Ursa Mini!

It makes no sense to do an MFT mount when MFT lenses won't natively cover the sensor.

no sense, why? its possible to use the m43 mount with s35 sensors, jvc have shown it, they have an active mount on theire cameras. you could use all your existing m43 adapters in s35 mode plus you could use a speedbooster in windowed mode when shotting slowmo with obvious benefits:
1. more light on the sensor (much appreciated cause shutterspeed is higher)
2. a wider image and more shallow depth of field.

if they would release the ursa-mini (most certain not gonna happen) i would clearly choose it before any other mount, it would be a win i dont see a downside to it.

why would some one buy the heavy URSA now that this is out ?

tempting to sell my URSA and get the mini as it is lighter and does the same thing

Because right now the maximum rates are double the mini.

Plus it has extra overhead for other potential future features like LUTs.

Plus in 2 years when the next sensor comes along it'll be a cheaper upgrade ?

JB

Thanks JB yeah that makes sense i guess im just waiting for a good shoulder mount to come out so i can do some more hand held stuff

It should do fine on a Ronin, or a Helix. They told me that the production model is going to be lighter than the display models, because of the magnesium chassis, but also the EVF and handle were on the display models, and will be easier to remove on the production models. Even with them, a Ronin or Helix could fly it. It's also pretty small; not much bigger than an Epic.

Thank you, Rakesh! Thats great!

Is there any plans for internal battery and maybe HDMI out?
Would love to get these features.

Could any1 over at NAB tell us anything about the balance on your sholder? Looking at the pictures it looks like the shoulder pad is way to far back, making it front heavy? But, if this is so and you would get any other brand shoulder pad. You would need an adapter to be able to push viewfinder forward? Could any of you at NAB check with any of the 3rd party shoulder pad manufacturers if they have any plans?

Overall, looking GOOD!!

Cheers

In this video petty says the shoulder pad is adjustable so you can balance it to your needs. The viewfinder is adjustable outwards from the body, not forwards and back.

Could any1 over at NAB tell us anything about the balance on your sholder? Looking at the pictures it looks like the shoulder pad is way to far back, making it front heavy? But, if this is so and you would get any other brand shoulder pad. You would need an adapter to be able to push viewfinder forward? Could any of you at NAB check with any of the 3rd party shoulder pad manufacturers if they have any plans?

Overall, looking GOOD!!

Cheers

It felt pretty good when I tried it. It has two rosettes that you can attach the arm to, so it's pretty flexible in that regard. On my shoulder it felt as nicely balanced as the Cion. The Cion's prettier I'll admit, but I'm still not convinced about the Cion's imaging capabilities. Ursa Mini's I have no doubts about because I've been using BMD cameras for the past couple of years.

why would some one buy the heavy URSA now that this is out ?

tempting to sell my URSA and get the mini as it is lighter and does the same thing

Because right now the maximum rates are double the mini.

Plus it has extra overhead for other potential future features like LUTs.

Plus in 2 years when the next sensor comes along it'll be a cheaper upgrade ?

JB

Headroom, not overhead. I doubt that the camera has more overhead than its smaller sibling, since it runs the same software, more or less

It's just the engineer in me... headroom is room to expand. Overhead is wasted compute cycles resulting from pointless features and bad code.

Is there any plans for internal battery and maybe HDMI out?
Would love to get these features.

I'm pretty sure it already has an HDMI output. It also has a (welcome) timecode port, which will be a perfect match for Tentacle Sync. I've already contacted my preferred vendor to get on the pre-order list.

It also has XLR inputs and preamps. No idea whether or not the preamps are any good yet, but it least is has them, which is a step in the right direction. I'll try to get a listen to some audio recorded on it while I'm here, because if the preamps are decent, the Ursa Mini would make for a great gimbal cam as well as a great ENG camera.

Conflicting info everywhere. BM guys interviewed at NAB mentioned that Ursa Mini can do

- up to 30fps @ full resolution in global shutter mode
- up to 60fps @ full resolution in rolling shutter mode
- "more" in windowed mode, BM "blurb" says 160fps (presumably in rolling shutter mode?)

However, quick check vs spec page and it turns out only 4.6k sensor version have rolling shutter mode, while the 4k sensor versions are locked to global shutter mode only, yet frame rate entry on technical spec page still indicates 60fps is available for 4k Ursa Mini.

Can someone from BM clarify - can 4k Ursa Mini shoot 4k at 60fps and does it have have 160fps 1080p windowed mode or are those features only available in 4.6k versions?

It makes no sense to do an MFT mount when MFT lenses won't natively cover the sensor.

no sense, why? its possible to use the m43 mount with s35 sensors, jvc have shown it, they have an active mount on theire cameras. you could use all your existing m43 adapters in s35 mode plus you could use a speedbooster in windowed mode when shotting slowmo with obvious benefits:
1. more light on the sensor (much appreciated cause shutterspeed is higher)
2. a wider image and more shallow depth of field.

if they would release the ursa-mini (most certain not gonna happen) i would clearly choose it before any other mount, it would be a win i dont see a downside to it.

I agree in that a MFT mount would work with the 4K Ver., not the 4.6. The 4K Mini is not a Super 35, (sensor is 21x12mm), and is same as Std 35 sensor, and only slightly larger than a MFT, so a MFT mount on that sensor would work for using adapted larger lenses like Zeiss ZFs and even the new Veydra Mini Prime Cine lenses would cover the sensor.

So I too, would like to the the 4K Mini in at least a Passive MFT mount, do not need active, as most Panny and Olympus lenses are not going to cover the larger sensor.

So, can the URSA mini use the same BMD v-lock battery plate as the ursa?

^ Never mind the above question. Grant says its the same BMD plate.

Was hoping for at least 75fps forHD. Still will be picking the 4k EF mini tough.

What post effect are using or are planned to use the gyroscope data?
Probably the gyroscope data could be useful to help stabilization or 3D tracking in post.

Press release:
"Built in gyroscope allowing recording of camera pitch, roll and yaw movements when working in RAW."

Product description:

"Some models of URSA Mini also include GPS and gyroscopic sensors so that information can be stored as metadata in the video files."

What models of Ursa Mini have Gyroscope?

Was hoping for at least 75fps forHD. Still will be picking the 4k EF mini tough.

According to the article on EOS HD it will. "Slow-mo goes to 160fps in 1080p (albeit with a 1:1 crop of the sensor)."

Is it me, or was BMD sounding more confident in their shipping schedule in their NAB interviews.

I have no expectation these will be around before August/Sept, but I thought their tone was a little different.

Josh, the shoulder pad can be balanced on your shoulder by mounting it more to the front or more to the back depending upon the need. And the EVF can be adjusted to reach either left or right eye, but the whole thing can be adjusted forward or backward to reach your eye properly after you have balanced the camera on your shoulder. One of the photos posted from NAB revealed the front to back adjustment.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

In this video petty says the shoulder pad is adjustable so you can balance it to your needs. The viewfinder is adjustable outwards from the body, not forwards and back.

The evf has forwards / backwards adjustment as well as away from the body or closer...

JB

Headroom, not overhead. I doubt that the camera has more overhead than its smaller sibling, since it runs the same software, more or less

It's just the engineer in me... headroom is room to expand. Overhead is wasted compute cycles resulting from pointless features and bad code.

Let's say it like this.

URSA can do twice the frame rates of the URSA Mini...It will always have double that capacity in terms of cooling....in terms of internal bandwidth...media will probably be the bottleneck.....

Plus it has an upgradeable sensor....We've already seen a V2 sensor of the 4K in 12 months since the URSA shipped.

The original question was why buy an URSA.....

JB

Is it me, or was BMD sounding more confident in their shipping schedule in their NAB interviews.

I have no expectation these will be around before August/Sept, but I thought their tone was a little different.

Each camera has come to market substantially sooner than the previous models. The original BMCC took well over a year from the time it was announced for people to get them. And then it took another several months to fill all the orders. Then the BMPCC took 5 months, and 4k took almost a year again, but they got caught up on the back orders a lot faster on the 4K than the original. Then the Ursa only took about 4 months from announcement to availability.

What we have to remember is that when the first BMCC was announced they had never made a camera before. They had no infrastructure. I'm sure they've learned a lot and I'm sure a lot of the ground work in fabrication that has been laid will pave a much smoother road. I expect that we will see a lot fewer problems and faster launches on every generation.

Sure I expect we might have to wait longer than the predicted release date. But I don't think it'll ever be as bad as it was in the past.

Let's say it like this.

URSA can do twice the frame rates of the URSA Mini...It will always have double that capacity in terms of cooling....in terms of internal bandwidth...media will probably be the bottleneck.....

Plus it has an upgradeable sensor....We've already seen a V2 sensor of the 4K in 12 months since the URSA shipped.

The original question was why buy an URSA.....

JB

Agreed. We were saying the same thing, after all.

They use the same media, so my guess is that either heat or bandwidth are the limiting factors that prevent the Mini from matching the big bear's maximum frame rates. Whether or not that's correct won't change the fact that the Ursa can reach 2x the frame rate of the Mini, and has an exchangeable lens mount and sensor block.

But URSA doesn't have a GPS and gyroscope.


Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

Each camera has come to market substantially sooner than the previous models. The original BMCC took well over a year from the time it was announced for people to get them. And then it took another several months to fill all the orders. Then the BMPCC took 5 months, and 4k took almost a year again, but they got caught up on the back orders a lot faster on the 4K than the original. Then the Ursa only took about 4 months from announcement to availability.

What we have to remember is that when the first BMCC was announced they had never made a camera before. They had no infrastructure. I'm sure they've learned a lot and I'm sure a lot of the ground work in fabrication that has been laid will pave a much smoother road. I expect that we will see a lot fewer problems and faster launches on every generation.

Sure I expect we might have to wait longer than the predicted release date. But I don't think it'll ever be as bad as it was in the past.

Yes, as I would be booking a URSA mini 4.6 K, I expect it to come around October this year and with no problems.

Then my BMPC4K would become my B-cam.

Sorry to repeat the question, but does anyone know -- On the URSA mini is there the ability to manually control the iris from the side handle?

Specs say the handle can control start/stop, focus and iris. From the looks of the photos it appears there are only three buttons on the side handle. That means one for start/stop, one for focus, and one for iris. And my concern is that means they are the same auto buttons as on the BMCC and BMPCC. Auto focus is fine, but to be limited to only auto iris on the side handle would be crippling for most EF lenses that have no manual iris ring.

Does anyone know whether the iris control on the side handle is only auto iris, or will it allow control?

Surely there must be a generic mount which maintains a short sensor/flange distance? If it's not a MFT mount what is it? A P/L mount?

IMS mount?

Does anyone know whether the iris control on the side handle is only auto iris, or will it allow control?

I asked about this today, and currently it is just an auto iris button.

Of course it is just a button, and one would assume a firmware update could change the auto focus/auto iris buttons to iris up/down should they choose to do that, but I have no idea if they have any interest.

Then again, after the better part of a decade we finally got the ability to format media in our Hyperdecks... so maybe anything is possible if you wait long enough.

I agree in that a MFT mount would work with the 4K Ver., not the 4.6. The 4K Mini is not a Super 35, (sensor is 21x12mm), and is same as Std 35 sensor, and only slightly larger than a MFT, so a MFT mount on that sensor would work for using adapted larger lenses like Zeiss ZFs and even the new Veydra Mini Prime Cine lenses would cover the sensor.

So I too, would like to the the 4K Mini in at least a Passive MFT mount, do not need active, as most Panny and Olympus lenses are not going to cover the larger sensor.

4.6K would be just great in M43. You have to think of an open standard its a camera that is delivered to put a lens adapter to it. M43 is the Adaptermount. Infact it should be advertised as "Open Mount"... the beauty of it is this way you can adapt nearly any lens to it. Blackmagic also have the technology to feed the M43 Mount so it could be translated by the Metabones M43 to EF Mount your canon lenses would behave as they do with the native EF mount. Really there would be no downside to it, its only win. we just have to let go of the thought that if it is a m43 mount you have to attach m43 lenses, free yourself (:-).

Thank you very much for the reply Haakon!
I've been wondering about the side handle iris control from the moment they announced the camera. I have to say I'm sad that the EF mount version will be impossible to use with Canon EF lenses when shoulder mounted as virtually of them only have electronic control of the iris. Such a shortsighted shame.

4.6K would be just great in M43. You have to think of an open standard its a camera that is delivered to put a lens adapter to it. M43 is the Adaptermount. Infact it should be advertised as "Open Mount"... the beauty of it is this way you can adapt nearly any lens to it. Blackmagic also have the technology to feed the M43 Mount so it could be translated by the Metabones M43 to EF Mount your canon lenses would behave as they do with the native EF mount. Really there would be no downside to it, its only win. we just have to let go of the thought that if it is a m43 mount you have to attach m43 lenses, free yourself (:-).

The problem is that like EF, the MFT mount is a pretty crappy mount for rotational torque. As soon as you put weight and a couple of adaptors, the image moves a lot unless you start adding rails and lens supports.

You want mft because it has a short flange to allow you to "adapt" to other lenses, not because it's mft...

like EF, mft isn't really designed for mounting cinema lenses. They move a lot and adding adaptors only adds to that pain...

Who are the users of an MFT mount that won't work with native MFT lenses....? Those that want to adapt legacy STILLS lenses and use speed boosters...?

It doesn't make sense to me to make a WHOLE camera that can only work because of an after-market metabone lens adaptor that gets you to EF....

They'd be better off making their own open mount with adaptors. MFT just doesn't make sense....


JB

The problem is that like EF, the MFT mount is a pretty crappy mount for rotational torque. As soon as you put weight and a couple of adaptors, the image moves a lot unless you start adding rails and lens supports.

yeah m43 can be messy. The only real sturdy ones ive seen are pl and the RED EF with the locking mechanism.

They'd be better off making their own open mount with adaptors. MFT just doesn't make sense....

totally agreed, someone should make the "open mount" something similar to E-Mount with PL Locking. This could work if you take Atomos as a rolemodel they have made a standard for HDMI protocoll to trigger recorders now being adopted by sony, panasonic...

yeah m43 can be messy. The only real sturdy ones ive seen are pl and the RED EF with the locking mechanism.

It's great. It only costs 2000 bucks...
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc-ti-canon-mount

totally agreed, someone should make the "open mount" something similar to E-Mount with PL Locking. This could work if you take Atomos as a rolemodel they have made a standard for HDMI protocoll to trigger recorders now being adopted by sony, panasonic...

BM have been doing that kind of thing for a long time. eg, pretty sure they did the first 12G and 6G HD-SDI for example, so their standards became THE standard once they were ratified....

JB

yeah m43 can be messy. The only real sturdy ones ive seen are pl and the RED EF with the locking mechanism.

It's great. It only costs 2000 bucks...
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc-ti-canon-mount

totally agreed, someone should make the "open mount" something similar to E-Mount with PL Locking. This could work if you take Atomos as a rolemodel they have made a standard for HDMI protocoll to trigger recorders now being adopted by sony, panasonic...

BM have been doing that kind of thing for a long time. eg, pretty sure they did the first 12G and 6G HD-SDI for example, so their standards became THE standard once they were ratified....

JB

Hey JB how do you cope with the Ergonomics of the URSA ? would it be worth smashing out 3G's for a wooden camera shoulder mount and adapter plate ?

... The problem is that like EF, the MFT mount is a pretty crappy mount for rotational torque. As soon as you put weight and a couple of adaptors, the image moves a lot unless you start adding rails and lens supports...


JB

John, I'm planning to purchase the URSA MINOR 4.6K EF and a set of Rokinon Ciné DS lenses. I'll include the shoulder mount kit and the BMD EVF. And screw-on filters (either 77mm or 82mm with a step-up ring to avoid vignette when adding IR Cut).

I'd like to shoot with just the bare run-and-gun setup on my shoulder and even when using a tripod. I do want the ability to change focus while shooting. I won't have any adapters or other weight on the lens stressing the EF mount. I don't want to have a crappy mount experience when focussing.

In your opinion, is it essential that I add rails and a lens support to keep the image steady when changing focus on the EF lenses? I haven't a clue how to support the Rokinon Ciné DS lenses unless you mean adding a follow focus and using a matte box on rails would add enough support.

If I can't expect a steady image while manually focussing due to the limitation of the EF mount, then I'll switch to the PL mount and that lone SLR Magic 50mm APO. Thank you so much for your guidance.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

I'm planning to purchase the URSA MINOR 4.6K EF and a set of Rokinon Ciné DS lenses...

I expect there will be many of us doing the same. I've already placed my order. And like you, I'm concerned about the mount choice. Since the pocket came out I invested in a range of Nikon mount lenses, which appear to have no value with the Ursa Mini. This has worked well for me since I also shoot stills, so I can share lenses with a D7100. With BM no longer offering Nikon mounts on newer cameras, the whole situation has come back to bite me! I was so proud of myself for be efficient and sharing lenses among so many cameras... Looks like those days are over!

I'm planning to purchase the URSA MINOR 4.6K EF and a set of Rokinon Ciné DS lenses...

I expect there will be many of us doing the same. I've already placed my order. And like you, I'm concerned about the mount choice. Since the pocket came out I invested in a range of Nikon mount lenses, which appear to have no value with the Ursa Mini. This has worked well for me since I also shoot stills, so I can share lenses with a D7100. With BM no longer offering Nikon mounts on newer cameras, the whole situation has come back to bite me! I was so proud of myself for be efficient and sharing lenses among so many cameras... Looks like those days are over!

Well, Nikon lenses do have a larger flange focal distance than Canon, so you could still adapt them to the EF-Version.

I expect there will be many of us doing the same. I've already placed my order. And like you, I'm concerned about the mount choice. Since the pocket came out I invested in a range of Nikon mount lenses, which appear to have no value with the Ursa Mini. This has worked well for me since I also shoot stills, so I can share lenses with a D7100. With BM no longer offering Nikon mounts on newer cameras, the whole situation has come back to bite me! I was so proud of myself for be efficient and sharing lenses among so many cameras... Looks like those days are over!

If you have older Nikon lenses with manual aperture control, you can get very cheap but sturdy adapters from ebay. if you have G-Nikkors there is a good adpater from Novoflex that lets you manually adjust aperture, there are cheap ones on ebay but i cant recommend them, go for a novoflex they are rock-solid.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/7 ... r_for.html

... If I can't expect a steady image while manually focussing due to the limitation of the EF mount, then I'll switch to the PL mount and that lone SLR Magic 50mm APO ...

If you're getting the BMD shoulder mount kit, adding a pair of short carbon fiber rods and a lens support adds hardly any weight. Wouldn't that address your concern, or am I missing something?

-

... If I can't expect a steady image while manually focussing due to the limitation of the EF mount, then I'll switch to the PL mount and that lone SLR Magic 50mm APO ...

If you're getting the BMD shoulder mount kit, adding a pair of short carbon fiber rods and a lens support adds hardly any weight. Wouldn't that address your concern, or am I missing something?

-

Thanks, Peter, but I don't know if a lens support works with the Rokinon Ciné DS lenses. Wouldn't they need a threaded hole in their lens to fix the lens in place?

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

In your opinion, is it essential that I add rails and a lens support to keep the image steady when changing focus on the EF lenses? I haven't a clue how to support the Rokinon Ciné DS lenses unless you mean adding a follow focus and using a matte box on rails would add enough support.

If I can't expect a steady image while manually focussing due to the limitation of the EF mount, then I'll switch to the PL mount and that lone SLR Magic 50mm APO. Thank you so much for your guidance.

Rick Lang
Sent using Tapatalk HD

I have been using EF lenses, many of them are Samyang (Rokinon) amd they work fine even without rails and lens support. Lens support will be good if you are using big lenses (like 70-200 Canon).

This steady image concept has a problem with Canon lenses which work on auto mode too as there's no hard stop. Rokinon lenses have a little bit of play because of their build quality. But that's about all, that's what my experience is.

Using Zeiss ZE, I never had a problem. With CP2 I never missed focus.

That said, to clear any confusion, would have loved if BMD introduced EF-lock mount in their cameras. Kine cameras have that. Canon C-300 Mark II ad says that it will have this as an option. Why not the Blackmagic cameras too?

Do we know what the ISO/ASA are yet?

Do we know what the ISO/ASA are yet?

Yes. With 4K sensor, the base ISO is 400 and you have 200, 400, 800. Same sensor as present URSA and BMPC4k.

With 4.6K sensor model, the base ISO is 800 and you have 200, 400, 800, 1200 and 1600.

I would assume, 800 ISO in rolling shutter, and 400 ISO in Global. 13 stops in GS mode would be really nice.

I'm looking at the Mini and had a few questions I can't find answers to. Does anyone have answers to any of the following..? All questions pertaining to the 4.6k EF version:

1. Can the Ursa Mini record RAW CinemaDNG at lower resolutions than 4.6k or 4k? These are the only two resolutions listed on the website. What I want to know is, will it record 3k RAW CinemaDNG or HD RAW CinemaDNG? In some cases I'd like the RAW capabilities at lower resolutions for added storage space, etc.

2. The ProRes format says it has "film dynamic range," but isn't the RAW info lost when recording to ProRes since ProRes is not a RAW codec?

3. Will the Usra Mini 4.6k record 60 fps at full 4.6k RAW CinemaDNG? Or is it only with ProRes?

4. Can I adjust the compression ration of the RAW CinemaDNG from 4:1 to a higher ratio, like 5:1, 6:1 or higher? This is a big deal! CF cards are insanely expensive and CinemaDNG codec seems to be bloated beyond belief. I'm coming from the RED world so Im used to getting 30 minutes of 4k on a 64GB card, and the Ursa Mini can only get 17 minutes on a 128GB card twice the size! What's up with that!?

5. Anyone have a recommended CF2.0 card they would use with the Ursa Mini? Or cards to stay away from? Or a reseller that has good deals on CF cards?

Thanks for the help!

On more question..

I know this has been explored with URSA but I don't know if there was a solution..

Is there a CFast to SD adapter available so one could buy the adapter and use SD cards?

To Subrata:

How would one actually use the Canon 70-200? As has been confirmed, the side handle only offers an auto iris, so it will be difficult to use any of the Canon EF lenses with no way to manually control the iris.

If you know of another means to control the iris on the URSA mini when using Canon EF lenses, please explain because I'm hoping there is an alternative.

Rick, if the lens has a fixed front, no length change when focusing, a small clamping style matt box attached to carbon rails will support the lens front, effectively locking out the,lens mount play. I did this on my MFT mount pocket with the Veydra prime lenses, the 80mm clamping ring in the rail mounted matt box clamps the front of the lens, holding it securely in place. This adds a light lens shade and two 4x4 filter slot for ND filters.

I'm pretty sure it already has an HDMI output.

From the official page with tech specs we can find the camera have no HDMI-out today,
(https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... techspecs/)
which, for example, a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera has.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... techspecs/
But really we are more interested in the internal power solution like BMCC has
in addition to an external one. I hope it has, or will.

With 4.6K sensor model, the base ISO is 800 and you have 200, 400, 800, 1200 and 1600.

Hi, would you provide a source link to that specs, please?

If this had an interchangeable mount system I'd buy one immediately. BM really should make an interchangeable mount standard on all of their cameras. It's one of the primary reasons that I own a Red. I switch mounts all of the time. From FD to PL to PV to EF... And being able to do so without having to buy or rent other cameras is ideal. To me a camera is, for the most part now that the quality is so high across so many manufacturers, just a box to record the images that the lenses are making.

Blackmagic seems really good about making open standards. This is one place where they can go further in that direction.

And to improve upon the Red system and take a page from the E-mount and MFT mount, the closer to the sensor the better. There are a lot of really beautiful and fun old c-mount lenses that can be used in windowed sensor modes or on the smaller BMPCC and BMMC sensors, because of the MFT mount's super short FFD. And then that allows for the Focal reducer/speed boosters as well. And for my favorite FD mount lenses, and a lot of other great stills lenses which EF mounts won't play with.

Just my opinion : )

Anna, the new cameras all have external battery/power only. No internal battery options. However, the URAS and URSA Mini both have a 4-pin external power connection that works in conjunction with the external battery plate, to provide uninterrupted power for longer continious takes. Mathis is how the ENG cameras were powered. Modern flash ram for firmware eliminates the need for an internal memory battery found on older cameras.

BM web site has tech specs for the cameras.