Jump to content

Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7


Samuel Berger

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

What humors me is that nobody looks at my comment from the manufacturers perspective. Think about the sheer marketing advantage your company has if you push the top people into using your equipment. All those high-end BTS images showing X manufacturers camera on set, it's worth millions of dollars to them, especially on a high profile show.

 

Also, nobody insinuated DP's are being paid, on the contrary the whole point is these top DP's work on high profile shows, which bring money to the rental houses, so they can keep buying more XYZ cameras. As pointed out earlier, many of these contracts start between DP and rental house, then get deeper into certain manufactures over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many of these contracts start between DP and rental house, then get deeper into certain manufactures over time.

 

 

Newbie here just trying to get educated... I'm reading this as the contractual agreements regarding what cameras to use is between the DP and where he/she is renting the cameras. Am I reading that correctly and is that actually the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Jeez dude, you're really pushing a barrel of horseshit up a steep hill here.

 

So if nobody's being paid, why is there a secret contract happening again? Why does a rental house care what camera gets used? What does it benefit a DP to push a camera they don't really want to use to the possible detriment of the production?

 

If any camera manufacturer has been actively trying to influence what gets used on high end productions, it would be RED, who have openly given cameras away or provided multiple back-ups to high profile filmmakers and stoked a rabid fan base and yet they are still struggling to get more market penetration.

 

Arri don't need to do secret deals because the product speaks for itself. Do you extend your conspiracy theory into lens choice as well? Are Zeiss doing deals to make sure their old Super Speeds are still getting so much use? Maybe Cooke are in cahoots with certain DPs to promote their S4s? Or could it be that professionals choose tools based on what they like using and what they think will work best for the production within what the budget allows?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What does it benefit a DP to push a camera they don't really want to use to the possible detriment of the production?

So you don't think shooting 3.2k OCN when your deliverable requirement is DCI 4k, is a detriment?

 

On the same note, do you really think on a multi-million dollar production, a cinematographer would request a Sony F55 over an Alexa XT? They both rent for nearly the same money, so don't get started about pricing.

 

If any camera manufacturer has been actively trying to influence what gets used on high end productions, it would be RED, who have openly given cameras away or provided multiple back-ups to high profile filmmakers and stoked a rabid fan base and yet they are still struggling to get more market penetration.

Ohh so agree that Red does this, but Arri doesn't? :laugh:

 

Arri don't need to do secret deals because the product speaks for itself.

I also never said they actively do it in 2018. The people I've talked to about this, never brought concrete dates into the equation, just the "digital revolution" as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Newbie here just trying to get educated... I'm reading this as the contractual agreements regarding what cameras to use is between the DP and where he/she is renting the cameras. Am I reading that correctly and is that actually the case?

From my understanding, quite a bit of the top guys have special long-term contracts setup with not only rental houses, but certain camera packages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Newbie here just trying to get educated... I'm reading this as the contractual agreements regarding what cameras to use is between the DP and where he/she is renting the cameras. Am I reading that correctly and is that actually the case?

I would suggest taking Tyler's posts with a large grain of salt.

 

DPs, directors and production companies often have relationships with rental houses, but I've never heard of or come across any contractual obligations regarding choice of camera (other than resolution requirements or issues to do with film capture based on local lab availability). If a production asks for a particular camera, I've never heard of a rental house trying to change their mind, unless it was because of a shortage of available bodies. There might be pricing discounts to get more rentals for a camera that no-one wants to rent, but that's hardly surprising.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Do you extend your conspiracy theory into lens choice as well?

It's not my theory, I'm merely reporting what I've been told. I could personally care less.

 

Ohh and yes, the lens companies have been doing this forever, just look at Panavision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If a production asks for a particular camera, I've never heard of a rental house trying to change their mind

Who said that?

 

It's actually the other way around. A particular camera will be on hold for a certain DP, maintained by the camera manufacturer under contract, specifically for a certain DP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Sure; you'll have some cameras made for a certain DoP in a certain way or whatever, but that's almost always for a certain situation (the xenomorph reds for example, or the carbon fiber ones etc spring to mind). Or I might have had a specific film body winterized for a shoot in antartica. And yes, many DoPs @ panavision have "their" lens set, but they aren't "their" lenses they're literally just the set the dop likes the most and has chosen to be the best matched. I could go in and rend the same serial number lenses, though I would assume if an ASC DoP came in and asked for them Panavision would do their best to get them back from me, and giving me all the free swag.

And yes, camera companies often approach DoPs to shoot their new cameras, with promises to get them a body for their project to be the "first," on it, but NONE of this is in ANYWAY contractual or tied as much to the dop as it is to the job at hand. Further it's something which would've been brought up to the directors and producers well before hand and worked out with they who have the final veto, since they're the one's paying for the production.

Hell just today I got offered a set of lenses to test out. I don't know why, i'm really not important, and I said, let's touch-base sometime next week, because Ideally I'd want to use them on a production but would have the mount a production myself to do it presently. However, if I had a music video I was about to shoot, or a short, and the director/producer was ok with my answer to how they'll perform being "i'm not sure, they're new! But given my research I think they'll behave like X." then I'd have no qualms about using them. Now if you want to call a linkdin message a "contract" go a head.

So sure, this happens (and RED is a particularly BAD example with their whole DSMC line and it's "Stills" performance) but it's not some grand conspiracy nor some contractual thing. It's generally camera and lens companies getting their tools into the real world and often getting valuable feedback on them thus making better equipment and it really doesn't mean a DoP must use their cameras always; though they may develop a preference through familiarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to upscale the Alexa footage to get 4k out of it, which is to say the least, not a great way to go.

 

Well, you can't compare a $65,000 camera with a $5,999 camera now can you?

 

No, you can't compare a $65,000 camera with a $6,000 camera. I wasn't. I was saying that Arri is still the go-to camera for a reason. It produces an amazing cinematic looking image, work well with proper film accessories, and works well in post.

 

I thought you like more soft, filmic images? That is exactly what the Arri does. The 3K upscale is what makes the image look so filmic, when combined with Arri's color science. 6k down-sampled to 4k is extremely sharp, which sounds to me like the opposite of what you have said you liked in previous posts. You make multiple claims that even 4K is too sharp, so I fail to see how 6k down-sampled to 4k is going to look less sharp.

 

I simply find it hard to believe that someone who values the film look so much would prefer to work with Red over Arri. Red images, while looking nice, look like digital camera footage. They are sharp, and don't share Arri's very film-like color science. Red images really don't look filmic at all, and look on par with my GH4 with more DR if anything.

 

As for the 'please name a sub' questions - I'm not going to, because they don't exist. I'm not comparing the URSA to an Arri, or a Red, or anything else. I'm simply saying that Arri is still the go-to camera system for award-winning and stunning looking digital cinematography - and Blackmagic is not. It has nothing to do with price.

 

There is no way a $6,000 camera is going to be on the build-quality of a $65,000 camera, which is another reason Blackmagic has not taken over the industry. Arri cameras work reliably. Not saying that BMD has a lot of issues, but they not known to make cameras that never experience a hiccup or have missing features. As someone else on here said, they are primarily aimed at small-time owner-operators who work in corporate, music video, documentary and such. BMD did not design the cameras to be used on a well-funded feature film set. If they did, they would have priced it accordingly.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What humors me is that nobody looks at my comment from the manufacturers perspective. Think about the sheer marketing advantage your company has if you push the top people into using your equipment. All those high-end BTS images showing X manufacturers camera on set, it's worth millions of dollars to them, especially on a high profile show.

 

Also, nobody insinuated DP's are being paid, on the contrary the whole point is these top DP's work on high profile shows, which bring money to the rental houses, so they can keep buying more XYZ cameras. As pointed out earlier, many of these contracts start between DP and rental house, then get deeper into certain manufactures over time.

So you're saying that these 'top DPs' are conspiring with rental houses to use specific brands of cameras, because as BTS photos of those cameras on sets get out into the world (circulated down through the cinematography press, and social media I assume) they generate millions of dollars in revenue for these rental houses that hire them out?

 

They sure are playing the long game there! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

From my understanding, quite a bit of the top guys have special long-term contracts setup with not only rental houses, but certain camera packages.

Ah! I think (maybe) I know what you're talking about now.

 

Are you hinting at the rumours/reports that some of the big dogs like Bob Richardson have specific lens sets (that they've hand picked over the years) kept on permanent reservation at certain rental houses for their specific use whenever they need them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Are you hinting at the rumours/reports that some of the big dogs like Bob Richardson have specific lens sets (that they've hand picked over the years) kept on permanent reservation at certain rental houses for their specific use whenever they need them?

Hypothetically, Richardson has a set of lenses that he likes. There will be a contract drawn up by the rental house and in a lot of cases a manufacturer/factory service provider, to maintain the equipment specifically for him. Thus, when he wants to use those lenses, he can make a call and they are all calibrated ready to roll.

 

So that's the example your thinking of. My example is one step beyond that, manufacturers and rental houses actively pushing product to get clients and signing contracts to the effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I thought you like more soft, filmic images? That is exactly what the Arri does. The 3K upscale is what makes the image look so filmic, when combined with Arri's color science. 6k down-sampled to 4k is extremely sharp, which sounds to me like the opposite of what you have said you liked in previous posts. You make multiple claims that even 4K is too sharp, so I fail to see how 6k down-sampled to 4k is going to look less sharp.

Well, I've shot a lot with the dragon quite a bit at 6k, scaled to 4k or UHD and it looks nice. Now I've not mixed the Dragon with ultra primes or any high-end super crisp glass because that's murder on your audience. If you use softer glass, the camera really doesn't look bad. This can be said about SO MANY other digital cameras, like the URSA Mini pro. So many people go right for the high end modern glass and I do the opposite.

 

When the Epic first launched, I hated RED. However, they've solved many of their issues and because the expense of renting (or owning) an Alexa is so high for a camera that isn't even 4k, where you have to upscale which looses color space, it hardly seems worth it in the long run to bother with it in my view. The clients that require 4k (which is most now a days) I shoot Dragon 6k and scale down to 4k and it looks great.

 

Red images, while looking nice, look like digital camera footage. They are sharp, and don't share Arri's very film-like color science. Red images really don't look filmic at all, and look on par with my GH4 with more DR if anything.

Eh, the Dragon's can look very nice, but it does require more effort then the Alexa. I think the Alexa just looks NATURALLY beautiful, kinda like the Canon C series and I will admit, the URSA mini 4.6k has a very similar "feel". The benefit of having a full 16 bit 444 color space when going from 6k to 4k is HUGE. No matter what, if you scale up to 4k or UHD, the Alexa is 4:2:2.

 

I'm simply saying that Arri is still the go-to camera system for award-winning and stunning looking digital cinematography - and Blackmagic is not.

... and it never will be for high end stuff because as you say later, it's just not in the same price range, so people don't take it seriously.

 

I don't blame Blackmagic for making it inexpensive, for not competing in the FS7 or even higher end market. It makes no sense, they aren't ready to compete in that market. However, for owner/operators like myself, they do offer a few things the competition for the same price point do not, the list I posted earlier. The in-camera workflow, the post workflow, the price point, accessories, everything about the design, it's all so damn well thought out. Not perfect... but the "issues" in my book, don't outweigh the benefits. I'd much rather have it then any other sub $10k camera. I also think it will do well on rental too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a buddy of mine, who runs one of the larger rental houses in LA about this. Unsurprisingly, he had no idea what I was talking about.

 

This is nothing than one persons completely unverified theory, which he has so far presented without a single shred of evidence to support it.

 

Its BS. Nothing more.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I asked a buddy of mine, who runs one of the larger rental houses in LA about this. Unsurprisingly, he had no idea what I was talking about.

Again, just reporting what people have told me. They could be wrong, but I've heard the same story from multiple sources. It's impossible to verify because like so many backhanded deals in Hollywood, people keep very tight lipped about things that could affect them. One would assume if this were anywhere near public knowledge, there would be some backlash.

 

I only mentioned it in relationship to the concept of certain top cinematographers using identical equipment on a regular basis and why they do it.

 

There is no reason to continue this aspect of the conversation because it's impossible to prove. You can just drop it and we can move on to better things, like my 5 camera test that I started shooting yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've never heard of what Tyler is describing either.

 

I'm not sure why there has to be a conspiracy theory to explain why a cinematographer might choose to use the same camera on multiple productions... this predates digital.

 

Some cinematographers like to eliminate variables so once they find a camera and lens system that gives them the results they like, consistently and predictably, with good technical support for servicing from either a rental house or manufacturer, they don't see a reason to try something else.

 

And it certainly doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain the popularity of the ARRI Alexa.

Certainly there are financial deals out there, but not of the type that Tyler seems to be implying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Im afraid its true.. I was just told I couldn't rent a RED.. when I was crying in my Bentley in the rental park park.. a shadowy figure appeared by the window.. fearing my hub caps were going to stolen again I went to get out quick.. but no.. it was a messenger from the Death Head Axis of Evil.. I had fumbled the handshake .. so no dice.. thats Hollywood folks.. I gunned the Bentley down the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.. wiping a tear from my eye.. Damn them Hipsters to Hell..no worries their loss ..I was on the next big one with an F55..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7

 

 

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!

 

 

 

FS7 is older than the URSA Mini, if anything, BMD copied Sony?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

you are correct sir .. the mini borrowed alot from the fs7.. as the f5//55 borrowed alot from the the now standard, Arri LCD "hot button" configuration/lay out..

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...