Bear with me on this...
SENSOR AND PROCESSOR UPGRADABLE BIG URSA UNIT
This is the truly upgradeable camera. It's designed for true testers and pioneers. The Mini is always full upgrade, but URSA Owners get an "Upgrade" Fee because the URSA always updates the Processor Unit and the Sensor Unit separately and is truly a shell. Batteries are always handled separately, and buying new batteries should always be a line budget item. The URSA size makes sense for this. Then the URSA Mini line will eventually get the LF sensor that every person desires, but it starts with the Charlie test run of that sensor and processor on a bigger URSA camera. The idea is to always figure out a way to make that tech available in a smaller size, and that's when it makes it to the Mini.
I think the flaw of the original URSA was that the processor couldn't be upgraded. So imagine that you can always trade-in at a low cost the old processor for the next generation. A bigger processor that's faster and more powerful will always eventually shrink down in size.
A guaranteed 240 FPS max slow-motion as a speed that designates the rolling shutter, then for the most part you're fine because it is pretty close to where you want the global shutter concept to be designated at. However, shooting 24 with the current 4.6K G2 in that max frame rate is so close to "global" that taking that same 4.6K sensor and allowing 4.6K at 240 FPS will guarantee that the sensor's rolling shutter speed is adequate.
Thus when you want a Large Format Sensor it will be capable of 240 FPS Slow-Motion Speed at 6.6K for LF Size and eventually 240 FPS for IMAX Size in 12K down the road.
I did some math. I found that for the most part I have a whole other argument for going back to the original Academy Aspect Ratio for Theatrical Distribution. However, I may have to concede that argument to a later forum since the point needs to be driven home here.
The LF Sensor gets tested in a New URSA Unit designated the URSA G2, with the G3 URSA Mini eventually upgrading to the concept of the technology to get that URSA G2 smaller in size. URSA G3 eventually allows for the upgraded aspects for further software tech that requires chassis upgrades. The following table displays what 6.6K LF would be matching the ARRI LF size. Then I have IMAX size designated to 12K enough so that keeping pixel size the same you can reach higher resolution with larger format sizes that require bigger lenses. That's where the money should truly lay... lens cost. Larger Size lenses should always be worth more. Optics is a different ball game not to get into at the moment.
*scroll or click on table image.
The only thing I will say about lens diameter of image circle is these numbers; LF: 37 mm. IMAX: 72 mm. Easily IMAX is 3.5X larger and more expensive. That goal is maybe a 10-year goal for digital. For now let's focus on 240 as a base slow-motion frame rate in a 6.6K LF format.
Ultimately this is an argument for sensor size being equivalent to the 4.6K sensor for dynamic range. Lower light capability shouldn't truly be applicable since a truly cinematic image is properly lit. However, that 15-stops is a truly amazing goal. Even more dynamic range is always more welcome, if not purely for that highlight roll off. Heck, at this point internal ND is such that you could make a fantastic base ISO of 1600 for max shadow and highlight detail that then you ND it down outdoors via the internal that goes from 2 to 6 to 10 stops.
Additional filters are still able to be applied via the matte box. However, indoors with good lighting you could drop to 800 if you wanted richer blacks. Even 400 could produce deeper blacks, and this ultimately means we work in the opposite spectrum as we used to that has faster response for highlights and slower response for shadows. It's the opposite of film, but it makes sensor for digital.
In conclusion the URSA size gets new life with the idea that it's meant for truly serious gear heads willing to put the sensor tech to its limits before it gets put into a smaller body. Eventually the LF format reaches the Mini, but that leads to faster LF frames rates in the URSA while eventually paving way for a processor capable of fitting into an URSA to handle the resolution and size of IMAX level proportion.
SENSOR AND PROCESSOR UPGRADABLE BIG URSA UNIT
This is the truly upgradeable camera. It's designed for true testers and pioneers. The Mini is always full upgrade, but URSA Owners get an "Upgrade" Fee because the URSA always updates the Processor Unit and the Sensor Unit separately and is truly a shell. Batteries are always handled separately, and buying new batteries should always be a line budget item. The URSA size makes sense for this. Then the URSA Mini line will eventually get the LF sensor that every person desires, but it starts with the Charlie test run of that sensor and processor on a bigger URSA camera. The idea is to always figure out a way to make that tech available in a smaller size, and that's when it makes it to the Mini.
I think the flaw of the original URSA was that the processor couldn't be upgraded. So imagine that you can always trade-in at a low cost the old processor for the next generation. A bigger processor that's faster and more powerful will always eventually shrink down in size.
A guaranteed 240 FPS max slow-motion as a speed that designates the rolling shutter, then for the most part you're fine because it is pretty close to where you want the global shutter concept to be designated at. However, shooting 24 with the current 4.6K G2 in that max frame rate is so close to "global" that taking that same 4.6K sensor and allowing 4.6K at 240 FPS will guarantee that the sensor's rolling shutter speed is adequate.
Thus when you want a Large Format Sensor it will be capable of 240 FPS Slow-Motion Speed at 6.6K for LF Size and eventually 240 FPS for IMAX Size in 12K down the road.
I did some math. I found that for the most part I have a whole other argument for going back to the original Academy Aspect Ratio for Theatrical Distribution. However, I may have to concede that argument to a later forum since the point needs to be driven home here.
The LF Sensor gets tested in a New URSA Unit designated the URSA G2, with the G3 URSA Mini eventually upgrading to the concept of the technology to get that URSA G2 smaller in size. URSA G3 eventually allows for the upgraded aspects for further software tech that requires chassis upgrades. The following table displays what 6.6K LF would be matching the ARRI LF size. Then I have IMAX size designated to 12K enough so that keeping pixel size the same you can reach higher resolution with larger format sizes that require bigger lenses. That's where the money should truly lay... lens cost. Larger Size lenses should always be worth more. Optics is a different ball game not to get into at the moment.
- Tables
- Screen Shot 2019-12-30 at 12.36.38 AM.png (351.32 KiB) Viewed 1452 times
*scroll or click on table image.
The only thing I will say about lens diameter of image circle is these numbers; LF: 37 mm. IMAX: 72 mm. Easily IMAX is 3.5X larger and more expensive. That goal is maybe a 10-year goal for digital. For now let's focus on 240 as a base slow-motion frame rate in a 6.6K LF format.
Ultimately this is an argument for sensor size being equivalent to the 4.6K sensor for dynamic range. Lower light capability shouldn't truly be applicable since a truly cinematic image is properly lit. However, that 15-stops is a truly amazing goal. Even more dynamic range is always more welcome, if not purely for that highlight roll off. Heck, at this point internal ND is such that you could make a fantastic base ISO of 1600 for max shadow and highlight detail that then you ND it down outdoors via the internal that goes from 2 to 6 to 10 stops.
Additional filters are still able to be applied via the matte box. However, indoors with good lighting you could drop to 800 if you wanted richer blacks. Even 400 could produce deeper blacks, and this ultimately means we work in the opposite spectrum as we used to that has faster response for highlights and slower response for shadows. It's the opposite of film, but it makes sensor for digital.
In conclusion the URSA size gets new life with the idea that it's meant for truly serious gear heads willing to put the sensor tech to its limits before it gets put into a smaller body. Eventually the LF format reaches the Mini, but that leads to faster LF frames rates in the URSA while eventually paving way for a processor capable of fitting into an URSA to handle the resolution and size of IMAX level proportion.
"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)
Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2 & Pocket 6K Pro
Past: UM4.6K, P6K, BMCC 2.5K
Computers: iMac 5K (Mid 2020) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)
Cameras: URSA Mini Pro G2 & Pocket 6K Pro
Past: UM4.6K, P6K, BMCC 2.5K
Computers: iMac 5K (Mid 2020) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Mid 2018)