[HN Gopher] Blackmagic Camera for iPhone
___________________________________________________________________
Blackmagic Camera for iPhone
Author : Lwrless
Score : 433 points
Date : 2023-10-09 05:27 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.blackmagicdesign.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.blackmagicdesign.com)
| abhinai wrote:
| Can someone please ELI5 why this link deserves to be the top on
| hacker news?
| linsomniac wrote:
| A lot of the world is creating content, and this includes
| hackers. My most recent TikTok was about password managers.
|
| Timecode makes this a gamechanger, especially for the casual
| filmer.
|
| I've been messing around with crappy action cams for things
| like recording my kids performances and the like. I've been
| using two cameras (it's nice to have a second PoV, especially
| when someone walks in front of the camera), but it is a world
| of pain on these cameras.
|
| I came *this close* to buying a pair of GoPro Hero 12s this
| past week because they finally have fully baked timecode into
| the firmware, but it seems like they also have problems with
| overheating when recording for 25 minutes inside (let alone in
| the sun).
|
| This release means I can use a couple old iPhones I have
| retired, and likely get pretty good timesync out of it,
| automatically, without having to go into the videos and spend
| literally hours syncing multiple camera angles and dealing with
| drift from different cameras.
| screamingninja wrote:
| Our discussion is certainly contributing to keeping it there
| longer than necessary
| langarus wrote:
| hackernews is about what's important to the one posting
| dgellow wrote:
| People vote for it. There is no such thing as "deserve to be at
| the top". If the HN crowd show interests and upvote, then it
| rises.
| dataengineer56 wrote:
| That's only true if you believe that every vote on HN is
| honest.
| dgellow wrote:
| I don't think that's necessary for the system to work. If
| topics the community find interest in can reach the front
| page, and "toxic" subjects are contained well enough, then
| the system works.
|
| It doesn't really matter if upvoters are honest or not. If
| you can cheat in a way that makes your post reach and stay
| on the front page, it's very likely that people are
| interested in discussing the topic.
|
| So far HN system has been working pretty good. Not for all
| topics of course, some result in really toxic exchanges or
| annoy some people. But you almost never see spam or
| obviously astroturfed content in the front page (at least
| compared to Reddit and other places).
| baq wrote:
| HN moderation is super heavy handed and we like it this
| way. Alternatives are predictably enshittified.
| lopis wrote:
| I'm surprised too. Isn't this essentially an ad? I guess it's
| OK because it's a free app.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| Isn't everything an ad? Even when someone posts a GitHub link
| to their project?
| Levitating wrote:
| Yes but they're not trying to sell their open source
| project to us
| qup wrote:
| The app is free
| matsemann wrote:
| Should we ban new iPhone releases from being discussed
| here? Other tech released as well?
| franga2000 wrote:
| So many things on HN could be considered ads. People often
| post about even non-major releases of SaaS products. The
| launch of a brand new powerful app and the entry of a big
| company into a new market seems a lot more newsworthy than
| most of those.
| dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote:
| Because once upon a time people made software instead of
| training models and some of those people still like to see
| what's going on in the world of actual software development.
| fragmede wrote:
| > What to Submit
|
| > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
| That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to
| reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that
| gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| soultrees wrote:
| I think it's because BM has a cult following and part of that
| is because BMs software is notoriously high quality and they
| seem to be doing things the right way bg avoiding subscriptions
| and putting real resources into engineering effort for their
| cameras but also the software.
|
| I, for one, was excited to see a BM product available on my
| iPhone now so I can see why others are just as excited. Google
| has made the front page for less noteworthy apps before I'm
| sure.
| [deleted]
| gls2ro wrote:
| My perspective:
|
| Blackmagic has great, mostly professional hardware (cameras and
| more) with high-quality, stable software again focused on pro-
| market. They also have amateur or entry-level stuff, but even
| those have excellent quality.
|
| So Blackmagic deciding to create an app for iPhone might say
| they consider the iPhone camera good enough for them. And this
| is a message worth considering.
| moondev wrote:
| https://medium.com/hacking-and-gonzo/how-hacker-news-ranking...
| dcow wrote:
| As a non-film person, can someone explain what it means to
| _create the same cinematic 'look' as Hollywood feature films_?
| What is Blackmagic doing when recording video to make the video
| feel more professional?
| Neil44 wrote:
| Imagine the difference between say a sit-com and a movie with
| the sound off. The movie will have range and intentionality to
| the scenes. Light, dark, vibrant, dull, perciptible and
| intentional changes from one to another to match the story. The
| sitcom is just clear and bright. The camera phone on auto is
| just going to aim for sitcom all the time wheras this app
| allows you to be intentional in order to look cool and tell a
| story.
| eurekin wrote:
| No attempt at real answer, but some hints from watching youtube
| videos on the topic:
|
| Lightning:
|
| - Edge or back lightning, if dramatic
|
| - Wraparaound (cradle) lighting, if for pleasantness
|
| - Low key look for interiors (no white walls)
|
| - Artificial light needs to be motivated as much as possible
|
| Set design
|
| - Add bankers light for any money related film, normal table
| light for anything else
|
| Lens
|
| - Anamorphics to avoid perspective distortion typical to
| spherical lenses, also for the "rich depth of field" effect
|
| - Surprisingly the best lens technically don't give the most
| "pleasing" (at least in "hollywood" terms) image. They are even
| called "clinical" or too sharp. A lot of DP's like lens with a
| "character", altough some artifacts are regarded universally
| ugly (like the longitudinal chromatic aberration, which pukes
| green and cyan fringes around the image)
|
| Camera
|
| - High dynamic range camera, no clipping of highlights or
| blacks (add light, if necessary)
|
| - Must be able to retain true image details, any digital
| sharpening in the source footage immediately puts things off
|
| Color grading:
|
| - Good tone mapping: should look "good" in black and white,
| mostly solved with lighting
|
| - Pleasing color palette: color harmonies, gradients in good
| perceptual color space, like okmap. Mostly solved by set
| design, character and dress design
|
| - Even saturation: previous point should cover "nice colors",
| but the saturation is one of the most overlooked aspects. It
| can be highly or sparingly saturated, but too much variation in
| a single frame quickly makes for a garbage image. Also, one has
| to fight most software color manipulation tools, which tends to
| brighten up highly saturated parts, where in reality, they
| should go darker
|
| That's a whole package of things, for a camera control
| specifically, typical operator or AC wants:
|
| - Manual focus pull
|
| - Way to judge "exposure", measured in IRE
|
| - Some way to approximate highlight to shadow exposure ratio;
| 2:1 for "happy" look, 4:1 for dark, 5:1 or more for Batman
|
| - Highlight clipping warning (especially important on talent's
| skin)
|
| - Shutter angle control (typically 180 or 90 degrees), instead
| of the shutter time used in photography
| scrollop wrote:
| How do you reduce the severe oversharpening with iphones?
|
| Is there an app that can take footage without oversharpening?
| eurekin wrote:
| I really don't know, if that even is possible.
|
| That's main reason, why cinema cameras are picked.
|
| I suspect that it could be possible now, to an extent. We
| have quite good image restoration tools, some based on
| neural networks. Maybe one could be trained for iPhone
| specifically.
| ngrilly wrote:
| I'm a non-film person as well, but I've been playing with this
| a bit. One key ingredient of the cinema look is the shutter
| speed. The iPhone standard camera app is constantly adjusting
| the shutter speed and the ISO depending on how much light the
| camera is getting.
|
| Movie cameras work differently with a shutter speed fixed at 24
| fps, except for some scenes with specific requirements (for
| example slow motion). The light is controlled using the ISO,
| the aperture, the lighting, and ND filters.
|
| A nice trick people are using with smartphones to get the
| cinema look is to use an app like Blackmagic Camera, lock the
| shutter speed at 24 fps, and mount a variable ND filter on the
| smartphone to control how much light is received by the sensor,
| since we can't control with the aperture.
| tern wrote:
| 1. They are giving you all the tools needed to work in a
| professional way in a professional setting. This includes many
| things like being able to set all the camera settings manually,
| good metering to avoid clipping the sensor, audio metering to
| avoid clipping the recorder, timecode synchronization with
| other cameras & audio recorders, LUT preview, etc.
|
| 2. The "cinematic look" comes from a combination of things:
|
| - good lighting (using professional lights in most situations)
|
| - 180 degree shutter angle (aka "24fps"), or slow motion where
| appropriate
|
| - careful and artistic color grading
|
| - taking time to set up the scene in advance & good framing
|
| - good lenses
|
| - good camera sensors (mainly, high dynamic range)
|
| - holding the camera still or moving it smoothly through the
| scene (except when deliberately not, as in for instance The
| Office)
|
| - music
|
| - and, more important than you'd think: very high quality audio
| (good mics, appropriately mic'd, low noise, dubbed in post if
| needed, SFX added)
|
| 3. In short, what creates the "cinematic look" is many factors
| (and, usually, people) coming together as a system. This app
| lets your phone be part of that system.
|
| 4. What makes this app unique: (1) it integrates directly with
| Davinci Resolve in a way that's probably more convenient than
| Filmic Pro for that workflow and (2) it's free.
|
| People have been making films and TV shows on iPhones for
| years, so this is more of an incremental event in the industry.
| javchz wrote:
| Marketing aside, cinematic in this context means more or less
| "manual control".
|
| Something that makes a video look amateurish, it's the phone
| trying its best to prioritise a 'clear image', but that means
| changing parameters mid-recording.
|
| Now, this isn't bad, it's ideal for someone who doesn't want to
| lose the moment without worrying about choosing the right
| setting (imagine a parent recording their child's recital or
| soccer game). But the trade-off is that it looks choppy.
|
| But if you're in a controlled environment, you can set a fixed
| exposure (balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture),
| framerate, bit-depth, focus distance, colour temperature and
| microphone gain depending on your intent.
|
| As an example, image you want to have a high-contrast image
| with a dark silluette of someone and a bright background like a
| sunset, the default phone camera app will try to guess whether
| you want to focus on the subject or the background, and will
| switching between the two randomly. With manual control, you
| can chose, whatch you want.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Something that makes a video look amateurish [...] changing
| parameters mid-recording
|
| A prime example of this is leaving autofocus on when you're
| moving about. There's many YouTubers who haven't yet learnt
| this lesson and it can make the video unwatchable.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Yes. It's very rare to see the focus change during a movie
| or TV show. The main exception is when the focus switches
| between two people talking, when their positions are known
| in advance and dialled in so there isn't any visible
| hunting
| kenjackson wrote:
| With "Cinematic" video mode on the iPhone you can edit
| focus in post with the iPhone Photos app. It does a good
| job for this two person talking scenario.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Having worked as a loader/2nd AC and getting thrown into
| the focus puller chair on some b-roll - focus is changing
| constantly. On a movie set, it's pretty much an entire
| person's job.
| badcppdev wrote:
| Does the focus change during a shot?
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Unless the distance of the camera and the subject do not
| move at all, the focus will be actively changing - yes.
|
| Depending on various conditions (lighting, lens choice,
| etc) there might be a very large distance range that is
| in focus - or it might just be a few inches. Even if the
| focus puller isn't doing any big focus swings, they are
| likely making small adjustments.
| kuschku wrote:
| You can actually see focus changes quite often in movies
| and TV shows - but they're usually done intentionally to
| accentuate something, e.g. a focus pull from a foreground
| object to an actor in the background.
|
| But it's a slow and smooth motion without any focus
| breathing intended to highlight an object or an actor,
| not just autofocus hunting to find _something_
| didntcheck wrote:
| This is probably an elementary question, but are those
| focal shifts still done manually, with a camera guy
| turning the ring by hand? Or do they set the two points
| in advance and hit a button to start a motorized
| transition?
| petee wrote:
| Behind the scenes, look for when they are "marking,"
| which is leaving little piece of tape or otherwise on the
| ground where the actors are standing. The focus puller
| will make indications on their focus ring to match these;
| as long as the actor "hits their mark" the focus will be
| dead on. A majority of time the operation is fully manual
| (though possibly remote to the camera)
| rob74 wrote:
| That's how I remembered it too. And that's also then one
| of the major differences between this app and an actual
| professional camera - because on a smartphone you only
| have autofocus. Which works _most of the time_ , but I've
| had some recordings of concerts with weird lighting,
| smoke and other stuff which were out of focus for quite a
| few seconds. One of the most stupid things is when you
| try to take a picture of a bird or airplane in flight and
| your smartphone can't focus on it because it's too small.
| Why can't it just default to focus to infinity if it
| can't find anything to focus on?
| foldr wrote:
| >because on a smartphone you only have autofocus
|
| Focus can be controlled manually on the iPhone (in 3rd
| party apps).
| AtheistOfFail wrote:
| there's a dedicated person usually called a focus puller.
| kuschku wrote:
| Kind of both? You've usually got a small motor connected
| to the lens that turns the focus ring.
|
| A dedicated person, called a focus puller, has a remote
| with a wheel on the side. By turning this wheel the focus
| puller can remotely control the focus ring of the lens.
|
| The remote usually allows the focus puller to set the
| maximum range of motion with A/B points. The system
| doesn't automatically execute the focus pull, but with
| the hard stops at the A/B points the focus puller can
| make sure they don't overshoot the target.
| thirdsun wrote:
| At that point it sounds easier to have the focus switch
| executed automatically with all relevant parameters
| preset, e.g. duration or curve. Sort of like CSS
| transition or MIDI automation.
| ilyt wrote:
| It's not rare at all. It is just deliberate in
| movies/shows, not something algorithm on camera
| constantly fiddles with.
| abm53 wrote:
| I've seen enough videos with otherwise high production
| values to make me suspect there is a valid trade-off to
| keeping autofocus on.
| astrange wrote:
| It depends if you have a cameraman or not. If you don't,
| and you're walking away from the camera, it's probably
| best to leave it on and hope it tracks you.
| AdamN wrote:
| The TLDR; version of this is the progression from amateur to
| expert: 1/ controls are set wrong in the first place, 2/
| computer changes controls during the shot but it's
| distracting and obvious, 3/ controls are set right in the
| first place and everything looks good and consistent, 4/
| expert modifies the controls mid-shot (and the shot requires
| this) and it looks awesome because everything is changing
| which allows the shooter's expertise to shine through.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If Apple wanted to put an engineering team on solving this
| problem, they could record all the raw sensor data for the
| video, with the regular 'auto' settings, then, after the clip
| is recorded, decide what shutter speed, iso, etc to use, and
| then reprocess that raw data to simulate what that moment in
| time would have looked like with a different shutter speed.
|
| I''m sure modern neural nets would do a decent job of
| simulating what a frame taken with one iso/shutter/focus
| would look like with a slightly different iso/shutter/focus.
| dannyw wrote:
| First, I doubt users ask for this though. Those who want
| it, are going to use a manual videography app like OP. The
| 99.9% wants a camera that just works.
|
| Second, modern neural nets are good, but not perfect. I can
| reliably tell if something was shot with real bokeh, or
| simulated via software. For serious productions like a
| commercial shoot, nobody wants to change the shutter speed,
| aperture, etc in shoot: the DP already knows what look they
| want before they start filming.
| readbeard wrote:
| How could you change the shutter speed in post?
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think a neural network could do it. You just train it
| on a bunch of videos with different shutter speeds, and
| then you ask it to convert a given video from one speed
| to another.
|
| I'm sure it would quickly learn to add/remove motion blur
| on moving things as appropriate.
| readbeard wrote:
| But in addition to determining motion blur, shutter speed
| also massively affects which areas of the images are
| above/below the brightness range the sensor is capable of
| picking up.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 2143 wrote:
| Tangent that kind of seems relevant here1:
|
| Read the Foreword written by Gerald Sussman (SICP author) of
| the book _The Little Schemer._
|
| The most beautiful Foreword I have ever read so far.
|
| 1(The Foreword talks about photography a little bit).
| nikanj wrote:
| Tweak the color scale to be all blue/orange
| pen2l wrote:
| More than anything it's about color correction and color
| grading.
|
| This video explains it nicely I think:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no
|
| If you are starting out with good data (e.g. 32bit exr
| workflow), you would be amazed how powerfully and easily you
| can control what you want and what the possibilities are, with
| tools like MagicBullet (which offer presets to get you the
| cinema look with just a mouse click). But if you work long
| enough in this area you can discover your own workflow and pull
| it off without these tools, e.g. play with hue&sat, white
| balance adjustments, the curves, introducing an S-curve for
| example, color wheels, etc.
| Eduard wrote:
| > More than anything it's about color correction and color
| grading.
|
| to my (literal) perception, using a framerate of 24 frames
| per second is an even more significant _requirement_ to get
| the "cinematic Hollywood look".
| maven29 wrote:
| Isn't the 180 degree shutter angle more crucial than the
| distinction between 24 and 30?
| slhck wrote:
| Both. The 180 degree rule just makes sure motion blur
| looks as intended and is a mostly artistic choice that
| can vary depending on the scene. E.g. for action
| sequences or particularly smooth motion in a dreamy
| scene, you can break this rule. Or, if there's moving
| water, you might want to choose a particular shutter in
| relation to the preset frame rate.
|
| The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between
| a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall
| frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally
| not be changed.
| dannyw wrote:
| My artistic choice is shooting 60FPS at 360 degrees
| (shutter: 1/60th of a second). It gives motion blur more
| comparable to 30FPS (which is closer to 24FPS), with the
| responsiveness and fluidity of 60FPS.
| varispeed wrote:
| Why 24 fps format is still being used? I personally can't
| stand it. It's like watching a slide show.
|
| I can't wait when Hollywood moves to 120fps or better.
| crazygringo wrote:
| For movies and TV, I absolutely prefer it -- as do most
| people in tests, which is why it continues to be
| dominant.
|
| For whatever psychological reason, 24 fps "suggests"
| reality but without "being" reality, kind of like being
| in a dream, and our brains pay attention to story and
| action.
|
| While 60+ fps "approaches" reality and it simply starts
| to feel both uncomfortably real and uncomfortably fake.
| Uncomfortably real because it feels too much like real-
| life and we don't have enough of a mental distinction
| between fantasy and reality, and uncomfortably fake
| because it looks like a bunch of actors acting and moving
| in ways that aren't the ways people act and move in real
| life. It's uncanny valley.
|
| Nobody really knows why our brains respond this way
| psychologically. They just do.
|
| So for fictional movie/TV content, higher fps is not
| better. 24/30 is chosen for a very good reason.
|
| (On the other hand, news and sports do great with higher
| fps, because there's nothing fake trying to be passed off
| as real.)
| aimor wrote:
| It's a cheaper safer option to get something that looks
| "right". It's not so trivial to have 120 fps video look
| like a smoother 24 fps. Even capturing at 1/120 shutter
| speed it does look different. There's an experiment I
| want to do that involves taking 120 1/120 video and
| stacking windows of 3 frames to emulate shooting at 120
| fps with 1/40 shutter speed.
| Joeboy wrote:
| Every now and then somebody makes a high frame rate movie
| and everybody complains it looks bad, so they don't do it
| again.
| varispeed wrote:
| Reminds me I was playing games at 320x240 and then going
| to 1024x768 resolution. Suddenly everything started
| looking "basic", whereas at lower resolution, brain could
| somewhat "fill in the blanks" so to speak so it felt
| better.
|
| I guess it is similar for higher frame rates - it just
| shows the shortcomings.
|
| I think if the film industry committed to higher frame
| rates we would have seen massive improvements over the
| years.
| kuschku wrote:
| IMO a 48 fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed looks just as
| dreamy as a 24fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed, but is
| much less stuttery.
| lancesells wrote:
| I think 48 fps gains more detail but makes things look
| cheaper. The Hobbit looked like a BBC TV show compared to
| LOTR. That said, I don't pay enough attention to film
| these days so maybe people have gotten better at it and
| I'm watching 48 fps all the time.
| kuschku wrote:
| The hobbit had a 1/96 shutter, which is what made it feel
| like a TV show. The actual fps barely had an effect on
| its look.
| alexvitkov wrote:
| I'm sure the people masking shit out frame by frame can't
| wait to do it in 120 FPS either!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| They don't exactly have any job security. They will
| eventually be employed doing something else.
| michaelt wrote:
| I have heard it claimed that because historically high-
| budget hollywood films were shot on film at 24fps, while
| low-budget TV content was shot on tape at 30fps
| interlaced to 60fps, people came to think the lower
| framerate is "cinematic" and that higher framerates
| "don't look right"
|
| Personally I'm not enough of a film buff to notice the
| difference. Apparently film enthusiasts do notice, and
| care a great deal, though.
| goosinmouse wrote:
| In this case its software that treats the iphone as a camera of
| their own. Looking at the screenshots, the UI/UX is extremely
| similar to current blackmagic cinema cameras. So you can have
| two camera operators, or the iphone on a tripod or whatever,
| and each camera operator will know which settings their camera
| has and to typically match both the film cameras. Like a quick
| visual check that both cameras are at the same shutter speed or
| shutter angle, resolution, white balance and tint, and having
| the same style of histogram so they can match exposure on both
| cameras.
|
| Its actually fairly neat and cool that they put time and money
| into this app to further their ecosystem. I guess theres a
| large overlap of people that film with iphones and also want to
| buy a legitimately good, budget cinema camera in the pocket
| 4k/6k.
|
| I don't know HN's opinion of blackmagic, but they do some
| pretty cool stuff. With the purchase of a camera they include
| Davinci Resolve which is a fully featured Adobe Premier Pro
| rival. For reference premier pro is $21 a month, and the
| cheapest blackmagic cinema cam is the pocket 4k which comes in
| at $1200, after 5 years you have a free camera (thats still
| actively updated) if you consider Resolve to be equivalent to
| Premier Pro. Also they've constantly pushed the industry to be
| more affordable. They were pretty much the first that let you
| use a consumer usb c SSD to record raw formats. When the camera
| released, you could get 1tb samsung T5's for around $100, while
| one of their rivals RED cameras made you purchase a proprietary
| SSD that still costs $1500 for 480GB. Also in terms of
| affordability, it wasn't unheard of for a cinema camera to
| charge thousands of dollars to be able to use a cinemaDNG raw
| or ProRes, yet blackmagic cameras came with multiple raw
| recording options for free.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| I've been using the free version of Resolve for about a year
| now. It's absolutely outstanding and well worth the steep
| learning curve (cos of the massive functionality). Don't buy
| a Premiere Pro subscription until you've tried it out. Apart
| from its technical excellence there are zero dark patterns
| associated with free sign up and use.
| kuschku wrote:
| > With the purchase of a camera they include Davinci Resolve
|
| That's also included with the speed editor, which is ~$400
| and provides an awesome input device for Resolve.
| herunan wrote:
| I was surprised to see this was free. On top of that, with an
| impressive feature set for an initial release. Considering
| Blackmagic's reputation, this will easily beat any other half-
| baked camera apps or paid apps in no time. This is awesome for
| film school students. Already recommended it to a few of my
| friends who are into film.
| sneak wrote:
| Free or not free, I am surprised to see that this includes
| absolutely no phone-home of any kind. "Data not collected."
|
| Kudos to Blackmagic.
|
| (Resolve can also work 100% offline, with the license dongle,
| and is buy-once, not subscriptionware like Premiere. I am a
| very happy Blackmagic customer.)
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you buy a BMD camera, you get a free license for the full
| version of Resolve.
| user3939382 wrote:
| "No data collected" is the tag I want to see on the app store
| next to the one that tells you if there are in-app purchases.
| Willamin wrote:
| This is present in the App Store. It's not a short line-
| item similar to in-app puchase presence, instead it's a
| full-width card that indicates details on what information
| is collected.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-privacy-details/
|
| The only caveat is that it's developer-published
| information that Apple doesn't verify.
| rollcat wrote:
| > The only caveat is that it's developer-published
| information that Apple doesn't verify.
|
| Well you can guess what would happen if you get caught
| lying or cheating. Apple didn't hesitate to remove Epic's
| or Facebook's apps in the past.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Better yet, let's have a prominent app category called
| "No data collected". This is what I really want from
| every program I use including desktop. Major letdown from
| Mozilla on this front contrary to their marketing.
| pdpi wrote:
| The thing that most impresses me about Blackmagick is how
| they seem to scale with you from tiny projects to pretty big
| stuff. From the ATEM Mini all the way to big consoles, from
| the pocket cameras up to the Ursa etc.
|
| This just looks like it'll drop the low end of that range
| even lower.
| silent_cal wrote:
| Hope they get compensated for their generosity
| strogonoff wrote:
| Blackmagic's reputation took a major hit after their infamous
| CinemaDNG bait-and-switch.
|
| They made true interoperable raw video format a selling point
| of their BMPCC lineup, only to irreversibly cripple units
| later by removing CinemaDNG support after the fact. This
| dramatically narrowed toolchain options (mostly to
| Blackmagic's own software suite), effectively making cameras
| useless for enthusiast FOSS videographers. Furthermore, the
| hush-hush way they pulled it off using a firmware update says
| something about their ethical standards, so as a rule I'm not
| using their products anymore.
|
| The fact that they offer a cheap software product of their
| own (even with a free version) in no way justifies removing
| features (especially support for an open format with a
| thriving FOSS ecosystem) in a camera that they already sold.
| dharma1 wrote:
| I have both the original BMPCC and the 4k Pocket. When the
| BRAW firmware came out (forced by RED patents - they for
| some obscure reason have been able to patent compressed raw
| video) I did extensive tests - there is no discernible
| difference at the higher BRAW settings. And you can always
| keep your old firmware or downgrade to it later - there was
| no crippling of units.
|
| While I wish they would have been able to keep the
| compressed CDNG, BRAW is great to work with. Sigma FP
| (great camera too), as you mentioned elsewhere, does
| uncompressed CDNG. The data rates fo 4k 12bit uncompressed
| CDNG are pretty shocking - 2400Mbit/s. At that point you
| can't record it internally anymore and can only record on a
| fast SSD. It could be nice to have that as an option on
| Blackmagic cameras too, but to be honest I don't miss it
| since BRAW arrived - the files get huge.
|
| It's a shame RED was awarded a patent for in-camera
| lossless compressed RAW video. Even Apple tried to sue them
| and lost.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Yes, I am a happy fp user now. I edited that out from the
| original comment as I thought it's not that relevant, it
| merely demonstrates that a camera with a larger sensor in
| a smaller (AFAIK) body can record CinemaDNG in 14 bit FHD
| to an SD card (and UHD to an SSD) just fine.
|
| > forced by RED patents - they for some obscure reason
| have been able to patent compressed raw video
|
| RED's patent is a travesty, but no one forced BM to drop
| CDNG. They could go for uncompressed CDNG, or pay RED
| (like what I assume Apple has done in order to implement
| ProRAW). Perhaps they could even do their research before
| they advertised and sold all those units. Their haphazard
| decision to drop CDNG post-fact in favour of their own
| proprietary format without any communication shows lack
| of forethought at best, scammy tendencies at worst, and
| in any case blatant disregard for their paying customers.
|
| > the files get huge.
|
| The files are huge either way. BRAW doesn't mean you
| don't have to buy that new HDD if you want to work with
| raw video. Besides, converting a DNG to a compressed DNG
| without any loss would have been a trivial production
| step.
|
| What matters is losing an open format and the entire
| software toolchain that works with it. Even if you
| personally didn't use FOSS raw development software, it
| was an option with a lot of potential. BM silently took
| away such option, leaving only BM's own proprietary
| toolchain.
| bsenftner wrote:
| I can understand BackMagic's position from the
| perspective that often a licensing agreement prohibits
| incorporation into any form of a free product - after
| all, there's no royalty when a product is free.
|
| We can thank Microsoft for this clause in modern
| licensing agreements, because that little "it's a free
| product, you get no royalties! haha!" is what Microsoft
| did to the original 3rd party developer of Internet
| Explorer, when Microsoft introduced the concept of free
| web browsers, and then free enterprise class corporate
| software in a competitive move against their competitors.
| strogonoff wrote:
| I have a nagging suspicion that you don't quite
| understand what you are talking about. It's professional
| photography hardware, and it's very far from being free.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Their software is free. Which means they have
| complications trying to incorporate certain licensed
| components into their product, those that are
| traditionally handed by a revenue sharing agreement on
| the sale of the product. When there is no revenue in the
| "sale" or distribution of a product that means some other
| non-traditional license needs to be agreed upon for the
| revenue share expecting 3rd party. Many, many licensing
| based business models do not afford the added expense of
| attorneys for custom license agreements, so they are
| simply refused. Therefore, free software often has to use
| nontraditional and custom licensing agreements or agree
| to some prior licensing business model approved method of
| paying them without them having to create a custom
| license enforcement mechanism for various clients. The
| free yet ad revenue supported game type software fits
| into an easily policed revenue stream a revenue share
| expecting 3rd party can be expected to accept. But
| BlackMagic's software is both free and not ad supported,
| so where is there revenue? Some share of the BlackMagic
| Cloud revenue? That'd be a custom agreement.
| vanchor3 wrote:
| > And you can always keep your old firmware or downgrade
| to it later - there was no crippling of units.
|
| From what I remember from when this was happening, new 4K
| Pocket units started shipping that could not be
| downgraded a few months after the change. Many people
| were upset because the product pages or boxes still
| advertised CinemaDNG, but the cameras were incapable of
| it.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Indeed. IIRC firmware was available via some unofficial
| links, and downgrading worked for certain units but not
| for others--impossible to determine in the usual
| circumstances of acquiring a camera from a store.
| Joeboy wrote:
| My only issue with BRAW is that afaik it's the least open
| video format in common use. Undocumented and supported
| only via obfuscated binaries. So free tools like ffmpeg
| that support "everything" do not support BRAW.
| dannyw wrote:
| Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement
| claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-
| obsolescence-of-cinemadn...
|
| It's not clear if this was a choice. RED has a patent on
| in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed, and have been
| aggressively going after other camera makers (including
| Nikon) for offering the feature.
|
| To my knowledge, Nikon and RED are the only brands that
| offer in-camera compressed loseless RAW, and Nikon settled
| with RED [1].
|
| BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
|
| Other RAW formats from brands in video are not compressed
| in-camera.
|
| [1]: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-
| lawsuit-ag...
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent
| infringement claims by Nikon:
| https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-
| cinemadn...
|
| Neither Nikon nor RED are mentioned in the source you
| link.
| strogonoff wrote:
| > in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed
|
| CinemaDNG doesn't have to be compressed.
|
| > BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
|
| BM chose to go not from compressed CDNG to uncompressed
| CDNG, but from compressed CDNG to no CDNG at all. This is
| a significant reduction in processing pipeline options
| for those using open-source or truly free raw photography
| software in their work.
|
| > The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement
| claims by Nikon
|
| Assuming that's true, what they have done is they made
| their customers pay for their legal snafu. Perhaps it's
| legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising
| a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact
| (in hardware people already own!), but it's certainly not
| a great look. Based on their course of action and their
| (almost nonexistent) communication on this issue, it's
| very difficult to have any sympathy towards the company.
| indymike wrote:
| > Perhaps it's legal in your jurisdiction to sell a
| product advertising a specific feature and then remove
| that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!),
| but it's certainly not a great look.
|
| This is the downside to patents and patent infringement.
| It happened with Google home speakers and Sonos, where I
| used to be able to tell google to play a song "whole
| home" and now I cannot do that any longer. I think this
| might be a bit of a new normal, and I'm sure this is
| allowed by the license agreement to ensure that patent
| infringements are not death sentences.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Your speaker didn't come with a promise that you can tell
| Google to play a song. This particular feature may have
| been your low-key expectation, but it's unlikely it was
| your principal consideration. The best illustration would
| be that it did not warrant a line in technical specs.
|
| On the other hand, capture format is a _principal_
| consideration when audio or photo equipment is concerned.
| Decisions are literally based on whether, say, an audio
| recorder supports WAV and whether it's 24 or 32 bit.
|
| It's hard to draw a parallel with a consumer device, but
| imagine if Sonos completely removed Google Assistant,
| Alexa, or AirPlay 2 support (based off the specs section
| of Sonos One). Their legal department didn't do their
| research, they didn't feel like paying licensing fees, so
| they thought they'd just implement a similar platform
| themselves. They'd issue a firmware update where they
| wouldn't mention this at all, you'd apply it and lo and
| behold. Would you be sympathetic to their cause? Knowing
| that they were also in the business of selling high-
| margin, very expensive professional-grade equipment to
| Hollywood studios, would you consider this kind of
| treatment something other than a ripoff? Would you still
| consider them "awesome" and their CEO "fantastic" if they
| just provided you with a free version of their commercial
| closed-source software (some features behind a paywall)?
| indymike wrote:
| > his particular feature may have been your low-key
| expectation, but it's unlikely it was your principal
| consideration.
|
| That feature was advertised on the in-store endcap
| display where I bought the google speaker. It was _the
| only_ reason I bought five of them.
|
| The rest of the story is identical. Ship an infringing
| product, be forced to retract the feature to mitigate
| damages and so on.
|
| > Would you be sympathetic to their cause?
|
| I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that
| takes a feature away for customers to mitigate damages in
| a patent dispute. It really sucks to be a customer when
| it happens. But I do understand how it happens, and why,
| ultimately Google had no choice but to remove the
| feature. I'm also glad they did the right thing because
| in the case of Google, Sonos could have went after
| Google's customers, too... and I don't ever want a free
| patent lawsuit with my $29 speaker.
| qingcharles wrote:
| It's designed as a loss leader for their other products. Most
| notably their cloud storage.
| javchz wrote:
| You're right. And I think a side effect it's being gateway
| product for their hardware software ecosystem like their PCI
| cards, color correction surfaces and cameras.
| meatjuice wrote:
| It's not just free to install, basically everything is free
| except for cloud service they provide.
| dharma1 wrote:
| Blackmagic are awesome, run by a fantastic founder-CEO. They
| give a bunch of software away for free (Resolve basic version)
| - I guess enough of it converts to users of their paid stuff
| like the hardware and Blackmagic Cloud and Resolve Studio.
|
| Been a user of their hardware and software for years, nothing
| but good things to say about it.
| _joel wrote:
| Same, it's even used in large public UK broadcasters as it's
| good gear.
| jorvi wrote:
| It's not just the direct conversion.
|
| If every little kid trying to edit game clips or home movies
| does so in Davinci Resolve because it's easier and safer than
| cracking Premiere or Final Cut, it eventually becomes cheaper
| for companies to also use Resolve, rather than retrain
| people.
|
| For the same reason, Microsoft never really aggressively
| curtailed Windows piracy. Better to have a pirated user
| demanding Windows at the workplace than a user demanding
| macOS.
| internetter wrote:
| My take as well. Why not make windows free if it's trivial
| to pirate already? Well, because you aren't the target
| consumer.. not yet, anyway
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| You're the target consumer, all right, but you're not the
| customer.
| sp332 wrote:
| I was wondering about device compatibility. Looks like it will
| run on anything back to an iPhone XS/XR, although some of the
| features need newer hardware.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| I am surprised that Apple allows such control of the camera (or
| anything). Is this all exposed via APIs or do developers of
| camera apps have direct access to the hardware?
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| Can someone please ask Blackmagic to have the app rotate and
| shoot landscape by default even if I have set my phone to never
| auto-rotate its orientation? I never needed to use my phone in
| Landscape except for shooting photos and videos. I can orient my
| phone landscape to shoot photos and videos but not with this App!
| petesivak wrote:
| You can go into Shortcuts and set up an Automation to
| automatically lock/unlock orientation when you open/close any
| app (including this one).
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Oh that's really nice, there are certain apps where this is
| very useful and I would prefer it but definitely it's off for
| me globally.
| acarabott wrote:
| This doesn't totally solve the issue, but if you unlock your
| phone's orientation, rotate to landscape, then go to settings,
| you'll find a "lock current orientation" setting.
| jcutrell wrote:
| Hey Blackmagic - you may be benefited by reviewing your copy once
| more on this page. You have a LOT of exclamation marks in these
| descriptions, and while I get that it's an exciting product, the
| copy starts to get a little tiring.
| prithsr wrote:
| Maybe a silly question - but on the app itself, is there some
| sort of... tutorial of sorts? Really curious to learn how this
| world works but unsure where exactly to start on this app.
| herunan wrote:
| https://photographylife.com/iso-shutter-speed-and-aperture-f...
| paweladamczuk wrote:
| I recorded two takes with exact same settings except one was ISO
| ~1500 and the other ISO ~3000. Shouldn't the second take be
| around twice as bright as the first one? The change in brightness
| is hardly noticeable.
|
| I suppose this is the same case as every other camera app I've
| ever tested on Android and iOS, such granular settings like ISO
| are just not accessible by the system APIs available to the app.
| In that case though, I'd expect the app to at least not lie to
| me.
|
| Can someone confirm or deny this? I don't know much about
| photography nor iOS so I might just be confused.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > such granular settings like ISO are just not accessible by
| the system APIs available to the app
|
| ...what? Every non dumbified enough app has ISO and shutter
| controls in the manual mode since forever.
|
| Eg:
|
| https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/
| kuschku wrote:
| Remember, this is iOS. A system where apps can't even record
| continuous framerate footage.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| >> as every other camera app I've ever tested on Android
| and iOS
|
| So I assumed...
|
| > this is iOS. A system where apps can't
|
| picard.jpg
| fragmede wrote:
| You can see the brightness change when you fiddle with the ISO,
| so I'm not sure where you'd draw the conclusion that the system
| APIs don't give apps access to that.
|
| Moving from ISO 1500 to ISO 3000 doubles the sensor's
| sensitivity to light, but doesn't inherently make the scene
| appear twice as bright.
| jemmyw wrote:
| ISO is supposed to be the sensitivity of the film to light, and
| the numbers were set by a standards organisation so I'm not
| sure you can double the number to double the effect.
|
| Also, how does this even work on a digital camera? Surely we
| can't actually adjust how sensitive the sensor is to light, so
| is it just a simulation?
| coldtea wrote:
| Kind of the same it works on film cameras: you change the
| sensitivity of the emulsion on them, you change the
| sensitivity of the sensor by raising the gain on the others.
|
| Or think of it like changing the gain on an microphone pre-
| amp before going into a Analog-to-Digital convertor.
| frostburg wrote:
| It's complex. Many modern cameras have dual or triple gain
| amplifiers, with various range setups. Some ISO settings
| might be just a digital multiplier on the highest setting of
| the lower gain stage before switching to the higher gain
| (which may result in having better snr at higher iso for some
| settings).
|
| Remember that "digital" sensors are mostly analog devices
| (dealing in continuous voltages).
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| We can configure the gain of the analog amplifiers
| thih9 wrote:
| > Also, how does this even work on a digital camera?
|
| It's signal gain of the sensor.
|
| "In digital camera systems, an arbitrary relationship between
| exposure and sensor data values can be achieved by setting
| the signal gain of the sensor. (...) For digital photo
| cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI)
| rating--commonly called ISO setting--is specified by the
| manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the
| camera will have a lightness similar to what would be
| obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same
| exposure."
|
| Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_ca
| mera_IS...
| madwolf wrote:
| [dead]
| foldr wrote:
| ISO is linear scale and perception is log scale. Doubling the
| ISO (while keeping the shutter speed the same) increases the
| exposure by only one stop, which won't seem twice as bright.
| coldtea wrote:
| Isn't "one stop" defined log-wise to be "twice as bright"
| perceptually?
| foldr wrote:
| No, it's twice as bright physically (in the sense that the
| lux value doubles). For example, doubling the shutter speed
| increases the exposure by one stop. Similarly, increasing
| the diameter of the aperture by a factor of [?]2 (thus
| doubling the area of the aperture and letting twice as much
| light in) increases the exposure by one stop.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law#:~:
| t....
| inductive_magic wrote:
| To add to the other commenters: when you tweak the sensors
| sensitivity for light, the aperture will compensate by letting
| less light in - unless it is fixed. So there should be no
| noticeable difference in brightness unless you set a fixed
| aperture.
| foldr wrote:
| This is a smartphone camera, so of course the aperture is
| fixed. Playing around with the app, it does not seem to
| automatically adjust shutter speed to match changes in ISO.
| Reducing the ISO does make the image darker - presumably just
| not as much as OP expected.
| eurekin wrote:
| Probably auto-exposure adjusted the shutter speed to compensate
| Ballas wrote:
| If all else is kept the same. Usually with auto exposure, it
| will compensate by changing the integration time ("shutter
| speed") or aperture in order to try and keep the exposure to
| the same level.
| scrollop wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be able to reduce the iphones severe
| oversharpening.
|
| Would pay good money for an app that accomplish that.
| unfamiliar wrote:
| I am consistently disappointed with the iPhone's video quality.
| It looks like the bitrate is simply too low, either to keep file
| size down or because the phone can't encode 4K that fast. However
| shooting in ProRES is simply not practical for me. Can apps like
| this improve the HEVC video quality, or do they simply reuse the
| Apple defaults with a new UI? Or is there a ProRES workflow I
| could be using on the phone?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I am consistently disappointed with the iPhone's video
| quality._
|
| Compared to what? An Arri? Bebause on its own, as far as
| smartphone video goes, it's quite fine. You can also trivially
| shoot a higher bitrate (not ProRes) in Filmic Pro and other
| apps.
| unfamiliar wrote:
| I don't really have anything to compare it to as I have never
| used a proper video camera. So I'm just comparing it to the
| average YouTube video quality I guess.
|
| The main problem that I see is compression artefacts,
| especially in complex scenes with a lot of motion. For
| example filming a person or pet moving against a background
| of grass or gravel, or the camera panning across complex
| terrain. I even got it really badly just filming waves going
| in and out on the beach.
|
| I know these are tough situations for to handle but it feels
| like bumping the bitrate would help a lot.
| whynotminot wrote:
| > So I'm just comparing it to the average YouTube video
| quality I guess.
|
| Dude this isn't 2011. The "average YouTuber" these days is
| shooting on full frame Sonys, Blackmagic, or even RED.
| kuschku wrote:
| Considering how large tha camera bump has gotten, you could
| probably put a single large 1" sensor in there as one of the
| Xperia phones did. Then you'd get much better image quality
| and wouldn't have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's
| limitations.
|
| And even ignoring the limitations of the sensor, the iPhone
| isn't even the best smartphone. Due to the fact that it can
| only record variable framerate video it's basically unusable
| for professional work, even with the Pro model in ProRes.
| unfamiliar wrote:
| I don't think the sensor is the limiting factor for me. I
| am happy with the photo quality on the 15 pro. It's the
| video compression. Or maybe the speed at which the sensor
| can offload video data.
| kuschku wrote:
| The phone has to do a significant amount of post-
| processing to get the sensor data to look as good as it
| does. With a better sensor, you'd actually have less work
| to do in post.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Then you 'd get much better image quality and wouldn't
| have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's
| limitations._
|
| Interesting, I've always thought the iphone camera produces
| extremely good results. Subject to the obvious limitations
| like not being able to replace the lens! What sort of
| benchmarks should I be looking at, to really measure the
| camera's limitations?
| sixothree wrote:
| Bitrate definitely is an issue for me when I use slomo. It
| drops frames like crazy and looks choppy.
| turnsout wrote:
| _Context: I 'm in the middle of adding Apple Log support to my
| photo/video processing app._
|
| The iPhone has incredible video quality, but you're right that
| the default Camera app botches it (or requires you to shoot
| ProRes HQ which is objectively overkill). I've been using
| Blackmagic Camera to shoot 4K Apple Log into a 10bit HEVC file,
| and it works really well. The files are easy to grade, and the
| bitrate is enough for everyday use. Footage from the Blackmagic
| app is clean, clear and not over sharpened. I really hope Apple
| adds an HEVC Log option!
| diggan wrote:
| May I ask why ProRes isn't practical for you? Would help others
| to suggest a workflow that would work better than what you
| tried before.
| unfamiliar wrote:
| My main use case is family/holiday videos. Saving massive
| pro-res files would fill up the space quickly and I'm not
| sure how to process them into HEVC quickly and simply.
| jpc0 wrote:
| Higher bitrate HEVC won't be any smaller than the same
| bitrate ProRes.
|
| Why would you think that it would be?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't even have a clue how to force HEVC to use the
| same bitrate a ProRes file would use. HEVC is very
| efficient, and does not always use the full amount of
| bitrate being allowed. That's its the entire point for
| being. Trying to get "high bitrate" HEVC is one of those
| "you're holding it wrong" moments.
| turnsout wrote:
| You must not have tried ProRes on the iPhone. ProRes HQ
| consumes around 1.7GB per minute, which is an order of
| magnitude more than the HEVC bitrates.
|
| Apple: "ProRes files are up to 30 times larger than HEVC
| files." [1]
|
| [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212832
| fodkodrasz wrote:
| Why do project managers always insist adding chat to the app? I
| wonder if anybody uses the chat feature at all. Personally I find
| the integrated chat in every util useless waste of resources.
|
| Also a further fragmentation of communication platforms for any
| collaboration simply makes me not want to collaborate unless I'm
| paid handsomely to use the yetannotherchatplatform. (just
| finishing some project and getting rid of several chat platforms
| i was forced to use because of them)
| have_faith wrote:
| This one might make sense for production crew. Easy reference
| of specific clips/shots, maybe lossless video clip transfers,
| things like that
| dannyw wrote:
| It's common to have external crew, who might not be on your
| team's Teams/Slack.
| fodkodrasz wrote:
| or who might not have access to the video cuts at all.
| Maybe a costume artist or a person organizing the catering
| does not need (or should not have at all, from an IP
| protection standpoint) access to the video clips, cuts. And
| you are back to the multiple chat apps (at least the
| producers/managers/organizers however they are called in
| that industry), or the limited access service accounts to
| the team's Teams/Slack with dedicated channels.
|
| Though I guess the productions recorded with an iPhone
| might not have so big and logistically complicated crew.
| But back to my original point: I think these small projects
| are organized on other, more personal channels already, so
| the in-app chat is redundant. For larger projects, like
| those I was pondering in the previous paragraph: they are
| already beyond this in-app chat, so the in-app chat is
| redundant.
|
| I think these in-app chats are very rarely used, and are
| generally not worth the effort to develop, or from a
| user/organization standpoint to learn and adopt. (Not to
| mention the closed nature of them).
|
| And this does not want to belittle this app and its chat
| feature, I'm just generally wondering about the phenomenon
| this app has particularly made me think about.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Glad to have a separate camera app for 'pro' settings so I can
| continue to use my regular Camera app for optimal settings when
| not retouched.
| jsight wrote:
| It'd be nice to have a straightforward way to feed it over the
| network into OBS for live broadcast.
| danwee wrote:
| Is it only me the one who finds the usability of cameras on
| smartphones unbearable? I'm not talking about the software but
| the hardware: smartphones are thin and not as easy to grab/handle
| as real cameras. Anything that takes more than a few pictures is
| uncomfortable.
| [deleted]
| 20after4 wrote:
| There are specialized gimbals made specifically for phones
| which solve this really nicely. One example that I've used and
| found it to be really impressive is the DJI Osmo.
| dannyw wrote:
| Serious comment: a pop socket can help a lot.
| al_be_back wrote:
| that's a lot of functionality, for free. how are they making
| money from this?
|
| i didn't see a pro/paid version - unless they're planning to
| offer a post-processing cloud subscription later on...
| ajdude wrote:
| Blackmagic also sells a lot of hardware. They may not be making
| money directly with this app, but they are going to earn
| loyalty.
|
| Another comment earlier mentioned how Davinci resolve may start
| gaining market share for the very reason that it's free and
| kids learning to edit are more likely to go with them instead
| of cracking adobe these days (and then using the former when
| they enter the workforce).
| l-lousy wrote:
| DaVinci Resolve (a very popular Color correcting and video
| editing software) is needed to work effectively with some of
| the ProRes Color schemes. Its basic version is free but there
| are paid upgrades to it. This app is likely a funnel to their
| software and other peripherals
| MrThoughtful wrote:
| If I understand it correctly, this is postprocessing software?
|
| Why is it called "camera" and tied to the iPhone?
|
| Shouldn't this be a website where you upload a photo, adjust it,
| and then download it again?
| sunbum wrote:
| Because it is not postprocessing software, it's a camera app
| jawngee wrote:
| No, it's a full on camera app.
| altacc wrote:
| There seem to be 2 types of camera apps for the iPhone: those
| aimed at adding filters and post-processing; and those removing
| all processing & automatic controls that the stock camera app
| wants to add (by default the iPhone software will want to apply
| lots of corrections, "improvements" and change settings on the
| fly that can make a video or photo look terrible).
|
| This is the latter, handing back control of the camera settings
| to the user, which is what you want for consistency of the look
| of a video whilst subjects move, the camera pans, etc...
| loxdalen wrote:
| Also seems to allow setting manual settings during filming. Not
| sure if that is possible in the native camera app on iPhone.
| Closi wrote:
| In that case, you don't understand it. This isn't preprocessing
| software.
|
| It's mostly aimed at getting the right shot in the first place,
| and giving skilled users enough control to make better shots.
|
| So that's why it's called camera.
| brylie wrote:
| Please remember to put the download link at the top of the
| article or promotional material for quick access. I had to scroll
| down to the bottom of this 200 screen article and wasn't sure I'd
| even find a download button when I got to the bottom.
| fragmede wrote:
| I didn't even find it and resorted to searching the in App
| store for it.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Looks like another photoshop/phtotos adjusting app for videos
| fcpk wrote:
| why make this iPhone specific though... locked in proprietary
| hardware is not nice.
| secretsatan wrote:
| Is this just... does it just add a filter to give it film grain?
| usrusr wrote:
| Blackmagic isn't exactly a company that identifies with film
| grain...
| coldtea wrote:
| No, that would be some app like "Super 8" and others.
|
| This one adds pro-like controls (with similar layout and
| features to expensive professional Blackmagic cameras), and
| control of the more professional features like log recording,
| various prores options, 10bit color, LUT preview, and so on.
| tedunangst wrote:
| No.
| jacktribe wrote:
| This is a forward thinking strategy for a camera maker. Instead
| of trying to fight the iPhone, they realized that this is a
| segment of the market they wouldn't capture regardless of the
| form factor they would adopt for Blackmagic cameras.
|
| We have 4 Blackmagic cameras at xTribe studios and they are
| great, but when Gen-Z podcasters come in, they'll often just put
| an iPhone and a Rode shotgun mic on a SmallRig cage.
| omneity wrote:
| I'm super excited at timecode support (for automatic timeline
| alignment) and hopefully gyro data for stabilization in Davinci
| Resolve!
| TomMasz wrote:
| Blackmagic's software is extremely powerful and totally overkill
| for casual users. But the target audience is advanced/pro users,
| so that's not an issue.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I don't get it.
|
| Surely if you want to shoot professional footage, you use a
| professional camera, with an actual lens, with a full frame
| sensor - not something which has been scaled down to the extent
| that it relies on digital hallucinations to make an acceptable
| looking image.
| sp332 wrote:
| Steven Soderbergh made two movies entirely on iPhones. The
| first was with iPhone 8.
|
| "Anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the
| backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on
| the phone. That's not part of the conceit... There's a
| philosophical obstacle a lot of people have about the size of
| the capture device. I don't have that problem. I look at this
| as potentially one of the most liberating experiences that I've
| ever had as a filmmaker, and that I continue having."
|
| https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/steven-soderbergh...
| qup wrote:
| Use what you have.
| the-dude wrote:
| _The best camera is the one you have with you_
| 112233 wrote:
| > full frame sensor
|
| why? I mean, with film, anamorphic Super35 is a thing, but so
| is Super16. With digital, why would all the footage taken on
| professional MFT cameras be "not professional"?
| steve1977 wrote:
| Super 35 / APS-C is still quite a bit larger than an iPhone
| camera sensor though.
| 112233 wrote:
| Area of iphone sensor is 3x smaller than MFT. That is
| significant, but still comparable. (MFT itself is 4x
| smaller than fullframe)
| steve1977 wrote:
| Well it's closer to Super 16 than to Super 8 at least ;)
| foldr wrote:
| > with an actual lens
|
| This kind of hyperbole isn't exactly helping your argument.
| Smartphone cameras have very sophisticated lenses.
| [deleted]
| fragmede wrote:
| If you have a real professional bank account, you own (not
| rent) all the $100,000 camera systems you could possibly want
| (5-10?), but for everyone else, money is fairly limited. To be
| able to take advantage of the video cameras you _do_ have to
| get extra camera angles for a scene, configured with the proper
| settings - ISO /shutter/white balance, is easily worth the $50
| tripod and using your phone.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| 100k is a cheap pro camera such as a 50k will get you a Red
| 8k package but minus the frame and other gear to go with it.
| A Sony Venice 2 8K is 60k just for the main body. Lenses
| aren't cheap either.
|
| Gyroscopic stabilization for iPhone is cheap and doable: DJI
| Osmo is <$100. 2 axis ones that run ~$200.
|
| Real microphones with dead cat wind covers also improve
| indoor and outdoor interview dialog quality immensely. ~$100
| item per person.
|
| Most indoor lighting is shit for still or motion digital
| photography. Get real lighting and flood the scene. Lights
| are cheap, but take time and coordination to setup and tear-
| down.
| usrusr wrote:
| One thing is brand onboarding: film students don't rent the big
| guns for everything and if they can do a quick "shot on phone"
| but with a blackmagic workflow, it will be hugely attractive
| for them. Think of it as cosplay if you like, but it can have
| powerful long term effect for the brand if new generations
| start out on their tools. Or in terms of computers, ca year
| 2000, think about it as leaning C++ instead of getting good at
| Excel VBA.
|
| The other thing is consistency: if you do use the big ones, but
| have a shot where the big camera simply cannot be used,
| allowing an iPhone to stand in with processing defaults
| defaults set up to make the footage as consistent with the
| regular takes as possible can be worth a lot. Sony has created
| the RX0 line essentially for that, as a support gadget for
| their film cameras. Sales to consumers are merely opportunistic
| side income.
|
| Same (super convenient to easily get consistent setting) for
| takes that are what in software development would be considered
| a bugfix, takes that happen when primary filming is over. All
| the rental equipment has been returned, the order of the day is
| getting least bad results with what you have. If blackmagic has
| tools for this contingency and competitors don't, blackmagic
| will be more attractive.
| baq wrote:
| Turns out the recent iPhone camera hardware (especially in the
| Pro models) is simply good enough to shoot 'professional
| footage'. Not everywhere, not all the time and especially not
| in all lighting conditions - but it is good enough more often
| than not.
| adlpz wrote:
| I don't get it.
|
| Surely if you want to watch movies, you go to the cinema, with
| an actual projector, with a full frame film - not something
| which has been compressed down to the extent that it relies on
| digital trickery to make an acceptable looking image.
|
| ^ that
| franga2000 wrote:
| Depends on who you are and what you want to achieve. If you're
| a beginner and/or don't have access to professional gear, it's
| great to have a way of shooting "the professional way" on
| whatever you happen to have around. You get most of the manual
| control a proper camera gives you with an interface very
| similar to that of a Blackmagic camera, so when you finally
| find yourself in front of a real one, you already have some
| experience with it.
|
| And while the image quality definitely doesn't compare to that
| of cinema cameras, 90 % of the time, it doesn't have to.
| zx10rse wrote:
| Insta download. Kudos to the developers who made it to not
| collect any data from the app, you deserve a raise.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The iOS camera API is pretty limited in terms of giving you raw
| access to everything the built in camera has access to.
|
| Things like the parameters for the optical image stabilization
| algorithm aren't settable.
|
| I'm therefore surprised a 3rd party can make a camera app that
| 'beats' the built in one.
| dannyw wrote:
| First, the APIs don't expose raw controls for everything, but
| it exposes a heck a lot more than the stock camera app.
|
| Second, for high-value developers like Blackmagic, Adobe, etc,
| there are very regular communication between engineers and
| product managers in both respective companies. I wouldn't
| expect private APIs (although they have certainly happened in
| 3P apps over the years; just check undocumented entitlements of
| IPAs from major developers), but these apps can be years / iOS
| releases in a making with a lot of Apple support.
| raincole wrote:
| A bit off-topic: why does Blackmagic keep Davinci Resolve free?
| Is it a case of commoditizing your compliment because they sell
| hardware?
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| My friend, please stop giving them ideas. Anyways, I'm not a
| professional and Davinci Resolve (free) is the good enough
| editor for me. I think this is macOS, iOS is free but Apple
| sells hardware kinda free.
| [deleted]
| sneak wrote:
| Blackmagic is primarily a hardware company, yes, but the free
| version of Resolve doesn't cut it for professional work. As
| soon as you start doing anything serious, you need Studio. It
| is, however, only $299 one time and works for all versions
| including upgrades.
| stephen_g wrote:
| Yes, while many serious users will need to go up to the paid
| version of Resolve, mainly they want to sell you cameras,
| capture and playback hardware, vision switchers (like the ISO
| ones that record the individual streams and then create a
| Resolve project for you to re-edit it if you want).
| fragmede wrote:
| They make their money on very nice, very expensive professional
| control surfaces, cameras, and lots of other gear. Davinci
| Resolve is free because they realize funneling people into
| their ecosystem, having them learn how to use Resolve, instead
| of Avid/FCP/Lightworks/Premier/etc, which means that's what
| they're going to go with when they have the money to spend on
| gear. It'll just work better together. Like if you buy all
| Apple products instead of random company's stuff.
| bux93 wrote:
| I'd think it also incentivizes Adobe et al. to make sure
| their software doesn't break the BlackMagic hardware, because
| there's a viable alternative (especially with the Studio
| version being included with the hardware).
| j_mo wrote:
| The free version doesn't allow GPU accelerated playback or
| editing or rendering which is a must for any serious user /
| business.
|
| They get people in the door with a really powerful free editing
| software, and once you've invested time into learning it and
| made it part of your workflow, you want to pay the PS300 to
| upgrade because it's too much hassle to learn a new editor, and
| Resolve is awesome, but you reallly don't want to keep waiting
| 3hrs to generate 1/8th res optimized media for your whole
| project before you can preview at more than 10fps on an i7
| Extreme Edition (that's how they got me, if you couldn't tell).
|
| It's an effective free -> paid product-led conversion path to
| acquire customers. Being on HN and presumably working in
| tech/SaaS, this is a familiar and effective business strategy.
| dannyw wrote:
| There's a solid opportunity for a good free video editor for
| hobbyists and creators, who might not want to spend any money
| just yet. If you get these users on your software, you're much
| more likely to convert a sale.
|
| The free version of Resolve is still limited for more serious /
| professional applications; e.g. not making use of hardware
| acceleration, not having certain effects, and not processing
| certain professional workflow codecs.
|
| With this strategy, Resolve is essentially the "go-to" for
| newbies into video editing.
|
| What's so great about Resolve licensing is their lifetime
| license. Pay $295 once, get it forever. For commercial
| productions, Blackmagic gets their $$$$$ from their cameras,
| physical control panels and hardware, etc. These, again range
| from good value (for entry and mid level) to expensive.
| kwonkicker wrote:
| Blender and Unreal Engine comes to mind. Similar formula.
| ralusek wrote:
| Blender is open source and free, Unreal is paid on the
| backend.
| jcparkyn wrote:
| I wouldn't describe blender as following this formula. The
| only thing they sell (last time I checked) is blender
| studio, which as far as I'm aware is more just another way
| to donate while getting some things in return.
| greenknight wrote:
| So I work daily in resolve. I had a project come up at home,
| where i was like oh ill just use resolve as it has everything
| we need.
|
| Within 2 minutes, I was running into features i needed to pay
| for. Within 20 minutes I had bought a home copy because of
| how integral it is to my workflow.
|
| They get people in by being able to do the basics, but
| anything remotely complex, you pay for.
| dmbche wrote:
| What feature? Isn't it just gpu acceleration and 4k you get
| with studio?
| madengr wrote:
| [dead]
| diggan wrote:
| I think a lot of users acquire the Studio license similar
| to myself as well, being a free user for a long time and
| when I finally went looking for my own shooting device,
| BlackMagic Pocket Cinema was a no brainer and includes a
| Studio license.
| _nalply wrote:
| One word: Freemium.
| [deleted]
| supernova87a wrote:
| Maybe I missed it, but is there maybe a side-by-side comparison
| of the footage that usually comes out of an iPhone camera versus
| how it can look (with light, simple controls) out of this
| Blackmagic app?
|
| And question for others, while I'm at it. What was it about
| Blackmagic cameras or software (or company) that "broke the curve
| of what you could get for the same $" versus like RED or whoever
| expensive studio cameras? Did they do something clever with the
| hardware and controls to get much more out of consumer grade
| sensors? Or did they make tradeoffs that you eventually hit
| against when you try to use their cameras for real professional
| high-duty purposes?
| avtar wrote:
| > What was it about Blackmagic cameras or software (or company)
| that "broke the curve of what you could get for the same $"
| versus like RED or whoever expensive studio cameras?
|
| They pack a lot of features for cheap that usually are found in
| more expensive cameras. Check feature comparisons for the
| Pocket 4K or 6K with pricier cameras like the A7S III or later.
| Their camera UI is by far one of the best designed ones
| compared to Sony or Panasonic. You get to use their efficient
| BRAW codec. And they include a copy of the Studio version of
| DaVinci Resolve.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Blackmagic was essentially started by a hacker in Grant Petty,
| and you can tell. RED took the existing ethos of the industry
| that says everything must be expensive and reserved for the
| elites. Sony is just Sony, and Alexa came from Arri which
| doubles the price of anything to put its name on it. BMD is the
| ultimate in "disruptor" category to me. Fuck your Uber or Musk
| examples, Grant Petty is a gawd! /s Really, though, he's pretty
| damn cool. Urban legend says that he even wrote the first
| drivers of his competitor AJA boards.
|
| When BMD bought Da Vinci, they got a huge acquihire leg up on
| color science. Recording RAW at the sizes cinema cameras do
| requires fast storage that just wasn't cheap when RED/Alexa
| came about. Even with cheap storage, neither of those companies
| are going to debase themselves by lowering prices. There's a
| lot of technical reasons why BMD cameras can be cheaper, but
| the main reason is corporate ethos at BMD is totally different
| than other players.
| grouchomarx wrote:
| >Sony is just Sony
|
| They make the sensors found in nearly every Blackmagic camera
| and are now taking a large part of the market with Venice and
| the FX9. No one has ever accused Arri of being arbitrarily
| expensive because their product is simply the best, perfectly
| manufactured, and totally reliable
|
| Blackmagic is excellent for the industry and I use Resolve
| professionally
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| BMD does amazing work for the price, but it's decidedly still
| not Arri quality and only Sony is competitive there. I work
| with footage from all these cameras as well as celluloid etc
| and have for over a decade. While BMD absolutely can look
| fantastic, it's typically much more work to get it there. If
| you're in a difficult situation, then it's not even close to
| how superior Venice or Alexa are.
|
| I mostly work in Resolve so I'm partial to BM and
| appreciative of their work if it helps to establish
| neutrality (though I'm also experienced in baselight, flame,
| etc).
|
| Reach for the tools you can! BMD can create great looking
| imagery when treated properly.
| wmf wrote:
| _RED took the existing ethos of the industry that says
| everything must be expensive_
|
| It's hilarious to read this since the opposite was true in
| the beginning; Red was the one cutting corners to reach
| really low prices.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >to reach really low prices.
|
| really low when compared to what? $50k USD for a camera
| body is not really low prices. $1500 USD for a memory card
| is not really low.
| buffington wrote:
| When the Red One was released in 2007 it started at
| $17500. Arri's Alexa started closer to $65000 at the
| time.
|
| What they're doing with pricing today, I have no idea,
| but when Red hit the scene in 2007, not only did the
| price get a lot of attention, but it motivated the entire
| industry to take 4k digital video seriously. Every major
| manufacturer of professional cinema cameras would soon
| release their own competitive cameras with similar
| features to the Red One.
| dmbche wrote:
| Resolve is free, which is a massive deal to amateur filmmakers.
|
| The BMPCC4k prioritised having RAW, 4k, and being affordable.
| They cost 2-3k new at the time, competing with cameras that
| cost 15k and up. Raw is a massive, massive deal, and I argue is
| the thing separating pro gear from amateur.
|
| Their image quality and color science is arguably "less good"
| than Arri or RED, but the difference is imperceptible for 99%
| of people.
|
| Unless you're shooting someone juggling fire in a pitch black
| room, the images coming out of their cameras are as good as you
| can hope for.
|
| I shoot documentary, and I just do not see a reason to buy
| another camera. It's just "chefs kiss"
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Resolve is free, which is a massive deal to amateur
| filmmakers._
|
| Also, Resolve Studio1 is just a $300 one-time payment. So
| far, updates have always been free.
|
| 1 https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/st
| u...
| gizajob wrote:
| They're an order or magnitude two cheaper thanks to innovative
| and cost-effective engineering solutions from Melbourne, and
| offer professional connectivity alongside the ability to work
| with uncompressed or lightly-compressed codecs. Repurposing
| Off-the-shelf parts too, such as image sensors designed for
| other uses (such as smartbombs and guided missiles) rather than
| developing everything in-house. Their FPGA and high-speed dsp
| engineering is first-class too, and they seem to get this done
| with fewer,smarter people than say Sony, who have buildings
| full of engineers spending much of their lives writing design
| documents and then specifying things correctly at length before
| building - Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work.
| robomartin wrote:
| > Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work.
|
| This isn't even remotely true. Nobody at that scale just
| hacks it together. That sort of approach works for articles
| on various hardware hacking websites, not for real-life
| design and manufacturing of products.
| ilyt wrote:
| given that line
|
| > such as image sensors designed for other uses (such as
| smartbombs and guided missiles)
|
| I'd assume comment above was satire
| gizajob wrote:
| Not entirely! I think some of the large 35mm-size sensors
| used in the early cameras were designed with those kinds
| of applications in mind. I know BMD didn't design the
| sensors in-house, and used off-the-shelf parts, that in a
| couple of cases were actually larger than the desired
| sensor size, so they used it anyway but discarded part of
| the image produced from the sensor in order to make it
| 35/16mm format.
| gizajob wrote:
| You'd be amazed...
|
| They're hacking together extremely professionally, but I'd
| imagine many engineers at BMD consider themselves hacking
| and what they do to be hacking, but I don't have access to
| any. I'd say my general premise is true though.
| robomartin wrote:
| > You'd be amazed...
|
| I am amazed...by some of the comments.
|
| This isn't a garage operation with a bunch of dudes
| hacking on a plywood workbench. This is a real
| engineering organization with a well-optimized process
| and enough vertical integration to deliver excellent
| products at scale. That's how you do what they do.
|
| It is always interesting to watch people on HN, who
| obviously know very little about anything outside of
| hacking software, talk about making physical products.
| There's another thread on the first page about the
| realities of making a single plastic part. Read it.
| <sarcasm>It was obviously hacked together.</sarcasm>
| gizajob wrote:
| Well, I used to work there... so I at least have first-
| hand experience of the unorthodox methods and flexible
| working culture, one that is focussed on solutions rather
| than academic-type rigour. You'd be surprised how small
| the teams can be that design these products, ready for
| manufacture in Singapore.
| robomartin wrote:
| > Well, I used to work there...
|
| Good for you. Don't confuse an optimized process for
| "hacking". Don't diminish their accomplishments that way.
|
| I have lots of history with this company, including being
| personal friends with one of the founders for the last
| twenty years (as in, I stay at his home when I visit).
| They don't hack shit together. They have optimized an
| efficient engineering and manufacturing process.
|
| There's a simple reality in physical product engineering:
| The engineering process is directly related to product
| quality and reliability, which, in turn, is directly
| connected to failure rates and support/service load. A
| product that is hacked together will, at scale,
| invariably result in a bad quality and reliability along
| with a massive support load. This is not a financially
| viable approach at scale, not at all.
|
| Sure, one can hack things together during initial
| ideation and product definition. This, in the context of
| a solid product development process, is a normal aspect
| of almost any engineering organization, from consumer to
| aerospace. However, once enough is learned about the
| available solutions and approaches, not entering into a
| well-run engineering process is a costly mistake. No
| successful organization at scale hacks products together,
| it just doesn't happen.
| hackmiester wrote:
| I think you have some preconceived notions of what
| "hacking" is and isn't. Most on _Hacker_ News do not use
| "hack" as a pejorative. I suspect in this case it's just
| an engineering / practicality focused ethos that can be
| applied as opposed to "design by committee."
|
| Hacking something together - and then refining it - is
| how many good products are designed.
| robomartin wrote:
| The line I was responding to was:
|
| "Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work"
|
| That is patently false.
| oktoberpaard wrote:
| The app gives you control over things like the color space,
| codecs, lens correction, LUT, etc., as well as better
| monitoring and manual adjustments. For that reason I think it's
| not really useful to show a straight out of camera comparison,
| as the results very much depend on how you use these options
| and whether or not you intend to do color grading. Without
| adjusting the defaults, you'll get a 4K h256 rec.709 video,
| whereas the default app will give you an HDR video, which might
| look better straight out of the camera, provided that the
| exposure and camera work are equally good.
| nvahalik wrote:
| The iPhone's AVAsset* framework system is... intense. For
| "simple" stuff nowadays it seems like the amount of work you
| have to do just to get bootstrapped is a lot. But it also
| seems insanely powerful for all kinds of stuff and would make
| it possible to do a whole heck of a lot without having to
| hardware hack.
| alephnan wrote:
| > Cell phones often have 3 rear lenses ranging from 13mm, 24mm
| and 77mm telephoto, plus a front lens.
|
| I'm wondering if this was done by the copywriter or the UI person
| who needed to add more text so that every section has the same
| amount of "content". Node.js/NPM devs do this too
| loondri wrote:
| Blackmagic Camera app might add fancy controls to the iPhone, but
| it can't match the quality of real professional cameras.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Of course not, but it sure beats the hell out of getting a
| cheap or even probably moderately priced action cams.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I haven't heard of Blackmagic, but apparently many people
| understand the value here.
|
| What I found strange is the images on their website have an AI
| generated look to them, rather than looking like they were shot
| with a real camera. Am I the only person who's seeing it that
| way?
| buro9 wrote:
| This is great.
|
| I'm a native Firefox with extensions away from moving to iPhone
| after never having one, so every further bit of support by third
| parties is good.
|
| I really hope the EU forcing the opening up of Apple brings
| Firefox
| dewey wrote:
| How is one additional camera app related to that?
| buro9 wrote:
| Every additional third party improvement I see shows me how
| other companies are still investing in the iPhone. It's been
| a few years now since Google seems to be on a constant
| decline, and the latest Pixel phones only seem to go further
| on that path.
|
| It's the contrast between an ecosystem on a decline, and one
| still being invested in by others.
|
| Not that Apple are perfect, the single biggest blocker to my
| cohort of friends all replacing their Android with iOS within
| a few weeks remains the lack of a native third party browser
| with adblocking extensions.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-09 23:02 UTC)