Join Marco Solorio this Saturday at NAB Post Production World for a 90-minute presentation on the Cinema Camera EF and MFT models. New content that hasn’t been released will be presented!

We officially got the green light today that we can publicly speak about us having the Blackmagic Design Cinema Camera MFT (Micro Four Thirds) model. We’ve actually had this camera, but due to our NDA with Blackmagic, we were bound to not say anything until they said so. This was tough, especially when others were posting about it!

OneRiver Media’s EF and MFT models of the Cinema Camera. Get the scoop on both this Saturday at NAB!

Okay, we’re not going to actually physically bring both the EF model and the MFT model to NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) with us, but we ARE going to bring the MFT model. Marco Solorio of OneRiver Media is presenting BOTH models at NAB Post Production World this Saturday, April 6, 2013 for a full 90-minute presentation.

So what will be covered at this NAB presentation by Marco? Quite a lot actually, including some brand new stuff that Marco has NOT shared publicly yet with the MFT model. This includes testing a number of vintage lenses and adapters that work perfectly on the MFT model. Items include Canon FD lenses, Canon EF lenses (on MFT), Nikon F lenses, 2X anamorphic adapters, and 16×9 adapters for 2.35 anamorphic, wide angle adapters, and much, much more.

We’ve run our collection of lenses through the paces; see some of Marco’s findings at the NAB presentation this Saturday.

You may have watched Marco’s two-part comparison videos on Vimeo, “Comparing the Cinema Camera & Canon 5D Mk III“, and “The Impact of 12-bit RAW” which have taken a lot of notice in the industry. Marco will interactively show how some of these finding work with the CinemaDNG RAW files the Cinema Camera can produce.

What’s this rig all about? Find out this Saturday at NAB!

Marco will also show some samples of his latest film in early production, “NEXUS The Critical Phase” and a new BMW documentary, which is also in early production. This footage will ONLY be showed during this NAB presentation.

Frame grab from our BMW documentary currently in production. Watch sample footage this Saturday at NAB!

During the NAB exhibition days, Marco will be pounding the pavement (padded carpet?) with the MFT BMCC, visiting various booths, and showcasing BMCC related products and recording it on the Cinema Camera as it happens. Please visit this page often as we will post new booth visits as we lock them in! You can come see the MFT BMCC in action, or even be part of the action!

Monday, April 8
Flanders Scientific — Time TBD
Viewfactor — Time TBD
Cinebags — Time TBD

Tuesday, April 9
Flanders Scientific — Time TBD
Zeiss — Time TBD

Wednesday, April 10
Flanders Scientific — Time TBD
Sachtler — Time TBD

Thursday, April 11
Will be roaming the floors, but may not schedule official visits on this day.

See you at NAB, and be sure to check back this page for updates to scheduled booth visits!  And follow us on Twitter where we’ll updates our events as well with #BMCC and #NABSHOW in our tweets. And don’t forget about our BMCC Newsletter. See you at NAB!

March 29-30, 2013. 9:15 AM to 5:00 PM, both days.

So what’s in store for this workshop? A TON. Here are all the details.

This workshop will teach you the ins and outs of the Cinema Camera, give you an edge over your competition, quickly learn the camera’s full potential, get inside knowledge not available anywhere else, shorten your workflow learning curve, and improve your business’ bottom line through knowledge and action. Marco has been using the camera in all forms of production since mid-2012: short film (our current film in production www.nexus-film.com), documentary (our current BMW documentary in production), commercial, corporate, PSA, stock footage acquisition, event production, visual effects, instructional, chromakey, and best of all, just for fun! Marco will be sharing his breadth of Cinema Camera knowledge in this information-packed workshop.

The first day is geared for shooters of all backgrounds. We’ll have three live shooting setups to show how the camera works in different environments.

The second day is geared toward anyone in post-production that will soon have a flurry of this footage to deal with. Sign up for both days to save money to get a full circle of Cinema Camera production and post-production knowledge.

We’re keeping this limited to a very small group of attendees, so this 2-day event only holds 24 seats per day — act soon to ensure your spot! All registered participants will also gain access to Marco’s private Cinema Camera Facebook page that is not publicly linked or viewable. Lunch will also be provided on both days.

Thanks to our Sponsors, attendees will have huge give-away opportunities: A full license of Davinci Resolve, an UltraStudio Mini Monitor, an UltraStudio Mini Recorder an FSI LM-2140W Monitor, and ALL attendees will be given a $200 off gift certificate that can be used on any FSI monitor purchase! 

DAY 1 – Cinema Camera for DPs

9:15 am – 10:00 am Coffee Talk
10:00 am – 1:00 pm Workshop
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Lunch (provided)
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm Workshop

• Cinema Camera background and overview
• Rigging the Cinema Camera, large and small
• Lenses
• Audio (dual system and internal)
• SSD, media transfers, and archiving
• Calibration and monitoring
• The good, the bad, and the ugly
• Shooting for RAW vs. ProRes
• Low-key, high-key, and chromakey shooting (live shooting in studio)
• Working with Thunderbolt, Ultrascope, and Media Express
• How shooting with the Cinema Camera can edge out your competition
• Educating your clients on the benefits and hurdles of shooting RAW vs. ProRes
• And as much more as we can cover time permitting.

DAY 2 – Cinema Camera for Editors and Post

9:15 am – 10:00 am Coffee Talk
10:00 am – 1:00 pm Workshop
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Lunch (provided)
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm WorkshopCinema Camera background and overview

• Transferring, managing, using, and archiving footage
• RAW: Pros, cons, technical
• ProRes HQ and DNxHD: Pros, cons, technical
• Various RAW supported software overview (you’ll be surprised)
• Interactively highlighting advantages of key RAW supported software
• Various workflows for both RAW and ProRes
• Using Cinema Camera footage for VFX and chromakey
• RAW is now in the hands of everyone; are you ready for it?
• System overhead demands and optimization
• Educating your clients on the benefits and hurdles of editing RAW vs. ProRes
• And as much more as we can cover, time permitting.

Registration info on Eventbrite here.

Looking forward to meeting new people and sharing experiences with everyone. See you soon!

Just a quick post to update our presentation at the Hollywood Post Alliance, here in Palm Springs, California.

I had a GREAT time presenting at this year’s Hollywood Post Alliance Tech Retreat in sunny Palm Springs this week! Not knowing what to expect, I was treated by a very large crowd of industry experts, most of which are in the feature film circles in Hollywood and beyond. A little bit of irony… here in this photo I am speaking to the audience about DaVinci Resolve and RAW workflow, only later to accidentally run into Dr. Henry Gu, the guy who basically invented DaVinci Resolve and who holds many patents on all sorts of color-correction technologies that were developed for Resolve. What a treat it was to speak with him one-on-one. Who’s teaching who?!?! Oh the circle of knowledge! Very fun event!

A lot was covered in my presentation, including RAW acquisition (the different cameras supporting RAW formats), the flurry of RAW footage that will soon flood editors in post-production and what to do about it, the advantages of RAW, an interactive example of RAW footage and the latitude you can achieve with it, some of the hurdles of RAW and what to do about it, tips on transferring RAW footage, an overview of various RAW-supported applications, an inside look at DaVinci Resolve and its inherent benefits specifically to RAW, an overview of various RAW workflows at the post-production phase, and how to best choose a RAW workflow for your needs.

A lot was covered and there was a good session of Q&A after the presentation.

Special thanks to Paul Chapman of Fotokem for moderating, and to Mark Schubin and Eileen Kramer of the Hollywood Post Alliance for organizing and inviting me to present at their event.

As big fans of POST Magazine, we were excited to have been recently interviewed by Randi Altman of POST. Also interviewed in the article are Industrial Light & Magic, Colorflow, and Posthouse Pictures, and covers how Social Media is used by businesses in post-production. You can read the article in the latest February print issue of POST, or on their website.

And since this article is related to social media, you can find us here at these social media hotspots:

Facebook: facebook.com/onerivermedia
Twitter: twitter.com/OneRiverMedia
Instagram: instagram/onerivermedia
Blog: onerivermedia.com/blog
Vimeo: vimeo.com/onerivermedia
Flickr: flickr.com/onerivermedia
Pinterest: pinterest.com/onerivermedia
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/onerivermedia

Share with us how YOU use social media with your production or post-production business. Leave a comment below; we’d love to hear from you!

This Thurday, November 29th, 2012 from 11:30 AM PST to 1:00 PM PST, Marco Solorio of OneRiver Media will be presenting a LIVE Cinema Camera webinar, with host, Michael Horton from LACPUG over at Moviola. An entire hour is being devoted for this presentation, ranging from production to post-production, specifically for use with the Cinema Camera. After the hour-long presentation, Q&A will be opened up to all attendees.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! Blackmagic Design has given me a FREE LICENSE of DaVinci Resolve with USB dongle to give away at the webinar! That’s $1000 worth of software for free! But you have to register and watch to win!

Please go to the Moviola website for more details and registration.

I was really amazed with Marco’s camera tests of the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. With this camera, we had dozens of engineers who spent many hours and long nights working hard to get amazing film like images from a camera that everyone could afford.

However, what that means is thousands of hours working with electronics, machined metals, color science and software code, all in the hope that it’s going to produce the images you only dreamed it could. Marco’s test was significant because it showed what the Blackmagic Cinema Camera could do from a creative point of view, and in the end, that’s what matters.

I think it’s so easy to get caught up in the technical issues, with many camera purists being critical. However, I think that’s misunderstanding what the Blackmagic Cinema Camera was designed to be. It was designed to be a camera that had the technology to give a cinematic film look, while including recording to allow all that quality to be captured, in file formats editing software use at an overall price people could actually afford.

Marco has shown what kinds of images you can get, and I think in the end that’s what that matters the most. It’s very exciting. I’m not sure about everyone else, but I was really surprised watching Marco’s comparison video. We learned a lot from it as well!

Wow, well isn’t that nice! Thank you so much, Grant. This truly made my day!  I know you guys are intensely trying to get the camera out to the masses, so I truly appreciate your time in writing this. I know that once the camera gets out to all those waiting hands, those people will be as excited and happy with the camera as I have been all this time. As I’ve said before, I’m incredibly grateful that you guys trusted me with the camera before its release, and am happy you and your team found value in my shooting and testing of the camera. In the end, it helped me, Blackmagic Design, and those that will be getting their cameras with updates that I helped have a hand in; everyone wins!

Cheers to you and your team, thank you again, as I’m deeply appreciative.

Okay, I’m off to go shoot some more fun stuff with the Cinema Camera!

Cheers!

Let me first say that I purchased the Rokinon 35mm lens more out of necessity. Unfortunately at this time (Cinema Camera version 1.1), not all Canon lenses work with the EF model. I have quite a large collection of Canon L lenses and all but two work with the Cinema Camera, which includes the 85mm f/1.2L (probably Canon’s sharpest lens they’ve ever made) and the 35mm f/1.4L. Because the 85mm focuses electronically (I’ve always hated that feature, even on my Canon DSLRs), it requires a protocol that BMD hasn’t figured out yet (I’m assuming Canon isn’t going to just hand that kind of information out). So with the 85mm, there’s no focus, and no aperture control at this time. With the 35mm, no aperture control at this time (but focus works fine).

So here was my conundrum; in my Canon L prime lens collection, I had a hole between my 24mm f/1.4L II and my 50mm f/1.2L. Then Rokinon (also under the name of Samyang) finally released their cinema style 35mm lens.  But I’ll be honest, I haven’t been overly impressed with their 8mm cine fisheye lens, except for the fact that it’s de-clicked and has lens/aperture gears. Wide open (T4), the 8mm is quite soft, and sharpens up around the T5.6 area. To add, it imposes some barrel distortion. With all that said, my 8mm super wide lens of choice has been the Sigma 8-16mm zoom that I blogged about a couple months ago.

Despite my lackluster love for Rokinon’s 8mm lens, I decided to buy the Rokinon 35mm cine lens and give it a shot. At $550, it’s not a bad price, and the fact that it’s de-clicked and includes built-in gears for both focus and aperture is huge. The manual, geared, and de-clicked aperture ring is a particularly huge benefit because (A) at current 1.1 firmware, the Cinema Camera does not display a Canon lens’ aperture value, which is a bit of guesswork if you need a specific stop to dial in, (B) being de-clicked is just so, so much better to use with video as it allows you to truly dial in the aperture you need outside of 1/3^rd bumps, and (C), changing the aperture on the Cinema Camera itself is a little slow since you have to continually tap the < or > buttons to go from one end of the aperture to the other.

Despite not being overjoyed with the Rokinon 8mm version (only because I really like the Sigma alternative better), my hope was that because this 35mm lens isn’t an extreme lens like the 8mm, coupled with the fact that the Cinema Camera uses the sweet spot of the lens, my hope was that this 35mm lens would perform well against the Canon.

At first feel, I have to say the Rokinon feels quite plasticy. You can immediately tell the difference in build-quality compared to the Canon L counterpart. Additionally, I’m going to assume that the Rokinon doesn’t have weather sealing like the Canon L does. If you work a lot in rainy, misty, wet, or extremely humid environments, then this should be considered.

Which lens is which? We posed this question on Twitter and Facebook, and the results were split right down the middle. The answer? The Rokinon is on the left. The fact that it’s so hard to tell which is which is a huge plus in favor of the Rokinon. 800 ASA, T1.5/f1.4, graded.

If you’re like me, all my lenses have quality UV filters at the end of them to protect the lens’ final glass stage. I prefer the German made B+W UV Haze MRC F-Pro and XS-Pro filters to ensure the optics are not compromised in any way. The Rokinon uses a 77mm barrel thread, whereas the Canon uses a 72mm thread. The Rokinon’s thread is completely comprised of plastic. This is worrisome; if you’re not careful, you could easily strip the threads, so make sure you put your UV filter on and never take it off, which is standard practice anyway. And if you use threaded filters, like a variable ND, then always mount it to the outside of the UV filter. Otherwise, repeated mounting of filters directly to the lens’ plastic thread is surely going to strip it.

Because the Rokinon (left) has a slightly longer reach in focal length, the bokeh circles appear larger, but in reality, both lenses produce the same sized bokeh at the same focal lengths. I closed the aperture down a bit so that you could see the octagonal blade formation in the bokeh of both lenses, which basically look the same. Ultimately though, the Rokinon bokeh and flaring is a little cleaner than the Canon. 1600 ASA, T4/f4.

The standard 32-pitch gears (also measured as .8) that are built into the focus ring and the aperture ring are a pure delight. No more fussing with stupid gear mounts. Your follow focus of choice meshes directly to it. And if you have a wireless system like us, you can control the aperture from afar as well since it’s also geared. Very nice.

Both the focus ring and aperture ring are fully manual, operate smoothly, and are lock-to-lock. One thing that I’ve always hated about Canon lenses (and this includes the 35mm), is that focus isn’t lock-to-lock, so once you pull focus beyond the nearest or farthest point, the damn focus ring just keeps spinning (even if added resistance let’s you know of such). This makes repeatable and accurate point-to-point rack focus pulls almost impossible, even if your follow focus has settable hard stops on it. With the Rokinon, I can use a quality follow focus to its full potential, just like a real cinema lens offers.

Markings on the side of the lens make for a very happy focus puller.

And let’s not forget the de-clicked aperture. This is huge. Any real cinema lens, or ENG/EFP video lens does NOT have 1/3^rd increment stops on the aperture or iris. It’s completely linearly smooth from its fully open position to its fully closed position. This allows you to exactly dial in the aperture value you want, rather than the lens partially deciding it for you. And because it’s fully manual, you can very quickly open and close the aperture without cumbersome camera button sluggishness. Likewise, this can also allow you to perform a variable point-to-point exposure ramp in your shot if you want to get fancy. Even if you never do it, at least you have the option if you ever wanted to. As such, it’s otherwise impossible to perform that trick on any Canon EF or EFS lens.

The lens body itself of the Rokinon is a little longer than the Canon. Both are roughly the same diameter. Another bonus of the Rokinon acting like a cinema lens is that the markings are on the side of the lens (for the focus puller), rather than on top of the lens. The markings themselves are small, but usable (much easier to read than on the Canon lens). Focal distance is in both meters and feet.

Testing detail and sharpness between both lenses. At T5.6 (Rokinon left), and f/5.6 (Canon right), the Rokinon is slightly brighter, but keep in mind this is because T-stops and F-stops are slightly different forms of light transmission measurement. Also note that this is a powerful example of dynamic range, as the yellow bushes in the foreground would have completely blown out on any other non-RAW camera. 200 ASA, T5.6/f5.6, graded.

Okay, enough about build quality and features, let’s talk optics. Keep in mind that I’m not performing any over-the-top scientific tests here; except for one chart test, everything is real world shooting (I can only look at charts for so long before I go nuts). Off the top, the Rokinon is actually slightly longer in focal length than the Canon. Compared to the Canon at 35mm, the Rokinon is around a 36mm or 37mm length. I wasn’t expecting this, but I should have known as I’ve had variations in 8mm widths on multiple lenses as well.

Generally speaking, the Canon is slightly sharper than the Rokinon. But interestingly enough, being sharper might not necessarily be a benefit. Say what? Yeah, keep reading.

Another detail shot between both lenses. As usual, the Rokinon (left) has a warmer cast to it. If needed, this could easily be dialed out (or increased for that matter) in post. Otherwise, both lenses perform incredibly similar to each other in this shot. 200 ASA, T5.6/f5.6.

In real world shooting, I’m not finding the Canon to be noticeably sharper than the Rokinon from a standpoint of the obvious. In other words, when comparing two images of the same shot, I’m not saying to myself, “wow, look how incredibly sharper the image looks compared to the Rokinon.” To the contrary, the Rokinon holds up very well against the Canon on the Cinema Camera in that regard, especially in the T5.6 range.

Fully wide open (Rokinon = T1.5, Canon = f/1.4), the Rokinon is a little softer than the Canon. Stopping down the Rokinon and Canon to even just T2.8 and f/2.8 respectively, or T5.6 and f/5.6, the sharpness between the two is quite similar.

Both lenses are fully wide open to get a feel for narrow DOF (depth-of-field). Like before, the Rokinon (left) appears to have larger bokeh and narrower DOF, but it’s really just because of the slight increase in focal reach in that lens. 800 ASA, T1.5/f1.4.

Same test, slightly stopped down. Rokinon, left. 800 ASA, T2/f2.

Same test again, stopped down more. Rokinon, left. Note that these three DOF tests only had exposure changes in the aperture, i.e., increased exposure to compensate for the aperture reduction in exposure was done in post, hence, these last two images are slightly noisier due to raising the noise floor. 800 ASA, T2.8/f2.8.

Now here’s the funny thing. Remember when I said the added sharpness in the Canon might not necessarily be a benefit? I’ve found that the very slight increase in sharpness in the Canon lens (and it’s very slight), also adds a little more moiré as a result. And again, since the Rokinon isn’t noticeably sharper in real world applications (grab a magnifying glass), the benefit of less moiré might actually be a plus here.

With both lenses fully wide open and at perfectly equal focal lengths to the chart, we see some interesting findings. The Rokinon (left) might be a little softer than the Canon (mostly at the far edges), but it also appears to produce less moiré and chromatic aberration than the Canon. 800 ASA, T1.5/f1.4, 45°.

Closing down the aperture a little to help increase sharpness, the same phenomenon occurs; the Rokinon (left) is a little softer than the Canon, but produces less moiré and chromatic abberation. 800 ASA, T2.8/f2.8, 108°.

At a more sharper sweet spot, we now see that both lenses are very close in overall sharpness, even in regards to moiré and chromatic aberration. At this aperture, you’ll be hard pressed to guess which lens is which. Rokinon, left. 800 ASA, T5.6/f5.6, 360°.

So far, the Rokinon is performing quite well against the Canon. But there are a few other small details I’ve noticed with the Rokinon. For one, the Rokinon seems to produce a very slight (again, very slight) increase in warm cast as compared to the Canon. I’m quite positive that this is due to the fact that the Canon L glass elements are manufactured with such incredibly high tolerances and quality (resulting in slightly clearer glass), whereas the Rokinon isn’t (or it wouldn’t be a $550 lens). But again, this warm cast I’m seeing is incredibly minimal, where it’s not really an issue for me personally. In fact, it may be an advantage is some shooting scenarios!

There also seems to be slightly more contrast in the Canon lens, but like the sharpness and warm cast scenarios, it doesn’t seem enough to be a deal breaker for me.

An interview nightmare; fine stitched garments that can produce moiré havoc (the second suit pattern in particular is the WORST kind to deal with on just about any camera). In this case, the Canon’s added sharpness (right) is both a blessing and a curse, as it produces slightly better detail and contrast, but also a little more moiré in the end. The Rokinon’s (left) warm cast is more apparent in this very monochromatic comparison. Personally, I’d rather dial out the yellow, as moiré is pretty much impossible to 100% repair in post.

All in all, I have to say I’m very pleased with the optical results of the Rokinon on the Cinema Camera. Is it worth the $550 bill, or does the extra $1k on the Canon make it a much wiser solution? Honestly, despite some of the build-quality hits on the Rokinon, I’d say this is actually a nice companion to the Cinema Camera. If I was starting my lens collection from scratch specifically for the Cinema Camera and I wanted to save some coin, I wouldn’t have any issue buying these lenses to build my collection from.

With that said, I would NOT buy these Rokinon lenses for still photography work. This is where the Canon L truly shines, and no question is worth the extra money at three times the cost. That is, if you’re going for professional quality.

But pairing this Rokinon lens with the Cinema Camera, it’s 2.5K resolution, and its ~2.2x crop factor (to cut out any vignetting or edge sharpness issues) really makes for a great match. I have Rokinon’s 14mm T3.1 cine lens is on the way, so I’m looking forward to testing that as well. I’ll likely I’ll also purchase the Rokinon 24mm T1.5 cine lens to add to this little Rokinon collection. But again, the Rokinon 8mm lens… I’m not hugely impressed and am sticking with the Sigma at that focal length. And keep your eyeballs pealed… Rokinon’s 85mm T1.5 Cine lens is due out next month (I’m definitely buying this one as well).

With the sun just barely out of the frame, we see the result of some intentional flaring. Also, both lenses have their apertures fully closed to see how much sharpness they retain; both lenses seem to be pretty equal here (Rokinon, left). 200 ASA, T22/f22, no grade.

Same test as before; intentional flaring and sharpness retention with aperture fully closed (Rokinon, left). 200 ASA, T22/f22, no grade.

Seriously, I think the budget filmmaker is going to really like this crop of Rokinon cine lenses for their Cinema Camera. The price is right and the image holds up to Canon L. Add to the fact that you get to use the Rokinon much more like a real cinema lens, rather than an electronically controlled still photography lens. In the end, the benefits stack up well for the Rokinon.

Since I own both lenses what will I do? If (A) the shot doesn’t have any moiré-inducing elements in it, and (B) I don’t need the functionality of the geared barrels, then I might go with the Canon L for the increased sharpness, truer colors, and higher contrast. But honestly, I’ll probably use the Rokinon in most situations. The Rokinon’s full manual control on both geared barrels is a huge plus for me, as well as knowing I might reduce any moiré elements that I didn’t catch while shooting. But like anything, it just depends on the shot.

Pros and cons of each lens when used with the Cinema Camera

Rokinon Advantages

• Low cost
• Optical qualities somewhat similar to Canon when used on the Cinema Camera
• Full manual operation
• Geared focus ring and geared aperture ring, both lock-to-lock
• De-clicked aperture
• Lens marking on side of barrel, horizontal to the ground, easier to read
• May actually induce less moiré than Canon counterpart
• Spinning focus left and right doesn’t have any play; solid.
• Lens flare seems to be a little cleaner
• Slightly longer focus twist (almost 180°)
• Available in Canon EF, Nikon F, or Sony A mount.

Rokinon Disadvantages

• Very plastic build, nowhere near as good as Canon L
• No apparent weather sealing
• Lens filter thread is plastic
• Just slightly less sharpness and contrast; might help for less moiré though

Canon Advantages

• If used for DSLR still photography, increase in image quality is greatly apparent
• Weather sealed and extremely high build quality
• If moiré isn’t a factor in your shot, the added sharpness of the Canon lens could be beneficial at the open aperture end

Canon Disadvantages

• High cost
• May actually be “too sharp” inducing a slight increase in moiré in some shots
• Electronic aperture, and only works in 1/3rd stop increments
• Must use cumbersome ring gear for follow focus
• Focus does not lock-to-lock, and spins infinitely
• Focusing left and right has slight play in it; a little sloppy for video work
• Slightly shorter focus twist
• Markings are on top of the lens, rather than the side
• At current Cinema Camera version 1.1, aperture is not controllable from the camera with this particular lens

Things to consider

• Both lenses are (or originate from) still photography lenses, and as such, do not have extra long focus throws like real cinema lenses have.
• Neither lens have extra large printed focal length numbers (in this case, “35mm”) to clearly see what lens is being used from afar. Real cinema lenses have this.
• Both lenses share similar bokeh characteristics, including exact octagonal blade shape.
• Because of the Cinema Camera’s ~2.2x crop factor, only the sweet spot of the lens is used for both lenses. Extreme edge-to-edge sharpness is not needed, nor are there any instances of noticeable vignetting, even fully wide open.
• Added cost of Canon lens (about $1k more) might not be justifiable in this scenario.
• Rokinon is about a 36mm or 37mm focal length in comparison to the Canon at 35mm.
• No noticeable difference in chromatic aberration between both lenses; both seem very low.
• Not necessarily good or bad, the Rokinon has a very slight warm tone to it (almost unperceivable in certain types of shots), as compared to the Canon. But the lack of warmth on the Canon does signify to me that it’s slightly truer to color representation.

EDIT: Some people are asking how I was able to change the aperture on the Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens since it can’t be changed in the Cinema Camera itself. Using my trusty 5D, I put the lens on that, made sure video mode was on, set the aperture for the lens, took the lens off (keeping the camera powered on), and then putting the lens on the Cinema Camera. This is the only way I’m currently able to change the aperture on this particular lens on the Cinema Camera. Again, this is only for the 35mm f/1.4L lens (and the 85mm f/1.2L as focus and aperture are on different protocols).

I’m seeing that some people are having some concerns about the mentioned Canon 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II lenses. I’m fairly confident these two lenses will ultimately work with the Cinema Camera, like all the other Canon lenses. If Blackmagic Design can figure out Canon’s Image Stabilization protocol to make that work with the Cinema Camera, I’d have to believe they’ll get these two lenses to properly work as well. Why wasn’t it done first? Anyone’s guess. But again, this camera is only at version 1.1 and there’s still a lot of development in progress, a lot of cool things, I might add.

Products used or mentioned in this article:

I also go into examples of day-for-night, how working with higher dynamic range can be an advantage, even when deployed to web formats, detail versus sharpness, and much more.

Hopefully this garnishes more insight into the advantages of high dynamic range, as well as higher bit-depth flexibility, and how both aspects work hand-in-hand to achieve results that surpass some of the boundaries that 8-bit camera formats provide.

But like all comparison or tech videos that are posted online, there are always questions as to certain aspects of why (or why not) some portions of it where done the way they were (or were not).

For example, I’ve seen a few questions as to why a LOG curve wasn’t applied to the 8-bit file from the 12-bit RAW source footage. I also received some comments that these test are invalid since many 8-bit cameras have the dynamic range to shoot in the same manner as the 12-bit counterpart. To help clear this up, I’ve created some comparison images.

Let’s start with the 12-bit RAW source. Here’s how it looks debayered by default in Adobe RAW Reader.

By comparison, here is the same 12-bit image, with many of the levels setting applied to bring out the highlights and shadow detail.

Now personally, I don’t know a single 8-bit camera in the world that can retain this kind of dynamic range into its burned-in video file. Remember, this is a darkly lit room interior with only practical lighting, as well as extremely bright external city with a high exposure sky and clouds. If anyone has shot inside a room (with any kind of 8-bit camera) and pointed the camera outside, it’s always immediate that the window portions always blow out. You either expose for the interior, or the exterior, that is, if you don’t have means of properly reducing the exterior output by using ND gels on the windows, or bringing up the lighting in the interior and such. But lighting and filters aside, and just speaking at the camera level for this test, any 8-bit camera is going to have limits at its 256-level container. Typically, we let the majority of the window area become blow out, so we can retain some latitude in the shadow and mid areas. But this limitation is what this test is all about; to show how well the Cinema Camera (or any 12-bit camera with high dynamic range) can work under such extreme situations.

And like the video, here’s the 12-bit source with a -4 reduction in exposure:

As you can see, the sky (and curtains for that matter) retain a huge amount of image data. The sky is blue, the clouds have definition, and the histogram shows only a tiny amount (maybe 5%) of image data loss at the very high end.

Okay, let’s see it in 8-bit. Add 50-Mbps compression, 4:2:0 color space, and everything else done to keep these files small, and you lose huge amounts of image detail. Here’s the 8-bit H.264 file at 50Mbps rate:

But to prove this point further, lets look and see what would happen if made the 8-bit file with a more aggressive curve to more closely mimic that of a high-end 8-bit camera that allows for LOG shooting. Again, the remainder of this is all being done in 8-bit uncompressed, so keep that in mind.

Here’s curve “A”, which brings in highlight and shadow detail for the 8-bit conversion.

It’s not a huge departure from the original, but let’s see what happens when we apply -4 exposure to this file.

As you can clearly see, the portions in the sky turn to gray, much like they do in the original linear file in the video. There’s really not much of a difference, and the histogram stills shows a huge empty space, which means there’s not image data there.

Lets apply an even more aggressive curve to what will now be curve “B” for this 8-bit source file.

A curve would never be this dramatic, but there it is. And as we can see, this doesn’t do a ton for the area in the sky… those clouds are still pretty hidden in there. Let’s see what it looks like with -4 exposure now from a burned 8-bit source.

As extreme as curve “B” is, the result is almost identical to that of the curve “A” version. Just a lot of gray sky, and the histogram shows a lot of empty (no data) space.

Okay, let’s get really wacky. Rather than pull a curve from the 12-bit source, I’m going to manipulate the Highlight and Shadow levels of the 12-bit image to give us an image that gives us an 8-bit image with greater retention in the sky and shadow areas. Keep in mind though, this is NOT realistic of what any 8-bit camera would provide. This is partially due to the fact that the highlight and shadow zones of the histogram I’m pulling are extremely small and tight. Cameras that record to 8-bit formats do NOT create curves anywhere near this tight and acute. It would produce negatively adverse results with any image that does NOT have this kind of dynamic range extreme in it, i.e., the dark interior room AND the bright exterior sky in one shot. Okay, so here it is:

Now again, this isn’t a curve in the same sense, but we’ll call this curve “C”. As you can see, the Highlights and Shadows levels are completely moved to maximum opposite values (-100 and +100). There’s no camera in the world that would shoot like this because any other type of shot without these two extremes (interior shadows and exterior sky) would look very dull and synthetic. But for the sake of argument, we’ll use this curve “C”.

So with this pseudo curve that wouldn’t be captured this way on an 8-bit camera, we can still see that at -4 exposure, the sky turns dark, even if we do see some retention in the sky area with the clouds. And again, that’s a lot of image data on the histogram that has disappeared.

Now for some serious craziness, I’m going to pull the graded 12-bit image, and use THAT as the 8-bit source, and then pull negative exposure on that. It’s asinine, but it’ll help dispel any remaining questions about this.

So here’s the 12-bit graded shot, now acting as an 8-bit source. Mind you (and repeatedly), I do not know of any 8-bit camera in the world that can capture this kind of extreme exposure zones of interior shadows and exterior skylight energy in the same single shot. If there is, point me to it. Anyway, here’s the graded 12-bit shot again that we’ll now use as the 8-bit burned source, and call this example “D”.

And with this exported file to 8-bit, here we now set exposure to -4 and this is the result:

As you can see, everything becomes dark and again, roughly 75% of the image data is gone.  This of course, starting with an unrealistic 8-bit source (that is impossible to achieve in the first place), so it’s a rather moot point. But regardless, this is what you get when working with 8-bit files when you push them hard.

And again, here’s the 12-bit source image with the same exposure reduction:

And really, this is the whole point of the video (in the dynamic range section), that with 12-bit information, you can sweep these levels high and low, while still retaining a TON of image data in the process. This is something that 8-bit formats just can’t provide. Likewise, there isn’t an 8-bit camera out there that can capture this extreme level of exposure zones from imager to 8-bit truncation. Again, if to the contrary, please point me to one with footage to back it up, as I’d be interested to see this miracle happen.

Dynamic range and bit-depth are two different entities, but together can work hand-in-hand to bring results that trump any form of 8-bit limitations. Again, no matter what kind of picture profile voodoo or LOG implementation is manifested in the 8-bit data, shooting this same kind of shot (interior room shadows and exterior sky together) is a feat no 8-bit camera is happy to undertake, even with high dynamic range at the sensor level.

Honestly, my feeling is that anyone that tries to argue this further is merely trying to protect the cost of their camera investment (or the cameras they rent and bill to their clients). And don’t get me wrong, there are many other aspects as to why more expensive high-bit-rate cameras are indeed better than the Cinema Camera, I don’t argue that one bit. Frankly, I’d love to own an Arri Alexa or Sony F65/F55. But don’t let the small cost of this $3000 camera cloud the logic behind its image capabilities against 8-bit counterparts.

And to anyone that still begs to differ, I leave you with me and my shirt:

Cheers!

Colorist Rob Bessette will also be on board showing Davinci Resolve workflow with Cinema Camera footage. And Bob Caniglia from Blackmagic Design will be present for the latest Cinema Camera news.

A very fun night for sure, so don’t miss out!