Major Price Drop For The Ursa Mini Pro 12K

[MurtlandPhoto]

20 hours ago, herein2020 said:

Regardless of what it is meant for, it doesn't change the fact that the support system needed to get quality footage out of this camera costs many times more than the camera itself.

But that's not unique to just this camera. Once you make that jump to a legit cinema camera, the accessories go up in price. But lighting, rigging, and support equipment isn't exclusive to big cameras. I can use the same amount of expensive lights and rigging for a shoot with my Panasonic S1 as I do with my UMP. 

[TomTheDP]

23 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

But that's not unique to just this camera. Once you make that jump to a legit cinema camera, the accessories go up in price. But lighting, rigging, and support equipment isn't exclusive to big cameras. I can use the same amount of expensive lights and rigging for a shoot with my Panasonic S1 as I do with my UMP. 

I think its really project dependent. The URSA with a light lens and light v mount can be thrown on a relatively cheap gimbal. Of course for longer shoots you'd want a support system so your back isn't dying carrying such a setup.

That said you can get great handheld shots with the URSA. I've found with a camera that size, about 5 pounds, I can shoot up to 50mm with no problems. I did a wedding the other day and shot a ton of handheld on my Sony F3 which is the same size as the URSA.

You don't have auto focus but I don't think that is really needed. I really only use manual focus and rarely have a focus puller.

I'd want three 200wh v mounts, a charger, and a Ronin RS2 or similar gimbal. That's an extra $1400 considering you have lenses. A lot of people already have such a gimbal though. Most stuff will be tripod or handheld with the occasional gimbal shot.

Really depends on the type of work you do though.

Aside from that subject the price drop is pretty crazy. It should have been lower priced to begin with. I don't really care that much but spending $10k only to have the camera be worth 6k in a few months is a bad look. Definitely would make me question dropping a large amount on a blackmagic camera in the future. That's why I almost always buy used these days.


 

[majoraxis]

Here's a comparison between the BMPCC6K vs Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K...

The video does a good job of showing the difference in:

Color rendering.

Dynamic range.

Noise.

Field of view.

Is one better than the other? That depends on the applications and your image priorities.

The new sensor tech produces better color rendering and dynamic range. The BMPCC6k has a lower noise floor and is better in low light. Field of view goes to the 12k with a 1.3x crop factor.

It makes sense to add LiDar auto focus to each (CDA-Tek AFX).

Both the BMPCC6K vs Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro 12K are now priced correctly based on their value, especially if you wait a little bit and get the URSA Mini Pro 12K as an open box or used.

Where does it leave the USRA Mini Pro 4.6k G2... selling at a discount in the future as retailers get rid of remaining stock.

I hope this makes way for Blackmagic to release a $4k box camera with the new sensor tech at maybe an 8k max resolution and whatever other limitations are needed to be in place to hit that price point. That would make flying the new sensor tech on a gimbal easier. That would be an great product line up!

[seanzzxx]

It’s a shame because if I read CineD’s test correctly the G2 is still the leader of the pack in dynamic range. In this tense the 12K has felt like a step back from the beginning.

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

It’s a shame because if I read CineD’s test correctly the G2 is still the leader of the pack in dynamic range. In this tense the 12K has felt like a step back from the beginning.

I think this is the general impression with the 12K. The G2 still produces a better image and I know some people that decided to stick with the G2 over 12K. Especially since the 12K suffers a lot from moire in certain circumstances.

I do think it is an interesting concept.

[TomTheDP]

5 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

It’s a shame because if I read CineD’s test correctly the G2 is still the leader of the pack in dynamic range. In this tense the 12K has felt like a step back from the beginning.

The bad thing about the URSA 4.6K is fixed noise pattern when pushing shadows or shooting above 800 iso. The 12k doesn't have that as far as I am aware. To me that is a huge advantage, which results in more usable dynamic range as well as being able to shoot at 3200 iso in a pinch.

I've also found the Pocket 6k to be significantly better than the URSA in terms of dynamic range.

[majoraxis]

Based on the CimeD's test indicating more than 1/2 stop worse perform in dynamic range as compared to the URSA Mini Pro 4.6k G2, it seems that the 12k will still find Cinematographers preferring it in the following situations.

1. Golden Hour shooting where contrast is probably relatively low and color and skin tones are saturated with lots amber and red tones.

2. Green screen shooting the where resolution and color fidelity are top priorities and worth trading for a little dynamic range for.

3. Lower contract studio shooting environments, where skin tone are a top priority.

4. Slow motion applications where resolution and color fidelity maybe worth trading a little dynamic range for.

Because I shoot mostly indoors, with controlled lighting and vintage lens, I would still rather have the URSA Mini Pro 12k over my USRA Mini Pro 4.6k G1 even at the cost of a little dynamic range and a significant amount money.  My lens are mostly adapted B4 lenses, which play nicely with the super 16 cropped 4k slow-motion 240 fps mode so I am biased towards my shooting environment and desire for the extra resolution and color fidelity the 12k provides.  If I was a run and gun shooter, I would seriously look the Pocket 6k as it's image quality is more than good enough for most applications.

[KnightsFan]

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare.

Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

[kye]

3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare.

Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

I did find it odd that the DR only improved when it was downscaled in post rather than in-camera.  

I can't think of why that would be the case..  and ideas?

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

Remember that our @John Brawley made very interesting articles about the camera (and very good footage) when it was released.

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/

[KnightsFan]

8 hours ago, kye said:

I did find it odd that the DR only improved when it was downscaled in post rather than in-camera.  

I can't think of why that would be the case..  and ideas?

The rolling shutter halved when CineD switched from 12k to 8k. My guess is they are using a lower bit depth readout for sub-12k, which allows them to get higher frame rates in those lower resolutions.

[tupp]

14 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare.

Keep in mind that although signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range are similar properties, SNR will always be smaller than DR.  Both he upper limits and noise thresholds differ in the way that they are obtained, especially in regards to capturing photons with image sensors.

This article breaks down the differences.

 

 

15 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

A downscale with binning usually reduces noise, which increases the effective DR/'SNR

Perhaps the in-camera downscale is not binning properly, or perhaps it might be too difficult to do in the camera because of the sensor's complex filter array.

[maxmizer]

I would say that after so many test videos seen this is not what you expect ... (maybe they wanted to do things too fast)

[zerocool22]

As far as I know it has been a slow year for camera releases right? 2020 was a great year R5, A7S III, fx3,... but this year nothing seems worth mentioning? Also not looking to renew my camera's right now. Allthough continious autofocus would be great on te panny S5 with adapted EF lenses.

[Django]

R3 video specs still awaiting. XH2. GH6. I don't think we really need new camera models from the big 3 at the moment.. however price cuts on let's say C70, FX3, A7S3 etc would be really welcome. not holding my breath I know.

[IronFilm]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:00 AM, zerocool22 said:

As far as I know it has been a slow year for camera releases right? 2020 was a great year R5, A7S III, fx3,... but this year nothing seems worth mentioning? Also not looking to renew my camera's right now. Allthough continious autofocus would be great on te panny S5 with adapted EF lenses.

If you look at the number of the camera releases year on year, it has been slowing right down for years now. This is the extension of the general trend. And of course covid has only made that even tougher for manufacturers. 

[maxmizer]

actually if the new camera is not so different and better than the old one, why buy it ...

[majoraxis]

Slow-motion: 4K Super 16 up to 240 fps (UMP12k) vs UHD Windowed - Up to 150 fps (UMP4.6kG2)

Price: UMP12k is $245 cheaper if you only need a PL mount as it come a standard with the UMP12k

Color: When down sampling 12k BRAW in Resolve to 4k you wind up with 4:4:4 color.

Sensor Size: Wider Sensor is larger on the UMP12k is 27.03mm x 14.25mm vs 25.34mm x 14.25mm UMP4.6KG2 (seems weird to me but that is what Black Magic's website says.)

So not a lot of reasons to upgrade the 4.6KG2 to the 12k. No reasons to not purchase the 12ks over the 4.6kG2 if your are purchasing new as your primary camera.  I imagine they are selling mostly 12ks unless a production that already has 4.6ks wants the cameras to match exactly.

 

[A_Urquhart]

The biggest advantage for me of the Ursa Mini 12k is the in sensor scaling. 

In theory, being able to shoot full sensor 4k BRAW or 8K BRAW with no crop is a big advantage.  

The Pocket6K Pro for example can only shoot 6K in BRAW. My clients usually want 4K or 1080p so for full sensor 4K or 1080p I have to deliver in ProRes.....which is fine TBH 90% of the time. 

I haven't seen any tests of this 'in sensor scaling' for BRAW but if it works well, I'm looking forward to this sensor tech in an 8K or even 6K version coming to the Pocket Pro or even a new more modular designed camera in the not too distant future...please BMD! 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, majoraxis said:

4:4:4 color.

Just this is a big reason why a friend was considering a UMP12K recently (from a FS7), but went for a Sony FX9 instead.