Thread: C200...

Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 194
  1. #151  
    Senior Member shijan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Odesa, UA
    Posts
    571
    Actually BM cameras with their magical dual gain sensors holds very well even compare to C200. Take a look. This is a sample RAW footage from C200 from 4kshooters article opened in Resolve 14, slightly boosted expose, lowered gain and boosted contrast. Overall same workflow as i use with bMMCC to extend dynamic range. If you look at the footage in original size you clearly can see ugly color noise. Noise structure is full of strange micro blocks, (some kind of RAW compression artifacts?). Sure when you downscale footage to 1080p it is not so visible. In hair details i was able to find very slight moire. Overall it seems camera produce nice dynamic range.


    Last edited by shijan; 11-02-2017 at 06:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #152  
    Did they black balance the C200 in the sample you have? There was at least one review where they didn't and there was a lot of shadow noise and they kind of discovered black balance at the end and said they'd have to reshoot, but what they posted wasn't black balanced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #153  
    Senior Member Michael Sandiford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Between Arizona and Hereoford
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    The UMP nails colors ?
    You must be joking.
    I am a colorist and I cannot tell you how many times I get BMD footage that just stinks.
    If you consider cyan skies and pastel crossover nailing colors then I guess it is king for you.
    I have never seen such "thin" color. There are real issues with it's gamut and saturation capacities.
    If there is one thing BMD needs to work on , it happens to be it's color science. Across the board.
    First colourist I've heard say this. Most I know praise Blackmagic's colour science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #154  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sandiford View Post
    First colourist I've heard say this. Most I know praise Blackmagic's colour science.
    my colorist didnt think a lot of my ursa files but prasied the c300 mkii files, which he rated better than red, just short of the alexa. he said the canon was far better straight off the bat, and had excellent highlight roll off and skin tones. i know this isnt the c200, but i am sure teh c200 will have similar, possibly better results than the c300mkii (due to shooting raw and a newer sensor)

    paul
    Paul Ross Jones


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

  5. #155  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sandiford View Post
    First colourist I've heard say this. Most I know praise Blackmagic's colour science.
    I feel like Blackmagic's is definitely different, and that's part of what appeals to some people (me included), but then others, not so much.

    Where-as Canon's is more of a safe, universally loved style.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #156  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Sandiford View Post
    First colourist I've heard say this. Most I know praise Blackmagic's colour science.
    Well every colorist I know feels the same. There are issues all over the gamut. The color is thin and falls apart even from Raw. Most of what I see here are slightly desaturated images, which users here now feel is normal or "real". But the images are actually quite dull. This is not a style thing. It is a problem that issues from color depth, or rather the lack of it in certain parts of the spectrum and the way the sensors are responding and mapped. The truth is there is crossover when balancing out skies that remain persistently cyan rather than blue, causing other parts of the spectrum to distort when corrected. I can spot a video shot outside on a BM camera from a mile away because of it for instance. Skin tones also often lack nuance which shows up as a lack of saturation in the cheeks, the lips or if someone blushes...so people become sallow with a single wash of color, rather than having true seperation of skin tones.


    I said it before and I will say it again, BM needs to continue evolving its color science. They seem to have been sitting on their hands when it comes to this vital aspect of their imaging pipeline from sensor to final output.
    Last edited by yoclay; 11-09-2017 at 06:58 AM.
    If I wanted my films to look like the real world I'd buy a video camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    BM needs to continue evolving its color science. They seem to have been sitting on their hands when it comes to this vital aspect of their imaging pipeline from sensor to final output.
    Agreed+++

    I'm curious why isn't there a color response test performed on camera sensors? For audio speakers you have a "frequency response graph", for lights you have wavelength/intensity graph, so why isn't there a similar graphs for camera sensors (or for cameras output footage)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #158  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by yoclay View Post
    Well every colorist I know feels the same. There are issues all over the gamut. The color is thin and falls apart even from Raw. Most of what I see here are slightly desaturated images, which users here now feel is normal or "real". But the images are actually quite dull. This is not a style thing. It is a problem that issues from color depth, or rather the lack of it in certain parts of the spectrum and the way the sensors are responding and mapped. The truth is there is crossover when balancing out skies that remain persistently cyan rather than blue, causing other parts of the spectrum to distort when corrected. I can spot a video shot outside on a BM camera from a mile away because of it for instance. Skin tones also often lack nuance which shows up as a lack of saturation in the cheeks, the lips or if someone blushes...so people become sallow with a single wash of color, rather than having true seperation of skin tones.


    I said it before and I will say it again, BM needs to continue evolving its color science. They seem to have been sitting on their hands when it comes to this vital aspect of their imaging pipeline from sensor to final output.
    This is a complete contradiction to my experiences. Many colorists and cinematographers praise Blackmagic's color science. In fact one of the biggest things that won me over with Blackmagic was how great its skin tones look.

    If you look at all the C200 footage out there you'll find sallow skin tones and cyan skins on most of it, with the best looking skins tones sacrificing the greens (especially foliage that turn yellow or brown). Sony's sub-10k cameras are even worse. The only time I see yellow or greenish skin tones on Blackmagic footage is on footage obviously not color corrected for accuracy (or just flat out poorly graded). Most properly graded Ursa Mini 4.6K/Pro footage has beautiful robust skin.

    You seem to be basing your conclusion on what you see people post, but you need to take into account that BM offers the most affordable RAW to those who are still learning. RAW is not something that can shine in the hands of a newbie, but most BM footage comes from newbies. If you put the Ursa Mini 4.6K/Pro in the hands of a cinematographer & colorists who knows what they are doing then it'll shine right next to the likes of Arri Alexa. It's not perfect, but I've yet to see a sub-10K camera that can match it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #159  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,748
    You can have gamut charts that show the total range captured, but what’s being talked about here is the discrimination with certain tones.

    I have had none of the problems being mentioned here. I have worked with many senior colourists from the bigger end of town. My last show was Light Iron and the current show is CO3 with the big man himself.

    What I commonly see with colourists is an initial struggle to deal with the material, typically because many colourists have a set of pre-baked recipes and LUTs that they use for speed and process. They often struggle to match the shots to scenes that have Alexa and I can usually pick those shots.

    Then, usually by the second or third episode, they start nailing those grades, now I can’t pick the shots in the scene. The only way I can is because the Ursa is usually sharper.

    Then by ep5 I start hearing that they are liking the way the shots grade and sit. Eventually they get scenes I’ve shot entirely with the 4.6k and all of a sudden they’re not beholden to making it look like another camera. And they start to say they like it.

    On my last show, the colourist started saying he PREFFERED Ursa in low light / night shots.

    This is my experience working with many different post facilities, many colourists, in many countries.

    Colour science isn’t real. Well it’s not a real thing. There’s no colour science. There are SUBJECTIVE judgements about reproducing colour. Mostly we don’t want what’s real, because that’s visually boring. What we do want is malleability, robustness of image fidelity.

    If you want to chart accurate colours, that’s what a colour chart does. It’s a known reference, you can photograph it next to other cameras and you can compare colour reproduction.

    I don’t know any serious cinematographer that wants what an accurate colour reproduction of a colour chart ends up looking like for their final grade though.

    In my view, like film stocks, no camera is accurate. They all have a personality. One you choose for certain jobs or not.

    If all cameras were accurate then they’d all the look the same.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #160  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    218
    Good discussion. Reminds me a bit of modern lenses vs "vintage"/older lenses, honestly. Modern lenses are getting crystal clear, flat, and sharp images with little CA and distortion. They're only going to get better. This doesn't mean old lenses aren't needed anymore. Calling them "inferior" has both objective (it could be argued modern lenses are producing an image with greater fidelity and are therefore "better", esp when it comes to putting measurements into the mix) and subjective reasoning.
    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
  •