Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K vs Arri Alexa

What a interesting coffee chats
I like this thread!

When BM launches the Pocket 4K, I thought, great! ... the issue could be that is camera from 10 years ago.
In any case, still love it. I'm just an enthusiast, however much people seems to unknowing that the only thing separes from a professional one it's just paymemts, not absolute knowledge.


BTW. Right now I'm trying to develop a film look, based on my experience with film. All I'm doing is just transforms.
If some one knows the better way to transform Log to ECN-2 negative (digital) Please, let me know!
I think here's one of the key of motion picture film look.
(but if someone going to give me a sermon about whats film look should be or not, please save it for yourself )

In the other hand,
Wayne.
Not the whole world revolves around Netflix, Hollywood, etc...At the same time not all comics means Marvel/DC. There's a lot of worlds and maybe much more interesting.
But industry wants we love blockbuster LUTs, superheroes and all that.
I'm ok, you know, I work for the indutry, they pay my bills and you guys buy my stuff.
Just keep in mind learn some Chinese language for the future.

What a interesting coffee chats
I like this thread!

When BM launches the Pocket 4K, I thought, great! ... the issue could be that is camera from 10 years ago.
In any case, still love it. I'm just an enthusiast, however much people seems to unknowing that the only thing separes from a professional one it's just paymemts, not absolute knowledge.


BTW. Right now I'm trying to develop a film look, based on my experience with film. All I'm doing is just transforms.
If some one knows the better way to transform Log to ECN-2 negative (digital) Please, let me know!
I think here's one of the key of motion picture film look.
(but if someone going to give me a sermon about whats film look should be or not, please save it for yourself )

In the other hand,
Wayne.
Not the whole world revolves around Netflix, Hollywood, etc...At the same time not all comics means Marvel/DC. There's a lot of worlds and maybe much more interesting.
But industry wants we love blockbuster LUTs, superheroes and all that.
I'm ok, you know, I work for the indutry, they pay my bills and you guys buy my stuff.
Just keep in mind learn some Chinese language for the future.

FIO (Figure it out transform) or RI (Research it transform).

Oh, now insult me. . I said they were nice, didn't reference superheros (are you referring to the guardians of the galaxy 2 look, was that Netflix look? Not completely OK with it).

Oh, now you giving the sermon of film look (I was only posting the first sentence).

I merely mentioned the three commercial looks (+ Alexa) as nice looks for a variety of work. I mentioned if you could also tone their contrast down or up in camera, because they would then be similar to a range of desirable looks, straight out of camera. Not everybody can afford $100k plus for custom colour on a micro film. Would suite a $1295 camera crowd more, or mini, than big budget. Besides all the movies straight to DVD with a standardised colour scheme looked rather good, but I don't know how many AA best pictures I've seen with the unique modern look like an old print of a original dirty harry film gone wrong. Not to over think things but both good standard and good custom looks work.

But, if somebody wants to get into the specific of film looks with Roberto..

. have a good night Roberto

Now, when you moving over to that new $10 billion Chinese studio Roberto? (The whole China is going take over the film industry market is probably going fail if anybody can do paid on line with democracising opportunities, such a lower cost technique).

Actually, I had been doing some research into doing low cost live Hollywood level raytraced graphics around 20 years ago, and know a guy with the tech to further lower costs. Now, maybe not as cheap as I would want, new Nvidia Turing setups are doing life like hollywood rendering in a single machine. There is only a few large steps until the process of design of animation can be done relatively cheaply and simply like I envisioned nearly three decades ago.

Ai and visual library tools are part of this. Describe/capture, process result based on description and refine. The startrek holodeck uses something a little like that. That is the future. If a teenager can sit in his bed room a e make a award winning feature film, then the next Mozart of the Movie world may well be knocking them out in their teens by the dozen from whatever country they are from, with AI performing all the translated voice over and script rewrite/rerendering for local market.

A feature for $100 in electricity, $1000 in equipment and some time and food for a single person, which could outdo anything yet done.

Wayne,

English isn't my native language, perhaps make me sound a bit rude sometimes . Apology if I sound rude. I'm a guy with a lot of humor sense but can't explain well in English.
But with one of your last post, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with me.

About my China comment, was about investors not Chinese studios.

I like people who debate everything, signs of intelligence. However could be a great guy to talk with, or a pedantic nightmare (it was an insult?...I tried

Oh, pedantic, I'll give you pedantic, raising that conversation just as my battery was about to die
Sheldon, Sheldon, Bring pop corn . You are not the only one..with a sense of humour Roberto.

Honestly, order, which last statement did you mean?

"General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]

Incorrect string value: '\xF0\x9F\x8C\xBD. ...' for column 'post_text' at row 1 [1366]

An SQL error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact the Board Administrator if this problem persists.
Please notify the board administrator or webmaster: forum@blackmagicdesign.com

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group".

I broke the forum. Seems it doesn't leave the little android corn auto insert graphic.

If a teenager can sit in his bed room a e make a award winning feature film, then the next Mozart of the Movie world may well be knocking them out in their teens by the dozen from whatever country they are from, with AI performing all the translated voice over and script rewrite/rerendering for local market.

A feature for $100 in electricity, $1000 in equipment and some time and food for a single person, which could outdo anything yet done.

Marketing. That’s the magic word IMO. There are probably many Mozart’s out there. However, most of them never get famous because of the commercial noise we live in. Can’t be heard so to speak. Especially internet noise. A kid making a masterpiece in the living room does not automatically reward to fame. He/she need to be lucky. Spotted out in the crowd through the noise or get a resource that help them. Everyone know about big budget movies, because the companies spend a fortune in marketing. They float over the noise floor make us aware of the product, and even manipulate us to believe it’s the best.

Although, I would argue that it is a bigger chance to get lucky these days with YouTube and all. Much easier than before the internet. There is always a marked these days. Always someone that is interested in your content, regardless. You only need to get their attention. Maybe AI will help with that in the future. Who knows.

I enjoy shooting with my UMP as much as an Alexa Mini. I just feel a bit more accomplished towards my peers standing behind the Alexa mini with a set of Cooke s4. But hauling either of them around getting b-roll is a hassle, and I think in that sense the pocket wins. You don't hesitate because of fatigue to get 3 flights higher for that better angle with your Pocket. And from what I see the quality looks pretty decent.

They should name it "Blackmagic Backpack Camera 4k" because I think that's where it will fit in my daily routine getting usable b-roll that I would otherwise miss.

I'll give you pedantic,

Menudo "farfolla" estas tu hecho!

Marketing. That’s the magic word IMO. There are probably many Mozart’s out there. However, most of them never get famous because of the commercial noise we live in. Can’t be heard so to speak. Especially internet noise. A kid making a masterpiece in the living room does not automatically reward to fame. He/she need to be lucky. Spotted out in the crowd through the noise or get a resource that help them. Everyone know about big budget movies, because the companies spend a fortune in marketing. They float over the noise floor make us aware of the product, and even manipulate us to believe it’s the best.

Although, I would argue that it is a bigger chance to get lucky these days with YouTube and all. Much easier than before the internet. There is always a marked these days. Always someone that is interested in your content, regardless. You only need to get their attention. Maybe AI will help with that in the future. Who knows.

Fame!
Not need be famous to make what you want in the life. Even with huge budgets.
But you're right in the marketing POV.
I'd like new generations focus on develop new artistic and technical stuff instead of fame.

I enjoy shooting with my UMP as much as an Alexa Mini. I just feel a bit more accomplished towards my peers standing behind the Alexa mini with a set of Cooke s4. But hauling either of them around getting b-roll is a hassle, and I think in that sense the pocket wins. You don't hesitate because of fatigue to get 3 flights higher for that better angle with your Pocket. And from what I see the quality looks pretty decent.

They should name it "Blackmagic Backpack Camera 4k" because I think that's where it will fit in my daily routine getting usable b-roll that I would otherwise miss.

I think the same than you.

Fame!
Not need be famous to make what you want in the life. Even with huge budgets.

Hehe, I see your point. And totally agree! Bad choice of word from my side I guess.

I don’t want the next gen long for fame for fame sake. Let’s rephrase. Get an audience. No point making art without an audience. So, a bit of fame is necessary in a way. But don’t get me wrong.

It’s a bit hard to talk in these forums without getting a bit misunderstood. Wold love to sit down, have a coffee and a proper talk. But I guess we are all spread out on this planet, making it a bit of a challenge.

Fame!
Not need be famous to make what you want in the life. Even with huge budgets.

Hehe, I see your point. And totally agree! Bad choice of word from my side I guess.

I don’t want the next gen long for fame for fame sake. Let’s rephrase. Get an audience. No point making art without an audience. So, a bit of fame is necessary in a way. But don’t get me wrong.

It’s a bit hard to talk in these forums without getting a bit misunderstood. Wold love to sit down, have a coffee and a proper talk. But I guess we are all spread out on this planet, making it a bit of a challenge.

Yeah man!
Totally agree with you.
I don't want seems categorical, some fame helps ,that is true . I'm trying to say that maybe public fame isn't so necessary.

Cheers

I'll give you pedantic,

Menudo "farfolla" estas tu hecho!

That's "steam" baby, like on the Sun (guys in science might know what I mean).

If a teenager can sit in his bed room a e make a award winning feature film, then the next Mozart of the Movie world may well be knocking them out in their teens by the dozen from whatever country they are from, with AI performing all the translated voice over and script rewrite/rerendering for local market.

A feature for $100 in electricity, $1000 in equipment and some time and food for a single person, which could outdo anything yet done.

Marketing. That’s the magic word IMO. There are probably many Mozart’s out there. However, most of them never get famous because of the commercial noise we live in. Can’t be heard so to speak. Especially internet noise. A kid making a masterpiece in the living room does not automatically reward to fame. He/she need to be lucky. Spotted out in the crowd through the noise or get a resource that help them. Everyone know about big budget movies, because the companies spend a fortune in marketing. They float over the noise floor make us aware of the product, and even manipulate us to believe it’s the best.

Although, I would argue that it is a bigger chance to get lucky these days with YouTube and all. Much easier than before the internet. There is always a marked these days. Always someone that is interested in your content, regardless. You only need to get their attention. Maybe AI will help with that in the future. Who knows.

What about viral marketing, word of mouth, simply ad placement on line, in ads in other content online? But the big one is trusted sites that rank content or review it. You start ignoring the noise and listen to the most trusted voices. Once a child genius does it once, the next one, and even the rest they do, comes under scrutiny. They can "afford" to do art their way within the law and morale code. That might be decades away, even much longer to perfect, but the technology to really get a move on is coming soon. In the meantime, the technology to do more and more with less and less people in a shorter and shorter time, is here. Technology I had been thinking about decades ago. Lot's of development opportunity. So, the studio becomes the hoster, distributor and marketer. No use shouting out fake news and people not listening, find Mozart, make a good offer to move his content to your server, and then offer good marketing to build good reputation so people listen. But lots of people would still need to collaborate for some time. The studios can still work with them, and fund their living expenses/pay them. But it would be changed.

In the future the formal marketing messages may break down. Fake news=hype=untrustworthiness=film marketing. Shouting that longer and harder is not going to win to many freinds.

Nothing much "Hulled" here. Just learning.

It’s a bit hard to talk in these forums without getting a bit misunderstood. Wold love to sit down, have a coffee and a proper talk. But I guess we are all spread out on this planet, making it a bit of a challenge.

Oh, it's coming. We travel, there are shows. I was even invited to Barcelona (I didn't go) you'll see something shortly on that camera. Then there are Skype conference calls, where you can head butt your screens, if you still have crt monitors, in frustration.

But still, why is the pocket 4k so big compared to this Alexa?:

But still, why is the pocket 4k so big compared to this Alexa?:

I think that most of the space in these bigger cameras like Alexa and UMP is actually fans, to cool them down. That's why you hear people complaining about the Pocket 4k is getting almost too hot too hold on too.

It was a joke.

Or:

Ok, back on topic now that people seem to have scared poor Sareesh away. I think the following video illustrates what Sareesh was getting at. It is by Mark Toia on the Red Helium 8k camera, but it is glorious with some nice images. He too under exposes and over exposes to test out situations in real life which give his cameras issues. He talks about the translucent nature of skin, and how you setup right for the skin and keep in raw as long as possible in the post chain to hand over quality footage with minium problems to grade. He talks about the affect of lenses to. We would be blessed to produce pictures like these.

It's Ironic he looks a bit like Alex from the Fran 8k camera.

Now, don't worry, the universe looks like this. As far as the work the following cameras are primarily built for. You can virtually not worry about most cameras below Pocket 4k, between pocket 4k and the mini 4.6k's and between the 4.6k's and the recent Red 8k's, which includes the Arri. That's a big archievement for BM, and means the Red world has shrunk. If you want to a really reliable workhorse for big budget then still Arri of course, but what about that Panavision?

As far as other types of work in ENG etc, the old gaurd manufacturers are still there, peddling.

He talks about the translucent nature of skin,

.

This look awesome! But I don't see any scattering here.

70mm film was harder and more expensive to deal with, so wasn't used much. It was used as a quality choice.

No, it was a stylistic choice due to the format.

I thought the point was that Alexa has a high enough quality spec for high end productions with 14.5-16 stops, (depending on the model) and better colour throughout that range?

14. Arri hasn't changed its pixel design, so all of its cameras render images more or less identically; they have the same color rendition, same response characteristics. A lot of DPs like that about Alexas; it's one of the reasons that Arri hasn't come up with a new pixel design after all these years.

Specifications are the scientific description of the how the image is picked up, the quality look of the image. So again, I'm not the one rambling.

You are, as usual... because there are several cameras out there with more dynamic range and wide color gamut, including Red's newest line (Monstro, Helium, Gemini) and Sony's Venice.

Even some of BMD's cameras have more dynamic range -- specifically the 4.6K models.

And a lot of Hollywood productions mix Alexas, Reds and even Phantoms, taking advantage of Red's resolution for FX shots and Phantoms for extremely high speed photography since Phantoms can reach 1000 fps in 4K (well, some of them).

The look however is far more from art direction and lighting than it is which camera you use, regardless of the specs. Upstream Color looked great, and it was shot on a GH2 or GH3, I've forgotten which; those had quite a bit less than 12 stops of dynamic range... but a good DP can work with that.

So no, you don't NEED 14+ stops of dynamic range and crazy resolution to make great images.

You need talent.

How did I miss this. I have talent in for figuring things out and 14+ stops DO make greater cameras. It is wise to have them, because you DO need them to smooth the flow and reduce costs. Rakesh, you can be as bullish as you like, but when I'm right I can outbull you, and that being right is all that matters, not trying to trump me. So, as I covered, you can work with lower lattitude but it just becomes harder and harder, and more and more expensive in a market where it is becoming harder and harder to pay off bigger budgets that are not on a hit, or smallest budget films. The bottom line matters, as well as democrasising equipment. The flexibility to do better films matters, which if you watch the Mark Tioa film sums it up, particularly the last lines, about content being King but better equipment helps you deliver better content. True, true, true.

You are welcome to your Opinion of PART of reality, but I'll double down on your opinion by extending it with a bit of Reality. If you want to shoot with less flexible cameras you are welcome to ONLY, only, film with that $250 Canon stills cinema camera setup in the video above or the worse old miniDV camera you can find, forever. No! I didn't think so. Films today look massively better than the low stop film days, even in lighting, because the equipment now has more flexibility to produce a look. Yes can see that in the video above. More delicacy than an early Charlie Chaplin (I have the collection).

When you say rambling you really are saying you don't understand. I actually listen to people and assess what they are saying, even ignorant ones, and pick things up and learn. You could try that. If you think I am ignorant you could try that and maybe you will find I am not as ignorant as you think. Steam of concise thought finished.

So, I have been looking at samples from another upcoming 15stop+ 8k camera, and have got to say, so good it reminds me of old depth of feild adaptor sample footage. A natural successor to the original pocket's look but so much better. I don't know how it goes for colour volume at the extremes though, but great pictures. So Arri again is not the be all and end all. I wouldn't mind seeing a shoot out between that camera the Pocket 4k and maybe the Alexa.

Some more progress on my "Arri-like" LUT for the P4K...

BMD Film (RAW)


BMD Extended Video


Pocket709+


Pocketlexa


Obligatory beauty shot:

BMD Extended Video


Pocket709+


Pocketlexa

Joe, do you dream about the perfect LUT?

I didn’t realize posts require an obligatory beauty shot. But, hey, I’m all for it. From an artistic perspective of course!

The looks you’ve shown look different for your indoor scene versus the outdoors shot. It makes me think the perfect LUT is like the search for the Holy Grail. It must exist, but where is it? In the meantime, it may be a family of LUTs that you choose depending upon the scene and the intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Joe, do you dream about the perfect LUT?

I didn’t realize posts require an obligatory beauty shot. But, hey, I’m all for it. From an artistic perspective of course!

The looks you’ve shown look different for your indoor scene versus the outdoors shot. It makes me think the perfect LUT is like the search for the Holy Grail. It must exist, but where is it? In the meantime, it may be a family of LUTs that you choose depending upon the scene and the intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they are vastly different set-ups, so I would hope they look very different! But the LUTs are inherently doing the same thing in both cases:
- Pocket709+ should work nicely as a starting point alternative if BMD's Extended Video is a little too hot for your taste.
- Pocketlexa should work as a "finisher" giving you a color and gamma response similar to the Arri Alexa.

*snip*

Those are awesome! How will you be making them available?

*snip*

Those are awesome! How will you be making them available?

Thanks!

I'm not exactly sure. I'm also almost done with a few others:
1. Pocketvision (Kodak Vision style)
2. Pocketerna (Fuji Eterna style)
3. GH5 > Pocket4K (might not appeal to many, but I must match both cameras, so I needed it.)

I'm contemplating releasing them all as pack for some very small amount (PayPal beer money.)

it may be a family of LUTs that you choose depending upon the scene and the intent.

That's exactly how we've been approaching P4K footage so far.
I've found the EV LUT too contrasty for a number of situations but dialing it down to 50 - 75% and grading from there works well.

We've used a couple of favorite LUTs I like on the BMMCC and get a really great look by just dialing down the saturation.

Another nice starting point is the new Film Convert P4K profile. Start with a 50% mix with that and you get another great starting point for a quick grade.

All of the approaches look really nice but allow for a different look: Modern (which is how I see the EV LUT straight on Film log P4k footage) to a dense 35mm film feel.

It's a testament to how good the footage coming out of the camera is.

This all directly in FCPX, mostly in ProRes HQ.

I'll be launching a website with better samples and a host of articles about the P4K in the coming weeks, but I know that there are people who would like to get their hands on these LUTs sooner rather than later, so...I'm happy to announce that Pocketluts are finally available...

https://pocketluts.dpdcart.com/

- Because I promised that the Pocketlexa LUT would be available for the cost of a cup of coffee, users of this forum can purchase it for 50% until midnight Sunday with the code: BMDTHX50 (As a bonus, it also includes a LogC version for using with other Alexa LUTs.)
- All other Pocketluts, including the Pocketpower Pack, can be purchased for 20% off until the end of December with the code: LAUNCH20

Enjoy!

PS. Please excuse the spam.

From a 1992 patented technology that does over 28 stops while keeping color in balance throughout I think most of the range or more, from 1000th a lux to 500k lux. It has global shutter.



This is a picture from an old 25 or 27 stop version:



Imagine what would happen if these guys had some money to develop this. But this stuff is out of patent in the wild, and I saw an inspection camera claiming to do precise colour by not using a color filter (like Bayer). Haven't read up on that.

Better than Alexa is possible. What is BM spending their money on.

An interesting time to revisit this. I'm using another device, and it came up with this threads where I posted information on this website, people accused me of never posting afterwards.

The interesting thing is, that Sony has been showing off sensor technology with closer to this many stops, I think still 720p, but would be interesting to see if they can over a 20 stop+ 8k sensor. I think the Sony chip wasn't that big either. So, Grant might have gone with Sony because of upcoming technology like this, apart from the suggestion to do this to get past the supply constraints suffered in the industry.

The Alexa might suffer a lot against a future pocket.

I’ve been reading free pdf issues of a cinematography print magazine during the lockdown and the very large majority of recent films discussed are using RED cameras and mostly the Monstro 8K VV! Almost all sensors are at least aspiring to or exceeding stills 135 film. No doubt their budgets could allow for ARRI camera rentals and some do (1917), but ARRI must have read the writing on the wall that they were going to be forgotten unless they went to large format cameras.

From a 1992 patented technology that does over 28 stops while keeping color in balance throughout I think most of the range or more, from 1000th a lux to 500k lux. It has global shutter.



This is a picture from an old 25 or 27 stop version:



Imagine what would happen if these guys had some money to develop this. But this stuff is out of patent in the wild, and I saw an inspection camera claiming to do precise colour by not using a color filter (like Bayer). Haven't read up on that.

Better than Alexa is possible. What is BM spending their money on.

An interesting time to revisit this. I'm using another device, and it came up with this threads where I posted information on this website, people accused me of never posting afterwards.

The interesting thing is, that Sony has been showing off sensor technology with closer to this many stops, I think still 720p, but would be interesting to see if they can over a 20 stop+ 8k sensor. I think the Sony chip wasn't that big either. So, Grant might have gone with Sony because of upcoming technology like this, apart from the suggestion to do this to get past the supply constraints suffered in the industry.

The Alexa might suffer a lot against a future pocket.

Having amazing prototype is 1 thing and having ready to ship and reliable product is another.

Golly not this again.

Does that image LOOK like a 28 stop image ? Answer is no it doesn’t. It looks like it has about 6 or 7 stops.

Does posting some CHART from 1997 for a less than SD resolution sensor that never went into production and has been a development dead end since then contribute anything at all ?

RED posted a chart two sensor generations ago that inferred 20+ stops. It doesn’t have that either.

Post an image in motion showing what it looks like on skin tones. A chart like that can look great but doesn’t actually tell you a single thing. A lot of machine vision sensors are terrible and have bad noise for what we want to do as image makers. Someone making widgets on an assembly line doing QC doesn’t care about noise, colour or Any of the things we care about as image makers.

This just keeps coming up and it’s such a distraction and non-sequitor.

JB

Yep, that chart and example image is very stupid. Human eye dynamic range (even without adaptation) is about 20 stops which is way larger than 35mm film.
HDR image with even less than 20 stops should hold details inside projector lamp spiral. Here are some custom graded examples form dual ARRI camera setup test. This is how real 18 stops of dynamic range transformed with RED IPP2 color science to Rec709 gamma looks like. Original EXR files where downloaded from FTP here https://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/vmlab/hdm-hdr-2014/ "Creating Cinematic Wide Gamut HDR-Video for the Evaluation of Tone Mapping Operators and HDR-Displays"

Dmitry, don't worry about thar. Only one down quality clipped copy of marketing material of products that went into production and above SD, as has been stated before. From memory, the dynamic range being shown means that it is an very powerful light, so presuming it as a lesser bulb doesn't help. There are welding samples but any such evidence might be degraded. That's why you have to be careful presenting evidence. You can knock yourself out getting it, but get knocked by people that won't look up things when you can't, and even just read evidence presented. Scientists on one side doing the work, objectioners on the other side unwilling to do much. It's rather like climate science, and disrespectful as usual. It's rather like a friend of mine, sick and self isolating, I asked her if she could get me some stuff before a possible lock down, as I often help her, and nothing at all. A week after I come out, have to get everything ready in case of a lock down in a mad rush, and finally hear from her, and the first thing she does is ask me to get her something that she can get herself. I deal with such people all the time, they consider themselves more entitled and superior and will do bugger all that doesn't suit them, let alone serve the needs of others. Not worth going to an early grave over.

The colour sensor dues this with colour constancy, so the colour is more in balance across the range.

Now, your shots are interesting, as I, and others have considered that before. They look very Red like in colorization, so maybe Red is onto the future. From a very quick glance, more subtle and nuanced. However, where are the stars in the sky? If they were 27 stops+, I would expect to perhaps see stars. I would also expect that the scene be more muddled and full, with the high dynamic range, as the tones are squashed down, as you see in the skin tones in the marketing example. The eyes do around 40 stops I think with adaption, but 20 of those stops are overlapped in our vision, giving around 30 stops with 10 0verlapped in the middle. Or was it more stops, I forget, I asked for a straw today instead of a fork due to miscategorisation. Even though things are improving a lot with the brain damage, I'm not clear.

I see now, 18 stops. That will be why no stars or details on dark colours in the crowd shot.

I like the look of those shots, but I am still a more Alexa like appreciator of more solid colour.

The way I recall how many stops we can see was 30 total with the majority daytime and some additional when our eyes adjust for nighttime. May be wrong of course!

It seems correct according to my sources. But since adaption beyond our iris opening or closing is a biochemical process, it takes time. Adjusting from higher to the lowest limits can take up to 20 minutes, depending on the level of vitamin A present in your system. Plus, it is a change from perception of color to monochromatic.

Generally speaking, the complete image is just an illusion formed in our brains by combining different pieces of information. Heck, even the full perception of color and resolution actually happens in a very narrow area only. Nevertheless, we think we see everything in color and full detail while the edges of view are really very coarse and without color.

You’re right, once you introduce our night vision it becomes a total dynamic range of 30 but the last several stops relate to luminosity more than colour.

It seems correct according to my sources. But since adaption beyond our iris opening or closing is a biochemical process, it takes time. Adjusting from higher to the lowest limits can take up to 20 minutes, depending on the level of vitamin A present in your system. Plus, it is a change from perception of color to monochromatic.

That is correct, but because the eye focuses on a small part of the field of view at at time the iris adjusts pretty quickly, that alone is enough to enable the human eye to reach upwards of 20 stops of dynamic range without including the biochemical adaptation.

How? The iris has its f-stop between 2 and 8 (with individual margins, of course), that's 4 stops!

(On average, one can say that the f-number of the eye varies from about f/2 (when it’s dark) to about f/8 (when it’s very bright) (Hecht, Eugene (1987) Optics, 2nd ed. )

It's more complex. But when filming, you want to capture everything to manipulate or use latter as you want. Presenting a higher range in a smaller range displayed, is a special effect, like presenting a lower range in a higher range, producing a bright contrasty consumer image.

Now, from memory. The dynamic range at a single point is like an old SD camera, but the visual system adapts across the field of vision, P!us the iris, plus long term adaption.

There are two 20 stop visual system!s that overlap to produce 30 stops. The overlap is the mesmerising Meso vision, of lowlight colour vision, where both the low light and daytime colour vision is active, and I imagine where traditional cinema is active. Underneath that is another 10 stops that Rick is referring too. Or is it different amounts again, I can't remember.


You only strictly need 16.5-17 stops and light exactly as you want to see it, baked in. But the extra stops help for 3ffect, and to move image levels around. You could present starlight as brief daylight. People's dilated pupils could be presented as something wring, and "normal" human actors shone in the face between takes to shrink their irises to normal. Of course, nobody could see much at all, which would give the actors interaction an honest vagueness, along with the normal actors' pupils slowly expanding during the take, should give a quite disconcerting subliminal feeling to it, along with the blazing sky of stars pumped up this much. A bit of misty cloud in the atmosphere should make some lovely patterns. Even though the sky never appears that way, the mind should accept it as a special enhanced effect, even though on Earth, as alien.

How? The iris has its f-stop between 2 and 8 (with individual margins, of course), that's 4 stops!

If you understand how optical systems work, then you know that the iris range and the dynamic range are not the same thing.

It's you who was referring to the iris. I'm aware that at any given time, the eye can see a range of about 1000:1, or about 10 stops of light. That is our dynamic DR. The rest is biochemical adaptation and memory.

For deeper sources, you may want to have a look here, they give pretty solid numbers about adaptation times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopic_vision

While Wikipedia itself is not recognized as a scientific source of information, these pages link to rather solid sources.

It's you who was referring to the iris. I'm aware that at any given time, the eye can see a range of about 1000:1, or about 10 stops of light. That is our dynamic DR. The rest is biochemical adaptation and memory.

Ever heard of HDR? Perhaps the human vision system is where Paul Debevec got that idea.

Yep, biochemical adaption is working locally. That's why we are better than conventional TV

Yep, biochemical adaption is working locally. That's why we are better than conventional TV

So you don't understand how optical systems work... never mind then.

Let’s compare apples-to-pears. Here’s speculation about the new ARRI ALEXA Super 35 4K:


https://nofilmschool.com/everything-abo ... -4k-camera

Let’s compare apples-to-pears. Here’s speculation about the new ARRI ALEXA Super 35 4K:


https://nofilmschool.com/everything-abo ... -4k-camera

Current "K" pricing scheme:

1. Arri - 4K for $40k
2. Red - 6K for $6k
3. BMD - 6K for $2k
4. BMD - 4K for $1295

Well, that's a guess about the Arri...

I just quickly HDR corrected a frame from an ARRI Alexa arríraw clip. Finally got use use some of the HDR features supported by my Pro Display XDR. The image contained areas up to 4000nits; I could monitor to 10000nits but it looked like the maximum value needed was 4000.

I must say the skin tones were a charm to dial in and the frame looked good. I should take a crack at it with the settings I’d use if it was taken on my BMPCC4K!

It's not the 4K but the 6K and I was kind of surprised.

$2k vs. the gold standard with highlight recovery.