or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Blackmagic Does It Again!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blackmagic Does It Again! - Page 3

post #61 of 133
yes, you dont need to go that expensive, but cheap its not the way to go either, otherwise this camera will be just a gimmick for you to play sometimes.

you will need a good QUADRO. normal GPU's are not enough to really work with that camera. the point is, if you have a blackmagic with all that dynamic range, you HAVE to post process. Heavily! if you dont want to post process you are good to go with a normal AVCHD camcorder. I have the latest core i7, overclocked, A LOT of RAM and good GPU's. When I post process my AVCHD videos a lot, sometimes I can take more than one day to render/export a video. Imagine doing that in a less compressed file with more DR. its only viable if you are going to do a video once in a year, and it will be hard to work with live previews, even downscaling the quality.

And if you are thinking of getting the most of it, you will want to unsharpen sometimes, color grade, correct the lumma, rgb curves etc and export with high bitrates, high profile, high levels, a good encoding pass etc . Then my friend, prepare to see your video in some weeks!

Even the prores file is heavy if you want to post process a lot. If your thing is just cut, join, fade, soundtrack etc. thats probably not the camera you want
post #62 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfws View Post

The pocket cinema camera looks great and I'm sure it will take great video. but some things I am thinking about it...

It requires the fast 64GB SDXC cards that run anywhere from $125 to $140 each. How much time is each card going to give you; 10 to 15 minutes? If you're doing anything serious, you would probably have to buy many of these cards to swap out. You could offload onto a laptop, but carrying a laptop defeats the purpose of a compact camera. Plus, how long will the offloading take? That would seem disruptive.
It depends on if you're recording RAW or ProRes. Vastly different files sizes. You'll get way more with ProRes and still be using a far superior codec and bitrate than you'd normally get. The regular RAW from the BMCC records about 30 minutes to 256GB SSD, but it's also higher resolution at 2.5k and uncompressed RAW, so we'll have to wait to find out the details I assume. I'd be at least
Quote:
Will the compressed RAW or ProRes span the 64GB card and get divided into sixteen 4gb chunks that need to be stitched back together every time for each card, like AVCHD? (I don't know/asking).
Honestly not sure on that, but I would think not.
Quote:
Will you need a high spec PC system and/or powerful graphics card to handle these files?
It would be wise. I have color graded and a clip with Adobe After Effects using Adobe Camera RAW for grading on my Athlon Phenom II 810 Quadcore 2.6GHz with 1TB and built in ATI HD3200 graphics card. Wasn't super fast, but I got it done. I think a good i5 or i7 with a $200-$300 graphics card would be decent. At least 16GB DDR3 Memory. I'm going to go with a GTX 660TI graphics card. DaVinci Resolve likes plenty of Cuda Cores. It also works better if you have two graphics cards not SLI'd. So one for teh GUI and one for the GPU processing the video files. It's not a must, but would help. However, I think I may stick with Adobe Camera RAW for awhile.
Quote:
With all of this data, you would have to buy +terabyte hard drives. If you want to save the data for any extended period of time, you would have to use those drives for any given project, plus backup drives for those files, then buy even more terabyte drives to continue using the camera for present projects. I may have left out other considerations, if someone else wants to add to this.
BD-Rs (Blank Blu-Ray Discs) are a great high capacity cheap storage solution. 23.5 GBs of storage for about $0.75. Or you can use a dual layer disc. Of course I plan to have a 2TB hard drive and at 2TB or more second drive, but will also backup some files to BD-Rs. It really depends on how much you record and keep. Best thing to do if you plan to keep it for awhile is grade the footage and get it into a good codec non RAW format so the file size will shrink dramatically.
Quote:
I guess it's not a big deal if you have the money and/or you're getting compensated, but it's technically not a $1000 camera when you consider the cards and storage.
Yeah, the people these cameras are truly marketed towards should already know this and expect this, but hey when you have a $3,000 or $10,000 camera of similar specs guess what that means? It's not a $3,000 or $10,000 camera when you add the rest of the stuff. So, $995 is a much better starting place. Either way, when you get it up and running you have a beast of a camera better than the rest near itss price, especially for narrative filmmaking.

But then again you do not have to use RAW. 10-Bit ProRes with Film Log high dynamic range is NOTHING to scoff at. Sony charged nearly $4,000 for SLOG feature in their Sony F3. A $4,000 firmware update to get 2 extra stops of latitude. This camera has that already built in for free. These other DSLR cameras trying to fake S-LOG with CineStyle, etc, are poor imitations of S-LOG.

Don't get me wrong, this camera looks cool...for me I don't think it's a replacement for the GH2/GH3.[/quote]
post #63 of 133
For me who cant seem to render lossless quaulity from my normal avchd footage to BD without losing qualityon all the software i have[not up to using real pro softwares] i think the raw cinema camera footage would be a nightmare.
post #64 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

You don't need a card that expensive. Plenty of users get by with a $200-$400 card just fine or using two......just not SLI'd. SLI is not the way to go if you're using DaVinci Resolve. However, I prefer Adobe Canon RAW for grading. It seems to do a better job at recovering highlight and shadows for some reason.
This was posted by someone who purchased the 4K display :
Quote:
Cheapest setup possible- AMD 7970 and single HDMI cable on WIndows XP... Who needs displayport or HDMI 2 or thuinderbolt, when HDMI 1.4a will do for film and photo editing today at this low cost?
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/6658/1299-uhdtv-seiki-50-se50uy04-


But DaVinci Resolve 9 only works with Nvidia cards.
post #65 of 133
I have a notebook with two 7970M AMD in crossfire. You cant even use them in premiere pro. He will be sad to know that he wont be able to use it in Resolve, unless someone makes a hack for that. The AMD is a great card, but again. For editing videos, QUADRO is the way to go.
post #66 of 133
The mobile version 7970M (3,777 benchmark) is not as fast as the desktop 7970 version (5,027 ).
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
post #67 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

For me who cant seem to render lossless quaulity from my normal avchd footage to BD without losing qualityon all the software i have[not up to using real pro softwares] i think the raw cinema camera footage would be a nightmare.
Why? You still start off with a way higher quality images with much much higher dynamic range. Better to have a slight loss in resolution from an extremely high quality cinema footage than a typical average AVCHD footage with probably 8 or 9 stops of dynamic range (if that). Not sure if this was directed at my post above or not about burning to BD-Rs, but I was referring to storing the files (RAW, uncompressed or compressed) for PC, not for play on Blu-Ray players. However, assuming playing on Blu-Ray is the goal, have you been using single or dual layered BD-Rs when making a Blu-Ray? I don't see what makes the RAW cinema a nightmare in comparison when burning to Blu-Ray comared to AVCHD aside from processing time, because it's always better to start with the highest of quality image to begin with, even if there is a slight reduction from the original quality, which would mostly probably be in the resolution department. Obviously there will be a bit of resolution loss going from 2.5k to 1080p, but that's to be expected. I'd work on checking out the bitrate settings and of course you'll get higher bit rate settings with dual layer discs.
post #68 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

The mobile version 7970M (3,777 benchmark) is not as fast as the desktop 7970 version (5,027 ).
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

7970M in crossfire is better than one desktop 7970 or gtx680
post #69 of 133
First home movie shot with the BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera. Shot by John Brawley in ProRes HQ mode:

http://vimeo.com/64693161
post #70 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

First home movie shot with the BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera. Shot by John Brawley in ProRes HQ mode:

http://vimeo.com/64693161
I wonder how that would compare with the GH3 using the same 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic zoom.
post #71 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

First home movie shot with the BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera. Shot by John Brawley in ProRes HQ mode:

http://vimeo.com/64693161

TBH, looks pretty average.
post #72 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfws View Post

TBH, looks pretty average.

Well, it wasn't RAW mode, but can still be graded in many different ways to look wildly different, which is what is great about even ProRes HQ. It's very high bitrate, so you have much greater freedom in post to get whatever look you desire. You can push and pull the shadows, midtones, highlights and colors much further than you can with 8-bit dslr footage. I know because I have graded DSLR footage, RAW BMCC DNGs as well as the Flat ProRes HQ files. This is the look his personal colorist chose. I personally grade differently, but in that harsh lighting ratio a DSLR's dynamic range would have fallen apart in that brutal Aussie direct sun. The Pocket Cinema held nicely onto the shadows in a very intense lighting ratio.
Edited by MTyson - 4/25/13 at 12:12am
post #73 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

I wonder how that would compare with the GH3 using the same 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic zoom.

GH3 would have a wider angle with the same lens. The main difference would be dynamic range. The GH3 would crush shadows and highlights much easier and more brutally in lighting where the highlight to shadow lighting ratio exceeds its dynamic range capacity. Also, the GH3 doesn't give you any kind of log flat footage for post grading, so you can't change it nearly as much in post for the look you desire. There's a reason why Sony charged Sony F3 owners $3,000 for an S-LOG firmware upgrade. It gave the owners a very flat picture profile to work with in post instead of a pre-baked image that can be pushed nearly as far in post. Not only that, but it extended dynamic range by 2 stops. The freedom you have in post with S-LOG footage and RAW is simply on another level.
post #74 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

Why? You still start off with a way higher quality images with much much higher dynamic range. Better to have a slight loss in resolution from an extremely high quality cinema footage than a typical average AVCHD footage with probably 8 or 9 stops of dynamic range (if that). Not sure if this was directed at my post above or not about burning to BD-Rs, but I was referring to storing the files (RAW, uncompressed or compressed) for PC, not for play on Blu-Ray players. However, assuming playing on Blu-Ray is the goal, have you been using single or dual layered BD-Rs when making a Blu-Ray? I don't see what makes the RAW cinema a nightmare in comparison when burning to Blu-Ray comared to AVCHD aside from processing time, because it's always better to start with the highest of quality image to begin with, even if there is a slight reduction from the original quality, which would mostly probably be in the resolution department. Obviously there will be a bit of resolution loss going from 2.5k to 1080p, but that's to be expected. I'd work on checking out the bitrate settings and of course you'll get higher bit rate settings with dual layer discs.
To be honest i agree with XFWS about the film,the footage i get from my current Canon camcorder is great,better than my GH2 by a large margin,and i may finaly have software that makes BDs without loss,good luck with your cinema camera one day i may have to venture in that direction .
post #75 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfws View Post

TBH, looks pretty average.

Turns out the original was bitten by the 264 gamma bug and had to be re-uploaded (at the same link). I knew something didn't look right about the white bug car highlights the way the whole thing glowed. Figured it was just a grading stylistic choice. Of course many different looks can be obtained from such an film log falt profile, but I think it looks much better now that the highlight error has been corrected. The dynamic range is gorgeous. Clearly puts DSLRs and Camcorders to shame in harsh lighting ratios. In the same situation any consumer camcorder would have have massive blown highlights all in order to expose for the shaded areas. That Aussie sun is intense.
post #76 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

To be honest i agree with XFWS about the film,the footage i get from my current Canon camcorder is great,better than my GH2 by a large margin,and i may finaly have software that makes BDs without loss,good luck with your cinema camera one day i may have to venture in that direction .

Which Canon do you use? Doesn't surprise me, the Gh2's weak point is dynamic range and why I haven't been nearly as impressed with it as most have.....although apparently shadow details can be saved in post for a much better look.

Check out the video again. The 264 gamma bug had to be corrected and it looks much better now, especially the way that white bug vehicle was glowing all over. The dynamic range even in ProRes HQ is very nice and clearly far superior to any camcorder/dslr in harsh lighting scenarios such as a harsh Australian sun beaming down onto a very shaded area. A camcorder wouldn't have been able to handle that harsh uncontrolled lighting scenario without either highly underexposing the shaded area along with the people or highly overexposed and blowing out most of the highlights. That was a very high lighting ratio that I think some may not realize.

Of course you can still get many different looks since you start out with such a flat film log profile and not a baked in look like with a camcorder, but it's much better now that the gamma bug was corrected and re-uploded. I figured that original look was simply a stylistic grading choice. When I get mine I will film some A/B dynamic range comparisons against a popular DLSR to show how large the difference really is in harsh uncontrolled lighting scenarios. smile.gif Personally, I'd like to play around with the log footage to try different looks of my own.
post #77 of 133
Thread Starter 
MTyson - thanks for posting John's test footage. I finally got a chance to look at it, and it is fabulous. The Dynamic Range from the $1000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is clearly wider and more "film like" than any 8 bit consumer camcorder or DSL camera (even my $1300 GH3). Case in point - see the blown-out backgrounds/skies in this otherwise wonderful little GH3 test film:

Or this Canon HF G10 test:

The BPCC delivers a very similar look to the 16mm film cameras I shot with in the 70s - at a much lower price in 1970s dollars - with internal sound recording, lens stabilization, focus peaking and a headphone jack - and without the hassle and expense of film. I just pre-ordered my BPCC from Adorama!

Looking forward to what this little camera can do when it gets the CinemaDNG RAW upgrade.

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution
Edited by brunerww - 4/26/13 at 3:19am
post #78 of 133
The Blackmagic pocket camera is designed to control the micro 4/3 lenses. From the Blackmagic web site:

"...use commonly available low cost Micro Four Thirds lenses and more. With full electronic control of your lens, you can simply point and set iris all on command!"

Question: Is it able to autofocus with these lenses? I assume you can manually control the focus (using the electronic connection to the lens) via the camera's menu & peaking function, but I can't find any info on autofocus control.

Thanks, Alan.
post #79 of 133
The Pocket cam will not be able to autofocus or perform automatic distortion correction.
post #80 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

MTyson - thanks for posting John's test footage. I finally got a chance to look at it, and it is fabulous. The Dynamic Range from the $1000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is clearly wider and more "film like" than any 8 bit consumer camcorder or DSL camera (even my $1300 GH3). Case in point - see the blown-out backgrounds/skies in this otherwise wonderful little GH3 test film:

Or this Canon HF G10 test:

The BPCC delivers a very similar look to the 16mm film cameras I shot with in the 70s - at a much lower price in 1970s dollars - with internal sound recording, lens stabilization, focus peaking and a headphone jack - and without the hassle and expense of film. I just pre-ordered my BPCC from Adorama!

Looking forward to what this little camera can do when it gets the CinemaDNG RAW upgrade.

Cheers,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

Completely agree. There is simply no comparison in dynamic range in any type of harsh lighting condition. I pre-ordered four. biggrin.gif Planning to do some dynamic range comparisons when I get one. The G10 looks like it has decent dynamic range for a camcorder. Looked like it had better DR than the GH3. Could be wrong, but it appeared that way. The BMPCC though would have held more detail in the highlights as well as a less dark shadow area....as well as much more freedom grading in post.
post #81 of 133
We are lucky to have such a great choice of cameras and camcorders,please dont start on about film though,i have yet to see great standard 16mm footage,super 16mm is a lot better but the utter bias spoken at times like on here http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58432makes my blood boil,The super 16mm is not up to BBC standard even.
post #82 of 133
Thread Starter 
It may not be good enough for the BBC, but Super 16 is good enough for the kind of narrative and doc work I want to do. After years of trying to get digital to look like film, this is the look I'm hoping to get from the BPCC (both shot in super 16):

High/Low (Narrative):
Long Live the Kings (Doc):
No, the resolution isn't the greatest, but it is what I expect to see when someone says they're going to show me a "film" smile.gif
post #83 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

We are lucky to have such a great choice of cameras and camcorders,please dont start on about film though,i have yet to see great standard 16mm footage,super 16mm is a lot better but the utter bias spoken at times like on here http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58432makes my blood boil,The super 16mm is not up to BBC standard even.


Industry galvanises to save 16mm :

http://www.imago.org/index.php?new=434
post #84 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

super 16mm is a lot better but the utter bias spoken at times like on here http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58432makes my blood boil,The super 16mm is not up to BBC standard even.

While I would prefer to shoot digital Super 16mm can look superb. The Walking Dead is a great example of that. And Super 16mm topped the Red MX in an Alexa, Red MX and Super 16mm Dynamic Range tests. From what I've read Super 16mm was banned by BBC due to the grain causing the HD Mpeg compression to fall apart. Of course this has nothing to do with the actual quality or look of Super 16mm itself, but more the compression for broadcast used.

Here's the Alexa, Red MX and Super 16mm Dynamic Range test: http://vimeo.com/24345144#
post #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

It may not be good enough for the BBC, but Super 16 is good enough for the kind of narrative and doc work I want to do. After years of trying to get digital to look like film, this is the look I'm hoping to get from the BPCC (both shot in super 16):

High/Low (Narrative):
Long Live the Kings (Doc):
No, the resolution isn't the greatest, but it is what I expect to see when someone says they're going to show me a "film" smile.gif

The better the dynamic range and the color science the easier it is to make it look more like film. The BMCC and BMPC are said to be near neck and neck with the Alexa in both regards. The Alexa has slightly better dynamic range though. Also Film Convert uses real film scans to convert your footage to different film stocks to get the same colors (grain as well, if you want) and such. So, that's something to look into. It really comes down to post grading as well though. You end up with a wide range to work with, so it's about getting similar tones. A lot of people tend to grade their videos in a way that only makes it look less film like.
post #86 of 133
Well i will never the like grainy look fo 16mm,in the test the operator got the wb wrong in places on the video cameras but overall all they were far better than the super16mm clips.
Personaly i see why the beeb wont except it Film grain is noise, potentially quite a lot of noise - often an amount of noise that we wouldn't even think about accepting from a newly designed system.
https://vimeo.com/60881353#at=0 films by Dan are just better than film imo but look better downloaded.
Edited by flintyplus - 4/28/13 at 12:51am
post #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Well i will never the like grainy look fo 16mm,in the test the operator got the wb wrong in places on the video cameras but overall all they were far better than the super16mm clips.
Personaly i see why the beeb wont except it Film grain is noise, potentially quite a lot of noise - often an amount of noise that we wouldn't even think about accepting from a newly designed system.
https://vimeo.com/60881353#at=0 films by Dan are just better than film imo but look better downloaded.

For me, the very first shot of the white window, the Alexa and Super 16m both easily beat the Red MX; It lost all detail in the window and looked much more videoy and less cinematic by comparison. Some of the other comparisons were closer though, but I like to see how they handle tough dynamic range stress tests without adding a light setup. Alexa overall is the best. Super 16mm had the best skin tones...as expected. The grain I didn't find too objectionable and I've never been a fan of film grain like some film enthusiasts. Not sure why they didn't adjust the white balance since both shoot RAW and white balance is meaningless and can be adjust in post with RAW.

There's just something about the tones and look of the Super 16mm that looks wonderfully cinematic, but I would run it through NeatVideo. And BBC isn't accepting Super 16mm not because of the grain itself, but how the grain causes the Mpeg compression to fall apart. However, I think NeatVideo could take care of that issue. I'm anxious to see how the Scarlet/Epic Dragon compare. Should be the ultimate king of cinema cameras with its unrivaled 16.5+ stops of dynamic range, new much improved color science and super high sensitvity/base ISO of 2000. Wish I could buy one, but would set me back about 27,000-$30,000 for a Scarlet Dragon ready to shoot.

There's some really good looking scenes in the Gh3 video at the beginning especially (partly thanks to the polarizer that makes lovely blues in the sky), but plenty of scenes I don't think even remotely compare to film, such as when the people began walking through the camera. it was downhill from there. eek.gif That part screamed video. Most of the parts with people just didn't have the dynamic range I crave and looked way too contrasty, which looks very brutal/harsh and videoy to me. I hate that with a passion. Look at the scene where they're standing by the creek and the sun is beaming down on them. Look how dark that shadow is on her face from the bill of her hat and the guy in the creek is even worse, almost solid black. That whole scene is in desperate need of a Shadows & Highlights filter to minimize it, but even that would only help out a little without some fill light. When I see something like that and know that's not even close to how my eyes would see the dynamic range it just bugs me. The BMCC or Super 16mm would have both had a much smoother gradient and less brutal shadows, which makes a massive difference and is a huge part of the reason why movies look like movies and video cameras look like video.
Edited by MTyson - 4/28/13 at 3:51pm
post #88 of 133
The hacked GH2 is the best bang for the buck IMHO.

post #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

For me, the very first shot of the white window, the Alexa and Super 16m both easily beat the Red MX; It lost all detail in the window and looked much more videoy and less cinematic by comparison. Some of the other comparisons were closer though, but I like to see how they handle tough dynamic range stress tests without adding a light setup. Alexa overall is the best. Super 16mm had the best skin tones...as expected. The grain I didn't find too objectionable and I've never been a fan of film grain like some film enthusiasts. Not sure why they didn't adjust the white balance since both shoot RAW and white balance is meaningless and can be adjust in post with RAW.

There's just something about the tones and look of the Super 16mm that looks wonderfully cinematic, but I would run it through NeatVideo. And BBC isn't accepting Super 16mm not because of the grain itself, but how the grain causes the Mpeg compression to fall apart. However, I think NeatVideo could take care of that issue. I'm anxious to see how the Scarlet/Epic Dragon compare. Should be the ultimate king of cinema cameras with its unrivaled 16.5+ stops of dynamic range, new much improved color science and super high sensitvity/base ISO of 2000. Wish I could buy one, but would set me back about 27,000-$30,000 for a Scarlet Dragon ready to shoot.

There's some really good looking scenes in the Gh3 video at the beginning especially (partly thanks to the polarizer that makes lovely blues in the sky), but plenty of scenes I don't think even remotely compare to film, such as when the people began walking through the camera. it was downhill from there. eek.gif That part screamed video. Most of the parts with people just didn't have the dynamic range I crave and looked way too contrasty, which looks very brutal/harsh and videoy to me. I hate that with a passion. Look at the scene where they're standing by the creek and the sun is beaming down on them. Look how dark that shadow is on her face from the bill of her hat and the guy in the creek is even worse, almost solid black. That whole scene is in desperate need of a Shadows & Highlights filter to minimize it, but even that would only help out a little without some fill light. When I see something like that and know that's not even close to how my eyes would see the dynamic range it just bugs me. The BMCC or Super 16mm would have both had a much smoother gradient and less brutal shadows, which makes a massive difference and is a huge part of the reason why movies look like movies and video cameras look like video.

We will never agree,when i see programns on the beeb or any HD channel now shot on video and compare it to the same programns that were first shot on film especialy super16mm but bradcast in HD the quality is so much better now its a huge relief,i just dont like film the cinematic look has always been false,ps admit it you have a thing about the Pana GH range wink.gif,when i changed from a canon 550D to my GH2 the difference in video quality was BIG now i rarely use it as i prefer a camcorder,we all like different things but it does not meen we are necessary right.
post #90 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

The hacked GH2 is the best bang for the buck IMHO.


The Gh2 is a very good bang for the buck for sure (especially under controlled lighting circumstances), but that particular video while some of it looks good & it's nicely detailed the video only goes to show me why me and many filmmakers want these BlackMagic Cameras to begin with instead of these DSLRs....dynamic range. The dynamic range in many parts of that video looks atrocious and looks like about 5 or 6 stops. Check out 8:23. The forest behind the river is completely black. Terrible....just terrible. Of course this could be the post grading, but I can't imagine why someone would crush all shadow detail to black. Maybe some of it could have been saved with shadow recovery in post, but as it is in that video is simply dreadful. Yes, it's vivid, high in contrast and pops with vibrant color at time, but the shadows are crushed into oblivion. If you threw a human being in that video I would bet my life they'd be underexposed and have super dark harsh brutal shadows on them, much like that last video of the people at the canyons that flinty posted. On that video the skies, thanks to the polarizer, looked gorgeous, but once the people came into the frame it just was downhill and screamed "Video" with the poor dynamic range. Of course I think in some of those examples the grading could improve the picture a lot unless the shadows were truly crushed beyond recovery.

I would consider a Gh2 for filming, but I'd be very careful about putting it in a high contrast uncontrolled lighting condition and I'd really try in post to save the shadows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Blackmagic Does It Again!