Jump to content

Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7


Samuel Berger

Recommended Posts

Again, I used "ac" as a generalization. I should have said "a person in the camera department".

I sincerely doubt that producers would agree to adding someone to the camera department to perform these tasks, which means it's just additional work for the existing crew. I'm sorry, but I really dislike the suggestion that a camera crew, who work punishing hours, in all weathers, with little turnaround, and a whole host of other tasks to perform, should be given even more work to do, just because editors don't want to do that part of their own job. I find it hard to sympathize with an editor who works regular hours in an air conditioned suite, with a nice comfortable chair and an espresso machine, moaning about their workload.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I sincerely doubt that producers would agree to adding someone to the camera department to perform these tasks, which means it's just additional work for the existing crew. I'm sorry, but I really dislike the suggestion that a camera crew, who work punishing hours, in all weathers, with little turnaround, and a whole host of other tasks to perform, should be given even more work to do, just because editors don't want to do that part of their own job. I find it hard to sympathize with an editor who works regular hours in an air conditioned suite, with a nice comfortable chair and an espresso machine, moaning about their workload.

... and now you know why camera people and editors don't see eye to eye. If only people would work as a "team", rather than two separate entities like they do today.

 

In a perfect world the piece of missing hardware would be the digital slate, which would put the file names on both the camera and the audio recorder to the right numbers. Unfortunately, that piece of hardware doesn't exist right now.

 

Audio guys have zero problems setting the file name properly, I don't understand why the "camera" guys can't do it either. It literally takes 2 seconds between each take to turn a knob on the side of the camera OR tap the screen on the Red and Blackmagic cameras. Heck, you could even have the ipad app do it too if you wanted to.

 

The crazy thing is that this function is so important for the production, including the DIT. You could tell right away if everything in the script notes, was actually shot. With bullshit OEM file names, you can't tell jack poop outside of what card is shot on what day. Yes, scripties generally have a cross reference with cards and scenes/takes, but I've found even the best scripties make mistakes and there are discrpencies. Having the naming conventions in camera would allow the DIT to check the scenes shot per day sheet and verify that was actually done.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world the piece of missing hardware would be the digital slate, which would put the file names on both the camera and the audio recorder to the right numbers. Unfortunately, that piece of hardware doesn't exist right now.

 

 

 

Kickstarter opportunity! Gogogo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crazy thing is that this function is so important for the production, including the DIT. You could tell right away if everything in the script notes, was actually shot. With bullshit OEM file names, you can't tell jack poop outside of what card is shot on what day. Yes, scripties generally have a cross reference with cards and scenes/takes, but I've found even the best scripties make mistakes and there are discrpencies. Having the naming conventions in camera would allow the DIT to check the scenes shot per day sheet and verify that was actually done.

That was the purpose of camera notes, which used to be cross referenced against the script notes and distributed to production and editorial at the end of every day. I rarely bother with them these days, as I've yet to come across an editor that actually bothers to read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That was the purpose of camera notes, which used to be cross referenced against the script notes and distributed to production and editorial at the end of every day. I rarely bother with them these days, as I've yet to come across an editor that actually bothers to read them.

Back in the day with a photochemical process, they were good for tracking changes with each roll. It was also good because when you got your dailies back from the lab, you could read the notes along with viewing. I use to use camera logs during my days of shooting commercial stuff on 35, but today there is no reason to.

 

Today our digital cameras embed metadata with the stop, shutter, ISO and even focal length if you're using a electronic piece of glass. This metadata goes right into my editing program and I can use it to select shots. However, since most people don't use electronic glass, the metadata is nearly worthless.

 

Reel, Scene and take number are the most critical pieces of data which need to be associated with each clip and every camera is setup to put that data in, it's just nobody bothers using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, shooting narrative features, the ACs don't have time to mess with typing in scene names and take numbers right before the next take. No matter how easy the interface. It would be really bad form to have actors waiting for slate changes. As it is, the slate operator barely has time to erase take 2 and change it to 3.

 

A script supervisor might have the time, if he/she had a wireless app that communicated with the slate, the camera, and the audio recording device. And it would help if this meta data could be transmitted after the camera and sound has started recording if necessary.

 

Or, you could have a dedicated slate person to do the honors...

 

So, for now, in the end, it's easier to record double system and sync in editorial. When we can, we record sound in the camera, but only as scratch track for dailies viewing. I've been working in Russia, and on every shoot there is a playback department that just records the monitor video feed and sound for instant playback if requested by the director. They are also in charge of setting up the video village. Yes, not the way Tyler works, but other projects have different priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to the comment that wireless transmissions can fail on set. So that would mean if you maybe have 20 clips with no audio on the original video file, you could simply go to the audio recorders files and re-sync them.

 

You always run double system, but the "double" should be a "backup".

 

 

But yes thats the thing though.. wireless is not that dependable .. depending on the location, set etc.. . and so its better that the clean /safe audio recorded by the recorder is the main rather than the backup.. we quite often have audio sent by wireless to the camera but its only a guide track.. and often drops out.. its sort of crazy to do it the risky way round .. and most likely why it never is :)..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I adore what BMD is doing, but I also never understood the hate geared toward the likes of Sony and Panasonic in the cinema field. Let's face it, in the cinema realm there is Arri, and then there is everyone else. As great (and overpriced as hell) as RED cameras are, they are certainly nothing great image-wise; a super sharp image that is not cinematic in my opinion. BMD always has some issues with their cameras, which is a given when you try to make an expensive camera for little money. From my understanding, the Mini Pro has taken care of a great deal of the old issues BMD faced, but its still far from a perfect camera.

 

Then again, people put WAY too much time and effort into camera choice. In the right hands, my GH4 can produce an image on par with any Alexa, let alone a Blackmagic. You see, the reality is, the quality of the image - and how cinematic it looks - comes down to many things, 99% of which revolves around the talent of the cinematographer in conjunction with the colorist and editor. Much of that great 'film look' people pipe on about is a result of heavy post process, unless you actually shoot on film. A CMOS chip is a CMOS chip, period. It collects light in the same way. Some might be more sensitive than others, some have betters processors backing them up, but image-wise - it's an electronic capture device. That is not to say that from a workflow standpoint all cameras are equal, as some cameras work better on different types of shoots - but the underlying image quality is not that much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I adore what BMD is doing, but I also never understood the hate geared toward the likes of Sony and Panasonic in the cinema field.

 

Then again, people put WAY too much time and effort into camera choice. In the right hands, my GH4 can produce an image on par with any Alexa, let alone a Blackmagic. You see, the reality is, the quality of the image - and how cinematic it looks - comes down to many things, 99% of which revolves around the talent of the cinematographer in conjunction with the colorist and editor. Much of that great 'film look' people pipe on about is a result of heavy post process, unless you actually shoot on film. A CMOS chip is a CMOS chip, period. It collects light in the same way. Some might be more sensitive than others, some have betters processors backing them up, but image-wise - it's an electronic capture device. That is not to say that from a workflow standpoint all cameras are equal, as some cameras work better on different types of shoots - but the underlying image quality is not that much different.

Sony and Panasonic were perhaps the first manufacturers to offer digital 'cinema' cameras. The F900 and the original Varicam were widely used in narrative, although they both had their drawbacks. The HD-Cam format left a lot to be desired, and the Varicam was only 720p, and was not great for greenscreen work. Both of these cameras took a lot of flak from DPs at a time when there was a huge push back against digital acquisition. Panasonic seemed to fade away from the professional market at least, but Sony persevered with the F23 and F35, and now both manufacturers have some seriously capable offerings. Any 'hatred' towards them is probably more directed at the rather faceless corporate nature of both companies, rather than the cameras themselves.

 

We are now at a place where all of the professional cameras look pretty damn good, and even some of the semi pro stuff, although I would disagree with you that a GH4 can look as good an Alexa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree with you that a GH4 can look as good an Alexa.

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.

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

  • Premium Member

I wouldn't call the pocket camera sensor size odd; it was after-all just a S16 sized sensor and if you paired it (as I did) with a PL Adapter and S16mm Primes (Optar Illumina T1.3s in my case) It wasn't a hassle to get wide lenses at all.

Of course, if you're rocking stills lenses this becomes a problem.

To be honest; I'd much rather a pocket than a GH4, mostly for the ProRes. I never had much need to ever shoot raw.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest; I'd much rather a pocket than a GH4, mostly for the ProRes. I never had much need to ever shoot raw

 

S16 sized sensor and if you paired it (as I did) with a PL Adapter and S16mm Primes

I use an Atomos with the GH4 for DNxHR (plays better than ProRes on my system), so I don't have that problem. Internal recording in the GH4 still has many of the pitfalls of the pocket - namely the fiddly SD card but without ProRes, so the GH4 is certainly something that needs to be outfitted with an external recorder to get the best footage from it.

 

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.

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

  • Premium Member

I don't use S16 glass with my pocket. Just standard ol' Rokinon EOS mount primes. They work great for cheap glass, I have zero complaints.

 

Where my S16 glass is crisper sometimes... it's also 10X the value. So I rarely use the stuff as a consequence.

 

If I shoot "real" content that requires decent glass, I'm not using the pocket camera. I'll either borrow a real cinema camera OR shoot film with my 'real' cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I believe a lot of people use C Mount s16 glass, rather than PL. It's a lot cheaper.

 

I don't use S16 glass with my pocket. Just standard ol' Rokinon EOS mount primes. They work great for cheap glass, I have zero complaints.

 

The Rokinon lenses are remarkably good for the price, and using them with such a small sensor means you're only using the center portion of the lens, which is the sharpest and best corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Rokinon lenses are remarkably good for the price, and using them with such a small sensor means you're only using the center portion of the lens, which is the sharpest and best corrected.

Exactly... it's kind of the best of both worlds. Cheap glass that's as crisp as it can get.

 

I will admit though. I did a shoot with an EOS mount Dragon recently with my Rokinon DS lenses (24 and 85mm) and you couldn't tell the difference between the CP2's we shot the rest of the movie with the inserts being shot with the DS glass. I will admit the CP2's are SLIGHTLY and I mean 5% warmer and maybe 2% softer. The DS glass is actually crisper, which isn't a good thing.

 

I have yet to stick my Xeen's on a digital camera (I don't classify the pocket as a good test bed since it's only using a small portion of the lens), but I have a feeling after using them with my film cameras quite a bit, they'll be marketably better than the DS glass in the coating department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually just bought a new lens a few weeks ago - the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. While it is certainly not a cinema lens, it does have hard focus stops - and the image I'm getting from it is amazing. I really like softer images, and the lens alone seems to be like throwing a digital diffusion 1 on the front of the camera - without the filter. Mind you, its not everyone's cup of tea, but that becomes an f1.8 with my speedbooster, which is fairly wide open. In fact, even though I own a set of Cine DS lenses (24, 35, 50, 85), I can see myself using the Sigma for 90% of work. The image is just... Nice. While the DS lenses are nice, as Tyler says - they are somewhat sharp - which is okay, but I often need to pair them with a 4x5.65 digital diffusion 1 to really bring down the super-sharp look. I don't have any content uploaded with it myself, but you can see a really good example of the softer feel of the lens from this video:

.

 

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. And while I certainly agree on the sharper aspects of using the middle of the lens glass, sharper isn't always better - and not usually what I'm looking for.

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

The DS glass is actually crisper, which isn't a good thing.

 

 

sharper isn't always better - and not usually what I'm looking for.

Rokinon DS glass is made for the FF market, so it's probably actually a little softer than glass made for s35. This is true of almost all FF glass, and it's probably part of the appeal of using it on cinema cameras. That said, if you're shooting at an f4 or above, then it's going to be plenty sharp, just because most lenses are when stopped down. If you try shooting them between f2 and 2.8, they're much better. If you're putting them on a BM pocket camera, then shoot them wide open!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Rokinon DS glass is made for the FF market, so it's probably actually a little softer than glass made for s35. This is true of almost all FF glass, and it's probably part of the appeal of using it on cinema cameras. That said, if you're shooting at an f4 or above, then it's going to be plenty sharp, just because most lenses are when stopped down. If you try shooting them between f2 and 2.8, they're much better. If you're putting them on a BM pocket camera, then shoot them wide open!

Yep, makes sense. I do run them wide open all the time and that's what it takes to get the look I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I use the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera some times and I love the way it looks. It reminds me of regular 16mm after using FilmConvert. I sometimes use a Fujian 25mm or 35mm $20 lens I got from eBay and it looks very filmic, almost like Ektachrome. There's a guy named Hideki on Youtube who makes absolutely incredible images with his BMPCC.

 

That being said, I have never seen it projected on a big screen and I really would love to. There's a feature film called BONEYARD which was shot on the BMPCC and it ran in NY but not here. I don't think I'll have the opportunity to watch BMPCC footage in a theatre, sadly. It would help me see how it compares to projected 16mm.

 

I have an Ursa Mini 4K which I will be selling soon, I don't love it nearly as much as I love the BMPCC, but that's on a TV screen.

 

I'm actually considering buying the Rokinon EF set for the BMPCC.

Edited by Samuel Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ursa Mini 4.6k Pro in 2k or HD window mode is the closest to s16 I've seen so far.

 

The rolling shutter goes down to 6.32ms so it's imperceptible, you can use 16mm and s16 glass without vignetting like on the BMPCC because the 2K window is: 11.26 x 6.33 - Crop 3.19x, the dynamic range and the color science is beyond what the little pocket camera could put out, you can overcrank to 120fps, good ergonomics, V-Mount batteries, SSD recording etc.

 

It's a gorgeous tool for emulating S16.

Edited by Vladimir Cazacu
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ursa Mini 4.6k Pro in 2k or HD window mode is the closest to s16 I've seen so far.

 

The rolling shutter goes down to 6.32ms so it's imperceptible, you can use 16mm and s16 glass without vignetting like on the BMPCC because the 2K window is: 11.26 x 6.33 - Crop 3.19x, the dynamic range and the color science is beyond what the little pocket camera could put out, you can overcrank to 120fps, good ergonomics, V-Mount batteries, SSD recording etc.

 

It's a gorgeous tool for emulating S16.

 

Thanks, Vladimir, is there footage somewhere that I can look at to see this in action? I look forward to working with it.

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...