How was the same camera used differently for these two projects?

[Harry Weaks]

Blackmagic pocket cinema cameras were allegedly used for the two works featured below, but they appear to look very different visually. Why is that? How were they filmed differently? The cameras used different? Were the setting on the cameras set differently for each project? If so, how differently? What were they set to for each? How would you have set them? One of them looks like something that was filmed for television --with a "tv-docu-series/tv special" look, and the other looks like a film. They're both documentaries --but don't really look like them in my opinion, as the first looks like a "tv-docu-series/tv special" and the other looks like a film.

First example:

Second example:

[Satsuki Murashige]

Well, give the directors, cinematographers, editors, and vfx some credit! :)

 

Locations, composition, camera movement, lighting, exposure choices, grading and compositing make a much bigger difference in the final image than the particular camera used. That is very likely what you are seeing, unless there is something very specific you are talking about like highlight roll-off or motion cadence. For narrative films, you can add the substantial contributions of production designers, art directors, set builders, props, wardrobe, hair and makeup, etc.

[Tyler Purcell]

Actually, neither product was shot on the blackmagic pocket camera entirely.

 

The first one was shot mostly with the blackmagic cinema camera, some of the inserts are pocket.

 

The second one was shot with the Sony F5, with some insert shots with the blackmagic pocket.

 

The pocket camera has a softer image, you can tell right away what was shot with it. You can also tell most of those two video's were shot with larger imager cameras because of the depth of field and very much a global shutter.

 

Here are some of my examples of stuff shot with the pocket camera. I actually don't do much post color work, I believe in showing native camera color and not messing too much with the result.

 

 

[Robin R Probyn]

Harry.. the first example is a piss take mockumentary.. its purposely shot to look like the cheap crap EX3 UK reality shows about "poor" people, that is currently all the rage .. you would recognize the false accents straight away if you from the UK..

 

The second as Tyler says was shot mostly on an F5.. and is done in a much more stylish fashion.. making use of SDF etc.. like Tylers examples..

Edited November 4, 2015 by Robin R Probyn

[Mark Dunn]

Harry.. the first example is a piss take mockumentary.. its purposely shot to look like the cheap crap EX3 UK reality shows about "poor" people, that is currently all the rage .. you would recognize the false accents straight away if you from the UK..

 

Oh dear, that does need translating into American by a Briton, doesn't it. :D

[Robin R Probyn]

Its pretty well done though.. quite funny.. and good that someone is trying to show up these really awful immoral "reality" shows.. laying bare the lowest social strata of British society .. so a few others can feel better about their own sorry lot in life..

From the great doc,s of the 60,s .. films like Kes.. / Cathy Come Home to Benefits street.. .. its hard to optimistic about tv these days..

Edited November 4, 2015 by Robin R Probyn