10 Reasons Why the URSA Mini 4.6k is better than the Red Raven

F

filmmakerguy

Member
I did a lot of research on the two cameras and at one point considered getting the Red Raven instead until I learned more about the differences. In this thread I will share 10 reasons why I think the URSA Mini 4.6k is better than the Red Raven. I want to point out that a lot of this data was derived from an awesome write up by OneRiverMedia that can be found here: http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=1825


1. The Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6k camera has a larger sensor size than the Red Raven. The URSA Mini is Super35 versus Red Raven which is APS-C. Key benefits of a larger sensor size are better depth of field and it will allow more light through which tends to lead to better dynamic range, less noise and improved low light performance. source of info: http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/
AjxuUhn.png


2. The URSA Mini 4.6k camera has Global Shutter and Rolling Shutter switchable. The Red Raven is Rolling Shutter. As you remember, Global Shutter allows you to move the camera fast from left to right without getting a curved/distorted image. It also effects how things look that are spinning.
You'll see in the example of the spinning wheel, the rolling shutter gets distorted and curved:


3. The URSA Mini 4.6k has Dynamic Range of 15 Stops, the Red Raven has dynamic range of 16.5, however if you do your research, some tests have shown the Dragon sensor to have a usable 14 stops. Or as many people point out, if Red is 16.5+ stops, why does Arri footage still look so much better with less stops than that? It's because ARRI is closer to the usable amount. So some are anticipating the URSA Mini 4.6k to have 15 stops versus the Red Raven's actual 14 stops of dynamic range. Only side by side tests will confirm this however, but I am anticipating the URSA to be at or greater in usable Dynamic range.

4. As you know for quick shoots, shooting in ProRes is far easier to deal with in many situations and looks amazing. The Max ProRes Resolution for URSA Mini 4.6k is 3840 x 2160 versus the Red Raven which is 2048x1080.

5. You can be up and running on the URSA Mini 4.6k for as low as around $5,300 ($5k for the camera + $300 for CFAST card). The Red Raven will not even start working until you spend around $9,950 for it. How is it $5,300 for the URSA? It comes with a power chord to plug it in and it comes with a flip out monitor. All you technically need is one CFAST 2.0 card. I've been on shoots where we had a 2nd camera running on an extension chord outside. A Battery pack technically isn't needed right away if you're shooting mostly indoors or near a power supply which most people will be in 99% of the situations they shoot in. If you're not sure, think of all the film shoots you've been on where there was no restroom nearby for 8-12 hours while you were on set? Not many unless you're shooting a horror shoot in the woods. And even then, there might be a house nearby you can run an extension chord from.

6. The URSA Mini 4.6k has a better cooling system with Thermally regulated cooling versus the Red Raven which is using Thermally controlled fans. Therefore the URSA Mini should run much more quieter than the Red Raven, leading to potentially cleaner audio on certain shoots, including close ups or confined spaces (shooting in an elevator/closet/car/etc.).

7. The URSA Mini 4.6k comes with DaVinci Resolve which is a $995 value. As you know what makes a project look cinematic is not raw footage, it's the color correction. This will give you an edge on color correcting. I already have the software however having an extra license and dongle you can use on the go on a laptop is also nice.

8. Although CFAST cards are expensive, they are still cheaper than Red Mini-Mags. You are looking at $1,400.00 @ 240GB ($5.83/GB) for a Red Mag versus $599.95 @ 256GB ($2.34/GB) for a CFAST Card. That's a huge difference in price.

9. Ergonomically the URSA Mini 4.6k camera is far superior to the Red Raven. You have mount screws on the top and bottom of the URSA Mini. You have a cool side handle. It's very customizable with the mounting screws to add on things in the future. It has XLR connectors, touch screen monitor and buttons on the outside. It's just overall something you could handle better and will work in multiple situations.

10. The URSA Mini allows you to use a lot more 3rd party add ons for monitors, batteries, cfast media, etc. For Red Raven you'll mostly be buying Red proprietary parts which tend to cost a lot more. There is talk that they are going to open the Red Raven up to take more 3rd party add ons, however the details on that are yet to be proven as to what is compatible.
 
Last edited:
Great write up and much appreciated as I was pretty interested in the Red Raven. Think I may avoid it now, at least temporarily haha.
 
The GH4 shooting 4K doesn't have a larger sensor area than the Red Raven. The GH2 does but it has a oversized M4/3 sensor.

This whole writeup is pretty biased. Your stating that Red doesn't have the claimed stops yet take BM at face value despite over inflated claims of the past. BM also loses stops of DR when put in global shutter mode which is also failed to mention.
 
Last edited:
Title should be changed to '10 Reasons Why the URSA Mini 4.6k is better than the Red Raven ON PAPER'. Some of these are good points, but until BM decides they actually want to ship the camera, no one really knows.

Regardless, I find one sided comparisons like this to be kinda pointless. There are plenty of reasons why someone might consider the Raven to be better than the Ursa Mini (weight and size, redcode, modular, Dragon Color Science, etc, etc).
 
Better for who in what workflow?

Not to rain on your parade, but how can you make a real decision about either camera since neither is shipping yet?

I may not be the best videographer out there, but the one thing I have learned after nearly 40 years in the business.

Don't spend your hard earned money on a camera system until you test it first hand.

All the best!

Dave
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
The GH4 shooting 4K doesn't have a larger sensor area than the Red Raven. The GH2 does but it has a oversized M4/3 sensor.

This whole writeup is pretty biased. Your stating that Red doesn't have the claimed stops yet take BM at face value despite over inflated claims of the past. BM also loses stops of DR when put in global shutter mode which is also failed to mention.
Click to expand...

+1 Beat me to it.
 
Thank you for taking the time to share all that.
I agree since the cameras can't really be tested against each other yet it is really a comparison "on paper".
However, it is worth noting that the fact that they can be compared at all considering the price difference is significant.

Kind of reminds me of the comparisons of various Porsches and Ferraris to the much less expensive Corvette. Considering the massive price difference, there shouldn't be any comparison at all....but there is.
 
firehawk said:
Thank you for taking the time to share all that.
I agree since the cameras can't really be tested against each other yet it is really a comparison "on paper".
However, it is worth noting that the fact that they can be compared at all considering the price difference is significant.

Kind of reminds me of the comparisons of various Porsches and Ferraris to the much less expensive Corvette. Considering the massive price difference, there shouldn't be any comparison at all....but there is.
Click to expand...

+1
 
It seems you are gearing up for shooting a " feature" . What is your shoot schedule, how many hours , how much light, how many actors , how many set ups, how many locations , what lense systems, what battery systems ? Into this mix you are going to add a camera system that remains unproven partly based on price and paper features.

A feature is not a short film ......it is a marathon. It can at times be like trying to manage "chaos theory" & all of the above play a part in this "chaos " just like camera choice. This choice should be determined not just by paper specs and an illusionary price ( shooting with one CF card with a data hog, really ? ) and as yet to be announced release date.
 
i am not a big fan of dragon and red tends to go a little overboard with their DR claims but at this point, the raven might actually be shipping before ursa 4.6 and we have a pretty good idea what the image will be like.....everyhting trickling out from ursa 4.6 alpha, beta and such testing (definitely not final in any way) i am a little worried that BMs claims will be any better then red's.....i hate to judge a 4.6K raw camera from youtube HD vids but 8 months overdue, that is all we have to look at...and i am not impressed at all....
get a FS7....shipping now...

just saw this post with 4K youtube test....DR does look nice...i still like the Fs7
http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15951-4-6K-Footage-Posted-On-YouTube-in-UHD-2160p
 
Last edited:
Interesting reading about Kodak's "new" Super 8 camera, which will have a digital viewfinder and records a digital file along with film. It mentions that processing will run $50-$75 a cartridge, which runs something like 3 minutes if I remember correctly. When I was shooting Super 8 in the 70's, any corner drugstore could process the film for under $5.
 
I don't know. The images look pretty good from that demo but the highlights, in more than a couple of places, are not holding. That's one of the great aspects of working with the Dragon. Otherwise it looks nice. It's a big improvement. I don't see any obvious aliasing which is a nice change.
 
re: super 8-----maybe BACK IN THE DAY you could get it developed for $5, now to be able to use it without a film editing machine doohickey you need it developed, digitized, and put on some kind digital medium. i decided years ago i would teach myself to shoot film and bought a cheap super8 cam. i didnt follow through, did the whole process on one roll of film and that was it. had it developed (out of state...there are only a few labs that still do this as i understand it) transferred to dvd. cost about $70 all told. thats the way it is.
 
super 8 FTW!

back to the OP... Until both cameras are thoroughly into the wild, nothing can be certain, except that both will be very good tools for someone's needs. These days if you can't make a good video with a ursa min, or a raven, then it's not the camera that's the problem ;)
 
Darren Levine said:
super 8 FTW!

back to the OP... Until both cameras are thoroughly into the wild, nothing can be certain, except that both will be very good tools for someone's needs. These days if you can't make a good video with a ursa min, or a raven, then it's not the camera that's the problem ;)
Click to expand...
iphone6 looks good if you put it on a tripod and use lots of light.
 
Comparing cameras based on spec sheets alone is a fool's errand. Post again after you've taken both cameras out into the field and shot footage.
 
As for the Raven... don't forget... You also need the battery module so that it can even hold the damn battery. That's another $1150 right there and another $350 for the battery. Need inputs and outputs for HDMI/SDI? Screw you. That's another $1750 for the Expander. You then need to buy the amazingly overpriced Red Mags: $1400 for 240 GB. Now we can start shooting! Oh wait, you now need the module that has the buttons and small screen to see the settings and menu of what you're actually shooting. Now we're ready to rock 'n roll! What the hell am I even pointing the camera at? Oh yeah, I still need the LCD for $1450. Okay, now we're in business. I just shot a bunch of footage and can't wait to check it out. Oh crap, I need to drop another $150 on a card reader.

So not only are the specs looking better, so is the price (by a long shot).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top