Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7

Robin R Probyn · February 7, 2018

Well... after the 8th firmware revision at least

But the wish was there from V1 .. :)

David Peterson · February 9, 2018

The Ursa Mini Pro 4.6k allows you to enter metadata remotely from an iPad app via bluetooth. And in regards to the syncing files bit, tentacle sync + it's software does this perfectly.

That being said, I completely agree with you that slating, file management and syncing between audio recorders and our cameras is still a bloody mess.

URSA Mini has a timecode input, you don't even need to use Tentacle's software to sync the files together. It should be bloody easy, not a bloody mess.

David Peterson · February 9, 2018

It should not be that difficult to make a new version of a ipad slate app which would just send the same data to the metadata fields of the camera files, for example on ursa mini.

the main problem with metadata is that the camera dept guys generally don't have much time to edit them and add descriptions etc. because they need to concentrate to the current/next shot being made.

the task must also be possible to do fully remotely without any need to use the camera even for a second (that would basically stop all the shooting for a moment every time the metadata would need to be edited in camera so it must be able to be done remotely by someone who does not have anything else to do at that moment)

It would thus be easiest having an additional person who is fully concentrating to metadata editing only (someone who is positioned near the director and script supervisor. maybe an assistant script supervisor who would be hired for only this metadata task? or an additional assistant editor hired for the task?

audio recordist generally names the audio files with shot and take number based on the slate data he/she sees on the monitor so the audio is easy to find with current workflows without camera metadata altered. if the slate is correct of course.

Multi camera shoots with remote metadata editing on all the cameras for every shot?

I don't know how much this is actually done nowadays, do others have experience with for example 2 or 3 camera movie shoots with very detailed metadata for editing purposes applied in camera?

If your sound department is greater than one person (as otherwise, it is unreasonable to expect so much from them) then yeah they'll be uploading fairly detailed notes. But they'll be sound focused. The script supervisor would be entering other kind of info, but if you're using say Timecode System's Blink Network & a 600 series recorder from Sound Devices this can all together with each other and using the Movie Slate app. The next step would be to get the Camera Department on the same page to talk with the Movie Slate app as well.

David Peterson · February 9, 2018

I'd rather have it not be so much an "app" as much as maybe a whole new slate which you can write on, as a normal slate, but which somehow reads what's written and wirelessly sends that data to the camera(s) and audio. It's a whole pipe-dream of course, but who knows, maybe one day as cameras get more "wireless" out of the box someone can make something. I don't think it should be an "App" as much as a piece of actual kit with easily changeable batteries, and relatively rugged.

That way it's less "metadata editing" as it is regular slating which also smartly communicates to the camera(s) and audio what the shot has been called so in post it all has the same names.

Smart slates can already take all the info in the audio recorder (such as take number, not just the current time) and have that displayed.

Assuming you're using some tech that supports that. For instance I'm a fan of the Timecode Systems Ultrasync One:

Thus the only missing part of the puzzle here is to get Blackmagic Design on board! Sooo close... yet so far! Someone should reach out to BMD? Get them to talk with the Movie Slate app developers and with Timecode Systems the company.

David Peterson · February 9, 2018

Okay, I'll give ya that. As good as the RED anyway, then. Alexa is really in a ballpark all by itself, from both a workflow and a color-science area. RED, in my mind, looks too digital - like an overpriced DSLR. Blackmagic produces much nicer images than the RED (and at a lot less the cost), but I have never been a fan of Blackmagic Design: they always seem to cut corners, and every one of their products I have bought has had major flaws.

I shot a local commercial once with an FS700, which is closely related to the other mid-lower-end professional Sony cameras. That camera was a dream to work with, and if I had the money to purchase, I'd probably pick the FS700 w/ 4k upgrade over the Ursa Mini Pro, despite the cameras age. The only Panasonic I have ever shot with is a GH4 and GH5 - both of which are standout mirrorless cameras for cinematography, well built, etc. My one experience with Blackmagic was not so good - the pocket camera. Horrid battery life, impossible to get anything remotely wide angle due to the odd sensor, fiddly SD cards to shoot on, etc.The Micro could be an upgrade to the pocket, given its use of external canon batteries and the ability to record externally - but would not invest in it now.

The good news is you can pick up a Sony FS700 secondhand for around US$1.5K ish! (add on an Atomos Shogun for FSraw 4K to ProResHQ 4K for only another US$600ish secondhand. Total cost? Barely over $2K if you hunt for it).

As for a BMPCC, why hate on it for having SD cards? The FS700 recorders to that as well! (so does the GH4 & GH5 you mentioned)

As for battery life with both the BMCC and BMPCC, you should always use external batteries (which are pretty cheap and easy to do) and only view the internal battery as a "bonus" feature (hey, it allows you to hotswap batteries! ;) )

Also, you might be getting the Micro Studio and Micro Cinema mixed up (the Micro Studio needs external recording, the Micro Cinema uses the same SD cards as a BMPCC would).

Oh, and is very very easy to get wide angle shots with any of those! (Pocket or Micro) Just get yourself a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 + a focal reducer. Problem solved. Easy.

Edited February 9, 2018 by David Peterson

David Peterson · February 9, 2018

S16 is certainly a standard-sized sensor, but the need to put PL glass on a sub-$1,000 HD camera really kinda, I dunno, just seems overkill to me. It just seems to me, given the low price-point, they could have went m4/3, thus opening it up to pretty much any glass (keeping the same pixel count, it'd also be a killer low-light camera). Personal preference I guess, since so few people actually own Super 16 glass, escpailly those in the market for a pocket camera.

Errr.... the BMPCC (& Micro) *IS* a Micro Four Thirds mount camera!!! :-o

I use MFT lenses on my BMPCC all the time.

(and the fact people would use expensive S16 cine lenses on the BMPCC just shows what a damn fine camera it is, that people will even pair it with very nice glass)

As for the Pocket camera sensor size and glass, it CAN work of course. Pairing it with a 0.58x speedbooster can certainly retain wide angle on many wide lenses, like the Sigma 11-16. It just seems like it needs a lot of work to get there.

A "lot of work"?? I don't see what is so hard about just selecting the right lens (paired with a focal reducer)? That is after all a core job duty of the cinematographer!

(oh and you mean the Tokina, not the Sigma 11-16mm, that doesn't exist from Sigma)

Rokinon DS glass is made for the FF market, so it's probably actually a little softer than glass made for s35.

Some of Rokinon's lenses (especially on the wider end) are designed for S35/APS-C/DX, and not for FF35/FX. Such as their 16mm lens, which is top of my list to add next to my Rokinon Cine DS collection.

http://ironfilm.co.nz/rokinon-cine-lenses/

Errr.... the BMPCC (& Micro) *IS* a Micro Four Thirds mount camera!!! :-o

I use MFT lenses on my BMPCC all the time.

(and the fact people would use expensive S16 PL lenses on the BMPCC just shows what a damn fine camera it is, that people will even pair it with very nice glass)