Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I bit on the new BM 6K...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Tom Roper View Post
    This is the same thing. Pictured below is how you exposed it for. It's dark. F10. 800 ISO doesn't do you any favors when it just fools you into seeing more light than there is. The iris could have been opened 2-4 stops more open and still not be clipped. You exposed with the BMD Film to Extended video lut, but view it in Film, so it's flat, the darks are boosted, the highlights dimmed, maybe more understandable to say you viewed and exposed the scene in 709 but developed it in log. Imagine if you had the lens iris opened at F2.8- 4.0 what it would have done to the picture I've shown below, clean and natural color. ISO is not your friend in dark scenes, light is. If the 6K has the dual stepped ISO, that's different, there would be a case to be made for setting ISO to the 2nd level because gain is actually added, but with BRAW until that step is reached, changing ISO does not change gain, it just changes the look so that you'll see it differently and expose differently. Higher ISO (in BRAW) is actually about extending latitude into the highlights by causing you stop down because it looks too bright, exactly the opposite of what we need here in the darkness of dawn.

    That said, it is NOT to say the artifacts you saw are not there as they assuredly are but you have a choice to not emphasize them by underexposing a scene and pushing it back in post, and that's what's happening. Look as closely as you can at the screen grab below for those artifacts. They are still there, properly buried at the noise floor where they are not objectionable. And if you want the scene tones that coexist in that noise floor range to be seen, open the iris or add more light. You had plenty in reserve, shooting at F10 you were stopped down. You had 2-4 stops unused in the highlights available before you would have even had to worry about clipping in the sky. The potential I see within even these underexposed images is great to me, the noise is low, colors natural, it's clean. There's noise. It exists, and it resides in the floor. You don't want to push into the visible zone.
    Thanks for the detailed analysis, Tom. I was exposing for the sunrise, which was pretty bright. I probably had more latitude then I thought. The BM 6K does have a dual base ISO of 400 and 3200... My main concern is the banding. It just shouldn't be there. I get that there will be noise and I'm OK with that. but burying banding under a LUT is not ideal. I have an fx6, too and I know it's apples and oranges comparing the two, but I've never seen any banding at all in slog even under some of the worst scenarios.

    Comment


      #17
      So, I did a low light stress test with the 6K FF and it failed spectacularly with terrible CMOS smearing: https://vimeo.com/881940044?share=copy my fx6 in same lighting: https://vimeo.com/882072038?share=copy

      Comment


        #18
        Apart from the price (and given you have an FX6), can I ask what the appeal of the BM 6K Pro is?

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jmone View Post
          Apart from the price (and given you have an FX6), can I ask what the appeal of the BM 6K Pro is?
          I actually bought the new 6K FF (the Pro is the prior model). The appeal is the image which is as close as you can get to an Alexa for about 1/10 the price. I figured I'd use it for slower work, but the QC on this camera is comically bad.

          Comment


            #20
            Thanks - just wondering as it seemed an odd choice (apart from price that is).

            Comment

            Working...
            X