BlackMagic - URSA Mini

Buba Kastorski · April 20th, 2015, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

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

Brian Drysdale · April 21st, 2015, 01:27 AM

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.

Buba Kastorski · April 21st, 2015, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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.

Rakesh Malik · April 22nd, 2015, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

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.

Rakesh Malik · April 22nd, 2015, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

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. :)

David Heath · April 23rd, 2015, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

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.

Buba Kastorski · April 23rd, 2015, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

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

Craig Seeman · April 23rd, 2015, 12:07 PM

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.

Jack Zhang · April 23rd, 2015, 03:15 PM

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

Rakesh Malik · April 23rd, 2015, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

:)), 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. :)

Craig Seeman · April 24th, 2015, 06:51 AM

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

John Hewat · May 7th, 2015, 09:57 AM

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...

Rakesh Malik · May 7th, 2015, 10:36 AM

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.

Lawrence Bansbach · May 7th, 2015, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

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.

Rakesh Malik · May 7th, 2015, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence Bansbach

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.

April 21st, 2015, 01:27 AM	#62
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini 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.

April 23rd, 2015, 12:07 PM	#68
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini 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.

April 23rd, 2015, 03:15 PM	#69
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini Also really wish DNxHR MXF support would come for PC people to edit without relying on Quicktime. DNGs take up a ton of space.

April 24th, 2015, 06:51 AM	#71
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini 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

May 7th, 2015, 09:57 AM	#72
John Hewat Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA Posts: 735	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini 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... __________________ John Hewat Mammoth Media Productions

May 7th, 2015, 10:36 AM	#73
Rakesh Malik Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 70	Re: BlackMagic - URSA Mini 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.