Blackmagic Forum

Hey guys,

Went for a quick test shoot at sunrise to try out BRAW on the Pocket 4K.
Let me know what you think .



Whilst the sunrise wasn’t the most amazing, it was a great test to see how BRAW dealt with harsh highlights.
I found the footage so be slightly noisier than usual but it is pretty normal for raw I guess.

All shot handheld with the Lumix 12-35 2.8, in constant quality Q5.

Cheers,
Flo

Honestly- not impressed. Why is it so blue?
Soft, don't like grading (and you had amazing scenery). Motion felt strange. Youtube also have problems with all this water
BMPCC4K has nice, organic look though.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Honestly- not impressed. Why is it so blue?
Soft, don't like grading (and you had amazing scenery). Motion felt strange. Youtube also have problems with all this water
BMPCC4K has nice, organic look though.

Haha ok. It is blue because it was blue. Hazy sunrise in Sydney by the water, just looks blue especially when dark.
Grading was very minimal.
Thanks for watching though.

While I have to agree that the motion looked a bit strobe like. The grade is quite nice. Like it a lot!. Q5 can seem a bit more noise than 12:1 in my experience. Better to use 8:1 for less moscito noise and sharper details overall. It’s about 70mb/sec at 30fps.

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:While I have to agree that the motion looked a bit strobe like. The grade is quite nice. Like it a lot!. Q5 can seem a bit more noise than 12:1 in my experience. Better to use 8:1 for less moscito noise and sharper details overall. It’s about 70mb/sec at 30fps.

I am not too sure about the motion. I used the same settings frame wise as usual and it is fine on my computer. Youtube seems to have done something funny.
Glad you like the grade. And yeah it is a bit noisy, will try the other format. To be honest I still really like prores 422 .

Salut Florent,

J'ai déja vu pas mal de tes vidéos passer sur YouTube, j'aime beaucoup ton style!
Tu tournes en anamorphique ou tu crop au montage?

Interesting to see the Q5 footage which I thought might be my codec of choice, but now I’m less confident about it versus BRAW 8:1. I liked the video Florent, but this seascape scene may be better with a less compressed codec. Maybe I’ll test a similar ocean view with Q0, Q5, 5:1, 8:1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Impossible to judge from youtube, I think. The differences between braw compression ratios can be subtle, to the point of invisibility, without close examination. And using braw on iso 3200, even at 3:1 or Q0, has produced some unexpected results.... I hesitate to even say anything, before being absolutely sure.

That aside, I think we can say this shooter/grader does have a strong preference for blue tones, as in this and other videos....

About the strobe. Do you capture with shutter speed? A tip is to always shoot shutter angle instead of shutter speed. As of 1/48 shutter speed for 24fps is the same as 180degree shutter angle. But 1/240 for 120fps is also 180 degrees shutter angle. The beauty about 180 degree shutter angle is that it always hit the right dobble exposure for whatever frame rate you choice. Like if you switch to HFR and don’t want to fiddle with shutter speed, loosing the shot.

vermot wrote:Salut Florent,

J'ai déja vu pas mal de tes vidéos passer sur YouTube, j'aime beaucoup ton style!
Tu tournes en anamorphique ou tu crop au montage?

Hey,

Merci bien !!
Non, je shoot toujours avec cet aspect 2:35 ou 2:40 quand c'est pour des projets perso ou quand je voyage et aussi bien sur quand ca correspond a l'image. Je shoot en 16x9 pour les clients. J'aimerais bien tester l'anamorphique mais tellement cher haha.

rick.lang wrote:Interesting to see the Q5 footage which I thought might be my codec of choice, but now I’m less confident about it versus BRAW 8:1. I liked the video Florent, but this seascape scene may be better with a less compressed codec. Maybe I’ll test a similar ocean view with Q0, Q5, 5:1, 8:1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My thoughts exactly. I am keen to shoot 8:1 and QO .

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:About the strobe. Do you capture with shutter speed? A tip is to always shoot shutter angle instead of shutter speed. As of 1/48 shutter speed for 24fps is the same as 180degree shutter angle. But 1/240 for 120fps is also 180 degrees shutter angle. The beauty about 180 degree shutter angle is that it always hit the right dobble exposure for whatever frame rate you choice. Like if you switch to HFR and don’t want to fiddle with shutter speed, loosing the shot.

Thanks for the tip haha, I always shoot shutter angle .

Australian Image wrote:
Sure, understand what 180 degree rule implies, but don't fear breaking it. And most importantly, don't worry what others, who fear to break the rule, think about your results.

I have to agree. Kind of silly of me implying that strobe like motion is wrong. It was not my intention, but I can see it understood like that. It was more like a tip than an pointing finger, if you know what I mean. Rules are to be broken from an artist perspective.

The 180º shutter rule applies only to standard frame rates, ie 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30.

If you're using high frame rates, ie 47.95, 48, 50, 59.94, and 60 you need to use a 360º shutter angle to replicate the same motion blurring as the low frame rates I mentioned above.

Other shutter angles:

In PAL land it is common to use a shutter angle of 172.8º for 24fps because of the lights we use so you don't see flicker.

Peter Jackson famously used a shutter angle of 270º to film The Hobbit films at 48fps.

I’m pretty sure the 180 rule has nothing to do with shutter speed.

Howard Roll wrote:I’m pretty sure the 180 rule has nothing to do with shutter speed.

Haha right you are, in a way, there are two 180 degree rules in filmmaking. One is to do with the camera shutter, which is what we are talking about in this forum post, the other is to do with staging actors and not crossing the invisible line that runs between them. If you do it's called "crossing the line".

Nice video. Had no problems with strobe whatsoever. Everythings smooth over here.

Edwin Street wrote:The 180º shutter rule applies only to standard frame rates, ie 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30.

If you're using high frame rates, ie 47.95, 48, 50, 59.94, and 60 you need to use a 360º shutter angle to replicate the same motion blurring as the low frame rates I mentioned above.

Other shutter angles:

In PAL land it is common to use a shutter angle of 172.8º for 24fps because of the lights we use so you don't see flicker.

Peter Jackson famously used a shutter angle of 270º to film The Hobbit films at 48fps.

No, not really.

180º shutter comes from when there was a rotating shutter in film cameras - it was literally a circular disk that rotate to control the light coming into the camera - the reason it is measured at an angle is because that was how much of the shutter disk was cut to allow for a certain passage of light: typically it was 180º, but if you wanted sharp action and less motion blur you'd use a smaller angle (like 90º), and if you wanted a "smear" effect, you'd use a wider angle (like 270º). Shutter angle was independent of framerates, and although the 180º shutter would spin at a higher speed at higher framerates, it was always a 180º shutter.

You can see the effect of using different shutter angles used as a storytelling in the opening battle scene of Ridley Scott's Gladiator: as the battle starts, the motion is super crisp with almost no motion blur; towards the end of the battle, there is more and more motion blur until the images become very unclear. This is a visual storytelling technique to indicate the rush of adrenaline at the start of a battle (crisp images) and the fatigue that sets in as the battle wears on (blurred motion). It's really brilliant, actually.

But back to shutter angle: a lot of filmmakers come from DSLRs, which don't use shutter angle, but shutter speed (a photography setting). Most of us learn that the 180º is "set your shutter speed to double your framerate" - this is in effect what the 180º shutter angle is, so that if you're shooting at 24 fps you set your shutter speed to 1/48 (typically 1/50). But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to.

There are some small variations depending on light flickering, as you said, but overall the 180º shutter angle is what we consider "normal" motion blur, regardless of frame rate.

I hadn't heard that Jackson used a 270º shutter angle (I knew he shot in 48 fps) - but that also changes the motion blur and explains why the live action parts looked like a soap opera and the cgi looked like PS2 graphics (in my opinion) in the first Hobbit film. It was a little better in parts 2 and 3, but I saw the first one in High Frame Rate 3d, normal 3d, and 2d - and the 2d was actually the best for the first one (and I'm a fan of 3d when it's done well).

michaeldhead wrote:But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to.

The problem here though, is that we don't see life in slow motion, so 'typical' motion blur shouldn't really apply. When I watch slowmo, I don't want any motion blur. Think of a bike wheel spinning, you want to see each spoke as it spins through the frame right? So you want to shoot slow mo at more like 90 degrees.

michaeldhead wrote:

Edwin Street wrote:The 180º shutter rule applies only to standard frame rates, ie 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, and 30.

If you're using high frame rates, ie 47.95, 48, 50, 59.94, and 60 you need to use a 360º shutter angle to replicate the same motion blurring as the low frame rates I mentioned above.

Other shutter angles:

In PAL land it is common to use a shutter angle of 172.8º for 24fps because of the lights we use so you don't see flicker.

Peter Jackson famously used a shutter angle of 270º to film The Hobbit films at 48fps.

No, not really.

180º shutter comes from when there was a rotating shutter in film cameras - it was literally a circular disk that rotate to control the light coming into the camera - the reason it is measured at an angle is because that was how much of the shutter disk was cut to allow for a certain passage of light: typically it was 180º, but if you wanted sharp action and less motion blur you'd use a smaller angle (like 90º), and if you wanted a "smear" effect, you'd use a wider angle (like 270º). Shutter angle was independent of framerates, and although the 180º shutter would spin at a higher speed at higher framerates, it was always a 180º shutter.

You can see the effect of using different shutter angles used as a storytelling in the opening battle scene of Ridley Scott's Gladiator: as the battle starts, the motion is super crisp with almost no motion blur; towards the end of the battle, there is more and more motion blur until the images become very unclear. This is a visual storytelling technique to indicate the rush of adrenaline at the start of a battle (crisp images) and the fatigue that sets in as the battle wears on (blurred motion). It's really brilliant, actually.

But back to shutter angle: a lot of filmmakers come from DSLRs, which don't use shutter angle, but shutter speed (a photography setting). Most of us learn that the 180º is "set your shutter speed to double your framerate" - this is in effect what the 180º shutter angle is, so that if you're shooting at 24 fps you set your shutter speed to 1/48 (typically 1/50). But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to.

There are some small variations depending on light flickering, as you said, but overall the 180º shutter angle is what we consider "normal" motion blur, regardless of frame rate.

I hadn't heard that Jackson used a 270º shutter angle (I knew he shot in 48 fps) - but that also changes the motion blur and explains why the live action parts looked like a soap opera and the cgi looked like PS2 graphics (in my opinion) in the first Hobbit film. It was a little better in parts 2 and 3, but I saw the first one in High Frame Rate 3d, normal 3d, and 2d - and the 2d was actually the best for the first one (and I'm a fan of 3d when it's done well).

I don't want to start an argument but I've done a lot of tests myself using my GH4 and have researched this thoroughly because I'm a fan of HFR and enjoy shooting in this format. The stuff you talk about where the shutter angle comes from is correct and nothing I didn't already know and the Gladiator stuff is right too. But when you said this "But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to." That is outright incorrect. You see, when you increase the framerate, less light is hitting the sensor so it creates less motion blur than your typical 24fps motion blur that we are used to. So to compensate for this you need to double the shutter angle to match the doubled framerate. You can do the test yourself with most DSLRs. Shoot 60fps with a 180º shutter and a 360º shutter and you'll find the 360º shutter to be smooth and what you are used to. The 180º shutter will be jarring and create the effect you mentioned at the start of Gladiator and the Saving Private Ryan beach scene effect.

To add to this Ang Lee's Billy Lynn film shot at 120fps 3D (60fps per camera) used a 360º shutter angle.

Edwin Street wrote:"But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to." That is outright incorrect. You see, when you increase the framerate, less light is hitting the sensor so it creates less motion blur than your typical 24fps motion blur that we are used to. So to compensate for this you need to double the shutter angle to match the doubled framerate. You can do the test yourself with most DSLRs. Shoot 60fps with a 180º shutter and a 360º shutter and you'll find the 360º shutter to be smooth and what you are used to. The 180º shutter will be jarring and create the effect you mentioned at the start of Gladiator and the Saving Private Ryan beach scene effect.

To add to this Ang Lee's Billy Lynn film shot at 120fps 3D (60fps per camera) used a 360º shutter angle.

No. 180º shutter is 180º shutter regardless of your frame rate. Yes, if you raise the framerate you lose light: because the shutter is faster (if you're using a real 180º shutter and not DSLR style shutter speed in fractions of a second). Faster shutter, less light.

I have tested this - numerous times. When you shoot at 60 fps on a DSLR, you get "normal" motion blur when using a 1/120 shutter speed. That is the definition of 180º shutter.

Ang Lee did indeed shoot Billy Lynn using a 360º shutter - and the went in in post and created a "virtual shutter" in order to control the motion blur caused by shooting at a high frame rate and open shutter. It was a choice so that they could use the RealD 3d "True Motion" effect in 120 fps/3d while creating 60 fps and 24 fps versions of the film that still looked right.

It's easy said by a pro than by me, read this article, paragraph 7:
http://tessive.com/high-frame-rate-and-judder

Quote:
"Typical movies are almost always shot with a 180-degree shutter angle, meaning a 1/48th second shutter at 24 fps. In many HFR productions, a 360-degree shutter angle is used, meaning the shutter is open for the entire frame-time. This causes more motion blur, but in the case of 48fps, the shutter time is 1/48th of a second, which allows easy creation of typical 24fps/180-degree versions of the film simply by skipping every other frame of the 48fps/360-degree master."

So it's saying 48fps with a 360º shutter angle creates the same amount of motion blur as a 180º shutter at 24fps. This is how they are able to create a 24fps version of a movie shot at HFR by simply removing every second frame and it still looks natural to the eye.

Beautiful shots, Florent and great scenery. The only thing that seems a little off is the color grade. Seems a alittle too blue and missing some depth. Other than the blue color, it’s an awesome video and I enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing!

I believe this is only a misunderstanding about hfr and slow motion. The op made a film in slow motion, that’s why 180degree rule works fine, even shot at 120fps. Because the idea is to slow time down to a specific framerate, not chop away frames. On the other hand, if you shot 120fps and want to remove frames to make a 24 FPS normal motion film, than you may get into trouble.

The hobbit was shot hfr 48 with an option to deliver at 24fps for normal cinematic motion. They couldn’t shoot 48fps at 180degree for that reason alone. Michael Mann's Collateral was shot fully open (360) at 24fps, to get more light into the sensor/film. It made the movie look almost sopeopera/real like in motion for that reason. Private Ryan was shot at 24fps, but without filters in front of the camera to make it more raw/pure/gritty. They than shot at 45/90 shutter angle that gave it a strobe like motion, which it’s famous for. With a fast lens and no ND filter you may be forced to shoot like this, making the picture become a bit more staccato.

Yep, so how was slow mo shot? 48/50/60fps and then interpreted as 24?

I use to convert 50i live operas for 24p cinema projection and seen problem with strobe like motion on TV monitoring. When projected in cinema (at 72Hz) it wasn't visible much at all, so overall it worked fine. In such a case you may need fake motion blur, which is not that easy to simulate. This is typical problem when doing fps conversion from high fps to low one (eg 60fps to 24fps).

Nick Heydon wrote:

michaeldhead wrote:But if you're shooting higher frame rates like 60 fps, then your 180º shutter speed is 1/120 - that creates what is seen as "typical" motion blur that the audience is used to.

The problem here though, is that we don't see life in slow motion, so 'typical' motion blur shouldn't really apply. When I watch slowmo, I don't want any motion blur. Think of a bike wheel spinning, you want to see each spoke as it spins through the frame right? So you want to shoot slow mo at more like 90 degrees.

When I say "typical motion", my meaning is "typical cinematic motion blur". As in, the motion that we are accustomed to when we watch 24 fps cinema with a 180º shutter angle. We are programmed to see that type of motion blur as "normal" when we watch films - it's also why Tom Cruise did a short PSA about turning off "smooth motion" in your television set (which I did long before I saw his PSA). It's also why a lot of people (myself included) didn't like the Hobbit in 48 FPS - it is not "normal" motion, and looked more like a soap opera (which is also something people tend to not like the look) or a ghosting image on some older movies shown on tv.

I've shot 60 fps numerous times, with lots of fast motion in the footage. When I set the shutter speed to 1/120, the motion was "normal" in terms of matching perfectly when used next to 24 (23.976) fps shot at 1/48 shutter speed - so both at 180º shutter.

Wasn't Hobbit converted to 24p with "fake" motion blur for 2D (24p) projection?

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Wasn't Hobbit converted to 24p with "fake" motion blur for 2D (24p) projection?

Yes - they used a simulated shutter to match the 24/180º shutter speed for "normal" cinematic motion.

No, they didn't use a simulated shutter to match 24/180º shutter speed for "normal" cinematic motion. Do you have any proof of this? Do you know how impossible it would be to simulate motion blur in post-production to every single frame to make it look like 24/180º. When you just have to simply increase the shutter angle which is what DP Andrew Lesnie and Peter Jackson did as you can read below in Peter's own words.

""Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle," he wrote. "Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) Saving Private Ryan look.

"However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270-degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master."

- Source:
https://www.if.com.au/peter-jackson-rev ... at-48-fps/

I explained it clearly above; if you increase the frame-rate and shoot HFR, less light is hitting the censor per frame creating a less than normal motion blur effect, some call it a staccato effect. So the 180º rule doesn't apply any longer. So to compensate for this you need to increase the shutter angle. Peter Jackson settled on 270º @ 48fps. Ang Lee 360º @ 60fps.

For anybody interested in this topic of High Frame Rates and shutter angle I’ve done some maths below to help explain it. I find this topic fascinating because I think we’re heading in a high frame rate world. I’m definitely pushing for it and planning on shooting my films at whatever becomes the standard, whether it be 48 or 60 (but for now I shoot 60). There is not a lot of information out there on shutter angle and HFR apart from people explaining the 180º rule at standard frame rates which has been done to death on YouTube. I might follow this up with a YouTube explanation as I can’t find anybody explaining the difference in shutter angle between standard frame rates and high frame rates.

24fps @ 1/48 (180º) is considered “normal” motion blur. Motion blur that we are used to and is considered natural to the human eye.

So 24fps with 180º shutter = “normal” motion blur. If you do the math it’s 24x360/180=48

48fps with 180º shutter (1/96) = half “normal” motion blur. If you do the math it’s 48x360/180=96. 1/96 is half 1/48 so the motion blur is half what is considered normal.

Therefore 48fps with 360º shutter (1/48) = “normal” motion blur. If you do the math it’s 48x360/360=48. And 48 is the target motion blur as seen in the first equation.

The Hobbit was:

48fps @ 270º shutter (1/64). So the math is 48x360/270=64. So if 1/48 is “normal” motion blur then 1/64 is a less than normal, but not as little as half the motion blur (1/96).

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was:

60fps @ 360º shutter (1/60). So the math is 60x360/360=60. So if 1/48 is “normal” motion blur then 1/60 is a less than normal, but not as little as half the motion blur (1/96). Similar to the amount of motion blur seen in The Hobbit.

At some point eg. maybe at 120fps you don't need any motion blur. Motion blur is needed for 24p as it's very low fps and without it movie would be unwatchable. This is why when you have 60p source and convert to 24p (without any simulated motion blur) it looks strobing.

Edwin Street wrote:No, they didn't use a simulated shutter to match 24/180º shutter speed for "normal" cinematic motion. Do you have any proof of this? Do you know how impossible it would be to simulate motion blur in post-production to every single frame to make it look like 24/180º.

Yes, I do have proof. Although I should have said "synthetic shutter".

https://www.insightmedia.info/creating- ... nn-master/

As for "impossible to simulation motion blur in post-production"....I guess you havn't used After Effects very much. There's a button that simulates motion blur for any (or all) parts of a video.

Well- fact that AE simulates it doesn't mean it's as good as real or close to it. There are other tools doing it as well, not only AE, which I think is rather basic tool for it.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Well- fact that AE simulates it doesn't mean it's as good as real or close to it. There are other tools doing it as well, not only AE, which I think is rather basic tool for it.

That's kind of my point - simulating shutter/motion blur is not a new thing. It's been around for a long time. And it was used on Billy Flynn to make the motion look correct - not After Effects, but a much more advanced technique for the 3d HFR to 24 fps downconverting.

Ok, sorry. I thought you meant it's very easy ( I read it wrong )

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Ok, sorry. I thought you meant it's very easy ( I read it wrong )

Oh, no - I'm sure the synthetic shutter is much more involved and complicated than motion blur in After Effects - it would have to be. My point was that artificial motion blur has been around for a while.

Looks good. Does remind me a lot of the original pocket, the Braw engineers must be striving to get this look, but this is a dim scene. Let's see what a minimum grade looks like I'm the midday summer sun down there. Have a look at the sample Kinefinity and particularly zcam E2 clips at the end of this interesting video:



That's what I'm talking about, if only the Pocket 4k had the 15 stop plus latitude like the E2, it would be great and look like or better than the pocket in most circumstances. I could put it through a special dof adaptor to get that, butnwhu bother.

How is highlight recovery coming to get a nice roll off onto broad highlight areas on skin, clouds, sea?

Interesting shutter discussion. That's what I've been saying about filming 50fps for years, but people didn't believe (or at least the minority that objects to anything not the status quo). But in Australia, 60fps is often a no no in field, as it doesn't line up with local lighting hz, requiring some shutter tricks to avoid problems with flicker. I think in the past I considered techniques to soft mold the shutter open period around the lighting period, even to dynamically adjust gain, to keep even lighting. My 60fps pocket personal cameras were really big disappointments under normal lighting, really dim low shutter angle or torn up screen indoor at night.

Oh dear. Exactly what I said about making camera. It's quite difficult and when it gets to color science etc. then it gets even way more complex. Atm. Fran is years to be actually something called video camera. And this price...

Edwin Street wrote:Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was:

60fps @ 360º shutter (1/60). So the math is 60x360/360=60. So if 1/48 is “normal” motion blur then 1/60 is a less than normal, but not as little as half the motion blur (1/96). Similar to the amount of motion blur seen in The Hobbit.

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk was shot at 120fps. So the shutter was 1/120

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Oh dear. Exactly what I said about making camera. It's quite difficult and when it gets to color science etc. then it gets even way more complex. Atm. Fran is years to be actually something called video camera. And this price...

They announced bankruptcy a few days back. I wonder why people are so fascinated by color science. Cheap pocket cameras regularly shipped with balanced colour and better picture than the Red One back in the day. Mainstream cameras actually put in extra time to make the colour science worse on cheap cams. However, if you look at the picture there you will notice the Red Ferrari picture looks a lot better than when it first came out. But if next to nothing cameras nocked out can have better colour science, you have got to ask yourself, what would take an camera engineer longer to do so?

Anyway, I posted that because it had images from the zcam e2 at the end, to compare to the Braw image here. Without Braw. Amazing what a bit extra dynamic range can do.

John Paines wrote:Impossible to judge from youtube, I think. The differences between braw compression ratios can be subtle, to the point of invisibility, without close examination. And using braw on iso 3200, even at 3:1 or Q0, has produced some unexpected results.... I hesitate to even say anything, before being absolutely sure.

That aside, I think we can say this shooter/grader does have a strong preference for blue tones, as in this and other videos....

What exactly do you hesitate to say, and what do you mean "unexpected"? Good? bad?

Got me worried over here...

Back to the Header of the thread, we've been shooting Q5 exclusively for a week now.

In the studio now with a film and a spot in edit and the footage is simply gorgeous. The combination of Braw, Gen 4 color and the new Resolve make editing incredibly fast and and easy to get great skin tones and color depth.

Best images we've ever produced, on blalance. The old Pocket can't touch what this camera is now capable of and neither can any previous BM camera except the UMP.

Cough (smk&mirrs) cough!

Look, if it could do that in harsh sunlight at 15 stops, with strong preservation of detail, I would be very interested.

I suppose I am after a 4.6k sensor technology pocket with just enough lower light to present what we see in colour vision with less noise, without going over the top like the pocket 4k (hey it's great, excellent for some in field purposes, but I would have preferred that extra latitude and colour). Unfortunately, we didn't get 35mm cinema pocket camera (around 4k with same pixels as s35mm 4.6k) or new 6k 1-2 years ago and s35mm 4.6k pocket. The only two things the 4.6k lacked was a bit better latitude (a stop of more) and better low light (at least 2-4+ stops better), which I would have expected by now. That would have been excellent.

Wayne Steven, have you filmed with the bmpcc4k?

michaeldhead wrote:No. 180º shutter is 180º shutter regardless of your frame rate. Yes, if you raise the framerate you lose light: because the shutter is faster (if you're using a real 180º shutter and not DSLR style shutter speed in fractions of a second). Faster shutter, less light.

what do you mean if you're using a real 180 degree shutter digital works the same way. The more you lower your shutter the less light hits it.

Chris. 180degree shutter emulates a mechanical shutter that always follow your framerate. Meaning if you film 24 FPS it turns slower vs with 48 FPS it will move faster. But the key is that it always stay in tune with the framerate. For that reason you will see light loss at higher framerate even if you using the same aperture and iso/asa.

Chris Shivers wrote:

michaeldhead wrote:No. 180º shutter is 180º shutter regardless of your frame rate. Yes, if you raise the framerate you lose light: because the shutter is faster (if you're using a real 180º shutter and not DSLR style shutter speed in fractions of a second). Faster shutter, less light.

what do you mean if you're using a real 180 degree shutter digital works the same way. The more you lower your shutter the less light hits it.

180º shutter at 30 fps will allow a certain amount of light for each frame - specifically the same amount of light as 1/60 second shutter speed.

180º shutter at 60 fps has an effective shutter speed of 1/120 second - so half as much light per frame as the 180º shutter at 30 fps.