Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...

From the tech specs:

[TABLE="class: techSpec singleTechSpec, width: 0"]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F9E5CC, align: left"]Raw Resolution[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F9E5CC, align: left"]12-bit RAW files recorded at 2432 x 1366[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="align: left"]Shooting Resolutions[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.5K RAW at 2432 x 1366, compressed at 1920 x 1080[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference here? RAW files recorded at full res, but shooting RAW compresses to 1080p? I am confused by this wording.
 
One feature from the specs page that I really liked is the auto iris 'No Pixel Clipping' function. It would instantly limit any clipping, even a wee highlight sun bounce off a distant piece of glass. I've always wanted something like that...

Okay, can we have a sample DNG now? :)
 
I'm hoping its:

DNGs at 2.5K

ProRes at 1080p (Thus easily in and out through final cut. For some reason my final cut hates anything other than the standard HD sizes and refuses to render them..)
 
Matthew Bennett said:
I'm hoping its:

DNGs at 2.5K

ProRes at 1080p (Thus easily in and out through final cut. For some reason my final cut hates anything other than the standard HD sizes and refuses to render them..)
Click to expand...

Assuming that is the case, wouldn't that mean that the RAW capture at full res is using the entire sensor? Not just the "active" / 1080 section? I really am out of my knowledge element here.
 
Matthew Bennett said:
I'm hoping its:

DNGs at 2.5K

ProRes at 1080p (Thus easily in and out through final cut. For some reason my final cut hates anything other than the standard HD sizes and refuses to render them..)
Click to expand...

It says:

"Apple ProRes and Avid DNxHD. All compressed recording in 1920×1080 10-bit YUV with choice of Film or Video Dynamic Range."

I think it's exactly as you want it to be. RAW is 2.5K and DNxHD and ProRes are HD size.
 
robmneilson said:
Alright, when is the B&H pre-order? Take my money already!

Will certainly try this camera out with my anamorphic glass for a shoot I have planned in the fall. If it passes the test I will be keeping it!
Click to expand...

Not sure about B&H, but I just pre-ordered on the second of their authorized US online resellers (have purchased from them before). None of the other sellers have it listed. Get a free Apple thunderbolt cable when the order is confirmed. I'm number 3 on the list. I'm excited. Was just about to buy the AF100, but I think this works better for my needs.
 
Emanuel said:
LOL

2nd one :D You're a funny guy, Kholi : ) What about Anthony? Since that 4K DSLR price release, never heard from him again ;) Michael is also much quiet about this BMD 12-bits RAW cam... OK, one is @NAB these days I guess, but Australia is too far or is Squig coming finally to the desert of Arizona for his shooting with an obsolete device? : D
Click to expand...
NAB is in Las Vegas, NEVADA.
 
dustylense said:
NAB is in Las Vegas, NEVADA.
Click to expand...
Christopher, that one was for them, you are here like me, Kholi and others as due : ) Anyway, if Bugsy was coming from California to Nevada to open his Casinos, I bet Michael will do it for whatever new cameras he will find : D Take a look again, just posted a cartoon 'on topic' with my last edit there ;-)
 
Emanuel said:
« Coming from primarily the image-processing/math side, I see the biggest difference between film and video is complete lack of aliasing. » ~ John Schultz aka jcs

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...lution&p=1986126484&viewfull=1#post1986126484
Click to expand...

Nope, I totally disagree. The biggest difference hands down, no contest, is dynamic range. End of story. No other reason is anywhere close, IMO. That's why that's the feature none of these manufacturers tout as a spec when releasing new cameras. Instead they just feed consumers with more and more megapixels, keeping them in the dark as to what will actually make for a dramatic improvement in quality...higher dynamic range. Aliasing for sure is one difference, but it doesn't account for the different look on the whole image for sure.
 
skital said:
Nope, I totally disagree. The biggest difference hands down, no contest, is dynamic range. End of story. No other reason is anywhere close, IMO. That's why that's the feature none of these manufacturers tout as a spec when releasing new cameras. Instead they just feed consumers with more and more megapixels, keeping them in the dark as to what will actually make for a dramatic improvement in quality...higher dynamic range. Aliasing for sure is one difference, but it doesn't account for the different look on the whole image for sure.
Click to expand...
C'mon, DR is a priori, not even need to mention ;-)
 
skital said:
Nope, I totally disagree. The biggest difference hands down, no contest, is dynamic range. End of story. No other reason is anywhere close, IMO. That's why that's the feature none of these manufacturers tout as a spec when releasing new cameras. Instead they just feed consumers with more and more megapixels, keeping them in the dark as to what will actually make for a dramatic improvement in quality...higher dynamic range. Aliasing for sure is one difference, but it doesn't account for the different look on the whole image for sure.
Click to expand...

Really? Red and Arri and Sony were quite vocal about the DR of the Epic, Alexa and F3 from my memory. Heck, even Red talked about their HDR mode and how many stops could be used. It's clear to me that companies understand the desire for higher DR. But really, what happens typically when a company announces a higher DR, everyone comes out of the woodworks to complain "Yeah, but it still doesn't mean you don't need to light" and then devolves into arguments about do you really need higher DR.

I agree with you, I think higher DR is very important, but only partially. I also think you need higher DR with a higher bit depth. Do I want 18 stops in 8-bit? No. That's the beauty of what this camera offers. 12-bits and 13 stops. Because, at the end of the day, you ARE going to fit those bits down to 8-bit, and having the freedom to push and pull those 13 stops of information around in a multitude of ways. Those two together are the real + of this camera in my opinion. (Or even 10-bit when not doing RAW).
 
skital said:
Nope, I totally disagree. The biggest difference hands down, no contest, is dynamic range. End of story. No other reason is anywhere close, IMO. That's why that's the feature none of these manufacturers tout as a spec when releasing new cameras. Instead they just feed consumers with more and more megapixels, keeping them in the dark as to what will actually make for a dramatic improvement in quality...higher dynamic range. Aliasing for sure is one difference, but it doesn't account for the different look on the whole image for sure.
Click to expand...

Not every shot can show the value of DR, however every shot can be affected by aliasing (as long as the lens is in focus). Here's the complete list in context from my post:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ved-olpf-removed-for-higher-resolution/page34

Coming from primarily the image-processing/math side, I see the biggest difference between film and video is complete lack of aliasing. Next is film's gamma response/curve (along with dynamic range) which keeps the image fairly continuous, especially in the shadows along with no blown-out highlights, and, amazingly at the same time, providing excellent microcontrast all over the image (can simulate somewhat in post using Unsharp Mask to perform "Local Contrast Enhancement" or with HDR simulation tools (Tone Mapping)). I've seen fairly grainless film and it looks amazing. When there is grain, it needs to be 'soft' around the edges of the grains, otherwise it looks like digital noise (video)).

Thus, if you think about what it takes to simulate video from scratch, you would:

1. Oversharpen to make sure there is aliasing, and to really drive the point home, moire.
2. Make sure highlights are peaky and blown out + clipped.
3. Crush the blacks and add crisp digital noise to dark regions along with compression artifacts.
4. Make sure dynamic range is as limited as possible.
5. Make sure the sky has lots of banding artifacts.
6. Use a contrast-enhancing S-curve instead of a log-curve (or contrast reducing S-curve) for luminance (this will help with 2 & 3, perhaps 4 & 5).
7. Don't perform any micro/local contrast enhancement.
8. Oversaturate the colors, and make sure skin tones look like shiny plastic (limited dynamic range and colorspace helps here).
9. Make sure there are no narrow depth of field shots; even better make sure everything is always in focus.
10. Add 1-pixel wide color digital noise to entire frame.

Don't do items 1-10 if the goal is a film look. Perhaps others can add to this recipe.
Click to expand...
 
This camera looks awesome. But at the rate BMD has been going with making their other products better while at the same time cheaper, by next year (or sooner), I bet we will see the next revision to this bad boy. I think it will be 4k RAW, s35 sensor, articulating touch screen, high ISO, high framerates, higher DR, PL mount option, and all that without a price increase or a very small one if so.

Then a year later they will introduce another one with a 4k capable real time DaVinci resolve built in. Just plug it into a monitor and grade in-camera via remote ipad app. It will also include a built in beer cooler and a sofa for your clients. Price: $50

Go Blackmagic!!!!
 
Rick Burnett said:
I agree with you, I think higher DR is very important, but only partially. I also think you need higher DR with a higher bit depth. Do I want 18 stops in 8-bit? No. That's the beauty of what this camera offers. 12-bits and 13 stops. Because, at the end of the day, you ARE going to fit those bits down to 8-bit, and having the freedom to push and pull those 13 stops of information around in a multitude of ways. Those two together are the real + of this camera in my opinion.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top