Here is some test footage using vintage professional 16mm cinema camera lenses and the footage does not disappoint. I am grateful to Los Angeles Bombs Car Club and friends for the opportunity to capture this impromptu get together known as a “kickback” which is to relax with friends over some drinks on a beautiful Southern California day!
What I can say about these lenses is that they surpass man modern $10k+ “professional cinema lenses” LOL, for a tiny fraction of the cost. Full lens review coming soon.
I recently started exploring the world of vintage professional 16mm cinema lenses and I am continually blown away at the images, complexity and uniqueness that they capture. Are they perfect, razor sharp, or digital? NO! Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy my full frame Vintage Zeiss Contax, Zeiss Jena, Zeiss Classics and the occasional Sigma razor sharp. But I am a firm believer that we continue chasing the “look” which sometimes is vaguely described as “cinematic”, “character” or “creamy”.
I recently acquired a set of Schneider Cine lenses and am thoroughly impressed with the quality build but also the image that they capture. If you want to read the entire history check out this website. But needless to say, I have the Cinegon 10mm 1.8, Cine-Xenon 16mm 2, and Cine-Xenon 25mm 1.4 with amazing results. Now before you get yourself bent and twisted at the samples, as you know, the Marvel universe will have to be my models for now LOL.
Just to reiterate from my previous post, 16mm is a great selection because the BMPPCC4k/BMPCC6k/URSA12k and others S16 mode (1080/hd): 1) file size is super small, 2) great cinema lens selection, 3) can be upscaled to 4k with NO noticeable degradation, 4) the journey of finding cinema 16mm lenses will be beyond exciting and thrilling.
These Schneider’s are Arriflex/Arri-S mount and can be adapted to MFT or PL with simple adapter. The images speak for themselves and merely meant to show FOV and DOF. I am not a colorist and just did a simple grade. Maybe I’ll jump in front of the camera as your model! LOL. Either way, I hope you enjoy the images and magic.
I had a few moments after a productive day of shooting and snagged the DP with a Red Gemini 5k to quickly capture some footage to compare against the BMPCC4k and the codecs from the past CDNG and present BRAW and Prores. How would this $1295 camera handle against a $19, 500 brain? At the end of the day shoot whatever codec works best for you but I must admit that Red color science and DR is extremely enticing.
Should I make the files available for download? Maybe a follow up video?
Please read the details on the video for specs and equipment used for the test. Subscribe to this blog for the lates tests, reviews, news and articles. Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts.
I had a busy weekend shooting and took a few minutes to shoot this for my own education and I am truly shocked at the results and decided to share it with you. This post is a heads up and hope to get around to making a video review this week but my plate is full shooting and editing. I may possibly have the clips available to download if I get enough interest.
Before you ask where are the human models, sunsets, and blown out/underexposed backgrounds sets I did not have time and quickly popped into the studio after a shoot for a controlled setting test. A few quick props with color and definition work fine but if anyone out there wants to sponsor a test with models then you can contact me and I will make it happen : )
Apparently when BRAW was released to UMP users late last year the softness and other issues were noted. Here is a great review that notices the inferior performance and there wasn’t an uproar because CinemaDNG was not removed from the camera at that point. The issues that many BMPCC4k users have noted is NOT NEW. Let that sink in for a minute. What is new to BMPCC4k users is the removal of CinemaDNG in exchange for BRAW. This doesn’t affect UMP users because they have both codecs as long as they don’t upgrade. That is the reason UMP users are not negatively reacting because they have both codecs.
This particular review was published October 2018 and if you skip to 8:18 min mark the softness is noted and he even defends himself that he didn’t change the focus! That’s how noticeable it was.
I have received a few comments stating that my tests were flawed because Davinci Resolve default settings were to blame for the sharper CinemaDNG image so I decided to change the settings and here are the results. Only on CinemaDNG files have the sharpness reduced to 0.
click photo to enlargeclick photo to enlargeclick photo to enlargeclick photo to enlarge
Even dropping the CinemaDNG files sharpness to 0 it still outperforms BRAW 3:1 and Q0. The extent of how much it outperforms BRAW can be concluded by each user. But to deny that BRAW is less sharp is complete and utter denial. Moreover, BRAW also has more aliasing/moire which is noticeable in the lines. The reviewer also noted color noise which has yet to be tested. Keep in mind these issues may not affect Youtube videos or online content due to high compression ratios. The debate of whether it is cinematic or whatever else is a moot point since personal preference should be the deciding factor on what codec to use.
Some may argue zooming in 200%-300% reveals details that viewing audiences will never notice which I agree with. But when testing lenses and codecs it is routine to zoom in 200%-300% to discover quality, flaws, strengths, weaknesses, and latitude in detail. It is completely responsible to thoroughly test equipment and then decide whatever works best for you.
The point of these articles and videos is to inform users of the quality and changes to their equipment with this new codec and arbitrary removal of CinemaDNG. I have said it over and over BRAW is equal, in quality, to Prores HQ and many people enjoy and solely shooting Prores which is fine. But we must not mistake BRAW as an equal of CinemaDNG because that is unrealistic and contrary to the facts. Using the argument that Prores was used in “….place blockbuster movie title here….” so it’s good enough for me is a defense from the absurd.
The debate over the codecs has become heated and even some users have used vulgarity and threats on both sides which is completely uncalled for. Differences and preferences are a human right but negatively attacking or bullying people online is wrong. I have seen a surge in forums and groups and we should take a stand against that behavior. We can agree to disagree. Filmmaking is a creative art and should not venture into destructive acts, words or behaviors.
I feel it is necessary to have an open digital letter to fellow BMPCC4k users and interested parties regarding the firmware update 6.2 that included the much anticipated Blackmagic Raw and the unforeseen removal of CinemaDNG.
There has been an extreme and radical reaction with hatred and childish behaviors on both sides of the coin. Here are my thoughts on the issue and I am remain firm on using whatever codec works for you without disparaging others for not following suit.
I remain supportive of BMD and it is unfortunate that litigation or the threat of litigation has backed them into this corner.
My initial impression of BRAW was negative because it came at the cost of CinemaDNG and coupled with a “raw” codec that is softer/less detail/less sharp resulted in my reaction as an epic fail. I know many people want to argue a softer image is more cinematic and blah blah blah but the point is the image quality HAS changed and whether it can be improved in post is a whole other can of worms. Some are swearing they will not update their firmware which demonstrates the real concern for users who want the best performance from their equipment. It’s equivalent to having a car with 200 hp and you take it to the shop and it now has 195 hp would that really make you happy? Oh but there is now more room in the back seat?! HAHA, same difference.
Many others on forums and groups spouted the same frustration that was directed to another camera company for pressuring through litigation or the threat of litigation to remove CinemaDNG from our beloved BMPCC4k. What a strange reason to finally receive BRAW.
Did BMD really create a camera that was so damn good that one of the “big boys” who sell their camera box alone for $30k was threatened? Did BMD blink and quickly release BRAW and remove CinemaDNG to avoid or stop litigation?
Needless to say, I was frustrated that CinemaDNG was gone with firmware update 6.2 and all I had left was Prores and BRAW (I never use Prores!).
So on a rainy day in Southern California and a canceled shoot I decided to do further testing and here are the results. Please let me know your thoughts on the new codec. Keep in mind the focus was on the center of the chart.
I have received a few emails wanting a lighter image so I added a node in Davinci Resolve and slightly adjusted the curves. The nodes were applied to the entire timeline and NOT just the clip so the gamma/extended video and curves were equally applied to each clip. Nothing on the camera was moved the only thing is that the camera was updated in place on the tripod. The stills were obtained in Davinci Resolve via the color tab and “grab still” function. If BRAW looks in inferior because of perceived compression of the internet then CinemaDNG should look inferior also. The larger shot has a color chart and highlight blown out area for further testing. The images below are zoomed in.
Please read previous post for the specs of the test : (
I am disappointed in the softer image with BRAW and have now lost the CinemaDNG codec with the upgrade. At this point I would have preferred CinemaDNG and BRAW instead of keeping Prores.
Further proof below of the softness of BRAW. Maybe some of you prefer a softer image out of camera but in my opinion if you are spending over $1k on lenses why allow a codec to soften it for you? The “softness” may be due to BRAW’s inability to capture pixel data and interpret it correctly. Whatever the exact cause it is an epic fail.
click photo to enlargeclick photo to enlargeclick photo to enlargeclick photo to enlarge
This has to be one for the books….so close then a fumble on the one yard line.
Today BMD just released firmware 6.2 with great applause then shocking news that CinemaDNG would be removed in exchange for Blackmagic Raw. I decided to conduct a quick test in the studio with a more in-depth video coming soon but the results are the results. At this time there is many rumors that you cannot downgrade back to 6.1 to retain CinemaDNG in place of BRAW but nothing is confirmed.
Apparently there is some sort of patent case pending and BMD believed it would be easier or beneficial to remove and replace CinemaDNG from the camera to avoid litigation. But how good is BRAW? How much space is gained on your hard drives? Let’s take a quick look.
test specs: Viltrox ef-m2, Sigma 18-35 @24mm 1.8 f, iso 400, 4k dci, film, 24 fps. Gamma changed to extended video and zoomed in about 100% no other changes or corrections in Davinci Resolve. Superman is slightly underexposed and another part of the shot is overexposed but is cropped out with the zoom. There is also a color chart but not visible once again with the zoom.
click to view full photoclick to view full photoclick to view full photo
As you can see the BRAW codec is softer and further testing will be done to demonstrate how far it can be pushed in the highlights and shadows. One major change has been the media space with BRAW!
Make sure to subscribe to this blog to receive notifications on all articles and tests!
