Blackmagic Design Announces New URSA Mini Pro G2 Camera

Paul F said:
Cool. This is the kind of post I find meaningful; not arbitrary opinions about reliability.
Click to expand...

Really ?

1) Reliability is a separate issue, you don't see it when the shot is handed over to the editor, you notice it when the XLR stops working.
How does choosing between images in the video provided speak to that ? It doesn't. It is a false equation.

Here is an example of the problem Blackmagic constantly has on it's hands in terms of QC, reliability and therefore public image:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDtgsGr4BU


2) In terms of choosing between an Alexa and an UMP on the basis of image:
All of the shots in the provided video are in a controlled environment with limited dynamic range.
Almost any camera today can be matched under those circumstances.
I know because I do it all the time as a colorist.
Hell, shoot a Sony A7S and you would barely notice the difference.
Where you see the difference is in high dynamic range situations with highlight roll-off.
Or, push the iso rating 2-3 stops on an Ursa and on the Alexa, and see which camera begins artifacting.
Almost no other camera can keep up with the Alexa under those circumstances.
There is so much flexibility in grading from an Alexa image (and with ease) that nothing else comes close.
That is why it is still THE reference, even today.


3) There is a video which actually does a good job of expressing the difference between a $7000 camera vs a $75,000 one.
It's when things are pushed to the limits that you begin to see things breaking down on the less expensive camera.
Which is as it should be.

Even though the the camera in question is a C200, I think that the basic argument holds up. (please let's not get into C200 vs UMP debates as well):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8oF1NfGek


4) I think that John's arguments are valid within the context of the kind of controlled environment that he works in.
His viewpoint is that the camera which fills his needs best in terms of weight, flexibility and general overall image as a B Cam is the UMP.
However, you will notice that the reference continues to be an Alexa.
Which is also, in my opinion, as it should be.
 
Last edited:
After six years shooting with BM cameras (original, pocket, and now p4k), I find reports about their reliability issues greatly exaggerated: I see some people complaining a lot, but I hardly had any issues myself (or at least not more than I've had with Canon or Sony <$3k cameras).
 
Never touched a BM but have read the last gen mini could be quite noisy in low light. Low light performance would concern me more than reliability issues. I've been spoiled by my F5 which is mostly pretty good in low light.
Overall, the gen2 looks great on paper. Ticks a lot of boxes for me. I would be very interested in it with the B4 mount because I have a drawer full of nice B4 zooms and could see using it for event and run and gun stuff...
 
JCummings said:
Never touched a BM but have read the last gen mini could be quite noisy in low light. Low light performance would concern me more than reliability issues. I've been spoiled by my F5 which is mostly pretty good in low light.
Click to expand...

Here are some low light frame grabs I just fished from my dailies folder from Queen of the South season 2.

These are exposed 800 ISO with ProRes 444. These are ungraded stills, just the show LUT applied.

I used the UM4.6K (not pro) for a lot of the car work in the show. Like Resident, probably 30% of season 2 is shot with Ursa Mini 4.6K.
 

Attachments

  • ExDStill_QOTS_170602_063453.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170602_063453.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170602_052831.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170602_052831.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170530_210304.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170530_210304.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170505_025539.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170505_025539.jpg
    31.7 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170505_030833.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170505_030833.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170505_051615.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170505_051615.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 0
  • ExDStill_QOTS_170524_030310.jpg
    ExDStill_QOTS_170524_030310.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 0
yoclay said:
Really ?

1) Reliability is a separate issue, you don't see it when the shot is handed over to the editor, you notice it when the XLR stops working.
How does choosing between images in the video provided speak to that ? It doesn't. It is a false equation.
Click to expand...

I didn't make myself clear. I'm not relating video samples to reliability. I'm comparing the quality of posts. I value contributions such as John's that present me with useful information. Posts that make unsubstantiated and hyperbolic statements such as this are disappointing: "Should we try to guess ratio between defective Alexas and quality control ridden, failing, sent back, falling apart ursas? I say is in the 1000 ursas to 1 alexa. What do you think? ".

If we are going to bash a product, to be fair, it should be done with a preponderance of evidence, not hyperbole and not single youtube videos. Let's not guess. Let's not put the stink on a product unjustly just because it is fun. Let's be fair to product vendors with real evidence.

I'm on the fence about Blackmagic cameras. The only useful anecdotal evidence about cameras is a body of reviews and even that has to be used with caution. Looking at reviews on B&H, the Ursa Mini Pro and the Pocket 4k both have one complaint about reliability out of about 60 reviews. For the Ursa Mini Pro, that is a .017 failure rate. 60 reviews is a decent number, but I'd want more. If we consider 60 as a decent sample then a 1.7% is right in line with any electronic product's failure rate. I know this because I was a product manager for electronics that sold hundreds of millions globally. We reviewed return rates for the products and an acceptable level was usually below 2%; more closer to 1.5%. So a 1.7% failure rate is very acceptable and surprisingly low for the type of product it is.
 
Those grabs look nice. Nice lenses. I imagine focus is tricky in that scenario. Be curious to see what happens in those setups when you crank the ISO a bit. Of course, with a lighting crew and big truck there's really no need to push the camera if you don't want to. Isn't that camera rated at 400 native?
 
JCummings said:
Those grabs look nice. Nice lenses. I imagine focus is tricky in that scenario. Be curious to see what happens in those setups when you crank the ISO a bit. Of course, with a lighting crew and big truck there's really no need to push the camera if you don't want to. Isn't that camera rated at 400 native?
Click to expand...

The camera has a recommended ISO of 800. That's what I always shoot it at.

Why would you need to crank the ISO ? I think the images speak for themselves. They look great.

Like on Alexa, if you crank the ISO you're actually going to shed DR.

Also, what would you see ? It's nighttime. The blacks should be black and have very little detail

Lighting here on these was minimal or non-existant.

The first two images are lit with ONLY a single Cineo matchstick on the outside of the windshield with CYAN 15 on the front dimmed to a few percent. A 12" battery light dimmed to a few percent and that's the lighting from my big truck. We free drive a lot on Queen and you have to make it safe enough for the actors to be able to drive. You can't blast them in the face with light. And you don't need to.

Third image was no lighting well after sundown in the last twitch of dusk.

4, 5 and 6 was an Arri M40 on a condor with Cyan 15. in close inside the car was again matchstix.

Look at the background exposure, the headlights the street lights. They all print. You can't use a lot of light if you want to keep that detail and not overexposure it (cranking the iso). In the first two images the oranges and reds are from car tail lights and streetlighting...

Last image was no lighting.

JB
 
Last edited:
The overhead camera (Dynamicam) on the boxing I did was a BMD Micro with some kind of odd custom control interface, didn't have a single problem with that camera during the entire 14 hour day. Only desire was that I would have liked the same controls as the main Sony cameras, iris control was in 3rd of a stop steps. Looked pretty good and I was able to mostly match it to the Sony's, which is a good thing because it carries about 50% of the show during the bouts. https://www.dynami-cam.com/ looked like ours used 3 cables attached to the lighting truss. The two guys running the rig and camera were pretty good, they never complained reliability of the camera when I was talking to then about it. Seems they see more issues with the "flight" control parts than the camera or lens. Just another data point.
 
I saw it last night and although it looked good, it seemed like the typical "new camera clickbait" test on YT.

In the comments when asked if he/she thought there were any differences between the generations the user seemed confused to what the question was.

And I'm assuming JB is saying it's fake because the cameras haven't made their way out of Australia yet. If they did, maybe we have a rogue B&H employee!?
 
FWIW, I am speaking to the marketing and PR people at BMD and they said they have NO cameras out for review and testing.
That is probably true but may not be totally accurate but I know they said I cannot get my paws one for a while. But I'm not a Influencer YouTuber with a few hundred thousand followers ;-)
 
ade4all said:
This is such a silly discussion you could say the same about almost any camera other than Arri that dominates this world, the UMP isn't aimed at big budget Hollywood - compare it to what else is around in its price range and you see it hits well above it weight.
Click to expand...

But I think is silly to market cameras as cinema cameras if nobody will do proper cinema with it. Like using it as A camera in many big productions. Calling it indie camera would be more correct. But not good marketing I guess. Panasonic call GH5 cinema camera? I think GH5 did more cinema than any BMD camera. Problem with BMD is they market cinema camera to people who can't afford cinema cameras. So even if cinema camera in name they have to be actually ENG cameras or buyers will complain. make no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top