BlackMagic CEO Denies Existence of Fixed Pattern Noise in BMC4K

[Doctor Wu]

I've only used the 4K camera for a little bit and the rolling shutter on the BMPC is much improved, which is a score for Blackmagic or its sensor maker.
It's a mistake to think that you can fix things perfectly in post production with plugins like stabilization and rolling shutter - "Fix it in post!". There's always a cost whether it's losing image area or your (or production's) precious time, and often it's never quite as good as if you got it right in the first place. Also it's very tough to fix micro jitters aggravated by poor rolling shutter performance. I like the BMCC. I own a BMCC. But to think that it is the best for all situations and budgets is putting the blinders on. Looking forward to seeing how they do with the URSA, and pushing ISO 800 on it!

 

[Robert Ruffo]

This post makes too many assumptions and is too biased.

From what I've seen, RED-cameras have had really bad skin tones, and from using Scarlet myself plenty of times I can also say it isn't that great with skin tones, I've used 16mm film, so that is my gold standard (for color) and even though I haven't used BMs cameras, what I've seen from the net they are better in color than RED. Now the new Dragon is probably a step up, but I haven't used it. Case being, in order to get good skin tones you need a fair amount of grading (which cost time/money) with the RED.

"This looks appealing if you don't understand much about post and never photograph women." - This quote just shows how little you know and that you assume his movie is about making women look gorgeous. This just also makes me think of the shooting of Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf, "Academy Award-winning cinematographer Harry Stradling Sr. was replaced by Haskell Wexler just after filming began for attempting to "beautify" Elizabeth Taylor." Wexler went on to win an Oscar for his work on the movie.

I much more prefer people that choose the camera and style that is "right" for the project than anything else. 28 Days Later being a great example too.

Anyways, what you think is your opinion which is all fine and dandy but you make judgments way to early and I also don't think you have the right idea of the "quality" of RED (now I haven't mentioned Alexa yet, because that one is actually really really good with skin tones, but ARRI is ARRI, they been around in the game for a long time).

You're very naive if you think that its' OK to make women look bad in this business, and that one exception you mention proves the rule. Besides - over-sharpening AGAIN, if you want it, when you choose it, can be done in post. It's hard to think of any production where all women are supposed to look bad, or at least worse than in real life, in every single frame, but cheapie cameras like BMs give you no choice.

At the time 28 days later made a good choice, but the choice they made had real advantages over other cameras at the time. VS an Epic/Scarlet, BM cameras have no advantages whatsoever except cheap price, which is fine because they only cost $3000 - so hey, they're really cheap.

Anyone with rudimentary grading knowledge can make Red footage skin tones look 100% perfect in post. The latest color science, anyway, brings them 99% of the way there, and what you say refers to problems from several years ago.

There's no bias - yes Alexa color and dynamic range are better still, and I like the F65 most of all So what? You (more or less) get what you pay for, and the Alexa snd F65 are both very heavy compared to Scarlets/Epics, which makes them harder to use in some situations.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Moire solved with mosaics filter for Blackmagic cameras. Post plug ins solves the majority of rolling shutter issues. The price you pay for cheap cameras is some extra steps but the issues you bring up are solvable and i would say acceptable when the price of ownership of the cameras is equal to several days of an Epic rental.

My sets run at $3000 an hour and often more, including actors, crew, set food, rentals, etc. etc. To try and save a few bucks with a cheapie camera is kinda ludicrous. And BTW - my clients pay extra (for my time, let alone the rest) because to serious clients "we'll fix it post" makes everyone cringe and worry, and I never say that. Post fixes are always problematic, period.

Look, BM cameras are a good deal, but don't kid yourselves that they're as good as $40 000 competitors. They're not, and they don't claim that they are.

 

[Ian-T]

I've only used the 4K camera for a little bit and the rolling shutter on the BMPC is much improved, which is a score for Blackmagic or its sensor maker.
It's a mistake to think that you can fix things perfectly in post production with plugins like stabilization and rolling shutter - "Fix it in post!". There's always a cost whether it's losing image area or your (or production's) precious time, and often it's never quite as good as if you got it right in the first place. Also it's very tough to fix micro jitters aggravated by poor rolling shutter performance. I like the BMCC. I own a BMCC. But to think that it is the best for all situations and budgets is putting the blinders on. Looking forward to seeing how they do with the URSA, and pushing ISO 800 on it!

There's no rolling shutter on the BMPC BTW. It utilizes a Global Shutter. So you will not have any skew or micro jitters.

 

[Doctor Wu]

Yeah, it's odd that I saw a bit of skew on BMPC during quick pans when it uses a Global Shutter. Or maybe I don't understand GS well enough, and am expecting zero skew? Does the Sony F55 have any measurable skew anyone know? I didn't have enough time with it to figure out why exactly this was happening or if it was supposed to be that way.

There's no rolling shutter on the BMPC BTW. It utilizes a Global Shutter. So you will not have any skew or micro jitters.

 

[R Hudson]

Yeah, it's odd that I saw a bit of skew on BMPC during quick pans when it uses a Global Shutter. Or maybe I don't understand GS well enough, and am expecting zero skew? Does the Sony F55 have any measurable skew anyone know? I didn't have enough time with it to figure out why exactly this was happening or if it was supposed to be that way.

Just to be clear are you discussing the 4K camera specifically? To my knowledge the others do not have GS but the 4K camera does.

Edit: Nevermind. I got my Black Magic acronyms messed-up

 

[Kholi]

Yeah, it's odd that I saw a bit of skew on BMPC during quick pans when it uses a Global Shutter. Or maybe I don't understand GS well enough, and am expecting zero skew? Does the Sony F55 have any measurable skew anyone know? I didn't have enough time with it to figure out why exactly this was happening or if it was supposed to be that way.

You should see Skew if you're panning at a faster speed...

If you see it on the back of the screen, it's likely not in the actual footage.

There isn't any actual "jello" skew artifact, however. At all.

----

I find the conversation interesting, especially the contradicting statements like "good data" and "anyone with knowledge of color "... "well at least with the new color science."

Someone want to point out another camera offering 16-bit Linear 4K Losslessly Compressed files?

2.5K 16-bit factual, actual (cleverly stored) Linear 2.5K Uncompressed Files?

I mean... ... if we're talking about "good data".

Round and round as usual.

 

[mail4joeg]

Seems like a lot of misinformation (fanboyism) hereabouts.

Someone keeps implying that the BMC cameras add sharpening, when they are clearly RAW cameras. So, no sharpening. I looked it up for the 4k version, and...

"The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K creates visually lossless compressed CinemaDNG RAW"


So there's that bogus argument shot down.

The 2.5k has slightly superior highlight handling than Red MX, according to Ryan Walters' tests. I don't believe anyone is paying him to say these things.

So, the BMCs are exceptional cameras with very visually pleasing sensors that handle skin tones well.

I would of course prefer a Dragon, with much improved DR and frame rates, but BMCs are outstanding. And that's the facts, Jack.

 

[R Hudson]

You should see Skew if you're panning at a faster speed...

If you see it on the back of the screen, it's likely not in the actual footage.

I've noticed that with a few different cameras where the display made it look like jello would be off the charts but ultimately the footage didn't look nearly that bad.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Seems like a lot of misinformation (fanboyism) hereabouts.

Someone keeps implying that the BMC cameras add sharpening, when they are clearly RAW cameras. So, no sharpening. I looked it up for the 4k version, and...

"The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K creates visually lossless compressed CinemaDNG RAW"


So there's that bogus argument shot down.

The 2.5k has slightly superior highlight handling than Red MX, according to Ryan Walters' tests. I don't believe anyone is paying him to say these things.

So, the BMCs are exceptional cameras with very visually pleasing sensors that handle skin tones well.

I would of course prefer a Dragon, with much improved DR and frame rates, but BMCs are outstanding. And that's the facts, Jack.

The lack of OLPF creates a sharpening effect as light is not smoothly spread across pixels, as it is in all "big boy" cameras. Along with sharpening comes mild amounts of moire. Same thing happened on 5D in video mode, due to lien skipping, but here the "skip" is a smaller distance so its' less offensive but still a problem if you are doing work where clients are more picky (i.e. work where you actually get paid well).

 

[Robert Ruffo]

You should see Skew if you're panning at a faster speed...

If you see it on the back of the screen, it's likely not in the actual footage.

There isn't any actual "jello" skew artifact, however. At all.

----

I find the conversation interesting, especially the contradicting statements like "good data" and "anyone with knowledge of color "... "well at least with the new color science."

Someone want to point out another camera offering 16-bit Linear 4K Losslessly Compressed files?

2.5K 16-bit factual, actual (cleverly stored) Linear 2.5K Uncompressed Files?

I mean... ... if we're talking about "good data".

Round and round as usual.

Epic Scarlet losslessly compress RAW 16 bit data - and very, very efficiently I might add.

A lot of DVX user can be summarized as "I can't get access to good cameras, good lights, real crews, etc." so I'm going to pretend that I can get the same results without them." The truth is, you can get better results with $0 than you could a few years ago, but more resources and better tools will get you much further. What you can do is work hard at gaining access to these better resources, rather than giving up and making no-budget Vimeo posts all day.

 

[Kholi]

Epic Scarlet losslessly compress RAW 16 bit data - and very, very efficiently I might add.

Lossy or Mathematically LOSSLESS? I also asked about uncompressed, but I'll take factual 16-bit linear mathematically lossless. I'm pretty sure RED's not doing it in any form, nor's Alexa. Let's keep the conversation tech based, we can all talk about "clients" and "my set runs at xxxx dollars" day in and out, who actually knows what anyone's up to? And it's not like any single RED camera (since it's being thrown up here) is out of anyone's reach in 2014. It's the 5D of high end cameras, everyone has one and everyone needs to rent one out. Maybe if you were talking about an Alexa...

So, yeah, if you can point me to a frame of mathematically lossless 16-bit linear R3D, I'd be interested. Especially if we're talking about good data. For the record, I completely understand that good data is a matter of opinion. Considering the hard work that goes into advanced H264 compression, I'd call that great data in comparison to file sizes, and a lot of "working professionals" would likely agree with me on that.

 

[Egg Born Son]

A lot of DVX user can be summarized as "I can't get access to good cameras, good lights, real crews, etc." so I'm going to pretend that I can get the same results without them." The truth is, you can get better results with $0 than you could a few years ago, but more resources and better tools will get you much further. What you can do is work hard at gaining access to these better resources, rather than giving up and making no-budget Vimeo posts all day.

This whole argument aside, if this is how you feel I can't help but wonder why you are here? This site was created for the DVX and continues for it's spiritual successors. Those with better resources that continue to hang around are giving back to the next generation of aspirants. We've all got to start somewhere. I don't apologise for not having "access to good cameras, good lights, real crews" or making vimeo videos. No one is making you watch them and I don't consider it giving up.

 

[Postmaster]

Epic Scarlet losslessly compress RAW 16 bit data...
A lot of DVX user can be summarized as "I can't get access to good cameras, good lights, real crews, etc." so I'm going to pretend that I can get the same results without them." The truth is,....

The lack of OLPF creates a sharpening effect as light is not smoothly spread across pixels, as it is in all "big boy" cameras. Along with sharpening

Come on Robert, playing the "$$$ card" again?

Seriously? Is that all you go?

And barging about your "big boy cameras", implying that we are just a bunch of "poor boy" bottom feeders, that can't afford a real camera?

I told you before, that my choice of BMCs for a feature had noting to do with money - we have a quite comfortable budget, and that I could have had a Dragon if I wanted - why are you keep repeating that BS.
I also told you before, that there is no "sharpening effect" added, it's just how any sensor looks natively, and that it is a no brainer with diffusion filters and the Mosaic OLPF.
But I sound like a broken record, because you keep the same thing coming over and over and the price thing on top of it.

And for the record: R3D is lossy, as any wavelet codec.

 

[High1ander]

You're very naive if you think that its' OK to make women look bad in this business, and that one exception you mention proves the rule. Besides - over-sharpening AGAIN, if you want it, when you choose it, can be done in post. It's hard to think of any production where all women are supposed to look bad, or at least worse than in real life, in every single frame, but cheapie cameras like BMs give you no choice.

At the time 28 days later made a good choice, but the choice they made had real advantages over other cameras at the time. VS an Epic/Scarlet, BM cameras have no advantages whatsoever except cheap price, which is fine because they only cost $3000 - so hey, they're really cheap.

Anyone with rudimentary grading knowledge can make Red footage skin tones look 100% perfect in post. The latest color science, anyway, brings them 99% of the way there, and what you say refers to problems from several years ago.

There's no bias - yes Alexa color and dynamic range are better still, and I like the F65 most of all So what? You (more or less) get what you pay for, and the Alexa snd F65 are both very heavy compared to Scarlets/Epics, which makes them harder to use in some situations.

I don't know what term should be used to explain the lack of reading skills or poor processing skills that you show. I give an example of "why you DON'T ALWAYS want to achieve a certain look". If I would say something like "some people prefer the grittiness of 500 ASA film pushed one stop" you would likely retort "LOL, good luck shooting that for a slick car commercial". Get this into your head, I'm saying there are reasons except money for why someone choosing X over Y, and Z over X, because not everybody will have the same priorities or deal breakers. Instead of rolling in here talking like you know everybody's needs and what is a deal breaker or not, be a bit humble and ask "why", you might learn something because if you think RED MX is better than BMCC on "every level" then you are just plain wrong. A Ferrari will be much faster and stronger than a Honda, but I probably pick the Honda for off road driving if that is my job, to go off road. Now, I do believe you are on point for a lot of the "people delude themselves that their DSLR is so great, etc." However, to think that people are stupid for not always picking the most expensive/flashiest equipment and equating that to "they must be poor" is just wrong too.

I still don't agree that RED MX looks pleasing with skin tones in the last couple of years, I haven't used it for a year, since red gamma 3, so I can't speak for "the last year" but prior to that I've thought it was lackluster/deal breaker for me, as well as it DR/highlights. Would my clients care for commercials, no they wouldn't, but if I work on a project by myself I will look for other options. I decided three years ago to shoot a short on Kodak film instead of RED, because for me it was way more important to get the "feel" which film gave, even if it cost much more. Same year I shot another short movie with a Sony HDW-750 because it fitted that story better (I could choose freely from HDW-750 and Sony F3, the F3 having much better DR, ISO and "filmic look"/35mm sensor, but the HDW-750 was "better for that project").

Now, I'm not a professional grader, but I worked with some that's been working on major movies in and out of Hollywood, I worked on materials from miniDV, HDcam, XDcam, P2, RED, ArriRAW, Film linear, Film Log, DSLRs, etc... So when you say stuff like "rudimentary skills can make it look 99-100%" I just cringe, because either you have low standards or bad eyesight to think that is true. It is easy to crush blacks and get a DSLR look from RED, but I think it is damn hard to get a "filmic look" RED. But, once I shoot some Dragon and work with the latest color science I might change my mind. The thing is I can tell from RED MX if it is RED or not when watching in a cinema, the only camera that has fooled me so far is Alexa, and that's the thing, Alexa is a level up (I haven't seen any Dragon movies yet as far as I know) and F65. I would rank RED MX a 6-7 out of 10 in color, with Alexa being 9, film being 10 and DSLRs 3-5. Also to make it clear, I'm am not saying film is the most accurate or best fidelity, just that I find it the most pleasing.

 

[pulpfiction007]

This whole argument aside, if this is how you feel I can't help but wonder why you are here? This site was created for the DVX and continues for it's spiritual successors. Those with better resources that continue to hang around are giving back to the next generation of aspirants. We've all got to start somewhere. I don't apologise for not having "access to good cameras, good lights, real crews" or making vimeo videos. No one is making you watch them and I don't consider it giving up.

Agree 1000% - The DVX was a low dollar camera, and people used it to great effect on so many films it's mind boggling. So now all of a sudden everyone is supposed to go back to renting expensive cameras like in the film days? Sure, do that if it fits your budget...but if not - Buy the best you can afford and do your best to make magic with it.

In this day and age, most cameras are good enough and we have really started to nit pick when it comes to quality discussions - Sure, more expensive cameras are going to provide more features and IQ, but each individual has a threshold of what they are willing to do to make a certain tool work for them. One person's headache of a camera may just be the next persons dream come true.

 

[maarek]

Seems like a lot of misinformation (fanboyism) hereabouts.

Someone keeps implying that the BMC cameras add sharpening, when they are clearly RAW cameras. So, no sharpening.

Well no. Except yes. The BMC cameras don't have a low-pass filter so they feature a lot of aliasing. You can clearly see jagged lines here and there with the BMC cams. That does create an "illusion" of sharpness. The same reason why some people think the 5dmarkII is sharper than the 5dmarkIII. Mark II has way more aliasing that creates an impression of sharpness.

So yes, BMC cameras "add sharpening" but not in the sense of "adding sharpness" but in the sense that aliasing creates a slightly oversharpened look.

 

[R Hudson]

I think that this thread has devolved into something a bit oversharpened

 

[Egg Born Son]

I think that this thread has devolved into something a bit oversharpened

Are we not men...

 

[Robert Ruffo]

This whole argument aside, if this is how you feel I can't help but wonder why you are here? This site was created for the DVX and continues for it's spiritual successors. Those with better resources that continue to hang around are giving back to the next generation of aspirants. We've all got to start somewhere. I don't apologise for not having "access to good cameras, good lights, real crews" or making vimeo videos. No one is making you watch them and I don't consider it giving up.

I'm here because this and other sites like it spread endless misinformation which gets, in half-digested form, to the ears of my clients, who then say things like like "I hear the new BM camera is more film-like" even though they have no real why or what that means.

I'm also here because a decade ago when I started, you learned from people with real credentials, and now there are sites like these where misinformation and wishful thinking is king, and its' really, I think, not a service to young filmmakers.

Instead of making endless Vimeo videos, there are many other ways to get in the business and move toward real production jobs that actually pay.