4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostSun Dec 03, 2017 12:23 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:Another question when both the PL and EF 4.6k URSA's were on sale for $8000 on the website next to the 4K you own. Did anyone order any? If so, did those orders get cancelled?

I read through 470+ pages of this section but did not see anyone nagging BM to ship their pre-ordered 4.6k URSA units, unlike other product launches? I may have missed some and unfortunately doing '-mini' in google still Yields results for URSA minis. See pic. It had "Buy Now" buttons.

All pre-orders were cancelled.
Rob
Resolve Studio (Latest Version)
OS X Sierra Version 10.13.6
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
2 x 3.46 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8096 MB
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostSun Dec 03, 2017 1:42 pm

Denis Kazlowski wrote:
It’s important for people to know their rights and retailers should just offer refunds on requests based on basic consumer protection laws. Australia has particularly stringent consumer laws, and New York and California at least in the US seem to have strong ones. I’ve never understood why people don’t exercise these consumer rights and want to encourage people to do so. A product has been sold that can not do what was advertised - that should be instant refund, no need for lawyers.

Each individual or company should do whatever they deem necessary. My statement was to the effect of posting 'potential action' on a forum would hinder that process, nobody here to my knowledge is equipped to give unsolicited legal advice, and generally causes a endless discussion and copy-paste regulations and other unreal things. I'm sure anyone whom sued or been sued by anyone you'd know how messy it can all get. - Now engaging government bodies of variable states again has it's problems. Ranting into a forum of I'm going to sue and call the AG or the FTC is not actually doing any of those things, it's threatening to do them and announcing. Any council will tell you after the fact that you should not have done that.

This may not entirely be a theoretical discussion because, as you have said, cases are usually settled on an individual basis.
For this forum it is, as we will never know the outcomes, these settle with a stip. on non-disclosure.

Now I would be very interested in broken down URSA bodies to play around with, though I’m more interested in the FGPA than the turent these days, and I’d actually like hook up the screen to another camera :p
If you know how. I've spent decades in various disciplines, sometimes it's not easy to get components that don't cost an arm and a leg.

Depends on jurisdiction, but by most definitions it is a consumer product and is/was easily purchasable by general consumers. Often it’s defined by dollar value and the URSA is cheaper than all of household appliances. I can tell for a fact it is covered by Australian consumer law (which has blanket coverage on goods and services priced less than $40k) plus “A person is still defined as a "consumer" if the good was acquired for purposes of re-supply or for the purpose of using or transforming it in trade or commerce”
Dear god, I am doing this.... This was not a breach of contract. BM did not breach a contract with the user to supply them a 4.6k turret. Now to raise any other legal action you need to show actual damages arising from not being supplied the damn thing, negligence, ill will, plaintiffs and defendants consistent behavior, prior requests to be made whole and the like.

I just think it's bad form (the soup I am in now myself) to post public adverts of theoretical legal problems in a given jurisdiction to a company. Further having a fruitless discussion - which will just yield more such discussions.

It works like this, if in theory BM get's fined by the FTC or NY AG $50,000 for not making the damn Turret available for sale, Show me the URSA owner that will be happy and made whole with this? For them it will be cost of doing business, for the URSA owner it will be the same 4K Turret.

This venue here is probably the worst venue to discuss this kind of stuff!

Conflating the moral hazard with liability is silly. I know people are mad about this. But all this is definitely reaching, and if it's not reaching then people would know better to do this on the D/L.


Well, first of all, I don't know if my post qualified as a rant, but that is a matter of opinion. We are due a refund, if we want it. That would require you giving up your camera and accessories purchased for operation of that camera. That is what I'm pursuing at this point and the reason for posting on the forum is to let everyone know that this is an option to pursue. People can continue to keep their head in the sand for another two and a half years, but that sounds more than unreasonable for me. I bought the URSA because of a particular feature and it is why I bought this camera. It is why many people bought a camera from a relatively new company. They offered a feature no other company offered, they announced that the feature had come to fruition, they provided a ship date and pre-orders, they provided sample video of the feature being used... (and this is not up for argument, this is a fact)

It is up to the individual to do what they will with the information I provided. And to be clear, I have been down this road before with another company. They advertised a camera feature that the camera didn't have. It took me a couple of months of back and forth (I can't provide particulars because I signed a non-disclosure). But it cost me nothing in the end, and the company, a much larger one than Blackmagic with unbelievable legal resources, had to buy back all my equipment.

I, personally, needed to invest the money I spent elsewhere and I did. I invested in a camera that had the feature.

And I was very public with the above process until I signed the non-disclosure. Now, I have said this before, but I will not sign a non-disclosure again. And yes, I understand this may mean I get nothing, but it will be the only way I can look at myself in the mirror. I was very disappointed in myself when I dealt with this before. I understood and was happy that my problem was resolved and I was rid of a company, a company much different from Blackmagic Design, that didn't value customer satisfaction at all. But I knew, because I was told, that other customers had the same problem I did without resolution. I knew this because an employee told me that they were aware of the problem and told me the details. That employee asked if I wanted a refund, and I said, "Yes". I never heard from that employee again, and the company denied the conversation even happened. But I had a recording of the conversation. But this had/has nothing to do with Blackmagic Design and I'm only mentioning it to say that I've been down this road, and I am not going to sign a non-disclosure. The non-disclosure left a bad taste in my mouth. I think it's a little naive on my part, but it felt like I wasn't taking other customers into consideration who had the same problem.

Every owner needs to be aware of the options available to them so they can make an educated decision on how to move forward. That decision may be to wait and see. That decision may be to seek legal action. That decision may be to be happy with what they have. That is everyone's personal decision to make. My decision is my decision. I have spoken to Blackmagic Design and they were well aware of my decision long before I posted my decision on the forum. We discussed it, and I agreed to wait and to be patient. I agreed to "wait and see". I waited, and there has been one "communication" since then.

The lack of communication is unacceptable. The over two years since the announcement is unacceptable.

And please understand that I love Blackmagic Design as a company and as a leader in the community for independent filmmakers. I love that they provide products that no one else if offering. I don't want any harm to come to Blackmagic Design, and I mean that. I have been using Davinci Resolve as my only editor since the first version 12. And that hasn't been easy. The program is still going through growing pains, but I am sticking with it and growing with it. I am being patient because I believe in the product and because they constantly updating the product and they are constantly in communication with me about how and when a problem will be solved. When there is a feature that is not working and I inform them of the problem, they get back to me, and begin to work on the problem. Can they fix it immediately? No, but they communicate they are working to resolve the problem and the problems are resolved in a timely manner.

I have a best friend, Duaine. I love him like a brother. He is the Godfather to my children. He was the best man in my wedding. He took care of me when my father passed away. But if Duaine sold me a car that had a certain feature, and that feature didn't work, I would return the car and he would have to refund my money. Period. It's not rocket science, but I'm not here to argue the validity of this. I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.

Do with it what you will.
Rob
Resolve Studio (Latest Version)
OS X Sierra Version 10.13.6
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
2 x 3.46 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8096 MB
Offline

David Hessel

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:53 pm

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostSun Dec 03, 2017 11:22 pm

Don't worry the have their top man on it.
Image
David Hessel
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostMon Dec 04, 2017 8:40 am

I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.
Do with it what you will.


Going to the NY AG will not get you anywhere happy as BM Proper is a foreign company, BM USA is in California, not in NY. Posting other supporting evidence in public domain only ruins your ability to take any other action. BM's layers will print them and argue against you using your own words - So posting more about what you personally decided to do only will harm you down the line, the only way it would help in a very remote possibility is if you were the 'Class' representative inside a class action - if granted standing - and those take years.

The other assumption you're making is that every URSA 4k owner is in the USA or even in the same state as you and that they are so dim to the matter at hand that they need consumer protection education. I think everyone here works or worked 'gigs', they at one point or another did have trouble getting their invoices paid, got sold a bill of materials, someone possibly took action, are either self proprietor, indy contractor or corporation etc..

The 4.6K URSA and 4.6 Turret and test footage and marketing of the 4K camera is moral hazard at best - it cannot be interpreted to be 'fraud', 'swindle', 'breach of contract' and the like.

So in order to initiate any action you would have to be able to demonstrate actual harm and real damages for failure to provide an upgrade to 4.6k. If there had been a contract between you and BM that said, by buying this camera we promise that we'll upgrade you to 4.6k by date X, then I'd see 'standing'. Otherwise the net result, if any from NY AG would be a big parking ticket to BM from New York State and you'd still be without a turret.

So the functional equivalent of what you were proposing to do, earlier is... If your friend Duane sold you a car without a CD player upgrade to it, is to call the police on Duane, have Duane arrested and later have him fined by a court - not for you to get a refund from Duane.

Look, I know you're upset. I think we all wanted a 4.6k Turret or 4.6k URSA. The cameras were devalued to $1000-$2000 rapidly, more rapidly than anyone expected. Similar to a Daewoo Car. But....

Look I saw one gent on here who was un-happy with his product, so he proceeded to 3D print a case and mount a huge heat-sink to the back of his sensor and do something constructive with his camera that he was unhappy with etc.. Constructive is better than calling in the wrath of the state, as their interests and your interests are not the same.
Offline

Ellory Yu

  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:25 pm

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostTue Dec 05, 2017 4:33 am

The new DecLink supports 8K and just appeared in the market. I see an 8K Turret for the URSA Grande.
Offline

David Hessel

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:53 pm

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostTue Dec 05, 2017 4:31 pm

It still amazes me that there is even speculation that BM is developing something even better for the URSA. You cannot even get some repair parts for the Ursa anymore, the Ursa is dead plain and simple. Maybe BM will deliever on the 4.6k turret but that sure is not looking likely and there almost certainly will be nothing else.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67278
David Hessel
Offline

Denis Kazlowski

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am
  • Location: NJ - USA

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostTue Dec 05, 2017 5:48 pm

Ellory Yu wrote:The new DecLink supports 8K and just appeared in the market. I see an 8K Turret for the URSA Grande.

I don't think the body can handle the bandwidth at any stage. Any URSA owner would be lucky if the 4.6 rolling shutter upgrade came out.
Offline

Asok Kumar

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:44 am

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostTue Dec 05, 2017 10:40 pm

Where you have seen the8K turret for Ursa?
Offline

Tristan Pemberton

  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:07 am

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostTue Dec 05, 2017 11:24 pm

Asok Kumar wrote:Where you have seen the8K turret for Ursa?

He didn't say 8K turret.

It's the 8K DeckLink.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/decklink
Director
Australia
www.flywirefilms.com
Offline

Earl R. Thurston

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:52 pm
  • Location: Burnaby, BC

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostWed Dec 06, 2017 12:29 am

Tristan Pemberton wrote:He didn't say 8K turret.


Ellory did, yes:

Ellory Yu wrote:I see an 8K Turret for the URSA Grande.


Not that there actually is one. Perhaps he was joking.
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostWed Dec 06, 2017 4:58 am

Denis Kazlowski wrote:
I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.
Do with it what you will.


Going to the NY AG will not get you anywhere happy as BM Proper is a foreign company, BM USA is in California, not in NY. Posting other supporting evidence in public domain only ruins your ability to take any other action. BM's layers will print them and argue against you using your own words - So posting more about what you personally decided to do only will harm you down the line, the only way it would help in a very remote possibility is if you were the 'Class' representative inside a class action - if granted standing - and those take years.

The other assumption you're making is that every URSA 4k owner is in the USA or even in the same state as you and that they are so dim to the matter at hand that they need consumer protection education. I think everyone here works or worked 'gigs', they at one point or another did have trouble getting their invoices paid, got sold a bill of materials, someone possibly took action, are either self proprietor, indy contractor or corporation etc..

The 4.6K URSA and 4.6 Turret and test footage and marketing of the 4K camera is moral hazard at best - it cannot be interpreted to be 'fraud', 'swindle', 'breach of contract' and the like.

So in order to initiate any action you would have to be able to demonstrate actual harm and real damages for failure to provide an upgrade to 4.6k. If there had been a contract between you and BM that said, by buying this camera we promise that we'll upgrade you to 4.6k by date X, then I'd see 'standing'. Otherwise the net result, if any from NY AG would be a big parking ticket to BM from New York State and you'd still be without a turret.

So the functional equivalent of what you were proposing to do, earlier is... If your friend Duane sold you a car without a CD player upgrade to it, is to call the police on Duane, have Duane arrested and later have him fined by a court - not for you to get a refund from Duane.

Look, I know you're upset. I think we all wanted a 4.6k Turret or 4.6k URSA. The cameras were devalued to $1000-$2000 rapidly, more rapidly than anyone expected. Similar to a Daewoo Car. But....

Look I saw one gent on here who was un-happy with his product, so he proceeded to 3D print a case and mount a huge heat-sink to the back of his sensor and do something constructive with his camera that he was unhappy with etc.. Constructive is better than calling in the wrath of the state, as their interests and your interests are not the same.

Do with it what you will
Rob
Resolve Studio (Latest Version)
OS X Sierra Version 10.13.6
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
2 x 3.46 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8096 MB
Offline

Gavin_c_clark

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:51 pm

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostWed Dec 13, 2017 3:47 pm

Can we at least have 4:1 raw until the turret arrives?
Offline

Asok Kumar

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:44 am

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 8:35 am

I think that new 4.6 K or higher K or full frame turret will be a New Year gift from the great man of the black magic design
Offline

Michael Odhiambo

  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:27 pm

Re: 4.6K Turret for Original Ursa Owners?

PostThu Dec 14, 2017 8:36 am

Gavin_c_clark wrote:Can we at least have 4:1 raw until the turret arrives?


Also, can we be advised by BM on the feature requests/development status for items that have been delineated below and several times in this forum. BM is known for listening to their customers. It is becoming clear that the URSA customers voices lack merit and the feature implementation is an unlikely outcome as the URSA owners await turret development - or it is discontinued.

We have been made to understand that sensor development is a complex, expensive and time consuming undertaking and frequent updates are just not possible. However, the last update from Grant was just over five months ago. I personally check this forum on a daily basis for updates on the turret - or any other requests that have been made for big URSA, but alas.

I believe I speak for many on the matters that have been raised in this particular thread and make a request for an update to:

1. 4.6K Turret availability/EOL?
2. 4K v2 Turret (Owners of v1 who want to get v2, a working sensor)
3. Firmware update for the URSA camera to 4.xx
4. Compatibility w/ SSD recorder

Sincerely
Customer 46716
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Davi Silveira, Google [Bot], Marco Raboy and 20 guests