FS7: Considering FS7 or URSA

If compared the a7S 8-bit images with a BMPCC 12-bit RAW, the images from the BMPCC look more natural and organic with a wider sampling of color (especially at skin tones where it counts). I wonder if the FS7 10-bit internal or even the 12-bit RAW would compare to Blackmagic's 12-bit RAW.

Anyone done comparisons?
 
goodgoings said:
If compared the a7S 8-bit images with a BMPCC 12-bit RAW, the images from the BMPCC look more natural and organic with a wider sampling of color (especially at skin tones where it counts). I wonder if the FS7 10-bit internal or even the 12-bit RAW would compare to Blackmagic's 12-bit RAW.

Anyone done comparisons?
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to go there, but I've always felt that the Blackmagic look is more organic with skin tone than what I was getting with the fs700 /w 7Q. This is another impulse towards the URSA with regards to my situation.
 
As a previous FS700 + 7Q owner who knew that camera very well, I can definately say the FS7 has a much more filmic look than either the FS700 or the A7s. The FS7 can roll with the Amira because the highlights are so good. I doubt the URSA would hang in the same way since the dynamic range is 2 stops less than the FS7.
 
gene_can_sing said:
As a previous FS700 + 7Q owner who knew that camera very well, I can definately say the FS7 has a much more filmic look than either the FS700 or the A7s. The FS7 can roll with the Amira because the highlights are so good. I doubt the URSA would hang in the same way since the dynamic range is 2 stops less than the FS7.
Click to expand...

How about color sampling of the FS7 compared to the a7S? I know it's 10-bit so theoretically it should give a better rendition, but so is the GH4 HDMI out, but it doesn't come close to Blackmagic's 12-bit RAW. Good point about the 2 extra stops of dynamic range. I guess you can't get it all, at least at this price point.
 
Sounds like URSA is a good choice for you based on your shooting situation. Annecdotal info though suggests you wait and let the camera mature a bit longer. Have client who is working at freelance at a studio that bought URSA... Camera was out of commission early on and has not been trusted. They have been shooting F5/55 or Epic for lots of stuff and he personally purchased FS7 kit. Not sure if URSA is back in the mix yet... Waiting until NAB not bad idea, not necessarily due to new camera announcements but as it will allow more time for URSA to get better.

New cams at NAB will likely be delivering 3-6 months or longer after the announcements and likey not in full feature mode.
 
I think many have already mentioned that the Ursa seems to be designed for this very application and I have to agree. Either by design or by accident it is a studio camera and for what you are doing it's a much better fit than the FS7 and will definitely get you better results. I have shot many hours of green screen and nothing beats color resolution, bit depth and lack of compression.
 
Andrew Stone said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is this as well. As far as I know the F35 along with its close relative the Panavision Genesis is the only real full RGB 444 large sensor camera. Regardless of what the codec or format you are recording to says, if the camera doesn't output real 444 it is not filling the whole container, even if it's labeled 444. No bayer sensor camera outputs real 444. The closest thing is the Sony F65. But even that, although doing a very good job, is still a trick of sorts comparable to pixel shifting in resolution talk. You will certainly find those who dispute this and normally they will be the same who also dispute that a 4096x2160 bayer sensor can't output 4096x2160 4K. They will be most likely trying to sell you a camera or something related to it with a bayer sensor.

It's not necessarily bad or wrong. It's just the nature of bayer and it's science, so might as well accept it. But when it comes to marketing even science can be distorted.

Even so the Ursa still has an edge over the FS7 for studio and green screen work.
 
As long as you have plenty of light, are shooting low contrast scenes, and don't mind lugging around a big camera, Ursa sounds like it might be a good fit. Sounds like you might benefit from the oversized screen and all the i/o, otherwise the BMPC might be an option too. I think for 95% of situations if say fs7 over Ursa but your situation sounds pretty specific.
 
rawnster said:
I wasn't going to go there, but I've always felt that the Blackmagic look is more organic with skin tone than what I was getting with the fs700 /w 7Q. This is another impulse towards the URSA with regards to my situation.
Click to expand...

I agree here. The Blackmagic cameras, under perfect conditions such as what you can get inside a studio, render skin better than most cameras, bar the big high-end players such as F35/65, ARRIs and the like. The problem is when the conditions are not perfect. But it seems you don't have to worry about that for you application.
 
gene_can_sing said:
The FS7 can roll with the Amira because the highlights are so good. I doubt the URSA would hang in the same way since the dynamic range is 2 stops less than the FS7.
Click to expand...

The number of stops, if they are to be believed, because real world results not always match manufacturers claims, has very little to do with how a camera handles highlights. I'm not particularly talking about the FS7 and the Ursa here.

But number of stops in dynamic range says very little about what you really get. Firstly because it can be very subjective and a camera with 15-stops for a "tester" may be a camera with 13-stops for another "tester", depending on your tolerance and testing method.

Secondly, because the number of stops does not influence the way it handles the highlights. The way the dynamic range is distributed does for that. So it's entirely possible that a camera with a smaller number of stops may handle highlights better than a camera with a higher number of stops of dynamic range. In this case, the camera with the smaller number of stops will actually look like it has more dynamic range to the eye, even if a test chart may be telling you otherwise because, normally, specially with digital, we see the limitations in the highlights before we notice the limitations in the shadows.

In other words, specifications mean more as a marketing tool than as any real confirmation of real world performance.
 
Outside of the cost issue, I would go with what Dennis (Starcentral) is suggesting. The F5/55 is a camera that can stand up to the rigors and demands of studio production; and, the F series will give you the Sony SR codec, which is pretty nice for film work. The FZ/PL mount is solid and substantial. I would suggest an Amira, but, prices drift into the stratosphere for that option.

I suggest that the plasticy models like the FS7 will never go the distance, if you're looking at a long term investment. By the time you get done rigging the FS7 for studio work, you're pretty close to the cost of an F5. You're also paying for R&G features you really don't need in a studio camera. The Sony E-mount is really too flimsy for anything but small lenses.

Something to think about is the Ursa shares a sensor with a BMD cinema camera and AJA Cion, which is, also, a choice for this app. If you're replacing that camera every year, then something like the Ursa or FS7 is a choice. I'd avoid a plastic lens mount, optically not ideal, unstable and not right for any camera.

Finally, I wouldn't discount the warnings re: the weight of the Ursa. That's a substantial investment for a single use camera with no flexibility to do other jobs. It seems the trends are towards <$10k, i.e. disposable, cameras. If I was needing to save money to buy some nice PL lenses, which are pretty expensive, I might think inexpensive camera body, otherwise, the better made camera is where I'd focus. Not so sure the Ursa fits this category.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I go to bed and wake up to 2 pages of comments. Thank you all very much! When I took over this position, I inherited a lot of gear...most crap. However, one item was an older ITC tripod that was used to mount a camera and a beefy teleprompter. This tripod is a beast; it never leaves the studio; and is more than capable of handling 50lbs or more. I'm not worried about rigging or mounting an URSA. I'd would love to pickup an F5 or a used F55. Yet, by the time I've got one of those cameras completely setup for work, the cost would be too high, even for my budget. :-) My budget does allow me to pull the trigger on an F5/used F55. But that's it. I couldn't purchase some other things I need this year. So, my thought was to get the best studio camera under $10K and start building up my lens supply. I've been using an FS700/FS100 with canon glass for a while. I'd like to move away from the DSLR glass, and into some cinema lenses. At $3k or so a pop, these lenses will add up quickly. However, I can do this if I purchase an URSA or something under $10k. Hope that makes sense.

What got me looking more seriously at the URSA was due to watching this review from Noah Clark at Station22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZRDphsqMQI

He does all kinds of comparisons with a RED Epic in this video. But what was very impressive was the green screen test towards the end of the video. If you haven't seen this, give it watch when you get a chance.

Seriously, thank you all for the advice. Keep it coming. I haven't filled anyone shopping cart yet. :-)
 
Shane Hurlbut also tested URSA recently and found its images quite pleasing (though not without its quirks).

I suggest you head over to his site.
 
DLD, yes, I've seen Shane's tests of the URSA. It was interesting and informative for sure. He seemed to like the sweet spot ISO 400 best.
 
Heard a rumor that URSA will get an 240fps firmware update, most probably NAB. Canceled my buying decision for a new camera until NAB.
 
cuervo said:
Outside of the cost issue, I would go with what Dennis (Starcentral) is suggesting. The F5/55 is a camera that can stand up to the rigors and demands of studio production; and, the F series will give you the Sony SR codec, which is pretty nice for film work. The FZ/PL mount is solid and substantial. I would suggest an Amira, but, prices drift into the stratosphere for that option.

I suggest that the plasticy models like the FS7 will never go the distance, if you're looking at a long term investment. By the time you get done rigging the FS7 for studio work, you're pretty close to the cost of an F5. You're also paying for R&G features you really don't need in a studio camera. The Sony E-mount is really too flimsy for anything but small lenses.

Something to think about is the Ursa shares a sensor with a BMD cinema camera and AJA Cion, which is, also, a choice for this app. If you're replacing that camera every year, then something like the Ursa or FS7 is a choice. I'd avoid a plastic lens mount, optically not ideal, unstable and not right for any camera.

Finally, I wouldn't discount the warnings re: the weight of the Ursa. That's a substantial investment for a single use camera with no flexibility to do other jobs. It seems the trends are towards <$10k, i.e. disposable, cameras. If I was needing to save money to buy some nice PL lenses, which are pretty expensive, I might think inexpensive camera body, otherwise, the better made camera is where I'd focus. Not so sure the Ursa fits this category.
Click to expand...

That's funny, last time I checked my FS7 didn't have a plastic lens mount and isn't "plasticy."
 
I'll second what epicdream said. Our FS7 is very solid, and certainly wouldn't need to be replaced "every year". The mount with an E-PL adapter can easily hold a PL prime or small zoom. It won't hold up a lens like a 18-100 Cooke Zoom or a 150-600 Canon Century, but larger lenses like that have a front lens support which works just fine to support the lens (in addition to the adapter).

What's more, while there are some issues with the Odyssey 7Q+ and the FS7 right now, the combination this recorder and camera is a powerful tool. It arguably gives you more versatility than the F5, the base model of which is much more expensive.
 
Aaveum said:
The number of stops, if they are to be believed, because real world results not always match manufacturers claims, has very little to do with how a camera handles highlights. I'm not particularly talking about the FS7 and the Ursa here.

But number of stops in dynamic range says very little about what you really get. Firstly because it can be very subjective and a camera with 15-stops for a "tester" may be a camera with 13-stops for another "tester", depending on your tolerance and testing method.

In other words, specifications mean more as a marketing tool than as any real confirmation of real world performance.
Click to expand...

So based on the premise that manufactures inflate DR numbers, FS7 is claiming 14 while URSA is claiming 12. Since both companies are lying that mean that the FS7 is about 2 stops more.
 
cuervo said:
I suggest that the plasticy models like the FS7 will never go the distance, if you're looking at a long term investment. By the time you get done rigging the FS7 for studio work, you're pretty close to the cost of an F5. You're also paying for R&G features you really don't need in a studio camera. The Sony E-mount is really too flimsy for anything but small lenses.
Click to expand...

i have my FS7 fully rigged and it's nowhere near the price of an F5. And yes, I've used it on full on studio jobs - a promo shoot for Liftime and about to DP 4 short films for The SyFy Channel and the rig I have, is working just fine.

As for a flimsy mount, yeah, it might not be an FZ mount, but it works fine for most things. Yeah, if you throw a massive lens on it you will need support, but it's pretty simple to do.
 
gene_can_sing said:
So based on the premise that manufactures inflate DR numbers, FS7 is claiming 14 while URSA is claiming 12. Since both companies are lying that mean that the FS7 is about 2 stops more.
Click to expand...

This is what you got from my post, even after I said I wasn't particularly talking about the FS7 and Ursa specifically?

My point was, if the FS7 handles the highlights more efficiently than the Ursa it's not necessarily because of the 2 extra stops as you said. Number of stops is not important in this case. How those stops are allocated is. If a 14-stop sensor allocates more of the dynamic range to the shadows and a 12-stop sensor allocates more to the highlights, the 12-stop camera will handle highlights more efficiently than the camera with the higher number of stops. Again, I'm not specifically talking about the FS7 and Ursa here. Hope it's clear now.

P.S. Maybe next time you could quote my whole post to avoid bringing it out of context.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top