12k Ursa Not Sharp When Punched In

When I punch in on 12k Ursa clips in post I’m finding that the shots that look sharp at 1x lose considerable sharpness at 3x and beyond. By comparison, my 8k Sony A1 retains very good sharpness all the way to 6x. I’m attaching images showing the Sony A1 (on the left) and 12k Ursa on the right, both punched in 6x. The Ursa has a narrower field of view due its native crop factor. Clearly the Sony A1 images are superior in sharpness. Of course I’m using the same tack-sharp lens for both cameras and special care was taken to focus each shot precisely. I’m shooting the Ursa in “Video” mode but also tried Film mode with no better results. By the time I add further sharpening to the Ursa clip in Resolve to match the A1 clip, the shot has turned to grunge. I’m shooting in 8:1 compression which is the Ursa’s 2nd least compression. I’ve also shot in 8k with the Ursa and get the same poor results when punching in. I don’t think it’s a lens issue since I’m using the same lens for both cameras: top of the line Canon L 16-35 and Canon L 28 - 300. I replaced the PL mount with the EF mount when I received the camera and left the same shims in as recommended in this forum by a Black Magic rep. I don’t think this a shim issue because I assume the shot would be less than sharp from the get-go before punching in. Any ideas anyone? I really love the Ursa 12k in all other respects and don’t want to have to return it, so I’m hoping someone has a solution. I don’t want end up as a short-lived 12k Guru.

May be that you have back focus issue on ursa? May be that you need to shim ef mount.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

This... viewtopic.php?f=2&t=145731&view=unread#p780841

The Ursa has a narrower field of view due its native crop factor. Clearly the Sony A1 images are superior in sharpness.

Sony A1 - Enlarged - URSA 12K - 60% Unsharp Mask Filter

12K-Sony_A1.jpg (190.23 KiB) Viewed 106099 times

I think you can easily match "sharpening" of the two.

If you're trying to make sure that the URSA 12K will resolve more detail than the Sony A1 for stills or extreme crops then I would look to a lens like the Zeiss Otus 55mm.

The problem is fundamental, inherent to the sensor size. To resolve the full pixels of the sensor, you take the horizontal pixels divided by twice the horizontal millimeters to get line-pairs/millimeter needed from the lens.

The lens for 12K footage on an Ursa needs to resolve 227 ln-pr/mm.
For 8K from the Ursa the lens needs to resolve 152 ln-pr/mm.

For 8K from the A1, the lens only needs to resolve 114 ln-pr/mm.

Because the sensor out-resolves the lens by more with smaller sensors than large ones, the same lens on the larger sensor will give the higher overall system resolution, which is what counts.

My instinct is that the lens is the issue here.

Those canon L zooms aren’t renowned for sharpness….I wouldn’t call it a “top of the line”

What stop did you shoot at ? The 12K’s smaller photosites also hit diffraction sooner.

I’d also go for much less compression. That will kill fine detail first.

And thirdly, the 12K number is a headline grabber. It’s not the actual design goal of the sensor, which was really intended as a solution to better COLOUR not insane resolution. The sensor design is very different to every other CMOS / Bayer sensor out there so it’s hard to compare based on resolution. If you’re expecting to be able to push in endlessly maybe it’s not the right camera ?

You’re also comparing a STILLS camera shooting stills to a cinema camera shooting 24 stills a second right ? Short of dropping about 200K on one of these guys, I’m not sure any cinema camera will do better.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/09/14/ ... re-camera/


JB

Which lenses exactly are you using?
There are 4 different 16-35 L lenses from Canon. But regardless of the version, all of them are sharpest at f/5.6

In the center at f/5.6 the 16-35 L f/2.8 II and III can resolve around 45 line pairs per mm (MTF50).

The UMP 12k never look sharp to me but as JB said its not about resolution but was design for better colour.
Its got that diffuse look about it, not sure how it will react with a diffuser filter?

I second what has been said about lenses. You'll need very sharp lenses for the 12K and you'll need to hit their sweet spot. Very fast lenses may already be best at f4, most others at f5.6, and even then most lenses have difficulties to out resolve that sensor. As John wrote, that sensor has not been designed for 12K resolution. It can deliver very good 8K resolution and will fully resolve color in 4K. If you check the size of those photocells vs. wavelength of visible light, it touches limits of physics anyway.

Are those images from the Sony A1 in RAW? If not, they may have artificial sharpening added if you didn't turn "detail" in profile settings all the way down. You can always add that in post.

I tested the 12K vs. RAW stills out of my Sony A7R II. Only with very good lenses the Sony is outresolving the 12K by a hair (with serious pixel peeping), but it shows moiré where the 12K doesn't. I like that better.

Having shot side by side comparisons with the URSA 12k at 12k and the DSMC2 Helium at 8k (using the same lens) the Helium almost ever time looked sharper than the URSA 12k at 12k.... which was very surprising to me as well.

Seems pretty pointless to be shooting 12k images if 8k images from other cameras are sharper images. I've heard lots of other people talk about using the right lens otherwise it wont be sharp, i used the Sigma Cine 85mm lens for a lot of my tests which is a tack sharp lens.

We still use the URSA 12k as our main camera but i'd have to say the sharpness of the camera is my biggest disappointment since switching from the Helium 8k. Maybe there something we havn't figured out but I feel like i've tried every combination and can say confidently that the helium still ends up being more sharp at 8k than the URSA has been at 12k.

Crikey

The Pawel Achtel camera referred by John Brawley blew me away. It puts ither cameras in perspective. I love the form factor as well.

Crikey

The Pawel Achtel camera referred by John Brawley blew me away. It puts ither cameras in perspective. I love the form factor as well.

Yes. It's uncompressed DNG though. Would cripple most workflows. It's only really for very niche productions.

JB

Seems pretty pointless to be shooting 12k images if 8k images from other cameras are sharper images. I've heard lots of other people talk about using the right lens otherwise it wont be sharp, i used the Sigma Cine 85mm lens for a lot of my tests which is a tack sharp lens.

When I looked at comparing the resolution of the 12K to the 50mp (Canon 5ds) and 60mp (Sony A7R IV) stills cameras, the 12K always had much more noticeable detail vs the RAW file from the stills cameras. Recently I was using the Sigma 40mm. The 12K files also take sharpening and noise reduction extremely well to clean up any disadvantage it might have being a smaller sensor than 135 ff.

I actually liked making some big prints (44" wide) from the 12K files for a recent ad, they are less electronic looking than the Sony A7R IV and the color is much better; especially skin tones.

The 12K files also take sharpening and noise reduction extremely well to clean up any disadvantage it might have being a smaller sensor than 135 ff.

I actually liked making some big prints (44" wide) from the 12K files for a recent ad, they are less electronic looking than the Sony A7R IV and the color is much better; especially skin tones.

It’s difficult to quantify visually what’s going on here.

We all seem to accept that the best and most successful cinema camera out there is “only” 2.7 or 3.2K of resolution.

I think it’s a lot more complex than the headline resolution. It’s as much about the quality of the pixels.

And as I mentioned already, the design goal for BMD was better colour. Not better resolution.

JB

It’s difficult to quantify visually what’s going on here.

We all seem to accept that the best and most successful cinema camera out there is “only” 2.7 or 3.2K of resolution.

I think it’s a lot more complex than the headline resolution. It’s as much about the quality of the pixels.

And as I mentioned already, the design goal for BMD was better colour. Not better resolution.

I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that the extra ability to capture fine detail is there whether you always see it with your lenses or not. Since I'm also making large prints the detail is visibly better when I print the pictures. The files still hold up for that application even if it's a secondary use to the primary design goal of being a 'cinema' camera where it might only be displayed in 4K or 2K.

Where I don't think the opposite is as true going the other direction with the 10 bit 420 8K Sony files for that camera's secondary application as a tool for better quality video. The data is literally missing from the files by comparison to the 12K 12 bit.

On the topic of quality.

1) What settings do you guys recommend or often go to as a starting point when it comes to noise reduction?
2) Does the downsampling from say 12K - 4K only take affect when rendering out your project? Or is it done when you choose the "Decode quality" in the camera raw settings tab?

On the topic of quality.

1) What settings do you guys recommend or often go to as a starting point when it comes to noise reduction?
2) Does the downsampling from say 12K - 4K only take affect when rendering out your project? Or is it done when you choose the "Decode quality" in the camera raw settings tab?

I almost always have a little tiny bit of spacial NR on colour only. So unlink it, set it to like 3. If I have the time to render ill change from faster to better. I always do this just before final render and add it as a NR node because it tends to slow everything down.

Downsampling is applied once you render would be my understanding. In the final output you can also select “force higher/est quality” from memory (I’m on the road) which mostly related to scaling and de-mosaic quality.

JB

2) Does the downsampling from say 12K - 4K only take affect when rendering out your project? Or is it done when you choose the "Decode quality" in the camera raw settings tab?

The decode quality determines how the footage is displayed in the course of editing/grading, which is also affected by a preference which allows Resolve to adjust playback quality based on system resources (you can turn this on or off).

The footage is down-sampled if you put it on a timeline of lower resolution, e.g., 12K clips on 4K timeline. If the timeline is 12K and output is 4K, then the down-sample would only occur at time of export, with timeline fx applied to the 12K clips, and *then* down-sampled to 4K in the course of export. On a 4K timeline of 12K clips, the fx would be applied to the [down-sampled] 4K footage.

On the Deliver page, you have two related options:

Force debayer res to highest quality
Force sizing to highest quality

Select both, and it won't matter if your decode and sizing/scaling settings are reduced from highest quality for convenience.

1) What settings do you guys recommend or often go to as a starting point when it comes to noise reduction?

I think you have a lot of freedom to choose what you think looks good subjectively. It's been my understanding to start with Temporal then move to Spatial NR.

So I start here:

Getting Noise Reduction Turned On

temporal-starting-point.JPG (32.38 KiB) Viewed 105155 times

With the Super16 6K from the URSA 12K for example I start more aggressively if removing noise is the desired look and will slide the luma and chroma in the temporal threshold to 25 or more to start. Then slide them back and forth to adjust to what looks best.

I really wish BMD hadn't chosen to start the original announcement of this camera showing just how far you can punch into the image. I understand our industry is diverse and folks are using Blackmagic cameras for a whole host of applications-- from narrative and documentary films to broadcast and even YouTube videos-- but buying a camera at this price for the primary purposes or not having to buy/rent other cameras for a production because one can derive multiple angles out of a single shot seems misguided, at best. I'm not saying this was @Guru's intention when buying, it's a prominent headline you see from this camera all over the web.

I bought our Ursa Mini 12K not because I wanted to shoot in 12K or even 8K, and certainly not because it would somehow fulfill the needs of a multicamera shoot on its own. No, we got it because there is simply no other option that can deliver the vast flexibility of acquisition resolutions, frame rates, color fidelity, the best menu in the industry, and of course compressed raw, all under US$10K.

I shoot primarily non-fiction content, and our 4K Pockets have been our workhorse (after owning pretty much every camera BMD makes), and sometimes they are the best choice for the project. I'll take a few pockets for a multicam shoot over a single 12K camera any day. Sure, having the option to stabilize and reframe in extreme circumstances, particularly for doc, is a great feature to have, but that's always a last resort for me, and never part of a production plan. I guess I was never seduced by the "we'll fix it in post" mentality.

I am always surprised by how many people shoot with Sony cameras in my world (all of which use some sort of in-camera sharpening and noise reduction, that is, if they can get past the menu or it doesn't overheat), and no one ever cares about punching in 300% to check sharpness. If that's a metric to be considered above all, then most cameras are going to be the wrong camera for the generic-you. Obviously, cinematography is as much an art as it is a technical discipline, and pixel-peeping is important for us as image-makers. For our audiences, it's the story, the script, the sound design, the camera movement.

DE19888D-9B90-40B3-98B7-6807F164A565.JPG (748.48 KiB) Viewed 105108 times

Snapseed.jpg (854.08 KiB) Viewed 105098 times

Thanks for all the info everybody. I'll be doing a small test today with the various compression ratios in 12K.

I'll be sure to muck around with the Noise settings and see what I find.

The guys over at Ripple Training do a great job of breaking it down for those that might be interested.

After my testing today, I found a happy spot for the NR, thanks guys!

Ok so from my findings, I'm left a little confused

I've shot the exact same scene, shot on the 12K at the various compression ratios from 5:1 - 18:1 in 12K at 24p at native ISO 800.

I've found a good starting point with Temporal noise reduction as well.
What's got me really confused is that I'm struggling to see the differences between the compression ratios. Like in visual difference. Are they designed to be visually indistinguishable?

Ok so from my findings, I'm left a little confused

I've shot the exact same scene, shot on the 12K at the various compression ratios from 5:1 - 18:1 in 12K at 24p at native ISO 800.

I've found a good starting point with Temporal noise reduction as well.
What's got me really confused is that I'm struggling to see the differences between the compression ratios. Like in visual difference. Are they designed to be visually indistinguishable?

It’s going to depend on the content.

Can you post some clips ?

JB

Ok so from my findings, I'm left a little confused

I've shot the exact same scene, shot on the 12K at the various compression ratios from 5:1 - 18:1 in 12K at 24p at native ISO 800.

I've found a good starting point with Temporal noise reduction as well.
What's got me really confused is that I'm struggling to see the differences between the compression ratios. Like in visual difference. Are they designed to be visually indistinguishable?

It’s going to depend on the content.

Can you post some clips ?

JB

Ooh I'd like to, but I've shot a scene with my partner. Nothing seedy!
She's not overly keen on the idea of posting it. Doesn't give you anything to go by I know, but are you able to see differences in your footage at all? I'm viewing on an OLED in 4K and pixel peeping harder than when reading a Where's Wally book. Still can't see a difference at all. I've got the clips lined up after each other on the same time line and when it plays out, there isn't a single change I can see.

I shot a lot of material recently out in nature.

Super fine detail in trees, branches and leaves when you crunch the compression will tend to loose some of its….zest.

It’s more obvious to me at scale (projected) and super high end monitoring.

You’ll also notice it more in lower light where noise starts to compete with the fine details.

So if you shot a person, static in nicely exposed lighting, you’re not really taxing the image chain very much.

Have the camera moving, have lots of fine detail and darker, watch it projected and you’ll start to see it breaking more.

In “good” shooting circumstance it’s embarrassing how good it still looks at the highest compression.

JB

Get high detail for the whole image area to see the difference.
A portrait with blurred background is compressing very well by redistribution of values.

I shot a lot of material recently out in nature.

Super fine detail in trees, branches and leaves when you crunch the compression will tend to loose some of its….zest.

It’s more obvious to me at scale (projected) and super high end monitoring.

You’ll also notice it more in lower light where noise starts to compete with the fine details.

So if you shot a person, static in nicely exposed lighting, you’re not really taxing the image chain very much.

Have the camera moving, have lots of fine detail and darker, watch it projected and you’ll start to see it breaking more.

In “good” shooting circumstance it’s embarrassing how good it still looks at the highest compression.

JB

It’s more obvious to me at scale (projected) and super high end monitoring.

That makes total sense!

I think I'll stick with the 8:1 for most productions. Gives me that extra record time when we need it.

In “good” shooting circumstance it’s embarrassing how good it still looks at the highest compression.

Totally pumped on my purchase of this camera. Despite a rocky beginning. I'm over the moon with it's performance. Also the Angelbirds!!! Love em. Now just to get some really decent Cine lenses that do the image justice.

Any lens that fits the intended style of your project is good, as long as it’s in good condition and has decent mechanics. You don’t really need an expensive lens with the highest resolution physics allow.
IMHO this camera is about natural looking images. It’s difficult to put into words, but may I say the results of the UMP12K for me are looking like a film stock that never existed with very fine detail at 800 ISO?

[CaptainHook]

Are they designed to be visually indistinguishable?

That was the goal, but of course there is no free lunch - you can't just throw away data with no cost. But we worked for a long time to minimise the differences visually, yes.

Are they designed to be visually indistinguishable?

That was the goal, but of course there is no free lunch - you can't just throw away data with no cost. But we worked for a long time to minimise the differences visually, yes.

Well hats off to you and your team. Bloody great work!

Any lens that fits the intended style of your project is good, as long as it’s in good condition and has decent mechanics. You don’t really need an expensive lens with the highest resolution physics allow.
IMHO this camera is about natural looking images. It’s difficult to put into words, but may I say the results of the UMP12K for me are looking like a film stock that never existed with very fine detail at 800 ISO?

Well said Uli. For the time being we've shot on the MK2 Samyang lenses and have been happy with them. These aren't by any stretch of the imagination in competition with the countless "Cine" primes out there, but they do produce a great image for my level of clients. We've always the option to hire PL primes of better quality but so far that need has not arisen.

I like what I'm hearing about the Pictor zooms and Vespid range. Tim B has some pretty good things to say about them. So I see them as a decent next step for me. Or at least something similar.

I can't even pretend to understand how BMD have created this camera and BRAW, it's simply a world I can marvel at and only appreciate. There are some smart people out there!

Have the camera moving,

I am confused by this suggestion as a way to reveal differences in the compression. My understanding of BRAW compression is that it is intraframe (rather than interframe). Moving the camera introduces motion blur which will only serve to ease the work the codec has to do by reducing detail in each individual frame to compress. Camera motion will only stress an interframe codec that has to compress based on the difference between frames.

Is BRAW also using interframe compression?

That would have been my question too, thanks, Jamie.

Have the camera moving,

I am confused by this suggestion as a way to reveal differences in the compression. My understanding of BRAW compression is that it is intraframe (rather than interframe). Moving the camera introduces motion blur which will only serve to ease the work the codec has to do by reducing detail in each individual frame to compress. Camera motion will only stress an interframe codec that has to compress based on the difference between frames.

Is BRAW also using interframe compression?

It's true that it's compressed intraframe, but I personally find it easier to see compression artefacts on fine detail in motion. If I see fine details like leaves especially that are very compressed, I find that I see the artefacts more readily when the shot's in motion. It's like they stick out more.

I would clarify further and say, not waving the camera around, but the shot should be in motion and in, not pixel peeping a still frame, AND on some fine detail that moves. If it was a windy enough day you wouldn't need to move the camera.

So fine detail that's moving within the frame, be it the camera of the fine detail itself, in motion will to me, reveal compression artefacts rather than zooming in and trying to look at a single frame.

A/B works well in 1-3 second repeated cycles too.

I'm always amused that people pixel peep on still frames, when they way you perceive noise totally changes when the shot's in motion, EVEN on a lock off.

JB

Thanks for clarifying!
One has to think about analog film, which generated more perceived resolution when seen in motion due to the random structure of grain. I can imagine similar effects if the brain is able to separate noise, compression artifacts and true detail.

Thank you for the detailed explanation JB. Much appreciated.

Thanks to everyone who’ve responded to my concerns about the softness in my 12k Ursa shots. Much appreciated.

Again, what I want to do is take a 12k or 8k clip, punch in, and render out to HD. You would think the down-rezzing I’m doing would more than make up for the amount of punching in I’m doing. After days of testing and trying many of the recommendations offered here, I’m not having any better luck The shots go soft at 3x and beyond. I’ve shot in 12k and 8k, in Film Mode and Video Mode, used all forms of sharpening, project settings and timelines, and the results were always the same: the Ursa goes soft when punching in, and I can never sharpen them enough in Resolve to match 8k images from my Sony A1.

Here’s what I’ve learned.

IT’S NOT A SHIM ISSUE. I’ve tried changing shims to no avail.

IT’S NOT A LENS ISSUE. As part of my tests, I removed the lenses on both the A1 and the Ursa and shot some cheek cells directly through a research microscope using it’s high-resolving lenses to focus images on the camera sensor directly, and once again, while the Ursa shots looked fine at 1x, they didn’t hold up nearly as well as the Sony’s after punching in.

IT’S DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE A RESOLVE SETTING ISSUE. I put a Sony 8k clip, an Ursa 12k clip, and an Ursa 8k clip on the same timeline with identical settings, and the Sony clearly outperforms the Ursa. No matter the timeline, or setting, the Ursa clips just don’t hold up.

IT’S NOT A RENDERING ISSUE
12k Ursa clips (8:1 compression) are soft IN the timeline when punched in on, and they are equally soft after being rendered out. In addition I tried various render workflows, including punching in on the camera file as well as rendering out uncompressed and punching in on that. No difference.

IT DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE A PROBLEM LIMITED TO JUST MY CAMERA
I saw this not only in my own test clips but also in 12k clips shot by other professional videographers who have offered their BRAW clips online for download. Every shot I tested started going soft at 3x.

Bottom line: the 12k Ursa looks fine at 12k and 8k and will nicely down-rez to 4k or HD. It’s a good choice for storyboarded dramatic content where punching in is not usually necessary. But I shoot a lot of unscripted nature photography including macro, micro and tele footage and the ability to punch in on shots offers many creative and marketing benefits. I love this camera otherwise and will hate to see it go and am I’m hoping someone can point out something I may be doing wrong and provide a fix.

Sorry, having an issue submitting multiple images. Will try again.

Hi,

I am not having the same issue.

These are the steps that have worked for me:
- Set timeline to 4k (or HD in your case)
- Import 12k footage
- On the Colour page, select 12288 x 6480 for Decode Quality
- To punch in (to check sharpness), use the Transform on the Edit page, and don't check sharpness from zooming in with the viewer options on the top left.
- Other things - make sure timeline proxy playback is off, and disable Performance Mode in the user Playback Settings (however, this particular doesn't seem to make a huge difference)

Let me know if you have tried the above steps.

One should get similar results by defining a timeline in 4K or HD, using 12K footage.
Don't scale down and export single TIFFs (or other high quality uncompressed stills). In the Deliver page set "Force sizing to highest quality" and "Force debayering to highest quality".

You only need to punch in 4x for the same size image as the A1 8K @ 6x. The other thing as mentioned before, the same lens resolves at a lower MTF contrast on the 12k because the smaller, higher density sensor out-resolves the lens, in other words needs more line pairs/millimeter than the larger less dense 8K sensor would.

You are up against physics. I think you should move on. Of course what you will lose is 50% temporal resolution with no high frame rate on the A1. That's real resolution too, of the kind that really impresses for video, however if you are focused on pixel peeping static frames, shouldn't you be shooting still frames anyway? Another reason you should move on in my opinion as with other nature photographers or videographers that use appropriate lens power for long distance, not trying to short cut by punching in.

Let's talk about expectations.

Here's a few shots from a PRE-PRODUCTION 12k, both at 8K and 12K. They're noisier clips than the copy you would have access to can make. Just so we understand what you're ACTUALLY doing with this footage. Because blowing up some still frame of a man made object isn't what you said you were doing. You said it was for wildlife ? Natural history type work ?

No Noise reduction, sharpening applied. No scaling, no force higher quality even I hit the default send to Vimeo look because even doing this took me 30 mins and I'm supposed to be in preproduction for a show.

https://vimeo.com/589446514/c3d6f0eaed

(Also you notice when you blow up this much how CRITICAL focus is...you can see an eyelash is in focus but the eyeball isn't...well sometime the front of the eyeball is but the back isn't.....)

If the 12K doesn't blow up enough for you, why don't you just use the Sony A1 ?

If you want a 600% blowup, why don't you just use a cinema camera that does allow you that kind enlargement to your IQ satisfaction.

JB

Thanks, again, everyone. Much appreciated.

Mark Wyatt: Tried it just like you outlined. No better result. BTW, when I see a shot go soft when I zoom in on it in the timeline, is it even necessary to complete a render? I mean, the renders are matching what I see in the timeline and it doesn’t seem necessary to keep rendering out when it doesn’t change anything. Am I right?

Uli Plank: Tried the two forced rendering settings. No improvement.

Tom Roper: Yes, it may be time to move on, but I love this camera in so many other respects that I wanted to give it one last shot with this list. BTW, not trying to take short cuts, just trying to enhance what I’m doing. 8k and 12k open the door to doing digital zooms and pans in post, adding additional interest. Also, it enables me to use shorter lenses, thereby allowing me to use smaller apertures, faster shutter speeds, lower ISOs. Shorter lenses also increase the depth of field which is critical in macro, micro and telework. BTWm I’m getting decent results with my Sony A1 punching in 6x and even up to 9x for some shots.

John Brawley: The box was just a test. I shoot a lot of macro of insects, spiders, etc., microscopic shots of protozoa, etc., and telescopic shots of birds, animals, etc. I’ll try to attach a few more test shots with this post, but it looks like I can’t do more than one shot. I may have to send multiple emails. Thanks so much for taking the time to send me that clip. I took a quick look and will study it in more detail later. As far as why don’t I just go with the Sony A1? It’s primarily because of the Ursa’s ENG/EFP style form factor which I really miss. I used to shoot big video cameras (BVW 300s & 400s) in the day of videotape, and big film cameras before that. I got into DSLRs about 10 years ago, and now mirrorless, but I really miss the big rigs and what they offer, like nice viewfinders, full-sized plugs, servo-zooms, etc. These little mirrorless Frankenrigs are pretty amazing, but they can be a real pain to work with. In addition, the Sony A1 has a serious overheating problem. What 8k cinema cameras would you recommend? A Red? Pretty pricey. That’s what impressed me about the 12k Ursa — its amazing price.

Here's another.

And another.

And another.

One last one.

So asking seriously…what else can do what you want to do here?

Honestly I’m amazed at how well the shots stand up to a 500% blow up in the example I posted. That’s why I said expectations.

And I was facetiously asking because in my view there’s nothing that can do what you’re asking for.

Your A1 doesn’t compare AT ALL when it’s MOVING IMAGES. You’re posting stills and trying to say the 12K isn’t good ? I dare you to shoot the A1 as moving images and compare to the 12K with those blow up numbers.

The point I was kind of making is that it would be better to compare what your end result is. Moving pictures. Om “natural history” type subject material.

8K RED ? Try it out. Here’s what you’re going to find as a guess….based on my experience.

I think it will be similar to what you get now with the 12K. All RED cameras have an OLPF so a lot of the super fine detail tend to turn a bit mushy once you start cropping in that much.

I have DXL2 footage somewhere, I’ll see if I can dig it out and show you what happens with something I’ve shot….

I also still think your Canon L zoom is another weak spot in all of this as well. Keen to see your test footage in motion at least so it’s a real true comparison.

JB

I second what is said about still cameras vs motion.

My Sony A7R II is resolving a tad better than the 12K when shooting stills in RAW. It's crap in motion.
Red's OLPF filtering is pretty conservative, killing quite some detail. In my experience, the 12K doesn't need that, since the lens (any lens I tried up to now) is the OLPF

Finally, short lenses don't improve DoF when you crop in. You can't break optical laws that way. Try for yourself.