@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?
Harris Savides + David Fincher painted a very period appropriate looking '70s picture with a 2/3" Thompson Viper with Zodiac and a good chunk of Benjamin Button used the same camera and an even earlier period. That's a far lesser camera in every way and they could have crushed away half the image for the nighttime scenes if going for a period appropriate 50 ASA look was desired.
Bukowski did a pretty nice job as well, similar period, on the Alexa for The Iceman. I liked the look of it a lot better than something like Goodfellas, which isn't one of Scorcese's more interesting looking films but it's got the same period on film and you see a marked difference between how even a decade or so in film stock technology had radically influenced the result to be more modern (comparing it to Scorcese's own films from the '70s, or other films from the '70s). So film is no guarantee of either period accuracy or aesthetic superiority.
Though it's not an actual period film it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that Darius Khondji could make the Alexa work quite well with period after seeing Amour.
Every thread I've looked at is completely derailed. Come on guys.
"Anonymous" certainly had the painterly production values you'd expect, but the conceit of the period was still difficult to accept, at least for me. It didn't help that Ben Jonson employed the inflexions of American TV actors and appeared as likely to write "The Alchemist" as a dissertation on debayering, but those grainless images didn't do much for the period either.
Maybe we need to bring back sepia :)
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.
I believe Downton Abbey is shot with Arri Alexa, Cooke S4 and Angenieux Optimo 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.
CDs are a format of convenience not really better. With only 44.1 you don't capture all of the lower register where analog recording, LPs included, have usable signal and interesting sound below the noise floor. Not a big deal with rock or pop or electronic music but, yeah, you get a real orchestra and CD misses a lot of subtlety that it doesn't take an audiophile to detect.
That said, the right lenses paired with an Alexa or RED can do a period piece justice. It's mostly about the glass.
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.
@Vesku yes in a way but using the term "scratched" is like someone else's description of the cinema look as "soft" or "fuzzy". From the audio perspective it is the warmth and richness of analog recordings vs. the cold sterility of digital recordings. Although, I think those comparisons were more relevant at the beginning of digital technology, whereas today's digital is getting much better at reproducing the same feel. The point is however, when someone uses the terms "soft" or "fuzzy" in reference to the cinematic look either they are attacking someone's interpretation of that look or they themselves have no understanding of the concept. The look isn't about being "soft" or "fuzzy". Quite the opposite, it usually possesses plenty of detail, just not the overly sharpened look of DSLR's especially the GH series (calm down I love my GH's). At times it has a warmer look at other times colder, however compared to video it always seems to be warmer and achieving that look with digital cameras is very dependent on lens choice. But as Kholi says it is very personal in interpretation and for me possesses this intangible ingredient that is almost impossible to put into words and either someone gets it and sees it or they don't.
That's a decent naive way to look at it.
This lens conversation reminds me of same kind of debate in audio world when they are arguing about CD vs vinyl records. I think that Pana lenses are like steril and neutral CD and the other "vintage" lenses are like scrathced vinyl disks which has more "musical" sound. If one likes that what can we say. This is entertainment world and it is all matters of taste. I am still a fan of realistic sound and picture over "artistic" ones.
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!
Is it possible to lock the aperture on the BMPCC when zooming in/out with Panasonic lenses like the 14-45mm or 14-140mm?
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!
@kholi...thanks for the warning lol
@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.
I've always loved that video. First time I watched it, kids were running around and I didn't have a warning :)
@kholi +over 9000
Here's something pretty point blank. These are supposed to be rehoused Canon glass, examples say that it's not just rehoused.
But, if you can't see a difference then it won't matter of course.
May not be safe for work.
@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'.
When @vicharris does his side-by-side, I think the standout difference with the 12-35 will be how it renders reds and highlights. I've never been a fan of Lumix glass outside of the 20/1.7 which seems to have an altogether separate look in comparison.
The 12-35, IMO, is not a good match for this camera. Someone mentioned that it looks the same as the 18-35 Sigma, far from it.
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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!