Blackmagic Forum

I’m talking about the UMP 12k (OLPF).

With the Pyxis and Cine 12k soon to be shipping (I hope), what will happen to the middle-of-the-pack cameras? Specifically the s35 12k?

Will we see any more updates? Perhaps ONE more go with updated media?
Or do we say “it is what it is.”

I already “own” the Pyxis in the form of a 6k FF.
The Ursa Cine 12k is out of price range.
I keep finding myself wanting just a little more quality out of the image I find with the 6k ff, and I know the s35 12k would offer that. I’ve owned one before but just wished for CFexpress media.

I will venture to say it will have a similar faith that of the UMP 4.6K G2, still on the market but no more firmware updates for a very long while, and no expectations to have any. The UMP G2 is a solid workhorse and definitely has made its mark that it is still a viable camera today even without anymore updates. But that is the story of BM products and we just learn to live with it - or in your words “it is what it is”.

Adam Langdon wrote:I’m talking about the UMP 12k (OLPF).

With the Pyxis and Cine 12k soon to be shipping (I hope), what will happen to the middle-of-the-pack cameras? Specifically the s35 12k?

Will we see any more updates? Perhaps ONE more go with updated media?
Or do we say “it is what it is.”

I already “own” the Pyxis in the form of a 6k FF.
The Ursa Cine 12k is out of price range.
I keep finding myself wanting just a little more quality out of the image I find with the 6k ff, and I know the s35 12k would offer that. I’ve owned one before but just wished for CFexpress media.

The Ursa Cine sensor is apparently the 2nd generation of the Ursa 12k sensor. It is not the same sensor as the Pyxis, as I'm sure you know. I think if anything the 2nd gen Pyxis will have an iteration of this sensor (too have 8k perhaps) and the Ursa form factor will eventually fade away.

Love my 12k OLPF, it is a bit heavy with my Arles lenses, but with an EasyRig, it's very manageable and I wouldn't trade it. I wouldn't mind it being full frame. I think it's going to die, I asked if the sensor tech was abandoned and John Brawley said absolutely not, but he was referring to the Ursa Cine as confirmation.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=207269&p=1077011&hilit=ursa+12k#p1075935

Que Thompson wrote:… The Ursa Cine sensor is apparently the 2nd generation of the Ursa [Mini] 12k sensor. It is not the same sensor as the Pyxis, as I'm sure you know. I think if anything the 2nd gen Pyxis will have an iteration of this sensor (too have 8k perhaps)…

URSA Mini 12K Super 35 RGBW photosite pitch 2.2 microns.

URSA Cine 12K 135 film open gate RGBW photosite pitch 2.9 microns 16 stops.

Theoretical Pyxis 2 8K 135 film open gate RGBW photosite pitch 4.39 microns might reasonably be 17 stops! With a quicker sensor readout than the URSA Cine 12K. This might be branded as the URSA Cine LT.

If true, and it’s due to the 8K configuration retaining the special capabilities of the RGBW evaluation of 6x6 photosites (instead of the limitations of conventional Bayer CFA), then this Pyxis 2 would be impossible to ignore for anyone producing 4K deliverables, regardless of the cost, it would have a market.

I know a “Pyxis Cine” would be a year or more out, though.
BMD moves at their own speed, and since I’m a diehard user, I may go back to the Ursa Mini 12k for the time being. Perhaps a sale will happen in the fall?

I want a 6k URSA 12k sensor camera.

That could provide a photosite pitch of between 5.8-6 microns depending upon their willingness to have a sensor a little larger than 36mm with 6144 horizontal pixels or stay just under 36mm like the current ‘full-frame’ sensors.

Either way if the RGBW exposure math can work with 6K, you might be shooting for about 17.5 stops dynamic range. That’s a big ‘if’ though as a 6K RGBW array might not work the same as the original 12K RGBW array.

rick.lang wrote:That could provide a photosite pitch of between 5.8-6 microns depending upon their willingness to have a sensor a little larger than 36mm with 6144 horizontal pixels or stay just under 36mm like the current ‘full-frame’ sensors.

Either way if the RGBW exposure math can work with 6K, you might be shooting for about 17.5 stops dynamic range. That’s a big ‘if’ though as a 6K RGBW array might not work the same as the original 12K RGBW array.

Rick if they do something to what you're referring to, that camera would definitely be some ways out in terms of coming to market, no?. Unless it's already in development . Either way I think we'll quicker see a price drop on the Ursa cine 12k's faster than we see a Pyxis with a new sensor. I would love a Pyxis with a RGBW sensor as you mentioned above along with internal Nd's in the price range of the Ursa mini G1/G2. One can only wish I guess. Until then I'll be shooting with my 12k's OG model until the wheels fall off.

rick.lang wrote:...
Either way if the RGBW exposure math can work with 6K, you might be shooting for about 17.5 stops dynamic range. That’s a big ‘if’ though as a 6K RGBW array might not work the same as the original 12K RGBW array.

In the original 12K there is a super16 size 6K that works fine. 6K super16 or 12K super35 both work for me... typically using the 6K super16 for long lens wildlife... higher frame rates and shutter speeds.

I still maintain though that there may be some better algorithm for this sensor, especially when getting the 8k and 4K from the 12K.

You may be right about a better algorithm or improved image processing technique being available at some point. Especially as it might apply to shooting in 6K RGBW.

If there is a Pyxis Pro in development, I would think it would be a beneficiary of any image improvements unless the improvements require more computational power than the camera design can support. I suspect there would be a significant price bump for the Pyxis Pro we are imagining in our discussions, putting it in the $5,000 range, while still selling the original Pyxis for those who want a lower price point.

One year in I've been very happy with my 12k OLPF after agonizing about what to do when my 4.6k G2 started to show signs of failure. The legacy media was/is kindof annoying, but since I already had all the accessories from the G2 it was so much cheaper than anything else in my consideration set it made the most sense. Even if I do wind up going to something else in the next year or two (whether from Blackmagic or someone else.)

Donnell Henry wrote:… I think we'll quicker see a price drop on the Ursa cine 12k's faster than we see a Pyxis with a new sensor. I would love a Pyxis with a RGBW sensor as you mentioned above along with internal Nd's in the price range of the Ursa mini G1/G2. One can only wish I guess. Until then I'll be shooting with my 12k's OG model until the wheels fall off.

Logically I’d buy a Pyxis to replace my BMPCC4K since I don’t own a 6K camera. But I’d still keep the BMPCC4K as a backup or a C Camera. I’d also retain the URSA Mini 4.6K because of that Fujinon B4 zoom that lives on it. A single full frame quality parfocal cine zoom with a decent range at a budget price isn’t available.

now that the Pyxis 12k has been announced, I want to revisit this question...

I really want to see an Ursa Mini 12k compared to an URSA Cine 12k, in terms of dynamic range and color.
I know it says it has 2 stops more, but how does it look side by side?

After considering all my options, I think I have to pause on the Pyxis 12k, even though I just sold my Pyxis 6k. The UMP12k still has a great sensor and readout, but those extra 2 stops in the Pyxis 12k come as a cost--both in money and rolling shutter.
If they would update the media and somehow do an s35 cut of the Cine 12k sensor, I think that would be so freakin' nice as a 'one last Ursa Mini'. It would put it up against the Alexa 35, in terms of sensor and form factor.

You can get a used UMP12k OLPF for around $3500, which has all the benefits of multiple SDI outs, multiple card options, internal NDs, etc.

There is only around $670 different. If I didnt mind the Ursa Mini formfactor I would I would consider the Ursa Cine 12k body only instead. I wouldnt consider a used camera unless its comes with a 6 months warranty. CFast is pricey, slow and make no sense.

Adam Langdon wrote:, but those extra 2 stops in the Pyxis 12k come as a cost--both in money and rolling shutter.

It's really not that bad. Sony make this camera called a Burano that is worse at the same resolution.

And the rolling shutter performance is better than the Pyxis you just sold....

Adam Langdon wrote:I think that would be so freakin' nice as a 'one last Ursa Mini'. It would put it up against the Alexa 35, in terms of sensor and form factor.

I don't really understand what you're asking for. A 12K gen 2 sensor in a Ursa Mini body with CFE? Explain to me what would be so different or more appealing to the URSA Cine LF?

It's not going to happen.

The URSA Cine does everything the Ursa Mini Pro body would offer and it's really not that different in terms of size. And it's so insanely cheap.

Blackmagic aren't Sony or Canon. They don't really do stratification of features based on model. They tend to do end use case designs. The URSA Cine is for Filmakers. The Pyxis is for those that want box cameras for gimbals, rigging as smaller cameras.

If what you're really asking for is something between the URSA Cine and the Pyxis then that's different. And just using the Ursa Mini as a basis for that would be a mistake.

Design the camera for the user you have in mind.

JB

John Brawley wrote:

Adam Langdon wrote:I think that would be so freakin' nice as a 'one last Ursa Mini'. It would put it up against the Alexa 35, in terms of sensor and form factor.

I don't really understand what you're asking for. A 12K gen 2 sensor in a Ursa Mini body with CFE? Explain to me what would be so different or more appealing to the URSA Cine LF?

It's not going to happen.

The URSA Cine does everything the Ursa Mini Pro body would offer and it's really not that different in terms of size. And it's so insanely cheap.

Blackmagic aren't Sony or Canon. They don't really do stratification of features based on model. They tend to do end use case designs. The URSA Cine is for Filmakers. The Pyxis is for those that want box cameras for gimbals, rigging as smaller cameras.

If what you're really asking for is something between the URSA Cine and the Pyxis then that's different. And just using the Ursa Mini as a basis for that would be a mistake.

Design the camera for the user you have in mind.

JB

gotcha. this does help wrap my head around the body differences.

John Brawley wrote:

Adam Langdon wrote:, but those extra 2 stops in the Pyxis 12k come as a cost--both in money and rolling shutter.

It's really not that bad. Sony make this camera called a Burano that is worse at the same resolution.

And the rolling shutter performance is better than the Pyxis you just sold....

Adam Langdon wrote:I think that would be so freakin' nice as a 'one last Ursa Mini'. It would put it up against the Alexa 35, in terms of sensor and form factor.

I don't really understand what you're asking for. A 12K gen 2 sensor in a Ursa Mini body with CFE? Explain to me what would be so different or more appealing to the URSA Cine LF?

It's not going to happen.

The URSA Cine does everything the Ursa Mini Pro body would offer and it's really not that different in terms of size. And it's so insanely cheap.

Blackmagic aren't Sony or Canon. They don't really do stratification of features based on model. They tend to do end use case designs. The URSA Cine is for Filmakers. The Pyxis is for those that want box cameras for gimbals, rigging as smaller cameras.

If what you're really asking for is something between the URSA Cine and the Pyxis then that's different. And just using the Ursa Mini as a basis for that would be a mistake.

Design the camera for the user you have in mind.

JB

Thus a PYXIS Pro 12K with internal ND, V or Gold Mount Battery Plate, and interchangeable lens mount is what is needed for the in between the URSA Cine and PYXIS.

I just rigged my URSA Cine 12K to be 19.2 lbs to fly on my Steadicam. And, it was perfectly balanced on the Steadicam. Since I have the Zephyr that means I have a limit of 23 lbs. Thus it's great that I can configure the camera within that weight range.

And, in all honesty the weight isn't that bad compared to old film camera systems. Everyone who complains clearly never shot on a film camera. They got used to the small DSLR/Mirrorless offerings and other small body offerings from other brands.

Adam Langdon wrote:… I think I have to pause on the Pyxis 12k, even though I just sold my Pyxis 6k. The UMP12k still has a great sensor and readout, but those extra 2 stops in the Pyxis 12k come as a cost--both in money and rolling shutter.
If they would update the media and somehow do an s35 cut of the Cine 12k sensor, I think that would be so freakin' nice...

The Super35cut of the Cine 12K sensor has been done: it’s called 9K. It behaves just like the 12K in terms of the image pipeline of the 6x6 matrix.

There are different perspectives on this. I definitely would appreciate the extra dynamic range on the Pyxis 12K and would typically prefer to shooting the Super35 9K window on the lighter Pyxis 12K compared to the UMP12K. The rolling shutter likely is not an issue for me.

John Brawley wrote:
Design the camera for the user you have in mind.

JB

Doc shooters. Ideal is a shoulder mount 6k or better camera with built-in NDs and viewfinder. Doesn't seem to be such a camera from BM, just a six year old 4.6k.

John Brawley wrote:

Adam Langdon wrote:I think that would be so freakin' nice as a 'one last Ursa Mini'. It would put it up against the Alexa 35, in terms of sensor and form factor.

I don't really understand what you're asking for. A 12K gen 2 sensor in a Ursa Mini body with CFE? Explain to me what would be so different or more appealing to the URSA Cine LF?

It's not going to happen.


JB

I think this means I should chose between a Pyxis 12k and a Cine 12k.

Based on what I’m seeing: URSA Cine or PYXIS is the choice for the current camera lineup. Now, if there’s something in between still to come we shall see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s it! The Cine 12K is best as it’s more capable if you think you’ll use those capabilities. Weighs more and costs more. The Pyxis 12K is less capable in terms of features and less costly and less weight. Maybe it is more mobile (but that’s only true to a small extent as the Cine 12K can be mobile too with additional budget).

I’m more budget constrained because I need to include a new quality zoom. If I was only planning to use prime lenses, I could manage the more expensive camera.

rick.lang wrote:That’s it! The Cine 12K is best as it’s more capable if you think you’ll use those capabilities. Weighs more and costs more. The Pyxis 12K is less capable in terms of features and less costly and less weight. Maybe it is more mobile (but that’s only true to a small extent as the Cine 12K can be mobile too with additional budget).

I’m more budget constrained because I need to include a new quality zoom. If I was only planning to use prime lenses, I could manage the more expensive camera.

I configured my URSA Cine 12K to be 19.2 lbs. that’s pretty light considering. Will a PYXIS 12K be able to be lighter? Sure. But, major productions that have been able to deal with motion picture film camera weight will see that weight as easy to deal with.

VistaVision coverage zooms are more expensive. They’re also bigger and heavier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, Tim; the Cine 12K rigged is not too heavy in practice, just the Pyxis 12K is lighter, but not too light!

My SLR Magic APO primes have an image circle 46.5mm but that’s definitely larger than a lot of Super35 lenses will cover and larger than standard ‘full frame’ lenses so you’re correct that some folks will need new primes to shoot open gate.

timbutt2 wrote:I configured my URSA Cine 12K to be 19.2 lbs. that’s pretty light considering. Will a PYXIS 12K be able to be lighter? Sure. But, major productions that have been able to deal with motion picture film camera weight will see that weight as easy to deal with.

Tim, would you mind sharing how you've got your Cine 12k rigged out? My current Ursa Mini 12k OLPF is sitting at around 25 lbs with lens and I'm trying to figure out where I'd land with a Cine. That 25lb figure is for camera ready to shoot with lens, including: UMP body, Zacuto shoulder rig, shape side handle, Smallrig top handle, blackmagic EVF, SmallHD Cine 7, CoreSWX shark fin with two 98wh batteries, and Angenieux EZ-1 or EZ-2. If I'm on small primes I can drop the shark fin and cut the weight down quite a bit, but the camera doesn't balance well without it if I'm using the Angenieuxs. (also curious what lens you're using and how it balances on the shoulder!)

Jon Hustead wrote:

timbutt2 wrote:I configured my URSA Cine 12K to be 19.2 lbs. that’s pretty light considering. Will a PYXIS 12K be able to be lighter? Sure. But, major productions that have been able to deal with motion picture film camera weight will see that weight as easy to deal with.

Tim, would you mind sharing how you've got your Cine 12k rigged out? My current Ursa Mini 12k OLPF is sitting at around 25 lbs with lens and I'm trying to figure out where I'd land with a Cine. That 25lb figure is for camera ready to shoot with lens, including: UMP body, Zacuto shoulder rig, shape side handle, Smallrig top handle, blackmagic EVF, SmallHD Cine 7, CoreSWX shark fin with two 98wh batteries, and Angenieux EZ-1 or EZ-2. If I'm on small primes I can drop the shark fin and cut the weight down quite a bit, but the camera doesn't balance well without it if I'm using the Angenieuxs. (also curious what lens you're using and how it balances on the shoulder!)

Ok. Well, I’m configuring the camera for Steadicam. Thus I’m not using accessories that are not needed. So no EVF, no external monitor, no additional handles. Keeping it simple and clean.

It’s the body with PL Mount, and B Mount Battery Plate. This is with the 275 Wh B Mount from CoreSWX. Via P-Tap Splitter I’m powering the Tilta Nucleus M Motor on the focus, and the Hollyland Cosmo 600 Wireless Transmitter. The URSA Cine Top Handle is where I’m mounting the transmitter. For now I’m using the UMP 15mm Shoulder Mount Baseplate and VCT-14 Tripod Adapter Plate. We’ll see what difference the UCine 15mm Baseplate and using an Arri Dovetail makes, but I suspect weight will be similar enough. Otherwise Tilta Matte Box and DZOFilm Vespid 25mm Prime.

I did weigh the UCine with the EVF and with a DZOFilm Pictor 50-125mm and it came in around 22 lbs. That was without wireless video attached. Generally I wouldn’t be using the Super 35 Zooms with Steadicam, so not a concern.

Ultimately you have to learn to minimize the build to get it smaller and lighter. And, it needs to be for specific purposes such as going on crane, Steadicam, and/or other rigs. If you need all the extra stuff to use the camera, then expect it to weigh more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the Pyxis casing better built than the Ursa Cine 12k?

WahWay wrote:Is the Pyxis casing better built than the Ursa Cine 12k?

I haven't had my hands on the Cine 12k, but the Pyxis body is really rugged. It feels weighty and sturdy. Compared to an Ursa Mini body, I would bet the Pyxis could survive multiple drops and/or fumbling.

I just have to assume the Cine is similar.

timbutt2 wrote:Ultimately you have to learn to minimize the build to get it smaller and lighter. And, it needs to be for specific purposes such as going on crane, Steadicam, and/or other rigs. If you need all the extra stuff to use the camera, then expect it to weigh more.

Thanks Tim! I'm usually handheld/shoulder so the build I listed is pretty much what I'd normally need (minus the shark fin if it balanced well enough with the EZs.) Can't find unpackaged weight listings for a few of the things, but I'm thinking it'd probably be about 1-2 lbs heavier. Might be able to shave some off that by optimizing accessory weight here and there, or swap the Cine 7 for using a standalone bolt and the built-in monitor while I'm running around.

Sure thing Jon! I managed to get my URSA Cine 12K sitting very comfortable on my shoulder with the prime lenses. I haven't fully tried with the Pictor 20-55 yet, but I'm sure I can it balanced well enough to be comfortable on my shoulder as well. Ultimately it all is trial and error on free days figuring out what works best in your kit. If renting kit then having a full day of rigging to determine what works best. The main goal is to know ahead of a shoot what configurations will work in any given scenario.

well, I went ahead and put in an order for the Pyxis 12k. I already have all the parts/batteries/media ready to go.

Congratulations, Adam, on a difficult decision finally made. I’m looking forward to hearing your early impressions as well as after you’ve started shooting with the Pyxis 12K.

Which mount did you order?

rick.lang wrote:Congratulations, Adam, on a difficult decision finally made. I’m looking forward to hearing your early impressions as well as after you’ve started shooting with the Pyxis 12K.

Which mount did you order?

L Mount, since I really like using older, random mounted glass without converting them to EF or something else. I also like the possibility of ND's behind the lens.
It also allows me to save some cash and use it for an anamorphic lens I've been eyeing for a long time!

[quote="Adam Langdon]
L Mount, since I really like using older, random mounted glass without converting them to EF or something else. I also like the possibility of ND's behind the lens.
It also allows me to save some cash and use it for an anamorphic lens I've been eyeing for a long time![/quote]

Sounds great. You are teasing me! Which anamorphic lens!?

rick.lang wrote:[quote="Adam Langdon]
L Mount, since I really like using older, random mounted glass without converting them to EF or something else. I also like the possibility of ND's behind the lens.
It also allows me to save some cash and use it for an anamorphic lens I've been eyeing for a long time![/quote]

Sounds great. You are teasing me! Which anamorphic lens!?[/quote]

I'm kind of over the cheap anamorphic offerings of Blazar and Sirui and even Laowa (it's the flares that kill me), and I'm going to invest in the Atlas Orions. I don't think I can afford both a 32mm and 50mm and I think I'm going with a 40mm. When I was doing DIY anamorphic (using projector lenses) I really liked the 40mm focal length for anamorphics.

Adam Langdon wrote:

rick.lang wrote:[quote="Adam Langdon]
L Mount, since I really like using older, random mounted glass without converting them to EF or something else. I also like the possibility of ND's behind the lens.
It also allows me to save some cash and use it for an anamorphic lens I've been eyeing for a long time![/quote]

Sounds great. You are teasing me! Which anamorphic lens!?[/quote][/quote]

I'm kind of over the cheap anamorphic offerings of Blazar and Sirui and even Laowa (it's the flares that kill me), and I'm going to invest in the Atlas Orions. I don't think I can afford both a 32mm and 50mm and I think I'm going with a 40mm. When I was doing DIY anamorphic (using projector lenses) I really liked the 40mm focal length for anamorphics.[/quote]

40mm is my favorite focal length for Anamorphic. That and 65mm.

However, I'm in agreement about the cheap anamorphic offerings. None really impress me. Atlas Orion does offer a great "affordable" option. But I think Cooke and Panavision make my favorite anamorphic lenses. Sadly Panavision is rental only. And, the cost of buying a Cooke is too high.

From 28-100mm, I think you can’t go wrong as all are under $10K which would be my upper limit on affordability.

40mm is very good if you’re going to need both close and wide as your horizontal field of view on the Atlas Orion is approximately like 20mm while the vertical axis is 40mm. A 65mm is about 32mm wide. It’s dependent on how you want to shoot with it of course!

Are you also planning to shoot 9K on the Pyxis 12K similar to my plans re the zoom? 9K 6:5 actual photosite resolution is perfect. 9K 6:5 7680x6408 has an image circle of 29mm which works very well with the Orion 31mm image circle giving you a 2.39:1 deliverable. You could also shoot 9K 16:9 and 9K 17:9 if you want a crazy wide deliverable.

FOV at a distance of 33’
Orion 40mm has a FOV 36’8”x 15’3”
Orion 65mm has a FOV 22’8” x 9’5”

FOV at a distance of 20’
Orion 40mm has a FOV 22’3”x 9’3”
Orion 65mm has a FOV 13’8”” x 5’9”

FOV at a distance of 16’
Orion 40mm has a FOV 17’10”x 7’5”
Orion 65mm has a FOV 10’11” x 4’7”

Edit for FOV at a distance of 8’
Orion 40mm has a FOV 6’8”x 2’9”
Orion 65mm has a FOV 4’1” x 1’9”

Hope these are good.

For those who order the Cine 12K or Pyxis 12K with PL camera mount, here’s how to bump your Super35 anamorphic PL lenses to a higher resolution:
1.4x expander aperture loss one stop
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1741065-REG

1.6x expander aperture loss 1.4 stops
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1741066-REG

Congrats Adam! We put in a pre-order as well, so incredibly excited!

Do you, or anyone else, have any recommendations for CFexpress type b cards for the pyxis 12k?

Thanks so much

Recommend we post these conversations in the Pyxis 12K thread if that’s okay. Maybe the fate of the URSA Mini Pro 12K is the success of the Pyxis 12K, but if someone is looking to find all the Pyxis 12K news, and user experience, they may not even be reading this thread.

Oh yeah of course, good call, thanks Rick!

Texaco87 wrote:Oh yeah of course, good call, thanks Rick!

I just reviewed the entire thread here and I’ve been so bad posting about Pyxis 12K in this thread. Apologies to everyone.

Do I need to be more disciplined or
do I need to be disciplined!

(To English speakers, these two options are painfully different shall we say.)

This is an interesting comparison between the Ursa Mini 12k and the Cine 12k. Focus is more on skin tone, noise, color consistency, and sharpness.

I found it crazy how detailed the Cine 12k looks compared to the Mini 12k.

Adam Langdon wrote:

This is an interesting comparison between the Ursa Mini 12k and the Cine 12k. Focus is more on skin tone, noise, color consistency, and sharpness.

I found it crazy how detailed the Cine 12k looks compared to the Mini 12k.

Oh, yeah, I remember watching the live stream of this. It was right before I got the URSA Cine. Mine literally arrived the next day. And, this got me so excited.

It's insane how much better the URSA Cine 12K sensor is than the UMP12K. Everything is better from the skin tone, the color, sharpness, and noise level. The URSA Cine 12K looks so much more organic. And, Shane Hurlbut literally says in the full live stream he'd be happy to shoot his next feature on this camera.

Thanks, Adam. This comparison video is very helpful.

My takeaways on ISO are that the Cine 12K (and Pyxis 12K) are very usable up to 1600 ISO and may still be alright at 3200 ISO depending upon what else is happening. 800 and 1600 may not need any noise reduction which is good news. They felt that ISO 400 could be too clean.

Now my favourite concern, compression: among 5:1, 8:1, 12:1, and 18:1, the highest constant quantity compression generally is usable but may have issues where light levels are challenging. I don’t expect to go there, but historically I would assume I should use 5:1 whereas 12:1 seems to be just fine.

Was interesting to see the comparison to the UMPro12K, but the Cine 12K still shines “when the going gets tough” and that’s where the UMPro12K might not be quite up to it.

There was the warning up front that these small micron photosites do best when they are not starved for light.

When I get this sensor, I’ll still run through the ISO and the constant quality compression schemes, unless one of you brave early adopters beat me to it!

As usual, the sensor gets the blame for what is actually the physics of lens optics. The UMP12k 2.2µ pixel pitch needs about a stop more opening of the aperture to obtain equivalent diffraction limited resolution of the 2.9µ Cine12k; in accordance with Rayleigh's Criterion for the airy disc. This is independent of refractivity index (or light transmittance) of the lens glass itself. It is strictly a function of the wavelengths bent by the iris port causing the smallest points of light to be spread across more than one pixel. The video also doesn't state how the object images were obtained, either the same focal length shot with different subject distances, or different focal lengths shot at the same subject distance; to account for crop factor. The UMP12k 2.2µ sensor is at a distinct disadvantage compared to larger pixels as in the Cine12k 2.9µ sensor, or even the latter when compared to the 4.3µ sensors of Nikon, Sony and Canon 8k cameras when "punching in" for 4k or even 1080p, as tested.

In terms of optical performance, most lenses are sharpest f/4.0-5.6, the UMP12K demands lenses sharp at f/2.0-3.5, the Cine12K about a stop less (light) and the 8k full frame cameras capable of extending their best sharpness out to f/5.6-8.0.

Tom Roper wrote:... the sensor gets the blame for what is actually the physics of lens optics. The UMP12k 2.2µ pixel pitch needs about a stop more opening of the aperture to obtain equivalent diffraction limited resolution of the 2.9µ Cine12k; in accordance with Rayleigh's Criterion for the airy disc. ... The video also doesn't state how the object images were obtained, either the same focal length shot with different subject distances, or different focal lengths shot at the same subject distance; to account for crop factor. ...

Indeed, and the lens used.
I have found the UMP 12K to be plenty sharp and was put off by the soft results that Shane showed. If not an aperture issue then perhaps a lens without enough resolving power used... or maybe even a bad focus pull (which it looked like to me when I viewed the video) I have used Zeiss Otus, Tokina, DZOfilm Arles, Irix and Canon lenses with the UMP12K and the only time I got a noticeably soft image was with a pinhole. And yes smaller than f5.6 aperture, however still very usable... and difference at f8 less than difference of center and edge.

In any event, I am more interested in the relationships of compression and exposure with texture. I am doing my own tests and expect similar but lesser results of UMP12K to Cine 12K LF. It is impressive what the Cine 12K LF can do. But by no means will I abandon the higher density sensor. There is good use for each.

Jeffrey D Mathias wrote:… I am more interested in the relationships of compression and exposure with texture. I am doing my own tests and expect similar but lesser results of UMP12K to Cine 12K LF. It is impressive what the Cine 12K LF can do. But by no means will I abandon the higher density sensor. There is good use for each.

That last statement in your post, sums it up well. I only have experience with fatter pixels to date. The Pyxis 6K fat photosites should have been my first choice if decisions were made based on pitch. For me, dynamic range is trump.

Both the 12K 2.2 and 2.9 microns seem skinny, but they achieve impressive dynamic range results given sufficient lighting due to the proprietary CFA of the RGBW design and the image pipeline. Having 12K, 8K, and 4K recordings share the same FOV was an eye-opener since line skipping and binning were not used to achieve that.

I hope you will post your test results, Jeffrey, as I’m looking forward to hearing your conclusions about texture after testing exposure and compression.

haha, for me, I don't care how the technology works, I just want a good-looking image!
I think a quality image is what has kept me on the BMD bus for so long. After playing with a hacked Canon 5dmk3 with Magic Lantern firmware, I've been longing for that high-quality look. BMD have always offered either CDNG or BRAW and having that flexibility in post has been something I fear I can't live without! (I've graded multiple cameras without raw, though)

So, sure, if the UMP12k is sharp enough, use it. If the Cine 12k is affordable, use it. If the Pyxis 12k doesn't have internal NDs that you can't live without, get a UMP12k or Cine 12k. I ALWAYS look to see what a piece of gear CAN do for me, not what it CAN'T.