BMPC vs Ursa Mini

The Blackmagic Production Camera and the Ursa Mini 4k EF mount are the same price. Yet it seems the Ursa Mini gives more for the price. Including a better form factor. Is there any reason to buy the Production Camera over the Ursa Mini? Or is a smaller form factor the only thing?

The smaller form factor is one thing, but it's really not that big of a thing, given the battery life. It is; however, a more rig friendly form factor.

The real advantage would be the SSD media, as apposed to the CFAST 2.0 cards in the Ursa Mini. But given all the additional features and frame rates you'll get with the Mini, I think it outweighs the costs.

What you would save by using SSDs instead of CFast2 cards you'd probably make up on rigging the thing so that you could use the BMPC. Without a rig, it's an aluminum brick with a lens mount and the non-locking power connector is pretty unreliable. You don't notice it much when the internal battery is working, but if the internal battery fails, the camera becomes very unreliable. (I've had to send two BMCCs back for this.)

Everyone I know who uses BMD cameras hates the ergonomics. Everyone ends up rigging them up quite a bit just to get them to the point where you can actually USE them. That won't be the case with the Minis. They're designed around having humans actually operating the cameras (shocking).

Hopefully the preamps on the Minis are decent, and they also use standard XLR connectors, not to mention a locking power connector.

The Blackmagic Production Camera and the Ursa Mini 4k EF mount are the same price. Yet it seems the Ursa Mini gives more for the price. Including a better form factor. Is there any reason to buy the Production Camera over the Ursa Mini? Or is a smaller form factor the only thing?

As a (happy) BMPC-4K owner I'm happier still to point you to the Blackmagic website tech specs pages for the two cameras, where you will notice the URSA Mini 4K has literally dozens of useful features that the BMPC-4K lacks.

Notable among them is the UM4K's built-in, fold-out 1080p monitor (much higher res than the BMPC-4K's screen), additional frame rates & codecs, production-friendly form-factor and I/O, and so forth.

The BMPC-4K has the advantage of being smaller, lighter, and has a built-in uninteruptible battery backup. However, if one needs the additional features of an UM4K, the BMPC-4K's size, weight & battery may or may not be deciding factors.

The difference in media cost for the 2 cameras is currently significant for some users/productions. A 240GB SSD certified by BMD for BMPC-4K RAW recording currently sells for about $140. A 256GB CFAST 2.0 card certified by BMD for UM4K RAW recording currently sells for about $587. Most users/productions own/rent several cards, so these costs add up.

CFAST 2.0 prices are likely to continue their generally downward trend. In several months -- when hopefully many UM4K pre-order customers begin receiving their cameras -- relative media costs between the 2 cams will be closer. But keep in mind that a UM4K will be able to do more (HFR, etc.) with the more expensive media.

The URSA Mini 4K will be a great value. Actually, I think the URSA Mini 4.6K will be an incredible value for those who can afford the more expensive version. Meanwhile, the BMPC-4K is a very good camera, too. In the right hands, all are capable of recoding beautiful video.

P.S.: I've attached a few full-res, JPEG-compressed BMPC-4K frame grabs from UHD ProRes HQ video I recently shot using a minimal rig (Canon 24mm f2.8 STM pancake lens, and Hoya ProND & IR/UV cut filters):

late_show_marquee_ms-2160-1m.jpg (942.98 KiB) Viewed 10095 times

lincoln_memorial_ms-2160-1m.jpg (921.09 KiB) Viewed 10080 times

sol_ellis_is_cu-2160-1m.jpg (967.17 KiB) Viewed 10306 times

Note: I've uploaded new renders of these frames today with different color corrections.

I have been dreaming of owning a blackmagic camera for months, and recently it seems things have come together for me to move on from DSLR, and I don't think I would even consider another brand.

I still think I am going with the Production Camera, it's smaller, I actually prefer the format, (UM's handle is probably very helpful but the shoulder kit is still an extra) and more important - it's available right now, and very likely more reliable than the UM will be when it comes out. The firmware updates the PC as received have turned it into a very solid product (This all coming from research of course, no personal experience). If it comes out on time, will it have all the features, problems that could take a long time for them to fix? I also think the workflow is a plus for the PC - easier to transport, less expensive recording format.. If the UM's sensor was upgradeable I probably would chose differently

Of course this is all very subjective and depends on everyone's wants and/or needs and/or cans
You can probably tell my opinion maybe a bit biased, as my mind is in love with the PC4K

Peter lovely images and wise advice as usual! I think that will be one of my first lenses when I get my camera

Thanks, Manel! The footage is just the result of me being a tourist in NYC & Washington DC. Below are 2 more frame grabs, and a photo of the minimal BMPC-4K rig I used to shoot them:

toms_restaurant-2160-1m.jpg (958.46 KiB) Viewed 10237 times

ny_public_library_ms-2160-1m.jpg (944.73 KiB) Viewed 10235 times

P1060365-1080.jpg (214.86 KiB) Viewed 10235 times

In NYC I knew I'd be shooting mostly wide shots of "iconic" buildings, so I didn't want the video to have a shaky handheld look. However, I didn't use a tripod because I wanted to be inconspicuous, didn't want to trip pedestrians, and I wouldn't have a filming permit. Instead I used a small stills-type ball head from my MeFoto RoadTrip tripod bolted to a Manfrotto tripod QR plate (any plate will do). I'd set this rig on top of any solid object that happened to be handy, such as a mailbox, newspaper rack, fire hydrant, low wall/barricade, metal/stone bollard, etc. -- which in NYC are almost everywhere. The result was a very small yet adjustable and solid camera support. Much more sturdy than miniature tripods I've seen available. Washington DC's National Mall is wide-open spaces compared to NYC, so I sometimes used the MeFOTO tripod normally, but in many places used the "tiny rig" instead.

The 24mm pancake lens isn't as sharp or versatile as my Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART zoom lens, but the pancake is a fraction of the zoom's size, weight & cost. During this vacation trip I wanted to go small(er) and light(er).

I used the following filters and accessories with the Canon 24mm f2.8 STM pancake lens (although the lens hood fits a 52mm filter thread, the front of the hood requires a 58mm lens cap such as listed below):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 ... _Hood.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N= ... yes&sts=pi
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 ... V_and.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... nd_8x.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... ilter.html

Details about the LCD sunshade & anti-glare film here:
https://herefortheweather.wordpress.com ... uchscreen/

Meanwhile, understand that if someone were to give me a new URSA Mini 4K (or better yet, the 4.6K), I'd be very glad to accept it!

the URSA's CFAST media is 8X the price of SSD, and only available in much smaller sizes. For 1TB of CFAST, expect to pay $3,000 - about as much as the price of the URSA Mini itself! 1TB of SSD storage is only $350, and 2TBs is $700 - handy when shooting to giant 4k raw files. It's about 1TB an hour, so with the BMPC you can shoot 2 hours of 4k RAW without swapping media. On the URSA you'd have to use 8 cards (4 sets of two) and it would run you $6,000 on media.

As for the URSA's form factor. It is easier to get the URSA rigged to and ENG style camera, but you still will need to invest a fair chunk of change on accessories - most important being a battery and a shoulder mount.

So all in, the BMPC is much cheaper to operate, and with comparable image quality. I wouldn't bother with the URSA 4k. The 4.5K is a different story as it appears to have more dynamic range - even in global shutter mode.

I wouldn't bother with the URSA 4k.

The BMPC has a few minor perks over the Mini 4K, but they seem to hardly warrant this conclusion for most shooters. You can get apparently genuine 3400x 128GB lexar Cfast2 cards from ebay for as low as ~$100 right now, less than 2x the price of SSD (a fire sale on that model, most likely), and if you really want SSDs you can pay $500 for a C-box to use them natively with your Ursa Mini at higher speeds than currently available Cfast2 cards, which surely is less than the extra cost of proper rigging, audio recorder/preamp and a power solution for your BMPC4K.

As for batteries, I can't find concrete information on their power draw but realistically the two should be pretty close to the same ballpark taking into account the Mini is shooting at higher frame rates, better cooling and with a superior screen, meaning battery price shouldn't be that much of a factor.

Finally, though the BMPC bare is around 1/2 a kg lighter than the mini unrigged, the difference quickly disappears or even goes in the Mini's favor when you add a rig, preamp/recorder/XLR adapter, battery solution, and/or a scratch/ambient mic and mount to the BMPC, so given what it already offers over the BMPC I'm not sure how accessories will be more expensive.

Therefore, unless you can find one cheap used or they drop the price by quite a bit, I quite simply can't find many compelling reasons to get a BMPC over a Mini 4K for the vast majority of productions. You just get so much more with the Mini, plus the possibility of continued software upgrades and new features over its longer lifetime.

If those cards a real, the ebay special on 128GB CFAST does change the math. The sellers are Chinese. It looks to me either like they are knockoffs or one of Lexar's suppliers is acting in bad faith. Assuming they work, they are still more expensive, and limited in size. Two of those cards might give you 15-20mins of RAW 4K recording at 24 fps. a 2TB SSD will give you more than 2hrs, and is half the price per GB. Also, if you bring ebay into the equation, BMPCs are selling there at big discounts.

I wouldn't bank on the fire sale lasting, or on CFAST cards becoming as affordable as SSD. CF cards, which have been widely used for very long time , are still 4X the price of SSD and max at 512GB - 1/4 of the size.

C-Box looks like a great remedy to the CFAST problem. It does add $550 to the camera cost, and also more clutter to the rig. And more clutter is thee antithesis of run and gun - which is the area where the URSA mini should be beating the BMPC. But this is definitely a good add on for the URSAs or any CFAST camera.

In the audio department the URSA has the BMPC beat. Good recorders - like the Zoom - are cheap, but it is an added hassle if you're doing run and gun style work. The Juiced link preamp is another option if you are intent on recording decent audio on camera - but again, more clutter.

The monitor on the URSA Mini is better - no contest there either. If you want an on eye EVF, that will be extra on either camera. From an in store test of Blackmagic's new EVF, I'd say the Gratical is better solution.

As for the cost of rigging - neither camera is ready for shoulder mount out of the box. An unrigged BMPC is actually more portable - it is lighter, smaller, and has a built in battery. The battery longevity isn't ideal, but it will power the camera for 45mins to 60mins. It's 1.25lbs lighter.

Maybe I'm being too contrarian. I think the BMPC is a lovely camera. The URSA Mini looks to be great too. I just wish it used SSD rather than CFAST. I understand that CFAST has more bandwidth, but I don't need the higher frame rates.

A very fair assessment, Mr. Menil, on which we are certainly in agreement. A few minor points:

If those cards a real, the ebay special on 128GB CFAST does change the math.

Several forum members here have received them and confirmed they are indeed, as far as can be tested, the genuine article. They are likely excess stock of the "old" 3400x model that Lexar sold off, which does mean it won't last long, but could point toward a cheaper future for Cfast in the long run.

Maybe I'm being too contrarian. I think the BMPC is a lovely camera. The URSA Mini looks to be great too.

Not at all, you've made some good points, your best one being this one right here. Both are great cameras and can produce great images; you just pick the form factor and features that are best for you. Though, I would certainly wait until the BMPC gets the inevitable price drop new or used if going that route.

I just wish it used SSD rather than CFAST. I understand that CFAST has more bandwidth, but I don't need the higher frame rates.

Actually, modern SATA 6 SSDs like the 850 Pro use the same interface as Cfast, and thus theoretical top speeds are the same, but most recent good SSDs saturate that connection (falling in the 540-550/500-520 read/write range) while the fastest Cfast currently availible maxes out at 510/450 claimed. You do get certain speed gaurentees and smaller size/possibly more rugged design with Cfast, but when SSDs have more headroom in the speed department and you can buy 4 SSDs for the price of one Cfast, it is less of an issue. Honestly the $500 Cbox is way overpriced, the parts aren't more than $50-100 since its a very simple design, so someone else could easily come out with a cheaper one. Minus that, you get Cfast when you want that, and SSDs otherwise so sort of best of both worlds in a way.

I just stumbled on this thread elsewhere on BM forum:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21112&p=248158#p248158

It seems like the main advantages to CFAST over SSD are that they are smaller form factor and lower power consumption. To me, the price / capacity trade off isn't close to worth it. I'm sticking with the BMPC for now.

One point missed, is, that CFast are designed for video acquisition generate less heat than SSDs, and should prove to be more reliable for field use, and quicker to download. The smaller size of the CFast cards also help to keep the size of the Mini smaller, you would need a bigger camera for SSD recording. The reliability issue is their main advantage for me.

Well, why would you download SSDs? You can edit directly from them

Well, why would you download SSDs? You can edit directly from them

While that's true, I've never heard of anyone working off the SSDs from this camera.

Unless your project is so small that all the info can fit directly on one SSD.

I guess if your working with HD ProRes for a corporate gig on a 480gb hard drive this could work.

But then again, I would never work off the original media card, even if it is an SSD. Something about that concept just makes me nervous.

Me too! A bad idea, always make a backup first. This is like editing the original negative on a cinema film shoot, one mistake, and you are done. Film was always edited from prints made from the negative or a copy chrome film -- Never, never edit from the one and only original stock, be it film, tape, or SSD/SD/CFAST cards. Use a copy, that way if something happens (and it will sooner or later) you still have the original source material.

Me too! A bad idea, always make a backup first. This is like editing the original negative on a cinema film shoot, one mistake, and you are done. Film was always edited from prints made from the negative or a copy chrome film -- Never, never edit from the one and only original stock, be it film, tape, or SSD/SD/CFAST cards. Use a copy, that way if something happens (and it will sooner or later) you still have the original source material.

+1

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that unlike in the film world there is no such thing as an "original," or a "copy." Assuming your backup workflow included a verification step, the data in any copy will be identical, so it matters not which copy you work from other than you want it to be the fastest drive you can. One strategy I'm looking in to as a possibility for my planned UM4.6K + Less expensive version of C-box + 850 Pro workflow for a short episodic doco-style web series is using a 6-drive SATA-6 dock for my workstation to stick the camera SSDs into from current episodes' shoot(s), backup immediately to slower spinning disks, then work off the faster SSDs as source drives as well as another pair or so with the key footage from previous episodes' shoots that I'll need. Also, recording 60p interleaved to dual SSDs, I have essentially two 30p streams (albeit with different shutter angles than I might choose for native 30p) backing each other up in the rather unlikely event something happens to one during recording, otherwise I get true 60p for high motion scenes.

In the end, a 6-SSD in one 5.25 in bay solution gives me theoretically 6TB of camera source from the current shoot, which for you would be around 17 hours of 3:1 cDNG 4K raw, and doubles that for 24p or almost equals it for 60p once 2TB SSDs come out, which looks like it should happen very soon. Furthermore, for footage from older shoots you actively need, you can have additional SSDs or spare camera drives for that, and store all your current and archival stuff on far cheaper spinning disks in case you need to move it to active again, or in case of drive failure. This workflow isn't for everyone, but I certainly imagine it could work for a lot of productions like mine.

The reliability issue is their main advantage for me.

I've seen quite a few threads now where folks have reported problems with Cfast, even the gold standard Lexar 128GB "3400x" cards, whereas I don't see the same when it comes to SSD reliability for the 850 Pros. With regard to the heat issue, tests of the C-box have indicated that SSDs used even for the highest bitrate recording modes filling up the whole drives, they still stay significantly cooler than those in the BMPC due to the greatly increased airflow around the drives and lack of other hot/insulating components nearby, and were tested to have zero dropped/corrupted frames. So it seems that something like that, once some folks I'm aware of working on less expensive versions planned for early 2016 come out with them, is somewhat of the best of both worlds giving the option for SSD or Cfast, and the option for recording semi-tethered/externally to a device up to 2m away from the cam. Furthermore, I hear of someone else on this forum working on a cheap mSATA adapter, which would enable drives with much smaller form factor and less heat/power consumption to be used as well. Add to that legit lexar 128GBs going for as low as $85, and the future for the UM, Cfast or not, seems quite bright indeed.

Doing mostly doc stuff, I prefer bigger media. Quite simply because when I'm e.g. somewhere in the forest filming wolves, media change is bad. I could miss an important shot, I create motion and - quite possibly - sound which could make the animals aware of my presence, etc. Similar goes for interviews or filming presentations - media change is bad. Relatively small media are just impractical for my workflow and add a lot of hassle and costs. If I get a Mini, a Cbox or (preferably) that other SSD adapter which is made from aluminium and goes between the cam and the bat plate will definitely be on my shopping list too.

There might be an easy way to connect SSD and CFast...

http://www.amazon.com/Micro-SATA-Cables-CFAST-Breakout/dp/B00PQVM43Y

CFAST and SSD take different voltages. Seems like any adapter has to be powered. That adds another hassle.

The URSA mini's CFAST interface isn't designed for external SATA adapters. Seems to be taking some risk to be capturing that way. I'm nervous about investing in a camera that I'd have to jerry rig out of the box. Canceled my ursa mini 4.5k pre-order. After some thought I prefer to wait and see how things shake out with the URSA.

ps - saying that smaller capacity CFAST are better because they are faster to backup just seems like an odd proposition. Transfer speeds are the same, or maybe a little faster on today's SSDs.

From what I can tell CFast and SSD use the identical electrical interface, they only differ in the mechanical shape of the connector. Even the pinouts are 1 to 1. There may be an additional power supply needed for the SSD, but since when does camera rigging not include cobbling together power connections.

If or when I get my BMUM4.6K I think I'll give it a try in the 30 day return window. Working with SSDs would be a whole lot cheaper and convenient.

Does anyone know if there is a maximum drive accesses size for the BMUM4.6K?

Does anyone know if there is a maximum drive accesses size for the BMUM4.6K?

It should be, theoretically, the maximum size supported by either Cfast or your file system. The max theoretical size for CompactFlash is 512 PB, so I'd imagine Cfast is the same or higher, and the max theoretical size for exFAT is 128 PB, though realistically a max size of 512 TB is recommended. For HFS+, the max size is rated as 8 EB. We do know for a practical fact from the C-box tests that the Ursa works fine with dual 1TB SSDs at the maximum resolution, uncompressed 4K raw 60 fr/s, with zero dropped frames, and aside from some strange hardware limitation, there is nothing to say it wouldn't work with something much larger since the CF specs tend to be very forward thinking. Hopefully that answers your question.

CFast is a SATA interface and protocol. My question was not about the limitations of SATA interface but the limitations of BM's implementation in the mini. I've seen implementations of file transfer protocols with arbitrary limitations far below the capability of the underlying standard, simply because there are a lot of not so good programmers out there.

CFast is a SATA interface and protocol. My question was not about the limitations of SATA interface but the limitations of BM's implementation in the mini. I've seen implementations of file transfer protocols with arbitrary limitations far below the capability of the underlying standard, simply because there are a lot of not so good programmers out there.

SATA's just an interface spec, and doesn't have direct bearing on max theoretical disk size, which is determined by the partition map, volume format, and the Cfast spec as it relates to the physical hardware and addressing scheme, among other things. If there is a limitation in max media size on BM cams, which there could conceivably be, we know it must be above 1TB since 1TB drives work, and given Cfast is expected to reach 1TB+ at some point, if there is a software/implementation limitation I'd imagine it will be address with a firmware update should it become an issue. But to get the real answer, outside of testing a new 2TB drive with the C-box, you'll have to ask BM's engineers I'd imagine.