**Revisiting the 4.6K Sensor in the BMCC/BMPC Body**

This may have been mentioned before, but I really want to see the new sensor in the original form factor. Even if it has to lose the HFR capabilities and/or other options and features because of a different cooling system, hardware, etc.

Given the advances in technology and what every other company is cramming into smaller bodies, it has to be possible, right?

Would anyone else buy one?

I think it would be fair to ask, and see who else would love to see the original body design come back with a new sensor. Because I remember reading a lot of negative comments about original cinema camera body design, or lack there of... (maybe im missing whole point of simplicity... )..


Sent - Tapatalk

I think it would be awesome to have the 4.6K in the BMCC form factor. Even stripped down frame rates like up to 30 or even 24 max. It would be an awesome BCam or C,D etc cam.

The form factor would be awesome for body, car mount etc.

I'd definitely get one.

I would buy one for sure.

I think it would be more beneficial to have the 4.6k sensor in something like a micro body

That can work too, but I personally would rather have the original with the screen.

Many of us love SLRs/mirrorless cameras because of their size. We can take them anywhere, blend in and shoot amazing quality. Although the ergonomics of the BMCC/PC are not as convenient as a traditional handheld camera design, they work. It's easy to throw the camera around your neck (strap) or in your backpack and go.

Either way, 4.6K and 15 stops in a smaller body would be ideal.

I think it's a piece of this growing puzzle that is missing right now. Put your new technology back into the cameras that people have grown to use and love!

I know pocket lovers would love a nice and shiny new 4K BMPCC...

Maybe next year in an update to the Pocket or the Micro, but I would think 24/25 fps maximum and raw but perhaps not all the codec options and only windowed frames rather than downscaling from the full sensor to UHD and HD for ProRes. As soon as its announced though, there is bound to be complaints it doesn't do 100 fps windowed or even 50 fps open gate!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the 4.6K Sensor in the BMCC/BMPC Body would be great for a "Crash Cam" type of scenario. Considering that the original BMCC was used as such on a few productions. So you could have URSA, URSA Mini, and BMCC (Blackmagic Crash Camera) all on the 4.6K sensor. I like it.

Me too, in a heartbeat!
I still love the original body - plus it still can be rigged pretty light weight if necessary.

Me too, in a heartbeat!
I still love the original body - plus it still can be rigged pretty light weight if necessary.

I suspect that most Ursa Mini rigs will weigh less than most of of the BMCC rigs when fully assembled, because you need so much less stuff to make the Ursa Mini usable than the you do for the BMCC, and the camera body itself is slightly lighter on top of that.

I expect that much of the dynamic range / noise performance and global/rolling shutter switching ability is down to the superior cooling of the Ursa and Ursa Mini - rather than just the sensor. So it is possible that there is insufficient space inside the cinema camera body form factor to improve the cooling so that this newer sensor will work as well.


I would love someone to create a decent aftermarket cooling system for the cinema/production cam body. It would be interesting to see how much farther the camera could be pushed with a more substantial peltier or even fan based cooling system.

Me too, in a heartbeat!
I still love the original body - plus it still can be rigged pretty light weight if necessary.

I suspect that most Ursa Mini rigs will weigh less than most of of the BMCC rigs when fully assembled, because you need so much less stuff to make the Ursa Mini usable than the you do for the BMCC, and the camera body itself is slightly lighter on top of that.

Maybe, But with a smaller camera you can choose if you want the Full/heavy rig or not

I expect that much of the dynamic range / noise performance and global/rolling shutter switching ability is down to the superior cooling of the Ursa and Ursa Mini - rather than just the sensor. So it is possible that there is insufficient space inside the cinema camera body form factor to improve the cooling so that this newer sensor will work as well.


I would love someone to create a decent aftermarket cooling system for the cinema/production cam body. It would be interesting to see how much farther the camera could be pushed with a more substantial peltier or even fan based cooling system.

I think most people here didnt literally mean the same body. I think they meant a camera as small as the BMPC/BMCC At least thats what I understood from reading the comments

In my mind, it's as easy as opening up the production camera and just swapping sensors. I mean, why not, right? The "Blackmagic Production 4.6K EF" camera.

Of course, I am speaking foolishly because I do not know what is possible and what is not...but I would imagine it's not IMPOSSIBLE to make a smaller camera. We all know what Sony is doing.

Maybe, But with a smaller camera you can choose if you want the Full/heavy rig or not

I've handled an Ursa Mini. It's not actually much bigger than a BMCC, especially without a battery stuck on the back.

I expect that much of the dynamic range / noise performance and global/rolling shutter switching ability is down to the superior cooling of the Ursa and Ursa Mini - rather than just the sensor.

Even if the sensor is rolling shutter only, I'd still get one. Although it would be awesome if it were switchable. I guess, now that I think about it, if the small form factor is mainly used for car rigs and body rigs, etc... that if it were not switchable, it should probably be global shutter.

Either way, if it was a very stripped down version because of the cost, I'd still get it. I'd probably use it as extra camera angles.

Maybe, But with a smaller camera you can choose if you want the Full/heavy rig or not

I've handled an Ursa Mini. It's not actually much bigger than a BMCC, especially without a battery stuck on the back.

Rakesh, how was the weight? Afaik there is no (final) info yet about the weight right. (talking about the URSA Mini 4.6k EF)
And regarding fully rigged - I'm talking about the absolute basics here, I just flew a BMPC4K with only a little baseplate for 15mm carbon rods and lightweight mattebox on a (cheap steadicam.
The total weight including the lens was almost 4kg.

With the URSA Mini I would need the shoulder pad or something similar to get some 15mm rods below it as well I believe, right?
I'm really hoping it will be as light as possible and not that much more than the "naked" BMPC... I own most of my equipment and most of it is for that "weight class" and for the shoots I do most of the time it's the perfect balance between quality/stability/portability...

The tech specs say the mini is 5lbs and that's without a plate, battery, lens and other accessories.

Most people will have a camera that easily weighs over 10lbs. Probably can get it down to 6-8lbs with a light lens and battery for the bare minimum.

Rakesh, how was the weight?

Pretty light, all things considered. It was a bit heavier than an FS7 (without the extra dealies on it for raw recording and all), and a bit lighter than a minimally rigged AJA Cion, BUT the NAB models didn't have magnesium chassis. They didn't tell me what material they used for those prototypes, other than that it was heavier than the production models were going to be, which they said would weigh a bit under 5 pounds.

Pretty light, all things considered. It was a bit heavier than an FS7 (without the extra dealies on it for raw recording and all), and a bit lighter than a minimally rigged AJA Cion, BUT the NAB models didn't have magnesium chassis. They didn't tell me what material they used for those prototypes, other than that it was heavier than the production models were going to be, which they said would weigh a bit under 5 pounds.

Oh that sounds great! I think the bare BMPC is around 2kg / 4.4lbs... if it's only a little bit more that would mean I could probably keep most of my support equip yay

Oh that sounds great! I think the bare BMPC is around 2kg / 4.4lbs... if it's only a little bit more that would mean I could probably keep most of my support equip yay

Yep... physically, the Ursa Mini is going to be a lightweight.

I think it's possible for the BMCC/BMPC body made for Blackmagic Crash Camera would be able to have CFast 2.0 as the media. As well other modifications could be made. However, it would seem possible to get the Super 35mm 4.6K Sensor into the body enough so to make it like the Micro Camera, but only higher resolution. There are a ton of possibilities for what future Blackmagic Cameras could be. Sometimes if it ain't broke why fix it is a could motto. And there's nothing broken about the original body design of the BMCC/BMPC.

I really hope they offer a 4.6k sensor in the production camera body with 30fps limit. If that happens, this will be my "sensor upgrade", since I already have a production camera fully rigged with wooden camera accessories. Other wish is for a active MFT mount option, the idea is not use mft lenses (because they don't cover a S35mm sensor) but the ability to use different mounts with adapters (PL, EF, nikon, canon FD and other's).

. . . And there's nothing broken about the original body design of the BMCC/BMPC.

Yeah, if you don't mind a camera that looks like the toaster from "Lost in Space."

. . . And there's nothing broken about the original body design of the BMCC/BMPC.

Yeah, if you don't mind a camera that looks like the toaster from "Lost in Space."

It has the ergonomics of a brick only slipperier, lousy audio, and a terrible power solution. The only saving grace was the price to image quality ratio, which fortunately BMD got right, or else no one would have been interested.

I'd be totally down for that, mostly because all the support items I bought for my BMCC don't fit any other camera shape. Kinda limits their long term usefulness.

The only thing I have for my BMCC (which I've already sold, admittedly) that won't fit anything else is the cage. The rest is standard stuff... which isn't necessary with an Ursa Mini, so it's going, too.

The 4.6k sensor in the BMCC body? Yes!! I have the URSA 4.6k Mini on order and I do like the shape and all, but the shape of the original fills a nitch that makes it work in different scenarios much better than the longer URSA shape.

Shall I get a petition going or what?!?! (not srs)

B-M-C-C! B-M-C-C! 4 POINT SIX K ! 4 POINT SIX K !

Chant it with me?

Just a friendly reminder for BM to please consider this!

I know the 4.6K URSA Mini is not even out yet (will probably be the most amazing camera ever), but a smaller body 4.6K unit (even with less features) is certainly welcome!

A 4K/4.6K pocket would be very ideal as well.

Thank you.

I would buy one simply because it would allow the use of the wooden camera interchangeable mount modification. Although that mod has the specs of the Red system which is still too far from the sensor in my taste. I want to be able to use c-mount lenses and also speed boosters. But...it would be better than nothin'.

That being said, I do much prefer the ergonomics of the Mini. I've never been a fan of dSLR form factor.

I actually asked about this at the BMD event in NYC a few months ago, and they said it won't happen. Grant Petty is unapologetically forward looking. He is an engineer first, and a businessman second, so his mission is to continue pushing boundaries. I also asked if the 2.5k sensor with MFT mount would end up in the URSA mini body at some point, and got the same answer. The original cinema camera is going to continue to be produced because they are still selling them like crazy, but they are simply going to push forward year after year without looking backward. A blessing and a curse (mostly blessing).

So, give it a rest! The BMCC and Pocket are what they are, great cameras in their own right, nothing less, nothing more, and they are going to be continued to be sold and supported -- Great!

If you want a different sensor, like the 4.6K in a small form factor, buy an Ursa Mini, otherwise wait the next "New" camera and the continued improvements that are to come

If anything, I can see them designing a more drone/gimbal friendly (RED box-style) version of the Mini in the future. But I don't really see the point in having the 4.6K sensor in the original body, given the size of the Mini (broken down) is not much larger and the ergonomics are better....anyway that's just my opinion.

Dustin, right on... My feelings also. Cheers

Everyone here would buy a 4.6K pocket camera.

I just want something small...micro will have to do for now.

If anything, I can see them designing a more drone/gimbal friendly (RED box-style) version of the Mini in the future. But I don't really see the point in having the 4.6K sensor in the original body, given the size of the Mini (broken down) is not much larger and the ergonomics are better....anyway that's just my opinion.

My guess would be upgrades to the Micro series in future generations. Those are already great designs for minimal rigs, gimbals, drones, and that sort of thing, and are also designed to fit into those systems. The Pocket design wouldn't fit as elegantly.

IMO the way that those cameras are designed supports your theory very nicely.

Everyone here would buy a 4.6K pocket camera.

How much would you be willing to pay though?

Look at the difference in price between the URSA Mini 4K and 4.6K - we know that BM margins are VERY low, so for a $2K price difference with otherwise the same specs suggests the sensor alone costs BM at LEAST $1k right now. The original 4K sensor surely costs more than the Pocket sensor, so even just a pocket with that older 4K sensor is going to be more than the Pocket price. Again, look and the cinema camera price versus the production camera price, same camera but different sensor. Blackmagic don't care about eating into other products, the URSA Mini 4K is the same price as the Production 4K, but the body is vastly superior with tons more capability, twice the frame rates, FAR better fully 1080 screen, and is made from more expensive materials. But it's the same price? Clearly the majority of the selling price of the camera comes from the sensor as the totally different body doesn't affect what BM sell that sensor in a body for.

So would everyone buy a 4.6K Pocket Camera if it were $3K or so? Look at the price of DJI's small 4K RAW camera!

That's assuming they can even make it, as at NAB they said they had real problems with the heat from trying to record 4K in that size body, and it was said that was the reason why the micro cinema is HD only and the micro studio can't record. The DJI camera doesn't record internally, but externally to SSD's.

I think the main issue is, the 4.6K sensor is too big for a Pocket camera, it is a full size Super 35 size sensor, which requires a camera body the size of the Mini Ursa to support the sensor and all of its required components to record with.

The Pocket camera is a S16 size sensor, not a S35, so if you packed 4.6 pK worth of pixels in the smaller S16 size sensor, you would have an entirely different image IQ, and you need a faster recording system, and larger video processor to deal with the larger pixel count data rate, even at 4K ProRes compression, a SD card and/or interface could not keep up with the data rate required. SD cards barely keep up with FHD 1080 30P data rates, let alone 4K or 4.6K. You would need to go with a highly compressed recording codec like ACVCHD to record 4K to a SD card, which is what the GH4 does.

The Micro Studio camera does 4K in a S16 size sensor, but can not record it internally, so it outputs it via 6GSDI to an external recorder or switcher for capture. BM's 2K BMCC camera even has a sensor larger sensor to keep a nice Cine IQ, and requires a larger cooling system and SSDs to record with, while small, it's not exactly a "Pocket" camera either. You want a larger 4.6K sensor, you need a larger camera, buy a Ursa Mini 4.6K, or wait for,the next round of cameras, who knows, maybe a "Micro" 4.6K camera...

As to cost, Sony just announced a fixed lens (35mm) point and shoot camera based on an update to the RX1 which includes a 'full frame' sensor. The same 42.6MB sensor used in their recent high end cameras. Price: just $3,300.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the main issue is, the 4.6K sensor is too big for a Pocket camera, it is a full size Super 35 size sensor, which requires a camera body the size of the Mini Ursa to support the sensor and all of its required components to record with.

The Pocket camera is a S16 size sensor, not a S35, so if you packed 4.6 pK worth of pixels in the smaller S16 size sensor, you would have an entirely different image IQ, and you need a faster recording system, and larger video processor to deal with the larger pixel count data rate, even at 4K ProRes compression, a SD card and/or interface could not keep up with the data rate required. SD cards barely keep up with FHD 1080 30P data rates, let alone 4K or 4.6K. You would need to go with a highly compressed recording codec like ACVCHD to record 4K to a SD card, which is what the GH4 does.

The Micro Studio camera does 4K in a S16 size sensor, but can not record it internally, so it outputs it via 6GSDI to an external recorder or switcher for capture. BM's 2K BMCC camera even has a sensor larger sensor to keep a nice Cine IQ, and requires a larger cooling system and SSDs to record with, while small, it's not exactly a "Pocket" camera either. You want a larger 4.6K sensor, you need a larger camera, buy a Ursa Mini 4.6K, or wait for,the next round of cameras, who knows, maybe a "Micro" 4.6K camera...

If I paid Grant Petty $50 million, he'd find a way to put the 4.6K sensor into a body smaller than the pocket's. It's just they have a road map of other goals and/or no one cares.

I think the main issue is, the 4.6K sensor is too big for a Pocket camera, it is a full size Super 35 size sensor, which requires a camera body the size of the Mini Ursa to support the sensor and all of its required components to record with.

The Pocket camera is a S16 size sensor, not a S35, so if you packed 4.6 pK worth of pixels in the smaller S16 size sensor, you would have an entirely different image IQ, and you need a faster recording system, and larger video processor to deal with the larger pixel count data rate, even at 4K ProRes compression, a SD card and/or interface could not keep up with the data rate required. SD cards barely keep up with FHD 1080 30P data rates, let alone 4K or 4.6K. You would need to go with a highly compressed recording codec like ACVCHD to record 4K to a SD card, which is what the GH4 does.

The Micro Studio camera does 4K in a S16 size sensor, but can not record it internally, so it outputs it via 6GSDI to an external recorder or switcher for capture. BM's 2K BMCC camera even has a sensor larger sensor to keep a nice Cine IQ, and requires a larger cooling system and SSDs to record with, while small, it's not exactly a "Pocket" camera either. You want a larger 4.6K sensor, you need a larger camera, buy a Ursa Mini 4.6K, or wait for,the next round of cameras, who knows, maybe a "Micro" 4.6K camera...

If I paid Grant Petty $50 million, he'd find a way to put the 4.6K sensor into a body smaller than the pocket's. It's just they have a road map of other goals and/or no one cares.

Assuming you need new custom chips now as standard off the shelf would not run cool enough. Probably cost about $1 billion+ to fabricate your own. So you're probably way off in my opinion.

Jules

If anything, I can see them designing a more drone/gimbal friendly (RED box-style) version of the Mini in the future. But I don't really see the point in having the 4.6K sensor in the original body, given the size of the Mini (broken down) is not much larger and the ergonomics are better....anyway that's just my opinion.

But what about the reverse..... the BMCC sensor (and MFT mount) in the URSA Mini body!

I'd much much *MUCH* rather buy that than the URSA Mini 4K EF/PL options.

If anything, I can see them designing a more drone/gimbal friendly (RED box-style) version of the Mini in the future. But I don't really see the point in having the 4.6K sensor in the original body, given the size of the Mini (broken down) is not much larger and the ergonomics are better....anyway that's just my opinion.

But what about the reverse..... the BMCC sensor (and MFT mount) in the URSA Mini body!

I'd much much *MUCH* rather buy that than the URSA Mini 4K EF/PL options.

Hahaha well... there is always this?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33997

I'm about to print the final body, which looks much better than the original prototype.
*********
SpaceClaim.363 by Davi Silveira, on Flickr

Nice that's looking great! Kinda got an ursa mini vibe to it.

What's the material?

Nice that's looking great! Kinda got an ursa mini vibe to it.

What's the material?

We are planning on printing it in ASA, black. It has a slightly better surface finish and is more of a matte finish. ASA also has some UV resistance properties.