Before I add URSA to cart

I have a few questions... I mainly shoot weddings with 2 C100s and a Canon 70D I was going to replace the 70D with another C100 but for about the same price I can get the URSA and feel I can use it for more high end stuff in the future like music videos and commercial shoots.

My question is low light performance. I keep reading it isn't all that great and some say it isn't to bad... I don't have any cine lenes yet but I do have some fast Canon glass. Would the URSA + let's say the Canon 85 1.2 or 35 1.4 wake up the low light performance lets say at an evening wedding ceremony in a church?

Next question is editing. I downloaded some sample CinemaDNG files to test in premiere. Premiere saw the sequence as one clip which is cool and I popped it right on the timeline. It played back pretty good at 100%. I was even able to roundtrip to adobe speedgrade. When I tried to apply an effect that I always use premiere crashed. When I added transitions premiere struggled. Do I just need more horsepower or is editing like that with RAW not recommended?

Hi Drake,

I don't use Premier so I can't comment on it's performance. I can comment that that editing native 4k footage requires more computer resources. I think that's a no-brainer though.

I always process my raw and BMD Film ProRes in Resolve and send it to my editor. I know that Resolve is designed to work well with BMD footage so that's what I stick with.

The BMD 4K cameras work fine in low light. That being said, if it's too dark to see your subject in real life, the BMD 4K cams will represent that. If you are looking for a camera to turn night to day, then none of the BMD cameras fit the bill. They arte very light hungry and work best with proper lighting. If you need a run and gun type setup, I personally don't think ANY of the BMD cameras are suited for that. However, I do like using my BMPCC with Speedboster in lower light situations.

Thanks Dave.
I don't want to turn night to day but boosting just a tad if need be would be good. The C100s will still be the run and gun camera. The URSA in a wedding situation would be Cam A during the Ceremony and something like the first dance.

Like I said it's main purpose would be for more controlled shoots like music videos in the future.

Just curious have you held the URSA before? I would never take that to a wedding shoot. Its way to heavy to be lugging around for even an hour of wedding shoot.

Obviously also consider (and I'm sure you will) batteries and media!

A few days ago I shot an aftermovie for a New Year's party, entirely on the URSA, mainly with a sigma 18-35 1.8 wide open. I couldn't use any on camera light and it was all indoor with many colored club lights, stroboscopes, laserbeams etc.
It was a pain in the ass, it's pretty bad in low-light... I did managed to shoot quite a lot of nice footage but to be honest; RAW was my savior. Also, 80 fps is awesome for this type of productions but due to the lost of light I used it only a few times.

By the way, the weight of this machine. Damn... After the party finished, at 6 am, I could barely lift my right arm. No, this camera is not ideal for run and gun shooting from the shoulder.

At the end of the day I think for high-end stuff this camera is brilliant, the image is fantastisch and 3:1 raw and 80fps on 4k is great!! But for weddings and run and gun shooting absolutely not!

@Blane
It would be a stationary cam during the ceremony. I usually shoot with 3 cams and the center isle shot never moves. But with higher 4k res I could zoom way in on a 1080 timeline which would be cool.

My C100s will be the run and gun shots

Thanks Rutger! I have that lens as well and if it didn't work im not sure how much better my 1.2 glass would be.

I definitely won't be doing any run and gun with it. Just set it on the tripod and leave it and use other cams for other shots.

Im sure it's overkill at a wedding, the justification is other uses outside of weddings and buying another C100 for the same price just doesn't seem like a good move. But if I can't shoot a low light ceremony then maybe i need to rethink.

Drake,

Here is a good example of it's capabilities almost a year ago before raw was implemented. There are some low light shots in it for reference. This was hot in April 2014.

http://daveperry.net/vbr/

Thanks for sharing Dave! Loved the BTS video. good stuff. LOL

Here are some frame grabs from a shoot I did in a church using my BMPC-4K, mostly at f2.8. Same sensor as URSA, and URSA might be slightly lower noise because of its improved cooling system.

https://herefortheweather.wordpress.com ... long-lens/

Note: These were shot ProRes 1080p in "Video" (Rec.709). ProRes tends to smooth-out noise slightly compared to RAW, and Video mode crushes the shadows a bit, so YMMV.

@Peter

Wow. That looks great at 2.8. Is that at 400ASA?
if so, even lower light and if im at 1.2 then I should be good.

@Peter. Wow. That looks great at 2.8. Is that at 400ASA? if so, even lower light and if im at 1.2 then I should be good.

Details are in my blog post with each example frame.

Most shots were ISO 800, the rest were ISO 400. Where the light was dimmest, I had to set the shutter at 270 degrees to slightly increase exposure a bit (knowing this also slightly increases motion blur compared to "normal" 180 degree shutter).

@Peter

Wow. That looks great at 2.8. Is that at 400ASA?
if so, even lower light and if im at 1.2 then I should be good.

Peter's event was in daytime supplying lots of natural light but you plan to shoot in the evening so that will be missing at this time of year.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

My shoot was on a rainy day, so although it was daytime, it was very overcast outside. Daylight coming in through the church's windows was only about as bright as the very dim artificial light shining down from the fixtures on the ceiling.

It was darker inside that church than I prefer to shoot in with any cam, but there was no budget to add more light.

The 3 different color temp light sources (natural overcast, incandescents, and g*d-know-what flo lights) made for fun color corrections in post!

I just can't imagine shooting a wedding with an URSA. You don't need 4k for wedding work. Plus, the URSA is a proper cinema camera, that requires lights and a crew to really work properly, and a ton of memory cards. I have a fully rigged BMPC weight into at 17lbs. I can't imagine carrying that thing around. I would be more inclined to shoot a wedding with a BMPCC, Sigma 18-35, SmallHD monitor, and a speedbooster. The sensor will be flattering, where as the 4K is going to show every skin pore and imperfection. The bride will be furious! Now, if you are going to make movies or do commercial work and you have access to a dolly and a jib, get the URSA.

Scott: The OP says -- more than once -- that he would use an URSA for a locked-off shot (on a tripod) at a wedding. He also says he'd like to shoot 4K so he can crop/scale in post as needed. He says he has other uses for the camera, including higher-end shoots with bigger budgets, and that he doesn't plan to use an URSA for run & gun.

An URSA with an add-on battery is bigger/heavier than a BMPC-4K with the same add-on battery. Adding a monitor, speedbooster, etc. to a BMPC-4K starts to bring them somewhat closer in terms of size/heft. The difference might not be significant to the OP given the URSA's other capabilities vs. cost.

Concerning 4K vs. 1080p and skin detail: Detail is somewhat smoothed when the video is rendered/delivered at 1080p or less. If necessary, detail can easily be smoothed globally/selectively in the grade. Shooting at 4K gives you options that shooting at 1080p does not. True, beautiful skin is important, but for example, so too are minute details in a wedding dress (as is lack of moire).

Many weddings take place outdoors in daylight, where URSA's high frame rates for slo-mo -- including in 4K -- will not present an issue concerning adequate exposure.

True also, the ISO 1600 capability and extra stop of latitude offered by the BMCC & BMPCC compared to the BMPC-4K & URSA are awesome features, but might not be the OP's highest or only priorities.

Personally I'm not a fan of the URSA's all-in-one design and weight. I prefer individual components rigged together as needed for the flexibility it offers. But the OP's preferences may be different. It's all good.

Thanks Peter! Yes, that is correct. I shoot more weddings than anything else, that is why I included that in my post and I would love to use the URSA at a wedding but shooting 1080 prores. not 4k.

The main purpose of the URSA would be higher end work. Music videos and commercial stuff are going to happen as well but I can't deny that weddings are a huge part of my portfolio.

The only reason I am thinking URSA was I was going to spend $5500 any way so whats $500 more and I would feel future proof for a little while. I do wish it didn't weigh as much but I have yet to find the perfect camera and if image quality is as good as some of the reviews I am willing to deal with some things as I still have 2 C100s for run and gun, gimbal shots and maybe jib until i upgrade that...

George, don't forget to factor in the cost of media when considering URSA.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD