GH5 or BMMCC?

Strange question, perhaps, and even stranger if I say 4K isn’t actually a key issue.

I’m looking at a small, inexpensive cine cam, and these two are top of the list.

GH5 advantages are the in body stabilizer, higher frame rates and better low light. The Micro has dynamic range and RAW, and in 1080p I think 3:1 or 4:1 RAW is probably feasible for most of our projects.

Some of the GH5 stuff I’ve seen is pretty impressive, but there’s still the slightest hint of that video-ish, over sharpened, poor highlight roll off I’m used to with the earlier GH series. That said, I haven’t seen any first class footage shot in 400 log yet - I think the long gop log stuff is too compressed.

Th best micro footage I’ve seen is simply jaw dropping - beautiful, Alexa-like roll off and highlight retention, and amazing colour. And that’s probably more important than anything else to me. The rigging is a bit of a pain, but there are some great options here.

I guess I’m answering my own question, but I wondered what thoughts people here have who have actually used both properly, not just read reviews?

Our intended use is short narrative, careful doccie work and music videos. For instance this kind of thing or both shot on FS7, incidentally.

I went with the Micro cameras for the reasons you started and not looking back. Rigging is easy, get a Wooden Camera Micro cage, Sijan’s handle bracket and LANC breakout box, add a BM Ursa Mini handle grip, gives you start/stop and push to focus on MFT lenses. Add a EVF like the Cinroid EVF or the Small HD Focus 5-inch monitor and you are good to go.
Cheers.

i came from bmpc4k, i'm going to ursa mini pro, i bought at july gh5.
gh5 is enought good to mix with my bmpc4k prores, not oversharpened, not oversatured to have problem to manage both shooting in resolve (ever 4:2:2 10 bit shooting), now that we have also 400 mbit intraframe, gh5 offer a real good quality for a mirrorless, for its size, for its price.

are two different beast, bmmcc and gh5, i choose gh5 be cause i would to have a light camera with sensor stabilized, 4:2:2 10 bit cam 4k, with fullHDMI uncompressed out up to 60fps, dual card recording, good and articulate screen and good viewfinder (combined with my va4k is a beast), and ... i want to shoot sometimes also photos...

if you start to shoot with bmd color, it's difficult to change, i think gh5, with log, or actual HLG mode is enough good to match bmd color in many times, the tricks is to go on menu and setup in negative some settings like sharpness, saturation, but most of shooting did without log (i bought only recently) are very good to my eyes.

Obviously that if you want raw, you want bmd camera

Some of the GH5 stuff I’ve seen is pretty impressive, but there’s still the slightest hint of that video-ish, over sharpened, poor highlight roll off I’m used to with the earlier GH series. That said, I haven’t seen any first class footage shot in 400 log yet - I think the long gop log stuff is too compressed.

Contrast, Sharpness, NR, Saturation, Hue, and master Pedestal can all be adjusted in camera.

Check out some of Nick Driftwood's stuff if you want to see good footage.
https://vimeo.com/user2930807
https://www.youtube.com/user/driftwoodtv/videos

I like this short he did for Panasonic.

GH5 is all in one photo-video camera that can be used out of the box. BMMCC produce more natural looking image but is a drone camera module that can be used as run and gun camera but needs a lot of additional accessories and filters to realize its potential. RAW is great because you don't need to adjust WB and ISO during shooting. To shoot RAW you need IR/OLPF filter and Color Checker because it produces huge amount moire in RAW, shifted colors and IR pollution. Also you need do some research about proper workflow to be able extract and compress all dynamic range from BMMCC without clipping. When you add all that stuff total price for BMMCC about $2-2.5K. To see image without distortion you also need a monitor with LUT support. Otherwise you may be partially disappointed with BMMCC image.

BMMCC = $995
SMALLRIG BMMCC Cage 1773 = $79
SmallRig Universal Handle 1984 = $39
SmallRig 15mm Rod Clamp 1995 = $10
CAMVATE 15mm micro Rod Mount = $15
SmallRig DSLR Monitor Holder Mount 1842 = $20
Mosaic OLPF = $385
Hoya Pro ND 8 = $50
Hoya Pro ND 64 = $50
SmallHD 501 (second hand) = $600-650
Angle Breakout Expansion Box Module by RADIOPROEKTOR = $50
Angle HDMI Clamp kit by RADIOPROEKTOR = $30
Arri Rosette Mount Module for BMMCC by RADIOPROEKTOR = $35
Arri Rosette Side Handle with LANC REC/STOP button = $???
ColorChecker

Since you don't need 4K, the Micro is a great choice... The main advantage that the GH5 has over it is that it's also a good stills camera; IMO the 4K part is icing on the cake.

If you have a need for high quality stills also, then your choice is obvious, but if not, you're trading resolution for raw video as an option, which you'll probably end up appreciating, especially shooting outdoors.

Both have great color out of the box, but for a dedicated motion picture camera, I'd favor raw capture over resolution.

Rather than spending a bunch of time and money to create an unwieldy Frankenrig out of the BMMCC, why not just look around for a used Ursa Mini 4.6K?

If Alexa style color quality and dynamic range are what you're looking for, shooting the 4.6K full sensor downscaled to record HD/2k 12bit ProRes444 yields gorgeous results that are completely malleable to grade and easy to run through post.

I am with you Jamie. Just finishing up a time lapse shoot of a boat building project, the Micro Cinema Camera is working out great, handeling the wide dynamic range of the set.
Cheers

Jamie, still get teary-eyed remembering the joy of opening up the URSA Mini 4.6K PL last spring. Right, Denny?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamie, still get teary-eyed remembering the joy of opening up the URSA Mini 4.6K PL last spring. Right, Denny?

I didn't get misty eyed until after my Ursa Mini's second RMA, but I know what you mean
I've finally decided to trade up to the Pro. It arrives Monday!

Rather than spending a bunch of time and money to create an unwieldy Frankenrig out of the BMMCC, why not just look around for a used Ursa Mini 4.6K?

It is too different price range between rigged BMMCC and unrigged Ursa Mini 4.6K. Also rigged BMMCC many times smaller and lighter, smaller batteries, handled steady cam friendly, can be used as action/drone camera, record RAW to SD cards, smaller file size, less computer power to process. Up to 5 stops of dynamic range can be recovered from shadows (ISO 25600) without codec artifacts if use proper workflow and noise reduction.

Jamie, will be fascinating reading your comments next week on the UMP46K. What mounts are you including?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the comments everyone. I probably see an UMP in my future soon, but it's not really an overlap with the BMMCC - i think they are complementary. Ursa is really so much more expensive as a shooting package with batteries, cards and the computer to handle 4K. I already have lots of what I need to get a well designed BMMCC rig - like Dimitry has come up with - working from my years with GH cameras.

I guess GH5 is the practical choice, but it's the highlight retention and harsh clipping that I've grown tired of over the years - especially in the harsh African sunlight where I work - and the BM cameras all seem so much more cinematic in that respect.

I guess I answered my questions. At worst an micro would make an excellence speciality camera going forward.

Jamie, still get teary-eyed remembering the joy of opening up the URSA Mini 4.6K PL last spring. Right, Denny?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right Rick, opening up that UM box was a highlight of my trip to Victoria.
Cheers

and the computer to handle 4K

Because the Ursa Mini does an amazing downscale in camera, you can benefit from the entire awesome 4.6K sensor, yet record gorgeous HD/2K 12 bit ProRes 444 files. No need for a new computer. Your audience will never see the difference from 4K files. Don't take my word for it, but I do think you should take Steve Yedlin's (you know, the DP for soon to be released The Last Jedi) who ran extensive empirical tests to prove that at the distances we all view our media, even on large theater screens, audiences cannot see any of those those extra 4K pixels. So, recording downscaled HD/2K on the Ursa Mini is all you need.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

The pocket camera with a 25mm or 35mm Veydra lens and sd card would be about $2,000. I would recommend shooting a short doc or narrative with just that if budget is a concern and no further rigging. If you are thinking GH5 at $2,000 just for the body I would rather have a camera and a lens. I wasn’t able to get pleasing color or skin tones from the GH5. The 35mm Veydra is sharp enough for the pocket sensor with great bokeh and minimal focus breathing.

If you have the budget for the extras with the ursa mini then I agree with the other posts that even at 2k the image is really a big jump from either the GH5 or Pocket.

Your audience will never see the difference from 4K files. Don't take my word for it, but I do think you should take Steve Yedlin's (you know, the DP for soon to be released The Last Jedi) who ran extensive empirical tests to prove that at the distances we all view our media, even on large theater screens, audiences cannot see any of those those extra 4K pixels. So, recording downscaled HD/2K on the Ursa Mini is all you need.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

LOl. People are still referencing this. Whether he directed Last Jedi or not, a director with less than average (probably poor and needs contacts or glasses) eye sight doesn't mean he's an expert on resolution. Lol

His only argument that holds weight to be true is when it's heavily compressed.
I can 100 percent of the time, with out any doubt, tell when I'm in a theater with a 4K projector VS and HD projector.

Here is a quote from another top industry guy Ted Schilowitz, when asked if 4K is needed in theaters.
It also has to do with visual acuity, essentially boiling down to, as Lude asked, “How good is your eyesight?”

I can't understand why people can't grasp that evolution of the body doesn't somehow skip the vision portion.
Speed
Height
Strength
Hearing
Baldness
Bodymass
Intelligence
Skin color
Smell
Dexterity, etc.
and yes number of rods and cones in our eyes. (Vision)
are all effected by genetic disposition.
Some of us see a lot better than others (concerning resolution, and night vision). It's not really hard to understand is it?

And on top of that there are a super rare, I mean super rare, portion of the population (and only females) that have and an extra cone (cones are for color).
Humans normal only have three (3) types on cones.
A rare group of females only, have genetically (evolution) developed a 4th cone. Completely different cone from the other three. Which allows them to see in what is thought to be billions of different shades of color.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-au ... man-vision
Researchers suspect, though, that some people see even more. Living among us are people with four cones, who might experience a range of colors invisible to the rest. It’s possible these so-called tetrachromats see a hundred million colors, with each familiar hue fracturing into a hundred more subtle shades for which there are no names, no paint swatches. And because perceiving color is a personal experience, they would have no way of knowing they see far beyond what we consider the limits of human vision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

When People say they can see a difference, y'all should take their word for it. Because just maybe they can!
Just because vision wasn't one of your gifts doesn't mean others don't have really great eye sight!

I can 100 percent of the time, with out any doubt, tell when I'm in a theater with a 4K projector VS and HD projector.

Of course you can tell the difference. So can I and so can Steve Yedlin. Based on your statement, I think you completely missed Yedlin's point. He never said that viewers can't tell the difference between a 4K projection and 2K projection. In fact, he totally agrees with you that viewers can see that difference, and he said as much in the demo presentation. What he shows with his tests is subtly, but importantly, quite different. He proved that when viewed on a 4K screen or through 4K projection, its impossible for audiences to perceive any difference between footage captured at 4K (or higher K) versus 2K captured footage that has been given an optical quality upscale to 4K when both are screened side by side in 4K projection. See the difference there? 4K projection difference can be seen and higher than 2K sensors matter (because they are all Bayer pattern and you need more than 2K bayer pattern to yield 2K in R, G, and B), but you can record from those high K sensors in downscaled 2K, finish in 2K, and then upscale that 2K master to 4K and the perceptual sharpness of the result will be the same as if you had recorded at 4K (or higher) and finished at 4K. This is why top DP's don't all just use Red cameras. They can record 2K (or ~3K) on the Alexa, get the benefit of the better color and dynamic range it offers, and the result on a 4K screen is not any less perceptually sharp than if they had shot Red and run their whole post pipeline in 4K.
And I've seen proof of this with my own eyes on what is likely one of the best theater screens in the USA. I mastered a 2K DCP last week with footage captured in downscaled 2K from the the full sensor of the Ursa Mini 4.6K and then tested that DCP at Dolby's theater (not the AMC branded crap boxes, but the theater inside Dolby's R&D facility in San Francisco) and with their laser projectors handling the upscale to get it onto the screen in 4K, the image was as sharp as I've ever seen. And I've done the same test at LucasFilm's theater on their 4K Christie projector, with the same result.
If you believe all of that is wrong, please do go run your own tests and share the results as Steve has done. Experiments are only valid if their results can be repeated empirically

[People are still referencing this. Whether he directed Last Jedi or not, a director with less than average (probably poor and needs contacts or glasses) eye sight doesn't mean he's an expert on resolution. Lol

I'm not sure who qualifies as an "expert on resolution", but that's rather the point, if you read Steve Yedlin's commentary: the "cinematic experience" is his ultimate interest in this question, not numbers, and that experience has little or nothing to do with resolution. The history of feature film exhibition proves as much: the typical 35mm release print is lucky to resolve 700 lines in a movie theater.

If there is no A/B comparison on the screen (if we're screening a movie, not doing a resolution test), the numerical superiority of 4K over 2K becomes irrelevant, even assuming it's readily detectable in the seats chosen by the audience, which are typically outside the range of 4K detection. In other words, people *choose* to sit in seats where they can't detect the full resolution of the material. What does that say about the theatrical importance of more lines?

When a lot of ultra-low production was taking place on mini-DV, there was a case to be made that low resolution was at odds with some forms of drama -- and the "cinematic experience". But HD is well beyond that threshold. Higher projection numbers (whatever advantages they may offer in post) are more fetish than theatrical.

I guess like many people if drew up a list of desirable image characteristics that included:

Dynamic range
Great colour
Smooth highlight roll off
Clean shadows
More than HD resolution

... then the last one would be by far the least important, for me anyway. Of course if you’re producing content for Netflix that decision is out of your hands.