Other: Pros and Cons ONLY on the BMC?
- Thread starter JoeJITSU
- Start date
Thomas Smet
Veteran
And you know this for a fact how? Nobody knows what sensor they are using. They could be using a scientific sensor that has been designed for medical research for years with lots of R&D behind it. Just because Canon didn't make it doesn't mean it just fell from the sky. If everything were equal I might question the sensitivity vs sensors but everything is not equal here. The pixel size on the BM camera are huge compared to most other cameras. That is just physics 101 to understand a larger area will gather more light.
Perhaps we should just wait and see however instead of assuming it will not be as sensitive.
it is physics. if the sensor is more than 4x the size, it will gather more light. the pixel size comes into play only when the sensor size is the same. and on the same sensor generation.
and the sensor generation or tech is more important, it's not just the sensor, it's all the R&D put into the whole system. if you compare a fx sensor with 12mp (D3, D3s, D700) and the 36mp D800, the low light is on the same level, or even better than D700. so the pixel size only works within the same generation and even then a higher end dslr with have a cleaner image and better less destructive noise reduction.
and the sensor generation or tech is more important, it's not just the sensor, it's all the R&D put into the whole system. if you compare a fx sensor with 12mp (D3, D3s, D700) and the 36mp D800, the low light is on the same level, or even better than D700. so the pixel size only works within the same generation and even then a higher end dslr with have a cleaner image and better less destructive noise reduction.
bufo55
Active member
I was just thinking along the same lines as the last few posts.
But first, in the interest of accuracy:
Pixel pitch = 15.6mm width of active area / 2432 active pixels = 6.41 micron
Pixel pitch and pixel size are not exactly the same thing. A significant part of that 6.4 micron square can be taken up by circuitry.
That said, assuming this is a current generation sensor (and maybe even state of the art regarding S/N ratio if it really was designed for NASA) the medium-sized pixels (between D7000 and D3s) give good reason to be optimistic about ability to achieve maximum DR at 800 ISO, and little loss at 1600 ISO.
Other very significant advantages related to the pixel pitch:
Will not demand lenses with the highest resolution to get an image that is as sharp as the sensor can produce. This is the opposite of the problem that came to light with still photos from high-density sensors like the D7000 and D800. That seems to have been the point John Brawley was making in shooting the Bondi Beach footage with a consumer kit lens. Of course, that was not sharpened in post and we don't know how much of the filmic softness was due to the AA filter or the lens (not a criticism - I'm sure we'll see the resolving limits of the camera tested eventually).
CA may be less apparent. This is in addition to improved CA performance due to center cropping.
These advantages don't apply just to cheap lenses, but to ultra fast lenses that have substantially less than peak resolution and the worst CA wide open. I'd expect my 50 1.2 AIS to perform extremely well wide open given the center crop and the forgiving sensor.
But first, in the interest of accuracy:
Pixel pitch = 15.6mm width of active area / 2432 active pixels = 6.41 micron
Pixel pitch and pixel size are not exactly the same thing. A significant part of that 6.4 micron square can be taken up by circuitry.
That said, assuming this is a current generation sensor (and maybe even state of the art regarding S/N ratio if it really was designed for NASA) the medium-sized pixels (between D7000 and D3s) give good reason to be optimistic about ability to achieve maximum DR at 800 ISO, and little loss at 1600 ISO.
Other very significant advantages related to the pixel pitch:
Will not demand lenses with the highest resolution to get an image that is as sharp as the sensor can produce. This is the opposite of the problem that came to light with still photos from high-density sensors like the D7000 and D800. That seems to have been the point John Brawley was making in shooting the Bondi Beach footage with a consumer kit lens. Of course, that was not sharpened in post and we don't know how much of the filmic softness was due to the AA filter or the lens (not a criticism - I'm sure we'll see the resolving limits of the camera tested eventually).
CA may be less apparent. This is in addition to improved CA performance due to center cropping.
These advantages don't apply just to cheap lenses, but to ultra fast lenses that have substantially less than peak resolution and the worst CA wide open. I'd expect my 50 1.2 AIS to perform extremely well wide open given the center crop and the forgiving sensor.
Last edited:
In my opinion having to use an 11mm lens to provide the same field of view as a 25mm is far from perfect. 11mm is in fish eye region. So a shot of an urban landscape using this lens will render it 'artistic' not 'accurate' due to the lens distortion. I'm a fan of a 35-50mm lens being 'standard'. they give honest perspective and good undistorted view similar to how we see. Using a sensor of this size makes it impossible to match the benchmark look of 35mm film, try shooting epic landscape scenes like that on Barry Lyndon when your lens distortion problems outweigh the benefits you get with 2.5k resolution. I doubt an 11mm lens has ever been seen on any traditionally shot motion picture.
That said, a 28mm lens, with the 2x crop will be 56mm. attach a 1.5 squeeze anamorphic adaptor like optex/century and you end up with around 35mm field of view on the horizontal. The smaller sensor will yield good results when using lower priced anamorphic's..
An 11mm will not have the same fov as a 25mm on an S35 camera (or similar sensor size). It'll be closer to 19~20, and that's not splitting hairs.
You'd need to get up to 14~16 to get to a 25, and 18~20 to get up to 35mm. At 20mm distortion may or may not be tolerable, that's up to the individual to decide.
In my experience, the 20mm 1.8 sigma on a GH2 doesn't distort drastically, buildings or people, when at appropriate distances. It should distort even less on this camera.
i don't think it's fair to compare or assume that the BMC sensor will be comparable to the Nikon light demons, the nikons are exceptional in their light performance and dynamic range. this is not the norm for dslrs, compact cameras(m43 and aps-c) and s35mm sensors(yes, even the extremely sensitive ones). and the 12mp fx sensor proved that you do get a softer image compared to a 12mp dx sensor, and they went for a 16mp on the newer d4.so having that pixel size is not optimal for the lens.
and i do think the camera is amazing(i'm on your side), i'm just more realistic. the camera does not have to be perfect. and it comes with resolve and ultrascope, that is huge.
i would have loved if it was s16mm or M43 size sensor, with the appropriate mount or with a mount big enough and engineered to support any other mount(like the sony thing)
and i do think the camera is amazing(i'm on your side), i'm just more realistic. the camera does not have to be perfect. and it comes with resolve and ultrascope, that is huge.
i would have loved if it was s16mm or M43 size sensor, with the appropriate mount or with a mount big enough and engineered to support any other mount(like the sony thing)
I think they're just pointing out noone knows, for fact, that it won't be as sensitive or more sensitive than DSLR offerings. Literally, only BMD knows, so right now everything is pure speculation.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Me very happy. And, no, I haven't forgotten DSLRs' shortcomings: I own two. ;-)
(But it would be sweet if the BmDCC mic inputs will support phantom power; fingers crossed.)
bufo55
Active member
Talking specifically about the Tokina 11-16 and distortion.
Take a look at this linked chart: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f28eos?start=1
Yes, pretty distorted on APS, but look at the center rectangle, about 6 squares wide by 3 high (which is very roughly the size of the BMCC sensor) at 11, 14 and 16mm. Not perfect, but not too shabby!
And the horizontal crop compared to FF is more like 2.3. 36mm/15.6mm = 2.3
So 11, 14 and 16 ~ 25, 32, 37
Back to the center crop of the chart. That looks like minimal distortion at 37 FF equivalent. At 32 that looks like less distortion than my zeiss 35 f/2 on FF, maybe even less than my zeiss 35 on APS.
Fisheye distortion? Not even close!
Now if you want to go wider, and assuming a M4/3 mount, you could look at the same tests on that site for the Panny 7-14 and apply the same logic as above. BUT realize you will not be getting Panny's in-camera distortion correction so the results would not be as impressive regarding rectilinearity as the Tokina.
Take a look at this linked chart: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f28eos?start=1
Yes, pretty distorted on APS, but look at the center rectangle, about 6 squares wide by 3 high (which is very roughly the size of the BMCC sensor) at 11, 14 and 16mm. Not perfect, but not too shabby!
And the horizontal crop compared to FF is more like 2.3. 36mm/15.6mm = 2.3
So 11, 14 and 16 ~ 25, 32, 37
Back to the center crop of the chart. That looks like minimal distortion at 37 FF equivalent. At 32 that looks like less distortion than my zeiss 35 f/2 on FF, maybe even less than my zeiss 35 on APS.
Fisheye distortion? Not even close!
Now if you want to go wider, and assuming a M4/3 mount, you could look at the same tests on that site for the Panny 7-14 and apply the same logic as above. BUT realize you will not be getting Panny's in-camera distortion correction so the results would not be as impressive regarding rectilinearity as the Tokina.
Last edited:
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
It's been said before but bears repeating: "Slumdog Millionaire", "Hurt Locker", and "Avatar", just to name a few recent examples, all shot with S16 or smaller size sensors, all extremely successful. Avatar was shot with 2/3" sensor cams @ 1080p and has made $2.5 billion and counting.
So, sure, one may have a personal preference for larger sensors (I do), but the fact is that in most cases small sensor size is not a barrier to successful filmmaking. Cheers.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Well, instead of imagining artificial barriers, you could instead just start out as simply as adding a nice inexpensive used lens, and a moderately-priced SSD drive, and you're good to go.
All removable lens cams require that you buy a lens, and all modern cams require that you buy solid state memory. And when you need an external battery, an appropriate solution can be low-tech and inexpensive if you wish.
All the additional rigging & gack is pretty much common to most cameras, and personal preference -- and in many cases unnecessary. But the minimum cost of setting up & using a BmDCC isn't likely to be high, especially not compared to other cam systems with "similar" image capability.
Well said, and it does bear repeating.
i was hoping for the 2/3" Scarlet, because I knew the 3K raw data and film-like latitude more than made up for the smaller than DSLR-sized sensor.
This near-M43 sensor is a win to me.
If you currently own nothing, then the cost to set up a bare minimum shooting package will be way more than double the price, but that is true of every camera... Assuming you have tripods, mics, computer, and likely some adaptable lenses in your closet it won't cost all that much to get going. I would start with a couple of 60gb drives, plenty for prores and workable with raw, Remember that the first Red users had to deal with 8GB cf cards. 14mm rokinon to cover the wide end and adapt my 24mm and 50mm nikons for now, done. There are all kinds of cheap power solutions, I just saw a little power pack marketed for portable dvd players, 12v output, 2500 mah $29. You could be easily be out shooting for under $4000. You can even add the SD MixPre D for audio input and still be under the cost of say and FS100.
The only con I can see, and I'll agree yet to be determined, is the degree of rolling shutter. I would prefer it to be in the af100/fs100 camcorder range, rather than dslr, maybe next year. I currently use HV20's so I know the work-arounds. Controlled drama, not a big deal. If I need extreme hand held, or strap it to a car, I'll borrow an HPX170.
People are so quick to cry about low light after comparing the extremely boosted low light of the sony fs100 and canon 5d. I've shot 500 iso 16mm with a very modest light kit, I've shot the dvx with no gain, which I rate between 500 and 640, with a couple of CFL's, not a problem.
The only con I can see, and I'll agree yet to be determined, is the degree of rolling shutter. I would prefer it to be in the af100/fs100 camcorder range, rather than dslr, maybe next year. I currently use HV20's so I know the work-arounds. Controlled drama, not a big deal. If I need extreme hand held, or strap it to a car, I'll borrow an HPX170.
People are so quick to cry about low light after comparing the extremely boosted low light of the sony fs100 and canon 5d. I've shot 500 iso 16mm with a very modest light kit, I've shot the dvx with no gain, which I rate between 500 and 640, with a couple of CFL's, not a problem.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not necessarily true. It depends on the lens. The Lumix 7-14 is absolutely rectilinear at 7mm. The Master Prime 8mm is completely rectilinear. I will agree that most cheap lenses in the 8mm range are fisheyes, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Absolutely not true. You can get the exact same framing and DOF of a 35mm lens, depending on what lens you use. If you match the FOV and then compensate for the DOF difference by opening the iris, you can make a shot that is indistinguishable from 35mm film (in terms of perspective, composition, and spatial compression/distortion).
Ain't gonna be easy, but lenses like the Voigtlanders and the 12mm HyperPrime on m43 all point towards potential solutions, if only the BMCC wasn't Canon mount. Will be interesting to see if Voigtlander and Noktor re-release their lenses in EF mount specifically for the BMCC.
You should look up the 8mm UltraPrime and 10mm UltraPrime, you'll probably be surprised.
However, I will say that it's uncommon in cinema to go that wide, normally 18mm (or maybe 15mm) is the widest you'll find in any conventional lens set.
That said, a 28mm lens, with the 2x crop will be 56mm.[/QUOTE]
It's not a 2x crop, it's about a 2.4x, so that 28mm will deliver the FOV of a 67mm.
I shot most of my GH1 and GH2 shorts at f2.8. The difference in DOF from m 4/3 to APS-C is about 1/2 stop. Considering the crop is a little more than m4/3 on the BMD, the DOF will be a bit deeper, all things being equal. But you're right, unless you want razor-thin DOF, I think the BMD's smaller sensor might be an advantage. Think about it, in low light situations, your focus puller actually has a fighting chance of nailing focus. I have no problem with the DOF of S-16 films and films shot on 2/3" cameras. If I need the super-shallow look, I guess I'll rent a FF Canon camera for the gig...since I'll now be acquiring EF glass.
