4k bmpcc

It was insane...but IMO the results were so much better than from Resolve, which I thought was very rudimentary. I still don't really like it today even with the massive improvements.

I actually still use Lightroom sometimes...and the exports are still brutally slow no matter how fast your computer is.

It's not a viable workflow for anything besides short projects with a handful of clips.
 
That was the workflow for a lot of things back in the day. It's just the way it was done. Image sequences present some advantages because you can work on each individual frame for individual retouching. Just think of it like stop motion work.
 
IronFilm said:
Wow that sounds relatively painful compared to the flexibility today of DaVinci Resolve.
Click to expand...

Never mind the ease of use!

It doesn't make sense that anyone would even when the BMCC launched use ACR instead of Resolve, since Resolve was included with the camera and worked fine even then.
 
Greg_E said:
That was the workflow for a lot of things back in the day. It's just the way it was done. Image sequences present some advantages because you can work on each individual frame for individual retouching. Just think of it like stop motion work.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what were some things it was a workflow for besides picture editing and possibly stop motion?

Because I don't think anyone ever edited video like that before that.

Was there anything that provided individual frames for motion picture acquisition before CinemaDNG? You're talking about thousands of frames for a few minutes. (And that's just what may be in the final edit...after dead space and lots of recording, it could be dozens of thousands!)

Tamerlin said:
Never mind the ease of use!

It doesn't make sense that anyone would even when the BMCC launched use ACR instead of Resolve, since Resolve was included with the camera and worked fine even then.
Click to expand...

It did make sense and it was used...Resolve didn't work on every computer as easily as it may today (it wouldn't install on mine). You needed certain specs IIRC (not sure you still do today).

I'm of course stretching when I say Resolve was barely usable to emphasize a point.

You've been around forever on the BM forum and I think your company was even called something different at one point...you never saw anyone use photo software?
 
Running image sequences was a lot lighter work than trying to deal with even things like DV compression. Motion jpeg was essentially a sequence of stills, each frame was completely encoded, and the sequence was strung together into a single file.
 
Always liked MJPEG from the 1DC but the work was already done by the camera...CinemaDNGs are different.
 
Anyone else ever use filmstrip files for frame by frame editing back in the day? :) I made a few lightsaber videos that way.

Anyways, BMPCC 4K seems nice in a crowd of nice cameras. Looking back just 8 years or so, it's great to see all the options. 8 years ago, the 7D was the absolutely coolest kid on the block with it's 1080p and moire ridden 720p60.
 
NorBro said:
It was insane...but IMO the results were so much better than from Resolve, which I thought was very rudimentary. I still don't really like it today even with the massive improvements.

I actually still use Lightroom sometimes...and the exports are still brutally slow no matter how fast your computer is.

It's not a viable workflow for anything besides short projects with a handful of clips.
Click to expand...

Numbered TIFF sequences. Or Numbered DPX sequences (DPX are really TIFF). Used in a lot of grading / online and VFX post finishing scenarios. No one edited that way.

And DNG’s are really just another version of TIFF too.

JB
 
NorBro said:
And some BM people may now be ticked off at me for releasing these "secrets", haha.

(Even though I think that's what many Magic Lantern people do now too.)
Click to expand...

Sorry, just reading through this now.

Yes, that’s a way to do it. I also know some that prefered C1 for the same job, but again, it’s very difficult with motion images because you often want to dynamically grade over time and it’s hard to do that in PS or C1.

But if you can be bothered with the workflow the results are great. I also think this is one of the great features of a truly open standard like DNG. Unlike say RED raw or Sony RAW where the app still needs to handle the files through an SDK.

JB
 
John Brawley said:
Numbered TIFF sequences. Or Numbered DPX sequences (DPX are really TIFF). Used in a lot of grading / online and VFX post finishing scenarios. No one edited that way.

And DNG’s are really just another version of TIFF too.

JB
Click to expand...

I don't know much about VFX post finishing editing; just editing with DNGs for video via LR in the early days.
 
IronFilm said:
Did seem very strange to me to see that Grant talked up its selfie/vlogging abilities, yet this is a camera which doesn't have a screen that can face you!! :-/
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure he was talking literally when he said “shoot yourself”. I think he meant you can shoot with this “by yourself” whereas a larger Ursa Mini / UMP camera generally wants more support and crew. “With others”

JB
 
NorBro said:
It did make sense and it was used...Resolve didn't work on every computer as easily as it may today (it wouldn't install on mine). You needed certain specs IIRC (not sure you still do today).
Click to expand...

It's always been pretty GPU heavy, but for HD/2K even a MacBook Pro worked unless you had one of the models that was prone to disconnecting the USB controller when it got too warm.

You've been around forever on the BM forum and I think your company was even called something different at one point...you never saw anyone use photo software?
Click to expand...

I did... and it was painfully slow. Far slower than processing images in Resolve was for the same CinemaDNG sequences.
 
HJD said:
A bit of interesting information in this video. I wonder what the fan noise will be like in actual use. The mini-XLR is great, but if the fan is loud enough to be distracting... - hopefully it wont be. It sure looks like an amazing value. Looking forward to the first reviews down the road :):
Click to expand...

Like all other BMD cameras, the fan is a constant on and hasn’t really been a problem as far as I’ve ever “heard”.

The camera doens’t cool with a fan. Like ALexa, they use a solid state cooling system, piped to a heat sink. There the fan ensures the heat escapes quietly.

So not like a Sony or RED where you suddenly get loud fan noises. Like an Alexa where it’s constant and quiet.

JB
 
filmguy123 said:
And as one more plus for BMD: I am assuming that on this camera the electronic lens correction that results in digital sharpening from native electronic m43 glass will not be present here? In theory that should make the native electronic glass look more organic as well, yeah?
Click to expand...

That tends to be specific to each manufacturer aside form the basic corrections.

Penny tend to do a LOT of in-camera post lens corrections.

Olympus in this regard are better and in my view make better in lens corrections and thus tend to work a little nicer on the video MFT mount cameras. IN other words, without post corrections, Olympus lenses tend to be better.

There are also a zillion MFT lens makers now making native MFT mounts. I’m also fond of the SLR Magic primes and have the Veydras as well.

Of course the speed booster crowd will party too.

JB
 
NorBro said:
Andrew Julian (the creator of that video) IIRC (I spoke to him 5 years ago about it on Vimeo) edited that footage in Lightroom, which is what many of us did back then as Resolve was barely usable, ha.

So you essentially processed one DNG frame like a photo with insane RAW control and just copied and pasted the settings to the others and exported everything as 12-bit stills. Then you'd take that into your NLE and make 'compound clips' (or whatever anyone else calls them).

This was an extremely tedious and long process that often crashed, but the results were worth it.

There was truly nothing like it.

And some BM people may now be ticked off at me for releasing these "secrets", haha.

(Even though I think that's what many Magic Lantern people do now too.)
Click to expand...

This is by far still the best way to get the most out of a DNG.
The level of highlight recovery, sharpness, localized saturation, control and dimensionality is second to none.
I love Resolve and work with it every day, but working a DNG in photoshop or lightroom is incomparable.
For extraordinary circumstances and small sequences I do occasionally have to resort to it, but yes, it's a pain in the butt.
 
Re: Olympus vs Panny lenses - are you saying the Olympus lenses are better made and the Panny rely more on in camera compensation? If so, is this true of even their Leica branded glass?

Lightroom VS Resolve: what makes it so much better still to do this in Lightroom? Doesn't resolve offer similar tools for controlling and grading the image?
 
filmguy123 said:
Re: Olympus vs Panny lenses - are you saying the Olympus lenses are better made and the Panny rely more on in camera compensation? If so, is this true of even their Leica branded glass?
Click to expand...

That's the generally understood difference.

When you look at lens only performance the Olympus lenses tend to do better. I also understand there's other differences too, Pany tend to do a lot more correction for CA in post, Olympus tend to do it more in the lens itself.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/

filmguy123 said:
Lightroom VS Resolve: what makes it so much better still to do this in Lightroom? Doesn't resolve offer similar tools for controlling and grading the image?
Click to expand...

The great thing about DNG is that it is an open standard so we can access lot's of different ways of interpreting an image. Resolve is designed to debayer and grade images in motion 24 times a second. PS (and any stills app for that matter) have the luxury of just working on a single image. Each app has their own way of interpreting their image according to their own algorithm. Each algorithm will also create differences and the stills apps like PS and C1 tend to be able to through more iterations at the image because they only have to render a single image.

The short answer is PS / ACR is designed to work on a single frame. Usually it's a kind of preview image that you work on and then it renders a better version once you export but it can take a few seconds to render the final image.

Resolve has to do it 24 times a second (at a minimum) and then animate those grades over time.

JB
 
Last edited:
For me, it's because I'm a novice with Resolve (I just don't have the passion to continue to keep learning it) and I really like all of the controls in one place in an extremely simple layout. Anyone with intermediate or maybe even basic knowledge of post software can probably obtain the same or similar results with any program.

In Lightroom, I have a finished graded image for the most part with only a few clicks (but ironically have very slow exporting). This personally works for me, but I think more advanced users will definitely prefer the many more tools that software like Resolve has to offer.

Here is an ungraded/graded DNG (the upload is a JPEG) before and after from the UM4K that I pretty decently ETTR. Anyone not familiar with CinemaDNGs or a RAW workflow maybe would think that this footage is ruined (and that's a conservative ETTR), but the photography software (in this case LR) that's built for RAW stills allows the same control over the CinemaDNGs, and the flexibility is just awesome.

It's fun to explore grading and different looks when you have a lot of control over your image.

UM4K (Before).jpg

UM4K (After).jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top