Color science: Cinema Camera vs. URSA minis

While I have not personally used the Cinema Camera, I love the color science of this camera and think that the images it produces are fantastic. I am seriously considering purchasing my first Blackmagic Camera (Sony user), but in my opinion, the URSA mini footage (4K and 4.6k) just doesn't look at good as the Cinema Camera's. I know that I'm basing this solely on the footage that I have seen online, but perhaps others with more hands on experience can chime in. How do the color science of the two cameras compare (similarities/differences)? The Cinema camera's footage just seems more cinematic to me than the URSAs?

So the quandary is this: I prefer the look of the cinema camera over the URSA's but prefer the ergonomics/features of the URSA minis over the Cinema Camera. Thoughts?

So being an owner of a Cinema Camera I can say without a doubt that is has some really incredible Color Science which is something that I think that other Blackmagic Cameras like the Pocket have as well (as well as they should as we are talking about the company that makes DaVinci Resolve!), What I may be so bold to suggest is that what you might actually be seeing that makes the image feel more "cinematic" is the far superior Dynamic Range of the Cinema Camera compared to the URSA (v1 & v2 of the 4K sensors) which have a claimed Dynamic Range of 12 stops rather than the claimed 13 stops of the Cinema Camera but I can tell you from personal experience of testing both these cameras back to back with the exact same scene including a Dynamic Range test chart that the Cinema Camera as even more than a stop of dynamic range in both directions (+/-) as compared to the URSA 4K Sensor (same as in the Mini 4K). Even just a stop more of range is technically a lot considering that it means twice the amount of light (being a stop). Considering that a camera like the Alexa (3.4K total sensor resolution) has 14+ stops (many say even more) of dynamic range measured on a very accurate test chart the value of dynamic range in creating an image with incredible detail in the shadows and highlights like our eyes actually see gives the impression to many as creating a "better image" than an image with less dynamic range (do some research and you might find it interesting to see the relationship between Dynamic Range & Perceived Sharpness). The new 4.6K sensor should bring back the glory if you will of high dynamic range sensors by Blackmagic with great Color Science (fingers crossed), the footage you've probably seen of the 4.6K I would personally consider as "incomplete" as BMD has probably not finished the Color Science behind the new sensor 100% or the proper LUTs (in Resolve right now there is just LUTs for the Cinema Camera and the USRA/Mini 4K sensors not the 4.6K to Rec.709). Hopefully when the camera's ship we should see the full potential for the new sensor and its dynamic range. So I'd say that that is maybe an explanation about why you feel the way you do, at least my opinion. Don't wana get the good old war between spatial resolution and high dynamic range (perceived sharpness) started again though!

So being an owner of a Cinema Camera I can say without a doubt that is has some really incredible Color Science which is something that I think that other Blackmagic Cameras like the Pocket have as well

I'm wondering if the reason I prefer the look of the Cinema Camera thus far is because the URSAs have a different color science in addition to other factors (dynamic range, as you mentioned). I know the 4.6k is only in beta but I really haven't seen any sample footage yet that looks like (as good) the Cinema Camera (which I really like, just don't like the ergonomics/form factor, as I mentioned).

Bobby Hewitt's footage is the best that I've seen so far in my opinion:

i own an Ursa Mini and i still prefer the look of the BMCC 2.5K.

i own an Ursa Mini and i still prefer the look of the BMCC 2.5K.

So it's not just me then I really love the look of the cinema camera. The ergonomics though...not so much. I wonder if the Mini's will get close to the cinema camera at some point?

So being an owner of a Cinema Camera I can say without a doubt that is has some really incredible Color Science which is something that I think that other Blackmagic Cameras like the Pocket have as well

I'm wondering if the reason I prefer the look of the Cinema Camera thus far is because the URSAs have a different color science in addition to other factors (dynamic range, as you mentioned). I know the 4.6k is only in beta but I really haven't seen any sample footage yet that looks like (as good) the Cinema Camera (which I really like, just don't like the ergonomics/form factor, as I mentioned).

Bobby Hewitt's footage is the best that I've seen so far in my opinion:

Have you seen the CaptainHook's first one?

I remember when the BMCC first came out, some called it a pricey doorstop. Funny how things changed when people figured out how to work the camera during production and in post.

Ian Cresswell:

"The color science of the 4.6k, from most of the footage and stills I've seen posted so far, just doesn't seem as good as either the BMPC4k or the BMCC. The 4.6k footage has a more DSLR look to the color that I can't quite put my finger on. Its like the reds and greens are more saturated. I dunno. The footage looks nice, but I've only seen 1 or 2 clips from the 4.6k that seem to have that elusive film color to them like what I often see from the BMPC4k. I realize you can push and pull and tweak and LUT etc etc etc in post. But as far as out-of-the-box color with a simple REC709 gamma curve, the 4.6k doesn't seem to have the same BM secret sauce. I know, I'm crazy."

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44595

Again, tough to make this kind of judgment of a camera that hasn't even been released yet, but I prefer Cinema Camera look over the Minis. I don't like the form factor, though, but the CC definitely makes more cinematic footage, imo. Maybe that will be proven to be wrong when the 4.6 is actually released.

Anna: Which of CaptainHook's videos are you referring to? Thanks

i own an Ursa Mini and i still prefer the look of the BMCC 2.5K.

Same here, I always liked the look of the 2.5k and Pocket better.

But what I can get out of the 4.6K Ursa Minni blew my mind - it's totally unreal.
The new sensor and color science are unbelievable good - as close to an Alexa as you can get (to say the least).

i own an Ursa Mini and i still prefer the look of the BMCC 2.5K.

Same here, I always liked the look of the 2.5k and Pocket better.

But what I can get out of the 4.6K Ursa Minni blew my mind - it's totally unreal.
The new sensor and color science are unbelievable good - as close to an Alexa as you can get (to say the least).

Frank, it's great to hear your opinion on the 4.6K as well. Looking forward to seeing some of your footage.

But what I can get out of the 4.6K Ursa Minni blew my mind - it's totally unreal.

Good to hear, since I will probably get a 4.6k mini once it becomes widely available. But you still prefer the look of the BMCC, right? If so, why (since you've had the opportunity to actually use both cameras)?

Have you noticed any of the issues (800 ASA noise, FPN, etc) people have been having with the 4K version? Imagine if this camera had been released last July like it was supposed to. So many questions would have been answered by now.

Thanks

I remember when the BMCC first came out, some called it a pricey doorstop. Funny how things changed when people figured out how to work the camera during production and in post.

Yup.

And we're still working it out...

And I remember when the 4K came out everyone talked about how they hated the look of that too....

Now there's a whole legion who prefer it to the "new" footage....

JB

Have you noticed any of the issues (800 ASA noise, FPN, etc) people have been having with the 4K version? Imagine if this camera had been released last July like it was supposed to. So many questions would have been answered by now.

Thanks

No. Did some lowlight tests at 800 ISO in a church yesterday.
Really dark, nasty mixed lights - anything from candles to LED and florescent energy saving sh..t.

No FPN anywhere, clean as a whistle.
You probably have to push it really hard (way beyond reason) in post, to run into any problems.

So being an owner of a Cinema Camera I can say without a doubt that is has some really incredible Color Science which is something that I think that other Blackmagic Cameras like the Pocket have as well (as well as they should as we are talking about the company that makes DaVinci Resolve!), What I may be so bold to suggest is that what you might actually be seeing that makes the image feel more "cinematic" is the far superior Dynamic Range of the Cinema Camera compared to the URSA (v1 & v2 of the 4K sensors) which have a claimed Dynamic Range of 12 stops rather than the claimed 13 stops of the Cinema Camera but I can tell you from personal experience of testing both these cameras back to back with the exact same scene including a Dynamic Range test chart that the Cinema Camera as even more than a stop of dynamic range in both directions (+/-) as compared to the URSA 4K Sensor (same as in the Mini 4K). Even just a stop more of range is technically a lot considering that it means twice the amount of light (being a stop). Considering that a camera like the Alexa (3.4K total sensor resolution) has 14+ stops (many say even more) of dynamic range measured on a very accurate test chart the value of dynamic range in creating an image with incredible detail in the shadows and highlights like our eyes actually see gives the impression to many as creating a "better image" than an image with less dynamic range (do some research and you might find it interesting to see the relationship between Dynamic Range & Perceived Sharpness). The new 4.6K sensor should bring back the glory if you will of high dynamic range sensors by Blackmagic with great Color Science (fingers crossed), the footage you've probably seen of the 4.6K I would personally consider as "incomplete" as BMD has probably not finished the Color Science behind the new sensor 100% or the proper LUTs (in Resolve right now there is just LUTs for the Cinema Camera and the USRA/Mini 4K sensors not the 4.6K to Rec.709). Hopefully when the camera's ship we should see the full potential for the new sensor and its dynamic range. So I'd say that that is maybe an explanation about why you feel the way you do, at least my opinion. Don't wana get the good old war between spatial resolution and high dynamic range (perceived sharpness) started again though!

Yes, that stopped me dead from buying the 4k mini Ursa (and the noise issues),and from the beginning I have asked if they might be able to get 14 stops out of the latest batch of 4k sensors. In another thread a side by side comparison form an older 4k and a newer showed a lot of improvement in noise. So maybe there has been, but nobody has tested the latest mini Ursa 4k against an original on a latitude test. The pocket also sold me on the lovelyness of it's image, but the 4kp30 camera did not. Again, anybody up to testing a few older cameras and a few new mini's objectively. Even it it is functionally still the same chip, it does not mean a latter batch is not more well made. Until we do that we don't know where the boundaries now lay.

I've been shooting a film with a Blackmagic Pocket and the original 2.5 Cinema Camera... with the 4k craze, I've considered switching over to a 4k camera as I've only shot about 1/8th of the film... reading this thread makes me think I should just continue the way I am... and save the money to maybe blow up to film to get to 4k

I am still debating on whether to edit in 1080 or 2.5k though...

So the edits in 2.5K to keep the resolution, that said, yiu can actually edit proxy files and render the 2.5K files after all th editing is done.
Cheers

I've been shooting a film with a Blackmagic Pocket and the original 2.5 Cinema Camera... with the 4k craze, I've considered switching over to a 4k camera as I've only shot about 1/8th of the film... reading this thread makes me think I should just continue the way I am... and save the money to maybe blow up to film to get to 4k

I am still debating on whether to edit in 1080 or 2.5k though...

Having shot and graded many hundreds of hours of footage shot on all the BMD cameras, in my opinion the 4.6K sensor yields by far the best results consistently. You can get great results out of the other cameras when you expose them for their sweet spot, but the 4.6K has a much wider range under which it will work well. I shoot the 4.6K full sensor downasmpled to record 1080 ProRes 444. The data rate isn't too high, and from the oversampling you get excellent color information that allows you to push the image hard in Resolve. The real difference is not about 2K v 4K, its about oversampled 12 bit 444 color versus undersampled 10 bit 422 color. In other words, choosing better pixels > more pixels.