Blackmagic Forum

I have to say. A nice flex by Blackmagic Design today. Well Played!

What can one say without spewing gibberish and melting into a puddle knowing the URSA Cine has a BMD designed 17K sensor coming soon suitable for IMAX?

rick.lang wrote:What can one say without spewing gibberish and melting into a puddle knowing the URSA Cine has a BMD designed 17K sensor coming soon suitable for IMAX?

Rick you are so right. It's really cool that they decided to just swing for the fences and say, "Hey let's see what we can really do if we try." I am glad that they have finally moved forward with their own sensor in some new cameras. It is going to take me a moment to process all of this fully.

anyone able to playback the new Ursa Cine files? BRAW Player or DR isn't loading them...

Dat's nutz!

Impressive though...

Personally, even though I like the little cameras for portability, I liked the design of the 12K. Though very bulky if you're used to a Komodo-sized camera it's very user friendly, and I prefer physical controls over a touch screen, even though physical controls require more space.

IMO there is also no way that BMD would be able to sell a $15,000 camera if it wasn't designed for high end production. This looks like BMD taking a potshot right up the Venice's nose.

Frankly, that's my kind of warning shot. That made me... less than popular with my Aikijustu classmates because I was also the the Gung-Fu instructor and always liked my "warning" shots.

Yeah, the price point is crazy. Grant preparing us for the sting of the cost only to reveal it as only $15k was hilarious. That's incredibly reasonable given what it can do.

Adam Langdon wrote:anyone able to playback the new Ursa Cine files? BRAW Player or DR isn't loading them...

I think you may need to run the new beta of Resolve? Did you give that a try?

Do we need a new thread for the URSA Cine 17K 65mm sensor camera? Will that camera be called the URSA Cine 65?

Proof will be in pudding.

If this camera can do what is claimed to be able to do, it is very affordable...

Fact that is $15K is actually good thing, it will keep itself away from many amateurs giving it a bad rep and serious enough for higher end users to bring on the set and not feel cheap.

I have no doubt that this thing will deliver 14 stops of DR and 9 stops of latitude and chase Venice 2 ...
Also, I am almost certain BMD is already in works if not manufacturing URSA 65.

This thing, URSA Cine is serious take on big boyz, similar what BMCC OG did but on even larger scale. This looks like polished and highly thought out product.
Graham must be having last laugh now, is this the reason RED gave up ???

Or you can use the media you already own with the optional Blackmagic Media Module CF, which has dual CFexpress slots.

Not only does it come with 8TB Media Module, but you have the option to buy a CFExpress Media Module and use CFExpress Cards. Now, from what I can tell this will involve limitations for some resolutions and frame rates due to CFExpress Card limitations compared to the BMD Media Module.

Yet, I don't see why you'll need this but, it's nice that they have this option.

Darko Djerich wrote:Graham must be having last laugh now, is this the reason RED gave up ???

I don't know about Graeme, but I'm sure Jarred is sipping fancy drinks in Big Sur after the RED acquisition finally went through yesterday. What timing.

RED Raptor VV, with a top speed of 60P in 8K, is feeling a little overpriced at $10K more than Ursa Cine.

Red Raptor does 120fps in 8k

Here is my prediction. Ursa Cine will flop in sales. I like the spec but Blackmagic is not a premium brand in the camera world unless it takes steps into addressing repairs and services. They just about got away with it in the past because of the generally low cost nature of their cameras but anything close to and now beyond £10k ultimately consign the Ursa Cine to the rental stores. Like all BMD cameras it initially get a few firmware updates but later on with cost vs sales you won't see much firmware support for this camera.

This is a boffins camera with much less if any input from consumers. The last time this happen was the Big Ursa and we all know what happen to that one. It will be £7k by year's end if BMD is to recover losses.

Anton_Shavlik wrote:Red Raptor does 120fps in 8k

I should have been more specific. 120fps in Raptor VV is only possible in LQ, as the max is around 60fps in HQ. But yes, you are correct. Even so, Ursa Cine can apparently do 144fps in open gate. That's pretty impressive.

Ursa Cine reminds me a lot of the ronin 4D in that it's certainly someone's dream camera. It has a lot of interesting ideas and in a way reinvents what a camera can be.

But while the 4D checks boxes that almost every production will have these days - wireless video, wireless follow focus, and camera stabilization

The Ursa Cine seems like its solving problems from decades ago or problems no one actually has. ACs no longer sit on the right side of the camera. Operators want to position their monitor, not have it swing out from the body. Having 8TB internally helps to make 12k manageable, but 12k seems like a very specialized need and proprietary media and the huge media reader or wireless transfer seems to be a new workflow that doesn't seem to offer any benefits over smaller cards and 4k or 6k capture.

the sensor with an OLPF and internal ND look really good. The EVF (if its good) looks nice. Wireless upload of dallies straight from the camera is great. But other camera manufacturers already have these things, like red for example.

The fx6, c70 and komodo remain the best cameras per dollar for the realities of most parts of media production.

Something is wrong here

As I have understood yesterday, on the right is UMP12K=super35 sensor.

Blaž Murn wrote:As I have understood yesterday, on the right is UMP12K=super35 sensor.

That makes sense

In the shot, Grant is holding the 17K sensor to our left and the URSA Cine 12K full frame sensor to our right. The vertical resolution is identical. The 17K sensor stretches the sensor horizontally for an approximate 2.18:1 aspect ratio compared to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the just announced 12K URSA Cine camera. It is thought the 17K sensor will be in a version of the URSA Cine by the end of this year.

BMD may be moving away from the nK branding of their cameras so it might be the end of year model will be called URSA Cine 65. However it’s not really a 65mm sensor diagonal so they may choose a different name.

The reason they are moving away from nK branding is that the URSA Mini Pro 12K camera was ridiculed when it was released with a rudely large 12K brand as generally people felt “we don’t need no frickin 12K”. They dismissed the camera without realizing what the camera really offered to most shooters was a 12K RGBW oversampled sensor that would be used to record 8K or 4K raw with the FOV of the 12K sensor as well as could be used to shoot 6K. It was very innovative but attacked because it was different.

So now we have the URSA Cine period, no numbers on a bold badge to attack, and it shoots ‘full frame’ (let’s be realistic, the term full frame isn’t going away).

I recgnise this place being the Kellog Doolittle House

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursacine

It was the location were Alicia Keys held a mini concert a year or so ago promoting Hennessy Paradis

rick.lang wrote:In the shot, Grant is holding the 17K sensor to our left and the URSA Cine 12K full frame sensor to our right. The vertical resolution is identical. The 17K sensor stretches the sensor horizontally for an approximate 2.18:1 aspect ratio compared to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the just announced 12K URSA Cine camera. It is thought the 17K sensor will be in a version of the URSA Cine by the end of this year.

BMD may be moving away from the nK branding of their cameras so it might be the end of year model will be called URSA Cine 65. However it’s not really a 65mm sensor diagonal so they may choose a different name.

The reason they are moving away from nK branding is that the URSA Mini Pro 12K camera was ridiculed when it was released with a rudely large 12K brand as generally people felt “we don’t need no frickin 12K”. They dismissed the camera without realizing what the camera really offered to most shooters was a 12K RGBW oversampled sensor that would be used to record 8K or 4K raw with the FOV of the 12K sensor as well as could be used to shoot 6K. It was very innovative but attacked because it was different.

So now we have the URSA Cine period, no numbers on a bold badge to attack, and it shoots ‘full frame’ (let’s be realistic, the term full frame isn’t going away).

In the video he's holding the old S35 12K up against the new 65mm 17K sensor for comparison. And, it's a pretty incredible leap for only 4-years time since the 12K was introduced.

"(let's be realistic, the term full free isn't going away)" I sadly agree. But, I'm going to refer to it as VistaVision because that's the proper cinematic term compared to the still photo term. LF is also acceptable for me. Yet he 65mm is a true Large Format.

My bad re the picture, you lads are correct! I was thrown off looking at the two attached sensor specs, not the photo. The pics of the specs are URSA Cine and URSA Cine 65 or whatever it will be called.

The price, I think for many current BMD Camera owners, puts people on pause.
The Pyxis is VERY affordable, and I see a bunch of people selling their pockets already.

The Ursa Cine, while feature-rich and feels like it will have true lasting power (years to come), is a bit out of price range for the average owner operator of the BMD crowd. I say that loosely. If i was shooting more commercial/narrative work I think it would make sense. I would also plan to own the camera for a long long time.
But the bulk of my work is interviews + B Roll, which doesn't sound that 'sexy', but it pays all the bills. Renting it is a viable option, while owning a Pyxis for the day-to-day...

If we keep saying "I'll wait for the price to come down" or "I'll wait for G2 of the Pyxis" I think we may be a year out. Even as people are saying "NEXT camera. That's what I'm waiting for," it means we are (or we have to be) happy with what we are currently owning. (though, I wonder if BMD is completely done with pocket line?)

Remember, users, the quality of the videos come from us and our skills, and the camera is just a tool. I recently looked back at one of my first cinematographer reels and back then I was using an URSA Mini 4.6k with Rokinon lenses. It still held up! Now, my color grading has gotten much better and my lighting skills have improved, but so much of our ability to capture 'magic' is that instinct to aim, frame, move, and record.

My first client project for the UM4.6K was a wedding early July 2016. It still looks decent and the camera is going strong for what I do now; things have evolved so I am heavily into music events with some theatrical performances. That extra few stops with the URSA Cine would make a quality difference given the range of lighting intensities I need to accommodate.

But the camera reach exceeds my financial grasp. I’ve had enough large unplanned expenses to throttle any new camera now. 2025 could be a different story but my home has a voracious appetite. The good news is I’m debt free in two years. But that’s bad news in the short term. So I’m waiting…

However if a narrative project fell into my lap, I think I’d want to bring new camera technology to the fore regardless.

Consider that VistaVision only lasted commercially for a few years and the number of 65mm film projects is, in a good year, 2 or 3. And fewer as time goes by. These days there are more on Alexa65, but even those (counting only the few that are only or largely 65) aren't commonplace and are invariably big budget.

With most movies watched at home these days, you have to wonder who that enormous sensor is for. And even if the camera is <$20K or $25K, lenses won't be cheap, and the operational issues. It'll be interesting to see if it creates its own market.....

John Paines wrote:Consider that VistaVision only lasted commercially for a few years and the number of 65mm film projects is, in a good year, 2 or 3. And fewer as time goes by… It'll be interesting to see if it creates its own market.....

True enough for the current state of the art approach for large format digital capture. Could this unreleased 17K sensor be the breakthrough that BMD sees as their best shot at disrupting the market? As has been pointed out previously, BMD’s approach has been to price cameras within reach of a very large share of the market. They’ve had varying levels of success selling an awful lot of cameras in spite of the occasional shortfalls in terms of quality control and camera reliability for some shooters.

But honestly no one is perfect at any price point. However the relationship with top tier shooters and the manufacturers’ response when problems occur is legendary for ARRI and Panavision particularly. One argues with their high prices they can afford to take that approach. But I think it’s more than just dollars and sense. I’m sure it’s the nature of the relationship the vendors and clients have. There’s a trust factor and an understanding that “we’ve got your back.”

Enter the $15,000 URSA Cine and the significantly higher cost of the Cine 65 (or whatever it will be called). It’s not enough that the 17K camera will have impressive stats. BMD will be trying to create a new market among those young guns aspiring to be top tier in their ambitious choices.

But will BMD price the camera low, say $20,000, which can still force them to limit their responsiveness to clients or will they price it higher, like $25,000-$30,000 and step up to the plate and hit a home run on support for those clients. I’m not trying to knock BMD’s past record, but I believe the 17K camera may appeal to a small enough and influential client base that they too may decide that they create their own ‘legendary’ stories for their clients.

For BMD, I would think they care less about being a market disrupter as they do about raising their profile. And I have to ask, what does 65mm really do for the film visibly? Ben Hur (1959), Lawrence of Arabia, that's the standard. Some directors will just start with it because they can, even if it doesn't add to the story. Then in the final credit, would they want to see "ARRI 65" or "Blackmagic 65?" Which would the audience want to see in the credit? I think they do care, and I think that while BM's profile is rising, it is not there yet.

Adam Langdon wrote:The price, I think for many current BMD Camera owners, puts people on pause.
The Pyxis is VERY affordable, and I see a bunch of people selling their pockets already.

The Ursa Cine, while feature-rich and feels like it will have true lasting power (years to come), is a bit out of price range for the average owner operator of the BMD crowd. I say that loosely. If i was shooting more commercial/narrative work I think it would make sense. I would also plan to own the camera for a long long time.
But the bulk of my work is interviews + B Roll, which doesn't sound that 'sexy', but it pays all the bills. Renting it is a viable option, while owning a Pyxis for the day-to-day...

If we keep saying "I'll wait for the price to come down" or "I'll wait for G2 of the Pyxis" I think we may be a year out. Even as people are saying "NEXT camera. That's what I'm waiting for," it means we are (or we have to be) happy with what we are currently owning. (though, I wonder if BMD is completely done with pocket line?)

Remember, users, the quality of the videos come from us and our skills, and the camera is just a tool. I recently looked back at one of my first cinematographer reels and back then I was using an URSA Mini 4.6k with Rokinon lenses. It still held up! Now, my color grading has gotten much better and my lighting skills have improved, but so much of our ability to capture 'magic' is that instinct to aim, frame, move, and record.

AGREED!

I too look back at what I shot on the BMCC2.5K with Rokinon Lenses, then the UM4.6K with Rokinon Lenses, and am still impressed with how the footage holds up. It's the lighting and frame composition that has improved. Along with some camera movement improvements due to getting a Steadicam, a better slider, and at times using a Dana Dolly. But lighting is where I have seen the biggest improvement. Part of that is the lighting tools. Then of course grading has improved.

In terms of lighting I have to look at my Gaffing work on the feature film Savage that I'm currently helping get the DCP ready for the festival. Primarily all my Nanlite lights with a buddy's Amaran F22C and his Aputure MC lights. We were limited, but made it work. It also proves how far I've come just lighting wise. And, we shot that on a Komodo-X. I'd happy have shot it on the URSA Cine even though the UCine costs more than the Komodo. But the camera only is a part of the image.

I can't wait to rent an UCine in the future to shoot a decent budget project to play with it.

If BM wants to be a serious market contender with the 17k camera it must be prepared to pay the price of giving top support. Entering the high-end market comes with a significant price tag which will only be recovered long after they establish the high-end reliability.

High-end basically means it always works and if it does not then it is made to work or another solution is found on the same day.

IMHO, it would be necessary to offer service contracts for the new Cine too, not only the future ‘65’.
Image-wise it’ll be up there with the best, but for the kind of productions that may want it, fast and reliable service is the key.
I’ve been talking with folks from Arri, and they confirmed that a very substantial part of their prices is financing the service infrastructure. From my own experience, even Sony doesn’t compete in that field.

Having higher equipment prices would impact every purchase or rental. It has worked well for ARRI and Panavision. Your idea of an optional service contract shifts the costs to those who want the service. Since higher prices gear on well-funded projects is seldom purchased if ever. So it would be something the rental house would need to carry at their expense. Then it is complicated by rental agreements with customers who optionally want the higher degree of service.

ARRI keeps it simple by charging more on every camera sale and coming to the rescue when anyone needs emergency assistance. But for BMD how would that translate into the cost to independent purchasers for owner/operators who are used to lower costs with higher risks?

Higher costs might accrue from providing better quality control at the manufacturing and shipping stage as well. Of course BMD has quality control but I imagine there’s room for improvement as well if you try to match ARRI.

Bottom line: Catch 22-pay twice as much or buy two of everything cheaper so you or the rental house always have a spare. Suddenly BMD’s large cost advantage would disappear if prices rose 50% even. Maybe it wouldn’t double costs but only increase costs 20%. Maybe in my dreams BMD is already building in a 20% increase when they price the URSA Cine at $15,000. If not, it may begin doing so for the URSA Cine 65 or whatever it’s called.

Not a simple step as Grant always emphasizes how he wants his gear to be broadly accessible.

Well, having a backup body in store also was the solution needed with the Red One. Over the years, they broadened their service network. But when that didn’t give them the acceptance needed, they had to close down some facilities again (like Berlin). Now they even got sold. Nikon has a well established service network, but will that be enough for the cinema crowd?
The air is quite thin up there…

And I’m only speculating but the difficulty trying to put a dent in ARRI’s market may also be compounded by human nature where all things being equal, you tend to be loyal to your established relationships. This is much more difficult than it might seem because the rarefied air of top cinematographers is like the top tier of a pyramid with many more tiers of cinematographers, going all the way down to indie filmmakers who I imagine take pride in shooting with ARRI because of their reputation in spite of the significant economies of using BMD A cameras, particularly the URSA Mini Pro 12K and 4.6K Pro G2.

So where does BMD go to establish this new market? They are chipping away at it and perhaps the Cine and Cine 65 will be the way to grow the thin wedge that already exists. There are certainly several cinematographers that are impressed by the capabilities of other gear which Sony and BMD and RED have found.

BMD is going in the right Direction .. No need to say they have the know-how .. beside that , they have very good , and ambitious Ideas .. And their Operating System is very Efficient and Practical ..

About possible Reliability Problems , why not to design an AI .. " EMS " , " Error Management System " .. Any problem on the Camera would produce an Error Code , immediately giving the origin and the solution of the problem .. That exists on other systems , on cars , planes ... you immediately know where the trouble is coming from .. An auto-control of the camera .. and a Solution for every possible trouble ..

And maybe decide on a Specific Production Line for the Delicate Components .. sensor module , Image processing chips .. SDI Outputs .. A very carefully designed and built component or system should never fail .. almost never ..

I am Happy for them ... they broadly deserve a Big Success in the Industry ..

Bravo BM ..

Mike , from the Old France ...

The C65 will be beyond my need, but the C12K will be just right, Goldilocks. That said, wow, the b-mount battery and charger will represent an additional, unwanted expense. I understand that 24v will be needed, but a couple batteries and charger is another $2K.

Where BMD is heading with this, it will be possible to work and edit 17K URSA 65 footage on the time line in BRAW in real time on any gaming laptop later Gen.
That is bigger news then just a camera itself.
IMAX workflow will be brought to masses...indies and independent

Darko Djerich wrote:Where BMD is heading with this, it will be possible to work and edit 17K URSA 65 footage on the time line in BRAW in real time on any gaming laptop later Gen.
That is bigger news then just a camera itself.
IMAX workflow will be brought to masses...indies and independent

I doubt that's BMD's objective, whatever the wild expectations of buyers may be.

There's absolutely no demand for IMAX indies, and there are no venues for them. The number of *real* IMAX screens world-wide is I believe well under 50.

Just the prospect of watching the typical under-financed indie production on an actual IMAX screen is horrifying.

John Paines wrote:

Darko Djerich wrote:Where BMD is heading with this, it will be possible to work and edit 17K URSA 65 footage on the time line in BRAW in real time on any gaming laptop later Gen.
That is bigger news then just a camera itself.
IMAX workflow will be brought to masses...indies and independent

I doubt that's BMD's objective, whatever the wild expectations of buyers may be.

There's absolutely no demand IMAX indies, and there are no venues for them. The number of *real* IMAX screens world-wide is I believe well under 50.

Just the prospect of watching the typical under-financed indie production on an actual IMAX screen is horrifying.

Irony is that I believe Coppola made an Indie Production with Megalopolis and that used the Alexa 65.

According the IMDb:

Francis Ford Coppola financed the entire $120 million film out of his own pocket. He had done the same with Apocalypse Now (1979) and One from the Heart (1981), and the failure of the latter made him declare bankruptcy. All his subsequent films up to The Rainmaker (1997) were made to pay off his debts.

Tom Roper wrote:... I understand that 24v will be needed, but a couple batteries and charger is another $2K.

Still we’ve always had to buy batteries and chargers and media! At least the URSA Cine throws in a module with 8 TB of NVMe M.2 SSDs for free!

Above I did the math based on numbers available. The cost of shooting 35mm VistaVision versus URSA Cine 12K with SSD and HDD Storage being used in either table.

Methodology for the Cost of Storage:
Using the 8TB Media Module price by itself as if it were a roll of film, I calculated the cost of 1TB of that Module. Then I went with two methods of deterring storage and backup. One was HDD, where 8TB is roughly $499 these days, so doubled $998 for 8TB Storage and 8TB Backup. Then I did a similar method for an 8TB SSD Desktop Storage Drive. I found the OWC costs $1,629 for one drive. Everything calculates back to 1TB. Thus $998X0.125 in order to get price of 1TB Storage and 1TB Backup for HHD. Add that on to the Media Module.

Now, this is saying you're buying the Media Module. Which really does mean you're paying $1,695 for it flat out. But I'm calculating the cost per 1TB because I'm using that as a measurement for the duration of footage to compare against $1,000FT of VistaVision. Meaning you're still spending that $1.7K up front.

But let's say you go to shoot all 8TB. The cost equals out to you spending the $1,695, and then you have the cost of the storage and back up drives on top.

No matter, the math can help you determine how this compares to film. It's overall more cost effective and that's my goal. You spend substantially less because you easily get more recording time. That's my goal with this.

timbutt2 wrote:Irony is that I believe Coppola made an Indie Production with Megalopolis and that used the Alexa 65.

There's no irony, because a $120 million production is not commonly referred to as an "indie" -- and certainly not in the sense of "for the masses", as claimed above.

And need to point out that Apocalypse Now may have been self-financed, but $31 million in 1970s dollars wasn't exactly a shoe-string budget.

John Paines wrote:

timbutt2 wrote:Irony is that I believe Coppola made an Indie Production with Megalopolis and that used the Alexa 65.

There's no irony, because a $120 million production is not commonly referred to as an "indie" -- and certainly not in the sense of "for the masses", as claimed above.

And need to point out that Apocalypse Now may have been self-financed, but $31 million in 1970s dollars wasn't exactly a shoe-string budget.

I understand. I'm simply saying that because they are self-financed and technically not "Studio Films" they each do qualify as an "Independent Film" even if that budget is beyond the lower tier "Indie" filmmakers capabilities. The term "Indie" too often now means low cost, but it truly meant Independent of the Studio back in the heyday.

One more since I sort of wanted to do an Apples to Apples comparison. So UCine 12K at BRAW 3:1 Open Gate using all the 8TB for the mount of footage you get how does that compare to the amount of film you'd need for VistaVision 35mm. What's the cost difference of buying that film, development, and telecine versus cost of Media and Storage & Backup of the UCine 12K. All the other compression options come along for the ride.

I found you would need to shoot 20,000 FT of VistaVision 35mm Film to reach the amount you can fit on to one of those 8TB Media Modules. That's really impressive! We really can't complain about the amount of space Blackmagic is giving us with the camera at purchase.

Also, I can't calculate what the storage space needed for VistaVision 35mm Film is without contacting a Telecine Company. So I withheld that cost. But technically that's an added cost for the film. The film is already far more expensive so it was fine leaving off.

timbutt2 wrote:The term "Indie" too often now means low cost, but it truly meant Independent of the Studio back in the heyday.

No great value in quibbling here, but when "indies" (meaning movies produced outside the industrial system, with limited resources), were briefly "hot", Hollywood co-opted the word for marketing purposes

Suddenly everything was "indie". The director of the likes of "The Sound of Music" was describing himself as an "indie filmmaker". And studio subdivisions were producing what they called "independent" films Actual independent filmmakers were furious about it. The original meaning didn't specify "low cost", but that much was understood. These were small "personal" films. There was no money in them.

Only if quality of the film could be measured in money spent,
lots of $200M flops would get an Oscar.

It is just another medium that used to be restricted to big budgets, you are right.
Letting a indie and independent have a go at it should not be a crime.

There will always be a "Yay" & "Nay" speakers in the house.
Good on BMD for democratising this medium, it also making it easier for big budgets, too.

Again, I used the math above to determine that the URSA Cine is far more affordable for Indie Filmmakers to shoot VistaVision than it was with motion picture film. That's a great democratizing of the medium.

65mm 17K will be democratized as well. 8TB of Alexa 65 in ARRIRAW 6,560 x 3,100 is 3 hr 1 min. HDE brings it to 5hr 3min. So let's see what Blackmagic ends up revealing for the actual recording times of the 17K before we fully write off as overpriced for Indy Filmmakers.

1,000FT of 65mm Film gets you 8min 53sec worth of footage. Buying the film is $1,509.27 per roll of 1,000 FT according to the Kodak 2024 prices. I don't know what the costs of development and telecine are for 65mm. I don't think they are the same as 35mm. 35mm I know it costs roughly $800 for development and a 4K telecine.

Above I just rounded the $791.40 to $800 and rounded the whole cost to $1,600 for 35mm. But I don't know for certain if the cost of telecine on VistaVision 35 is the same as doing 4-Perf/3-Perf. I assumed it was and the math still got a heftier price for shooting on film versus the URSA 12K.

So I'm almost positive that the cost of shooting on the URSA Cine 17K 65mm will be far more affordable than film. The question becomes how it compares to Arri. Arri remains a rental only with their 65, but that also hasn't been updated since 2015 in terms of sensor or build. I suspect Arri is working on developing their new 35 sensor for it.

In fact, in December of 2022 I spoke with an Arri rep who told me that they couldn't decide which to focus on first for bringing that 35 sensor to; LF or 65. He summed the 65 might be more apt due to being older worth taking to the next level. Then the LF would be easy to do afterwards. But that was end of 2022, and we're nearly midway through 2024 and Arri hasn't made any clear indication what they're doing with their larger format sensors.

timbutt2 wrote:Again, I used the math above to determine that the URSA Cine is far more affordable for Indie Filmmakers to shoot VistaVision than it was with motion picture film. That's a great democratizing of the medium..

"Democratizing"? Thanks to a camera??? When skilled actors, skilled labor, production design, cinematography, sound, locations, post-production, mass-marketing etc. etc. are free, then we can talk about "democracy".

If a "free" or nearly free camera made any real difference to the way the business is structured, or what was possible in the way of moviemaking, the BMPCC 4K would have destroyed Hollywood by now. As would have 16mm. The same claims were made for mini-DV, believe it or not.

Fantasy.....

John Paines wrote:

timbutt2 wrote:
"Democratizing"? Thanks to a camera??? When skilled actors, skilled labor, production design, cinematography, sound, locations, post-production, mass-marketing etc. etc. are free, then we can talk about "democracy".

If a "free" or nearly free camera made any real difference to the way the business is structured, or what was possible in the way of moviemaking, the BMPCC 4K would have destroyed Hollywood by now. As would have 16mm. The same claims were made for mini-DV, believe it or not.

Fantasy.....

If film or cameras are a means of communication, the tools for a mode of expression, then bringing down the price of that mode or making it accessible to those who didn't have the means before is what I would agree with Tim is a democratization of the tool, quite opposite of collectivization.

John Paines wrote:

timbutt2 wrote:Again, I used the math above to determine that the URSA Cine is far more affordable for Indie Filmmakers to shoot VistaVision than it was with motion picture film. That's a great democratizing of the medium..

"Democratizing"? Thanks to a camera??? When skilled actors, skilled labor, production design, cinematography, sound, locations, post-production, mass-marketing etc. etc. are free, then we can talk about "democracy".

If a "free" or nearly free camera made any real difference to the way the business is structured, or what was possible in the way of moviemaking, the BMPCC 4K would have destroyed Hollywood by now. As would have 16mm. The same claims were made for mini-DV, believe it or not.

Fantasy.....

I mean... we made an action feature for super cheap on a Komodo-X because the tools were far more affordable. Timecode boxes that cost far less than Timecode cost 15-years ago. The tools are more affordable for the people involved to do their job. That's democratizing it by making it more possible to it with better quality tools.

All the rest you bring up about skilled actors, labor, production design, etc... well, that's all stuff that requires money for sure. But great production design can be done by a super creative production designer for less than an all green screen stage with the digital sets of today. Who's to say that being crafty with a smart budget on set builds and locations can't be good? And, if you have tools that are more affordable for capturing that scene with the great set in stunning quality without having to pay the hundreds of thousands for the top tier cinema camera, then why not call it democratizing.

Remember a lot of industry filmmakers started out small. Sam Raimi shot Super 16 for Evil Dead and then went on to higher quality 35mm films. Peter Jackson shot 16mm and so did Christopher Nolan. Those were the affordable tools for them then. Spending the money you would on that film is far greater than what you'd spend on an URSA Cine. You'll get big picture feel and really great image quality for a fraction of the cost.

So this could mean you can stretch your budget for better actors and better production design. Renting an URSA Cine will be far more affordable than renting an Alexa. So then you can put the money you want to put into the talent.