Cinegain Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Surely great initial pricing. But it's just the modular base core. Don't fool yourself that's it then, you're going to want the modules like the viewfinder and the shoulder/tripod kit that they show it with and so on. So you're not quite there for that one price yet. IronFilm and Endfallow Media 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkn Soc of Cinematography Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 BM only had bugs and reliability issues in their beta days. Now they've been upgraded with firmware and operate just like a Canon and better than a Sony. Only two ''bugs'' they have up until now short of Canon are the lowlight performance, battery option, and audio recording. All of which now clearly eliminated in the URSA Mini 4.6K 4995$ camera. It will most likely operate just like a Canon but at higher performance at 1/4s the price. It's a real killing threat. I am not a hype jumper and when the first BMCC was announced I never believed it will be a 5D killer. But this none is one hell of a threat to all the C100/C300/FS7/FS700/Cion and even red scarlets&epics/alexa mini (yet a little less of a threat for their reputation as the high-end kings to clients) ISO and no built in ND will definitely keep this off the pro doc, event and reality sets. I see it more as a narrative / commercial cam. At 6G to go all in, it's still an amazing deal. 1600 ISO is do able if it's a clean 1600. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endfallow Media Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Surely great initial pricing. But it's just the modular base core. Don't fool yourself that's it then, you're going to want the modules like the viewfinder and the shoulder/tripod kit that they show it with and so on. So you're not quite there for that one price yet.Well said. I'm personally still very excited about The URSA Mini, but the 5k price isn't the real cost of owning. For a cheap-as-possible solution I figure:Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K - Real Cost of Owning: - $ 4995 - 4.6K body - $ 1200 - Media/CFast 2.0 Card(s) = (Roughly 2 hours of Record Time?) - $ 95 - BM V-Vount Adapter - $ 500 - Cheap V-mount Batteries (2) and Charger---------------------So, without glass and "non-essentials' like a top handle/plate/support, your still looking around $7000 to get into this cam as a functional unit. Cinegain and Christina Ava 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raafi Rivero Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Specs look amazing and the footage looks great as well. A little worried about low light, though. They don't even mention ISO. And the night shots on the sample video were shot on a about as bright-looking a street as you could find. The shot with the toddler in the hallway felt a little muddy in the low light areas. But hey. The images look amazing overall. I want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted April 13, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted April 13, 2015 Well said. I'm personally still very excited about The URSA Mini, but the 5k price isn't the real cost of owning. For a cheap-as-possible solution I figure:Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K - Real Cost of Owning: - $ 4995 - 4.6K body - $ 1200 - Media/CFast 2.0 Card(s) = (Roughly 2 hours of Record Time?) - $ 95 - BM V-Vount Adapter - $ 500 - Cheap V-mount Batteries (2) and Charger---------------------So, without glass and "non-essentials' like a top handle/plate/support, your still looking around $7000 to get into this cam as a functional unit.Good point and I hadn't initially realised the $2995 was for the cam with the old URSA 4K sensor in it not the new 4.6K one with 15 stops Endfallow Media 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertonesx24 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Well said. I'm personally still very excited about The URSA Mini, but the 5k price isn't the real cost of owning. For a cheap-as-possible solution I figure:Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K - Real Cost of Owning: - $ 4995 - 4.6K body - $ 1200 - Media/CFast Card(s) = (Roughly 2 hours of Record Time?) - $ 95 - BM V-Vount Adapter - $ 500 - Cheap V-mount Batteries (2) and Charger---------------------So, without glass and "non-essentials' like a handle/plate/support, your still looking around $7000 to get into this cam as a functional unit.Looks comparable on paper here to the KineMini 4k4.6k vs 4k160fps vs 120fps 2k15 stops vs 13 stops~$5k each, both need additional gear to be functionableProres vs Compressed RawCFast vs SSDNorth American Sales/Support advantage for Black Magic, and availability now, wifi and sync control, for the KineMini. Endfallow Media 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertonesx24 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Also I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but the EVF will be $1495, available on their site now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed I. Clampett Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 What does anamorphic ready mean?Does it mean it does Anamorphic video in camera?or will work with the slr magic anamorphic lens?What do you have to do to shoot anamorphically with this camera? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endfallow Media Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 @silvertonesx24 "Also I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but the EVF will be $1495, available on their site now."-------Yeah, saw that. That's not cheap. I imagine there's bound to be someone who'll develop a cheap diopter/eyepiece for the included screen. Not to mention all of the current offerings, alá SmallHD 4", and the like*.*In fact, I wonder if BM will have a diopter adapter for the new BM Video Assist? Cinegain 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 You're basically looking at Sony FS7 money for this camera. Granted it's a bit higher resolution, but I'm very much leaning towards the Sony.I'm guessing the BM will be more difficult to work with. I love the global shutter, but I personally value a higher ISO and built in ND filters more.And while the BM camera is very cinematic, I feel that it seems all the images are just a bit darker. I think this camera requires well lite subjectsto give its best. As for cinematic, the FS7 seems to do a pretty good job at the cinematic look, provided you grade for that look. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpb Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Is there any figure about the noise level of the Ursa-Mini cooling fan (if any)?this is a problem which still plagues most digital camerasfrom the latest Epic, Kinemax, ... to the Sony F65 (the still unsurpassed imager) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Nice video with the new sensor half way down the main URSA pagehttps://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaIn the video at around the 1:38 point there is a shot of the skateboarders with the sun almost directly behind them. The skateboarders are still completely visible, not dark silhouettes, and the sky is still properly exposed all in the same shot, you can even see all the clouds, some of them right next to the sun.To my eye the colors throughout the video are really really nice, and the low light seems to be at least decent. If you are only a doc filmmaker, maybe the FS7 is still the way to go. Definitely better lowlight. The ND's as well. As someone pointed out, you can make the Sony stuff look cinematic. But to me, the Blackmagic stuff just oozes cinema without even trying. I've just always been a fan of the Blackmagic look, and it appears as though they may have outdone themselves here. The ND's aren't a big deal to me, though it would be convenient to have them there. But I'm just thrilled. I've already pre-ordered mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raafi Rivero Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 To my eye the colors throughout the video are really really nice, and the low light seems to be at least decent. ... As someone pointed out, you can make the Sony stuff look cinematic. But to me, the Blackmagic stuff just oozes cinema without even trying.Well said. That, to me, is the key with Blackmagic. It just passes the eye test right off the bat. FS7 stuff always seems like it needs to get dressed up to look like cinema. Blackmagic stuff just is. The Kinefinity footage has a similar feel to me: right off the bat it feels movie-like. With the total cost of media, batteries etc I wonder which is a better overall value between Kine and the Ursa Mini. Jonesy Jones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Who the heck made this sensor out of the blue?!http://www.fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos/ltn4625a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Canon batteries! YAY!I'm gonna keep my eye on this beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Well said. That, to me, is the key with Blackmagic. It just passes the eye test right off the bat. FS7 stuff always seems like it needs to get dressed up to look like cinema. Blackmagic stuff just is. The Kinefinity footage has a similar feel to me: right off the bat it feels movie-like. With the total cost of media, batteries etc I wonder which is a better overall value between Kine and the Ursa Mini.The look of the BM is certainly cinematic, but this means the image is soft, with grain, and a bit dark from what I can see. What happens if you want a clean image? Grain is easy to add but hard to remove. The same goes for softness and a dark image. Personally I prefer the flexibly of starting clean. The one thing about the FS7 I do not like is the max internal resolution of UHD. In the end for me it will come down to low light and iso performance. Nice to see competition in this sector. That can only be good for buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtheory Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I'm curious about the ISO performance too....but even de-noising a 4.6K RAW image and scaling it down to 2K will help get cleaner image already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Shasha Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You're basically looking at Sony FS7 money for this camera. Granted it's a bit higher resolution, but I'm very much leaning towards the Sony.I'm guessing the BM will be more difficult to work with. I love the global shutter, but I personally value a higher ISO and built in ND filters more.And while the BM camera is very cinematic, I feel that it seems all the images are just a bit darker. I think this camera requires well lite subjectsto give its best. As for cinematic, the FS7 seems to do a pretty good job at the cinematic look, provided you grade for that look.Haven't seen a single decent looking FS7 video. FS7 suffers from the same crappy motion-cadence that the FS100, FS700, F55, and F5 do.The only current Sony camera that doesn't suffer from this "video-ish" motion-cadence is the Sony F65. And that's because it employs a mechinal-shutter. The motion of these other Sony's look awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoferman Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Really wish it was a s35 sensor with a m43 mount. Choosing between EF and PL is a concern. I have Nikon lenses at the moment but would like to pick up some EF glass at some point but also want PL glass in the future. A more adaptable mount would have been nice. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Haven't seen a single decent looking FS7 video. FS7 suffers from the same crappy motion-cadence that the FS100, FS700, F55, and F5 do.The only current Sony camera that doesn't suffer from this "video-ish" motion-cadence is the Sony F65. And that's because it employs a mechinal-shutter. The motion of these other Sony's look awful.Video-ish motion cadence... Not sure I'm seeing that. Perhaps you can share some examples. And btw, what do you believe causes this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.