Great feedback from everyone. 2 quick notes: (1) I think @billyoung9538 identified correctly that the filter removed was the IR cut, NOT the OLPF. (2) and there was no trickery with the low light test, but…I think it might have been more of an ISO noise test and not a true low light test so I will come up with better tests for the next video.
Great video. When you mentioned being at ISO 100 for highlights you are absolutely correct. But I saw an awesome video from Rob Ellis talking about shooting a night interior scene. And believe it or not ISO 100 was the best for shooting a night interior for the cleanest looking shadows and he was using a 6K Pro. So for clean shadows the low ISO's are better. That being said you obviously need light for these cameras.
The assumtion was the OLPF was integrated into the IR Cut, but if this is showing the same Moire with and without the IR Cut in place then that means the IR Cut was removed and the OLPF was not.
@@billyoung9538 great point. I admit I wasn’t going to do much surgery beyond the ‘easy one’. I bet you are correct and the OLPF is mounted to the sensor like most other sensors I started to research (S1H, Canon, etc).
@@charlesn Given most of the after market OLPF's for older Blackmagic cameras were done as MOD replacements to those cameras stock IR cut filters, pretty much everyone assumed Blackmagic took the same route with the Ursa mini 12k OLPF. It even tested almost identically to an UM12k with the Rawlite OLPF. So thus the idea that the OLPF and IR cut were the same on all OLPF based Blackmagic cameras seemed like a logical leap, but your test seems to prove that this likely isn't the case. This isn't 100% definitive, but when the moire pattern doesn't change at all, if all other factors were exactly the same, then that most certainly suggests the OLPF is still on.
U read my mind about the comparison between the BM FF and Panasonic s52X. You forgot also to add the lag when using a blackmagic recorder and the price of the recorder itself :)). Would be nice to have a DR comparison between the BM and Lumix
@@charlesnso you say that with the BM recorder you actually don't get the true 3:2 open gate from the camera HDMI of the S52x? Also was wondering if 50fps is also possible with the recorder. A main difference between the S52x and a BM full frame is that in open gate you have 36fps but in the Lumix you cannot
@@alexandruprepelita2771 Yeah, the BM Video Assist (with S5iix) shoots in 16:9 with the S5iix in 5.9k BRAW. The highest fps is 30 in 5.9k and 60 fps in 4.1k (17:9). The other sadness about the S5iix is that in 24 Hz mode to shoot true 24 fps, HDMI RAW Data Output mode is disabled...just another testimony of how versatile the BM cameras are, you can change to whatever fps you want and it doesn't slow you down in other modes.
Id like to add that anamorphic S35 is typically not always 4 perf - essentially if you take 35mm film at 8 perfs per foto and turn it vertical(up and down like a movie camera) imagine a rectangle every 4perfs THATS roughly 18mm perf frame remember S35 is smaller only because the strip gets pulled down not left to right like foto 35mm at 36x24mm- same film only chemically different.. remjet etc... Most vintage ANAMorphics are designed for 4 perf 24x18mm I think its a Fun coincidence but I think youre giving BMD more credit than they deserve. Full frame as in photo 36x24 anamorphic are a recent creation although some larger circle optics existed before 2018 photo size imagers were not the intention.
14:44 : All cinema projectors are compliant with DCI standard : full matrice projection chips is always ( nec/sony/christies...) 17/9 dci. So, yes theater screen and many movies are 2.4 ratio, but it's just a crop from chips sensor. The "real" theater projection DCI standard full matrice is 17/9.
10:52 from my POV ( digital shots for theaters since somes years, documentary single-operator) your second-test about noise level seems unrelevant. it's not a fair, logical comparison. From your first test ( and from any other test by others peoples) cry the reality : 6k Full frame have not a "real" double-iso. IF you need to push the sensitivity sometimes : S35 6k pro still the best choice. For me. And i need to say something more : when you choose best-glasses ( i stack the best glasses from 70' until now) S35 become more and more relevant, because it's easier to find best glasses for cover that surface. ( vignetting eat light, border circle-image is often softer with 24X36 sensor) So for me, from any brand until now : S35 still the right size for filming.
There’s no way the full frame performs just as good as the 6k pro in lowlight. I owned both these cameras at the same time and was in shock at how much noisier the full frame was at iso1250 and up. It’s CLEARLY more noisier and it wasn’t because of the zoom. I’m confused at how you got those results
@@adriancluskey3640 it’s pretty much common knowledge that the full frame is noisier. There’s so many comparisons on UA-cam under the same setting…in video form with no zoom…that shows how much noisier the full frame is in second iso range. To be clear…I’m only talking about second native iso range not the first.
Great feedback from everyone. 2 quick notes: (1) I think @billyoung9538 identified correctly that the filter removed was the IR cut, NOT the OLPF. (2) and there was no trickery with the low light test, but…I think it might have been more of an ISO noise test and not a true low light test so I will come up with better tests for the next video.
I’m still blown away by the image that comes out of my 6K Pro. Most of the time I prefer it over the image from my Ursa 12K. Thanks for the video.
I've never used the Ursa 12k, it looks like quite the beast. I still love the 6k Pro too. It's what I filmed the Stargate fan film with.
Great video. When you mentioned being at ISO 100 for highlights you are absolutely correct. But I saw an awesome video from Rob Ellis talking about shooting a night interior scene. And believe it or not ISO 100 was the best for shooting a night interior for the cleanest looking shadows and he was using a 6K Pro. So for clean shadows the low ISO's are better. That being said you obviously need light for these cameras.
@@crosshammerfilms thanks! And thanks for sharing Rob’s approach. I’ll definitely watch his video and see how he set it up.
This is awesome! Thank you!
12:03 should be shallower DOF🙂anyways great video!
Ugh, you're right, lol. Thanks for letting me know so I don't make the same silly nomenclature mistake next time.
Thanks for the video, Charles.
@@ManVersusCamera thanks for watching!
The assumtion was the OLPF was integrated into the IR Cut, but if this is showing the same Moire with and without the IR Cut in place then that means the IR Cut was removed and the OLPF was not.
@@billyoung9538 great point. I admit I wasn’t going to do much surgery beyond the ‘easy one’. I bet you are correct and the OLPF is mounted to the sensor like most other sensors I started to research (S1H, Canon, etc).
@@charlesn Given most of the after market OLPF's for older Blackmagic cameras were done as MOD replacements to those cameras stock IR cut filters, pretty much everyone assumed Blackmagic took the same route with the Ursa mini 12k OLPF. It even tested almost identically to an UM12k with the Rawlite OLPF. So thus the idea that the OLPF and IR cut were the same on all OLPF based Blackmagic cameras seemed like a logical leap, but your test seems to prove that this likely isn't the case. This isn't 100% definitive, but when the moire pattern doesn't change at all, if all other factors were exactly the same, then that most certainly suggests the OLPF is still on.
U read my mind about the comparison between the BM FF and Panasonic s52X. You forgot also to add the lag when using a blackmagic recorder and the price of the recorder itself :)). Would be nice to have a DR comparison between the BM and Lumix
Great points…the added cost of the video assist definitely pushes the cost $$$ - the lag can be a nuisance too.
@@charlesnso you say that with the BM recorder you actually don't get the true 3:2 open gate from the camera HDMI of the S52x? Also was wondering if 50fps is also possible with the recorder.
A main difference between the S52x and a BM full frame is that in open gate you have 36fps but in the Lumix you cannot
You are correct. The BM video assist is only 16:9 for 5.9k BRAW and only 30 fps max in 5.9k, but will record 4.1k (17:9 APSC) up to 60 fps
@@alexandruprepelita2771 Yeah, the BM Video Assist (with S5iix) shoots in 16:9 with the S5iix in 5.9k BRAW. The highest fps is 30 in 5.9k and 60 fps in 4.1k (17:9). The other sadness about the S5iix is that in 24 Hz mode to shoot true 24 fps, HDMI RAW Data Output mode is disabled...just another testimony of how versatile the BM cameras are, you can change to whatever fps you want and it doesn't slow you down in other modes.
Id like to add that anamorphic S35 is typically not always 4 perf - essentially if you take 35mm film at 8 perfs per foto and turn it vertical(up and down like a movie camera) imagine a rectangle every 4perfs THATS roughly 18mm perf frame remember S35 is smaller only because the strip gets pulled down not left to right like foto 35mm at 36x24mm- same film only chemically different.. remjet etc... Most vintage ANAMorphics are designed for 4 perf 24x18mm I think its a Fun coincidence but I think youre giving BMD more credit than they deserve. Full frame as in photo 36x24 anamorphic are a recent creation although some larger circle optics existed before 2018 photo size imagers were not the intention.
14:44 : All cinema projectors are compliant with DCI standard : full matrice projection chips is always ( nec/sony/christies...) 17/9 dci. So, yes theater screen and many movies are 2.4 ratio, but it's just a crop from chips sensor. The "real" theater projection DCI standard full matrice is 17/9.
10:52 from my POV ( digital shots for theaters since somes years, documentary single-operator) your second-test about noise level seems unrelevant. it's not a fair, logical comparison. From your first test ( and from any other test by others peoples) cry the reality : 6k Full frame have not a "real" double-iso. IF you need to push the sensitivity sometimes : S35 6k pro still the best choice. For me. And i need to say something more : when you choose best-glasses ( i stack the best glasses from 70' until now) S35 become more and more relevant, because it's easier to find best glasses for cover that surface. ( vignetting eat light, border circle-image is often softer with 24X36 sensor) So for me, from any brand until now : S35 still the right size for filming.
There’s no way the full frame performs just as good as the 6k pro in lowlight. I owned both these cameras at the same time and was in shock at how much noisier the full frame was at iso1250 and up. It’s CLEARLY more noisier and it wasn’t because of the zoom. I’m confused at how you got those results
I would agree with Charles, I thought the same when look at my own footage in Da Vinci that I've shot with both cameras.
@@adriancluskey3640 it’s pretty much common knowledge that the full frame is noisier. There’s so many comparisons on UA-cam under the same setting…in video form with no zoom…that shows how much noisier the full frame is in second iso range. To be clear…I’m only talking about second native iso range not the first.
the 6kFF has a shocking amount of noise.
It’s a good point I didn’t consider, I’ll look into testing the ISO’s separately.