I really dont know what the genre is

  • Thread starter Thread starter rob aylestone
  • Start date Start date
rob aylestone

rob aylestone

Moderator
I took out my new video gear yesterday for a music event about an hour away. A three piece Improv jazzy evolutionary band. Sitting on the stage floor. Audio via a feed from a colleague who does their sound. Three cameras. A mix of two black magic ursa type. Wasnt mega bright but it was an experiment in if it was possible to cut it live and also operate cameras with just two people. The two people had headsets and the black magics have viewfinder colour changes so you know you are live. Recorded direct to disc. Wanted to stream it but internet and 5G was too poor. I can't embed it but here is a link.
 
Last edited:
The link appears to be dead. It says "Sorry we can't find that page"
 
Struggling a bit - does the new link work - moved from vimeo to youtube?
 
Last edited:
Youtube is working just fine.

The low light is making some of the camera shots a bit soft or grainy. I guess the darkness is for the atmosphere. With the multiple camera angles, I think you did a decent job of keeping the pace of the video going. There's not much you can do when someone stands up in front of the overall shot from the back. I'm sure with some processing you'll get things looking more polished.

As for the performance, it seemed a bit long and meandering. It reminded me of some days when you are jamming a solo, you're really into it and just keep going. Weeks later when you listen to it, you think "Y'know, I could have stopped after the first 3 minutes!" The last song with the synth pattern repeating was a prime example.

Is this primarily the sax player's project?
 
well ........ the sax/flute player has no legs. He can't stand for long periods on his artificial ones, so they sit on the floor - very strange, but the percussion guy has it nailed!

The first act kept saying too bright too bright and in the end it was a glowworm and dialing 20dB gain into the cameras was awful - sparkly and almost unusable. I don't know much about them, but I think it was very improvised - they had a sort of beginning middle and end planned, but when it happened was random - however I cut the cameras and operated the audience left one - so we talked pretty much through the entire thing - sort of can you get the bass player - yes - damn - he moved behind the stand. More light would have made a big difference - the audience left camera struggled with the light more than the other one - both Ursas - but left was an Ursa 4K I'e had a while and the other one is an Ursa broadcast with a better lens. The audience camera had some guys head totally obscuring it for the entire first half - nothing I could do. The percussionist was very specific about the reverb and eq he needed, and considering the 57 and 57 beta werethe sax mics and sennheiser 604s on the percussion - it's quite clean. Just really outside my comfort zone really - no experience with this kind of music.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
Just watched and the 3 camera thing is way cool...Lighting was sketchy sometimes but most very cool. Cool jazzy space jam kind of stuff.
because of the vibe flute sax thing I got a bloodwyn pig / early King Crimson kind of a feel. Definitely would enjoy more if I partook of the marahoochie like back in the olden days... The 3 camera moving about and catching different angles thing is a dream for any band playing live..They are going to be deep gratitude for you putting this together for them.
 
Thanks - I had the idea that maybe it would work, and if there was decent internet the event could be streamed very simply - one press and away. It didn't work here because no network and the phone signal wouldn't hold up. The basic idea is that with just two people, but 3 or 4 cameras, it could be affordable - but I wasn't sure if the system I'd built would actually do the job. It seems it does, as long as light levels are enough. Lenses wide open and extra gain is not good for images. I built it into a system mainly for choir type events that I do audio recordings for, and figured maybe video would be nice to add? I suppose I'd have to make sure I stipulate light levels are critical to results. One of the organisers wanted to know why the first hald didn't work - she took some video on her iphone and that was fine. Hmmmm
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
One of the organisers wanted to know why the first hald didn't work - she took some video on her iphone and that was fine. Hmmmm
iPhones and many other phone brands have incredible camera power built in these days but they are not even close in comparison to a blackhawk ursa...But it is all about what you do with that raw footage that makes the difference... I asked Gemini

Why would an iphone 16 camera take better video in a dark lit concert than a $30K blackmagic Ursa camera?

Gemini said
In a dimly lit concert, an iPhone 16 can often produce a video that looks "better" to the average person than a professional $30,000 Blackmagic URSA. However, the reason isn't that the iPhone is a superior camera—it’s because the iPhone is a computer that automates complex artistry, while the Blackmagic is a precision tool that assumes you are the artist.

Here is why the iPhone often wins in a "point-and-shoot" concert scenario.

1. Computational Photography vs. Raw Physics
The biggest difference lies in how the two devices handle a single frame of video.

The iPhone (The Automated Chef): When you hit record, the iPhone isn't just taking one video stream. It is performing computational stacking. It captures multiple exposures at once—some for the bright stage lights and some for the dark crowd—and merges them instantly. It applies AI-driven noise reduction, sharpens edges, and balances colors in real-time.

The Blackmagic (The Raw Ingredients): A cinema camera like the URSA captures "Raw" or high-bitrate data. It preserves every bit of noise and flat color so a professional colorist can "develop" it later. In a dark concert, a Blackmagic image will look grainy, dark, and flat straight out of the camera because it hasn't been "fixed" by software yet.

2. High Dynamic Range (HDR) Handling
Concerts are a nightmare for cameras because they have extreme contrast: a blindingly bright LED screen behind a singer in a pitch-black room.

iPhone: Uses Smart HDR to prevent the stage lights from "blowing out" (turning into white blobs) while simultaneously boosting the singer’s face. It does the work of a professional lighting editor in milliseconds.

Blackmagic: Has a much higher potential dynamic range, but if you don't expose it perfectly using manual tools (like false color or zebras), the highlights will clip or the shadows will be buried in noise.

3. Sensor Technology: Pixel Binning
The iPhone 16 uses a 48MP "Fusion" sensor. In low light, it uses a process called Pixel Binning.
+1

It combines groups of four small pixels into one "super-pixel."

This effectively increases the sensor's ability to "see" in the dark at the cost of some resolution.

While the URSA has a much larger physical sensor, it is designed for maximum detail in controlled lighting, not necessarily for "seeing in the dark" without professional-grade lenses.

4. Lens Speed and Stabilization
The Aperture: The iPhone 16’s main camera has a very "fast" fixed aperture (usually around f/1.6). To get that much light into a Blackmagic, you’d need a massive, expensive lens (like a $5,000 prime lens) wide open, which makes the focus area paper-thin.

The Shake: iPhones use Sensor-Shift OIS and digital "gymbal-like" stabilization. A handheld Blackmagic at a concert will look shaky and nauseating; the iPhone makes it look like you’re on a professional rail system.

Comparison Summary
Feature iPhone 16 Blackmagic URSA
Philosophy "Make it look good now." "Give me all the data for later."
Low Light AI Noise Reduction (Clean but "mushy"). Natural Grain (Detailed but "noisy").
Ease of Use Auto-focus, Auto-exposure, Auto-HDR. Manual focus, Manual iris, Manual grade.
Best For Social media, instant memories. Feature films, Netflix, high-end ads.
The "Pro" Caveat
If you took the footage from both into a professional editing suite (like DaVinci Resolve), the Blackmagic footage could be turned into a masterpiece with incredible color depth and texture that the iPhone simply cannot match. The iPhone "bakes" the look into the file; the Blackmagic gives you the ingredients to cook it yourself.

Would you like me to find some side-by-side comparison videos or explain how you can use the "Blackmagic Cam" app on your iPhone to get closer to that cinema look?
 
Back
Top