Blackmagic press conference on Thursday, March 2nd, 12.00pm PST

roxics said:
I'm not Terry but Grant said $395 in the video.
Click to expand...

The shoulder kit is surprisingly not listed as an accessory for the UM4.6k/Pro but the shoulder kit for the URSA is. Anyways, did some digging. Here it is on B&H. Was $395 when the original UM came out, still $395. I rented a UM4.6k (not pro) for a week and used the shoulder kit quite often. It's a nice pad but not as comfortable as the Zacuto pad is. I also needed a longer extension for the hand grip....but that's personal preference.
 
NorBro said:
For the 4.6K, both 400 and 800 are usable, but 400 has been a better/cleaner choice for me.

Some say 1600 is usable on their units...others say definitely not.

Alan Roberts tested the 4.6K and I think he liked 400. BM says native is 800.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/01/...-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-best-used-in-raw/
Click to expand...

But Alan used windowed 4k raw not 4.6k raw to make his determinations. Iso 800 on blackmagic is what is considered best at 4.6k raw. How is everyone complaining about low light compared to c300 which is iso 850?
 
Liam Hall said:
As hard as I try, I just can't get enthusiastic about a BMC camera. They are the Trabant of the camera world and I don't want to be seen driving one.
Click to expand...
Not any different than RED in the early days if you ignore the REDs marketing prowess...
 
mico said:
Iso 800 on blackmagic is what is considered best at 4.6k raw. How is everyone complaining about low light compared to c300 which is iso 850?
Click to expand...
C300 Mark I goes up to 80,000 ISO, Mark II goes up to 102,400 ISO. Mark I is relatively clean at 3200 and Mark II is relatively clean at 6400. Beyond that the image gets noisier but is still usable for various applications and still yields a pretty sharp image even at ISO 20,000.

With the Black Magic, if your lens is wide open, you're at the highest ISO it goes to (1600), you still need more exposure, and adding lights isn't an option, what are you going to do? Raise exposure in post? That tends to not look good.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
C300 Mark I goes up to 80,000 ISO, Mark II goes up to 102,400 ISO. Mark I is relatively clean at 3200 and Mark II is relatively clean at 6400. Beyond that the image gets noisier but is still usable for various applications and still yields a pretty sharp image even at ISO 20,000.

With the Black Magic, if your lens is wide open, you're at the highest ISO it goes to (1600), you still need more exposure, and adding lights isn't an option, what are you going to do? Raise exposure in post? That tends to not look good.
Click to expand...
Seriously- if you need to go beyond 2000 for professional paid work there is something wrong with this industry.... If it is for a hobby or passion work- it should be shot with the A7s not a pro camera anyway....
 
mico said:
But Alan used windowed 4k raw not 4.6k raw to make his determinations. Iso 800 on blackmagic is what is considered best at 4.6k raw. How is everyone complaining about low light compared to c300 which is iso 850?
Click to expand...

Because the C300 could be usable @2000+...UM4.6K psychically stops at 1600 and if you get a bad unit off the conveyor belt where all you see is subtle lines in slightly underexposed areas (FPN) @1600, you're back down to 800 and not in good shape when you need more sensitivity.

It's a limiting and frustrating trait of the camera. If you're in a studio surrounded by brightness or outside, you're all set!
 
optitek said:
Seriously- if you need to go beyond 2000 for professional paid work there is something wrong with this industry.... If it is for a hobby or passion work- it should be shot with the A7s not a pro camera anyway....
Click to expand...

You're obviously not a documentary shooter...
 
optitek said:
Seriously- if you need to go beyond 2000 for professional paid work there is something wrong with this industry.... If it is for a hobby or passion work- it should be shot with the A7s not a pro camera anyway....
Click to expand...

Shooting at high ISO's (yes, even beyond 2000) opens up many possibilities for all levels of work. Not having to rely on high-speed lenses for night work means you can make creative choices on your depth-of-field; the ability to overcrank or go to a skinny shutter without having to light to a higher stop and so on. High ISO with minimal to no penalty in noise is a really helpful tool, not a gimmick.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Shooting at high ISO's (yes, even beyond 2000) opens up many possibilities for all levels of work. Not having to rely on high-speed lenses for night work means you can make creative choices on your depth-of-field; the ability to overcrank or go to a skinny shutter without having to light to a higher stop and so on. High ISO with minimal to no penalty in noise is a really helpful tool, not a gimmick.
Click to expand...
No I'm not into documentary- most of my experience is in narrative and commercial work where lighting is as much of a creative story telling tool as anything else- if not the main creative tool. But I understand there are a lot of genres that do not rely on (creative, mood, narrative) lighting for the image acquisition. All I'm saying is that there are tools for that. I also would be very careful of the image quality in low light high ISO setups because the CMOS tech really wreaks havoc in colorimetry when the luminescence saturation is low. I have actually struggled to find image with pleasant natural colors from any camera acquired with boosted ISO....
 
Uncontrolled lighting is where a native 2000 ISO camera like an F5 really shines. Being limited to 400-800 like the BM is, it kinda makes me wonder why they bothered adding an ND wheel at all... :cheesy:
 
Appreciate all the upgrades, & think BMD is moving in the right direction, but AFAIK if a BlackMagic camera needs to be serviced the repair may take a long time.
 
optitek said:
I have actually struggled to find image with pleasant natural colors from any camera acquired with boosted ISO....
Click to expand...

You quoted me but seem to be responding to the previous post. I was referring to narrative/commercial concern also. My experiences with the Varicam were the basis for my notes on high ISO, which in that camera is not a function of "boosting".
 
CharlesPapert said:
You quoted me but seem to be responding to the previous post. I was referring to narrative/commercial concern also. My experiences with the Varicam were the basis for my notes on high ISO, which in that camera is not a function of "boosting".
Click to expand...

I was at Panasonic Universal City during their roll out of the original Varicam and they made a big deal and showed tests that beared out this assertion. Everyone always talks about shooting at high ISO, but on cameras like the C300 MKII, even though they hold it together pretty well at ISO 3200 and 6400, the colors just kind of go away whereas the Varicams still retain incredible color fidelity at the same speeds. Panasonic's achievement should be respected for that. The Varicam and Varicam LT have superior color resolution at ISO 2,500 to 5,000 to almost any other camera system. I've heard trash talking about how the Varicams look "too grainy" at ISO 5000 or in that neighborhood, even if you rate it at ISO 2500 or 3200. For those who shot film, can you recall what the fast color negative film stock of the day looked like at an EI of 1600 or even 800? The Varicam is not perfect but it is an amazing technological achievemenbt and offers something that no other cameras on the market do.
 
Last edited:
This being a thread about the Blackmagic products, we shouldn't delve too deeply into Varicam discussions (I have a few threads on my projects with that camera in the appropriate forum) but yes, the capabilities of that system go far beyond what we were able to do on film. The noise at the native 5000 is noticeable but can easily be knocked out with good NR, although we've opted not to in a couple of instances as it lends a texture that is reminiscent of classic 35mm night exterior. Downrated to 2500 or 2000 the noise all but disappears and is functionally the same as the native 800. The color rendition is all but identical at high ISO.
 
So when the Ursa Mini 4.6k records to PreRes 4444 does it take full advantage of the codec or is it "wasted space"? Kind of like externally recording the C100 it's going to remain 8bit 4:2:2 regardless of the codec it's recorded in. I believe the specs say the "Pro" records 10bit in ProRes but I couldn't find if it's 4:4:4 or what. What is the actual sampling being recorded in these higher quality codecs and what is the best choice from the available ProRes options before you're just filling cards for no good reason?
 
The last "4" is wasted, since cameras don't record an alpha channel, but the camera does decode footage to 12-bit ProRes for 444. It's a huge codec though, so I don't use it that much nowadays.

For the most part, ProRes 422 HQ has enough latitude for most projects if you're of the "get it right in camera" types and you're on a project with a light (or less) VFX need, and if you're on a project where you need to maximize detail for VFX work, raw is a better choice than ProRes 444.

Raw is getting easier to work with these days. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top