Thread: C200...

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 194
  1. #171  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    552
    Most of the Color problems I've seen with BMD come from IR pollution problems or people using the camera wrong like this guy was doing https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/v...hp?f=2&t=66500

    But that's not the tools fault, that's the operator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #172  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    218
    yoclay, can you post or link to any resources that go into detail on your claims/findings? I don't have nearly as much colorist experience as most people here, so seeing an actual breakdown of what you're talking about, and possibly comparisons to a camera with better color/color science, would be fantastic. I think if we're talking about color science as an objective measurement, we should have examples to back up what that means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #173  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    What I am doing is reporting back to people here what regularly passes under my nose. You may take it or leave it, but it would definitely benefit BM users if the manufacturer of their camera took another look at their "color science" in my "subjective opinion" as you so frequently like to put it - which for all intents and purposes appears to be in order to discredit it or prove "how alone I am"..
    Not alone, just wrong in the opinion of the people who you're preaching to. Why would people who use a camera specifically because of it's color science want BM to change the thing we find most attractive? Seriously, you think your opinion outweighs all of the experience of the people here who produce with BM cameras? Strange attitude my friend, and a strange place and way to push it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #174  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post

    Put up or shut up.

    JB

    Excuse me ?
    Sorry, that's just plain rude.

    Why would anyone want to share anything here with that kind of attitude ?
    Last edited by yoclay; 11-10-2017 at 03:39 PM.
    If I wanted my films to look like the real world I'd buy a video camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #175  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    Excuse me ?
    Sorry, that's just plain rude.

    Not really. They just want you to back up your claims if you are going to keep saying it. Most others have a different experience than you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #176  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    521
    Coincidentally I took some time on a break yesterday to do some exposure testing specifically because I was reading the thread on "proper UM exposure" on the BM forum and was curious about opinions from smart and talented friends like Frank G and Denny S and JB.

    It was quick and simple. Using available bright mid day sunlight I placed the subject out of the direct light (as I would normally) and exposed properly for his skin tone using false color.
    I repeated, this time placing the subject in direct sunlight and again exposed the same way.
    Finally, and this to push the much/still debated concept of ETTR and BM sensors, with the subject in direct sunlight I exposed till the last zebra (set at 95%) on the skin dissappeared and virtually all of the face was pushing 100 IRE in false color.

    I did this all in Prores HQ because as a production comapny that's where we shoot all the time.

    Bottom line, I was able to get a solid image in each scenario with a simple grade using scopes and no secondaries (although ratios would obviously need to be addressed in real shooting.) Owning and shooting Canon, Sony, Panasonic and BM cameras, I could never have got the image I did fully pushed just below clipping with any of those other cameras. The "digital negative" that BM provides, even in tricky exposures, is the camera's strength, not it's weakness.

    Can't believe we're actually debating this here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #177  
    Senior Member DPStewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    The Desert
    Posts
    3,120
    Quote Originally Posted by jimagine View Post
    Coincidentally I took some time on a break yesterday to do some exposure testing specifically because I was reading the thread on "proper UM exposure" on the BM forum and was curious about opinions from smart and talented friends like Frank G and Denny S and JB.

    It was quick and simple. Using available bright mid day sunlight I placed the subject out of the direct light (as I would normally) and exposed properly for his skin tone using false color.
    I repeated, this time placing the subject in direct sunlight and again exposed the same way.
    Finally, and this to push the much/still debated concept of ETTR and BM sensors, with the subject in direct sunlight I exposed till the last zebra (set at 95%) on the skin dissappeared and virtually all of the face was pushing 100 IRE in false color.

    I did this all in Prores HQ because as a production comapny that's where we shoot all the time.

    Bottom line, I was able to get a solid image in each scenario with a simple grade using scopes and no secondaries (although ratios would obviously need to be addressed in real shooting.) Owning and shooting Canon, Sony, Panasonic and BM cameras, I could never have got the image I did fully pushed just below clipping with any of those other cameras. The "digital negative" that BM provides, even in tricky exposures, is the camera's strength, not it's weakness.

    Can't believe we're actually debating this here.
    Yup.
    This is EXACTLY why I let my other cameras go and shoot exclusively now on BMD in RAW.
    Cameras: Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Camera (x2), Panasonic GH2 (x2), Sony RX100 ii, Canon 6D, Canon T2i,
    Mics: Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Sanken, Audio-Technica, Audix
    Lights: Every Chinese clone you can imagine
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #178  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    107
    have any of you guys shot the two cameras side by side? how would you know otherwise?

    i did the other day, but i only had an hour with the two cameras and i couldn't find how to get the histogram or any exposure tools up on the c200, so i shot off the screens. i overexposed the ursa 4.6 1/2 to a stop over, so it wasn't a completely level playing field.

    Things i took from my hour of side by side testing, and extra couple of hours shooting my kids with the c200 (i use to own an ursa, so I was familiar enough with that) along with a kind of a pros/cons list I have for myself of all i know about the two cameras, as I am on the fence.


    - the highlight roll off in the c200 really is nicer than the ursa mini IMO.

    - But the URSA still has a very wide dynamic range it seems, but when it clips, it goes harshly to white. I know you can try and keep highlights from clipping, but you have to sometimes, and nicer looking clipped highlights is an advantage.

    - The c200 was very noisey in the darks, surprisingly so. I know there is no noise reduction in the raw, but the UM4.6 wasn't so noisey shooting in daylight at 800 iso.

    - I prefer the UM4.6's screen (this is the non pro). this is a big deal for me, if a screen is too small, my eyes aren't what they use to be, so I find the tiny screen of the c200 a pain and quite limiting.

    - The menu of the BM is far superior to the canon.

    - The c200 dual pixel focus is one of the best features, its amazing, very usable and organic look when being used.

    - The files out of the c200 really is closer to usable IMO. I can make the ursa look good, but its a lot more work, and if you want more than that desat, high dynamic range look, the BM is great, but the canon does cleaner nicer colours in a more natural way . this is my opinion- but I am a stills photographer thats been retouching in photoshop since V2, so it might have something to do with that I am used to canon colours and I can take them anywhere I want them to be. I have own nikon, phase one, sony, and I rate the canon the best for colour. But with a bit of work, the BM looks pretty good too, but not easily in my experience. I know I'm not well known a video guy, but I am a very experienced advertising photographer with a heap of international brands shot, so I feel I have some credibility and substance to what I am saying.

    - the evf on the c200 sucks, as well as the little screen.

    - The c200 turns into a dslr-like monster rig if you want any kind of usable production camera. By the time you add a shoulder rig, a v-mount to power any accessories (as it has no power out!), the evf like a giant zacuto (that has to be mounted way forward due to the c200s shape) and a wireless sender. The c200 would still be lighter than the ursa, but the ursa is far more production ready and shoulder ready. Its a shame its a little long for many gimbals, but gimbals aren't used a lot for me - im a shoulder and tripod/ jib guy.

    - the c200 only has one video feed out- either HDMI or HSDI, but not both! So bad luck if you want an EVF and a video sender.

    - The ursa has power out for any acceries.

    - URSA has twp hdsdis with optional luts (not sure what the c200 has here).

    - Ursa has timecode out. I haven't had a need for this (and dont really know what it does, as all my films havent had sound so far!), but my DP friend says its big deal and wont buy a c200 because of this (he prefers a c300mii for a personal camera).

    - c200 is a very light all in one camera when used stripped down. a third the weight when like this. I also trust it more covered with mud and in the rain than I would the ursa, but obviously I dont quite know. I just treat my stills canons very bad and they just last.

    - One feature that is a big deal for me is that there is a speed booster available for the ursa mini 4.6k now that works, and none for the c200 (which in theory can work). before I have anyone saying that it cant be done, it definitely can and the c200 has almost enough room between the lens and sensor (bar 1mm) as teh standard ursa mini .


    just to add to the colour debate- My colourist said to me that his second favourite camera to grade is the c300 mk2 (he hadnt graded the c200 when I worked with him last), and I heard from a friend that worked with (arguably)New Zealand's best colourist that he graded his first lot of c200 footage the other day and was really impressed. So I think, until people shoot these side by side, the opinions here on the forum seem very biased and ill informed. Everybody loves to be an expert, but at the end of the day its just an opinion. Once we have better tests (better than mine!- as this was just for myself, not too scientific) side by side under decent conditions (shooting a colour card and a portrait in a studio is no real test IMO!). Contrasty conditions, dusk, blow out BG's, these are the side by side tests we all need.

    I am leaning towards buying another URSA mini 4.6 k standard, as I like its usability. But the biggest deal is the speedboster. I would like the UMP with the built in nds, but this doesnt allow the speed booster, and the small screen is a bit of a deal breaker . I think if i was a one man band, the c200 is a better option, but I wouldnt shoot without a camera assist, even for a test shoot. The other reason is that the BM is less than half the cost of the c200, or a third if you buy a used one. When I add it all up, i think the ursa is the best for me.

    paul
    Last edited by paulrossjones; 11-11-2017 at 02:34 AM.
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #179  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,515
    So were is this Speedbooster for the Mini 4.6k?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #180  
    Senior Member shijan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Odesa, UA
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by paulrossjones View Post
    have any of you guys shot the two cameras side by side? how would you know otherwise?

    i did the other day, but i only had an hour with the two cameras and i couldn't find how to get the histogram or any exposure tools up on the c200, so i shot off the screens. i overexposed the ursa 4.6 1/2 to a stop over, so it wasn't a completely level playing field.

    Things i took from my hour of side by side testing, and extra couple of hours shooting my kids with the c200 (i use to own an ursa, so I was familiar enough with that) along with a kind of a pros/cons list I have for myself of all i know about the two cameras, as I am on the fence.


    - the highlight roll off in the c200 really is nicer than the ursa mini IMO.

    - But the URSA still has a very wide dynamic range it seems, but when it clips, it goes harshly to white. I know you can try and keep highlights from clipping, but you have to sometimes, and nicer looking clipped highlights is an advantage.
    Actually there is no highlight rolloff in digital sensors, they just hard clips highlights in one single point. Highlight rolloff is depends of a LUT applied when you compress Log to Rec gamma. BMDfilm to Rec LUTs provided by Blackmagic just poorly designed and clips too many information in highlights. Try use Color Space Transform node in DR14 with Luminance Mapping turned ON and you see way different image from same camera.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulrossjones View Post
    - The c200 was very noisey in the darks, surprisingly so. I know there is no noise reduction in the raw, but the UM4.6 wasn't so noisey shooting in daylight at 800 iso.
    I also found a lot of noise in C200 RAW samples. And that noise looks way more digital and unnatural than noise produced by BM cameras. Someone told that C200 camera needs a calibration to get cleaner shadows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •