FS7: Considering FS7 or URSA

R

rawnster

Member
Greetings. I've been looking into upgrading from an FS700 to an FS7. I primarily shoot corporate talking heads, promos, etc... within the confines of a procyc green screen facility. I was going to pickup an FS7 until I came across a very compelling review of a BMC URSA. What captured my attention was how beautifully it kept the details of the image (hair lines, edges...) even after pulling a key. From what I saw, it gives a superior key than my FS700 w/ Odyssey 7Q. Hope that makes sense. As mentioned, I'm looking for a green screen camera upgrade. Does anyone here have any experience with an URSA and how it compares to the FS7?

Thanks!
 
Were you using the 4K2HD Raw down convert with 7Q? If so that is probably as good if not even better pure signal quality than you will get with the FS7. That's only based on looking once at the 7Q combination with the FS700 though so its just a guess and I'm only talking signal quality, not codec or anything else about the picture. Frankly that's damn good for green screen already. In every other respect the FS7 would probably be much more versatile than an URSA but I haven't looked into the BM much at all.
 
All I can say is that I bought an URSA, tried it, then sold it and bought an FS7. But I needed a versatile camera, and your application is very specific.
 
Thanks for the replies. Yes, my situation is specific. 98% studio work. To be honest, I'm a little tired of dealing with the 7Q. That 10" monitor on the URSA is quite appealing. :-)
 
The key difference here is that the URSA is capable of 444 ProRes. This is why it will key better than any FS7 or 7Q combo. Every pixel has its own chroma and luminance information. 422 gives you little edge issues because some pixels sample chroma from a neighboring pixel. If you're in a studio all the time, I'd say the size of the URSA isn't an issue.

As nice and flexible as the FS7 is, I would suggest using the URSA for heavy studio+green screen work.
 
I know it's adding lots to the budget you are probably looking at but have you considered the FS7 with 16-bit RAW R5 recorder? If that's too pricey, why not just the F5 without R5 which will do RGB 444 internally in HD anyway via the SR Codec? Just some alternative options for your consideration.

Cheers,
 
You are correct, yes it's limited to 12-bit on the FS700 and FS7. I just referred to it as a 16-bit recorder making some confusion. sorry about that.

I just think the extra cost of the F5 is worth it considering the quality of the internal codec, not to mention form factor. I think FS7 + HXR +*AXS is probably pricey for what it is.
 
Nice, thanks for the feedback. I do shoot primarily in prores hq 4k or UHD. I love the crop factor. End result an HD file. So having the extra real estate has spoiled me. :-)
 
I wouldn't want to lug an URSA around for shot, but for 99% studio work, I still think it's your best bet. Cheaper than an F5, has native Canon mount if those are the lenses you have. Big 10" screen (no need for an operator monitor), native UHD 444 ProRes for better keying and a good robust codec...
 
Yeah, Josh, that's what I was thinking. And really the weight/form factor doesn't bother me. I shoot a ton of seminars, events, and trade shows, for which I'd still use the arsenal of FS700/100 cameras I have. I'm simply looking to up the quality of our green screen footage.
 
I was even thinking of picking up a Black Magic Production Camera 4k for a "b" camera. The other positive point with the URSA is that you get a full license of Resolve...not just the lite version. I like that. I guess I'm talking myself into it.
 
A heavy camera has other cost and usability considerations. The URSA with a battery is 16.5 pounds, so without 15.3 pounds (based on V-lock or A/B battery weight). Do you have a tripod for a camera that weight? The tripod cost goes up considerably for a camera that is well over 20 pounds which it will be once you have it for a year and start adding accessories. Carrying it in and out of the stage area. Lugging around a 15 pound camera bag is a royal pain in the pattuch (when you include all the jazz for an 8 pound camera). A heavier camera bag gets even trickier. Also remember gear gets loaded/unloaded at least 4 times for a shoot.

Finally, NAB is two months away. The past two years at NAB everything changed for cameras in a really dramatic way. 4K is in it's infancy and we are at the beginning stages of the 4K life cycle. If you really need to make your decision now by all means.

If this camera was going to stay in a particular studio and not move and it was not for a freelancer, I might not be as dim in my comments.

A used Sony F35 (close to the same weight) is a real 4:4:4 camera. An URSA can output 444 but the sensor and the subsequent processing is not delivering an image that resolves correctly to give you meaningful 444 chroma even though the container of the file is capable of saving 444 chroma resolution.
 
Hi Andrew, yes I've got a tripod that can handle it. I work for a very large EDA software company. I do not freelance. Don't have the time; and I am paid very well to work this 9-5 job. We have a permanent proCyc green room facility from which we produce our marketing content.. This camera (supposedly an URSA or something like it) would be devoted to that studio as well as other controlled interviews and such. Seriously, the weight of the camera is not an issue. I do workout. :-)
 
rawnster said:
Thanks for the replies. Yes, my situation is specific. 98% studio work. To be honest, I'm a little tired of dealing with the 7Q. That 10" monitor on the URSA is quite appealing. :-)
Click to expand...

What's the problem with the 7Q? I've never owned the monitor so wondering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top