BMCC Dynamic Range Test -- INSANE!!!

It did get darker, but none of the shadow detail was lost. Very nice. And now the house is well exposed.
 
To me it didn't look graded.... just looked like you pulled the exposure down. But nevertheless you can stretch it a lot.....
 
Amazing how you can pull it down from overexposed to that 'end result'.

In the end, it doesn't look better than what lets say a 5DM3 or a GH3 could do when exposing correctly in the 1st place. I'm more curious to well exposed BMCC shots that really show shadow & highlight details at the same time.
 
Here's another example - these are NOT my frames. This was posted by another user at the bmcuser forums.

Here's the RAW image as it was captured in-camera:
sampleRAW_as_shot.jpg

Here's a quick correction, not really a grade:
sampleRAW_corrected.jpg

RAW is pretty sweet, and the BMCC is a hell of a camera.
 
Can't wait for the m4/3 version to start shipping. I got one of the first EF versions a long time back, but sold it because I didn't need it at the time and wanted the m4/3 version. This definitely makes me a little jealous of those who have one though.
 
Waiting for the m4/3 version as well. I will add that this camera really loves to be overexposed intentionally, and then brought back down in RAW to the correct exposure and recovery of highlights. I'm not saying it's a bad low-light camera, but it is fairly unique.
 
rjp85 said:
Here's another example - these are NOT my frames. This was posted by another user at the bmcuser forums.

Here's the RAW image as it was captured in-camera:
View attachment 67603

Here's a quick correction, not really a grade:
View attachment 67604

RAW is pretty sweet, and the BMCC is a hell of a camera.
Click to expand...

And all of the detail in that sky is GONE.

This is the problem I have with some people and raw, they get evebn lazier about proper exposure.
 
rjp85 said:
Waiting for the m4/3 version as well. I will add that this camera really loves to be overexposed intentionally, and then brought back down in RAW to the correct exposure and recovery of highlights. I'm not saying it's a bad low-light camera, but it is fairly unique.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. The sensor may do slightly better by ETTR (Exposing to the right of the histogram), but no sensor "likes to be overexposed".
 
mcgeedigital said:
And all of the detail in that sky is GONE.

This is the problem I have with some people and raw, they get evebn lazier about proper exposure.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It still looks way over exposed to me. But I guess it does show you can recover quite a lot...but seriously, Just expose properly in the first place.
 
Let's say you're shooting a building that's under the shade and the sky is completely blown out. if you were to expose for the building you will overexpose the sky that's where the power of black magic comes in if you know you can recover it in post without using 18 K and spending thousands and thousands of dollars renting gear and that's what makes this camera so unique. It's hard to understand what uncompressed and 12 bit footage means unless you're a colorist and you understand how to usethe grading tool.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Poppycock. The sensor may do slightly better by ETTR (Exposing to the right of the histogram), but no sensor "likes to be overexposed".
Click to expand...

Preach it. There is no reason why you would over expose those frames in the first place, and it's nothing new; been able to do this since 2007, and in 4k...

A001_C001_01193F_zps607e95a4.jpg


A001_C001_01193F_S000_zps0cc44a86.jpg


Good on BM for bringing it to the masses, but recovery is no substitute for doing your job as a cinematographer.
 
mcgeedigital said:
And all of the detail in that sky is GONE.

This is the problem I have with some people and raw, they get evebn lazier about proper exposure.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the image itself looks flat.

This is a fun test I guess, but expose properly and use it to create gorgeous images with the Raw power.
 
Donald Ong said:
but seriously, Just expose properly in the first place.
Click to expand...
If you "expose properly" in RAW on the BMCC, you're sure to be disappointed with your results.

I didn't shoot those frames, but you can bring the exposure down even more. That was only -1.75 stops, and the sky IS still there.

What I really meant about the sensor was that indoors, for CLEAN shadow detail, ETTR is really the way to go. Much more flexibility. And I've been shooting RAW since early 2000 as a photographer. It boggles my mind why it took so long for video cameras to catch up to the way still cameras give you a raw workflow.

Anyway, I sense some bad attitudes and a flame war, so, have at it.
 
Last edited:
allahkaram said:
Let's say you're shooting a building that's under the shade and the sky is completely blown out. if you were to expose for the building you will overexpose the sky that's where the power of black magic comes in if you know you can recover it in post without using 18 K and spending thousands and thousands of dollars renting gear and that's what makes this camera so unique. It's hard to understand what uncompressed and 12 bit footage means unless you're a colorist and you understand how to usethe grading tool.
Click to expand...

No, I would slide the proper ND grad into my matte box and expose the whole scene as I intended. IMHO shooting raw should not be use as an excuse to get lazy at ones craft.
 
I didn't know that having a disclaimer about this post that it is solely for test purposes and by no means preaching to people how they should be exposing there shots. This is not a bragging contest about who knows more about how to properly expose a shot. This is simply a post for people who are excited to see the potential of what kind of control this camera offers especially for those who are shooting with hdslrs.
 
rjp85 said:
If you "expose properly" in RAW on the BMCC, you're sure to be disappointed with your results.

I didn't shoot those frames, but you can bring the exposure down even more. That was only -1.75 stops, and the sky IS still there.

What I really meant about the sensor was that indoors, for CLEAN shadow detail, ETTR is really the way to go. Much more flexibility. And I've been shooting RAW since early 2000 as a photographer. It boggles my mind why it took so long for video cameras to catch up to the way still cameras give you a raw workflow.

Anyway, I sense some bad attitudes and a flame war, so, have at it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but why would I be disappointed if I actually expose properly? I don't get it. Genuine question.
Why it took so long? 30 frames per second continuously as opposed to a single frame every time you depress the shutter, perhaps?

Not starting a flame war. And if by expressing an opinion is considered a 'bad attitude', then sure.
 
Your footage would most likely be way underexposed if you shot what appeared to be "correct" in-camera. Read more at the bmcuser forums. People have done a lot of tests, and they know how the camera "likes" to be exposed.

30 frames per second of RAW SD (less than 1 megapixel) or 2 megapixel images (HD) could've been done a long time ago. I know that Canon or Nikon could have 24 FPS RAW 1920x1080 in their DSLRs, but they'd rather stick to their product lines to milk our wallets.

In 2001, the Canon 1D could shoot 4MP images (about 2.5K) 8 frames per second. The only problem is that the buffer would fill up. But that was 2001...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top