New Camera Request

8K, full-frame, a box form factor with two SDI outs (one for a new EVF, optional), not neglecting HDMI though, BRAW, timecode sync option, internal ND.
Price: the original 12K price.

The game begins from here. Let's call this camera BM Ultimate.

12K already has

2 x SDI out
BRAW
Timecode sync option
Internal ND
Existing EVF

I mean the only thing you want is the box shape and a bigger sensor for 10K ?

JB

JB,
Actually yes. A shape that works on gimbals.

JB,
Actually yes. A shape that works on gimbals.

But is a shape that doesn’t work for the rest of the (larger) market.

I get it. I wish they would update the Micro. But the cube form sucks for anything else BUT gimbal work.

And I feel like gimbals are a bit faddish. Just like drones. They have their place, but I think the mindset of starting off on a gimbal for every shot has thankfully gone away….

JB

(I own a Ronin R2, RS and Arri SRH360 and used to own a MOVI M15)

If AF is not a possibility yet, maybe a lidar option.

Ricardo Marty

Red is out with the V-Raptor 6K/8K in another box form factor. That’s where the trend is. How about take the BMPCC 6K Pro and make that into a Box form factor and at $2K, with optional 8K sensor replacement and price the 8K at $3K. That I will buy. Anything above 8K is not interesting. 6K is more than good enough.

I think the best strength of the Pocket 6K Pro is how it evolved the P6K to have the internal ND, which is useful for when you do need to go on a Gimbal. And, the reason everyone wants box is for gimbals. But I do love the body of the UMP and even back to the UM4.6K. The reason is it is right for me as an operator. I've said in other places on this forum what I want to see improved.

For me the biggest and most important areas I want are operational. Mainly set operations. Meaning the things I have said about wanting more integrated wireless tools such as a wireless video assist that allows you to control camera settings, and as well having a port for lens motors that could also allow communication between the camera and those lens motors. Then when an AC has a hand unit they can control not just the motors, but they also have the ability to control camera settings. This makes it great for when the camera is on a jib, gimbal, Steadicam, or whatever. Again, I've said this elsewhere.

I have the sensor things I've said elsewhere as well. But I'm not racing out to buy a Komodo. I bought the P6K and P6KPro to act as supplemental cameras to my UMPG2. I also use them for corporate shoots where I need something simple, small, and low cost since the client might not be able to afford all the good gear.

I'd love if Blackmagic maybe went in the direction of a smaller URSA Micro that takes concepts from the Pockets and the OG Cinema Camera. A built-in monitor is a must because I love having it. But they could go with the same Micro SDI they have on the Video Assist 5" and then also the Mini XLRs they have on the Pockets. The internal ND of the P6KPro would be ideal. So it can be a box shape a bit like you want, but as long as it has the monitor so you can easily grab it, throw a lens on and a battery and are shooting I'd be most happy.

RED has the biggest issue that you really need an external monitor. Even Canon C300s have that issue that you must attach the monitor to control settings and see what you're shooting. Blackmagic has never had that issue because they have always had the monitor built in. The Micro was the only exception, and they haven't updated that in over 5+ years.

Look at the raptor.

Where do you put a handle to carry it ?

On top? Notice that giant air vent that will be blowing hot air into your hand ?

What about the side you say. Well then it starts to get in the way of the operational controls on the dumb side of the camera. That hand you carry it with can’t also be operating knobs. Imagine being a solo operator with this, holding it and then trying to change some controls ont he side where there’s a handle.

And you haven’t added a monitor.

And it doesn’t seem to have an EVF port. Or if there is, it uses the same pins that the user control monitor screen would be.

The cube works great on a gimbal. And it’s terrible for all other forms of builds.

JB

The cube works great on a gimbal. And it’s terrible for all other forms of builds.

So true!!!!
I spent today dealing with multiple BMD Micro Studio Camera 4K and even locked off on tripods they are so much more fiddly hassle than a current 4K/6K Pocket.

The cube works great on a gimbal. And it’s terrible for all other forms of builds.
JB

I disagree. I mentioned the Raptor as another box form factor that seem to be the way Red has been moving forward with form. But my experience was more with the Komodo and For the number of occasions I have rented it, it had so much flexibility to make all forms for build compared to the Pocket. As a side note, I am not comparing the box form factor with the URSA Mini Pro as my used for the UMP is purposefully different. I want a box form factor so I can have a b-cam that I can rigged with a monitor, cage, carry or hang it any which way that is very awkward with the Pocket series of cameras. And about the monitor, Although it is nice to have a built in one, that large monitor on the pocket, even the one on the pocket pro that can somewhat articulate is awkward for most narrative filmmaking and I always have a second monitor rigged on it or a 3rd party EVF… which when all said an done, looks and feels horrible. So a box camera with a small monitor like the Komodo, if folks insist to have a monitor, is fine but that can be ditched and lower the cost of the camera. That DSLR style body of the pocket, IMO and experience have a few of them through time, is UGLY and lacks versatility. In conclusion, keep the URSA Mini Pro form for what it is, have the pocket for those who wants it, give us narrative filmmakers a box form factor that is affordable to own so we don’t have to rent the Komodo or Raptor.

Personally I love the UMP form factor for proper production purposes. And the 6K pro is near perfect as a grab and shoot, low profile B cam. It even has a built in EVF and proper screen - the main reasons I bought it over a C70. Hell they are so cheap you can buy a few and have one dedicated to the gimbal.

People rigging up the 6K with external EVF, monitor, v Mount, shoulder rig etc are kind of missing the point of that camera in my view. That’s what the UMP is perfect for. Most rigged out box cameras I see are at least the size of an UMP.

I think it was Abelcine who published a guide where a rigged out Alexa Mini for shoulder use is physically bigger than the Amira!

Oh, I just found this Wooden Camera D-Box. This is definitely conceptually a good idea. I'd love for this to be built natively into the URSA Mini Pro body design.

Add in another SDI Out on the back as well so you have 3 SDI outs in total, two on the back and one up side-front for the Viewfinder.

I'd still say add the lens motor port up front to power and communicate with the lens motors, and I think we have something.

https://woodencamera.com/products/d-box ... ni-pro-12k

Oh, I just found this Wooden Camera D-Box. This is definitely conceptually a good idea. I'd love for this to be built natively into the URSA Mini Pro body design.

Add in another SDI Out on the back as well so you have 3 SDI outs in total, two on the back and one up side-front for the Viewfinder.

I'd still say add the lens motor port up front to power and communicate with the lens motors, and I think we have something.

https://woodencamera.com/products/d-box ... ni-pro-12k

When they launched the 12k and stupidly removed the rear LANC plug (my personal opinion) I asked wooden camera if they could make something that used the front LANC AND could protect that connection because they are so fragile.

This is what they come up with and I’ve been using them ever since. They’re great.

https://flic.kr/p/2mmeJQ8

JB

Oh, I just found this Wooden Camera D-Box. This is definitely conceptually a good idea. I'd love for this to be built natively into the URSA Mini Pro body design.

Add in another SDI Out on the back as well so you have 3 SDI outs in total, two on the back and one up side-front for the Viewfinder.

I'd still say add the lens motor port up front to power and communicate with the lens motors, and I think we have something.

https://woodencamera.com/products/d-box ... ni-pro-12k

When they launched the 12k and stupidly removed the rear LANC plug (my personal opinion) I asked wooden camera if they could make something that used the front LANC AND could protect that connection because they are so fragile.

This is what they come up with and I’ve been using them ever since. They’re great.

https://flic.kr/p/2mmeJQ8

JB

That's awesome! Well, I'm hoping that Blackmagic engineers are paying attention and that in the next UMP model we get some of these improvements. Again, I'd love for lens motors to be powered and communication to exist through a front port on the camera. More integration for wireless video would be amazing.

We live in an exciting time. I can't wait to see what Blackmagic does next.

Red is out with the V-Raptor 6K/8K in another box form factor. That’s where the trend is.

RED makes their box cameras because it's the absolute easiest way to build them: lay out all of the technical components that are needed inside the camera on a table. Then use your wit, or a computer, or both, to come up with a way to stack and layer them in a way that is as compact as possible, yet allows for some cooling. Yes, actual fans and big gaping holes to the outside world are A-OK!.

It probably started as open rig cameras on a test bench that eventually got a casing, and then evolved to today's more sophisticated versions of the same thing. They are for all intents and purposes still garage builds with some spit and polish.

Sure, vote for 'box design cameras', but then at least reference some actual camera designs like DSLRs or more modern slightly hybrid-ish versions like the C70. A design where, when you grip it, it fits your hand and your fingers automagically rest on all vital function buttons, or control wheels.

The day when a box-box camera isn't allowed to be called a camera anymore can't come soon enough.

I'd still be OK with the 'brain' nomenclature, since that isn't much in and of itself. But they sure aren't no effin' cameras.

Personally I wish BM could buy this design and make an Ursa out of it. Ursa Mini LTR?

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y2

Personally I wish BM could buy this design and make an Ursa out of it. Ursa Mini LTR?

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y2

Not exactly original.

It’s a complete rip off of an Aaton XTR prod.

BF3798E9-816F-4734-92A4-0BEDD4E9C15F.jpeg (47.91 KiB) Viewed 6681 times

The optical EVF on there is literally lifted right off an Aaton too, including the way the eyepiece locks into the optical block. The handle, the magazine shape and the magazine release. (Why do you need one on a digital camera ?)

As someone that trained on the Aaton, used to work for the Aaton Agent in Australia AND who met with and was involved in prototyping Aaton cameras with the Aaton founder JPB, I do have a fondness and predilection for this design. This design is so beloved for the reasons some on here argue. A box shape sucks for a thing that you use your hands and limbs to operate, that your hands have to hold for extended periods of time and caress.

But it doens’t make a lot of sense for a digital camera to copy this. Optical EVF ? No…

Aaton famously did design a camera for human hands and it’s revered as such. Wooden handles started with Aaton. Wood because it doesn’t get slippery when your hand sweats.

What I see a lot I’d cameras are now very very front heavy. The camera often ends up so front heavy that when you have the camera on your shoulder, the lens mount ends up BEHIND your ear. That means you need to see a camera that’s effectively got a nodal point behind your eyeball.

And they all sit very high on the shoulder, so they tend to roll left to right as well. That was the beauty of the Aaton design, there was a spot for your shoulder under the mag and the weight of the Fil out the back helped keep it all balanced.

If a camera is heavy but BALANCED you can have it on your shoulder for a very long time. If you’re using your arms to lift the front up (the way a lot of modern builds work) then you’re exerting a lot more energy.

E399D128-1FA4-4D6D-B952-CE13DFD7757E.jpeg (81.21 KiB) Viewed 6681 times

A lot of the Panavision film cameras are kind of just a box too. If you take the magazine off the back and the lens of the front and the viewfinder front he top you can see what I mean. The difference is they are “truly” modular and integrated with he way the magazines and accessories attach. Most of the box video cameras have these cages, cables everywhere, magic arms and Noga arms to position things. The design has really gone backwards with most cameras these days. They’re so messy and unwieldy. This is half the reason that brands like Panavision are so revered. Because they take into account the way the human hands working with these cameras work best.

Look at the photo above with Oscar nominee Rachel Morrison operating. Notice anything weird about her viewfinder ? Like which EYE she’s using. She’s a left eyed operator. A lot of the cameras you see from Sony ET AL have viewfinders that only right eyed operators can work with. Panavision make a left eye viewfinder option. And guess what. Little bit of trivia. So does BMD. Their EVF extends enough for the left eye operators as well.

5B841B80-8DDB-4B72-BDF5-50F1E35B359D.jpeg (17.47 KiB) Viewed 6681 times

Also, several of the BMD staff used to work for the same Aaton agency in Australia and would have the same understandings of the camera design at a fundamental level.

JB

I had BIG URSA (nice 10 inch monitor but who needs all that weight), URSA Mini Pro and now URSA Mini Pro 12K. (pocket and pocket 4K as well) I really like the basic URSA design keeping everything inside and progressing from G1 to G2 to 12K. NDs are the greatest. There is always room for improvements. Maybe these could count as "new camera":

Put a new sound system in there. If BMD can do it with the new Production camera then why not the next URSA.

Update the media slots. Four cards are great, but maybe make a modular slot that can swap out CFast and CFExpress... or even get rid of the slow sd cards. Just thinking.

More can be done with Bluetooth. I'm still surprised that BMD has not come out with their own remote.

I like the various user changeable mounts. Maybe they can be re-designed to be even simpler and quicker to exchange while keeping good integrity. Maybe a new locking BMD mount that then the various re-designed other adapters can fit.

Add some 3/8" threads and keep an eye on keeping the weight down. The URSA is really nice to not need an exoskeleton and a lot of things that are already inside. My URSAs set up faster than my pocket 4K. Although using the 4K is a bit more ergonomic.

Definitely stay with the new RGBW sensors.

And... bring the handle back. (Yeah, good way to seemingly keep the price down.)

I'm a left eye operator. That's because my left eye was always better than my right. Now that I have had PRK LASIK I still do it. Both eyes are great now. And, they got me to 20/15 vision!

Either way, I still prefer left eye operating because it feels like the camera is more centered to my body so that where I turn my pivot point with my hips the camera looks where the center of my body is pointed. With the right eye it feels like the camera is pointed off to the right side a bit too much.

Now when I can shoulder mount on the left shoulder and put the viewfinder on the right side I become a right eye operator. Why? Well, maybe it's because I am ambidextrous, and thus I have no issue with doing so. I do like that adaptability.

I agree with everything John says above about operating a camera with a shoulder mount. And, the wooden handle bit is true. Less sweat slippery action.

The reason I want more wireless integrated is so that less cables can exist. I hate cable management tasks when rigging a camera with the wireless transmitter having power and SDI. Same with having to do the P-Tap for the lens motors. That's why I want a front port because the motors will be up front at the lens. So then you power the first with a shorter cable.

I'm all for modular designs, but remember we love cameras that are a pleasure to operate by hand. There could be a modular box camera for gimbals, but it shouldn't be the A-Cam. A-Cam should be something like the UMP. Every tool has it's purpose but believe me when I say I'd buy the UMP over the box for my main purposes any day.

People rigging up the 6K with external EVF, monitor, v Mount, shoulder rig etc are kind of missing the point of that camera in my view. That’s what the UMP is perfect for. Most rigged out box cameras I see are at least the size of an UMP.
!

It is hard to argue against this. I bought the 6K because I thought I could strip it down to use in public places and have it rigged for inside work giving me the best of both worlds. It turns out to be such a hassle to strip it down that I never do. The fully rigged 6K costs about the same as a 12K does now.

For gimbal work I prefer to use something like the R5/6 because of the IBIS and IAF. I do my color grading in ACES so color matching them is reasonable.

I had decided a year ago that if I had to do it all over again I would get the 4.6K. Now that the 12K is the price of the 4.6K I will never buy another pocket. The 6K has served me very well.

People rigging up the 6K with external EVF, monitor, v Mount, shoulder rig etc are kind of missing the point of that camera in my view. That’s what the UMP is perfect for. Most rigged out box cameras I see are at least the size of an UMP.

That’s right and There is no debating there when it comes to the UMP. However, the UMP has a higher price point as a b-cam and weighs more and larger for tighter setups and gimbals that it may be. The pocket is not suitable for rigging hence I can’t disagree more with you other than we need the guts and affordability of the P6K in a box form factor that will allow for rigging as a b-cam or for those who wants a UMP form factor but cannot afford it.

I have both the UMP G2 that for most projects I used it as the a-cam and the pocket 6K as a b-cam. You either rigged the 6K one way and leave it or not at all otherwise you’re wasting time on set and often forget the entire Blackmagic kit and just rent a couple of Komodo or Canon C200. I would have liked to use the Blackmagic instead. I did borrow another UMP G2 once from a friend caused I wanted then whole picture to be shot in BRAW. Not many indie filmmakers have budgets for this.

Gee,

Good to know I have been using the bmpcc the wrong way (rigging it) for over a year now and with surprisingly good results. Black magic should really include instructions to warn people against doing this ha ha

The truth is once you put a cage on the bmpcc the form factor becomes largely irrelevant.

Personally I wish BM could buy this design and make an Ursa out of it. Ursa Mini LTR?

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y2

Not exactly original.

It’s a complete rip off of an Aaton XTR prod.

BF3798E9-816F-4734-92A4-0BEDD4E9C15F.jpeg

The optical EVF on there is literally lifted right off an Aaton too, including the way the eyepiece locks into the optical block. The handle, the magazine shape and the magazine release. (Why do you need one on a digital camera ?)

As someone that trained on the Aaton, used to work for the Aaton Agent in Australia AND who met with and was involved in prototyping Aaton cameras with the Aaton founder JPB, I do have a fondness and predilection for this design. This design is so beloved for the reasons some on here argue. A box shape sucks for a thing that you use your hands and limbs to operate, that your hands have to hold for extended periods of time and caress.

But it doens’t make a lot of sense for a digital camera to copy this. Optical EVF ? No…

Aaton famously did design a camera for human hands and it’s revered as such. Wooden handles started with Aaton. Wood because it doesn’t get slippery when your hand sweats.

What I see a lot I’d cameras are now very very front heavy. The camera often ends up so front heavy that when you have the camera on your shoulder, the lens mount ends up BEHIND your ear. That means you need to see a camera that’s effectively got a nodal point behind your eyeball.

And they all sit very high on the shoulder, so they tend to roll left to right as well. That was the beauty of the Aaton design, there was a spot for your shoulder under the mag and the weight of the Fil out the back helped keep it all balanced.

If a camera is heavy but BALANCED you can have it on your shoulder for a very long time. If you’re using your arms to lift the front up (the way a lot of modern builds work) then you’re exerting a lot more energy.

E399D128-1FA4-4D6D-B952-CE13DFD7757E.jpeg

A lot of the Panavision film cameras are kind of just a box too. If you take the magazine off the back and the lens of the front and the viewfinder front he top you can see what I mean. The difference is they are “truly” modular and integrated with he way the magazines and accessories attach. Most of the box video cameras have these cages, cables everywhere, magic arms and Noga arms to position things. The design has really gone backwards with most cameras these days. They’re so messy and unwieldy. This is half the reason that brands like Panavision are so revered. Because they take into account the way the human hands working with these cameras work best.

Look at the photo above with Oscar nominee Rachel Morrison operating. Notice anything weird about her viewfinder ? Like which EYE she’s using. She’s a left eyed operator. A lot of the cameras you see from Sony ET AL have viewfinders that only right eyed operators can work with. Panavision make a left eye viewfinder option. And guess what. Little bit of trivia. So does BMD. Their EVF extends enough for the left eye operators as well.

5B841B80-8DDB-4B72-BDF5-50F1E35B359D.jpeg

Also, several of the BMD staff used to work for the same Aaton agency in Australia and would have the same understandings of the camera design at a fundamental level.

JB

To be fair to them, I don't think they're being coy about the design being inspired by the Aaton, given the inclusion of the eyepiece and the fact they seem to make a couple of Aaton accessories. Nor was I really, with my suggestion of Ursa Mini LTR, the LTR being the Aaton that I trained on at film school. I wasn't really suggesting that BM take this design wholesale either with all its anachronisms - I wouldn't want an optical viewfinder either and the mag release obviously makes no sense unless there was some cool modular reason for splitting the camera in half.

Really all I meant was that the Aaton was the most comfortable camera I ever operated and I'd love to see a digital camera in the same form factor. I don't know anything about electronics so I don't know what if anything could sit in the mag section to stop it being wasted space (given you don't need all that space for CFast cards - maybe some kind of housing for a battery?). I'm not really so naive as to think it will ever happen but I can still dream!

It's interesting that some of the BM staff used to work for Aaton. And I definitely do appreciate that the BM viewfinder allows for left eye operation every time I use it, as that is the eye I use myself being left eye dominant. I didn't even realise I was in the minority until very recently.

I do like my UMP G1, but even with it balanced as best as I can make it and with the official BM shoulder kit, I do still find it tiring after not a huge amount of time and a little prone to rolling on my shoulder. Maybe that's just my anatomy though and I will still take it over a rigged up box design for shoulder shooting any day of the week.

I do like my UMP G1, but even with it balanced as best as I can make it and with the official BM shoulder kit, I do still find it tiring after not a huge amount of time and a little prone to rolling on my shoulder. Maybe that's just my anatomy though

I've had the same experience shoulder mounting the UMP — tendency to roll which becomes tiring. I recently bought a Zacuto baseplate that is a little heavier with a softer pad, but it hasn't made any real difference in combating the issue. That said, I do think the UMP has the best design for shoulder mounting among current digital cinema cameras at that relative price point.

I don't know what if anything could sit in the mag section to stop it being wasted space

Given that most of the UMP body is heat sink+fan, how to make the front of the body as compact as that Aaton XTR would likely be a tough design challenge. Perhaps there's a way to use the mag section for heat dissipation.

Really all I meant was that the Aaton was the most comfortable camera I ever operated and I'd love to see a digital camera in the same form factor.

Me too. Alexa classic is kind of the closest to me.

I don't know anything about electronics so I don't know what if anything could sit in the mag section to stop it being wasted space (given you don't need all that space for CFast cards - maybe some kind of housing for a battery?). I'm not really so naive as to think it will ever happen but I can still dream!

It's all about balance. CFAST cards don't weigh much. We need more of the weight out the back.

It's interesting that some of the BM staff used to work for Aaton.

No they didn't work for Aaton, they worked for the local Aaton agent in Australia (as did I)

And I definitely do appreciate that the BM viewfinder allows for left eye operation every time I use it, as that is the eye I use myself being left eye dominant. I didn't even realise I was in the minority until very recently.

Yes it's amazing how many people it is that are left eye. It wasn't until the left eye types at BMD pointed it out as they were proud to accomodate those users like you out there !

I do like my UMP G1, but even with it balanced as best as I can make it and with the official BM shoulder kit, I do still find it tiring after not a huge amount of time and a little prone to rolling on my shoulder. Maybe that's just my anatomy though and I will still take it over a rigged up box design for shoulder shooting any day of the week.

Setting up a camera to shoot with is something few people seem to take the time to set up properly.

You want the weight to be centred around the camera body and as low to the camera bodies centre of gravity.

Imagine trying to balance a bowl on your finger tip. THEN imagine trying to balance it when it's upside down. Much more likely because the weight is below the centre of gravity and it will just "sit" there.

This is what you want to do with a hand held camera. Have the wight as low as possible compared to the camera's centre of gravity. If the centre of gravity is higher, then it will be more twitchy and if the weight is off to the side, it's more likely to feel unbalanced and want to roll.

When a camera want's to roll on the shoulder like this it's usually NOT because of your shoulder shape, but typically because the user has weight that is hanging off the camera and not in line with the camera's central zone.

You don't want noga arms with monitors standing the weight off the body itself in any way.

So get rid of back and stuff on your hand held camera. Use cinelocks or other quick release systems to take accessories on or off as you need to make it faster.

With what's left, build them so they don't hand out far from the camera body, but are close to it and positioned as low as possible.

Try to have weight out the back of the centre of gravity. Batteries are GREAT for this. I know some operators that get extra long rods so the camera can be made LONGER. this means they can then SLIDE the batteries further away from eh camera but kind of use them like a counterweight. Some people will also UNDERSLING the battery to get it even lower.

Many operators also get a shark fin, or a dual battery adaptor. This lets them mount TWO batteries on the back, so you get better balance. Increased run time sure, but here's the thing. You're ADDING weight to make it MORE COMFORTABLE. Think about that.....It's better balanced, so it's heavier but more conformable to use for longer times.
https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/02/07/ ... -core-swx/

Most cube camera when converted to hand held, typically have cages slide plates and bridge plates that often add precious inches to the height of the build. The camera is now sitting TALLER on your shoulder because of the cages and adaptors. This makes it less stable than a camera where the body itself sits on shoulder like a classic Alexa.

Here's a good test. If you sit the camera on your shoulder like you're about to roll, what happens if you let go ? Will the camera just sit there ? You should aim to build your rig so it could just sit on your shoulder if you let go of your hands. Your arms should only be steering, not lifting.

Here's an example of a good design. Classic Alexa. Draw a horizontal line from the sensor out. Notice how it's WAY below where the operators eyes are if you draw the same horizontal line ?

Look at the vertical line of where the sensor is. Ideally you want this also to be closet to where your eyes are located.

If this guy let go, the camera probably wouldn't immediately fall to the ground.

Goodrig.jpg (395.41 KiB) Viewed 6328 times

Now let's look at an Arri CUBE build. This is how they typically are done and they SUCK if you're a skilled hand held operator. The weight is all the way forward. Notice the handles are folded in. The guys hands are practically in front of the matte box !!

Look how much HIGHER the camera is sitting above the shoulder compared to the Alexa. You can't see his face but the angle of the EVF tells me this guy is LOOKING UP to look through the viewfinder. His head is leaning back and he's looking up! Because his camera is sitting so high.

Higher centre of gravity makes this way less stable.

The transmitter is off to the side and it looks like he has a Preston MDR ON TOP, which again, makes the COG much higher.

All the weight is now forward. He's lifting the camera into place, not steering the shot. If he let go, the camera would instantly fall to the ground.

This build would suck a lot to operate hand held. It wouldn't be comfortable for longer takes, and the camera wouldn't be as steady because of how high it's sitting on the shoulder.

badrig6.jpg (166.87 KiB) Viewed 6328 times

I see a lot of RED cube builds that suck in equal amounts.

Look at this one. Hands are in front of the matte box. Lens mount is BEHIND the eye and higher than the eye.

badrig7.jpg (223.79 KiB) Viewed 6328 times

One of the most important aspects of the work I do as an operator is spending a lot of time in preproduction on the builds of my camera. 99% of the builds I see out there suck and could be made better with a few tweaks. Cube cameras are the hardest to tweak better.

JB

And some more examples.

Here's an F55 I'm operating. Notice that the lens centre is below my eyeliner.

My "A" operator below me has double stacked batteries for extra counter weight as well. Bonus if you know who the actor is.

https://flic.kr/p/pY6BoC

And another example. Again the lens centre is BELOW my eyeliner....but a bit of a sin here as the monitor is sitting up very high. Normally I wouldn't allow this, but in this case the director wanted to watch by camera. Also have my eye closed which is a no no.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/MG2910

Another build showing the transmitter placed INLINE and at the back of the camera. More bonus if you know who the actor is.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/94356M

And finally this is my A operator with a UMP build. Notice the lens is below the eyeline. She has a the battery EXTENDED out the back on rods and the transmitter is also mounted in line and out the back of the camera.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/vd2U52

JB

This all excellent info JB. The photos of your builds are really useful to see. You've made me realize I need to find a different microphone placement on my shoulder setup that mounts it closer to the center of gravity (and maybe swap it for a lighter mic).

Try to have weight out the back of the centre of gravity. Batteries are GREAT for this. I know some operators that get extra long rods so the camera can be made LONGER. this means they can then SLIDE the batteries further away from eh camera but kind of use them like a counterweight. Some people will also UNDERSLING the battery to get it even lower.

Many operators also get a shark fin, or a dual battery adaptor. This lets them mount TWO batteries on the back, so you get better balance. Increased run time sure, but here's the thing. You're ADDING weight to make it MORE COMFORTABLE. Think about that.....It's better balanced, so it's heavier but more conformable to use for longer times.
https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/02/07/ ... -core-swx/

That shark fin is a great recommendation. Going to order one today.

While I know you're not a fan of recording to SSD, one of the reasons I got the BMD SSD Recorder unit for the UMP12K was specifically to push the battery weight further back.

Great points made there!

Apropos creating a counterbalance, I rock these beauties, The IDX PowerLink. You can connect them up for continuous supply. The really help get the weight further back.

Thought I should upload a photo of what it looks like and how it helps.

These forum discussions devolve into often-repeated arguments because it’s frequently a clash between the irreconcilable perspectives of, on one side, paid professionals with years of experience – who frequently work with a number of collaborators and can muster considerable equipment when needed, and whose principal or only source of income depends on the camera – and, on the other side, one-man band enthusiasts peripherally involved in filmmaking, who use the cameras to generate primary, secondary or passive streams of income, and whose collaborator numbers and post-production resources are limited.

If we’re debating about BMD cameras that cost up to €3,000, body-only, we first need to consider that they are used by a wider cross section of users than ever before. Because this group of users may not always have access to essential equipment or high-end editing machines, it’s vital to debate the design of cameras not only with respect to the form factor, but also in regard to manageable video resolutions and RAW-recording compression.

So, instead of having a single line of cameras for budgets up to €3,000, there should be different ones designed for a wide variety of users.

Personally, I’d prefer a 4K, tops 6K, monitoring-screen–decoupled camera body – only an actively cooled sensor block with a lens mount and essential I/O, including CFast/CFexpress slots, timecode in, SDI and USB Type-C, along with basic menu functionality. Keeping in mind hand-held and shoulder-mounted ergonomics, a cuboidal shape about the size of a standard brick, with the lens mount located on the narrower face, would be theoretically more functional than a simple cube.

Considering that, I’d argue BMD can innovate by forking the current Pocket series into two more distinct lines – the existing Pocket 4K/6K, MFT/EF, DSLR/mirrorless-like design with a built-in monitoring screen, competing with other DSLR/mirrorless cameras, aimed at vloggers or enthusiasts; and a new line comprising 4K/6K, Super 35, EF/RF mount, sensor-block–only system aimed at others who produce content not only for online audiences but also for TV, film and streaming. I’d be OK with a daylight-viewable 5- or 7-inch portable monitor sold separately for this second line.

Secondary improvements to consider would be the inclusion of an OLPF, better IR-blocking sensor-glass coating, and superior dust and humidity sealing for the sensor. I’d also argue that the sensor pixel-pitch ideally should be 6.5 µm or higher, and 5 µm at minimum.

Restricting the acquisition of resolutions over 6K and full-frame formats to higher-end cameras is a sound business strategy because 8K full-frame RAW recording can so far only be tackled using an immense amount of resources, not to mention a significantly large camera form-factor to allow sensor cooling and data processing.

My dream camera would be a Medium Format sensor similar to the GFX100s optimized for video. It could be an update to the URSA but in a smaller size similar to the UMP. They would call it "Ursa Major". Other specs could be actual 16 or more stops of actual dynamic range, dual native ISO and 8k.

Nothing against the URSA body, its a great ENG style camera that works fantastic for shoulder rig and handheld shooting but is not as versatile as cameras like the DSMC2 or Alexa Mini, or the new Raptor. A cube form factor at least gives the user the option to build out the camera for whatever application they need it for.

I'd love to see BM come out with a more modular $10k+ camera that has a removable monitor that can be mounted anywhere and isn't fixed to one spot. The monitor on the current URSA is an absolute joke in brightness, color and ghosts so bad its unusable in temps below 35 Fahrenheit.

I get BM is all about making affordable cameras(which they have plenty of), but I'm not sure why they can't actually make at least one high end camera thats WELL MADE, even if it came in at 20k that would still be undercutting Red and Arri. I've seen 10x more stories about BM cameras physically breaking because of cheap components than I have any other camera (the software is super reliable, but the actual physical build isn't)

Id love to see
-Modular body
-Versatile non-fixed high nit display
-Locking EF & more mounting options (in a perfect world mirrorless... which i know may be a pipe
dream)
-Higher overall build quality

I've never had the body of a BMD camera fail on me, including the LCD display. I've used every BMD cinema camera model since the original BMCC to shoot documentaries on multiple continents, so the existing designs seem plenty sturdy to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For non-fixed external LCD displays, the only digital motion picture camera that has failed me on location repeatedly was the Canon C300 with it's external LCD where the proprietary external LCD cable attachment broke not once, but three times early in multi-week location shoots and had to go through lengthy RMA process with Canon each time. I've never had a BMD camera LCD display fail.

I've never had the body of a BMD camera fail on me, including the LCD display. I've used every BMD cinema camera model since the original BMCC to shoot documentaries on multiple continents, so the existing designs seem plenty sturdy to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For non-fixed external LCD displays, the only digital motion picture camera that has failed me on location repeatedly was the Canon C300 with it's external LCD where the proprietary external LCD cable attachment broke not once, but three times early in multi-week location shoots and had to go through lengthy RMA process with Canon each time. I've never had a BMD camera LCD display fail.

Not saying BM displays are faulty (I own dozens of BM cameras and have never had any fail either), but they are cheap displays. BM has to cut corners to get to the low price point they sell their cameras at and I certainly don't fault them for that for their lower end cameras like the pocket cameras. But for cameras like the 12k URSA that originally came out at $10k it would be nice if it could at least be a little higher quality display for their top of the line cinema cameras.

Maybe don't abandon older models so quickly so as to build trust with your brand. Be the brand that stands by their cameras no matter when they were made. Don't "apple" us make our thing from two years ago obsolete. Perhaps other brands with more pedigree are worth the price.

But for cameras like the 12k URSA that originally came out at $10k it would be nice if it could at least be a little higher quality display for their top of the line cinema cameras.

I think the ONLY reason the 12K came out at that price was the initial high cost per unit for the brand new sensors that were literally built from scratch. The 12K is most likely priced where they probably hoping to target if the model was successful in terms of volume. The setup cost of a new sensor is in the millions, making the per unit cost very high until you hit a few volume milestones...

BMD hasn't exactly sold gazillions of 12K cameras, and that too was maybe the plan all along when the initial setup of the new sensor fab doesn't yield a lot of "pass" sensors. I'm going to be bet they are now going to struggle to keep them in stock anywhere with the new price.

The last time they had an "expensive" camera before the 12K that had everything for all the pros ended up in a dead end and arguably their least successful camera, the Ursa. No one bought it.

At the time there was another camera that EVERYONE was saying would wipe the floor with BMD because it was a "better" designed camera with all the things that users wanted. It was called AJA CION and it bombed hugely as well.

That middle ground / higher end of traditional narrative drama just isn't the BMD market. Nor should it be. I am not the target market for this camera. That prestige marquee branding means a tiny tiny market.

I would be amazed if there were more than 300-500 Panavision DXL2 cameras in the world and more than 500-750 Sony Venice bodies.

This is such a small small tiny low volume hard to please market. Look at how the giant Panasonic has struggled to make any in-roads into a true cinema camera.

And Canon for that matter. How many films have been shot on a C700 ???

Making a camera is so hard. It's so complex from an engineering point of view, and in the end the good cameras often don't succeed. Digital Bolex being a classic example. Everyone loves to rave about how great the image was, how amazing the sensor was, how vivid and it was a low cost camera that NO ONE BOUGHT and they went out of buisiness.

Because this is a business. They have to make enough money to make the next one. Not the camera that a few fickle higher end elites might want. Not the features that the Monday quarterback fantasy football camera designers think are must have features either because the market is littered with failures....

Aaton
Dalsa (Actually the first 4K cinema camera despite what RED might tell you)
Panavision (twice tried to make their own camera and failed and instead "panavised" a RED)
Digital Bolex
AJA
Ikonoscope A-Cam
Fran (!!!)
Axiom (this thing has been stumbling along for so long)
Thomson Viper (great camera that they never followed up on)
Si2K (Same. One hit and never again)

Z cam and kinefinity the jury is still out on. Actually Z cam have done OK, but most people serious about image quality don't rate them.

Most of *MY* contemporaries, peers and crew sneer at the BMD brand. Nothing is going to change that elitist attitude that a lot of decision makers have about the brand. Again, that is not the market BMD want. Who cares what Hollywood thinks.

BMD sometimes seem to "not know" what they are doing if you judge by some choices, but a lot of the time they have to make tough choices. They are PAINFULLY aware what we all want as features, but the trick is they have to make money out of them. That's much much harder than any of us think it is.

BMD want those that are the outsiders, the ones who just want to make good work and don't have the same resources as the establishment and don't care about what others think of their choice of tools.

Basically what RED's brand promise was, but actually has kind of failed to deliver on

JB

BMD want those that are the outsiders, the ones who just want to make good work and don't have the same resources as the establishment and don't care about what others think of their choice of tools.

Basically what RED's brand promise was, but actually has kind of failed to deliver on

JB

That's it. High-quality images at affordable prices. I thank God i didn't live in the DSLR revolution for long, using a 5Dmk3 for two years, because stepping into cinema-designed cameras and codecs has been the best gear decision i've ever made.

I get asked all the time what i shoot on, and i proudly respond with Blackmagic!

But for cameras like the 12k URSA that originally came out at $10k it would be nice if it could at least be a little higher quality display for their top of the line cinema cameras.

I think the ONLY reason the 12K came out at that price was the initial high cost per unit for the brand new sensors that were literally built from scratch. The 12K is most likely priced where they probably hoping to target if the model was successful in terms of volume. The setup cost of a new sensor is in the millions, making the per unit cost very high until you hit a few volume milestones...

BMD hasn't exactly sold gazillions of 12K cameras, and that too was maybe the plan all along when the initial setup of the new sensor fab doesn't yield a lot of "pass" sensors. I'm going to be bet they are now going to struggle to keep them in stock anywhere with the new price.

The last time they had an "expensive" camera before the 12K that had everything for all the pros ended up in a dead end and arguably their least successful camera, the Ursa. No one bought it.

At the time there was another camera that EVERYONE was saying would wipe the floor with BMD because it was a "better" designed camera with all the things that users wanted. It was called AJA CION and it bombed hugely as well.

That middle ground / higher end of traditional narrative drama just isn't the BMD market. Nor should it be. I am not the target market for this camera. That prestige marquee branding means a tiny tiny market.

I would be amazed if there were more than 300-500 Panavision DXL2 cameras in the world and more than 500-750 Sony Venice bodies.

This is such a small small tiny low volume hard to please market. Look at how the giant Panasonic has struggled to make any in-roads into a true cinema camera.

And Canon for that matter. How many films have been shot on a C700 ???

Making a camera is so hard. It's so complex from an engineering point of view, and in the end the good cameras often don't succeed. Digital Bolex being a classic example. Everyone loves to rave about how great the image was, how amazing the sensor was, how vivid and it was a low cost camera that NO ONE BOUGHT and they went out of buisiness.

Because this is a business. They have to make enough money to make the next one. Not the camera that a few fickle higher end elites might want. Not the features that the Monday quarterback fantasy football camera designers think are must have features either because the market is littered with failures....

Aaton
Dalsa (Actually the first 4K cinema camera despite what RED might tell you)
Panavision (twice tried to make their own camera and failed and instead "panavised" a RED)
Digital Bolex
AJA
Ikonoscope A-Cam
Fran (!!!)
Axiom (this thing has been stumbling along for so long)
Thomson Viper (great camera that they never followed up on)
Si2K (Same. One hit and never again)

Z cam and kinefinity the jury is still out on. Actually Z cam have done OK, but most people serious about image quality don't rate them.

Most of *MY* contemporaries, peers and crew sneer at the BMD brand. Nothing is going to change that elitist attitude that a lot of decision makers have about the brand. Again, that is not the market BMD want. Who cares what Hollywood thinks.

BMD sometimes seem to "not know" what they are doing if you judge by some choices, but a lot of the time they have to make tough choices. They are PAINFULLY aware what we all want as features, but the trick is they have to make money out of them. That's much much harder than any of us think it is.

BMD want those that are the outsiders, the ones who just want to make good work and don't have the same resources as the establishment and don't care about what others think of their choice of tools.

Basically what RED's brand promise was, but actually has kind of failed to deliver on

JB

It still amazes me how often people look at my Blackmagic URSA Mini Camera and ask: "Is that a RED?" For 5-years now! I even once had a normal person try to argue with me that RED is used on every big Hollywood movie. When I told them ARRI they didn't believe me. Why? The marketing hype of RED. When the truth is that ARRI dominates the marketplace.

I don't blame Arri, they make amazing cameras. And, they've been doing so for 100-years. They make cameras, lights, lenses, and a ton of additional support gear. Their business is the filmmaking business.

Blackmagic has their hands in a lot of different areas of the broadcast and film business. Before they acquired DaVinci Resolve I knew them primarily for the tools they provided for broadcast and the converters they had. Once they acquired DaVinci Resolve the game changed.

We're all snobs here. Let's face it, it's true. Yet, it doesn't mean we can't dream and request the features we want to see in the cameras we are buying from a company. There's a reason I push for the things I push for in the next camera, and a lot of it has to do with things I experience on sets. Sometimes ideas stem from working with a different camera from another brand. Things I might like from that camera, or something of an issue with it that is also something I'd love to see improved with Blackmagic cameras.

The cameras are constantly evolving. 20-years ago think about where we were. Film was the dominant platform. They few shooting digital were George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, and a few others experimenting with it like James Cameron and David Fincher. But predominately it was film.

What was the first digital camera primary feature to win Best Cinematography? Slumdog Millionaire with the S1-2K, which as JB has pointed out was a one hit and never again. The percentage of digital winners over the last decade when you look up are Arri Alexa. Red markets themselves as being top, but they are not.

Blackmagic has a good niche in the market. I personally love their UI and OS so much. It's the best amongst a lot of brands. Plus, they really get close to Arri with their color science and dynamic range. Given time I'm certain they could truly be competitive with some higher end cinema cameras. But they aren't making cameras for that market. And, I'm fine with that.

I think Blackmagic will dominate with DaVinci Resolve soon as the go to NLE & Color Grading program. They already dominate with color. But NLE they could quickly become the go to for everyone. A decade ago it was Avid, Final Cut Pro 7, and Premiere Pro. DaVinci wasn't an NLE. And, Blackmagic didn't have any cinema cameras a decade ago.

I’m in a small market but I’ve had people recognize the brand when they ask what camera I use or they’ll mention they see I’m using Blackmagic. It’s a slow process that still assumes an old Red is better.

I’m in a small market but I’ve had people recognize the brand when they ask what camera I use or they’ll mention they see I’m using Blackmagic. It’s a slow process that still assumes an old Red is better.

Maybe twice or three times have I had someone recognize the camera as Blackmagic. This is generally with my URSA Mini that people guess it’s a RED and the few times people say Blackmagic. With the Pockets I never have someone ask.

I’ll go ahead and say I’m fine with 4 body types in the future: 1) Pocket Pro Design 2) Little Box Design 3) URSA Mini Pro Design 4) URSA (redesigned with UMP features but bigger body allows for higher frame rates and larger sensor).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll go ahead and say I’m fine with 4 body types in the future: 1) Pocket Pro Design 2) Little Box Design 3) URSA Mini Pro Design 4) URSA (redesigned with UMP features but bigger body allows for higher frame rates and larger sensor).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bring back the URSA! haha, but seriously. That would be amazing.
I wonder if ergonomically you could fine-tune that body design.
Heck, what if the next BMD is just an even bigger 12k-type sensor!
I can't picture them utilizing that internal sensor in a smaller cut of it, as the s35 size gives you everything you need and the image quality might lower with an 8k-cut of that sensor. But i could be wrong.

I think that black magic cameras are underestimated, even the humble bmpcc 4k which I have been using intensively now on many jobs. You can get pretty amazing images out of this little guy. Its funny, I am a little resistant to getting the ursa 12k (though my resistance is waring away!) because I want to push the 4k as far as I can in terms of image quality before I move on. I am finding the sweet spot of the sensor after many many hours of filming - where it responds best.

For me the versatility of the small cameras and exploring what you can do with their small form factor is a big plus. Filmmaking is a physical business and freedom in the way you can use a camera is liberating.

I was certainly a Red fan who used to disparage bmpcc until I actually tried the camera myself then I just sold the whole Red system though I have to say I still like the stuff I shot on that camera. I do get the argument that people recognise the Red brand and won't be impressed if you come onto set with a black magic but once they see the end product everyone is happy.

Remember the current 12K Super 35 sensor can grow to 16K 135 film using the same 2.2 micron pitch photosites.

I agree with Robert that I appreciate the smaller size bodies (and the dual range ISO) that the current Pocket cameras have. A BMPCC8K mFT mount using the RGBWWW technology might interest me for capturing BRAW 4K, but I’m not holding my breath as it’s still a few weeks until NAB 2021.

I agree with Robert that I appreciate the smaller size bodies (and the dual range ISO) that the current Pocket cameras have. A BMPCC8K mFT mount using the RGBWWW technology might interest me for capturing BRAW 4K, but I’m not holding my breath as it’s still a few weeks until NAB 2021.

I second Rick and Robert on smaller size bodies, however will go for a box form factor from here on forward.

Remember the current 12K Super 35 sensor can grow to 16K 135 film using the same 2.2 micron pitch photosites.

And, why not start with that in a new URSA Size Camera? Then go on from there to the UMP size with that 16K 135 sensor size. Then after the URSA Micro Pro (Box Camera) could get one, followed by the Pockets using the 6K Pro basic conceptual design.

I still think an URSA Size could also get a 65mm Size Sensor. I bet that would be badass for VFX. And, I really see Blackmagic starting to dominate a VFX space with their cameras and these ultra high resolutions. With Fusion built-in into Resolve and all NLE editing being done in the program with Color being done and all finishing being in Resolve it could be a dominating force for Blackmagic Design.

I do have to say for miniatures a Pocket having the 16K 135 sensor would be nice. Using a miniature is still an awesome art form. If you did bigiature size you could do use the URSA 65mm. Those would be amazing plates.

"A BMPCC8K mFT mount using the RGBWWW technology might interest me for capturing BRAW 4K, but I’m not holding my breath as it’s still a few weeks until NAB 2021."

I would buy this.

I’d certainly buy a camera built specifically for VFX purposes, with a higher resolution, and a streamlined camera body.

Hi all

I am new to the forum, but have searched from one end to the other and I am not sure if this thead will mind, but I will try.

Not sure if it is acceptable to rally for support to get a housing into production, so just shoot me if I am out of line. Small caliber only please

We are Stock footage shooters and, to make our product as future proof as possible, are wanting to upgrade from our 4K BMPCC, that I am still VERY impressed with and our 6K RED Dragon, to the amazing Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K. BUT! We need an industry leading underwater housing for it, Nauticam. Nauticam China have un-officialy agreed, through our local supplier in Cape Town, to put this housing into R&D and production if they get at least 10 orders.

Therefore, my post.

As you all know, Blackmagic have just slashed the price of their 12K Flagship, from $9995 to $5995. This will result in a big boost in sales and possibly also the number of users who want to take it underwater, so my timing is hopefully spot on. What I am trying to achieve with this post is to test the waters, as it were, to see just how close we will be able to get to Nauticam's 10 order threshold. The plan would be to get each interested cinematographer to place their order with their own preferred Nauticam supplier/stockist, wherever they may be, but to keep Nauticam in the loop when we place our orders. It is my understanding that the URSA Mini Pro 4K, the 4.6K, 4.6K G2 and the 12K should all fit into the same housing, but maybe one of the camera pro's can confirm that.

Why bother moving to 12K? I see this question in so many forums. Well, if you are a stock footage shooter like us, 12K makes your product a lot more future-proof. Even if you are not concerned about future-proofing your work, the 12K image quality is even more mind blowing when you down scale to an 8K or 4K output. Furthermore, with frame rates like 4K @240fps, 8K @120fps and even 12K @60fps are industry leading speeds and take out all those underwater bumps and shakes, especially with that Super macro lens attached. Another major bonus is the digital cropping that can be done in post, which allows for a 9X zoom crop into the 12K frame and still produces a tack sharp TRUE 4K output. While working on a 4K or 8K production, having the ability to Zoom, pan and scan inside the 12K frame, gives one the ability to render any number of shots from the same single 12K clip. Lastly, the new Davinci Resolve 17.3 software update, with a ".. completely new processing engine.." now ".. work up to 3 times faster on Apple Mac models with the M1 chip", sorts out almost all those speed issues that Apple users were having with processing the BRAW files on their laptops. Get it now? A bit of a no-brainer.

SO. If we are permitted to do this and anyone is seriously interested in getting the housing into production, then please let me know, and we can start the ball rolling.

Thanks for your time

Cheers

Russ

Apparently BMD will not be attending the NAB 2021 either after Canon, Panasonic, and Sony previously dropped out. Disappointing news but health is everyone’s priority of course.

https://www.provideocoalition.com/nab-s ... magic-too/