blackmagic LUT and a bit contrast tweaking.

It actually looked almost like that with the blue morning light.

Thanks for sharing Frank. Really lovely images!

It still amazes me how well this camera handles light and the sheer DR it produces is incredible.

There are some very large white/yellow pixels from 1:26 - 1:31 which sort of fall from the top to the bottom of the frame. These are very distracting - I hope BMD rectify this in the next firmware update.

Jonty

Frank Glencairn wrote:

Jason R. Johnston wrote: How much trouble did you have grading the footage?

Nothing to write home about - just a reverse curve (BMC FILM), Blackmagic LUT and a bit contrast tweaking.

It actually looked almost like that with the blue morning light.

Good to know. It all looks brilliant. God always was my favorite gaffer! Now here's an affordable camera to take advantage of all the beauty.

Jeggintonfilms wrote:There are some very large white/yellow pixels from 1:26 - 1:31 which sort of fall from the top to the bottom of the frame. These are very distracting - I hope BMD rectify this in the next firmware update.

Those are water droplets from snow and ice melting above the window that is reflecting the direct light from the rising sun into the lens.

Jason R. Johnston wrote:

Jeggintonfilms wrote:There are some very large white/yellow pixels from 1:26 - 1:31 which sort of fall from the top to the bottom of the frame. These are very distracting - I hope BMD rectify this in the next firmware update.

Those are water droplets from snow and ice melting above the window that is reflecting the direct light from the rising sun into the lens.

Well, my sarcasm clearly went undetected ....

Jeggintonfilms wrote:Well, my sarcasm clearly went undetected ....

Well played, sir. My eyes rolled HARD when I read your comment. Cheers!

Looks nice! Did you meet any redneck torture zombies out there?

Thank you for this. Amazing stuff!

Beautiful! Thanks Frank.

NICE!!!! was this raw or pro res?

All raw.

For the record - the difference to what I see here on a calibrated production monitor and what ends up on YouTube is huge. It's a pity, that only editors and colorists can glimpse the sheer beauty of raw.

When our job is done, the material gets molested and ***** and played back on cheap uncalibrated 8 bit screens.

Frank Glencairn wrote:All raw.

For the record - the difference to what I see here on a calibrated production monitor and what ends up on YouTube is huge. It's a pity, that only editors and colorists can glimpse the sheer beauty of raw.

When our job is done, the material gets molested and ***** and played back on cheap uncalibrated 8 bit screens.

Yeah I was wondering how much better the footage looks before web compression. I'm interested to see how much noise is in the footage with such low light.

Frank Glencairn wrote:When our job is done, the material gets molested and ***** and played back on cheap uncalibrated 8 bit screens.

It's a shame, absolutely. But, no one appreciates and cares more for the image than the DoP. That's our job and that's what we fight for. The "look" is our signature and I don't want my name attached to mediocrity.

Yeah even the difference between the original large H.264 file from my 5D/60D music video has different colour and contrast than the final YouTube result.

ProRes file looks different to the large H.264 YouTube master which looks different to the final badly compressed YouTube H.264.

Makes me sad.

Well, as always Frank thanks for bringing us some beautiful footage. It seems you are the only reviewer out there who got the firsts cameras to actually shoot and use it and now and then shows us something good and you respect the camera.

The second shot for me is just jaw dropping, absolutely beautiful, its grainny touch makes it even more film like. I just can't say nothing els right now since I'm really imperssed and happy with the results. If this camera hadn't that bad rolling shutter.....

Thanks a lot Frank!!!!

Jesus

I have found that when uploading to both youtube and vimeo, vimeo was a better quality.
Of course it's not as nice as the original master file. but it is better than youtube.. plus it defaults to HD playback rather than youtubes SD default. I might be just me.. but I'm finding my videos look way better on vimeo.

Bill Rich wrote:I have found that when uploading to both youtube and vimeo, vimeo was a better quality.
Of course it's not as nice as the original master file. but it is better than youtube.. plus it defaults to HD playback rather than youtubes SD default. I might be just me.. but I'm finding my videos look way better on vimeo.

that's true....I saw in a song about the internet or something a phrase that said "vimeo is better but youtube has more content"

I can see banding in the sky in the first shot...and that's why web-video sucks!!! Frank give us a better version jajajajajajajajaa

Jesus

Vimeo's awesome. I can't get YouTube to work hardly at all on my Mac 10.7.5 with Firefox 17.0.1 –- keeps giving me "An error occurred. Please try again later" even if all I'm doing is trying to change the resolution of a video, or sometimes even if I just try to play one as-is. In fact, I can't get YouTube content to play on my iPhone 4S 6.0.1 over Wi-Fi; I have to drop it down to 3G...so, yeah, I just stick with Vimeo.

Awesome! thanks for sharing. I love the look of 99% of that footage

I wonder if there is a business opportunity to provide "high quality" video streaming? At a cost? Bandwidth issues?

I mean, if you have to pay 20 cents a minute to watch videos at a "low" compressed 2K resolution....would you? Do you think the general public would?

I'm at the opposite end of that spectrum. Just as in digital photography, I spent thousands on colour management solutions, ensuring my monitor perfectly matched my printed output, etc. However, 90% of my work is consumed digitally, not in physical prints. These people do NOT have calibrated monitors and frankly, the results I saw were depressing, but there is nothing you can do about it. So why do all the effort and cost to produce something 100% accurate and beautiful if no one is going to see it?

Do you master your work for your audience or do you master for yourself? That's the question really. I think this is why a camera that is so weak (on paper/specs) like the C100 is popular and is seeing positive sales. It outputs footage that is perfectly suited to mass digital consumption.

Sorry for the verbal diarrhoea, just thinking aloud while I drink my morning coffee...

sean

Frank,

For me, the most impressive shot was the 2nd one. That's where the power of raw really comes into play. True dusk and dawn are the hardest times to photograph. If you expose for the ground, the sky goes white, appearing far brighter than it does to your eye. If you expose for the sky, the ground goes black. Again, the contrast ratio will appear far different than it does to your eye. However, the shot as it appears in your video holds both exposures to what feels like the way it would appear to my eye if I saw it live.

Kind of amazing, in my opinion.

Frank Glencairn wrote:All raw.

For the record - the difference to what I see here on a calibrated production monitor and what ends up on YouTube is huge. It's a pity, that only editors and colorists can glimpse the sheer beauty of raw.

When our job is done, the material gets molested and ***** and played back on cheap uncalibrated 8 bit screens.

Another question how much SSD space did you use in shooting this clip? And what brand SSD did you use?

I shot a bit over 20 minutes of material that morning - so almost a 240 SSD - brand was SanDisk Extreme.

Can't wait until we're seeing more posts like this instead of so many people whining about the delays. Really helpful post Frank and to all of you who have the camera's are are starting to get them going.

Bill Rich wrote:I have found that when uploading to both youtube and vimeo, vimeo was a better quality.
Of course it's not as nice as the original master file. but it is better than youtube.. plus it defaults to HD playback rather than youtubes SD default. I might be just me.. but I'm finding my videos look way better on vimeo.

And speaking of monitors, I'm finding these videos such as on Vimeo are looking so much better on my iPad 2012 than my iMac 2009!

I'm at the point where I'm considering writing to Tim Cook to ask him to have better monitors available from Apple. At least 10bit calibrated, even if they're only 2560x1440 (which can display the full BMCC 2400x1350 raw image). I've heard some claims that you can't see the colour difference of 10bit compared to 8bit displays, but I'm not convinced. Looking at the Flanders Scientific monitors, I notice even their 10bit monitors are only 1920x1200. But I like they can take in a 12bit signal even if they display it in 10bit. Apple needs to provide the option.

rick.lang wrote:

Bill Rich wrote:. I've heard some claims that you can't see the colour difference of 10bit compared to 8bit displays, but I'm not convinced. ...

Trust me, you can.

rick.lang wrote:I'm at the point where I'm considering writing to Tim Cook to ask him to have better monitors available from Apple. At least 10bit calibrated, even if they're only 2560x1440 (which can display the full BMCC 2400x1350 raw image). I've heard some claims that you can't see the colour difference of 10bit compared to 8bit displays, but I'm not convinced. Looking at the Flanders Scientific monitors, I notice even their 10bit monitors are only 1920x1200. But I like they can take in a 12bit signal even if they display it in 10bit. Apple needs to provide the option.

How about an NEC SpectraView Reference 271 or Eizo ColorEdge CG275W?

Both are 27-inch, 10-bit colour LCD panels that can generate 1.7 billion colours, with a native resolution of 2,560 x 1,440 pixels. And there’s more. The SpectraView works from a 14-bit Look Up Table (LUT) for an internal palette of 4.3 trillion – so colours signals from your graphics card will be perfectly matched to their screen equivalent, producing smooth gradients and sharpening subtle detail. The CG275W tops this with a 16-bit LUT – though in practice there’s little between them.

http://digitalartsonline.co.uk/features ... z2EPze64Gc

I haven't tested the theory, but I think you'd find that displays still commonly max out at 8-bit because it is very close to the perceivable gradations of the human eye for displays.

95% of people would probably never see the difference, kinda like the difference between 24-bit 96KHz used as a recording data rate and finished in 16-bit 48KHz.

I'd love to have two high end 8 and 10-bit displays next to each other to see though.

Nick Bedford wrote:95% of people would probably never see the difference, kinda like the difference between 24-bit 96KHz used as a recording data rate and finished in 16-bit 48KHz.

I agree. In my experience the difference in 96k recording is in how much easier it is to manipulate in post or mix the material together, especially with a lot of audio plugins sounding better at 96k (my audio experience is more in music where the destination is 16/44.1 rather than 48k like video). I tend to think that about a lot of gear.. really great gear helps you get great results fast, but a lot of people probably can't tell the difference in the end result all else being equal. I mean people are listening to mp3's on ipod headphones these days.

Back on topic more, i have the NEC spectraview 271w monitor at home and it translates REALLY well to a high-end sony broadcast monitor that my friend has/uses. I'd love the $10k (NZD) monitor at home, but the NEC works really well for me at a fraction of the cost. And i get to use it for photoshop/etc as well. I have the retina 2012 iPad at home too that i check on and i've read that alot of colourists are using it as an additional reference so i'm not surprised about it looking better than a 2009 iMac (also had one and still have another.. haha).

And yes, great work and thanks (again) Frank!

cschmeer wrote:How about an NEC SpectraView Reference 271 or Eizo ColorEdge CG275W?

Both are 27-inch, 10-bit colour LCD panels that can generate 1.7 billion colours, with a native resolution of 2,560 x 1,440 pixels. And there’s more. The SpectraView works from a 14-bit Look Up Table (LUT) for an internal palette of 4.3 trillion – so colours signals from your graphics card will be perfectly matched to their screen equivalent, producing smooth gradients and sharpening subtle detail. The CG275W tops this with a 16-bit LUT – though in practice there’s little between them.

The Eizo CG275W looks like the way to go. I'll add it to the growing list of purchases for later next year when I'm looking forward to seeing Tim Cook's "really great" update of the Mac Pro in 2013. If I go with the Mac Pro, it will be easier to justify adding the standalone monitor rather than buying the next iMac 27". Price is similar to what I paid for my lowly 23" Apple Cinema HD Display in January 2005. What a difference though in capabilities! Still need to think about going the Flanders Scientific route with all their features but really want 2560x1440 at a minimum without breaking the bank.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

CaptainHook wrote:Back on topic more, i have the NEC spectraview 271w monitor at home and it translates REALLY well to a high-end sony broadcast monitor that my friend has/uses. I'd love the $10k (NZD) monitor at home, but the NEC works really well for me at a fraction of the cost. And i get to use it for photoshop/etc as well. I have the retina 2012 iPad at home too that i check on and i've read that alot of colourists are using it as an additional reference so i'm not surprised about it looking better than a 2009 iMac (also had one and still have another.. haha).

Thanks for the comments. Since both monitors are the same price and essentially similar capabilities, I'll take that as an endorsement for both. You've obviously got good taste in hardware!

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Nick Bedford wrote:I haven't tested the theory, but I think you'd find that displays still commonly max out at 8-bit because it is very close to the perceivable gradations of the human eye for displays.

95% of people would probably never see the difference, kinda like the difference between 24-bit 96KHz used as a recording data rate and finished in 16-bit 48KHz.

I'd love to have two high end 8 and 10-bit displays next to each other to see though.

You are right, but nice to work in higher resolutions in video and audio even when the delivered product may be a lower resolution.

In terms of colour, in my early days before you were a glint in your parents' eyes, a computer screen with 256 colours was new. Then came the Amiga with a lookup table that provided 4096 colours and that seemed revolutionary. Then we had 65,536 colours (16bits) and you can imagine how nice a jump that was. For so many years now we seem stuck on 16, 777, 216 colours (24bits) but the next jump is a big one to 1,073,741,824 (30bits). The Eizo CG275W even uses a lookup table with 16bits per R/G/B. if I remember correctly, our Targa board in the mid-90s used 16bits per R/G/B for all calculations. And DaVinci Resolve uses 32bit floating point to calculate colour values! Overkill in terms of final output but probably useful in the intermediary steps.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Loved my Amiga 1000! It and that cheap little genlock made for not only a poor boy's CG but a decent little animation tool too.

mhood wrote:Loved my Amiga 1000! It and that cheap little genlock made for not only a poor boy's CG but a decent little animation tool too.

It certainly took Apple quite a while to provide as user friendly an OS as the Amiga. I waited for the Amiga 2000; only began my love affair with Apple in 2005 and a Power Mac G5.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD