@katig Sometimes exaggerate -> 3840 × 2160 = 4K, 1920 × 1080 = 2K

Premiere's Lumetri color panel used for CC. I did not use any luts because I feel like I do not have 100% control when I use them and sometimes it is very hard to match different shots when using luts. On some 'bad' shots I used Colorista's power masks to recover shades. Moderate sharpening with Unsharp masks. Very basic setup.

Simple music video... BMPCC, Speedbooster 0.58, Sigma 18-35 1.8

Is it true or not that the Black Magic's arent very good in low light and need good lightning for avoid noise?

@balazer "I don't want to emulate the look of film."

Then why would you buy a camera that was designed to emulate the look of film?

@balazer - BMDFilm uses a log curve WITHOUT any colour matrix (channel mixing) corrections for the sensor. This is fairly standard and similar to other cameras like the Arri Alexa (they actually publicly document various Matrices to use for conversion purposes along with their curve information for their LogC files). The intention is that you use the 709 in the Resolve RAW tab which applies the necessary conversions along with the matrix corrections (these corrections can be derived from the Matrix information stored in the DNG headers as per Adobe spec as other RAW convertors that support cDNG should do), or by applying our V2 LUTs which also utilize the matrix corrections.

This is a fairly crucial step for 'accurate' colour with BMD cameras. Some colourists choose to forgo this step and make their own corrections or use other "creative" LUTs or other technical LUTs which may or may not make use of the matrix information in the DNG headers, which is also perfectly valid as ultimately its down to taste.

Most of the "BMD's reds look orange" is due to this misunderstanding. If you apply the V2 LUTs or use 709 in Resolve then reds and other colours should be fairly accurate and subjectively pleasing.

One reason some may not have noticed that other digital cinema cameras do the same, is that many use a proprietary RAW format either not supported in typical still camera RAW convertors, or that require using their proprietary SDK's for decoding. We tend to use "open standards" instead. Comparing to other cameras that open in Lightroom for example would mostly be stills cameras that are not concerned with Log formats like digital cinema cameras are. Lightroom and Adobe RAW from what i know also use custom processing and profiles specific to each stills camera to give their software a "look" with each camera so as to provide a pleasing starting point for the user. Open the same canon raw file in Lightroom or Capture One and both by default look very different. Which is "correct" and "accurate" then? It's all taste really. I don't think such processing would be done for generic DNG files since they could be from a multitude of sources so in general may take a bit more work in a stills RAW convertor to look as pleasing as a stills RAW file.

Here's an image showing a DNG from an URSA 4K V1 under tungsten light (shot by John Brawley, hopefully he doesn't mind!) where on top i simply opened the DNG in Resolve without changing any settings and leaving the default interpretation to 709, below is the same file opened in Photoshop (Adobe RAW convertor). Personally i find Resolves version more pleasing and natural and looks like it would be fairly accurate to the scene with no work done, but that's personal taste.

http://s6.postimg.org/e4jigrna9/Resolve_Photoshop.jpg

I tried the ACES workflow -- you're right, the results are, well, interesting.

Color is far more accurate converting RAW to BMD film and then applying the BMCC V2 LUT. But if that's not for you, it's not for you....

@balazer Another path that may help - have you heard of the Cineform workflow? You use RAW4Pro to convert to Cineform RAW and you can grade in Gopro Studio which is free. No more folders with DNGs - you produce a 'video' file with audio muxed.

http://raw4pro.com/

RAW4Pro has just announced a version that does not require a licensed version of Cineform - just as well as Cineform have stopped selling the Professional products anyway. I think you pay about $60 and as far as value for money goes - it is the bomb.

http://shop.gopro.com/EMEA/softwareandapp/gopro-studio/GoPro-Studio.html

What this means is that you can use the easy, fast and powerful tools in Gopro Cineform to grade - fix white balance, gain, exposure, tints, make primary adjustments, add 3D luts and actually edit in any NLE of choice without ever having to use Da vinci Resolve. So - no they do not have to go together. You can even copy and paste your settings from one clip you like to all your clips for a quick grade. Then you can tweak as you work. I really am surprised that few people consider this workflow as it is the best imho,i.e if you want to stay in your familiar edit suite.

Now as far as colour accuracy goes - I think the colour science of the BM cameras is pretty excellent. Just my humble opinion - apparently I am not alone. Is it like my eyes see - probably not but hey this art isn't about extreme accuracy - my video cams are accurate but unemotional. Can it get close to the look of film, err yes - much closer than many prosumer cams costing much more - and film doesn't see the world the way I see it either. I reckon this is a tool that requires a bit of TLC to make it shine. Some people want a camera to look good out the box. Great - many video cameras do that just fine. These cams are CINEMA cameras - they expect you to spend some time tweaking the footage to look great. In fact the Cineform RAW footage looks flat and greenish!!!!!!

Once you get rid of the colour casts at acquisition - you need a UV and IR cut filter - grading these cameras is a dream. You do also need a good white balance though. Grey and white cards make a big difference here.

Deal with these two things above and you will see how amazing the cameras are. Be sloppy about them and you will see footage that looks blue brown and lacks punch. But the beauty of RAW is that you can just about make the footage look however you want it to look.... and I am not kidding.....yes the BM look will always be there but the range is incredible. There have been adverts made that have these cams intercutting with Alexa and few could tell the difference as far as colour was concerned. Now that is high praise indeed.

I haven't tried that. What color spaces is that supposed to map from and to?

The Blackmagic cameras are basically Davinci Resolve cameras. They're great if you like to push and pull on the colors to get interesting artistic effects. There's a lot of gradation in the recorded images.

But let's not say color science and Blackmagic in the same breath, because the cameras and Resolve stink for color science. The colors are not accurate. You won't get a true-to-life image without a lot of manipulation, and I don't mean the basic exposure compensation and color balancing that all raw images need. When I balance for white, the greys turn blue and skin looks wrong. You can't balance the colors and get the whole image to look right. You need to go and adjust every little part of the image differently. That's just not how I like to work. I like to start with accurate color, and if I want some kind of artistic color effect, I'll add it on top.

Color science is a real thing. Light spectra excite neurons in your eyes, and your brain interprets the signals. Human perception of color is subjective, but measurable. Lots of studies have been done to quantify and model human perception of color. For a camera to have accurate color, it must be created to approximate those models, and that's exactly what most cameras do. Blackmagic has taken a much different approach, with emphasis on tools to manipulate color, and not on color accuracy. I contend that a better camera does both, not just one or the other.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/press/release/20150528-01

Theres a great price drop for the SanDisk 64gb 95mb/s cards now. :)