URSA Mini 4.6k The Original™ Magenta Cast Issue

Word of warning to those holding out for a Blackmagic wand to make everything better: BM are now back to telling me this sensor has an even cast (even after letting me RMA a camera, which turned out to be worse).

This is getting crazy now ...

I may be mistaken, but last time I was on the forum I swore I saw some kinefinity posts. Did Blackmagic take those down, or was that another thread?

You're completely correct. I saw them too and also responded to them. That was definitely this thread. I'm not sure if they deleted them completely or simply moved them elsewhere.

To be completely fair, it is expected that BM would not wish to promote competitors products. If BM took it that way then I apologize. I was posting my options given my disappointment with the UM46 I received and tested, and it looked like others were having similar thoughts.

Just came back from Cali and tested my second Camera. No Cigar.
It has the same problem. I am sending it back to my vendor who notified me that they will send me one last camera for the last time. If it will too show this MAGENTA nonsense then I will be able to return for a full refund.
Great.
If that happens it means that I am stuck with a bunch of CF and batteries and Blackmagic EVF totaling a loss of say approximately $3900.
Gee thanks so much BMD.
Great doing business with you.
Next time can someone slap me if I want to pre order again cause I never learn.

Hey guys, so here is some more footage. I'd like to make a quick correction and say that the last footage was at 300%, not 100. However, the footage in this post is at 100% saturation, but with a grade applied.


Password: magenta

Specs for this shot:
ProRes 444
5600k temp
800 ISO
180deg shutter

Lens:
Nikkor 40mm 2.8g
f/13

One of the things I'd like to note about this is how much the problem becomes apparent the closer one approaches highlights. You will notice that at some points, when the frame is not on the clouds where the sun is, there is almost no magenta, and on some shots it seems to disappear completely. Again, I don't know why that is and I'll be testing further today and as the week moves on.

You're completely correct. I saw them too and also responded to them. That was definitely this thread. I'm not sure if they deleted them completely or simply moved them elsewhere.

Yes, all those posts were deleted, not moved.

It is somewhat of a leap of faith to buy a Chinese manufactured camera, but then again isn't it a leap of faith to buy a Blackmagic camera hahah.

Where else is the majority of the manufacturing of the world's electronics happening at anyway?

And why should it have to be a leap of faith?

Why not a "Trust in Engineering"?

When I look at the various universities in the U.S. especially in the science & engineering related departments, the students are pre-dominantly from Asiatic countries (China, India, etc.). The demographic is no different at the various tech companies in Silicon Valley or elsewhere.

Unless of course people choose not to trust "Chinese" engineering for other smaller minded reasons.

It is somewhat of a leap of faith to buy a Chinese manufactured camera, but then again isn't it a leap of faith to buy a Blackmagic camera hahah.

Where else is the majority of the manufacturing of the world's electronics happening at?

And why should it have to be a leap of faith?

Why not a "Trust in Engineering"?

When I look at the various universities in the U.S. especially in the science & engineering related departments, the students are pre-dominantly from Asiatic countries (China, India, etc.). The demographic is no different at the various tech companies in Silicon Valley or elsewhere.

Unless of course people choose not to trust "Chinese" engineering for other smaller minded reasons.

Huh?.......what? I was answering a question from an earlier post which stated that it was a "leap of faith" and I was making a joke hence the "haha" but hey thanks for the information.

The posts were removed for the fact that this is a forum for our products and not other brands.

The posts were removed for the fact that this is a forum for our products and not other brands.

If
1. your products would work properly -> we don't need to discuss alternatives
2. you would communicate with us what's going on and what you're doing to solve the problems etc. then we wouldn't have to worry and wouldn't have the need to think about other brand's working products...

If I need a camera in 4 or 5 weeks for a longer production where it doesn't make sense to rent one (so have to buy one), I need something that's working, if I don't hear anything from BMD about the URSA mini 4.6k status but only that there's a serious problem with the camera that makes it unbuyable (!) this camera can't be in the list of choices!

SO:
Id your product isn't working and your forum is full of people with the biggest worries, COMMUNICATE WITH US what's going on!!!!!!!!!!!!

The posts were removed for the fact that this is a forum for our products and not other brands.

If
1. your products would work properly -> we don't need to discuss alternatives
2. you would communicate with us what's going on and what you're doing to solve the problems etc. then we wouldn't have to worry and wouldn't have the need to think about other brand's working products...

If I need a camera in 4 or 5 weeks for a longer production where it doesn't make sense to rent one (so have to buy one), I need something that's working, if I don't hear anything from BMD about the URSA mini 4.6k status but only that there's a serious problem with the camera that makes it unbuyable (!) this camera can't be in the list of choices!

SO:
Id your product isn't working and your forum is full of people with the biggest worries, COMMUNICATE WITH US what's going on!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was from Friday:

In regards to the subject of this being a wide spread issue, we understand there are people with concerns about their cameras and we are working diligently to address this however there are a lot of cameras that are out there doing amazing things. We've had music videos and NY fashion week shoots done and have had amazing results.

At the end of it all, we want to do right by you as the owner of our products so thank you to those of you who's helped us by providing the information our support teams have asked for. We are forwarding everything along and will update you with more information when we have it.

"doing amazing things" but not at f/8 and 50mm.

You know, you want us to trust you, but when you talk like that, it really makes it hard.

If I *KNEW* you would eventually do what was necessary to fix the magenta corners, Id have kept the camera, and waited. But Im not hearing that from you. And at this point, the way youve been silent in the past is coming back to bite you.

This isnt about liking or not liking BM. I want the camera. I would LOVE to be a fanboy. I really would.

But the thing doesnt work properly, and you guys are dancing like lawyers, and now youre surprised that people are trying to figure out what to do? Really?

"doing amazing things" but not at f/8 and 50mm.

Or 35mm F4 in my case.

Hi all, I finally I had some time to do some tests, not really enough though, but I quickly filmed the sky with a Xeen 35mm at F16. And it clearly showed the magenta problem. So my camera does not seem to be ok either... Although I usually never film that wide open, and on my day to day jobs it did not really show up... But I have to pull mine from the list of properly working ones...

So chances are a bit higher that there are no really good ones...

Cheers,

Kai


Uberraum
Kai v. Ahlefeld
69, bd Richard Lenoir
75011 Paris

So disappointing.

It would help if they would communicate, and by that I mean to give information. I dont need a double safe, overly strategized, non informative corporate pat on the head. I mean something of substance that isn't sanitized for safety, but actually tells us something, and gives us some idea of whether they can afford to stand behind these products, whether they have the intention to do that.

I'd like them to even admit that this is a widespread problem. I see they can't do that. They always say "in a limited number of cameras" which really ducks the substance of how prevalent it is.

Somewhere a lawyer said "any number less than infinity is a limited number" - but here in the real world, real people have spent real money and they're not telling them anything. Again!

Seems like they're still shipping cameras.

I dunno. Someone in a higher leadership position at the company ought to realize this is a make or break moment, and do something bold that keeps customer's trust. I mean, after all that's gone on here for months and years not answering this or that, to get here, in a fatal flaw, and still play that game?

Seems a foolish approach. In my opinion, at the very least they should admit the issue, and do what they can for the people who got out of their return window because they believed in BM and the sweet way they phrase the actual no information hold music.

Boy am I frustrated.

The posts were removed for the fact that this is a forum for our products and not other brands.

Hahahah wow... You better start taking down several more posts, I see Alexa and Red post still up. does this mean that BMD feels the heat from this Kinefinity? I mean they figured out global shutter hahaha. I don't see threads or posts taken down on reduser hahah. Tony, I understand you just work for the company, and have no say in what they decide to do. But honestly, as mentioned in an earlier comment, "if you made cameras that worked we wouldn't be looking elsewhere".

As mentioned several times I have gone through 2 cameras already, I have friends coligues that have gone through cameras, and in that group every individual returned their camera at least once. This isn't normal for any company. It's literally close to a 100% fail rate at the moment. I honestly don't know how you afford it. What do you even do with all those returned cameras? I mean originally it was just laughable, I had to wait roughly 10 months, and then I received broken cameras. Now, I'll be honest, I'm a little irritated, and like many I'm wondering when enough is enough. Answers would be great, or is BMD's silent demeanor, lack of knowledge, and shady business practices a reflection of the company? why would a company continue to ship a flawed product? It's pretty evident that you have a major issue, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Is there a way to shoot either prores or raw with cropped sensor thus avoiding the edge? If yes what will be the setting on the camera? I might test it tomorrow to make sure and if that works say 4k DCI or 2k DCI I might just keep it till and if a fix will come later.
Can anyone shed some light if possible and what setting will be on camera?
Thanks,

Eli.

[Joshua Helling]

Thanks again for all the feedback on this thread. There is a lot of information to sort out here.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

We do apologize for the delay in getting you some information on this, and we’ll try to do better going forward as we have new information. It took us a bit of time to get enough information on the issue. Even though people had been talking online about it, there were a lot of variables and specific situations that made narrowing this down difficult.

The good news is this is an issue that's only apparent when you use specific lenses and run them at narrow apertures. This means that for normal shooting circumstances people should not have the issue. We are currently working on improving this so the lens compatibility is wider and the camera is less sensitive to this.

These updates have taken a bit longer because footage coming in from Beta testers, and indeed a lot of what people try to shoot with on our digital film cameras is at wider apertures like T1.5, 2.8 through to 5.6 where the problem does not occur on most lenses. It was also compounded by the fact that the wide range of examples that we were seeing being posted from users online had a huge range of variables that were not controlled so we needed to get a more scientific approach.

But we are on top of it and we will have some updates soon to correct for this in-camera and we will do a few updates that will improve it on each release. We expect the first update to be very soon once we get it through QA and test it with a range of lenses.

Please continue feeding us back (through support or the forums) any reports such as this so we can keep updated on issues and keep improving. While providing this feed back to support, please be sure to include a sample DNG, lens type, focal length, f stop, light source, any filtration and any other characteristics that are worth mentioning. That information is critical for us to get this improved.

Joshua thank you for the update.

Thanks again for all the feedback on this thread. There is a lot of information to sort out here.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

We do apologize for the delay in getting you some information on this, and we’ll try to do better going forward as we have new information. It took us a bit of time to get enough information on the issue. Even though people had been talking online about it, there were a lot of variables and specific situations that made narrowing this down difficult.

The good news is this is an issue that's only apparent when you use specific lenses and run them at narrow apertures. This means that for normal shooting circumstances people should not have the issue. We are currently working on improving this so the lens compatibility is wider and the camera is less sensitive to this.

These updates have taken a bit longer because footage coming in from Beta testers, and indeed a lot of what people try to shoot with on our digital film cameras is at wider apertures like T1.5, 2.8 through to 5.6 where the problem does not occur on most lenses. It was also compounded by the fact that the wide range of examples that we were seeing being posted from users online had a huge range of variables that were not controlled so we needed to get a more scientific approach.

But we are on top of it and we will have some updates soon to correct for this in-camera and we will do a few updates that will improve it on each release. We expect the first update to be very soon once we get it through QA and test it with a range of lenses.

Please continue feeding us back (through support or the forums) any reports such as this so we can keep updated on issues and keep improving. While providing this feed back to support, please be sure to include a sample DNG, lens type, focal length, f stop, light source, any filtration and any other characteristics that are worth mentioning. That information is critical for us to get this improved.

Joshua,
Thanks for the update!
can you clarify for me since english is a second language to me. Are the updates that will follow will be in the form of firmware updates or hardware which means we will have to send the cameras in?

Thanks again for all the feedback on this thread. There is a lot of information to sort out here.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

We do apologize for the delay in getting you some information on this, and we’ll try to do better going forward as we have new information. It took us a bit of time to get enough information on the issue. Even though people had been talking online about it, there were a lot of variables and specific situations that made narrowing this down difficult.

The good news is this is an issue that's only apparent when you use specific lenses and run them at narrow apertures. This means that for normal shooting circumstances people should not have the issue. We are currently working on improving this so the lens compatibility is wider and the camera is less sensitive to this.

These updates have taken a bit longer because footage coming in from Beta testers, and indeed a lot of what people try to shoot with on our digital film cameras is at wider apertures like T1.5, 2.8 through to 5.6 where the problem does not occur on most lenses. It was also compounded by the fact that the wide range of examples that we were seeing being posted from users online had a huge range of variables that were not controlled so we needed to get a more scientific approach.

But we are on top of it and we will have some updates soon to correct for this in-camera and we will do a few updates that will improve it on each release. We expect the first update to be very soon once we get it through QA and test it with a range of lenses.

Please continue feeding us back (through support or the forums) any reports such as this so we can keep updated on issues and keep improving. While providing this feed back to support, please be sure to include a sample DNG, lens type, focal length, f stop, light source, any filtration and any other characteristics that are worth mentioning. That information is critical for us to get this improved.

Joshua,
Thanks for the update!
can you clarify for me since english is a second language to me. Are the updates that will follow will be in the form of firmware updates or hardware which means we will have to send the cameras in?

Eli its going to be software updates. Just in case Joshua doesn't respond.

Thanks again for all the feedback on this thread. There is a lot of information to sort out here.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

We do apologize for the delay in getting you some information on this, and we’ll try to do better going forward as we have new information. It took us a bit of time to get enough information on the issue. Even though people had been talking online about it, there were a lot of variables and specific situations that made narrowing this down difficult.

The good news is this is an issue that's only apparent when you use specific lenses and run them at narrow apertures. This means that for normal shooting circumstances people should not have the issue. We are currently working on improving this so the lens compatibility is wider and the camera is less sensitive to this.

These updates have taken a bit longer because footage coming in from Beta testers, and indeed a lot of what people try to shoot with on our digital film cameras is at wider apertures like T1.5, 2.8 through to 5.6 where the problem does not occur on most lenses. It was also compounded by the fact that the wide range of examples that we were seeing being posted from users online had a huge range of variables that were not controlled so we needed to get a more scientific approach.

But we are on top of it and we will have some updates soon to correct for this in-camera and we will do a few updates that will improve it on each release. We expect the first update to be very soon once we get it through QA and test it with a range of lenses.

Please continue feeding us back (through support or the forums) any reports such as this so we can keep updated on issues and keep improving. While providing this feed back to support, please be sure to include a sample DNG, lens type, focal length, f stop, light source, any filtration and any other characteristics that are worth mentioning. That information is critical for us to get this improved.

Joshua,
Thanks for the update!
can you clarify for me since english is a second language to me. Are the updates that will follow will be in the form of firmware updates or hardware which means we will have to send the cameras in?

Eli its going to be software updates. Just in case Joshua doesn't respond.

Thanks a bunch!

No prob Eli.. this is indeed great news. Joshua mentioned we'll be able to correct for this "IN-CAMERA" ... sounds like maybe some type of tint slider? what do you guys think?

[Joshua Helling]

Joshua,
Thanks for the update!
can you clarify for me since english is a second language to me. Are the updates that will follow will be in the form of firmware updates or hardware which means we will have to send the cameras in?

No problem!

The update will be firmware.

Joshua,
Thanks for the update!
can you clarify for me since english is a second language to me. Are the updates that will follow will be in the form of firmware updates or hardware which means we will have to send the cameras in?

Firmware.

Joshua i don't know if you're able to answer this yet..but if you can, what do you mean by "correcting it in camera? Maybe a tint slider specifically set for this issue when some lens apertures are f8 -f22 that doesn't affect any other part of the image when used?

Thanks again for all the feedback on this thread. There is a lot of information to sort out here.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

We do apologize for the delay in getting you some information on this, and we’ll try to do better going forward as we have new information. It took us a bit of time to get enough information on the issue. Even though people had been talking online about it, there were a lot of variables and specific situations that made narrowing this down difficult.

The good news is this is an issue that's only apparent when you use specific lenses and run them at narrow apertures. This means that for normal shooting circumstances people should not have the issue. We are currently working on improving this so the lens compatibility is wider and the camera is less sensitive to this.

These updates have taken a bit longer because footage coming in from Beta testers, and indeed a lot of what people try to shoot with on our digital film cameras is at wider apertures like T1.5, 2.8 through to 5.6 where the problem does not occur on most lenses. It was also compounded by the fact that the wide range of examples that we were seeing being posted from users online had a huge range of variables that were not controlled so we needed to get a more scientific approach.

But we are on top of it and we will have some updates soon to correct for this in-camera and we will do a few updates that will improve it on each release. We expect the first update to be very soon once we get it through QA and test it with a range of lenses.

Please continue feeding us back (through support or the forums) any reports such as this so we can keep updated on issues and keep improving. While providing this feed back to support, please be sure to include a sample DNG, lens type, focal length, f stop, light source, any filtration and any other characteristics that are worth mentioning. That information is critical for us to get this improved.

Please clarify three issues:

#1 - You market the camera as being suitable for documentary filmmaking. In documentary shooting, all apertures are used to get shots in uncontrolled lighting environments. So, does your statement about "normal apertures" mean that the 4.6K camera is only to be used for controlled narrative filmmaking and not to be used for documentary filmmaking?

#2 - You refer to a limited list of lenses. However, on cameras affected by the magenta issue it is apparent on all lenses. Please explain what you mean. It doesn't match with the experience of people posting on this forum. Please tell us which lenses are unaffected?

#3 - Will you be updating your marketing to warn potential buyers about the serious limitations of the 4.6K sensor? Buyers expect a camera with an EF mount to be compatible with all EF lenses and at all apertures.

Please explain.

Thank you for responding.

Since you have some idea of what's coming, I'd like to ask a couple questions.

Will this firmware do something so that the sensor performs differently, or will this be a secondary color correction built into the camera?

If it is the latter, please consider making it so we can turn it off if we prefer to try to fix it by our own methods. Any mask is going to be an average of the problem, and of course we see that the topology of the affected cameras varies.

Also please remember that we are going to want to change focal length and aperture in shot, so hopefully Im wrong about the secondary correction, which would have a harder time dealing with that.

Thanks.

[Joshua Helling]

Thank you for responding.

No problem.

Will this firmware do something so that the sensor performs differently, or will this be a secondary color correction built into the camera?

Well either way it will include a firmware update. However I am not sure at this time what engineering is planning on doing. I only know that we've now gotten some solid information on why the issue is happening and we can now start taking steps to improve it. I know we're already working on getting something through QA (but we know how this can go), and we're looking to have something very soon.

If it is the latter, please consider making it so we can turn it off if we prefer to try to fix it by our own methods. Any mask is going to be an average of the problem, and of course we see that the topology of the affected cameras varies.

Fair enough. Again, i'm not sure that's the route we're going, but i'll make sure to mention it.

Honestly I hope it's NOT the route you're going, but to even think of anything else as an example would require more camera building know how than I will ever posses

I hope it's something like regulating a voltage on the sensor (just making this up, that may not even mean anything LOL) or some other kind of hardware change that makes the sensor behave differently rather than a secondary color correction in the debayering.

At any rate, thank you for what you've said today. It doesnt fully answer the problem for us of course (yet?), but it sure beats hearing nothing, and watching your 30 day return period go by.

I had to return mine, not knowing if any fix would ever come. Id rather have been using it at f/2.8 etc for now, knowing something was coming.

I'm sure anything you do or don't do will be met with some fruit throwing, this being the internet and all, but I think that if you guys err on the side of more information, it would make a positive difference overall.

Please do go ask if this approach is basically a baked in secondary color correction or something else?

Thanks,

Kyle

[Joshua Helling]

Please clarify three issues:

#1 - You market the camera as being suitable for documentary filmmaking. In documentary shooting, all apertures are used to get shots in uncontrolled lighting environments. So, does your statement about "normal apertures" mean that the 4.6K camera is only to be used for controlled narrative filmmaking and not to be used for documentary filmmaking?

#2 - You refer to a limited list of lenses. However, on cameras affected by the magenta issue it is apparent on all lenses. Please explain what you mean. It doesn't match with the experience of people posting on this forum. Please tell us which lenses are unaffected?

#3 - Will you be updating your marketing to warn potential buyers about the serious limitations of the 4.6K sensor? Buyers expect a camera with an EF mount to be compatible with all EF lenses and at all apertures.

Please explain.

Here's what I can offer by way of clarification.

1> You're asking for a clarification on what the camera can be used for which is a bit beyond the scope of my post. We are working to improve the magenta issue. We now have an idea of what's going on, and we're working hard to improve that.

2> I don't have a lens list to give you.

3> Again, that's a bit outside of the scope of my post. I think it's fair to say that we are going to wait and see how these improvements go before making any sort of statements like that.

All,

I'm just passing along information that was given to me on the progress on this issue. I intend to continue to post updates as I have them. Beyond that, I don't really speak for the marketing team, but will do my best to raise those concerns to them.

Again, we appreciate the feedback on this issue.

Joshua, thanks for the update. Means a lot.

Is there any word on what current owners of the Mini will have to do in order to have this issue fixed? Will an RMA with you guys be enough to get the issue sorted out? I'm assuming that once the issue has a known cause, that you guys will be able to either repair/replace cameras with the issue with completely 100% working units, correct? I'm just curious that BM is thinking in terms of solutions to those of us who have the issue already.

He said it was firmware, so that's just software, you do it yourself.

[Joshua Helling]

Joshua, thanks for the update. Means a lot.

Is there any word on what current owners of the Mini will have to do in order to have this issue fixed? Will an RMA with you guys be enough to get the issue sorted out? I'm assuming that once the issue has a known cause, that you guys will be able to either repair/replace cameras with the issue with completely 100% working units, correct? I'm just curious that BM is thinking in terms of solutions to those of us who have the issue already.

As far as I know, it's only firmware. But if this changes (FWIW, i don't expect it to change), i'll be sure to let everyone know, as well as how.

Joshua, thanks for the update. Means a lot.

Is there any word on what current owners of the Mini will have to do in order to have this issue fixed? Will an RMA with you guys be enough to get the issue sorted out? I'm assuming that once the issue has a known cause, that you guys will be able to either repair/replace cameras with the issue with completely 100% working units, correct? I'm just curious that BM is thinking in terms of solutions to those of us who have the issue already.

As far as I know, it's only firmware. But if this changes (FWIW, i don't expect it to change), i'll be sure to let everyone know, as well as how.

Ok, I see. Thank you for the response.

From your posts earlier on, am I to understand that the engineering team sees this issue and all the data on it, as pointing towards it being software related then? I'm curious due to the fact that so far it seems like some
cameras are not affected. Would that then not be a hardware problem?

I suppose I'm asking for more specific information as to what the issue is. Some more technical information would be very much appreciated, if you could provide it.

Hi, can you please explain to me how firmware will be able to fix it? It's an uneven cast, and every camera is different. I've literally taken one lens and shot on two 4.6ks and they have different results, one looked fine while the other did not. Also, I can assure you this isn't a lens or aperture issue. I have shot wide open and experienced it, as well as shot with popular glass, and high end cine glass with the same results.
I'm sorry but this is a hardware issue and no tint slider (Nab2016) or software update is going to fix this. I understand that you are trying to keep costs down and a firmware update to try and conceal the problem is the cheapest route. But as long as I keep receiving problem cameras, and as long as my reseller allows, I will continue to return every camera until I receive a working unit.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

Notice he said, "symmetrical magenta shading."

How many of the cameras tested here have symmetrical shading? Isn't it typically asymmetrical?

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

Notice he said, "symmetrical magenta shading."

How many of the cameras tested here have symmetrical shading? Isn't it typically asymmetrical?

Sir you are correct, by the way great work on the comparison video. It's unfortunate, but I honestly think I might have to leave the BMD train. This is just a pun to keep costs down and continue ship an inferior product. I'm sure they have a stockpile of that sensor and manufacturing a new one would be way too expensive. I mean, hell, who knows what the longevity is with these cameras, and with recent problems I'm sure it's not as long as we'd all like.

Hi, can you please explain to me how firmware will be able to fix it? It's an uneven cast, and every camera is different. I've literally taken one lens and shot on two 4.6ks and they have different results, one looked fine while the other did not. Also, I can assure you this isn't a lens or aperture issue. I have shot wide open and experienced it, as well as shot with popular glass, and high end cine glass with the same results.
I'm sorry but this is a hardware issue and no tint slider (Nab2016) or software update is going to fix this. I understand that you are trying to keep costs down and a firmware update to try and conceal the problem is the cheapest route. But as long as I keep receiving problem cameras, and as long as my reseller allows, I will continue to return every camera until I receive a working unit.

John, do you know how a CMOS chip creates an image? Not only is each and every camera different, each and every pixel on the sensor is slightly different (that's a source of FPN). Software (in the form of firmware) has to translate what's going on at the photosite level into brightness values and "figure out" how to account for the slight differences that occur at each site as a result of how the chips are manufactured.

While I definitely understand and sympathize with the frustration we've all been through waiting for this camera and then sitting through a very ugly issue upon release, can I suggest you pause for a moment and allow for a little humility? Almost certainly no user of this camera has ever designed a camera chip or written the firmware that converts what's happening at microscopic levels into a usable image. Not one of you. Do you actually think your anger unleashed on a representative of a company with a group of experienced engineer sounds anything but childish? These are people who have degrees and studied design and then applied that for years to bring this product to market. Gosh, if you hadn't pointed out how a tint slider couldn't fix a hardware problem, those poor fools would have released another bad version of the software. Thanks for stopping them before it's too late. Do you not have any sense of perspective of your knowledge vs. theirs?

For those of you more level headed folks and technically inclined folks, I point you back to the Leica forum and the "Italian Flag Phenomenon" that someone uncovered here recently. Read through that thread and see how extremely knowledgeable camera people dealt with that issue.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/153 ... try1758723

John i saw your post on the other thread. We really don't need to start this here!!! Benton started this thread to help people with issues with the 4.6k ursa mini and bring awareness to BMD for a fix. Both you and that other gentleman should really try to promote that other manufacturer elsewhere. Maybe start a blog? Right now its counter productive and does nothing to help people that really want this issue with their camera resolved.

We just wanted to give you some updated information on the URSA Mini 4.6k cameras with the symmetrical magenta shading on the sides of the image.

I am curious as to how this applies to the asymmetrical magenta shading issues that many have experienced and documented.

For example, one recent 4.6K owner on the BMCuser magenta thread posted well documented DNGs from a standardized test setup (white card, f/4 - f/16, window light, ISO 800, uncompressed DNG, Sigma 18-35 @ 35mm) from two different days/times of day with the same camera and lens, with the only other variable being varying shutter angle to compensate for light intensity. However, one had a pronounced cast on the right with very little to the left, while the other had a more symmetrical cast in all four corners, with perhaps a small leftward bias. I've seen many like it, under varying conditions.

Therefore, when will that issue be addressed? Full DNGs and documentation are available there, and I can link it if you'd like. Thanks.

Hi all, I am really no tech wizard and my logic might be completely off the point. But seeing that in my camera the problem only occurs when I am on a really open aperture, I was thinking maybe the problem does not come from the sensor but what is around the sensor. If I remember my physics lessons correctly (please excuse if I am off that was 30 years ago) a more open aperture would result in a bigger light cone one the inside of the camera. The light cone would have to be a lot bigger than the sensor. Could it be possible that the light hits the border of the funnel that is in front of the sensor... Light hitting an edge would slightly separate and maybe it would send a magenta heavy stray light onto the sensor... Sorry just an idea... There is probably someone more tech on the forum that will explain why this is not the case.

Cheers,

Kai


Uberraum
Kai v. Ahlefeld
69, bd Richard Lenoir
75011 Paris

So it seems I was right.
One month ago (exactly 4/19) on an open ticket, I sent to BM "Checking further I have this findings I would like to share with your team: magenta corners come out when passing above f8.0 aperture, on any lens. While the center of the image keep balanced well, we see a fallout on corners going to very strong magenta. it show not only in corners but sides too (right much more than left)"

Answer was: "the sensor seems to be fine and the returned image quality is within expected quality after the WB and tint correction (...) Personally I fill the sensor fall off is just fine."

Then I just sent more clips and DNGs (same as I've posted here) showing extreme magenta past f5.6, and BM asked me for return (RMA) on 4/27 and received it at their offices just two days later.

In three weeks I still don't have any camera back, while the only information I got last week was "We have tested the camera in our office and found it to perform similarly to our test bench unit.
As such we would look to return the unit to you. (...)"

And now I'm reading something like "We discovered that this issue happens with some lens past f8.0 where nobody should normally records. With coming firmware updates we're confident to fix it anyway"

Thanks for everybody supporting in this thread. Apart from the issue, a lot of interesting information was written
I'm going to return this camera anyway because I really can't believe a company could keep a camera for one month (at least, since it's Thursday and I got no estimation for shipping back) just for testing it internally.

Also on my footage (sorry can post I forgot my password and can only connect to the forum through my phone, will check that if I have 15 min or so free) I would say the magenta is like a vignette, clearly circular. I doubt that a sensor would create something circular... Would therefore look into the surrounding design.

Cheers,

Kai


Uberraum
Kai v. Ahlefeld
69, bd Richard Lenoir
75011 Paris

You are going to solve this issue with firmware? Come on, stop messing around with us. The behaviour is not consistent. Same lens has different behaviours depending on the aperture you're using. That lens, same aperture, on a different camera, the magenta behaviour changes.

What will you compromise to "solve" this? And when will we have that magic solution? Don't really buy it.

None of your beta testers used the camera bellow 5.6? Great beta testing. Don't really buy it.
By the way, magenta corners sometimes show up below 5.6.

You keep saying you will have a solution, but in the meanwhile, us, the paying customers, are supposed to hold on to our faulty cameras? Why are you refusing to provide clean cameras?

You are going to solve this issue with firmware? Come on, stop messing around with us. The behaviour is not consistent. Same lens has different behaviours depending on the aperture you're using. That lens, same aperture, on a different camera, the magenta behaviour changes.

What will you compromise to "solve" this? And when will we have that magic solution? Don't really buy it.

None of your beta testers used the camera bellow 5.6? Great beta testing. Don't really buy it.
By the way, magenta corners sometimes show up below 5.6.

You keep saying you will have a solution, but in the meanwhile, us, the paying customers, are supposed to hold on to our faulty cameras? Why are you refusing to provide clean cameras?

If this was in firmware from start - how would you know they already compromised something?
Don't create a problem out of something that doesn't exist yet.
To make something work properly doesn't mean it compromises something else.

A clean camera comes with a proper firmware. Let them arrange that.
If you look at the footage beta testers provided.. almost all of it is in 2.39:1. How would anyone
see this problem?

Your statements and your comments clearly states you have no idea how RnD works.
Everything you get from the camera has been defined with lines of code.
Either code is wrong, missing, requires adaptation or similar.

Nothing have ever happened by itself. Let them arrange their million lines of code for this camera
in order to give us a clean image. It's just software.

// A

What I don't really agree with and don't understand is this:
I paid for what I thought was a working camera. Period.
Now if there is ONLY one lonely camera out there that works as it should. Shouldn't BMD replace all the faulty ones to give us cameras that operates like that one camera that works properly? This should be an assembly line for a product that works as advertised not one that is faulty and "I will fix it for you in a firmware that is going to try and fix an anomaly to the best that I can" kind of a thing...

I paid for a product that was put out on the market that suppose to work. If that product is exhibiting any deviation from the next camera out there that operates as it should with the same lenses that I have than I want my camera to match the one that works. this is not the luck of the draw kind of a thing! "oh I am lucky I got a sensor that is clean" This is a mass production line that suppose to give you the same product over and over again. If a product comes off of the line and it is not working properly, then replace it with the one that works properly.
The only question is: IS THERE AN EF CAMERA THAT IS CLEAN?

You are going to solve this issue with firmware? Come on, stop messing around with us. The behaviour is not consistent. Same lens has different behaviours depending on the aperture you're using. That lens, same aperture, on a different camera, the magenta behaviour changes.

What will you compromise to "solve" this? And when will we have that magic solution? Don't really buy it.

None of your beta testers used the camera bellow 5.6? Great beta testing. Don't really buy it.
By the way, magenta corners sometimes show up below 5.6.

You keep saying you will have a solution, but in the meanwhile, us, the paying customers, are supposed to hold on to our faulty cameras? Why are you refusing to provide clean cameras?

If this was in firmware from start - how would you know they already compromised something?
Don't create a problem out of something that doesn't exist yet.
To make something work properly doesn't mean it compromises something else.

A clean camera comes with a proper firmware. Let them arrange that.
If you look at the footage beta testers provided.. almost all of it is in 2.39:1. How would anyone
see this problem?

Your statements and your comments clearly states you have no idea how RnD works.
Everything you get from the camera has been defined with lines of code.
Either code is wrong, missing, requires adaptation or similar.

Nothing have ever happened by itself. Let them arrange their million lines of code for this camera
in order to give us a clean image. It's just software.

// A

Actually i do know something about software, i was a programer since i was 15 and continued to be a software developer for 10 years. I don't do coding for about 10 years now, but I've done a bunch of beta testing for several software's since then, so yeah i actually know what i was saying, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

<irony>I am a professional barber and visited a rocket science course in the evening school. </irony> So what did we have in common? We both don't know how the internal cmos processing inside the Ursa Mini works. Maybe that is fixable by changes in the firmware - maybe not. So calm down, give them a change and we will see what we get.

You are going to solve this issue with firmware? Come on, stop messing around with us. The behaviour is not consistent. Same lens has different behaviours depending on the aperture you're using. That lens, same aperture, on a different camera, the magenta behaviour changes.

What will you compromise to "solve" this? And when will we have that magic solution? Don't really buy it.

None of your beta testers used the camera bellow 5.6? Great beta testing. Don't really buy it.
By the way, magenta corners sometimes show up below 5.6.

You keep saying you will have a solution, but in the meanwhile, us, the paying customers, are supposed to hold on to our faulty cameras? Why are you refusing to provide clean cameras?

If this was in firmware from start - how would you know they already compromised something?
Don't create a problem out of something that doesn't exist yet.
To make something work properly doesn't mean it compromises something else.

A clean camera comes with a proper firmware. Let them arrange that.
If you look at the footage beta testers provided.. almost all of it is in 2.39:1. How would anyone
see this problem?

Your statements and your comments clearly states you have no idea how RnD works.
Everything you get from the camera has been defined with lines of code.
Either code is wrong, missing, requires adaptation or similar.

Nothing have ever happened by itself. Let them arrange their million lines of code for this camera
in order to give us a clean image. It's just software.

// A

Actually i do know something about software, i was a programer since i was 15 and continued to be a software developer for 10 years. I don't do coding for about 10 years now, but I've done a bunch of beta testing for several software's since then, so yeah i actually know what i was saying, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

Right...
Then you should know the process and how RnD works (hw/sw development).
This sound just like end-user talk having no idea.
The reason why I claim RnD is because this product was clearly not ready for the world when
we got it in our hands. Doesn't mean BMD can't finish it.

We seldomly do changes to hardware once it's set. Software can do magic and 99% of the changes
are software related. Can we, can BMD.

<irony>I am a professional barber and visited a rocket science course in the evening school. </irony> So what did we have in common? We both don't know how the internal cmos processing inside the Ursa Mini works. Maybe that is fixable by changes in the firmware - maybe not. So calm down, give them a change and we will see what we get.

+1

You know what, you are all right. And BM has dealt with this issue in such a transparent way, that we have no right to doubt anything, clearly! What was i thinking.

If you think all issues can be solved with software be my guest. VW solved their emissions issues with software. Oh, wait, they cheated, the hardware was still faulty, but at least everyone got to say they had a VW with low emissions, even if it was just for a while.

You know what, you are all right. And BM has dealt with this issue in such a transparent way, that we have no right to doubt anything, clearly! What was i thinking.

If you think all issues can be solved with software be my guest. VW solved their emissions issues with software. Oh, wait, they cheated, the hardware was still faulty, but at least everyone got to say they had a VW with low emissions, even if it was just for a while.

Nuno, rather than anger and sarcasm, may I suggest another approach? Maybe you want to dig into how a CMOS sensor creates an image? If you've done programming, I think you might find it an interesting topic. Before you state categorically that a problem can't be fixed in S/W, wouldn't it make sense to have a firm grounding in CMOS imaging system design?

So... if you're open to it... what is your understanding of how a CMOS sensor converts light into an image?