dhessel

Ursa retro.

Be sure to check with olex too, he services them and will know how to support it. They are from Russia and the Ukraine so it might be a little slower getting responses. They have both always been helpful to me in the past when I have contacted them. this is from Olex's site might be helpful. https://sites.google.com/site/olexservicelenses/home/spherical-zoom-lenses/25-250-mm-f3-5-35-opf-7-1

i would check with olex camera and raf camera. The specialize in lomos, even if they don't have anything they can probably point you in the right direction.

depends on the camera, it varies. The magenta cast is nothing easily graded away the magenta corners is a different issue. I think the magenta is a problem and BM has acknowledged it is and a working on a fix.

they are trying to fix it via a firmware update. It is non uniform affecting the right side and corners more than the center. The magenta varies by lens, focal length and f stop so it is not easy to grade out. I would expect this will make it difficult to fix via firmware but I cant say. It can be minimal or quite severe and I have heard of people having to rma 3 cameras before getting an acceptable one so in my opinion it is a big issue. There are not many alternatives though. Sony fs5 or fs7 maybe? Or perhaps an older red camera, these are all assuming you are wanting a raw shooting camera.

The anamorphic is not oriented correctly in those photos. Is that intentional?

which version 4k or 4.6k? Both record raw video btw. Both suffer from fpn especially the 4k. You have to light well and cannot go over 400 ISO with fpn on the 4k, 4.6k is better and can be used at 800 ISO and maybe 1600 ISO but fpn might start to show. The 4.6k is suffering from magenta cast issues and neither has a olpf so moire and aliasing could be an issue. Note these comments are anecdotal since I have personally used neither.

My understanding has always been that the 4.6K sensor is a custom modification of an existing sensor done exclusively for BM. This "off the shelf" fairchild may be the base that was used for the custom version done for BM but that would make it no longer "off the shelf".

Not in this case, the magenta on the Mini is not an even cast but a some times splotchy uneven coloration that affects the corners and generally the right side more than others. It varies by lens, focal length and f stop. It is not a simple fix and BM themselves have admitted it is a problem also it can be seen clearly with no saturation boost. Not something that is easily graded out.

3 hours ago, jonpais said: I'm not talking about technical issues with the cameras, I'm talking about accusing BMD of knowingly releasing faulty products. \00a0 Seriously how could they not have known? It was present in beta footage from the beginning and after all that is what the beta testers are for, reporting these kind of issues to BM right? Even if the beta testers didn't forum members did and BM does monitor the forums. So they knew or they are incompetent, take your pick. I personal don't think they are incompetent.

They knew or they are utterly incompetent, it was spotted in beta footage by a non beta tester just looking at footage. The mega thread on BM's form dates back to Sun Dec 06, 2015. It also can be found at larger stops that F8, it is just that 35mm at F8 is universally bad on the affected cameras. There were some who had issues at even F4 at 35mm.

It is not just 1's and 0's it is also hardware. ML runs on the cameras CPU and the CPU simply is not powerful enough to compress the data fast enough. They already know how to do it and have already tried, the camera cannot handle it. It cannot even handle reducing the bit depth down to 10bit which is even less demanding. Compressed raw on the current cameras that can run ML is not going to happen. Chances are it won't be happening on the Mark IV either.

It is wide spread enough that BM had acknowledged it and are attempting to fix it via firmware. No one other than BM knows how wide spread the issue is. It is clearly more than a few bad units because there were individuals who got at least 3 bad ones in a row even when requesting the cameras be checked during RMA. There were multiple people who had the same results. Either they are very unlucky or it is more widespread than just a few bad ones.

The build quality of the Mini probably won't be end of BM's cameras after all it seems the 4.6K is a very popular camera. One of the most concerning ones is that they apparently designed the camera to have a CPU right behind where the side handle attaches. There have been a few reports of the camera taking a fall and landing on the handle, breaking the outer housing, which in turn hits the circuit board breaking a CPU. In these instances BM has refused to repair the cameras leaving the owners SOL. https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51171 My biggest issue with BM is that I really don't like the way the company, at least when it comes to cameras, operates. It is awesome that BM offers free versions of their software but the way they conduct themselves otherwise is downright disrepectful at times. They over promise and under deliever, they are deceptive and not really trust worthy. With the Mini two features were lost GPS in September 2015 and global shutter in March 2016 yet they announced at NAB the camera was going to be shipping in July 2015 when they were clearly nowhere near ready to ship. Some say it was over optimism but I don't buy it, I think they knew full well they wouldn't make that date an announced it anyway. Then for the following eight months they moved the ship date one month at a time stringing customers even though I am sure they also knew that it would not be shipping that following month in the many instances when they changed the date. It seems they like to create a buzz, offer a BS ship date to get people excited and focused on the product then string them along until it is finally ready. There are many other instances dating back to their very first camera and their communication still an issue. The biggest one for me is how they treated their URSA owners. At NAB they said that URSA owners would be given priority for the 4.6k sensors and would get their turret upgrades first. They even announced a lower price for the 4K URSA so new customers could buy it then and pre-order the turret for the same price as just pre-ordering the 4.6K URSA. That way the can use the camera now and would also be given first priority on the new sensors. Yet when the time came they backed out of their promise and released the 4.6k Mini first. Now I understand it is a business and clearly the Mini was the new flag ship camera. With it being so overdue they decided to release it instead of living up to their promise. Understandable but how did they handle it? An appology or at least an explanation to the URSA owners? Nope, they said absolutely nothing at all. They released the Mini and didn't even bother to mention the URSA in their announment email or video. They left the URSA owners in the dark with out any official announcment or explaination. The URSA owners still have no idea when they might be getting theirs but they are clearly at the bottom of priorities now. If someone can come up and offer what BM does I am sure many BM users would happily jump ship, especially if they are respectful and communicate well. Until then BM probably isn't going anywhere.

Anything cheaper and you will have to give up something on your list.

Sony FS5, not sure what you consider affordable.

Sony really should make it easier to find information and LUTs for grading log material from their cameras. When I first started using the A7s I couldn't find a proper slog2 to Rec709 LUT anywhere that worked correctly. I spent countless hours looking for a neutral converstion LUT and I knew exactly what I was looking for. The slog curve is not the problem the problem is the sgamut color space that is the default on the camera when shooting in log. That colorspace must be converted to Rec709 via a LUT or color transformation matrix otherwise you can get funky colors.

Not entirely true. You cannot make an EF to EF speed booster because the booster reduces the crop factor and increases the speed of the lens by shortening the flange focal distance - moving the lens closer to the sensor and refocusing it. Imagine the lens is like a film projector and you are focusing it on a screen that is smaller than the image being projected. If you want to get the whole image on the screen you can move the projector closer to the screen and refocus it, filling the screen and increasing the brighteness of the image at the same time. It is possible however to make a speed booster that adapts large/medium format lenses to EF but that seems a bit rediculous to boost a medium format lens to get a full frame crop on of a full frame camera

To my knowledge he has still not paid back one person, even though I believe Ed David wired him some money to help out. Not 100% sure about that so maybe ED can confirm. Also the range finder that he did eventually send to the other 2 turned out to be a prototype with a non standard thread on the back which may have caused some issues with them trying to sell it.

If the F3 doesn't have the paid slog upgrade you will need the 7Q to get 444 or 60P. If I am not mistaken with out the upgrade dual link is required for either of these options and the 7Q is one of the only recorder that supports it. This is the main reason whe the 7Q is so popular for the F35 since it only has HD-SDI and outputs in PsF. I believe with the paid slog upgrade the F3 gained 3G over single link allowing many other recorders to work it.

Many believe the size of s35 is a good balance between speed of lenses and shallowness of depth of field for motion picture filming. You can use fast lenses and still have enough DOF to not give your focus puller PTSD. Having shot with FF, s35 and smaller sensor cameras I tend to agree with that setiment. Of course having the option for larger formats is very welcomed.

Yes they are basically the same size, the 18-100 is the newer design of the same lens. It is a little bit sharper, so I am told, and considered a better lens but it goes for around $9000-$10000. I believe the 20-100 is about 14" long, has a 144mm front and weighs about 10.5 lbs. It has a min focus of a little over 2 feet so it can be used for closups on the long end. It is decently fast and has a slot for rear filters if you find one that still has the filter holder. It is a fantastic lens, if you can handle the size.

True but the difference in price is marginal and doesn't it also allow for 60P 10bit 422 over a single SDI as well where it would require dual link without?

Yes it is big and fairly heavy but not as heavy as I thought it was going to be. I own one that I use with my F35, beautiful lens but definately not run and gunning with it. It also has a interchangeable mount design so it can be easily changed from PL to EF, etc...

Many who were not reading between the lines have no idea how involved Ed was with Ebrahim working towards resolving this. I am sure it is much more than I think. I do think he went too far in the beginning and I called him out but I know he was advising and negotiating behind the scenes.