Ursa Mini 12k OLPF vs Pyxis vs Cinema Camera 6kFF

I first owned the UMP12k (w/ Rawlite) and truly loved the images.
I also owned a 6k Pro and the internal NDs were such a great add, along with a bright screen.

When the 6kFF first came out, I immediately stacked it up against the UMP12k. The Full Frame 3:2 Open Gate look was/is something special, but the 12k was still 'king' of image quality to me.

I had to let the 12k go to fund other purchases, as I was mostly doing smaller interview shoots with the 6kPro and then to the 6kFF.

I pre-ordered the Pyxis, cause it felt like a Mini-Ursa Mini. I love the SDI and added window record options. But really, it's the same image quality as the 6k FF, in a good way. Like, I now have matching cameras!

BUT... here's what I concluded when I started rigging up the Pyxis. With a cage, PL/ND adapter, V Mount battery plate, Monitor, Etc... it was MORE heavy than an Ursa Mini 12k with just a battery, lens, and Monitor. I think I will always own a pocket-style body, because of the low-profile nature of shooting in public, foreign countries, and just wanting to take something extremely light to any shoot. I was kinda of hoping the Pyxis would do that as well, but it will ALWAYS need an external monitor and handle of some kind. In my mind it's one of those "Might as well get an Ursa 12k again" moments I had this weekend.

I'm going to shoot a series of rugged commercials in Kyrgyzstan next year and I'm thinking an Ursa Mini 12k OLPF would be better suited for the task. If I were to rig up the Pyxis with all that I would want/need for that shoot, I might as well just bring the 6kFF with a cage and such.

SO... the Pyxis feels more like a lateral move from the 6k FF. And I know, I would be completely happy shooting a professional commercial on that sensor, but having a bump in image quality with the 12k is something I'm highly considering.

TL;DR
Ursa Mini 12k OLPF > Pyxis
Pyxis = 6kFF
(in my own opinion, of course)

Yeah, I mean, that's how you're supposed to approach cameras; pick the right tool for the job. The friction I think a lot of folks have with specific bodies—from BMD or elsewhere—is that they try to use them in ways that they were never really intended to be used. Regardless of what the marketing might claim, there's no such thing as a camera that is perfect for everything under the sun.

The BMPCC6KPro and 12KUMP have a lot of things that advocate for their continued use in a post-12KUC, post-Pyxis, post-BMCC6K world! Congrats on having the wherewithal to know what works and what doesn't.

If they get that new URSA Cine 12K down in weight and size for an URSA Cine LT then I'd say that would totally be the camera to use. I don't mind the weight of the URSA Mini Pro series. But, the URSA Cine 12K just starts hitting that upper weight that it feels a bit too heavy. If I can keep a rig below 20 lbs I'm most happy for handheld operation.

Call me crazy but there's something about the S35 12K image that I prefer to even the Cine 12K. It seems to have a more synthetic, sleek look about it that I really like.

The URSA Mini Pro 12K with 15 stops dynamic range was a watershed product with a proprietary and unique RGBW BMD designed sensor. The hopes of BMD must clearly be that the URSA Cine 12K LF with 16 stops dynamic range and RGBW sensor will assume the mantle of a flagship camera.

But there’s another metric with which to judge a camera and that’s the unit sales of a camera with very good performance and image quality. An example of this was the original BMPCC HD camera that dominated sales. So where are we going in the future? I think that image quality will be the deciding factor and BMD’s use of third-party sensors with 13 stops dynamic range may fall short in the long run.

My guess is the next camera announced will prove to be a winner and it will be called the Pyxis Pro 6K LF or URSA Cine LT LF. Call it what they will but it will use another BMD RGBW fat photosite and achieve 16 stops.

On Scott Balkum’s live stream the other day he made a very bold claim: Blackmagic’s 12K is not is not a real 12K sensor. It’s not even truly 8K but a 4K resolution sensor. He claims at best it’s 4.6K based on pixel peeping.

But at the same time we know that Scott is a major Red fanboy. He almost always is shilling for Red. He’s had Jarred Land on his live stream in the past. So he’s all in on Red.

Still it is a very bold claim to make. I’d be curious if someone from Blackmagic could pipe in to give the actual facts about their 12K sensors. Maybe put Scott’s claims to bed as misinformation. Because Scott is spreading the word that Blackmagic is not a true 12K sensor and at best 4K really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if he's pixel-peeping, sure. It's well known the 12K is not as sharp as 8K REDs. I recall reading a lot of comments here and elsewhere personally affirming that.

On Scott Balkum’s live stream the other day he made a very bold claim: Blackmagic’s 12K is not is not a real 12K sensor.

What does that even mean?

Obviously it’s not meant to deliver 12K of resolution. There’s not such thing as a 12K monitor, or 12K screening facility.

It’s really easy to empirically test resolution. Anyone can do it!

I did this years ago with a preproduction (not final) hardware 12K. 500% blow up as long as it’s in focus it still looks OK. No NR, no other trickery. I did some blow ups on the recent 12K LF and it was even more impressive how much you could blow up the shot.



RED have highly aggressive OLPF’s which is partly why their codec appears to be so efficient. They are actually quite soft.

These kinds of comments typically come from users who haven’t shot the actual camera.

JB

Are we still doing the whole CML resolution nitpicking thing in 2024? Are folks really so insecure that they care what podcasters say about their choice of camera? Leaving aside that you really shouldn't let a brand become a central pillar of your artistic practice anyway, I can assure you that any feedback worth listening to won't be about your camera choice. Just pick the gear that fits your sensibilities and let the work speak for itself. Yeesh.

On Scott Balkum’s live stream the other day he made a very bold claim: Blackmagic’s 12K is not is not a real 12K sensor.

What does that even mean?

Obviously it’s not meant to deliver 12K of resolution. There’s not such thing as a 12K monitor, or 12K screening facility.

It’s really easy to empirically test resolution. Anyone can do it!

I did this years ago with a preproduction (not final) hardware 12K. 500% blow up as long as it’s in focus it still looks OK. No NR, no other trickery. I did some blow ups on the recent 12K LF and it was even more impressive how much you could blow up the shot.



RED have highly aggressive OLPF’s which is partly why their codec appears to be so efficient. They are actually quite soft.

These kinds of comments typically come from users who haven’t shot the actual camera.

JB

I'm relaying his claims. That's the thing, we know he's a huge Red fanboy. He's always making these kind of statements like they're matter of fact. Doesn't back up with evidence however. But some people were asking about the PYXIS and he then was basically saying that the PYXIS had more resolution that the new 12K. He claimed the PYSIS has more resolution than the 17K. Because he was saying the clear pixels don't count. His way of interpreting the way the sensor works is solely based on how he understands Bayer and RED cams.

…

To talk about resolution, give me Steve Yedlin any day.
https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html