Ursa Cine Line question

I am blown away by the 12k Cine LF camera. BMD is the only camera company other than Arri who report proper dynamic range. This camera is so much camera in that body for a low price. But I am wondering if there's going to be more cameras coming up in this line? Or is the LF the only one? This one is overkill for me personally lol but wow. Holy....what a camera!

Yes, the Ursa Cine 17K...

Yes, the Ursa Cine 17K...

I am not joking though. Do you think there will be an 8k or 6k camera in this line?

Yes, the Ursa Cine 17K...

I am not joking though. Do you think there will be an 8k or 6k camera in this line?

No.

But the 17K is not a joke. Its a real camera.

Many have requested an URSA Cine 12K LF LT version. Basically a tad smaller and lighter, with removing the right side LCD and built-in wireless for BMD Cloud as the main ways to trim down size and weight. The possibility of doing only CFExpress Type B for the LT version has been also suggested, but I'm actually fine with the UCine Media Module as I think it's a great feature of the UCine12K when it comes to frame rates and resolution options.

Whether Blackmagic does an URSA Cine LT version will have to be seen. Obviously the first additions to the URSA Cine Line will be the UCine17K 65mm, and the UCine Immersive. Once those are out maybe Blackmagic can work on adding a LT to the line.

Agreed. If they do a 'less robust frame rate' version with the side screen and Wireless removed, I'd gladly pay for an 8k Cine LT that only goes up to 60fps or something.

Gah, I just wish the Ursa Mini 12k OLPF would get a media upgrade. I reached out to Kondor Blue about the CF Express Type B recorder they have for the latest iPhone, to see if it could be used with the UMP12k, and they acted like it would work but with very limited frame rates. I think the thing that always threw me off, was when I was filming with the 12k and wanted to shoot higher frame rates (48 or 60), I would constantly have to adjust the settings to avoid data drop on the CFast 2.0 Cards.

An URSA Cine LT would probably still need a robust cooling system and still require a big power draw, I think.

Agreed. If they do a 'less robust frame rate' version with the side screen and Wireless removed, I'd gladly pay for an 8k Cine LT that only goes up to 60fps or something…

An URSA Cine LT would probably still need a robust cooling system and still require a big power draw, I think.

Will we next see an URSA Cine 8K LT or a Pyxis Pro 6K LF (36x24mm) with RGBW 16 stops?

Agreed. If they do a 'less robust frame rate' version with the side screen and Wireless removed, I'd gladly pay for an 8k Cine LT that only goes up to 60fps or something…

An URSA Cine LT would probably still need a robust cooling system and still require a big power draw, I think.

Will we next see an URSA Cine 8K LT or a Pyxis Pro 6K LF (36x24mm) with RGBW 16 stops?

I think both URSA Cine 12K LT and PYXIS Pro will happen. Probably PYXIS Pro first because so many have told Blackmagic what they want improved with the PYXIS. The UCine LT will come shortly after in the same product announcements. This will likely be before next year’s NAB or IBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I want you to be right, Tim, but man... I don't know.
After using the Pyxis, I don't really see how they could fit an internal ND for a FF sensor. If you have to physically make the body bigger, then that's different manufacturing going on or something. I think it's more likely that they will put an s35 UMP12k sensor in a Pyxis body with limited functionality.

It still remains to be seen if BMD will move to the Ursa Cine / Pyxis designs and abandon the Ursa Mini body altogether. I think we may see ONE more Ursa Mini design, possibly just an UMP12k OLPF G2, that has CF Express Type B media. That would be awesome.

What's good to know, though, is that 13-16 stops of DR on BMD cameras is pretty great, AND affordable!

Going forward, I think there will be two version of BMD products: those with the RGBW sensor and those without.

I can see the order being:
1. URSA Cine 17k Shipping
2. Ursa Mini Pro 12k OLPF G2 Announced/Shipping
3. One more unique design announced, possibly a redesign of the Pocket Line?
4. Pyxis G2, possibly s35 version?

I'll add some more thought:
I have the original UMP 12K and really like what it is capable of, even in comparison to the Cine 12K.
Yes, I value the higher density sensor, even also appreciating the full frame high dynamic range Cine version... but especially the super16 mode and 240 fps 4K (fastest for now.)
I would like even faster super16 4K... 480 fps... 960?
The single biggest issue with UMP 12K is the media... too slow (Cine 12K seems to have that fixed.)
Another addition I would like is to be able to do slower shutter speeds for time laps with motion blur... 1/12 sec on the UMP 12K is just too short (as well as the longest shutter speeds on the UMP 4.6K and pockets... would like several seconds.)
And... how about a software upgrade to give UMP 12K the RGB histogram and gyro stabilization... come on!
The Cine 12K does have many features I could do without (as mentioned above by others for a sleeker version.)
Most important I would suggest keeping everything with the BMD RGBWWW sensors.
Keep in mind I am not suggesting all these things go into a single camera... but we are talking about a line.

Agreed. If they do a 'less robust frame rate' version with the side screen and Wireless removed, I'd gladly pay for an 8k Cine LT that only goes up to 60fps or something…

An URSA Cine LT would probably still need a robust cooling system and still require a big power draw, I think.

Will we next see a URSA Cine 8K LT or a Pyxis Pro 6K LF (36x24mm) with RGBW 16 stops?

I think both URSA Cine 12K LT and PYXIS Pro will happen. Probably PYXIS Pro first because so many have told Blackmagic what they want to be improved with the PYXIS. The UCine LT will come shortly after in the same product announcements. This will likely be before next year’s NAB or IBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally don’t use the point of them announcing or developing a Ursa Cine LT mainly due to the fact it would make the Pyxis irrelevant. The way the Pyxis and Ursa Cine have been marketed and talked about by Blackmagic it seems to me that they view these as their version of the Alexa LF and mini LF. So it would make more sense to have the next version of the Pyxis have more of the features and specs of the Ursa Cine (the same RGBW sensor, ports, and Internal NDs) with some limitations than to just make a new smaller version of the Ursa Cine.

It was good that BMD lowered the price of the UMPro12K and now includes an optical low-pass filter at no extra cost. But I’m not sure the camera will receive faster media such as CFexpress and very high frame rates. That might imply completely new internal boards.

Looking at the cine cameras from the 30,000’ level, it appears that BMD is going to be distinguished by 36x24mm sensors and RGBW sensors where financially it makes sense to support a higher cost. The BMCC6K for $1,495 is a great value as was the original BMPCC for about $500.

I feel BMD heard the criticism everywhere when they went to polycarbonate construction and we see the newer cameras making more use of lightweight metal construction that will be more durable and appear to be more professional. It seems the reviewers of the URSA Cine 12K appreciate the heft of the camera and don’t consider it a shortcoming.

The existing cameras that support more than 13 stops of dynamic range are all capable of producing good images in most shooting situations, but not all. The URSA Cine 12K is their first camera that hits 16 stops of dynamic range and that has to be something that BMD should include in all new Cine cameras by 2025. Of course you don’t need 16 stops, but you want 16 stops and higher latitude now you know BMD has the recipe to do it.

Cameras capable of 480 or 960 fps could be interesting but likely would be a premium price feature for a niche market rather than a standard base for all new cine cameras.

I really wonder when the lightbulb moment for BMD will shine with the decision to use RGBW sensors and 16 stops capture everywhere in the cine space.

Even shaving weight off the UCine12K is the main benefit as it is a heavier camera body. Looking at it compared to the Alexa 35 body and it has 2.32 lbs more weight. That adds up in a fully built rig. Even the Alexa Mini LF is 5.7 lbs for the body.

I’m thrilled Blackmagic packed so much into the URSA Cine. It’s a beast of a camera. But the point of a LT version is not to compete with the PYXIS but to offer a lighter and more compact option of the URSA with that same amazing 12K LF sensor.

Personally, I’m over that 12K S35. If they do a new S35 only it should be the 9K portion of the 12K LF, and that would give us more what we want in terms of the better dynamic range.

But the other main features of the UCine that can be in the LT version are the dual SDI outputs, Timecode SDI, the multiple USB-C Ports, Full Size XLR, etc., especially those Lemo ports on the front for lens motors. The LT version would probably be 10K in price and 11.5K with the EVF. No where in the same class as the PYXIS. But more suitable for those of us willing to shell out that money for the lighter and more compact body.

As for the PYXIS Pro and internal ND: only internal ND for the PL and EF then. If the L Mount is the issue then who cares about the L Mount. Give internal ND to the purchasers of the PL and EF versions as those will have the flange distance to support it. If Blackmagic can’t figure out a way to do what Sony did on the FX9 & FX6 & Burano with internal ND with the mirrorless mount, then skip it for the mirrorless option. Since I have PL lenses then I’m not overly worried as I would rather have internal ND for the quick speed it allows.

On another note regarding PYXIS Pro: LPL instead of PL. You can always use a PL to LPL Adapter. And, LPL should support internal ND still. So why not embrace the future and use LPL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackmagic-ursa-cine-12k-lf-evf-weight.jpg (261.05 KiB) Viewed 3391 times

Now, this is the body, plus EVF, and shoulder mount kit. It weighs 13.64 lbs! That's before you add the lens, battery, matte box, (wireless) follow focus, and wireless video.

For comparison I took my URSA Mini Pro G2 (PL), and kept the shoulder mount kit, V-Mount battery mount, and EVF on the camera to weigh it. All other gear was taken off. It came to 9.6 lbs.

This is a difference of 4 lbs. That's significant for rigging the camera in certain situations. So all I'm asking for in an URSA Cine 12K LF LT is for a reduction in size and weight to make it just ever so slightly easier to rig. The main key is that the amazing Large Format 12K sensor is available in more body options.

And, remember B-Mount Batteries are heavier. For example a CoreSWX Helix Max 275 is 3.1 lbs, and that will get this camera around 3-3.5 hours of runtime before needing a battery swap.

So add a 3.5-4 lbs lens and we're already talking 20.24-20.74 lbs without matte box and other accessories. I know the Steadicam Zephyr has a weight capacity of 23 lbs, so we're starting to press that threshold.

Great summary, Tim.

My current URSA Mini 4.6K fully rigged is 23-25 pounds when I’m shooting on a tripod, so I’m accustomed to that weight. That’s including the Mini handle, BMVA12G on a Bright Tangerine heavy arm, an eight years old heavy 250Wh V-mount, the Sennheiser 416 MKH, matte box and filter, PD Movie controller with two motors, Chrosziel zoom control, large Fujinon Cine Zoom, URSA Viewfinder, etc.

The Pyxis is what my eyes are on. I've been using the BMPCC 4k....for all these years. I have to do quite a bit of post work on it though when I shoot events (de-noising, dealing with blown out highlights at 1235 ISO and up due to low light environments sometimes). THAT is one area where for me, a bigger sensor would pay off very well. But the problem is with all these new cameras, it's so hard to pull the trigger on one of these. The biggest draw of something like the Ursa Cine 12k for me is that it may actually wipe the floor with the entire cine line of Sony and Red when it comes to clean stops above the noise floor and may only be second best to the Alexa 35. That's a hell of an accomplishment. I mean, I was watching the video samples from ProAvTV on YouTube. That barn footage they shot is unbelievable. That is just unbelievable. I mean you can see that and say, yeah that thing has above 13 or 14 stops clean. So I am having a hard time pulling the trigger on Pyxis. Because I am wondering if they do release an LT of the Ursa Cine, what would it cost?

Tim the Alexa comparison doesn’t wash for me.

The Ursa Cine has two giant monitors built in. Plus audio connectors. The A35 needs a viewfinder attached to change any of the menus, and for a 10k EVF the screen isn’t good enough to operate from so then you have to power and mount an external monitor too. (If you’re not just using the EVF and the viewfinder)

A35 like Ursa Cine is also really a 24v camera and comes factory fitted with the same B mount battery too.

JB

Tim the Alexa comparison doesn’t wash for me.

The Ursa Cine has two giant monitors built in. Plus audio connectors. The A35 needs a viewfinder attached to change any of the menus, and for a 10k EVF the screen isn’t good enough to operate from so then you have to power and mount an external monitor too. (If you’re not just using the EVF and the viewfinder)

A35 like Ursa Cine is also really a 24v camera and comes factory fitted with the same B mount battery too.

JB

Yes, that is true. But, at the same time you can mount the A35 on to a Streadicam/Jib/Car Mount without the EVF or external monitors and it will weigh less than the UC12K because it doesn’t have those two big built in monitors.

Ultimately, for those of us who have smaller budgets can only afford the rigs that support weight up to a certain threshold without going much higher in cost. For example that Zephyr having 23 lbs capacity for $10K compared to the 70 lbs of a G-70x2 for significantly more money starting around $28K.

Not entirely sure what the weight of the UCEVF adds, but you can mount the UC12K without the EVF for less weight. Still that doesn’t change that the UC12K is just that much heavier than an A35. So that’s mainly what I’m aiming to convey in my desire for a UC12KLT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cmon buddy.

You know that you still have to add a lens, a mattebox, a focus motor, a video transmitter to that Alexa right?

No one is going to be choosing an A35 over a 12K Ursa Cine because it fits on the lightweight prosumer Steadicam.

The many times I’ve now used the Ursa Cine LF on a steadicam, the operator typically wants MORE WEIGHT up top because it’s not heavy enough. They often mount the B mount battery as extra ballast.

As I mentioned, the Alexa 35 can technically be a bit smaller, but not without the stuff you need to make is as functional as the Ursa Cine LF in its smallest config.

And the 17K will be in the same ball park. Pull up the specs on that Alexa 65 will you?

They are in the same weight class of full blown production camera. The weight for this end of the market is less of an issue.

Would I like a smaller version? Sure.

But it’s going to be feature limited. More likely by frame rate than resolution and some of the other functions that no one realises takes a lot of horsepower.

JB

(Only photo I could find on a steadicam from the launch)

https://flic.kr/p/2qqETga

Cmon buddy.

You know that you still have to add a lens, a mattebox, a focus motor, a video transmitter to that Alexa right?

No one is going to be choosing an A35 over a 12K Ursa Cine because it fits on the lightweight prosumer Steadicam.

The many times I’ve now used the Ursa Cine LF on a steadicam, the operator typically wants MORE WEIGHT up top because it’s not heavy enough. They often mount the B mount battery as extra ballast.

As I mentioned, the Alexa 35 can technically be a bit smaller, but not without the stuff you need to make is as functional as the Ursa Cine LF in its smallest config.

And the 17K will be in the same ball park. Pull up the specs on that Alexa 65 will you?

They are in the same weight class of full blown production camera. The weight for this end of the market is less of an issue.

Would I like a smaller version? Sure.

But it’s going to be feature limited. More likely by frame rate than resolution and some of the other functions that no one realises takes a lot of horsepower.

JB

(Only photo I could find on a steadicam from the launch)

https://flic.kr/p/2qqETga

Ok, I'll defer to your experience. As you are using the URSA Cine currently. I've only worked with the Alexa 35 last year on a shoot where we put it on the Arri Trinity. With that we had only the lens, battery, and wireless lens control and wireless video. But the wireless video in that instance was connected to the Trinity and not the camera. In that moment the body, lens, battery, and Tilta Nucleus M Motor were the only weight we were dealing with for the camera rig. Well, some additional cage stuff for the rods, but you get the point.

JR-Promo-DZOFilm-Pavo-DSC06501.jpeg (99.4 KiB) Viewed 2735 times

I was thinking of that instance and how that weight difference for the body alone would be impactful. But if you're saying otherwise, then I'll defer to your experience with the UC12K.

Overall, the UC12K is a dream camera. It meets all my desires.

[CaptainHook]

when I was filming with the 12k and wanted to shoot higher frame rates (48 or 60), I would constantly have to adjust the settings to avoid data drop on the CFast 2.0 Cards.

Even when using the "Record RAW on 2 cards" setting? There was a lot of work done to support that feature and it should address that need pretty well.

Great summary, Tim.

My current URSA Mini 4.6K fully rigged is 23-25 pounds when I’m shooting on a tripod, so I’m accustomed to that weight. That’s including the Mini handle, BMVA12G on a Bright Tangerine heavy arm, an eight years old heavy 250Wh V-mount, the Sennheiser 416 MKH, matte box and filter, PD Movie controller with two motors, Chrosziel zoom control, large Fujinon Cine Zoom, URSA Viewfinder, etc.

How do you shoulder that 23-25 pound rig for longer periods if you had to (Ergorig is the only thing I can think of, even shoulder pads will start compressing on your spine due to the weight regardless).

That full rig is only mounted on a tripod. Very stripped down when I used it on my shoulder.

I think this thread has prompted me to decide that it's best to sell my Steadicam if I am going to upgrade to the URSA Cine. Unless there is an LT version that is lighter then my Steadicam will not support the weight. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

That full rig is only mounted on a tripod. Very stripped down when I used it on my shoulder.

Got it, thanks Rick. I am considering purchasing the Ergorig. I haven't found a good enough shoulder comfort pad that can handle even 15 pounds well.

I think this thread has prompted me to decide that it's best to sell my Steadicam if I am going to upgrade to the URSA Cine. Unless there is an LT version that is lighter then my Steadicam will not support the weight. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Yeah, I was surprised to see the Ursa Cine 12k is heavier than the Alexa 35. I know it has a bigger sensor, but the base body being heavier surprised me still.

Do you remember the original URSA? The one with the 10” screen built-in. 16.5 pounds. Let’s see how the industry considers the URSA Cine 12K/17K (which use the same body) but I suspect need to cool considerably more heat than the URSA probably handled. It’s built like a tank.

I think this thread has prompted me to decide that it's best to sell my Steadicam if I am going to upgrade to the URSA Cine...

Wait a while and see what’s available when you want to make your purchase.

Now that I’m back down to a simple 6k FF, I’m still looking for a camera with an overall improvement in image quality and better rolling shutter and internal NDs.
Those options are:
- Ursa Mini Pro G2
- Ursa Mini 12k OLPF
- Ursa Cine 12k

UMPG2 - still looks great, but I’ll want to add a Rawlite and need to add a wider-angle lens to my kit. No firmware updates in a long time make it feel antiquated.

UM12kOLPF - best sensor I’ve ever shot with, but I feel it will go the way of the UMPG2 with an abandoned firmware update path and we may never see updated media (I want to use my Cf Express!), plus I’ll need to add a wide-angle lens to my kit.

UC12k - incredible camera. Get to use my FF lenses. Weights a lot, but I do have adequate support ready to go. Cost is a factor. I may never use a few “deluxe” features in it. It cost a lot.

I know we all keep saying it, but man, do I wish for a Cine LT! I can’t imagine ANYTHING like that for a long while. Perhaps BMD is now separating into a Cine Line and a “Prosumer” Line of cameras, those with incredible DR and premium features VS 13 stops of DR and limited features???

I can't see how they couldn't take the existing UMP body design, upgrade it a bit for some of the new aspects of the UCine, and go CFExpress only media wises for an URSA Cine 12K LT. It should be doable. That may overall be the option. Swap out the old URSA Viewfinder design in favor of the new one with USB-C port replacing the SDI and Power on the right side of UMP. Replace the 12-Pin Hirose with Lemo...

I feel that this is all very possible. Even a UC12KLT limited by CFExpress should be able to do 12K 60 FPS no problem since the UMP12K does it with CFast.

One thing I do hope is that BMD find a way to keep the lens mapping in camera with reading the lens serial off /i and allowing you to output the info via SDI Out. But I would also love to see something on both UC12K and UC12KLT:

USB-C Wireless Transmission with Camera Control for a Wireless "PYXIS" Monitor. Either PYXIS Monitor or Video Assist works in my view. But build in wireless receiver to connect to the wireless transmitter on the camera. Camera Control touch screen just like PYXIS, but because of the USB-C transmitter you are able to get that camera control via wireless. Then you could pull up those lens data features that include iris and focus distance info and even put focus marks as you pull focus off the wireless monitor.

This does mean that the UC12KLT would need at least one more USB-C Port on the camera beyond the EVF one.

Bonus if the Wireless Transmitter is a dual transmitter that can also take SDI and transmit a separate wireless video for video village. The USB-C Transmission would only be for an AC/Focus Puller. Thus you can get two purposes and director/producers can see a separate SDI based video feed.

Just a crazy thought.

It’s too early for me to come to any conclusion. There seem to be two significant concerns with the URSA Cine 12K: cost and weight. But it seems to me their target market can manage those.

Our conception of cost changes over time as we become accustomed to a new reality. We’ve seen that with the cost of goods and services dramatically changing due to the pandemic. My top of the line induction range replacement for a natural gas range cost almost as much as the URSA Cine 12K—I kid you not. If a fortune teller in 2019 told me that was going to happen within five years, I would have thought they were crazy because i’d never pay that for a stove. Well the fortune teller knows me better than I do. Same thing with our EV. Really nice car but much more than twice the cost of the URSA Cine 17K. I’ve never dreamt of paying that much for anything that one day will cease to function due to electronic failures (like the Jaguar that forced me to go EV).

So I’ve learned my lesson. $15,000 today and if successful the camera price might fall a few thousand dollars in the future. Yes it’s $5,000 more than we wish it was, but my gosh it’s a great camera that one won’t regret working with for many years. Even the fuss over the cost of 8 TB of high speed media is unwarranted and might also fall a little or likely increase in capacity for the same price in a few years. Line Tim has said the camera ticks a lot of boxes and is flexible for many use cases. If I was younger, I’d purchase at least one and make it work financially. I’m sick of the reputation of RED as an indie standard but that appears to recently have been dislodged by ARRI. Recent BMD cameras are going to challenge ARRI because the capabilities of the Cine line are comparable in important features at a fraction of the cost of a recent new ARRI. In time the URSA Cine will find its place and we won’t bemoan the cost especially if BMD has put new dollars into their support and quality control of their flagship cameras.

URSA Cine 12K, URSA Cine 17K, and the URSA Immersive camera are a brave new world for BMD. We are grateful that the budget cameras are still there with a lower entry-level, but BMD’s new aspirational lineup is inspirational. As Star Trek’s Captain Kirk said almost sixty years ago, “Make it so.”

As for weight, I’ve already posted on that topic earlier.

The biggest deterrent to us buying into the URSA Cine is the weight and size. While I think its incredible what Blackmagic has done with this camera it feels like the size and weight is because this camera body was really ultimately designed for the 17k and the Immersion cameras, and not the 12k.

Personally I totally agree with what Tim has been saying. I think if they can put the 12k sensor in a slightly smaller body, and strip some stuff away it would be an instant buy. I would love to see a Lite version with only cfexpress, 12k 60p, single small screen, and L-Mount option.

There definitely feels like there is a product gap currently with the PYXIS and URSA Cine and while the URSA 4.6k and 12k are great cameras they are pretty dated at this point. Weather its a PYXIS Pro or URSA Cine Lite i'd love to use that new 12k LF sensor in something slightly smaller than the current URSA Cine.

The biggest deterrent to us buying into the URSA Cine is the weight and size. While I think its incredible what Blackmagic has done with this camera it feels like the size and weight is because this camera body was really ultimately designed for the 17k and the Immersion cameras, and not the 12k.

Personally I totally agree with what Tim has been saying. I think if they can put the 12k sensor in a slightly smaller body, and strip some stuff away it would be an instant buy. I would love to see a Lite version with only cfexpress, 12k 60p, single small screen, and L-Mount option.

There definitely feels like there is a product gap currently with the PYXIS and URSA Cine and while the URSA 4.6k and 12k are great cameras they are pretty dated at this point. Weather its a PYXIS Pro or URSA Cine Lite i'd love to use that new 12k LF sensor in something slightly smaller than the current URSA Cine.

I wonder that now too! Though, I think the only feasible way to save on redesign costs would be to put a (potential) Cine LT into an Ursa Mini body w/ updated Media to CF Express. Though, I think, in order to keep the internal NDs for a 3:2 Open Gate Full Frame sensor, the body needs to be a certain size. That's one of the reasons the Pyxis may not have NDs or ever will. (speculating)

I wouldn’t mind a Cine LT without internal NDs, but proper IR filtering.
We use a matte box whenever possible.

I wouldn’t mind a Cine LT without internal NDs, but proper IR filtering.
We use a matte box whenever possible.

Personally I’ve become so spoiled by internal ND. And, especially when using the camera in a teleprompter internal ND is a life saver since you can’t use a matte box.

That said, it is a real cinema camera so you won’t be using it with a teleprompter. But there’s still many instances where I would still prefer to have internal ND. I’m positive that PL and VistaVision you can still have internal ND with a small enough body to be lighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know we talk about all the features the Ursa Cine 12k has that we may not use, but the question I ask myself is: does it fit my needs in making a better image that exceeds my current use?

You can throw a battery and lens on this thing (and a handle of some kind) and be off and running. The main screen is big and bright and can easily slim it down. Or, obviously, rig it up to your heart's content.

I feel like I would shoulder-mount the Ursa Cine 12k more than any other body. Right now, I'm so used to 'run-n-gun' with my 6kFF that my middle back is getting sore more often from the load of always holding a camera out in front of me. I also turned 43 this year, so I know that plays into it.

I'm also getting more gigs for commercial projects, but with our small outfit, we are always limited with help on set. I don't know if a bigger, more robust camera would help or hinder. I know having internal NDs will make it easier. I just wished the wifi would transmit a signal so we could forgo more rigging. It would help justify the cost too!
Think about it:
- 8TB of media (for free with the camera), would cost $4000 in equal CF Express
- If the wireless on the camera could feed an iPad or a future Video Assist (fingers crossed), that could save $1500+
- Internal NDs save some money as well
SO really, (I'm talking to myself), the Ursa Cine only cost, what, $10,000? haha
What's crazy, is the URSA Mini Pro 12k is going for sub $3000 now, in certain places. I really want to see a comparison between the UMP12k and UC12k.

I know we talk about all the features the Ursa Cine 12k has that we may not use, but the question I ask myself is: does it fit my needs in making a better image that exceeds my current use?

It is capable of making a better image out of the camera in several respects. It’s up to you to decide if you will take advantage of it. Off the cuff you may say that it doesn’t add anything you need, but I think it opens more possibilities that you haven’t had but deserve your consideration to expand your toolset.

... I really want to see a comparison between the UMP12k and UC12k.

Presumably you mean in a creative shoot stretching each camera’s potential in apples-to-apples comparisons and not just CineD latitude tests. That might never appear though because we all recognize how influencers may not have the knowledge and inclination to show each camera in their best light so to speak and show their worst flaws.

Will there ever be a comparison of the Cine 12K and the Cine 17K? More likely a comparison of the Cine 12K and Cine 17K with the ARRI 35 and ARRI 65 respectively. Those comparisons would concentrate on image and workflow but ARRI and Panavision strengths extend well beyond their cameras with the level of quality control and after sales support and their ‘culture’ of close relationships with clients. That said I’m sure that image-making comparison would be revealing. Until Steve Yedlin debunks it.

Here's hoping there are no comparison videos. There *are* more or less objective measures but they have little or nothing to do with "image quality" as understood in the usual subjective sense ("organic", "cinematic", "3d pop", "motion cadence", etc.).

Even the discussion of subjective image quality is unmoored to reality. You'd never guess there was such thing as post-production, as if these are point and shoot cameras or Polaroids. My data is better than your data.....

Sadly, I do wish that Blackmagic would add ProRes recording back into these cameras. Last week for example I started to get the cameras set up with BRAW, but then had the producer ask for UHD ProRes. One of the major reasons was so that they could play the videos right off DropBox, which is were we upload for the clients.

Now, the solution would be for Blackmagic to integrate BRAW Players into Cloud Services. So allow DropBox and Google Drive to play BRAW, and as well FrameIO, but also within their own Blackmagic Cloud. There's an aspect where clients want to be able to play the videos right in the Cloud to see the footage.

And, currently ProRes is the best solution to that issue. And, sadly, is what some clients still ask for as a turn over file.

I love BRAW, and think it is the best to work with. But as so many editors for clients are still in PPro sometimes BRAW isn't the best for them.

I even had another lower end client complain about UHD ProRes LT being too much for their computers to handle. They prefer the H.264 files from the Sony A7IV, even if they agree the image quality looks better out of my P6KPro in ProRes. This client has never seen how much better 6K BRAW would look.

Sadly, I do wish that Blackmagic would add ProRes recording back into these cameras. Last week for example I started to get the cameras set up with BRAW, but then had the producer ask for UHD ProRes. One of the major reasons was so that they could play the videos right off DropBox, which is were we upload for the clients.

Now, the solution would be for Blackmagic to integrate BRAW Players into Cloud Services. So allow DropBox and Google Drive to play BRAW, and as well FrameIO, but also within their own Blackmagic Cloud. There's an aspect where clients want to be able to play the videos right in the Cloud to see the footage.

And, currently ProRes is the best solution to that issue. And, sadly, is what some clients still ask for as a turn over file.

I love BRAW, and think it is the best to work with. But as so many editors for clients are still in PPro sometimes BRAW isn't the best for them.

I even had another lower end client complain about UHD ProRes LT being too much for their computers to handle. They prefer the H.264 files from the Sony A7IV, even if they agree the image quality looks better out of my P6KPro in ProRes. This client has never seen how much better 6K BRAW would look.

doesn't the Cine 12k do proxy recording? would that suffice for the Client? just some h.264 files?

Doesn't the Cine 12k do proxy recording? would that suffice for the Client? just some h.264 files?

Well, that would be a tough question to answer. After all, those are just proxies. I think what this client generally wants is the source raw files to be UHD ProRes or UHD H.264. And, they want them to be UHD. So if it's only HD H.264 Proxies with the UC12K then that probably isn't what the client would want.

The main point being that the extra recording options give options, which the older cameras had. Those options help certain clientele. It's sad those extra options are gone. The Broadcast G2 does have UHD H.264 and H.265 options, which is nice outside the BRAW and ProRes options.

The client that can't handle UHD ProRes 422 LT is one that is not hiring the best editors. They are getting cheap newbies with not very powerful machines. That has become evident to me. Mainly I show up and just shoot an "expert" in a certain field covering some talking points off some bulleted scripts where he ad libs most of the content. I shoot him half a day with minimum lighting gear. I just upload the files and that's that for me.

Sadly there are still clients like that that you take on days where you wouldn't work and it helps pay some bills. Those clients need video content like anyone else. They may not need 4K BRAW, but they do need UHD H.264.

Yet, I can't help but feel that UHD H.264 Proxies would be great for the UC12K. After all, most projects are now delivered in UHD 4K. So if you need to work with UHD for your timeline then having the Proxies be that would help out. Resolve just happens to be resolution agnostic so you can get away with HD H.264 Proxies and then relink to 12K BRAW later and not suffer for it. Premiere Pro however you need to start with your timeline in the resolution you plan to deliver to.

I envy your internet connection. I too would like the Prores but not for the Dropbox. I can Fedex a drive faster than I can upload TBs of footage. An hour of Pr footage in 4k at “source” resolution is untenable for me at the studio, from home it’s impossible. When I need to upload footage for review it’s always h265, 2 hours takes about 15 minutes to render.

Good Luck

Deleted.

To be clear, both can be whatever resolution you need (within reason) at whatever quality you need, with H.265 being a more data-efficient codec than H.264. But unless you have some very specific needs like hardware compatibility for the end consumer (like say, a Blu-ray disc) there really aren't any intended target resolutions for these codecs.

AFAIK, H.264 is capped at UHD. Yes, you can go higher with ffmpeg, but that would not follow the standard and not play everywhere.
H.265 is not only more efficient, but also far more flexible.

Well it gets a bit more complicated than that because of the different standard levels. A level is basically a set of constraints. For instance, H.264 Level 6.2 supports 8K.

Being flexible is a very general term and not one I would necessarily attribute to H.265 over H.264.

XAVC which uses h.264 is capped at 4K 60 fps. However h.264 can be used up to 8K but I should have said it’s practical limit is HD since h.264 may be supplanted by h.265 for 4K or higher as it’s more efficient and offers more options (according to Wikipedia).

Wikipedia is not accepted in science, Rick