GH4 GH5 vs BMPCC

Jim Simon said:
That is a pretty good description of "event work".
Click to expand...

I watched an interview with David O'Russell (I think it was one of the THR roundtables) about shooing The Fighter where he said that he was running around with the DP and camera op and just grabbing atmosphere shots of the town they were shooting in. Guys playing cards, kids playing etc.

I'd call that run-n-gun. I wouldn't call it event work.

It's fair to say that the majority of event work is shot that way, but I just shot a bunch last month on risers and sticks with house power and an xlr off the board for an event. And that was not run-n-gun by any stretch.
 
Jim Simon said:
I won't disagree.

But for me, it's a large enough advantage that it outweighs the BMPCC's ergonomic drawbacks.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. When I had both, I'd grab the gh4 more often because the battery life was longer and the ergonomics actually work, but when I wanted the best image quality I'd grab the bmpcc.

Besides, saying the only thing that makes the bmpcc better than gh4 is image quality is like saying the only thing that makes a Ferrari better than a Toyota is that it goes a lot faster.
 
Last edited:
rc444 said:
Obviously the GH5 has Prores going for it...
Click to expand...
Prores was never confirmed, only 4:2:2 10bit, which could mean h.265 (HVEC).

I just sold my BMPCC. I hated it. It takes so much just to rig it up, Extra battery packs on rails, LUT capable field monitor, IR filters if using ND filters (really bad IR pollution), special lens adapters just to reduce the crop factor. The screen on the back is terrible. If all your going to use it only for straight film making then a BMPCC would be fine. I went ahead an just bought a used GH4 and a Atomos Ninja Blade to record 1080 10bit 4:2:2 Prores.
 
Last edited:
rob norton said:
You obviously need to ad your own monitor to the micro - I use the small HD 501 with wooden camera cage. I don't use external batteries but instead use single Canon batteries for the camera and the monitor.

I would understand if you had a lot (like 20) of the BMPCC batteries because you wanted to keep a tiny set up (while shooting) - I got sick of that set up very quickly.

I have a lot of fun shooting with the BMMCC, which was one of the top priorities - to enjoy shooting with the camera. If the pocket batteries lasted as long as the micro I'd probably use the pocket every time but swapping out batteries so frequently cut deeply into my shooting experience.

Image quality is near identical as far as I know?
Click to expand...

I think I am more swayed to getting the Micro at this point. The BMPCC looks good value, though I worry about the battery life and the moire on the BMPCC. GH4 is not an option for me anymore.
 
rc444 said:
I think I am more swayed to getting the Micro at this point. The BMPCC looks good value, though I worry about the battery life and the moire on the BMPCC. GH4 is not an option for me anymore.
Click to expand...

If I were in the same situation as you and already had a few cameras to shoot with as you do, I would likely wait for the release of the latest bumper crop of cameras about to be released. Including the new GH5. But hey, that's just me. You know your business better than we ever will.

Good luck!

Dave
 
sk810 said:
IR filters if using ND filters (really bad IR pollution)
Click to expand...

I'm curious about that. I use a Format .6 ND on my one "outdoor" lens, and have never seen an issue with the footage (that I recognize as being an issue).

What are you seeing that calls for the IR filter?
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm curious about that. I use a Format .6 ND on my one "outdoor" lens, and have never seen an issue with the footage (that I recognize as being an issue).

What are you seeing that calls for the IR filter?
Click to expand...

Blackmagic uses no low pass optical filters. IR pollution is a factor. It is with REDs too.
Pretty much everyone uses the HOYA UV/IR cut filter almost all the time. I have one on the lens nearly 100% of the time.
BUT, as far as I know those FORMAT filters include some IR cut, so that's probably why you're not seeing it.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm curious about that. I use a Format .6 ND on my one "outdoor" lens, and have never seen an issue with the footage (that I recognize as being an issue).

What are you seeing that calls for the IR filter?
Click to expand...

The higher the ND grade the more IR pollution can be a factor. A .6 ND filter will generally not need much if any assistance to eliminate IR. Typically once you get into the 1.2 or higher range is when IR gets really bad.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/what-is-ir-pollution-and-how-do-you-combat-it-tiffen/

The short answer is that ND filters block visible light but not infrared light so you still have a lot of IR light hitting the sensor. The higher the ND the more you block visible light but the IR light is just as intense as without the ND filter. This causes an ugly color shift with an imbalance of visible light vs IR light. IR filters block the IR light as well as the visible light keeping the colors natural.

If you want to shoot outdoors at f2.8 to match the optical quality and DOF of indoor shots then you typically need a ND filter that is 1.2, 1.5 1.8 or 2.1 depending on the brightness of the sunlight outside. These level of filters really do need IR to get decent color results.

This also affects stacking ND filters because it is really about regular ND filters not blocking the IR spectrum and if you stack you face the exact same problem. Blocking too much visible light and not enough IR light.
 
Thomas Smet said:
The higher the ND grade the more IR pollution can be a factor. A .6 ND filter will generally not need much if any assistance to eliminate IR. Typically once you get into the 1.2 or higher range is when IR gets really bad.

http://www.thehurlblog.com/what-is-ir-pollution-and-how-do-you-combat-it-tiffen/

The short answer is that ND filters block visible light but not infrared light so you still have a lot of IR light hitting the sensor. The higher the ND the more you block visible light but the IR light is just as intense as without the ND filter. This causes an ugly color shift with an imbalance of visible light vs IR light. IR filters block the IR light as well as the visible light keeping the colors natural.

If you want to shoot outdoors at f2.8 to match the optical quality and DOF of indoor shots then you typically need a ND filter that is 1.2, 1.5 1.8 or 2.1 depending on the brightness of the sunlight outside. These level of filters really do need IR to get decent color results.

This also affects stacking ND filters because it is really about regular ND filters not blocking the IR spectrum and if you stack you face the exact same problem. Blocking too much visible light and not enough IR light.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you should you use an IRND filter with *every* camera, or only Blackmagic or those more expensive cinema cameras? I haven't experienced any problems using an ordinary Pro ND filter with my Canon XC10.
 
rc444 said:
Are you saying you should you use an IRND filter with *every* camera, or only Blackmagic or those more expensive cinema cameras? I haven't experienced any problems using an ordinary Pro ND filter with my Canon XC10.
Click to expand...

Cameras can have different results but IR is IR and is really a by product of ND filters being designed to block visible light. This is really a ND thing and not so much a camera thing.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/10659/gh4-to-irnd-or-not-to-irnd/p1

It even affects the GH4. A manual white balance every time to change filters can help some but it still isn't as good as using an IR filter.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm partial to Cineform myself.

Has anyone ever run a proper analysis pitting ProRes, Cineform and DNx against each other?
Click to expand...

They all are pretty close if you choose similar bit rates. Cineform seems to match ProRes better than DNxHD. I found that if i transcoded the DNxHD before brining it into FCPx the color matched pretty close. Also playback on DNxHD on FCPX is terrible, but I think it worked fine on FCP Classic. Rendering DNxHD is quite annoying as there are so many options for resolution and frame rate, were as ProRes is automatic in determining the resolution and frame rate. These are the settings I request of producers who can't provide HD ProRes HQ from their PC: DNxHD 175mbps RGB mode or Cineform 176mbps.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm curious about that. I use a Format .6 ND on my one "outdoor" lens, and have never seen an issue with the footage (that I recognize as being an issue).

What are you seeing that calls for the IR filter?
Click to expand...

If the Formatt ND is from their Firecrest series then it provides similar IR protection as Hoya's ProND.
 
Every camera has an IR cut filter...some are stronger than others. The green glass in front of all Blackmagic sensors is the IR cut...it's held in by an o-ring (and the barrel that simply unscrews) and can be replaced with a stronger one if you're savvy enough. Obviously voids warranty.

They can be bought from China, and come in different sizes and thickness.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm curious about that. I use a Format .6 ND on my one "outdoor" lens, and have never seen an issue with the footage (that I recognize as being an issue).

What are you seeing that calls for the IR filter?
Click to expand...

I'd have to pull up some footage, but you can see the issue on Matthew Scott's blog. Maybe I had a stronger ND on, but my blacks were way red like the images in this blog.
http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/20...low-pass-filter-swap-no-more-ir-contamination
1468550656981


It's not just BlackMagic that has it, but it shows up the most on there cameras. More info and camera tests on IR.
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/blackmagic-cinema-camera-red-epic-arri-alexa-raw-test-part-1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top