@vicharris wow... yeah...

So I have a Blackmagic Pocket Camera question.... I am doing a shoot today with the BMPCC + 12-35 & GH3 with 14-45. The editor is not a good colorist so I am expecting to shoot rec 709 on the BMPCC, what profile/settings should I put on the GH3 to be able to match?

Every thread I've looked at is completely derailed. Come on guys.

IMHO Anna Foerster did quite a decent job with the Alexa on Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous"…

She studied lots of paintings from the period and books on how theaters were lit then to get things right, and it shows. It's as much about lighting as about lenses.

That said, the right lenses paired with an Alexa or RED can do a period piece justice. It's mostly about the glass.

I have yet to see a convincing period piece on either format, but I don't think it matters much whether the suggestive or fabulist quality of imagery comes from the format or the lenses -- or postproduction processing, for that matter. A lot of digital filmmaking is operating with an aesthetic more closely associated with documentary and TV, and it remains to be seen whether these characteristics will make for enduring fictions.

It also depends a great deal on "content". If your preferred music comes out of electric instruments and never had an acoustic reality to begin with, vinyl (or analog tape, for that matter) probably won't be a compelling choice. But you won't find many classical musicians in love with CDs, no matter how "superior" CD players are to turntables in performance.

You could also describe any number of 1970s films as "soft" or "fuzzy", compared to modern digital acquisition. But which is better suited to a work of fiction meant to engage the imagination? Ever see a a period or historical drama shot with an Alexa? For this viewer, it just doesn't fly -- the illusion isn't maintained.

That's a decent naive way to look at it.

I finally got to test the BMPCC RAW with more colours and different lighting conditions. I coloured it to make it look retro. So far, I love the RAW image this camera produces. I hope you guy's are having as much fun as I am with this camera!

This was mostly shot with the Lumix 14mm 2.5 and in the darker scenes and market I used the Lumix 20mm 1.7. This 20mm mk 1 somehow has a problem. Overtime it will hunt focus and expose by itself. So fighting with that when you have your shot is a hassle! hopefully there will be a fix for that because I love this lens to bits!

In a creative field, it's all subjective.

For me, the major separator's camera first, then glass. When you get into using Cinema Glass the actual qualitative differences extend beyond "technically better".

I think Nikon lenses accidentally get close because of color, particularly the separation of blues and greens, and then the overall "warmth" that Nikon glass seems to have. I believe Nikon helped Panavision develop a set of anamorphics a long time ago.

When it comes to this camera, the sharper glass is better, BUT, my exceptions are Nikon primes and Zeiss C/Ys (this camera) when stopped down. The Nikon 50/1.8 is particularly interesting, its' got a vintage look. Zeiss MKII Superspeeds also look great (S35s).

And top choices are Sigmas because they come close to the Cooke feel/look to me (Well, not exact, but they seem to be "on the way to" modern Cooke Primes) re: falloff, resolved detail, highlight rendition, and micro-contrast. Not exactly color, but those things when paired with the Pocket and 2.5K cameras... really shines.

They should, though, because these are modern cameras. Just my thoughts, though!

@thecomformist of course you can get a more cinematic look with the right settings, lighting, and grading using this lens as with other lenses, and I have seen some gorgeous looking footage with this lens on both cameras, but it wouldn't be my choice for a film project. Take a GH3 out in a natural daylight setting with the 12-35mm on it and then pop on a Nikon or Helios and you immediately notice the difference and that difference still holds with the pocket cam. That difference provides the foundation that I prefer to build upon in post. Now, I do like the look of my 20mm Lumix prime on the pocket cam as Kholi mentions and I will use the 14mm until I settle in on what I really want for a wide angle, but if I was going to lay out the money for a zoom today then I would hands down go with the Sigma 18-35mm/speedbooster and go with a rig/steadicam and just forget about handheld for a while.

@kholi +over 9000

@trumpetman I've always thought this is video is a pretty great example of what this lens is capable of - and this is shot on a GH3

While it's true that every lens has certain characteristics, I really feel like their role - beyond DOF, perspective, flaring, etc - in the "look" of a project is a bit overstated. Not that the choice of lens has no impact, but that your camera settings, lighting, composition, and grading has more to do with whether an image has a "video" or "film" look than what lens it was shot with.

I am quite confident that if you shot/edited something on the BMPCC (raw or log mode) with 12-35, and then shot/edited it again the same way using cinema primes, you (and the rest of us pixel-peepers) would be the only one who noticed the difference. I am not meaning to say there IS NO difference between the quality of these lenses, but that by and large, the difference is not significant or detectable to the average person (i.e. your audience).

You are entitled to prefer one lens over another for any reason you like, and certainly many lenses have distinct characteristics that the 12-35 simply can not reproduce, but I think it's misguided to deem any lens unusable for a "cinematic" look. For a very particular look, sure. But for a cinematic look, that's the DP/operator's job, not the lens'.

I've found Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 extremely useful for run n' gun stuff, when I'm not desperately looking after "the look". Its OIS is very good and it's a sharp lens.
For narrative stuff and controlled shots, I use my SLR Magic glass mostly.

PS: I think I will be sending my BMPCC for RMA since it has the infamous hot pixel. Not only the galaxy of moving spots under low light conditions (that's underexposure, I understand that), but a fixed white spot very visible on the footage even in well lit scenes / broad daylight :(

@BurnetRhoades exactly my point, thank you. That's why I use Nikon primes on the GH and now on the pocket cam with the pc speed booster (when it's back in stock). @markr041 "good" is not what I want, I want "great" and "cinematic". No need to get sarcastic because I'm simply addressing the characteristics of a lens, but perhaps you just don't get what "cinematic" means. By the way, I don't prefer to use the 14-140mm, but sometimes for achieving a more film look (hand held), especially emulating super 16 ( of course with the right grade), I would use it over the 12-35mm. Beyond that If I were to use any of the Lumix lenses for a film project on the pocket I would use primes. What I want is something like the Sigma 18-35mm + speed booster + OIS, obviously dreaming for the moment. In the meantime I'll be content with shooting with my Nikon primes + speed booster and shoot with a shoulder rig or steady cam. If I need a great lens for shooting video projects or reality shows I wouldn't hesitate to get the 12-35mm, but for cinema it's not my choice. Also, I'm not bashing anyones work here, I simply don't care for this lens for cinema style and yes, I can see the characteristics of this lens in these videos regardless of the grades.