Blackmagic’s line of cinema cameras are often compared to the RED Epic, Arri Alexa and other raw shoot video cameras, and for good reason. They’re in the same league as RED and Alexa, primarily because of their ability to capture pristine high dynamic range imagery that’s not possible on any other compression format, including DSLR formats.
But the biggest difference between the BMCC and any camera from RED or Arri is of course the price tag, with the lower price naturally attracting a different crowd of camera users. While the BMCC generated considerable curiosity from the professional film industry, most of the camera’s early adopters were emerging filmmakers and artists with more limited budgets. Most of these people come from a DSLR background – just like me. For me, having shot hundreds of projects with a DSLR, I’ve always hoped that a camera like the BMCC would come along to bridge the gap between what’s affordable and what’s possible.
While the BMCC meets these needs in almost every way and is certainly a better cinema-style camera than any DSLR, its low price does come with some benefits. One feature I really wish it had was a higher frame rate. It currently tops out at 30 fps, and if you plan on shooting any slow-motion footage, you can only slow down to 80% in 24p sequences. For example, my GH3 can shoot 1080/60p and can capture some really nice slow motion, which impressed me from day one. I don’t like overusing slow motion by any means, but I do like to use it tastefully and sparingly, and I like knowing that my camera is capable of delivering a frame rate of at least 48 fps. The point is, this is a very important feature that my GH3 has but the BMCC doesn’t. Logically, this means that I – and probably many other BMCC shooters – will end up using the GH3 as the B camera for the BMCC.
The GH3 has always felt like a natural fit for BMCC for a number of reasons. The sensor sizes are very close (the BMCC has a slightly smaller sensor), the BMCC offers MFT (or at least will soon?), and the GH3 shoots 60fps at 1080p, which few DSLRs can do. Finally, the GH3 has a very high-resolution 1080p image that cuts very well with the BMCC in my opinion.
I will be directing a feature film called “Brothers and Sisters” at the end of the summer, which will be shot primarily using Blackmagic Cinema Cameras. We’ll be shooting some footage with the Epic, but I’ll also be shooting B-roll, slo-mo, and second-unit footage on the GH3, and always have it with me on set. I’ll be releasing more information about the film soon, so check back soon for updates and behind-the-scenes information on what we’re working on.
With the feature coming soon, I decided to do some quick and dirty testing with the camera to see how well they perform together. These are by no means scientific tests. They were purely improvised and there were a lot of little variables that were out of my control. But that’s how I like to test cameras. I find that pulling them out and shooting is sometimes the best way for me to see how the cameras match up in a practical sense, because that’s actually how I interact with them on set. Instead of shooting test charts in the studio (although that can be a great way to really see what’s going on behind the scenes).
CV5B8NSSTX4M
Watch the comparison video and check out my notes below:
For a higher quality test version, please download this video directly from the vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/66950139
low light
For this test, I mounted Rokinon 35mm cine lenses on both cameras, set to T1.5. It’s obvious from the footage that the GH3 is a noisier camera than the BMCC. While the GH3 isn’t an overly grainy camera by any means (I actually found it to be very clean at ISO 800 and below), noise does start to show through in situations like this. Even at relatively low ISOs (such as 400 and 800) you can clearly see some noise “between zones”. Underlit midtones will always show more noise than hot spots or completely underexposed areas, which look dark. Relatively speaking, before ISO 3200, the noise of BMCC was lower. level.
This test also showed a huge difference in the dynamic range of the two cameras. I shot this in ProRes mode at the BMCC (I only used raw once on this shot), and I have no doubt that the DR difference will be more noticeable in raw. But even with ProRes, if you look at the loss of detail in the candle flames on the GH3 at ISO 800, it’s pretty severe compared to the BMCC at the same ISO. BMCC really has these highlights – you can really see the difference BMCC makes here.
One final note is that compared to the digitized blocky noise present in the GH3 footage, the noise in the BMCC footage is more pleasant, refined, and easier to de-noise through clean video. Of course, a lot of this is due to ProRes’ minimal compression compared to AVCHD, but it’s pretty obvious when you actually put it on a monitor and look at the difference side by side.
dynamic range
I wanted to do a more extreme dynamic range test later, as this setting didn’t quite push the GH3 as far as it could. This is a good sign for the GH3, as setting it up this way will definitely cause more trouble for other DSLRs with less DR than the GH3. The GH3 is also at an unfair disadvantage in this case because I shot in raw format at the BMCC. I do this because in real life scenarios, which is when I take raw photos at the BMCC – when shooting high contrast shots, the extra aperture or so of dynamic range can be used.
Obviously, I knew BMCC was going to be the clear winner in this area, but to my surprise, the difference in this case wasn’t as big as I thought. It turns out that the GH3 retains quite a bit of detail in highlight exposures. If I had to shoot a slow motion sequence with this type of lighting, I would do it with confidence using the GH3 because I know I could match the camera well in post.
The key with the GH3 is to expose for the highlights and not worry too much about slightly underexposing the subject, as the camera retains quite a bit of detail in the shadows and lower mid-tones.
Mary
The GH3 has never been terrible at moiré, but it definitely exhibits more than its predecessor, the GH2. BMCC does not have an OLPF, so it is prone to moiré problems. That being said, for whatever reason, in real life, neither camera gave me any real trouble with moiré in actual shooting.
I only had a few hours to shoot with the BMCC today as I had to ship it back to Blackmagic in the late afternoon to complete the flange repair. So that meant the entire shoot had to be done in and around my apartment. Almost nothing I photograph (including clothing, bricks, and other fabrics) produces moiré on either camera. The only thing that worked was my couch and I really had to look for it to get it to show up on either camera. I’m sure if I had been able to venture further I could have found something to photograph that would have created a worse scene, but this is the most I could get out of the camera today. When shooting, I thought it would look worse on both cameras because the images on both LCDs looked like they had a lot of moiré (more moiré than there was on the actual lens). Of course, this is mostly because the image is scaled down to fit the lower resolution display. But there are things you need to pay attention to when shooting.
Having said that, I would definitely say that the GH3 comes out on top in this regard. They are very close, but the moiré fringes of BMCC are more obvious. So, in some cases, the GH3 might be able to save you in a pinch, although it still suffers from moiré issues and shouldn’t be considered a failsafe.
rolling shutter
This was the least scientific of all the tests because I had to shoot each camera individually. I’d love to roll them both at the same time for a more accurate end result, but the longest lens I had with me at the time was a 50mm Canon EF mount, and I didn’t have any other 50mm to mount on this lens. I could have shot with a wider lens and had both cameras rolling at the same time, but a longer lens would have shown the rolling shutter more clearly.
Again I think the GH3 is the winner here. Again, they were all close. There isn’t a huge difference between the two, but in my opinion there is a noticeable increase in rolling shutter artifacts on the BMCC lenses. This may be partly due to the slightly larger crop factor, but it does seem to be there regardless.
But on the other hand, in real-life shooting scenarios, the BMCC may actually have fewer rolling shutter issues, especially in terms of micro-shake. This is because the BMCC is a heavier camera, so it will probably be more stable when shooting handheld or shoulder-mounted, so you won’t have as much jello issues.
all in all…
I’m definitely more confident now using the GH3 with the BMCC for slow motion and B-camera shots. You need to be extra careful with the GH3 to make sure you set the look in camera more accurately, as there is much less flexibility in post. However, once you get the right look in camera, the GH3 serves as a solid slow-motion/backup camera for the BMCC.
It seems to have less moiré and rolling shutter issues than the BMCC, but is not as clean in low light and has much less dynamic range, especially compared to the original BMCC. It’s not the type of DSLR you’d use to replace a BMCC in low light situations – as the BMCC is actually pretty good in low light situations, and in my opinion, is pretty underrated.
The cameras aren’t close enough to match to use them in a multi-camera environment unless it’s documentary based and you want that look. But for slow motion, very tight scenes, and other tricky scenes, the GH3 performs very well and is definitely a camera that goes hand in hand with the BMCC.
If you’re interested in the Gh3, be sure to check out my comparison of the GH2 and GH3 and my article on shooting feature films on the GH2.
If you’re concerned about the Blackmagic compact camera, check out this article discussing how it compares to the Blackmagic 4k camera.
