BlackMagic - URSA Mini

Kholi said:
Here's a very to-the-point question: would you spend 10,000 for it including media and batteries if you don't own them?

12,000?

Pretty simple question and likely the reality of it. It's pretty plausible that with R&D, materials, etc. that the camera's cost leaps from a base of say 7K to own to 10K (Media and power)

Are we even talking the same kind of performance to cost ratio?
Click to expand...

that depends. would you be willing to lend me $10,000? being as i don't have that, i'd have to rent instead of buy.

i realize they are trying to hit a certain price point, but how much would adding the nd filters actually cost?
 
Man, with all of the talk of peaking, false colour, etc., at this point I just want the sensor to have strong latitude, great on-board controls my 2-exposure points (3rd of course ON the lens) and of course proper i/o.
Maybe coming from illustration and photography background, I can't see the big deal (or dire necessity) for many of these monitor bonuses. Half the time I'm wondering why many individuals don't just use their friggin' eyes, learn from practice and move on. Why are some of these "training wheels" so important to filmmakers now when they weren't ever important or necessary in the past? It's not as if the camera is unusable without those features after all.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the features helping out for beginners or for those unfamiliar to shooting on a monitor. But a deal-breaker? Really?
 
Peaking, False Colour, Waveform etc are proper digital camera exposure tools. Nothing beginner about them. Sure they aren't necessary but they are a standard for professional cinema cameras which is why users are asking and have come to expect them.
 
I posted this, by accident, in another thread:

With the flood of info surrounding the newly-announced cameras at NAB, I read something I can't seem to find now. I could be confused as to which camera(s), but I know I read somewhere that at least one had both rolling shutter and global shutter in one. Is that true?
Click to expand...
 
Kholi said:
Here's a very to-the-point question: would you spend 10,000 for it including media and batteries if you don't own them?

12,000?

Pretty simple question and likely the reality of it. It's pretty plausible that with R&D, materials, etc. that the camera's cost leaps from a base of say 7K to own to 10K (Media and power)

Are we even talking the same kind of performance to cost ratio?
Click to expand...

I'd have to see tests and have a couple other questions answered.
But it's much more likely I'd buy it at 10 with internal nd
than 7 without internal nd. I bought a FS700 even though
I could have stayed with a FS100 which was cheaper, because
of internal nd filters. 10 grand is about my max spend
on a camera though because of market realities on what I
can charge in a small town. So I'd say 10 grand and I'd be very
interested and if it all checked out, I'd be all over it. But I
understand that's just me and there might not be enough
people like me to make it worth it for them. Which is fine,
ill hang on to my money and current cam until I see something
that has what I want on it.
 
squig said:
If it doesn't make actors perform better that's a deal-breaker.

I have the solution for the run and gunners, fast filter changes & you'll look profesh:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...mpCo_HMV_VC_K_M_Combat_Photo_Vest_Medium.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/969996-REG/xume_77mm_lens_adapter_starter_kit.html
Anyway why spend all that money for better color and IQ and ruin it with crappy internal ND?

Spit it out Kholi
Click to expand...
I don't want crappy internal NDs, I want good ones.
The ones in the FS700 are good so I'm not sure why
Blackmagic couldn't make good ones as well. It's actually
cheaper to make the filter itself internally because it doesnt
need to be as big (although other issues could cause the price
to go up).

I've got the Xume adapters and gave them a good review on
my blog. Not as nice as internal though but a nice product for sure.
 
ugafan said:
i would literally kill someone to obtain one of these cameras if it had built in nd filters and a less expensive alternative to cfast cards. all in all it's a very good camera, but their oversight is keeping me from murdering someone and having to serve a lengthy jail sentence. which is a good thing, depending upon your perspective.
Click to expand...
No need to kill anybody, just get an FS7, it has similarly awesome DR, 4K, high fps, built-in NDs, and media is cheap if you take bitrate into account.
The mini is really, really awesome, but if it's not for you (and for the record it's not for me either), there are other options around.
 
3072 x 2560 (3K Anamorphic) Is listed in the specs on the camera, but not if this is a ProRes or RAW only mode, anyone have any more info on this?

EDIT: Looks like RAW only.
 
Shooting film a DP wouldn't expose by eye and leave their light meter behind. Waveforms are a standard of cameras in this class. For some users exposure tools are as important as framerate options or codecs or global shutter etc. none are 'necessary' but they are features consumers are interested. I don't understand why you have issue with people who are disappointed or requesting features they use. This is a forum to discuss the pros and cons of cameras is it not?

Exposing by eye is a great way to blow proper exposure in log gammas and end up with compressed skin tones etc.

I think the Ursa Mini looks like a great camera and I'd seriously consider buying it if I didn't have an FS7 already. Even on the FS7 for many the fact that the WFM disappears when luts are on is a huge bone of contention among users so exposure tools are a big thing to many users. I have no doubt BM will be adding a ton of features as they go along.
 
Last edited:
KahL said:
To dictate an entire camera purchase on tools that aren't necessary
Click to expand...

Not to stoke the fire but to help bring about peace, I would like to more fully reply to not just this but all of the posts like it, in this thread and entire forum:

"It's not the camera, it's the shooter."
"To complain like this is to act like a spoiled child."
"These are 'first-world problems.'"
"These are nitpicks."

In defense:

1. Video production is a first-world endeavor. So all video problems are first-world problems.

2. No one is whining for exotic, futuristic features, like 16K resolution or 10,000 frames per second. Most complaints are about things that the person thinks are established features, cheap and easy to have included (cheap and easy compared to making the whole camera). Things like neutral-density filters, histograms, and 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs. They can't see into the design and manufacturing process, but from all the evidence they have, these seem like easy features to add without driving up the price much.

3. These are small things, but multiplied by dozens of shots per day, day after day, it adds up. Especially, each time they unscrew or screw on an ND filter, they think that the manufacturer could have easily done something about it.

4. It sounds like entitlement. Entitlement means, "I deserve it" --- which is absurd. But I don't think it's quite that. I think it's a feeling of being disrespected. I have found that the smallest gesture, if interpreted as a sign of disrespect, multiplies the emotional effect. If I cut you off in traffic, it only adds a second to your trip (first-world problem). If I do it out of ignorance, you are mildly annoyed. If, however, you think I cut you off deliberately, are you not enraged? Have not people even been murdered over that? Sure, the manufacturer can make a camera however they want. But if they deliberately exclude a feature to nickel-and-dime us, it's undeniably irritating, and I think not just in a totally self-centered way. There is an objective sense of antisocial behavior about it. I think capitalism doesn't have to be a bloodsport, where the buyer and seller are trying their best to make every last penny at the expense of the other side. I think it should be an ongoing relationship of good faith. Each tries to make a living but also has everyday concern for the other side just as they should for every fellow person. Buyers should not buy a camera, use it for a gig, and return it a week later, just because they can. Sellers should not segment their line-up into 40 different cameras when three should do. And they can use open standard formats instead of rolling their own each time.
 
I sat down to figure out the true cost of buying the mini and have come to the conclusion that I value still being married to buying a mini right now.

For me the single biggest issue to purchase a mini is the move to EF lenses. I currently have a nice collection of m43 lenses which I love. Investing in a new set of EF lenses will very likely cost me at least $2,000.00.

URSA mini = $5,000.00
New set of EF lenses (Rokinon for cost savings) = $2,000.00
C-Fast cards x2 128GB = $1,000.00
V mount battery kit x2 = $1,000.00
Viewfinder = $1,500.00
Shoulder mount = $400.00

I'm now up to $10,900.00 not including tax or shipping or any other minor accessories I would likely need. I'm sure at some point 2 batteries and 2 Cfast cards may not be enough so tack on another $1,000.00.

Even if they did have a m43 version I would still be looking at a $9,000.00 camera. Ouch.
 
A lot to like with the URSA Mini. I sure want to know more about the 4.6K sensor. The original URSA used the same sensor as the BMPC 4K correct? Didn't that have fixed pattern issues and black dot when clipped problems? Did this get resolved yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top