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

[Ed_David]

6 hours ago, John Brawley said:

Hi.

You may think I'm a brand ambassador, but lets examine what that would actually mean. It would mean that I get paid to promote and generally aid the cause of Blackmagic and their brand awareness and experience with their users, is that right ?

I am not a Brand ambassador for Blackmagic, mostly because I don't get paid to be one, and I'd rather speak my mind openly in public forums like this.  I've believe I've been honest in my views of the pros and cons of their products.  I have a personal relationship with many of the people that work there and I've had a lot to do casually with helping with test shoots, iterations of changes to fundamentals,  which again, I'm not paid for.  In return I get to be involved with the development of cameras, furthering my own understanding of how a camera is built from the ground up, I get to see some of my input make it into the development cycle and I get some cameras.  Blackmagic once flew me to IBC to help with the launch of the MFT version of the 2.5K, a version I strongly lobbied for internally with BM.

None of my involvement with Blackmagic has EVER lead to me getting work as a DP, or increasing my profile.  If you think that's what producers go for then you'd be wrong.

If you don't think I'm polite enough then it's really your problem.  I would much rather remain independent and be able to speak my mind frankly.  It's exactly because I'm not a Blackmagic Brand ambassador that I can do this and the more I do this job, the less patient I get with armchair experts like Kino.

I feel like I've earned the right to be able to speak on that which I know something about and I don't really have the patience to argue points of fact with someone anonymous like Kino who has no ability to back up his claims nor legitimacy in his identity.  Anyone who's been on camera forums knows me and my history and has that posting history to inform them.  I have been on CML since nearly the begining, on C.com for many years and DP review, REDUSER, DVXUSER  all long before Blackmagic came along.  I have a blog where I try to write meaningful and helpful work and share my very own camera tests from actual shows with anyone who wants to see them without monetising it or having any kinds of adverts or kickbacks.

Because I like to be able to speak my mind when I wish to. I'm not building a profile with this audience because I am not tied to you guys for money.

JB

 

 

I know.Ive been following your writings since the early days of cml as well.

Yes you dont get paid by bm but you are the highest profile user of bm on the world. In the world!! You are the lebron james of black magic. Your pool table footage of that beautiful model launched thousands of units!

Speaking your mind is fine. Calling someone an idiot and that their argument is sh*t is bad. Makes you and bm look bad whether you are paid by them or not.

Dont fall down to insults and swear words...you are too good for that. 

Anyone can swear and use insults. Only people with control of their emotions can rise above it.

......

Also who cares about sensor origins? Why get so hot and bothered about whether or not bmd sources its own sensors?

And i know kinos real identity. Her full name is dr. kino flo.  She is a famous inventor and writer who created the kino vista beam. All salute dr. Kino!

[Hanriverprod]

I showed my friend a Korean editor some footage online of the ursa mini 4.6k and she said, "Why is there so much magenta?" She has edited Kim Ki Duk's as well as big Korean studio films. She can give two ducks about her name or bmd's reputation. In fact she doesn't even know who they are. At least, now I know I'm not going crazy reading this thread. People arguing about everything but the image. Again, go look at the videos people are uploading, there are many great images but there are also many shots where magenta is polluting them.

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Ed_David said:

I know.Ive been following your writings since the early days of cml as well.

Yes you dont get paid by bm but you are the highest profile user of bm on the world. In the world!! You are the lebron james of black magic. Your pool table footage of that beautiful model launched thousands of units!

Speaking your mind is fine. Calling someone an idiot and that their argument is sh*t is bad. Makes you and bm look bad whether you are paid by them or not.

Dont fall down to insults and swear words...you are too good for that. 

Anyone can swear and use insults. Only people with control of their emotions can rise above it.

......

Also who cares about sensor origins? Why get so hot and bothered about whether or not bmd sources its own sensors?

And i know kinos real identity. Her full name is dr. kino flo.  She is a famous inventor and writer who created the kino vista beam. All salute dr. Kino!

You are beating a dead horse, Ed. And I seriously don't think you are one to be teaching anyone about Internet etiquette. As a matter of fact, I don't see John Brawley getting hot and bothered about anything here - if anything, he's exercised more restraint than some others in this thread, the purpose of which is unknown to me. 

[tweak]

I'd also say his post read fairly restrained as far as forum rabble goes. I can't say the same however for the posters he is arguing against, who obviously have some kind of problem with BM for some reason or another... I mean as you said Ed, who cares where the sensor comes from if the image is good, it's irrelevant, the only people who find that relevant are the people trying to shine a bad light on BM for some reason.

As much as I value your word Ed, this topic was geared negatively by you from the start, and all because you saw some problems with a BM display model? I don't doubt BM aren't the highest quality camera producer out there, but the reason the quality is what it is, is because they sell at the price they are (which is what many of us want).
Honestly if you want to write a thread about a camera company going out of existance because you saw a faulty product on display, I could almost write a whole book about all the shity/ faulty Sony products I've seen my friends and family encounter... doesn't mean they are packing up ship.

[Andrew Reid]

On 2 September 2016 at 6:37 AM, Kino said:

RED doesn't face the same online attacks because its products are not mass produced and are aimed mostly at professionals. When problems occur, their users are more likely to get in touch with RED directly than take to the forums.

RED do face online attacks when something goes wrong.

There are plenty of professionals who use forums.

Let's try to see the positive side of this rather public relationship Blackmagic and RED have with their customers. We can all share knowledge and sort out a huge number of support issues online, rather than having to go to a service centre one by one like sheep.

I am sure whatever issues Blackmagic have with the URSA Mini 4.6k, they will sort them out, as RED would do, or Arri, or any of the others.

On 4 September 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kino said:

Land claims that RED is the only cinema camera company other than Sony that designs its own sensors and ASICs (integrated circuits). He makes no claims about where the sensors are fabricated. Of the cinema camera manufacturers, only Sony, Canon and Panasonic have their own sensor fabrication plants and have the potential to do everything in-house.

This is a very grey area and to pretend any of us know all the answers is pretty dangerous.

There are just so many aspects to this. By saying 'designing' you could mean numerous things - inventing new technology, planning out pixel architecture in a design room, or simply asking for a certain spec and having a custom order... it's a pretty broad spectrum. The manufacturing of the sensor is an ocean of different aspects linked in with the design as well, if you're going to invent a new kind of pixel architecture or readout mechanism for example you need to have the tools to manufacture it.

Arguing about where on this spectrum of engineering a custom-made sensor falls is a bit pointless because...

The image is about the whole package - Blackmagic's colour science and sensor calibration is superb. Along with Canon and Olympus I think Blackmagic's colour is one of the most flattering of the talent in front of the camera.

On 4 September 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kino said:

The difference is that RED designs their own sensors and boards and those are exclusive to them. You can't buy off-the-shelf versions of the Dragon sensor made by Fairchild or any other semiconductor company.

Until we see the exact same 4.6K sensor in any other camera, the URSA Mini has exclusivity...

I'd question why the whole topic even matters, since as I just said, it's the whole package that makes an image unique.

The whole workflow as well - this is an important part and the sensor is just one link in the chain between the lens and the final image.

On 4 September 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kino said:

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.

Respectfully disagree.

RED don't have an entire sensor design and manufacturing workforce in-house.

RED call on similar outside talent to develop a CMOS design, specced out for a particular camera. Probably TowerJazz.

Leica do it as well - CMOSIS and Panasonic both design and manufacture sensors for them. Where's the shame in this?

Fairchild are just another sensor design company to partner with and a very good one at that.

On 4 September 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kino said:

This lack of expertise may lead to problems such as we have seen with magenta-gate

Blackmagic and Fairchild = "lack of expertise" is a really below the belt comment and just not true.

On 4 September 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kino said:

the fact that they have to go to Fairchild would be proof that they did not design the 4.6K sensor on their own and do not hold the exclusive license or the patents involved.

In fact, that is just your assumption. You don't actually know.

[tweak]

Spot on @Andrew Reid.

[AaronChicago]

1 hour ago, Hanriverprod said:

I showed my friend a Korean editor some footage online of the ursa mini 4.6k and she said, "Why is there so much magenta?" She has edited Kim Ki Duk's as well as big Korean studio films. She can give two ducks about her name or bmd's reputation. In fact she doesn't even know who they are. At least, now I know I'm not going crazy reading this thread. People arguing about everything but the image. Again, go look at the videos people are uploading, there are many great images but there are also many shots where magenta is polluting them.

Too much magenta, push the tint toward green at it's gone. Same with the C100 mark I having a green tint. Push it toward magenta and it's gone. The cameras that are defective with the pronounced magenta corners is another issue. It looks to be getting better and/or fixed.

[John Brawley]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Thank you!! Hope you're also lobbying them for an URSA Mini 4K MFT?? :-D :-D 

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.

JB

 

[tweak]

E-mount would be better than m43, shorter flange distance, easier to adapt lenses. But I agree a whole new mount could be cool if it's swapable.

[John Brawley]

30 minutes ago, tweak said:

E-mount would be better than m43, shorter flange distance, easier to adapt lenses. But I agree a whole new mount could be cool if it's swapable.

Nobody but Sony can do E mount. 

JB 

[tweak]

10 minutes ago, John Brawley said:

Nobody but Sony can do E mount. 

JB 

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

[dhessel]

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:36 AM, AaronChicago said:

Too much magenta, push the tint toward green at it's gone. Same with the C100 mark I having a green tint. Push it toward magenta and it's gone. The cameras that are defective with the pronounced magenta corners is another issue. It looks to be getting better and/or fixed.

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.

[jonpais]

3 hours ago, dhessel said:

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.

I believe Aaron already said that. 

[AaronChicago]

6 hours ago, dhessel said:

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.

Yeah I mentioned the defective UM's. Those are the ones with the magenta corners and splotches.

[Kino]

John,

You have a very selective memory when forming your arguments about what I’ve written. And speaking of diversion, your latest tactic is to cut-and-paste some posts out of context and out of a timeline that went on for months as we waited for the Ursa Mini 4.6K’s release. These bmcuser posts from 9-12 months ago also have nothing to do with the current topic of BMD’s design patents or its quality control. Moreover, anyone can be quoted out of context:

“You're looking pretty silly. You're inferring a conspiracy theory that those that have shot with an Ursa Mini are hiding its flaws until...it get released...and....we all get found out ?...”

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page140

That was what you wrote on January 14, 2016. This is after some had already noted the magenta problem in the beta footage and had been ridiculed and attacked on bmcuser. An NDA that prevents you from reporting the magenta publicly is one thing, but deriding and discrediting those who saw the magenta problem early on is another. And guess who leads those online attack parties on the BMD dissenters, John. Who are the ringleaders when the wagons are circled? I guess RED has had them, so it’s okay for BMD to do the same now, right? I thought you guys were better than them.

So yeah, you’re right John, the 4.6K was released and everything was “fine,” which is why they had so many returned units and great reviews. I’m not even sure how long the magenta thread is on bmcuser: it probably requires its own server it’s so huge (much of it is silly, of course, like people shooting at f16 and wondering what went wrong with the image quality, but there are some real issues there otherwise).

In my case, there were important reasons why I started to see better results from the 4.6K footage. Let me remind you since you obviously forgot. Here is what I posted back in January as we saw the first RAW footage:

“Speaking of appreciation, I will be the first to say that the Mötley Crüe footage was absolutely gorgeous and some of the best that we have seen so far, along with the dancer video. Both were reportedly shot in RAW, so I am not surprised that we are finally seeing the full potential of the 4.6k sensor unleashed in terms of DR, shadow detail, highlight roll-off, and color science.”

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K&p=192053#post192053

I changed my views on the 4.6k as the first RAW was finally released. To accuse me of “back-flipping” only makes you sound like a politician trying to discredit his rival for office. Our host Andrew has done a complete 180 degree on the Canon 1DX II, from downplaying the camera on this forum to stating that he wants to buy one after releasing his new C-Log picture profile. I’m very surprised, but there is nothing wrong with that. I’m very happy for Andrew and I hope he enjoys the 1DX II, because it looks like an awesome machine. People change their views all the time as new footage is revealed and new aspects of a camera are made functional. I think such evolution is something to celebrate, not ridicule.

As a matter of fact, the 4.6K ProRes beta footage had not impressed me so much. With the RAW, I could see a lot more potential, better colors, and closer to the advertised DR. A lot of forum members also noted an improvement in the footage. I was not the only one who thought the camera was finally living up to its potential for “prime time.” There was then (near) universal acclaim.

As for the Xyla discussion, I thought we all decided that it was pointless, since it just went in circles with no end in sight:

“The. Lights. Are. On. There's no way you shoot that chart with the lights on. It totally invalidates the test. For real.  JB.”

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page140

Here was my response:

“These men generously went to the trouble of setting up a Xyla test, capturing an image, and displaying it on Resolve. Then they started to move things around and turned on a light. By the time of the photo, the Xyla image is already a captured file on Resolve, while the chart has been moved out of the way. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. There is no reason for them to capture an image and view it in Resolve if it is taken when the light is on since you would not see a damn thing with that spotlight on it! You would not get any kind of Xyla image at all, and certainly not the one displayed on the monitor. When I said that we may be looking at a legitimate Xyla test and waveform in the Resolve file, everything went crazy here because it doesn't match what people want to see.”

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page145

You then asked about the identity of the person in the photograph. I was the only one who responded with the answer:

“The gentleman in the Xyla photo is a world-renowned cinematographer, Affonso Beato, from Brazil (he is at the computer). He shot Almodóvar's All About My Mother (1999) among other films in his incredibly long and distinguished career. I'm sure he had nothing to do with the Facebook post being pulled as he is not affiliated with BMD. It is more likely that BMD has a problem with a Xyla image from a pre-production camera out in the wild before the camera is finished.”

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page149

You forgot to mention that part didn’t you when you said the following:

“He didn't know the image WAS an independent source, namely the individual ASC technical committee members facebook page, but whatever...”

Now let’s brush aside your ad hominem tactics and selective quoting from a year ago (because anyone can play that game), and get to the meat of the matter. I asked if you could point to any of BMD’s design patents on the 4.6K and here was your response:

“Anyway, last I heard patents weren't the only way to protect IP.  In fact, the most enduring way is to keep it secret...like Coke and Colonel Sanders do. Having or not having a patent is indicative of nothing at all. Once again, a very old fashioned out of date view about how IP is protected.

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?”

Fine John, let’s say for the sake of argument that it is not the Fairchild 4.6K sensor and was designed by BMD with no significant help from anyone else. Do you really believe that sensors and camera components are not necessarily patented nowadays and that it is simply sufficient to keep everything a secret like the flavor in Coca Cola? I would respectfully disagree.  A $10 million sensor is not like a soda flavor or chicken recipe. Electronic devices and cameras involve numerous patents to make certain functions possible, as you well know.

You posted no link to patents or evidence that BMD had any. But it is easy to find out that they do make patent applications, at least for the entirety of the camera. Here is an example of Blackmagic Design patent files I found with a search at the Australian Patent Office:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/quickSearch.do?queryString=blackmagic&resultsPerPage=

Interestingly enough, they are listed as “lapsed” for “renaming” suggesting that the company is going to renew the patent application for a camera originally filed on April 10, 2015. The camera is not named or described in any detail (we may speculate that it could be the Ursa Mini). There is also no mention of the sensor, but the application is very brief and simply for reference purposes.

So BMD does make patent applications like I would expect them to, but has not secured the 4.6K patents as of yet, at least not with IP Australia.

I would also note that camera patents are not always filed right away. BMD may be in the process of filing its 4.6K sensor patents, if they are in no way owned by Fairchild or any of their possible sensor partners. To write that history, I would need access to BMD’s internal company files, which is the only way for me to publish an article on that topic. That’s the way these things work.

And, yes, there are different standards for what goes into a peer-reviewed academic paper and what I write on here as a Blackmagic camera user and former post-production expert with “opinions” about the quality of BMD’s cameras. As both a peer reviewer and writer of scholarly papers on film history and film technology, I’m well aware of the differences.

It’s very tedious archival work to write on studios or camera companies and I assure you it has almost nothing to do with putting this stuff into Google. I’ve spent more than a decade in various archives going through internal company records to write such original studio histories, including on the history of cinematography and camera technology.

“Does he even know what an ASIC is I wonder?  Does he know that not all cameras use ASICs?  Does he think that using an ASIC is the only way to make a camera, as Sony and RED apparently do, which of course means that Arriflex have no idea how to make a camera or design a their own sensor?  Or Panasonic or Canon for that matter.”

I never said that all cameras use ASICs. But image processors often use ASICs, as they are “application specific.” There are a few other options to the use of ASICs in image processing, but they are all very similar. More to the point, you are now just splitting semantic hairs, as what Land is saying in that quote is that RED designs its own image processors and sensors, which is largely correct.

Here is an FCC teardown of a RED Epic-X that demonstrates exactly what Land is referring to when he claims that RED designs its own ASICs, which in this case are the Image Signal Processors or ISPs:

http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/113331-red-epic-x-5k-camera-tear-down/5

Where you can fault Land is that he should have included Panasonic as part of “this market” since they also design their own image processors and sensors for cinema cameras. Canon’s image processors, the DIGIC series, are well known, but they use third-party components. Land should have also used the term “image processor” instead of ASIC, as not everyone who is reading the article will make the connection with this esoteric term. Indeed, I addressed RED’s mastery of the entire sensor and image processor chain on page 6 above, in case anyone was confused as to the function of ASICs. Did you miss that part as well?

As I also stated above, of the cinema camera manufacturers only Canon, Panasonic, and Sony can do everything from sensor design to fabrication in-house, since these companies have their own plants. Samsung also has sensor fabrication plants, but it doesn’t make cinema cameras. Toshiba used to make sensors as well, but recently sold its plants to Sony.

Is there currently a difference between BMD and the other cinema camera manufacturers when it comes to expertise in camera design? Based on the available evidence on patents, it would appear so. ARRI, Sony, Canon, and RED all have numerous patents relating to their cameras. We can list them here and their significance if you think that would help.

BMD’s camera patents are perhaps forthcoming, as I demonstrated above. BMD’s camera division is also very new and it will take them a few years to file patents and have those approved. It can be a long process.

I’m not an advocate for any company (well, except for BMD—see below) and I am mostly brand agnostic. You took an off-the-cuff remark that was really an aside and tried to turn it into the basis of a whole tirade, just because someone dared to criticize BMD’s quality control or its experience in designing cameras. You also came on this thread and forum out of the blue, like Superman coming out of the sky to rescue a stranded cat. Once here, you launched into a personal attack on me (“idiot,” “doesn’t know sh**”). Such a hostile approach doesn’t do you or me any favors (and, I admit, I also went over the line in response to your attack by using the “snake oil merchant” moniker: that was uncalled for on my part and I apologize).

You are obviously very passionate about BMD as someone who has contributed input to their products and you have done your best to ensure their success. Moreover, Blackmagic’s continued innovation can actually be important for independents everywhere. It has already forced Sony and RED to respond by offering more and more features at lower prices. They have my respect in this regard, as was already noted above.

But next time when you are quoting me, you might want to look at all those instances where I defended Blackmagic for all the good things they have done, including what I wrote here before you even posted on this thread. Never mind all the times I’ve introduced students to BMD cameras and told them about the amazing price/value of BMD RAW cameras for their first investment during or after film school. Yes, I’m also guilty of “peddling” BMD’s products but I always lay out the advantages and the disadvantages whenever possible.

“It's very usual for camera manufacturers to partner with companies making sensors to also spin off the development costs to amortise them for other uses. I bet you can't name me another sensor company that has done this after developing a sensor that never came to market.”

There are likely a few candidates. Hmm . . . is there multiple-choice on this exam, Professor Brawley? 

Based on that description alone, I would have to go with the Kodak CCD sensor that was adapted for the Ikonoskop and later the Digital Bolex.

Okay, sorry for the length, but there was a lot of material. Let’s just try to keep things civil and respectful from now on.

[Mattias Burling]

23 minutes ago, Kino said:

Fine John, let’s say for the sake of argument that it is not the Fairchild 4.6K sensor and was designed by BMD with no significant help from anyone else. 

Now Im confused. No one in this thread have claimed it to be so. Not John or anybody else. Or did I miss it?

[Kino]

24 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Now Im confused. No one in this thread have claimed it to be so. Not John or anybody else. Or did I miss it?

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.

[Kino]

On 9/5/2016 at 5:26 PM, Jonesy Jones said:

Kino, you can't have expertise and anonymity at the same time. 

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.

But, certainly, there are different protocols for a forum and I can understand why you say that. A casual discussion is different from a journal.

[Oliver Daniel]

Yawn. 

Blackmagic are excellent value for money, and that's all there is to say really. 

If Blackmagic aren't "good enough", just use another brand. Simple. 

[Mattias Burling]

33 minutes 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."

 

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.