1/4/2024 0 Comments 5dtorgb gh2$6500, plus $350 for the recorder) OK but compare the total cost of ownership between similarly equipped units. Then you say, wait, that camera is more than double the price of the BMCC! ($3000 vs. Yes you will only get 11 stops of dynamic range that way, but most people I think will give up the stop in trade for the better low-light. That will yield direct-to-ProRes at 8 bit 4:2:2, and with a much larger and more light-sensitive sensor. This is well established now.īut Canon has a product the BMCC really ought to be shot out against: the C100, ideally with an external recorder such as BMD's Hyperdeck Shuttle 2. Yes Canon gifted BMD with this opportunity by artificially creating a pricing ladder across their line for downsampling and codec quality. Here is another video showing off the superior quality of the Cinema Camera, this time Jon Carr took Vincent Laforet's test camera for a spin: Even with all of the new cameras that have been announced over the last week or so, this camera should still edge out all of them based on the factors above. Blackmagic chose the sensor precisely because of the low cost, dynamic range, and resolution, and there aren't any publicly available sensors that check off all of those boxes at the Super 35mm level. Many will still complain about the sensor size, and that they'd rather wait for the Super 35mm version of the camera, but I can tell you right now, it's not coming anytime soon. Yes there are plenty of negatives about actually using the camera, some of which have been addressed by the Micro 4/3 mount option for the camera, but which image is better should be obvious to even inexperienced shooters after watching the video. Sure, with the Mark III you can shoot with a flat profile and underexpose to keep some of those highlights from blowing, but there is only so far you can push a compressed 4:2:0 8-bit image. The Blackmagic Cinema Camera's superior dynamic range will give a more cinematic image just for that reason alone. Humans are actually very aware of brighter points in an image - even when we're not looking for them - and it's often the first place someone's eye will go when the overall image is darker. ![]() It often subconsciously affects the image. Dynamic range is the first thing that even an inexperienced person will notice, and it's one of the reasons people still love film over digital - as not all digital cameras have caught up with film in the dynamic range department. I disagree depending on the initial compression, but it's more valid than claiming the latter doesn't matter. ![]() The former is the one most people will use to say that the camera doesn't matter much if videos are just going to the web. If the 5D Mark III could also output 10-bit ProRes and 12-bit RAW, what kind of quality could we get? Would it be better? Absolutely, but it still wouldn't address the two biggest reasons the BMCC has a superior image: resolution and dynamic range. Let's just take for a minute, all things being equal (even though they aren't). That's where the Blackmagic Cinema Camera's quality comes in. If you could start with a much higher quality internal codec, could the final uploaded quality be improved? Yes, but you're still limited by the image the camera can produce. With a DSLR you're already starting with what should be an export codec only, H.264. While many will still say, no one can see sharpness from a compressed web video, after going through the generation loss, the higher the quality of your original source, the better the final product will look. Now, the conclusions from the video should be pretty obvious even to someone that isn't experienced in filmmaking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |