Best lenses and settings for BMPCC 6k for sport videos

Hi All,
I just recently bought BMPCC 6k with Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 DC HSM, and I'm trying to switch from my Sony FDR-AX53 4K. BTW nothing wrong with my Sony camera and I'm happy with videos, just want to upgrade to something new after years of using same camera and have little bit more resolution, FPS, image quality and ability to integrate better with external monitors, disks, etc. Re: environment: I mostly shooting outdoor football games (a.k.a. soccer) from stands distance typically and rely on lights available at stadium if any, mostly its during daylight, only occasionally in evening, so it's uncontrolled environment in terms of light sources.

Recently when I was recording football game during afternoon and initially it was good - before the game I did sample video, image quality was stunning. However while the game was progressing deep in afternoon/early evening light started changing dramatically (and stadium lights was only slowly turned on) so that left side of the pitch become more bright and right side much more more darker. During the game (if you know how fast football can be) I needed to move camera from left to right very frequently (e.g. every few secs), so I could not change ISO manually every few secs (as it does it for me Sony camera or even my mobile phone camera). So the picture turned from very bright to nearly pitch black every few secs.

Since then I learned that I should have recorded video in BRAW at least, so I could change ISO in post production. To my defense I was recording in ProRes hires solely because I can edit it in Final Cut Pro (that I typically use) straight away as trans-coding of 1TB or so for single game will take forever before I even start editing.

Some people in different forums and videos recommended to use Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon (https://sigmaphoto.com.au/products/4590 ... -for-canon), I like it's features on paper but not sure if it will help with unpredictability of light during shooting live football outdoor or at least smooth, it will certainly help with image stabilization and I'll have more option for zoom in shall I need it, e.g. if I need to shoot from afar.
While I'm not professional, I can still add these lens too if it helps in range of scenarios, it least it is not as expensive as Canon 70-200mm that is definitely out of my budget.

Or different lens ? or maybe I shall just program camera custom buttons to use two different ISO levels? Or change workflow/plugins?
What would you recommend in such case?

P.S. please do not recommend to go back to Sony or buy portable light sources as latter can't cover 100x50m field anyway LOL

First, shoot in log when you don't have control over the lights, and try to expose as high as possible without clipping whites on things like clothes (lamps may clip). RAW is giving you a bit more leeway than ProRes, but not by a huge margin. It's log that matters.
The zoom you are eyeing is pretty fast for a long zoom, anything faster would be very expensive. But shooting fast sports as a one-man band is pretty tough and needs a lot of practice.

I’d talk to the folks controlling the lights to explain that lighting only part of the field makes for a very difficult video. Just ask if they can turn on all the lights at the same time.

First, shoot in log when you don't have control over the lights, and try to expose as high as possible without clipping whites on things like clothes (lamps may clip). RAW is giving you a bit more leeway than ProRes, but not by a huge margin. It's log that matters.
The zoom you are eyeing is pretty fast for a long zoom, anything faster would be very expensive. But shooting fast sports as a one-man band is pretty tough and needs a lot of practice.

Thank you Uli, very much appreciate it. I did run few tests since then, and now it's much more obvious why to shoot in log. I did shoot football for many years using my Sony FDR-AX53 4k, now with BMPCC 6k it requires a lot more babysitting and a lot more gadgets but I'm very keen to learn new things.

Now another dilemma - Google removed support for YouTube video formats between 4k and 8k since 2022, so basically I need either upscale BMPCC 6k BRAW to 8k using SuperScale or shoot in 6k and output to 4k, or even continue shooting in 4k, but in latter case it will take much longer to compare with my previous workflow based on FCP + FDR-AX53.

From practical prospective does SuperScale 6k to 8k produce good results for sport videos, what you reckon?

I’d talk to the folks controlling the lights to explain that lighting only part of the field makes for a very difficult video. Just ask if they can turn on all the lights at the same time.

its automatic in Australia, council manages that, yeah they can come next day after

Are you working for Japanese broadcasters?
Seriously, how many people will watch your footage in 8K? Or any resolution between 4 and 8?
And then, focus would be very critical in sports for any longer lens. Very few expensive lenses, if any, can really resolve that much.
But if you insist, SuperScale can generate a pretty decent illusion of more detail.

You can record in 4K and use Superscale 2x Enhanced to out 8K if you really need that. I often shout 2K with a B4 Fujinon cine zoom and then upscale that to 4K deliverables to match my BMPCC4K footage. I haven’t noticed any reason to stop doing that.

Are you working for Japanese broadcasters?
Seriously, how many people will watch your footage in 8K? Or any resolution between 4 and 8?
And then, focus would be very critical in sports for any longer lens. Very few expensive lenses, if any, can really resolve that much.
But if you insist, SuperScale can generate a pretty decent illusion of more detail.

may be I'm training to be hired by Japanese broadcasters, I used to work in South Korea, close enough
Speaking seriously, some people can watch it in 8K, including me LOL, my TV supports 8k for example. Like I said youtube dropped support for 6k and only have 4k and 8k apart from lower resolutions, and I want to get maximum of BMPCC 6k - not so much that I really want to go 8k considering increase in storage and my efforts. I've just tested SuperScale x2 for some 6k video to use 8k - its pretty ok, but I didn't notice much change in quality (perhaps I need to test all permutations of sharpening and noise reduction, or maybe it's not that advanced AI LOL), yeah like you said - it's more of illusion. So in other words, I'm not insisting, rather trying to figure it out best possible quality of output considering that I can't use original 6k quality as is for output.
Like I said above the other option I'm considering is to shoot in 6k and output to 4k, just concerned that in such case output might be very similar to what I've got with Sony FDR-AX53 without too much trans coding. Probably I shall try to shoot it side by side by two cameras and compare 4k output (I mean compare Sony 4k native with 6k BRAW -> Prores -> FCP -> 4k).

You can record in 4K and use Superscale 2x Enhanced to out 8K if you really need that. I often shout 2K with a B4 Fujinon cine zoom and then upscale that to 4K deliverables to match my BMPCC4K footage. I haven’t noticed any reason to stop doing that.

did you notice much change in quality to compare with original when you used Superscale 2x? What parameters you found best for sharpness and noise reduction?

… I shall try to shoot it side by side by two cameras and compare 4k output.

That’s a good test in which the 6K should produce a more detailed result if your subjects include finer details (like guitar strings and frets). While you’re doing that, you might want to do a 2x Superscale Enhanced with some modest sharpening applied using either 4K as input to deliver 8K.

Are you aware that we are talking photocells (aka sensels) here most of the time, not pixels of the final display?
All of the BM cameras, apart from the 12K and higher models, are using a Bayer pattern sensor, just like that Sony does. The seemingly huge number of photocells in the 12K models just means that we get 4K of true color resolution. In the old times, only 3-chip models offered that, even if in HD only.
Marketing likes us confusing sensels with resolution, but it's wrong. No Bayer pattern sensor is resolving the number of its sensels, the minimum would be 5K with a really good debayering algorithm. Even BM's 4.6K models are just close. So, 6K models exist to give you excellent quality in 4K or UHD, plus a bit of wiggle room for stabilisation or reframing. You should definitely see an advantage from the 6K over the Sony, but it will also depend on the downscaling algorithm chosen. DR is offering a few options there.
Another factor is the OLPF (if any), which necessarily is reducing true resolution. Without it, the picture may seem sharper, but much of that will be false detail, aka aliasing.
Of course, compression in the camera and final compression for delivery will also influence the outcome.

I'd like to suggest a closer look at Steve Yedlin's well founded take on the subject:
https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

For shooting fast-paced football with your BMPCC 6K, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens would be a solid choice, providing good low-light performance, stabilization, and the ability to zoom from a distance, while also setting up custom buttons on your camera to switch ISO levels quickly for the changing light conditions.

… did you notice much change in quality to compare with original when you used Superscale 2x? What parameters you found best for sharpness and noise reduction?

Apologies for the tardy response!

I use Superscale 2x Enhanced, not the basic 2x. I use the Gaussian setting at the top of the Image Scaling page. At the bottom of the Superscale selection, the default is 0.500 sharpness, but I didn’t like the results. I have often used 0.100 sharpness and liked the results, but now I’m trying 0.250 sharpness. 2x Enhanced is a recent feature in DaVinci Resolve; before that I didn’t trust using 2x.

On a short clip, you can experiment with various settings to see what works best for you. My scenes are music videos in which motion is relatively modest most of the time; the scenes in the theatrical recordings have more motion. Your scenes can have significantly more motion similar to when I recorded rugby but I never doubled ‘resolution’ for those 30 fps recordings. Given the significant motion you have, I don’t see any harm in doubling the ‘resolution’, but I’d appreciate hearing how your tests go.