Excellent BMC - Canon Mk III comparison

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

I thought about this a little more and I also agree. Blackmagic if you are listening...

Sometimes it looks like camera manufacturers are building their camera's to accommodate the accessory builders, I see more models appear that have a weird formfactor and only once you start to buy and add all necessary accessories to it, it becomes a full production rig. But when you get there you could have paid more for the parts then for the camera.

I don't see this as a bad thing, you can build from a simple "block" and make it fit your needs.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Murray Christian

The one thing that springs to mind is the sharpness setting. Zero is pretty low (even though lots of people swear by it). Personally I think it actually adds more mush than necessary to the footage, rather than removing digital sharpening to give a pure image. In any case, it is customary to give a little sharpening touch in post to give a Canon a hand these days and it's no bad thing.

Totally concur in the case of the Mark III. With previous Canon DSLRs, zero sharpening was the way to go. But the Mark III benefits greatly from a notch or two sharpness in camera if, as in this case, the more preferable option of a little sharpening in post is not applied. So I'd say the 5DIII footage was somewhat hobbled by this decision to shoot at 0 without any post work.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

Are you guys kidding? didn't you read that the BMCC footage were graded and the Mark 3 was raw straight out of the camera with flat settings design to be graded but not? this look like a commercial for BMCC, I don't think that even if Mark 3 footage were graded it probably won't look as good, but come on this comparison is so bias it is not even funny, and some of the shots in Mark 3 was over exposed, btw I don't have the Mark 3, don't think I will be getting one either, but I think this comparison is bogus.

Read it again buddy. No grading was done to either camera. The BMCC was only debayered and converted to PreRes4444. This was a a fairly balanced test. No filters were used on the lenses either.

I'm also sorry if you feel that a certain level of production professionalism means it looks like a commercial. I wish more people would take the time to add a little production value to these types of videos. I also thought it was very professional to state up front what settings were used and how the footage was treated.

How can any of us really doubt the results of this test. I knew from the day the BMCC was announced it would have results similar to this. It just makes sense given the nature of the camera how it would compare against a camera more focused on shooting stills. We shouldn't be biased just because the name Canon isn't on it. It may be a more complex workflow but that doesn't change the fact that the camera can create some great images. I mean it should based on the workflow. If the quality was comparable to the Canon then there really would be something seriously wrong with what Blackmagic did.

[Khoi Pham]

That is what it said in the beginning, but at 4:19 it said the footage were "made to look like the 5D mark 3 for detail comparison" if he did anything other than debayered the footage then to me he graded it, as for fair comparison, if he wasn't intended for the BMCC camera to look good, why comparing zoom? everyone knows that M3 is full frame and so it won't have the same reach, why didn't he compare wide angle in a small room with a bunch of people and see how much the BMCC crop people out, why didn't he compared shallow DOF in a tight space and not in a street where he can move back, might be fine in a control situation at night but do that in the day time and people will be walking in front of his camera, why no compared real low light situation and not a street full of lights and shadows where the dynamic range of the BMCC is its strenght?, just seems like he only compared the strength of the BMCC to the weakness of Mark 3.
I said it before and I say it again, I think the footage of BMCC is awesome, the resolution, the dynamic range, blows away the Mark 3, even if Mark 3 were graded it wouldn't matter, you can't compared raw files to H.264 and a camera design to shoot video to a camera design to shoot pictures, I just don't think it is a fair comparison when he only picks BMCC strength to Mark 3 weaknesses.

[Simon Wood]

I don't think anyone here doubts the BMC is a better camera in terms of DR and detail. But I'm not talking about the BMC footage, I'm talking about the 5D footage.

I have rarely seen such poor footage from a dslr as was presented in that video, and yes that includes raw ungraded, unsharpened footage straight from the camera. Someone said it was overexposed - they are probably right. Something is wrong with it anyway.

[Jason Garrett]

I’ll leave the finer points for you all to debate. I was pretty impressed by the Blackmagic camera, but I’m not expert enough to judge if it was a fair comparison.

Otherwise, I love how he ripped Vimeo for not being able to upload for ‘Days’ LOL I’ve been having the same issue and just gave up on a few of my videos as amateur as they are. Not exactly earning the subscription price if you ask me. I’ll have to try encoding at a lower bitrate and see if that helps. I realize it probably costs them a lot of money to host and stream the 1080p videos with higher quality bitrates, but the nature of the site being geared toward higher quality videos really is diminished IMHO by seemingly sabotaging the upload of the best quality possible. Just my 2 cents. Not that I could ‘do it better’ than they are.

You guys did notice where he complains that he had to use 18mbs just to get this to upload? Not sure if that plays into the discussion or not. That’s lower than even my consumer grade gear can produce – then it has to be recompressed from that I presume to be streamed, etc.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I began to get really interested after seeing the extra detail in the landscape and telephoto shots, especially in the Black Magic 4/3 mount version...and lenses such as the very sharp Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 and 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS would be perfect for a lot of my work...

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/...43-lens-mount/


...until I realised that the BM is just a plain old 'passive' mount, so not a single Panasonic lens will work...not even the Olympus lenses like the 12mm f/2 etc. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

[Warren Kawamoto]

The whole point and purpose of the video was his concluding statement "So would the cinema camera replace my HDSLR productions? I can honestly say yes, there's no question."

He had the opportunity to work with both cameras and made his conclusion. For those that disagree, please make your own comparative video and post it, I would love to see it!

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

That is what it said in the beginning, but at 4:19 it said the footage were "made to look like the 5D mark 3 for detail comparison" if he did anything other than debayered the footage then to me he graded it, as for fair comparison, if he wasn't intended for the BMCC camera to look good, why comparing zoom? everyone knows that M3 is full frame and so it won't have the same reach, why didn't he compare wide angle in a small room with a bunch of people and see how much the BMCC crop people out, why didn't he compared shallow DOF in a tight space and not in a street where he can move back, might be fine in a control situation at night but do that in the day time and people will be walking in front of his camera, why no compared real low light situation and not a street full of lights and shadows where the dynamic range of the BMCC is its strenght?, just seems like he only compared the strength of the BMCC to the weakness of Mark 3.
I said it before and I say it again, I think the footage of BMCC is awesome, the resolution, the dynamic range, blows away the Mark 3, even if Mark 3 were graded it wouldn't matter, you can't compared raw files to H.264 and a camera design to shoot video to a camera design to shoot pictures, I just don't think it is a fair comparison when he only picks BMCC strength to Mark 3 weaknesses.

And this is exactly why few ever take the time to post these kinds of videos. Because there are always people ready to cry fowl because of a certain technique or how dare they not show this type of shot. Perhaps he didn't have time to get every possible angle or situation you may want to see in a test. Marco still took the time to show a professionally well made video that shows both the cameras in similar situations. Maybe the BMCC may not work as well in some ultra wide situations but the same could be said for m4/3 which is just BS. There are enough tight space productions with the GH2 to see that you can still get wide shots with that small of a sensor. Since Super35 is right in between the two cameras I also fail to see how the FF sensor is a good indicator of wide shots anyway. I am more interested in the S35 sensor size compared to the BMCC and don't really care what FF can do. Insane shallow DOF is really over rated and I wish some indy filmmakers would stop using it as a crutch. It is important to have but most GH2 owners have no problem at all creating shots with shallow DOF.

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

And this is exactly why few ever take the time to post these kinds of videos. Because there are always people ready to cry fowl because of a certain technique or how dare they not show this type of shot. Perhaps he didn't have time to get every possible angle or situation you may want to see in a test. Marco still took the time to show a professionally well made video that shows both the cameras in similar situations. Maybe the BMCC may not work as well in some ultra wide situations but the same could be said for m4/3 which is just BS. There are enough tight space productions with the GH2 to see that you can still get wide shots with that small of a sensor. Since Super35 is right in between the two cameras I also fail to see how the FF sensor is a good indicator of wide shots anyway. I am more interested in the S35 sensor size compared to the BMCC and don't really care what FF can do. Insane shallow DOF is really over rated and I wish some indy filmmakers would stop using it as a crutch. It is important to have but most GH2 owners have no problem at all creating shots with shallow DOF.

If someone posts a video that compares footage from 2 different cameras then I think it is fair enough if people discuss the actual footage from BOTH of the cameras. No one is doubting the good images coming out f the BMC, but what is interesting is the other 50% of the test; that is the footage coming out of the 5Dmk3. Is it not reasonable to discuss this footage also?

[Thomas Smet]

Of course people can discuss here. That is what this place is for. That is exactly what I'm doing as well. One person thinks the test was BS and I am calling them out on it and saying I think the test was very well handled. I didn't appreciate the comments about the purpose of the test and how the test itself was handled. People can defend Canon or Blackmagic until they are blue in the face but lets keep it civil. Just because one person doesn't like the way the test was handled doesn't mean there was a hidden agenda there.

I am very familiar with Marco from One River Media and these guys know their stuff. Maybe they don't know everything but they know how to handle a production and make a lot of money doing so. I just don't think they would go out of their way to make the footage look bad.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

I began to get really interested after seeing the extra detail in the landscape and telephoto shots, especially in the Black Magic 4/3 mount version...and lenses such as the very sharp Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 and 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS would be perfect for a lot of my work...

DSLR News Shooter | What’s the big deal with Blackmagic Design cinema camera’s M4/3 lens mount?


...until I realised that the BM is just a plain old 'passive' mount, so not a single Panasonic lens will work...not even the Olympus lenses like the 12mm f/2 etc. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

I believe the main use of the m4/3 version of the camera is the ability to adapt almost any lens on the planet to work with the camera. This includes vintage lenses which are very popular with GH2 users as well as Nikon D lenses and PL mount lenses. There is a massive amount of glass that can be used with that version of the camera. I also wish it worked better with native lenses but oh well. Perhaps that will come later. SLR Magic and Voightlander both have some amazing wide full manual lenses that will work great as well. SLR Magic has a very nice 12mm f1.6 that gets a bit softer then the Olympus but is still a very nice lens.

[Corey Benoit]

Will the black magic camera mount on my cavision and other rail shoulder mounts? Does it take a standard tripod plate screw on the bottom?

[Paul A. Folger]

I think Thomas did great job but after reading this thread he may never may never want to make another comparison video again. That was a lot of work. The camera wars will never end.

More latitude in the highlights is definitely something I'm always looking for and it would seem the BMC has the advantage here. Blown out highlights are always a dead give away that says video.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

...until I realised that the BM is just a plain old 'passive' mount, so not a single Panasonic lens will work...not even the Olympus lenses like the 12mm f/2 etc. Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.

Third party manufacturers have a habit of coming up with specialised mounts. I'm not sure about the practicalities in this case, but one may produce a 4/3 mount with contacts. The current BM option sounds like this is the quickest method of getting a 4/3 mount into the market, the electronic version could add months of delay.