Ursa mini...is this the end of blackmagic?

[dhessel]

1 hour ago, Kino said:

The Fairchild 4.6K is "off-the-shelf" in that it is available to the general public. John has stated that the Ursa Mini 4.6K sensor is not "off-the-shelf."

It is of course possible there are two versions, one for BMD and one for Fairchild, as I noted a few pages ago. John also maintains that BMD has designed the sensor, which is fine. I believe him and I even cited the lapsed BMD patent application that may be relevant. We will have to wait and see when they file those applications again. That's the only way to know for sure.

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".

[cantsin]

1 hour ago, Kino said:

That combination is actually the essence of the term "Blind Peer Review," which is what gives scholarly journals all over the world their credibility. Otherwise, reviewers would be tempted only to accept articles by their close associates. It's the substance of the argument that matters, not the identity of the writer.

Since you bring up academic standards and your scholarly background, you will also be familiar with academic standards for selection and qualification of peer reviewers.

So here's a simple question: Have you ever actually had a URSA Mini in your hands and tested it yourself? Or are the points you are bringing up here from third-party sources? And are those third-party sources (a) sourced by yourself and (b) reputable? 

If the latter shouldn't be the case, you're not only damaging your reputation on this forum, but you're also damaging your reputation as a scholar.

 

[Kino]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

No, he asked you if you thought you could go and buy the sensor from the URSA 4.6 of the shelve. Which I'm pretty sure you can't. You could probably buy a sensor. But not exactly like the one in the Ursa mine.

Well, I suggested that very possibility on page 6:

“And, yes, it is entirely possible that BMD contracted Fairchild for the 4.6K with an arrangement to create two versions of the sensor: one for BMD and one off-the-shelf version.”

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=6

To which John responded with the following on page 7:

"Of course you are trying to perhaps have me confirm a technology partner of BM, when you know full well I'd never be able to disclose that without breaking an NDA, but I can assure you, the sensor used in the UM4.6K is not an ‘off the shelf sensor’, nor is it one that you can just go order from whomever you think the vendor is. I know this because of actual personal involvement with its development.  Please explain how I can have that so wrong and your version be more correct?”

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=7

I think that is best explanation anyone could give on the status of the 4.6K sensor and it's a lot more than I expected. Let’s just leave it at that because we can’t ask John to say anything more. He has already been generous enough on these matters with all that he has told us here. Anything more and legal teams will be descending on this forum and watching everything that he says. I personally don't want to see that.

Moreover, this is why I prefaced that section with "Let's say for the sake of argument . . . " In other words, in a hypothetical scenario where BMD designed the sensor and owns the patents/licenses . . .

Ultimately, the only thing that is going to solve this is the patents, which I am sure will be forthcoming from those involved (if they have not already been filed)

[Kino]

36 minutes ago, cantsin said:

So here's a simple question: Have you ever actually had a URSA Mini in your hands and tested it yourself? Or are the points you are bringing up here from third-party sources? And are those third-party sources (a) sourced by yourself and (b) reputable?

I own and have used the BMPC-4K. Nowhere do I make any claims about using the 4.6K, which I don't own. I have discussed on this forum my experience with the BMPC-4K but never anything else. As for the UM reviewers and the magenta problems, I've seen a lot of evidence of flawed units posted online by individuals well-known to the community on BM Forum and bmcuser. I've also looked at camera files that were made available. What I don't accept are the examples of "magenta" with suspicious parameters such as f16 or beyond, where all digital cameras look very poor and display noticeable color shifts.

For a scholarly analysis of the magenta issue (if there is such a thing), I would have to take samples myself from dozens of cameras, if that is what you mean. I would also have to have access to BMD internal files on the matter.

[zerocool22]

Yeah I am looking into the Raven or the Terra. I hope blackmagic will up their game this weekend @ IBC.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Yeah I am looking into the Raven or the Terra. I hope blackmagic will up their game this weekend @ IBC.

I don't expect BMD to announce any cameras at IBC, as it has always been at NAB that they do that. 

 

On 9/5/2016 at 5:55 AM, John Brawley said:

Ha, no I've been urging they make the mount much more "open" than that. I think MFT would be a bad idea on a sensor that is larger than what MFT lenses are projecting. Then you're just using MFT as an interchange mount and I think it's very poorly suited to that job.  It should be more robust if that's the intention.  Mounts are really tricky because the tolerances are so critical and everyone THINKS it's easy.

More "open" than that? A new open standard? Would be nice... but don't we already have enough new mounts! ha

It reminds me of this:

 

I've speculated before on mounts that BMD could use in the future, I think it would be absolutely fantastic if they adapted the sub-PL mount that Kinefinity is using. And having two manufacturers backing it would make it go a long way towards perhaps becoming the default standard used in the 2020's.

http://ironfilm.co.nz/what-if-kinefinitys-kinemount-became-a-universal-cinema-mount/

As an owner of the Sony F3, I'd quite like to see the FZ mount have widespread adoption, but of course just like E mount that can't happen because Sony controls that.

 

In my view MFT has the strengths it already has wide spread usage, and it can be used with S35 lenses as the JVC LS300 shows.

I feel MFT is a good option in the short term, so they could for instance announce a BMPC4K MFT / URSA Mini 4K MFT "tomorrow". But in the long term (a year or three from now, or whenever) they should go with something like the sub-PL mount that Kinefinity is using.

[IronFilm]

On 9/5/2016 at 8:07 AM, tweak said:

I realise, just pointing out m43 isn't even that adaptable compared to alternatives already existing.

Aside from E mount being able to work for FF, I don't see there as being a significant notable difference between E mount or MFT when it comes to choosing one over the other. 

EXCEPT... for one very very big factor: MFT is open, E mount is closed.

Oh, and also, MFT has far more native mount options for it than E mount has.

[tweak]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Aside from E mount being able to work for FF, I don't see there as being a significant notable difference between E mount or MFT when it comes to choosing one over the other. 

EXCEPT... for one very very big factor: MFT is open, E mount is closed.

Oh, and also, MFT has far more native mount options for it than E mount has.

And EXECEPT that E-mount actually has a better focal flange distance and width to adapt C-mounts and all other lenses... EF-M mount is also better. No big deal though I guess, not like anybody here does that (sarcasm).

Also I doubt anyone cares much about native (sterile) MFT lenses if they're using a S35 sensor. I'm pretty sure no-one buying an Ursa-mini is at all worried about that.

[John Brawley]

This is so tedious.

It's incredibly ignorant to keep on saying "off the shelf sensor".

To keep on re-iterating this means zero understanding of what it actually takes to make an image, especially so if you want to brag about being an academic in screen culture.

Olympus cameras are highly praised for their look, yet they use "off the shelf" Panasonic or Sony sensors. Somehow they're renowned for their look, because of the whole image processing pipeline, even though they use the same sensors used in many of the G series panny cameras.  Olympus don't have a patent on their "look" though.

So same sensors, totally different imaging outcomes, none of which are patented.

They do highly customise their sensors, and there are lot's of ways you can do so...the CFA for example...

Leica are the same, they have also used "off the shelf" sensors in the past and somehow they too are praised for their look, and also, surprise surprise, have no patent for their look, and yet, it's the very reason many buy them.

I thought you'd have wised up by now, but you keep digging in on the ASICS and sensor design.  Here's a clue.  ASIC's have nothing to do with the sensor design.  You assumed so because of Land's comment, but then you couldn't explain why some cameras don't seem to have ASIC's. I've challenged you and you haven't answered.

According to Land and you for quoting him, the prerequisite for a cinematic camera maker is designing your own sensor AND ASICs and yet you can't account for Canon, Arriflex or Blackmagic... what do you think they're using if there isn't an ASIC ? How is the ASIC linked to sensor design ? In what way is using an ASIC making the sensor design more credible ?  What do other camera manufactures use if they aren't using ASICs ?  ASIC's run the camera, not the sensor....

ASIC's aren't related to sensor deisgn any more or less than FPGAs are. You still haven't brought up the alternative yet because you don't know.  Go google FPGA. 

You posting history is entirely relevant when your credibility is at issue.  Your backflipping contradictory posts are just as insightful as when you first posted them.

And yeah, it's pretty normal for companies not to protect their IP using patents which require them to publish in detail the IP itself. I'm pretty sure RED will have a patent on RedCode, but not your precious ASICs.

JB

 

 

 

 

[Kino]

Well, I thought we were past the personal attacks, but I guess you just can't help yourself. Indeed, some people never learn or "wise up."

I'm not calling the UM 4.6K "off-the-shelf," as you already assured me that it is not. It is custom designed and exclusive to BMD. Fair enough. The Fairchild sensor, on the other hand, is listed as available to the public and is by definition "off-the-shelf."

I never said ASICs are related to sensor design, but they are part of the image processing chain, which I wrote about back on page 6 of this thread:

"It appears that BMD has to involve third parties like Fairchild in sensor design, suggesting that they don't have the same mastery that RED currently has. This lack of expertise may lead to problems such as we have seen with magenta-gate, considering how the sensor and its integration into the surrounding circuitry and the larger image processing chain would have to be designed with absolute precision."

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=6

You apparently forgot to read this part. My point is simply that when you design all the components in-house and have demonstrated expertise in sensors and image processors, it is easier to avoid such problems in the first place and to diagnose and repair problems as they come up. RED had numerous mishaps in their 10-year history, as you well know. BMD is just starting out and has to go through a similar learning curve as with any company that is new to designing cameras. That's about it.

ARRI, RED, Canon and Sony all have numerous patents relating to their cameras. BMD needs to complete its patent applications, which I cited above, in order to put them is the same category. They are surely aiming for just that kind of recognition after designing an advanced camera like the UM 4.6K. At least, I would hope so.

[Ed_David]

This has been a super interesting thread, thank you.  Interesting to understand how a camera is a sensor plus how it is processed and rendered

I have used the ikonscope and the digital bolex, which both share a kodak CCD sensor, and I see an incredible similarity between them.  Same dynamic range, same sensitivity. Same saturation pattern.  Same movement.

I'm not technical in any sense of the term, but isn't that a better comparison than Olympus vs Sony cameras, which share the same sensor, but have different ways of processing the raw data coming from it?

Anyway this has been pretty interesting.

[Hanriverprod]

This owner of a ursa mini 4.6k, who received from the batch of new cameras (serial #32xx), tested the magenta issue on a "White board" and "cloudy sky"  f8 on a 50mm prime. He says, "The one of the cloudy sky worries me the most since I see the magenta edges without tempering with the saturation..." for posters in this thread laughing at users testing the images from this camera by pushing it around.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?16812-4-6k-Ursa-Mini-magenta-issues/page91

[IronFilm]

On 9/9/2016 at 0:57 AM, tweak said:

Also I doubt anyone cares much about native (sterile) MFT lenses if they're using a S35 sensor. I'm pretty sure no-one buying an Ursa-mini is at all worried about that.

In your advocacy of E mount and EF-M mount you completely missed the big point: IT IS NOT EVEN AN OPTION.
As they're closed off to everyone except Sony and Canon respectively to make cameras for it.

And bringing  up C mount is a negative point in support of E mount vs MFT when very very few C mount give complete coverage for MFT and many many less give coverage for E mount. 

And using native mount lenses has been a bonus point for JVC LS300 buyers. But if a person doesn't want to do that, that is fine too! It is about having the choice, and having more options.

 

On 9/9/2016 at 2:38 AM, John Brawley said:

ASIC's aren't related to sensor deisgn any more or less than FPGAs are. You still haven't brought up the alternative yet because you don't know.  Go google FPGA. 

Any casual nerd (let alone an academic!) should know this basic sort of stuff already without a need to google. (I do, as any bittorrent enthusiast would of course also know. Just to give one example)

[tweak]

50 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

In your advocacy of E mount and EF-M mount you completely missed the big point: IT IS NOT EVEN AN OPTION.

Actually I think you completely missed the big point... THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MOUNT.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, tweak said:

Actually I think you completely missed the big point... THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MOUNT.

I already addressed that. It would take longer R&D, and lack the same degree of widespread support out of the gate as MFT has. 

[AaronChicago]

4 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

This owner of a ursa mini 4.6k, who received from the batch of new cameras (serial #32xx), tested the magenta issue on a "White board" and "cloudy sky"  f8 on a 50mm prime. He says, "The one of the cloudy sky worries me the most since I see the magenta edges without tempering with the saturation..." for posters in this thread laughing at users testing the images from this camera by pushing it around.

http://bmcuser.com/showthread.php?16812-4-6k-Ursa-Mini-magenta-issues/page91

That definitely doesn't look good. I'd RMA that sucker.

[tweak]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I already addressed that. It would take longer R&D, and lack the same degree of widespread support out of the gate as MFT has. 

Yes, it's impossible, could never work. Sorry.

[John Brawley]

10 hours ago, tweak said:

Yes, it's impossible, could never work. Sorry.

MFT has some great advantages and I"m a fan of the format.

I'm not a fan of it being used as an interchange mount for other lenses to allow for larger image circles on larger sensors.  

Ideally we'd have an OPEN mount standard, as BM have been using open standards as their raison d'être since the beginning...

E mount isn't open, nor is it available.  I'm not really sure what lenses it covers that MFT wouldn't also cover either but there's no point really having it on the list....

JB

 

[tweak]

5 hours ago, John Brawley said:

MFT has some great advantages and I"m a fan of the format.

I'm not a fan of it being used as an interchange mount for other lenses to allow for larger image circles on larger sensors.  

Ideally we'd have an OPEN mount standard, as BM have been using open standards as their raison d'être since the beginning...

E mount isn't open, nor is it available.  I'm not really sure what lenses it covers that MFT wouldn't also cover either but there's no point really having it on the list....

JB

 

I agree. I think you miss-took my sarcasm, I was also pushing for an Open mount standard. My mention Of E-mount or EF-M was merely to show better mounts on cams than m43 are already available, so why not produce a better one themselves.

[John Brawley]

5 hours ago, tweak said:

I agree. I think you miss-took my sarcasm, I was also pushing for an Open mount standard. My mention Of E-mount or EF-M was merely to show better mounts on cams than m43 are already available, so why not produce a better one themselves.

Sure. 

Im not sure how E mount is any better than m4/3 though. 

JB