Thread: Make BMPCC4K truely Cinematic

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 82
  1. #21  
    @GeranSimpson thanks ! Yes it would be useful for me and everybody here if you can share this lut or some luts from different matches !

    @Chris Adler nop. Iphone definitively can't do cinematic images for my eyes.

    @alex.stefani thanks. The ursa is for me too heavy. I do art film and I m travelling a lot so it's neither fiction neither documentary. I have a blackmagic pocket v1 which is, like the BMCC or the BMPC4k (the production camera) really great, really cinematic. I really prefer the images out of the box from these cameras instead of the new BMPCC4K. But I ordered one (I will receive it tomorrow I think) because of few very useful features for my use: sound capabilities (the old blackmagic cameras have to be recorded separately because of noise floor which is in certain situation for my work pretty annoying), the good screen (with lut) and low light (even if that s not super important for me). I don't really care about 4k, for instance. And the most important for me is the sound capabilities in comparison with the first BMPCC. But if the price for me to get that is to never find again this super cinematic image I got on the BMPCC v1 that really a pity.. that s why, if I can't find that image from the new one I will send back the camera and continue with my BMPCC even if the sound have to be recorded separately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    What do you think of the filter from tiffen "digital diffusion" which don't milk the highlights like blackpromist does?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,180
    Ali, I'm in the same boat. I'd love my original BMPCC to be in 4K, but the BMPCC4K cannot deliver that out of the box. The Fairchild sensor and color science of the original Pocket is different to the BMPCC4K sensor, AFAIK Sony. During 80's and 90's, especially japanese companies strived for perfect reproduction of reality, starting with the design of their lenses and later with digital sensors. The success of Arri's digital cinema cameras in the past century is rooted in Arri's decision to set a different goal than reproduction of reality, and that is the goal of being aesthetic. One is trying to capture reality as clean as possible, the other is trying to be the equivalent of a painting. Theoretically, shooting the BMPCC4K in raw should leave enough headroom to tweak it becoming close to the feel of an Alexa, but it takes a lot of fine tuning of colors and the way shadows as well as highlights transition with midtones. There is a reason Arri can call the magic mojo for more than a decade their own. I do believe with some tweaking the P4K can have an aesthetic, and so 'cinematic', image.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    @stip thanks ! Have you succeed, or do you just believe it s possible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    12
    I would say try some lenses with a little character. The pocket can push some great images. IMO most canon glass is pretty neutral and bland (and most of what I own is canon glass). I would say try some old vintage glass like the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8, or one of the radiated super takumar 50mm 1.4, contax zeiss, or something of the like. Another option is to try something like a Tiffen low con or ultra con. I personally don't like how the black pro mist blooms highlights. Another thing from the links you posted, it might have to do with the higher dr of the ump and alexa mini. With regards to the tint it hasn't been much of an issue for me, especially with BRAW. A lot of cameras tend to render one way or the other. Keep a color card on hand when shooting and then use it to normalize your colors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by aliochaaliocha View Post
    i can really say which on is Ursa/Alexa and which one is BMPCC4k in 1/4s.
    At the risk of sounding unhelpful, one obvious reason for this is because the different shots have been labelled. I wonder if you might be allowing yourself to slip into confirmation bias?

    You haven't even received the camera yet, but you seem anxious about whether or not it will allow you to achieve a very broad aim, which is more of an aspirational idea than a problem which can be solved by getting the right camera.

    If the ambition is to have a technical role among a larger team, it might make sense to be the person who explores the shrinking differences between camera images. But if you're a solo-shooter making experimental work as you travel, surely it would be better to spend time finding compelling people, locations and events? I think the margin of difference between the Alexa and P4K examples above is small enough to be insignificant for everything but high-end work. To put this another way, thinking 'my camera can look a bit like an Alexa - I've solved the camera decision, now I need to get on with using it' is a more positive and productive mindset than 'my camera still doesn't look quite like an Alexa'.

    The footage we see online is often shot by tech-enthusiasts with a large YouTube following, who do a great job, but who shoot whatever is around them that weekend - the local park, a long-suffering partner, their dog, the local high street, etc. These things are unlikely to ever seem cinematic. And maybe that's fine? Maybe 'video' is a good look for... video?
    Last edited by Ben; 04-13-2019 at 02:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    @Ben effectively you are not helpful at all.
    - if you think I can recognise which camera is which because it is labelled, you really think I m stupid which is not a positive way of thinking (if that s still what you are claiming for the other)
    - if you read the previous posts, the question is not about the difference with an Alexa but with the previous models of BM (BMPCC, BMPC4K, BMCC, BMMCC) and about a very filmic respond, something more organic. I'm not a technician and that s why I m posting a question on this forum: I m asking for some recommendations to have this same look on the new BMPCC4K, some advises (like vintages lenses, diffusion filter, and maybe some others things). I don't take a lot of time for that, don t be anxious about my time, keep your anxiety for yourself and your own relation to your work.
    - you can show me any footage from the first BMPCC, BMCC, BMPC4K, or the digital Bolex as well on YouTube (dogs ; babies, anything) I will say you in 90% of the case "wow I like that"
    And that s the exact opposite for the new BMPCC4k I will say you in 90% of the case (even things from short film with lightings) "huh, that s too sharp, very video, I don't like that". I m just trying to understand why and if that's just a question of color grading, lenses, filters or if the sensor itself is not for me..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    445
    I will say that being sharp is typically better than being stuck in an organic look. You can always make a sharp, clean image look more organic. You can't usually make a sensor like the Micro or Pocket HD look clean and technical. I even have trouble sometimes with the Production 4K not being "clean" enough because of its noise and light sensitivity. Too dark, and noise everywhere. Use a lot of lights and it becomes very easy to clip. My copy is even lucky enough to have no FPN.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben View Post
    At the risk of sounding unhelpful, one obvious reason for this is because the different shots have been labelled. I wonder if you might be allowing yourself to slip into confirmation bias?

    You haven't even received the camera yet, but you seem anxious about whether or not it will allow you to achieve a very broad aim, which is more of an aspirational idea than a problem which can be solved by getting the right camera.

    If the ambition is to have a technical role among a larger team, it might make sense to be the person who explores the shrinking differences between camera images. But if you're a solo-shooter making experimental work as you travel, surely it would be better to spend time finding compelling people, locations and events? I think the margin of difference between the Alexa and P4K examples above is small enough to be insignificant for everything but high-end work. To put this another way, thinking 'my camera can look a bit like an Alexa - I've solved the camera decision, now I need to get on with using it' is a more positive and productive mindset than 'my camera still doesn't look quite like an Alexa'.

    The footage we see online is often shot by tech-enthusiasts with a large YouTube following, who do a great job, but who shoot whatever is around them that weekend - the local park, a long-suffering partner, their dog, the local high street, etc. These things are unlikely to ever seem cinematic. And maybe that's fine? Maybe 'video' is a good look for... video?
    I'm with you on this and don't think you sound unhelpful.

    I also think people need to start using "filmic" when they're saying "I want it to look like film" vs "cinematic". I honestly think it causes confusion and contention. Something being "cinematic" has little to do with looking like it was shot on film, IMO. Production design, as you mentioned, is more important, but even that takes a back seat to what is unique about cinema, as a medium: time x space. Where is the camera, how is it moving (or not moving), what is happening in the frame, etc. and over what course of time? This is what editors and directors mean when they say cinema has more in common with music than photography. I couldn't tell you if something looks "cinematic" based on a still. Mad Max: Fury Road is a beautiful movie, but you don't truly get a sense of how cinematic it is, how skillfully the frame is used, the crispy editing, etc. until you watch it. It's just a pretty still, otherwise.

    Minor aside, sorry. It's just where I am right now. Are there certain camera looks that I like a lot more than others? Of course! But I don't think your camera is the real limitation on why your images don't look "cinematic", 9/10. Citation needed, of course.

    Geran's matching looks great. I wouldn't be able to tell them apart, but maybe that would be different at full res without compression. I'm not a fan of how sharp the P4K can be, but that can be addressed.

    EDIT: Realizing these points have already been made in other ways by prior posts.
    Last edited by TravisA; 04-14-2019 at 10:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    972
    I try to think in terms of the end viewer and final delivery, at which point there is hardly any difference, assuming carefully shot in the same conditions. If anything the ursa is going to be better in documentary situations where the extra dynamic range will help uncontrolled lighting. When you have control 13 stops is more than enough, we had to deal with less than 10 for years and still deliver only 7 in rec709.

    I would think that someone with an eye acute enough to instantly spot the difference, should develop the skill create the look they want in resolve, that is why theycome with it. None of the blackmagic cameras get you all they way to the look in camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Tutorial: Cinematic look under 3 minutes
    By Allahkaram in forum Workflow
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2019, 06:01 PM
  2. Cinematic ord not cinematic?
    By Andi1 in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 05:01 AM
  3. Wow - really cinematic ProRes
    By Frank Glencairn in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 10:06 AM
  4. Tom Hooper & the Art of Cinematic Affectation
    By refocusedmedia in forum Cinematography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-15-2013, 02:19 AM
  5. The USB port, is it really truely a one trick poney?
    By imdjay in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-09-2012, 08:21 PM
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
  •