Comparing 3K and 2.5K IQ

[Mike P.]

Apparently the BMD cinema DNG "RAW" footage has white balance baked in, according to their website.
That's not what I understand by RAW - raw data from the sensor?

Do you have a link for that I can't find it. I think the only comparable camera out there is the ikonoskop (s16, shoots CinemaDNG... but is CCD) and that footage has WB adjust, but no ISO adjust (however it has a few different exposure adjustments... in fact the Adobe CS5.5 CinemaDNG adjustment applet looks almost identical to DSLR RAW adjustments sans post processing like sharpening, etc.) That said, as David Raspberry pointed out, the standard is open and these kinds of adjustments aren't mandatory to fall into spec. I'd be somewhat put off by not being able to fine tune WB in post.

I'm interested to see your tests too but the rolling shutter quick test I did at NAB turned me off completely from it. A SxS skew test would be interesting.

So much for the CCD blurb... All the John Brawley test footage is, essentially, locked off or has very little movement, so I couldn't tell.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

So much for the CCD blurb... All the John Brawley test footage is, essentially, locked off or has very little movement, so I couldn't tell.

Just to be clear that I'm not misleading you... this is the BM camera you're comparing it to right? In which case yes one of the NAB spokessuits told me it was a CMOS.

 

[Les Dittert]

I feel it could be more detailed.
A prominent Red employee told me at NAB that many Red users seek a softer image. I had to ask him to repeat that, I was a bit taken back.
I want to cross check with another camera to keep things 'real', as the kids would say.
I would also like to submit my camera to a still photo test site, such as DXO labs, Imaging resource or DP review.
Let them eval it as if it was a still camera. See where it lands.
Sharpening can only get you so far.

I plan to keep my two Scarlets. Just have to reality check sometimes.

Can't you just look at your 3k footage? Are you happy with it? Do you need confirmation that you are happy?

Not that there's anything wrong with ordering the 2.5k camera. Wouldn't mind having one myself.

 

[Elsie N]

I feel it could be more detailed.
A prominent Red employee told me at NAB that many Red users seek a softer image. I had to ask him to repeat that, I was a bit taken back.
I want to cross check with another camera to keep things 'real', as the kids would say.
I would also like to submit my camera to a still photo test site, such as DXO labs, Imaging resource or DP review.
Let them eval it as if it was a still camera. See where it lands.
Sharpening can only get you so far.

I plan to keep my two Scarlets. Just have to reality check sometimes.

Heh, heh, Just a difference in philosophy, I guess. I've lived by the warning that "figures don't lie, but liars figure." I've just chosen to trust my eyes.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Is this thread any less against the rules because we're not saying the camera's name? That's idiotic.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

CCD would not have rolling shutter 'jellying'. It's clear from most test footage from the BM camera that it has rolling shutter artifacting. It's a CMOS sensor.

 

[conrad gaunt]

cinemaDNG captures what the sensor captures, redcode raw (j2k) records a lossy version of what comes off the sensor

Maybe Red will enable lossless redcode soon, maybe not

Heres some differences anyway

-Redcode (jpeg2000):
.. is proprietory, in the sense that Red re-arrange the raw data to make it more jpeg2000/RAW friendly prior to compression
.. lower data rate, which allows for playback from slower devices
.. a partial inverse wavelet transformation can be performed which doesn't require all te data to be processed (or even red from disk), at various lower resolutions, so even slower devices than those mentioned above can playback redcode
.. Red will no doubt pay for jpeg2000 licensing which will be passed on to their customers
.. Is maybe not a good raw archive format long-term, since its proprietory nature always requires an uptodate SDK to be provided by red to un-rearrange the data correctly,

-CinemaDNG:
..is an open standard
..requires a higher data rate and therefore faster media (like a built in SSD)
..Doesn't cost anything for a company to implement CinemaDNG standard, so no licensing fees
..Is a good raw archive format

RAW Notes:
If its raw you can adjust white balance and gain, whatever you want. Hell, you can do these things in RGB space too, but your media needs to be three times faster to capture RGB data, and you need extra processing, and that consumes power, so.. whats the point, do it later.. the sensor only captures 1/3 as much data..

In post, assuming a random value is read from the sensor (or a file containing its contents), lets say 10 for simplicity.. here are some examples of things you can do to raw

ISO adjustment : 10 x 2 = 20
Increase gain : 10 x 2 = 20
Decrease gain : 10 / 2 = 10
FLUT : 10 x 2 = 19.995
Brightness adjust : 10 * 3 = 30
etc etc etc

GAIN=ISO=FLUT=JUST MANIPULATIONS OF BINARY NUMBERS .. just making a point raw is raw

Red handle gain digitally
Who knows what others will do

 

[nigelsmith]

Do you have a link for that I can't find it. I think the only comparable camera out there is the ikonoskop (s16, shoots CinemaDNG... but is CCD) and that footage has WB adjust, but no ISO adjust (however it has a few different exposure adjustments... in fact the Adobe CS5.5 CinemaDNG adjustment applet looks almost identical to DSLR RAW adjustments sans post processing like sharpening, etc.) That said, as David Raspberry pointed out, the standard is open and these kinds of adjustments aren't mandatory to fall into spec. I'd be somewhat put off by not being able to fine tune WB in post. So much for the CCD blurb... All the John Brawley test footage is, essentially, locked off or has very little movement, so I couldn't tell.

It came from John Brawley himself -
"Then of course, you can choose RAW. RAW simply means you get everything the camera produces. The only thing that’s baked into this file is the white balance point. "
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/

This puts me off too - I see it as a crucial part of the RAW workflow being able to fine tune white balance in post.

@ Conrad - your "RAW notes" regarding white balance is not factually correct - see David 's post above regarding D21 and ARRIRAW, as well as the above quote. There are a thousand different flavours of "RAW" - it is not a unified standard.

 

[David W. Jones]

It came from John Brawley himself -
"Then of course, you can choose RAW. RAW simply means you get everything the camera produces. The only thing that’s baked into this file is the white balance point. "
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/

This puts me off too - I see it as a crucial part of the RAW workflow being able to fine tune white balance in post.

@ Conrad - your "RAW notes" regarding white balance is not factually correct - see David 's post above regarding D21 and ARRIRAW, as well as the above quote. There are a thousand different flavours of "RAW" - it is not a unified standard.

Then again this camera is still in Beta stage and many features are not yet enabled.

To the OP... It's not the camera, it's the person behind it.

All the Best!

Dave

 

[Mike P.]

It came from John Brawley himself -
"Then of course, you can choose RAW. RAW simply means you get everything the camera produces. The only thing that’s baked into this file is the white balance point. "
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/

This puts me off too - I see it as a crucial part of the RAW workflow being able to fine tune white balance in post.

Thanks for the heads ups. He may mean that the CMOS is daylight/5600k balanced (just as MX is 5000k balanced... ...If not, hopefully it was locked simply because it's not final hardware (seems to me to be a perfect way to shoot yourself in the foot with RAW.)

 

[Dmitry Burenok]

Nothing to discuss unless BM release a APS-C size matrix camera.

2.4 CROP - YOU GONNA BE KIDDIN ME!!! YOu put a wrong mount, than.

Well, will see. 4K uncompressed RAW with big sensor at least - than we can do some comparison Until than - not interesting at all.

 

[Les Dittert]

What 'crop' would 16mm film be ? That is a very valid format.

As the OP, I am interested in the image quality with similar cropping on my Scarlets. Simple reality check is my goal.
A 2.5K camera is not in the same class as a 4k camera. Just like a 65mm film camera is not the same class as a 35mm , as a 16mm, as a 8mm film camera. But the resolved line pairs per mm on the film plane is an interesting comparison figure.

Nothing to discuss unless BM release a APS-C size matrix camera.

2.4 CROP - YOU GONNA BE KIDDIN ME!!! YOu put a wrong mount, than.

Well, will see. 4K uncompressed RAW with big sensor at least - than we can do some comparison Until than - not interesting at all.

 

[John Brawley]

It came from John Brawley himself -
"Then of course, you can choose RAW. RAW simply means you get everything the camera produces. The only thing that’s baked into this file is the white balance point. "
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/blackmagic-cinema-camera-lets-take-it-from-the-top/

This puts me off too - I see it as a crucial part of the RAW workflow being able to fine tune white balance in post.

@ Conrad - your "RAW notes" regarding white balance is not factually correct - see David 's post above regarding D21 and ARRIRAW, as well as the above quote. There are a thousand different flavours of "RAW" - it is not a unified standard.

Hi.

It used to be that the WB was baked into the DNG's. it's now no longer the case. BMD did it originally to speed up the DNG developing process, but they've now done the work to make it so it behaves as one would expect a RAW file to behave....WB is not baked in.

jb

 

[Christopher Mills]

about the 2.5K camera... and RedCineX

about the 2.5K camera... and RedCineX

Anyone been able to see if REDCINEX can process the BM files?
not sure this could even be done.. but I would love to see if the files could be treated like R3D files, making the BM camera another b or c camera option for a RED shoot..
ok... go ahead and tell me if I am being silly...

 

[Erich Ocean]

Raw is not an acronym. There is no reason to use all capital letters.

Sorry to go off topic, but that just bugs me. It's like you are shouting that one word - how annoying.

People capitalize RAW so that other people know what they're talking about -- that's the reason.

Last I checked, RED isn't an acronym either, but when I say I've got a RED camera, people know what I'm talking about, so I capitalize it.

 

[Nick Morrison]

For whatever it's worth, I've heard from a very reliable source at a VERY FAMOUS store in NYC (it will go unmentioned)...that the BM camera is NOT what it's cracked up to be. Apparently, the ROLLING SHUTTER is TERRIBLE. BM just don't know how to make a camera YET.

I'm sure the future is very bright for them, and I have to imagine for sit-down interviews this camera could be great....but for day in, day out, pro work...not so much...on this round.

Again, take this for whatever it's worth...in these early stages...of the BM experiment.