Wth the new sensor, supposedly is not a problem anymore.

We must not forget that it includes 1000$ worth of software for free, which is getting more versatile each year.

The lack of ND igs not that important for certain types of production
. I suspect that it involves specific know how, that new companies don't yet have.

The Mini comes with a choice of 2 sensors, the 4k and the 4.6k, no doubt there is a price difference, given that the 4k production camera cost around the same as the "from price" of the new camera. This sensor option is there for the full URSA, except you can't later upgrade the Mini.

You can do 160 fps in HD with the Mini.

Thanks, Michael. DVInfo does tend to run a tight ship. Our motto here is "high signal, low noise" so that people can find what they are looking for without wading through useless postings.

Every year around NAB, we have a flood of debates about new gear that sometimes get a little intense. We keep it as clean as possible.

-gb-

Yes, I finally gave up posting on the other site. Just a bunch of kids arguing. I check to see if anybody has added relevant info on the camera, but not much. Just a bunch of hand-wringing.

Thanks, Chris, for giving us this site.

The Mini comes with a choice of 2 sensors, the 4k and the 4.6k, no doubt there is a price difference

Yep, and I think that anyone potentially interested in the Ursa Minor should hold out for the 4.6k just to see how it performs. I have no interest in the camera with the old 4K sensor.

I'm only interested in the old 4K sensor in the mini if that supports 4k60p global shutter in the mini, since that older sensor cannot switch between rolling shutter and global shutter modes.

I'm only interested if that supports 4k60p global shutter in the mini, since that older sensor cannot switch between rolling shutter and global shutter modes.
In the Mini, the 4.6K sensor supports up to 30p in global-shutter mode. In the full-size Ursa, it's 60p.

In the Mini, the 4.6K sensor supports up to 30p in global-shutter mode. In the full-size Ursa, it's 60p.

Yes, but I was asking if the old 4K sensor could do 60p at full resolution in the mini. Blackmagic's been quiet and hasn't clarified that yet. The old sensor is global shutter mode only.

Anyone see the video where he explains why it doesn't have built-in ND filters......doesn't make sense at all claiming there'd be a huge lump at front of cam. The Sony FS7 doesn't have that issue?
Also, the $2,995 version is for the original URSA sensor which has had it's fair share of reported image problems.
I really want to love Black Magic, they come out with great ideas but executing them properly seems to be a real issue.

Sony custom designed extra thin ND filters specifically for the FS7. My guess is that BMD just didn't have the resources to go that far.

Yes, but I was asking if the old 4K sensor could do 60p at full resolution in the mini. Blackmagic's been quiet and hasn't clarified that yet. The old sensor is global shutter mode only.

It can, the mini can do 60p, but only in rolling shutter mode at full resolution. It might require two CFast cards to keep that rate up, but a few folks from BMD have confirmed the maximum frame rate.

It can, the mini can do 60p, but only in rolling shutter mode at full resolution. It might require two CFast cards to keep that rate up, but a few folks from BMD have confirmed the maximum frame rate.

I don't think you understand. The old 4K sensor is Global Shutter mode only. If it can do 60p, that would be amazing. The only sensor that can switch between rolling and global is the new 4.6K one.

Sony custom designed extra thin ND filters specifically for the FS7. My guess is that BMD just didn't have the resources to go that far.
No, BMD just keeps prices down to get amazing camera for amazing price to as many indie filmmakers as they can, FS7 is almost 3x the price

I guess the clue is in how Blackmagic list these cameras: "digital film cameras" and also cinema camera. Film cameras don't have internal filters, at least not in the video camera sense. The Arri Alexa doesn't have internal filters, while the documentary Amira does, although in this case it could be more a matter of keeping the costs down and giving that $3,000 price that has attracted attention in recent years.

it could be more a matter of keeping the costs down and giving that $3,000 price that has attracted attention in recent years.
exactly, you'll see how many Red fans will join BMD and Kineraw families.

I don't think you understand. The old 4K sensor is Global Shutter mode only. If it can do 60p, that would be amazing. The only sensor that can switch between rolling and global is the new 4.6K one.

Oops... I misread the question. I didn't realize it was referring to the older 4K sensor, which I think is only able to do 60p in the v2 version (which isn't really the original) recently introduced as an upgrade for the Ursa.

No, BMD just keeps prices down to get amazing camera for amazing price to as many indie filmmakers as they can, FS7 is almost 3x the price

There was an interview in which Grant Petty said that ND filters would make the camera really bulky, and since Sony had pulled it off, I figured it was due to BMD not being willing or able to design their own NDs like Sony did.

I imagine that if they'd felt that it was important to sell the camera they'd have put the work in, but for the price and capabilities, I think not having internal ND filters is an acceptable compromise. I can just get some additional step up rings for my Lee filter kit, since the rings I have right now are the right size for my large format lenses. Rings don't cost much. :)

There was an interview in which Grant Petty said that ND filters would make the camera really bulky, and since Sony had pulled it off, I figured it was due to BMD not being willing or able to design their own NDs like Sony did.
Well, you virtually never get something for nothing, and in-built NDs must add something to size, cost etc.

But many other cameras show that it needn't come at too high a penalty in any respect and "really bulky" simply smacks of making excuses. If he'd said "will add a little to the size" then yes, fair enough - but "make the camera really bulky"? Sorry, that just sounds like PR spin and making excuses to me.

There was an interview in which Grant Petty said that ND filters would make the camera really bulky
:)), yeah, 'really bulky' is kinda overstatement, but i am very intrigued by the Ursa Mini 4.6 K version, let's see the first users footage and i might pick it over the DVX200

While Grant's reasoning might be suspect do consider that there are many cameras that don't have ND filters. In cameras that may have an ENG use they're more common than those used for "cinema."

Of course I think this will lead to next year's Ursa Micro which will weigh only 3 lbs and include an ND filter.
I do think there's a cost and development time to factor and it's possible that would have impacted Blackmagic price and delivery time for "this year's" model.

Consider that the JVC-LS300 has it at $4000 and many wouldn't consider it a quality competitor to the Ursa Mini

The Sony FS-7 has it at $8000. Perhaps the addition cost and time for delivery would have bought the Ursa Mini farther behind. Blackmagic may have been left with the decision to add AD Filter for a camera that wouldn't be announced until IBC and delivered around NAB 2016.

Also really wish DNxHR MXF support would come for PC people to edit without relying on Quicktime. DNGs take up a ton of space.

:)), yeah, 'really bulky' is kinda overstatement, but i am very intrigued by the Ursa Mini 4.6 K version, let's see the first users footage and i might pick it over the DVX200

Built in NDs would of course be useful, but given the functionality and price, I think it's still a bargain, so I'm willing to live with it.

I'm #2 in the preorder queue with my vendor, so hopefully you'll be able to see some footage fairly soon. I'm planning on dragging that beast up a mountain or two as well as using it in studio shoots, so we'll see. :)

Marco Solorio of OneRiver Media has a blog post comparing the Mini to the FS7. While he also wishes the Mini had an internal ND filter he makes a very favorable value case for it.

Insight Into The Blackmagic URSA MINI
http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/?p=1410

I was just thinking: the price of the 4.6K mini and the older 4K URSA are the same.

But to put a handle, rail and tripod/shoulder mount on the mini adds a cost of hundreds of dollars. So the larger camera ends up cheaper with its included handle, rail and tripod mounts.

And sure the sensor is older, but it's upgradable! So in a year or two years (or conceivably forever) you'll always be able to replace just a sensor. It seems like a much better investment in both the short term and the long term. Am I wrong about this?

It seems the only reason to get a Mini over the URSA is if you can't bear the thought of lugging around 7 kilos of camera! I sure can't, for that matter...

To be honest, my main reason for preferring the Mini over the standard Ursa is for using it on a gimbal. For regular production, the Ursa's size and weight end up being comparable to what you'd end up with using most other production cameras once they're fully rigged up. And an Alexa weighs slightly more, and is about the same size...

With a proper shoulder mount, the Ursa would be fine for most situations even handheld. I operated an Aaton super-16 camera for a short film project, and ended up with that camera on my shoulder for several full days of production. It wasn't a problem, and that camera weighed about as much as an Ursa, only with the film rolls on it, it's a fair bit bulkier.

To be honest, my main reason for preferring the Mini over the standard Ursa is for using it on a gimbal. For regular production, the Ursa's size and weight end up being comparable to what you'd end up with using most other production cameras once they're fully rigged up. And an Alexa weighs slightly more, and is about the same size...

With a proper shoulder mount, the Ursa would be fine for most situations even handheld. I operated an Aaton super-16 camera for a short film project, and ended up with that camera on my shoulder for several full days of production. It wasn't a problem, and that camera weighed about as much as an Ursa, only with the film rolls on it, it's a fair bit bulkier.
The Eclair NPR was used handheld for like a bazillion films, and it weighed a ton.

The Eclair NPR was used handheld for like a bazillion films, and it weighed a ton.

It would be interesting to find out how much the Imax camera that Hoyt van Hoytema used to film a large part of Interstellar weighs, since he shot a lot of that film hand held.

When you account for the fact that the only rigging you really need besides a good shoulder mount to make an Ursa work well on a shoulder is a viewfinder, its weight seems a lot smaller since it includes so much. That's probably a contributing factor in its price, as well, since it's an all-in-one system that's basically mass-produced. Making it more modular would raise its production cost quite a bit.

And sure the sensor is older, but it's upgradable! So in a year or two years (or conceivably forever) you'll always be able to replace just a sensor. It seems like a much better investment in both the short term and the long term. Am I wrong about this?
This never works out. You can replace the engine in your car when a more fuel efficient one comes out, but given the cost of the engine and the cost of installing it, you'd do better to sell (or junk) the car and buy a new one.

I haven't seen the upgrade options for BM specifically, but I've never had a good experience with an "upgradable" central part of a piece of equipment. Never pencils out.

This never works out. You can replace the engine in your car when a more fuel efficient one comes out, but given the cost of the engine and the cost of installing it, you'd do better to sell (or junk) the car and buy a new one.

I haven't seen the upgrade options for BM specifically, but I've never had a good experience with an "upgradable" central part of a piece of equipment. Never pencils out.

They've pulled it off for one generation at least, since they started with a 4K sensor and are now offering as an upgrade a significantly nicer 4.6K sensor, at least on paper. The big question is, how far can they go?

Red's been able to stretch parts out across several generations, but then you can buy an Ursa Mini for the price of a Red Touch display, or an Ursa Mini + an AJA Cion for the price of a Dragon upgrade ;)
Not that you'd necessarily WANT to do that, but you get the point.

I'm #2 in the preorder queue with my vendor, so hopefully you'll be able to see some footage fairly soon. I'm planning on dragging that beast up a mountain or two as well as using it in studio shoots, so we'll see. :)

I hope you don't plan on holding your breath for that "SOON".
FWIW, I'm #1 on the list of one of the largest Blackmagic dealers, and realistically, having been #1/#2 on every pre-order on every BMCC in the past...
I don't expect this camera until September/October, at earliest.

Also.... Sorry... I'm with Mike Watson on the whole concept of the "upgrade". You're better off just tossing your old one in the trash and buying a whole new one in the case of low cost cameras like the BMCC, where the downtime is more expensive than the upgrade.

I hope you don't plan on holding your breath for that "SOON".
FWIW, I'm #1 on the list of one of the largest Blackmagic dealers, and realistically, having been #1/#2 on every pre-order on every BMCC in the past...
I don't expect this camera until September/October, at earliest.


That's why I said "hopefully" :)

I suspect that you're right about that; odds are these guys will be delayed quite a bit. I'm hoping not, but BMD doesn't exactly have a great track record in that regard.


Also.... Sorry... I'm with Mike Watson on the whole concept of the "upgrade". You're better off just tossing your old one in the trash and buying a whole new one in the case of low cost cameras like the BMCC, where the downtime is more expensive than the upgrade.

BMCC, yes. Ursa though, they actually pulled off one upgrade. The Mini is in the same class as the BMCC though; it's an all-in-one unit, so when it's time to upgrade, it's also time to sell off the old one.

Making it more modular would raise its production cost quite a bit.
It would probably also compromise the camera's ergonomics.

It would probably also compromise the camera's ergonomics.

You're probably right about that.

I assume the Ursa Mini will interest film makers, mainly. Correct me if I'm wrong but the resolution of 35mm film is slightly above 3K, correct? I'm not even sure film has 15 stops of DN, does it?

So basically I'm not sure why anybody would go with the 4.6 sensor instead of the 4k, which has plenty of DR, allows 4:4:4 in ProRes. More rez, is that it? So there will be people what will keep upgrading to get more rez? When you reach a certain limit, where do you stop? How more rez does translate into perceived sensation by a non informed audience, as long as you have 4 K since we've been conditioned to 4 K by film, a little less actually? I'm trying to see what justifies to go from 3000 bucks to 5000 just to have more rez and a slightly bigger sensor. One could buy a nice lens for the difference.

I suspect factors like the black sun may come in with the 4k sensor. You really need to look at the images rather than the numbers, such as how they handle skin tones and how clippy the highlights are. This 4.6k sensor is both global and rolling shutter, the 15 stops seems to refer to the latter, with I gather 13.5 for the global.

Film seems to accepted to be around the 14 stop mark, perhaps a tad more..

The worth of any cost difference may depend may depend on how much you push your camera into the limits when creating your images.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the resolution of 35mm film is slightly above 3K, correct?

Quality film stock can resolve the equivalent of 6-8K worth of detail.

I'm not even sure film has 15 stops of DN, does it?

Film has a practical DR of about 10 stops, but it doesn't hard clip. Instead, it has a soft rolloff. Have an additional 5 stops of DR allows you to emulate that rolloff look when you conform it to Rec.709.

So basically I'm not sure why anybody would go with the 4.6 sensor instead of the 4k

Because it is rolling/global shutter switchable, better quality at higher ISOs/underexposure, and the extra .6K will help for anyone interested in mastering at 4K for things like warp stabilizing.

When you reach a certain limit, where do you stop?

There is no end.

I'm trying to see what justifies to go from 3000 bucks to 5000 just to have more rez and a slightly bigger sensor. One could buy a nice lens for the difference.

Because the sensor is supposedly better all-around. If I was getting an Ursa, I wouldn't even consider the 4K sensor because I'm a little underwhelmed by it. Very interested to see the visual difference (especially at 1600 ISO) with the 4.6K.

Because the sensor is supposedly better all-around. If I was getting an Ursa, I wouldn't even consider the 4K sensor because I'm a little underwhelmed by it. Very interested to see the visual difference (especially at 1600 ISO) with the 4.6K.

It's going to be interesting to see how they differ, because I suspect that quite a few people will end up getting the 4K model instead of the 4.6K model due to the price difference. The main advantage IMO is the dynamic range, since in the Ursa Mini the global shutter is limited to 30fps anyway.

I think BMD has addressed the black sun issue in the v2 4K sensor, btw as well as having addressed the FPN issue, and raised the frame rate. They're also including a feature that will make fixing the black sun issue in post a lot easier in Resolve 12, though it wasn't quite working in time to see it in action at NAB.

Fixing black sun in post sounds like a work around.

Ok, I had no idea how bad that 4 K sensor was!

Read Marco Solorio's article about the Ursa.

Thanks, I've just finished reading it and from what I've read I feel that there is no real reason to go for the 4.6K instead of the 4K.
That was basically a very good review and no mention at all of any sensor problem. The biggest problems he mentioned was not being able to delete clips in cam. So frankly, for anybody who is not going to have a contract to distribute in a big theater, I think the extra $ 2000 saved going with the 4K are nice. Well, I guess we'll see when a lot of footage from the 4.6K surfaces.

There are certainly benefits to having the extra dynamic range, but honestly I suspect that most people who are obsessed with the vast dynamic range are just using it to enable sloppier work. It gives you a lot of flexibility to screw up the exposure and still get a usable shot. With the 4K sensor you'll have less dynamic range, so you'll have to be a little more careful with exposure, but it's still going to enable a skilled cinematographer to get great images.

Plus, there's a very good chance that you'll be able to get a 4K model months before BMD catches up on 4.6K preorders. ;)

Yes, this quest for the perfect machine by so many people who don't have anything to tell, other than filming pretty girls walking on beaches or their cats and dogs is....entertaining for the least.

Larry,

I completely agree with you. Anyone who knows the limits of equipment and uses it accordingly, will obtain excellent results. It's the same on the display side. Everyone is obsessing over black levels or pixel count on flat panels. HDR will be next. Watch for the obsession to spill over into acquisition.

Larry,

I completely agree with you. Anyone who knows the limits of equipment and uses it accordingly, will obtain excellent results. It's the same on the display side. Everyone is obsessing over black levels or pixel count on flat panels. HDR will be next. Watch for the obsession to spill over into acquisition.

Ya, we're going to see raftloads of imagery by people claiming that it's great cinematography because they used a camera with 15 stops of dynamic range in a few months...

I also believe that the vast majority of people simply don't need to shoot raw. Let's assume you're going to film a comedy or a drama happening in NYC, a story Woody Allen style or something Spike Lee would do. Do you really believe you need 15 stop of dynamic range captured by a 4.6K sensor? Can't you tell the story of that guy cheating on his wife or that Chinese girl falling in love with that black guy shooting ProRes 4:4:4 with a 4K sensor? ProRes 4 4 4 will allow more than what's necessary to color grade nicely.
Raw could be justified for a few difficult scene, and still, 4 K will be more than enough.
As far as I'm concerned that Hollywood whore, what's his name, uh, Spielberg, could shoot all the dinosaur stories he wants in 8K he won't make me go see it. I would have watched Death and the Maiden shot on an iphone4.

As far as I'm concerned that Hollywood whore, what's his name, uh, Spielberg, could shoot all the dinosaur stories he wants in 8K he won't make me go see it. I would have watched Death and the Maiden shot on an iphone4.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Spielberg has never shot on anything other than film for major projects. Jurassic Park included.

"Today, its years are numbered, but I will remain loyal to this analogue artform until the last lab closes." -Steven Spielberg

Steven Spielberg & Martin Scorsese: the joy of celluloid | Art and design | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/oct/10/steven-spielberg-martin-scorsese-celluloid)

Personally I think the 4.6k sensor may be better for ENG style Doc work. If you're going to have to go shoulder mount, it'll give you a bit more room to stabilize in post... assuming you want 4k delivery for your Doc. That and higher frame rates for slow motion. Wider dynamic range will help when you have to shoot on bright sunny days where you don't have the lighting controls and still need good shadows as well. That delivery might seem like a small market now but it might not be in three years. The question for some will be, how much longer can you extend the life of the camera for the additional $2k.

I also believe that the vast majority of people simply don't need to shoot raw. Let's assume you're going to film a comedy or a drama happening in NYC, a story Woody Allen style or something Spike Lee would do. Do you really believe you need 15 stop of dynamic range captured by a 4.6K sensor? Can't you tell the story of that guy cheating on his wife or that Chinese girl falling in love with that black guy shooting ProRes 4:4:4 with a 4K sensor? ProRes 4 4 4 will allow more than what's necessary to color grade nicely.


Agreed. To be honest, even with a 4.6K Ursa Mini, I expect that I'll do most of my shooting in 2K, ProRes HQ.

There will be times when it will be very nice to have the option of shooting 4K, and times when the extra flexibility you can get in post to shoot in RAW, but most of the time, it will be overkill.

It does have its advantages when you're shooting in situations where you can't control your environment or timing, like ENG to have 15 stops of dynamic range... but even then, most of the time, ProRes HQ will be enough. :)

Michael,
I didn't say Spielberg shot in digital, I said that even if he'd shoot in 16k what he does doesn't interest me a bit.
Yes, I can see why 15 stops of DN and raw could be interesting for anybody who doesn't control the situation such at ENG, sports events, etc.

ENG , sports events etc, don't have the time to deal with RAW, these productions commonly have fast turnarounds, a lot of the time there's no grading unless there's a problem (unless for a promo or sting). It's the cameraperson's job to get it right in the camera.