URSA Mini 4k Noise Issue

I've been shooting my ursa mini for few weeks. I noticed there is a good amount of noise/texture on shaded area when shooting on iso 400 or above.

I am not sure if this is how ursa mini suppose to be. If it is, then I really regret buying this camera.

But Daniel Peter's low light test was quite clear and smooth even when shooting in iso 800. And he said he did not see any noise pattern:

I sent some raw images to blackmagic. They said they don't see any issue but is willing to provide RMA.

I am new to shooting. I would really appreciate it if someone has ursa mini and can help explain how to fix this issue.

raw file: https://uofh-my.sharepoint.com/personal ... 33a034d5e7

It doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary. I don't have an Ursa Mini and have no experience with it myself. Did you boost shadows?
You would want smooth and clean image IMO you need to do some Noise Reduction.
Most cams do this in cam. No processing is done in BM's cams for Noise Reduction.
Especially RAW.

That noise test is highly compressed. And the noise is very clear in the second? Shot of the ursa mini.

I can't download the DNG from the link.. But your stills look very underexposed, are they crops of the video? Also, having the big ursa, I can tell you now the sensor does not look clean when underexposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Dan's using fast lenses at an aperture value of 1.4, most likely a formula value if they are stills lenses. The OP could have been shooting at f/4 at 1600iso for all we know. Of course when you underexpose and then try to bring the exposure up in post you're going to see noise. Dan didn't try to elevate his blacks. In fact, he tried not to overexpose his face with his phone's screen.

And Dan's using fast lenses at an aperture value of 1.4, most likely a formula value if they are stills lenses. The OP could have been shooting at f/4 at 1600iso for all we know. Of course when you underexpose and then try to bring the exposure up in post you're going to see noise. Dan didn't try to elevate his blacks. In fact, he tried not to overexpose his face with his phone's screen.

Also this. If OP could provide more information or a different source for the DNG we could probably figure out what the deal is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary. I don't have an Ursa Mini and have no experience with it myself. Did you boost shadows?
You would want smooth and clean image IMO you need to do some Noise Reduction.
Most cams do this in cam. No processing is done in BM's cams for Noise Reduction.
Especially RAW.

Hi Csaba Nagy,

I did not boost shadow or adjust anything. It is what it looks like in ISO 400 under day light. More noise than the DSLR I have. Probably shouldn't compare it with photo camera. But I thought Blackmagic could do better than this.

That noise test is highly compressed. And the noise is very clear in the second? Shot of the ursa mini.

I can't download the DNG from the link.. But your stills look very underexposed, are they crops of the video? Also, having the big ursa, I can tell you now the sensor does not look clean when underexposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi John,
Sorry about the link. I've fixed it.

It is screenshot of the video. But in raw file you can see the image was shot under sun light. I had to turn up the stop to avoid sky being clipped out. But even indoor with lower stop the same noise would appear.

Does your big ursa have this much noise when using iso 400 under sun light? I believe they use the same sensor.

And Dan's using fast lenses at an aperture value of 1.4, most likely a formula value if they are stills lenses. The OP could have been shooting at f/4 at 1600iso for all we know. Of course when you underexpose and then try to bring the exposure up in post you're going to see noise. Dan didn't try to elevate his blacks. In fact, he tried not to overexpose his face with his phone's screen.

Hi Jason,

It's shot in ISO 400 under sun light. the stop was around f/10 to avoid sky being clipped out. Ursa mini has max iso at 800. I can accept it if iso 800 has that amount of noise. But it is only iso 400. That means I need to shoot everything in iso 200 if i want a clean image. The noise become more apparent after color grading.

Hello, Andy.
UM4k is still a production camera. And, compared to BMPC, noise level is the same.
And just don't look at crops. Use the full size. It's not as bad.

Hello. Andy!
I think your image is ok. It has some noise but not as much.



Click here to see full size image: http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg4 ... g~original

It doesn't matter what ISO you shoot in RAW mode. It is all the same (read here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41545#p247006)

If you are worried more about your extreme highlights clipping than anything else in your image, than you are not paying attention to properly exposing the subject or content that is the center point of your shot. All of this highlight protection, expose to the right, etc advice on the internet results in poor image quality.

Focus on your subject matter. Let highlights clip if it's bright. Sometimes they are supposed to.

In the full size sample above, it does look like the exposure could have been increased a stop without losing anything in that frame.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All of this highlight protection, expose to the right, etc advice on the internet results in poor image quality.

The benefits or detriment of ETTR very depending on the camera used (e.g. ETTR shows clear benefits with MLV linear raw on Canon DSLR sensors, but often quite different results on many cinema cameras due to their nonlinear response curves). However, I'd argue that perhaps the real detriment to final quality in this respect is an excessive focus on singular, blanket assertions regarding technical exposure stated in absolutist terms and purporting to cover all situations, all cameras, and all formats as a primary reason for poor final quality. This includes the notion that one should always ETTR in all situations, or always focus on protecting highlights without considering the rest of the range of the image, but also, I'd submit, flatly declaring the inverse without regard for the camera and the situation.

Such sweeping and strongly worded statements, I feel, do not exactly help matters any on this issue, given the relative importance of the many other factors that play in to IQ, such as proper lighting, that make an inarguable visible difference in perceived final quality and take far more skill and experience to do well than dialing in exposure settings on the camera.

Thank you all for your replies. I guess I am just too picky.

Andy, I don't think you should come away with that conclusion! You are supposed to be picky! Just more things to keep in mind when selecting an exposure for a shot when you need to consider what is most important to you in the shot within the context of how that shot will fit between the shots before and after it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Andy, I don't think you should come away with that conclusion! You are supposed to be picky! Just more things to keep in mind when selecting an exposure for a shot when you need to consider what is most important to you in the shot within the context of how that shot will fit between the shots before and after it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will keep that in mind thanks.

While some noise is to be expected when underexposed, I agree with the OP that the noise from the 4K is high for being unpushed at base ISO. Probably one if the worst I have seen, but in full disclosure I have never personally used one. From what I have seen it almost looks like the 4K should have a base ISO rating of 200, then the noise at 400 would be more understandable IMHO.