Ursa 12k owners... what has been your experience?

I just sold my UMPG2, while it still had some value, and i'm still holding on to my P6KPro...
but I still have all the media and batteries from the G2 and I'm looking at the 12k as my gradual next step.

I know BMD may be announcing a new camera soon, but i honestly really like the form-factor of the Ursa Mini body, as well as the weight and size. I'm just used to it, after owning the Ursa Mini 4k, 4.6k, Pro, and the G2.

But i would love to hear the Good and the Bad from 12k owners!

I'm not a 12K owner, but like you I've owned all the Ursa Mini flavors, and sold the G2 when the Pocket 6K camera came out because I liked the look of the footage more on the 6K. I was looking into the 12K but I'm holding out to see what NAB brings. The lack of ProRes internally on the 12K is a deal breaker, because if the client asks for it, then you need to bring an external recorder or transcode it later. I've had ProResLT requested a lot, because some editors are lazy and/or have weak computers. If I'm editing myself in DaVinci I love BRAW, but there are certain projects I prefer to edit on Final Cut Pro so having ProRes is nice.

I think that the Ursa Mini camera body needs an upgrade redesign to make some of the buttons more easily accessible. I personally would like to see squarer edges and a less rounded look, and instead of CFast slots, CFexpress type B. I've used the new type B cards on Nikon Z9 and RED V-Raptor and really like the speed they can achieve.

Also, why not call the new camera Ursa Mini Max or Ursa Mini Ultra just to steal a page from Apple's playbook.

Haven't sold my G2 yet, but looking at what is next from Blackmagic.

The 12K always intrigued me, but was never providing enough to jump on the upgrade. I'm indifferent to the resolution aspect of things. The new sensor design and color science was more interesting to me. However, the lack of support for CFExpress and the loss or ProRes made it a tough sell. If the next version switches away from CFast 2.0 and goes to CFExpress then I'm all in. But I would like ProRes again because again clients request it.

I've said what I'd like to see body improvement wise elsewhere. But I would like to see such a massive body redesign update using the 12K sensor that it implements all the wish list changes I've mentioned in the past. Especially an updated Viewfinder.

I recently watched a review of the ARRI SR2 in 2022, and was pleasantly surprised that you could switch the Viewfinder from one side to the other. I forgot about that awesome feature. And, I remember I took advantage of it back in the college days. So I'd love for the URSA Viewfinder to get that kind of update where you can easily maneuver it to whichever side you need to operate from.

Here's to looking at the next month in hot anticipation. I'm nearly paid off all my credit cards. Just paying off the recent external hard drives purchases... and, that is where I think the 12K will hurt the wallet the most. Higher resolution means more data. I just shot a commercial on the G2 last week with about 3-4 hours worth of footage all shot in a day between the G2 and the P6K Pro. Interviews with the Chefs to use with b-roll of them preparing meals, the dishes, and then the bartenders making drinks and the product shots of the drinks. Can't wait to share it all. But I'm sure had we shot with the 12K in 8K the files would have been massive.

Still, despite that I would love to see a VistaVision sensor, which as I said in the past would mathematically come to about 16K in resolution using that 12K pixel design. I'm very excited to see what Blackmagic does next.

The BAD things:

I owned a Pocket 6k and wanted to do the next big step and bought a 12k and thought: WOW cropping shots like I did with my 6k, but after using my UMP12k I felt the picture quality was not as good as I expected. OK, first step I changed my lenses to XEEN CF lenses and the picture quality was much better, but cropping was still not satisfying. The picture was still noisy in colors. The sensor needs light. Best results I got with my XEEN 50mm.

U need a fast U.2 SSD to handle the big data-rates securely to prevent drop outs.

The GOOD things:

After several tests I understood that the sensor of the 12k works so different compared to the 6k sensor, so now I love to shoot with my 12k, so many pixels. Blackmagic RAW 12k @60fps, 8K @120fps and 4k @240fps are looking so great and the BM RAW Codec is in my opinion the best in workflow and Data-rates.

What about the colours? IMHO, the 12K is much more about beautiful colours than sheer resolution.
I always found the 6K's colours a bit too 'video'. Admitted, it's better in low-light.

I've been very happy with the 12K.

I shoot mainly full sensor at 8K and crop at 6K. My B camera is a 6K Pocket pro, and when doing 2 camera shoots in challenging mixed color lighting situations, I can unequivocally say that I get better results out of the images from the 12K than from the 6K Pocket Pro.

If you do any kind of documentary or "run and gun" type work, the s16mm 6K crop mode is an often overlooked feature. Stick a good affordable s16mm zoom lens like the Canon 8-64 or the Canon 7-63 on there and you've got arguably one of the most amazing shoulder mounted documentary cameras in existence.

If you do any kind of documentary or "run and gun" type work, the s16mm 6K crop mode is an often overlooked feature. Stick a good affordable s16mm zoom lens like the Canon 8-64 or the Canon 7-63 on there and you've got arguably one of the most amazing shoulder mounted documentary cameras in existence.

That is such a good idea Jamie! Have you had good results doing this?
What do those lenses become when multiplied?

What do those lenses become when multiplied?

Yes, good results. Much better than the crop mode on the 4.6K sensor which I used to use with the B4 mount adaptor and a B4 zoom. I did catch some color moire on the strings of a cello once, but haven't seen any at all since I installed the rawlite OLPF.
The Canon zoom lenses I'm referring to cover a s16 sized image circle, same size as the 6K crop mode on the 12K UMP. The difference in angle of view vs s35 is roughly 2x. So, if you want to put that 7 - 63 s16 Canon zoom in terms of s35, it's an equivalent angle of view to about 14 - 126. A fantastic range for doc work.

I've gone down the rabbit hole of trying to find Super16 lenses here in Brisbane, but am not having any luck yet. Certainly sounds like a great option when shooting R&G.

PSA

I’ve seen this come up a few times.

This weird obsession with cropping into the sensor because the numbers imply very high resolution.

A lot of the time you’re going to be disappointed.

If you crop in on a cheap, low cost inferior lens you’re only going to magnify it’s faults.

Most lenses are sharper in the middle. If you crop in on the sides it’s going to turn to mush AND the lens geometry starts being off. A square turns into a trapeszoid that’s got blurry edges.

Is that the fault of the camera ? No. It’s because you’re cropping into a sensor with a high resolution image and that image is literally showing you how poor your lenses are, not how soft the camera is.

And that’s presuming you actually got it in actual focus. This can be far more critical when cropping high numbers.

Methinks of it as an arse saver, not something to be done routinely. If you do then you better use some good glass, shoot a deeper stop and get it in focus.

JB

I've gone down the rabbit hole of trying to find Super16 lenses here in Brisbane, but am not having any luck yet. Certainly sounds like a great option when shooting R&G.

Some caveats I should be clear about — Do test before you buy anything to make sure you’re happy with the result. The 6K crop mode is, of course, never going to deliver what you get from scaling the full 12k sensor down in post. And while they are lovely lenses, the Canon s16 zooms weren’t designed to resolve 6K. It’s all a compromise to get the utility of a 9x zoom for doc shooting. I’ve been happy with the compromise on the right project where the trade off is worth it, but we all have different priorities and I’m not saying it is the right choice for every doc project.

EDIT - Also, as JB notes below, these are older, imperfect lenses. So, of course, if you have the money to put a s35 zoom like the Canon 17 - 120 or the Fujinon 19 - 90 on your 12K, then go for that.

Ah the Canon 8-64 S16 lens; The Hurt Locker lens. Haha. I had the pleasure of using that lens in college on the ARRI SRII. Very nice lens!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PSA

I’ve seen this come up a few times.

This weird obsession with cropping into the sensor because the numbers imply very high resolution.

A lot of the time you’re going to be disappointed.

If you crop in on a cheap, low cost inferior lens you’re only going to magnify it’s faults.

Most lenses are sharper in the middle. If you crop in on the sides it’s going to turn to mush AND the lens geometry starts being off. A square turns into a trapeszoid that’s got blurry edges.

Is that the fault of the camera ? No. It’s because you’re cropping into a sensor with a high resolution image and that image is literally showing you how poor your lenses are, not how soft the camera is.

And that’s presuming you actually got it in actual focus. This can be far more critical when cropping high numbers.

Methinks of it as an arse saver, not something to be done routinely. If you do then you better use some good glass, shoot a deeper stop and get it in focus.

JB

My general rule is to put safe area to 90% for any cropping, and that’s mainly for image stabilization in post if I’m handheld or on a stabilization device that may need some additional help. Otherwise, if I’m ask about how much one can crop in on the image I always warn only small amount and explain the same reasons you listed above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah the Canon 8-64 S16 lens; The Hurt Locker lens. Haha. I had the pleasure of using that lens in college on the ARRI SRII. Very nice lens!

I spent many years shooting super 16.

The canons were a staple. They were basically made by selecting the very best copies of regular “SD” video broadcast lenses and then “cinevising” them. Suzuki was the guy doing this.

The 8-64 was very popular. There’s the original black version and there was a mark 2 grey one that was better. Later they became a 7-63 that was quite a bit larger.

They also had longer siblings, the 11-138 and then 11-165.

Zeiss made a 10-100 that converted to super 16 became 12-120. It wasn’t a great lens but was popular.

Angenieux also made some similar focal lengths to Canon and were their main more expensive competition.

The canons were OK, workhorse lenses. They tend to go very milky in the blacks at the long end and they always lied about their aperture and the aperture tended to all off up to a stop at the long end.

They were so cheap for a while but they’re seining back up again in price.

JB

Angenieux also made some similar focal lengths to Canon and were their main more expensive competition.

Are you referring to the Angenieux 7-81mm T2.4 HR s16 zoom? Did you prefer it over the Canon zooms?

To answer the OP’s original question from my experience. I just got two 12k’s in. Thanks to Mr Brawley and his work on Desperate Hour. In the short time that I’ve had them, and after running some simple test using the Schniedar xenar 3 lenses.

I can say that the footage is easier to work with than when I had my G1 and G2 in terms of color correcting. The footage from the 12k takes me to the my final image “destination” a lot quicker. I kinda feel like it’s cheating. Lol That’s how easy it is. I emailed CineD.com. ( I see you on there Jamie in comments)

Anyways the site that runs all those dynamic range test for cine cameras. I asked if they can re-test the 12k camera on firmware 7.7. Since I don’t really understand the shadow detail aspect of the update. Does it give more leverage in the shadows? They said they will request a 12k camera from Bmd to test on firmware 7.7. That will be interesting to see if we get more dynamic range from the update. On their charts the 12k actually has more usable dynamic range than the G2 and G1.

Both come in at 12.6 stops of usable dynamic while the 12k come in at 13.92 usable stops. The moment I started grading I realized I was getting more out of the 12k than the G2/G1. So far no bad to report from using the 12k’s. I’ve been using all my old cfast cards and Wise SSD’s from the G1/G2 and I’m able to record without dropped frames. As long as you follow the shooting specs on BMD’s support page you’ll be fine. Just my quick two cents.

Angenieux also made some similar focal lengths to Canon and were their main more expensive competition.

Are you referring to the Angenieux 7-81mm T2.4 HR s16 zoom? Did you prefer it over the Canon zooms?

Yeah they’re quite good. But large for a s16 doco zoom.

JB

Yeah they’re quite good. But large for a s16 doco zoom.

Thanks JB. I really appreciate the info.
It's the combination of the relatively compact size, weight, even balance and minimum focus distance of the Canon 8 - 64 that has me wanting that one most. Very difficult to even find one for sale though.

@jamie Canon 8-64mm S16 Grey body
Here you go:
https://visualproducts.com/product/cano ... gray-body/

@donnell UMP12K almost 14 stops useable

Sounds like you’re getting a very good impression of the flagship camera. Great to see you’ll be shooting with those cameras. Hope you keep us posted as you gain more experience.

Still, despite that I would love to see a VistaVision sensor, which as I said in the past would mathematically come to about 16K in resolution using that 12K pixel design.

Hi Tim, just curious what your calculation looks like. When I compare the width of the URSA 12K to the width of VistaVision film or the RED VV sensors here: https://tinyurl.com/569n3tk7

…then the factor is 1.395 for film and 1.515 for the RED, which would result in roughly 17K and 18.6K respectively. Not that I am interested in that many Ks, just curious about your calculation and if I am missing something here

The pixel pitch of the 12k sensor is 2.2 microns.

So far they’ve made most of their sensors 1.78 ish or 17:9 aspect ratio, so I would assume they would probably go something like 36mm by 20mm approx. for example to do a 1.78 cut of a 135 full width sensor.

I also think 16k is a good number because the 12k seems to have a pattern that down shifts in multiples of four. You can shoot 8k or 4k but 6k is a cut of 12k.

16k for a theoretical BMD 135 sensor makes a lot of sense with the way BRAW works and I imagine BMD would then either alter the dimensions or the pixel pitch to make 16k fit whatever size 135 format sensor BMD decide is 135

All just my guess from what I know of BRAW and no actual information is from direct knowledge of anything. I do know that BMD have looked at 135 in the past and dismissed it as too expensive to do with the kinds of pricing they would want but that was before they started making their own sensors.

JB

The pixel pitch of the 12k sensor is 2.2 microns…
16k for a theoretical BMD 135 sensor makes a lot of sense with the way BRAW works and I imagine BMD would then either alter the dimensions or the pixel pitch to make 16k fit whatever size 135 format sensor BMD decide is 135…
JB

We hear you (based on the range of physical dimensions BMD calls Super35).

Would seem to make sense that BMD would use 2.2 microns for 16K which results in an active horizontal dimension of 36.0448mm since that would be easily managed by a significant number of 135 format lenses and recognized as ‘full frame’ in marketing the sensor.

No compelling advantage with a smaller physical dimensions such as 1.8 micron photosites for a 29.4912mm wide sensor (crop 1.22x) which wouldn’t add any new lenses to the list of compatible lenses (other than APS-H).

@donnell UMP12K almost 14 stops useable

Sounds like you’re getting a very good impression of the flagship camera. Great to see you’ll be shooting with those cameras. Hope you keep us posted as you gain more experience.

Yes Rick. To be honest i was skeptical for over year in getting this camera. I’m not into K’s as much as I’m into dynamic range. So after seeing John’s movie and doing some research i decided to give it a try. So far very pleased. Just feed this camera light and you’re good to go.

@ JB, @ Rick

Ah, yeah, when we talk photography "full frame" 36mm width then 16K make total sense mathematically. I guess I took Tim's "VistaVision" too literally...

Since VistaVision was intended by Paramount to be a camera system for very high quality 35mm standard reduction prints (although 'road show' horizontal projection was known), not for any added shallow depth of field characteristics, (which was never an uppermost consideration of the 1950s) it would make sense that the main reason for a FF sensor with same size, therefore as light sensitive, but more photosites, in multiples of 4K drives it's development. I don't know why anyone would need actually 8K delivery but if that does become a standard, then 16k along these lines makes sense, especially in the novel non-debayered way BMD have created the 12K sensor. I think though a really good FF 8K sensor for 4K down sampled post and delivery, would be the absolute ideal, a la Sony Venice 2.

@jamie Canon 8-64mm S16 Grey body
Here you go:
https://visualproducts.com/product/cano ... gray-body/

Thanks Rick. I contacted them but they don’t actually have it in stock and they tried to sell me something totally different. That’s what I’ve been running into across the board. A bunch of similar resellers have it on their websites, but they don’t actually have the lens and try to sell you on something else.

Jamie, sorry about that bait and switch. I thought it was too good to be true that they were advertising the superior grey version as we were discussing that.

I haven’t shot with the Canon 8-64, but I’m so grateful to Howard and Denny for recommending the parfocal Fujinon Cine Zoom 20x7.8BRM in 2016 that I primarily use as a 10-110mm T2.4 zoom. I’ve no idea why Fujinon abandoned the Cine Zoom but it may not have been popular with ENG sole operators that wanted an integrated zoom rocker control. It’s an ideal lens for locked down Super16 cinematography, but I’d use it for some documentary work, just not run-n-gun as it’s big.

This Super 16 lens might be a good deal to take advantage of the URSA 12K's S16 sensor window. A compact 8 ½ inch 3.3 pound mobile lens. Imagine having the filmic Cooke halation without the compromised resolution of a pro mist diffusion filter. It was a 1975 Cooke 9-50mm T2.5 16mm lens that was modified using a $2800 USD Optex S16 conversion kit installed:

Cooke Varokinetal 10.8-60mm T3 Super 16mm Zoom No:784827
Very clean, Drama or Documentary lens with the classic Cooke look - crisp but not harsh. No focus breathing Inf to 1’6”

RTH Cooke Varokinetal with Optex Super 16 conversion. 10.8-60mm T3, No: 784827, Close Focus 1’6” Arri Bayonet, Pristine glass front & back, smooth focus, zoom and iris control. This is an excellent Drama Zoom with very good range of focal lengths, zero focus breathing, is not prone to flaring and robustly made. Gears attached for focus and zoom control.
Location: United Kingdom 2350 GBP ($3059 USD) obo

http://www.bblist.com/item.php?item=77460

He made a short film with it (low resolution heavily cropped screen grabs):

Cooke 10.8-60mm T3

CookeVarokinetal10_8-60C.png (905.21 KiB) Viewed 7228 times

Cooke 10.8-60mm T3

CookeVarokinetal10_8-60E.png (976.74 KiB) Viewed 7228 times

Cooke 10.8-60 T3

CookeVarokinetal10_8-60F.png (965.1 KiB) Viewed 7089 times

Cooke Varokinetal 10.8-60mm T3 Super 16 Zoom



It's been available for months. He's already dropped the price by 200 pounds, I suspect that he will go much further. These were selling for over $5,000 USD about 5 years ago when 16mm film was more popular. The Pound has lost 4% of it's value in the last month vs. the US dollar. The Cooke 9-50mm originally sold for over $13,000 USD in 1975. It was designed to be scaled up to a 35mm print, saving money by using Super 16mm film for a feature, so it resolved as good or better than any 35mm lens of it's day.

My Cooke 10.8-60mm S16 lens does not vignette above 28-35mm in 4K DCI BRAW on a BMPCC 6K, and does not vignette at a BRAW 2.8K sensor window on the 6K. It covers the full range in 2.6K on the BMPCC 4K. Both regular 16mm and Super 16mm film lenses do not vignette in a HD BRAW or a 120 fps ProRes HD window (not scaled from full sensor) of the 4K/6K sensors. At 10.8mm in 2.6K S16 on the 4K sensor it is the fov equivalent of a full frame 31mm lens. At 60mm there is a 10% horizontal vignette at 4K UHD on the BMPCC 4K.

I came across this on the web, it might have been from Reduser.net:

(2012) FOR SALE - Taylor-Hobson Cooke 9-50

...Has the legendary, much-desired warm, contrasty, Cooke "look." Extremely sharp edge-to-edge, and retains its sharpness wide open at a fast T=2.5. $2500

...The entire video was shot on the COOKE 9-50. At the time, on a Red, we had a lot of slo mo but I also wanted the greater DOF 2K would provide...we were going for a Super 16mm look from a digital camera. The lens is magic!

Whyyawannabringmedown
Jordan Daniel Chesney



David Leitner wrote:

"I’ll second the fact that the Super-16 10.4-52mm 2.8 was an exceptional zoom.
...I shot a great deal of footage for testing.
...35mm blow-ups from Super 16 would suffer if 16mm lenses weren’t on par or better than the best 35mm film lenses. To determine which lenses could make the grade, I set up a lens testing facility.
...DuArt ended up purchasing the very first Rank Taylor-Hobson Cooke 10.4-52mm in the U.S. And the lens test projector didn’t lie — it was outstanding, practically the equal of the Superspeeds, if a little warmer. Quite a few American indie feature films were shot with that lens in the 1980s. I’ve never forgotten how optically and mechanically superior it was."

S16mm Cooke Zoom in London or UK rental ?

https://cml.news/g/cml-glass/topic/7818 ... ,,20,2,0,0

I’ve no idea why Fujinon abandoned the Cine Zoom but it may not have been popular with ENG sole operators that wanted an integrated zoom rocker control.

Rick, in the early days of digital cinema, many standard B4 lenses were repurposed, by the likes of Fujinon and Canon, minus servos (and often macro) for a premium price. This is why I have always been suspicious of the claim that SD B4 lenses are totally inadequate for HD/4K. Canon particularly went to pains to stress this with that Larry guy, without producing so much as an actual verifiable mtf rez test. Whilst it is clear that the lower 'pro/corporate' lenses and extreme wides, were lacking, some of the fine J broadcast standard series were very fine glass indeed and no mention has ever been touted about the lack thereof of the kind of 'cine' lens you have here, for resolution regardless of format.

Although I love a good B4 eng lens, I would have no problem using one minus servo for cine work, since they are by nature parfocal. In any case I have bought a J series 16x8, very cheaply, for my Ursa Broadcast G2, whilst I wait for the Fujinon 4K lens and I shall be interested to see, through testing, if I have to eat my words or not.

Steve, thanks for the background information and looking forward to your conclusions when your Fujinon arrives! I really like what BMD has done with the Broadcast G2 (with optional PL mount) so I hope it does well.

It's a Canon Rick and I'll try and report back and thanks! Yes me too, it's a great upgrade and very versatile - I have been waiting for this camera for a long time. My hands are too clumsy for pockets or DSLRs BMD are the only company, apart from JVC, catering for this sector at this price and JVC only have 1/3" chips on much more expensive cameras. I think it's driven by Grant Petty's solid background in broadcast engineering. I would say though that the broadcast G2 is not per se a 'digital cinema' camera but also a 'digtal film' camera for TV production, since it has no DCI 6/4K, unlike the 6K pro, only UHD but nonetheless a very clever and adaptable machine at an incredible price.

I have been using the 12k for two years now, to make a natural history film (almost completed). My previous project used a mini pro G2 - which I loved, but the 12K seems to be able to make pictures that just take my breath away compared to what the G2 could do. For me, the 12K is pretty much the perfect camera. For wildlife, having 8K 160 fps and 4K 240 fps (super 16) is a game changer, although for super 16, 4K and 6K, you should only use the best lenses you can get hold of.

However, this camera does have one huge Achilles heel: sensitivity. At 12K, the ISO 800 as stated in the BM publicity is optimistic for general use. At 8K, I prefer not to go above 500. On full sensor, I found there was little point in using 4K full sensor. I stuck mostly to 8K as was using 160 fps a lot of the time. When I didn't need the frame rate, I filmed at 12K. Oddly, things recorded in 12K looked better on an HD screen than full sensor recorded at 8K or 4K. The 12k images are quite simply gorgeous (as are the 8K images too). On super 16, the sensitivity however becomes a problem. ISO 400 absolute max. ISO 160 or 200 are ideal. Don't go above ISO 1000 as fixed pattern noise becomes visible. (whereas with the G2, this would be visible only at ISO 2500 and above). 6K super 16 (with good lenses) is very handy too.

I had been using the 12K for a year before the RED Raptor S35 came out (the only other comparable camera on the market), so decided to test one. I found the results comparable, although I still prefer the BM 12K colour. The RED sensitivity is of course, on paper, higher, but at the super 16 mode (for 240 fps), the graininess seemed pretty much similar - quite different to look at though. The RED grain (s16) is quite persistent even after noise reduction. The 12K Ursa gain when slight is attractive, but when large can be ugly and hard to shift with noise reduction.

To record at these frame rates for any length of time I needed to use NVME SSDs. They didn't have the BM SSD card recorder when I bought the camera, so I used an external USB 2TB nvme ssd. The cable connection is a bit delicate, but with care suffered no problems. The card could record continuously at 8:1 in 8K 160 fps, or 12k 75 fps. I could never see any difference between 8:1 or 5:1.

In short, to answer the question above, despite its limitations, I love it.