FS7: Considering FS7 or URSA

gene_can_sing said:
Mostly shot 4K, finished to HD. I like to be able to crop in.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even think twice about quality when watching some of this work as many shots engage me, but the HD vs. 4K is a big factor here. I would really love to see this footage in 4K.
 
yea, I hear you, but it's not that serious. I just threw a premade LUT onto it. Not sure what you mean about mask lines.
 
Norbo, i thought this look great and much prefer the image of the ursa over the fs7. just am not a fan of the ergonomics of the ursa. hopefully bmd will come up with a smaller body of this cam, with better low light.
 
Thank you. I did, however, go back and dial the percentage down in the LUT a bit.

From my experience, the URSA produces amazing images and they are never low-quality. Maybe in this particular video they could be better [I shot the beach clips with a Canon 50mm 1.8 that was closed down a lot (f/12, f/14) because I don't have a ND filter for this lens or a step-ring], but I still like them.

This is a video I shot a few months ago with a Sigma 18-35, which I think is a better lens. The environments are different and the results are different...but at the end of the day, both cameras rock in their own way.

https://vimeo.com/112412323
 
NorBro said:
[I shot the beach clips with a Canon 50mm 1.8 that was closed down a lot (f/12, f/14) because I don't have a ND filter for this lens or a step-ring]
Click to expand...

Since topic of this thread is comparing the URSA to the FS7, it is worth noting that the FS7 has three built-in ND filters.
 
Norbo, do you have any experience with the smaller bmpc 4k version, and if so do you notice that the urea seems to have a better dynamic range over the bmoc 4k version. I hear it is the same sensor but for some reason it does not look as though. The urea seems to handle the highlights better. Also the motion looks better to me in way of blur, with faster movements. Please confirm this if you can. Thanks.
 
I've used it a while ago, but I'm truly not sure how the DR compares between the two. There was actually an interesting post over on the BM forum that questioned how many stops all of the cameras really had and how they were measured.

I always thought the image was cleaner out of the URSA, but when you use all kinds of different cameras you start to lose your mind a bit. Even if it's the same sensor, it's obviously in a different body with a liquid cooling system and who knows what's going on inside there. Can cool internal components affect the processing of an image?

I wish I could help more, but you should definitely check out the BM forum or BMCuser....lots of Blackmagic fans!
 
Heat can be a major factor in how noisy an image is. Heat can actually produce noise (oversimplification). So yes, cooling, depending on how it's implemented, can play a factor in image quality. However, I can't speak to how it's implemented in the BM cameras.
 
URSA and BMPC 4k have the same sensor, as the CION has, too.
That'S why theor output in general is comparable too.
The CION has it's very own colour science.

I like the simple to grade linear RAWs (compressed RAW 3:1 !!!) of the BM cameras
very much. But it's more a narrative camera for controlled circumstances.
That's where it shines! The sensor is rated 400 ISO vs. 2000 ISO of the FS7.
The URSA weighs in with 12 stops DR, whereas the Sony gives 14.

If it's posible to combine the 3:1 RAW picture from the BM 4k cams with the DR and
HiISO of the Sony: Whohoo!
It's just not gonna happen - different cameras for different purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top