Cinematography : Camera change by Jakub Micuch

Jakub Micuch

Camera change

Hi guys. I'm thinking about equipment change last days. I have pretty good Canon C100mkII what is really greate piece. But I am really missing some better recording codec there. It's record HD - 8bit - h264 what is not wery well for editing. The external recorder has no value, cause output there is through hdmi, so altought it will record 10bits, input will be just 8bit, so its waste of time i think. Have anybody experience? I though, that I could sell it and buy BMD Ursa mini 4k, but I'm not sure. I heard about overheating troubles in BMD cinema cameras, so I am little confused, if it has worth. Is here anybody who is using for work ursa mini? If so, could you please tell me your experiences with that cam? Is it good camera for run and gun type of shooting? Cause for most of my work I dont need RAW and colorgrading. So that h264 is not big trouble for me. But when I'm shooting commercials or for filmmaking would be pretty nice something what could record RAW image.

David Trotti

The ability to record straight to ProRes is huge. I hate the Mpeg codec with a passion. I haven't used the Ursa. But it sounds like a solid reasonably priced Cine camera, though I've heard it's not a great choice for run and gun because of the ISO limitations. What's your thought on the advantage of the Ursa over a Canon C200 or the Sony FS7 paired with an Atomos Shogun? I ask because I'm thinking of using the FS7 on a project. I've been experimenting with 4K Slog-3 using an A7sii and comparing ProRes 422 files recorded on the Shogun to the internal Codec in the Sony. So far it's been a wash, though like you, I'm not wholly convinced the HDMI connection is as clean as advertised. I'm still doing 8-bit. 10 bit sounds awesome, but it's a big data commitment.

Jakub Micuch

FS7 can record RAW internaly, so there is no reason to use atomos I think. But also have a SDI outputs, so if you will need attach Atomos there, you should go through SDI to get 10bits signal. But as i said, FS7 can record 12bit RAW internaly, so I think there is no reason to go this way.

HDMI can transfer just 8bit signal, so if you are running atomos through hdmi only change will be from 420 to 422 color space, what is not too much difference. By the way (I dont know, how it goes in A7sii) but in most devices is output on hdmi going from camera recorder, not from sensor, so altough atomos will record it in 8bit 422 there dont will be more color information as in internal recorder. You can easily check this, if you change color profile in camera and if it will change colors also in atomos, your hdmi dont go from sensor, but from recorder.

I am recording in H264, so I dont need too much data storage on shooting and after I am converting it into prores in post (nothing to do with quality, just for faster editing - framebased format) Actualy, as I saw some test videos on C100mkII, there were better image quality in some details in H264 as through Atomos, so this is best way for me now. But want to get some footage from that camera from atomos, to try difference between 420 and 422. Cause nowhere I found answer on this.

I have to stay in canon, or in BMD because set of EF lenses I have. And C200 has just some kind of Light RAW, what is comprimed in some way I think, so I am not sure, if it has worth to give 10k€ for main body, when I can have full set of RED RAVEN for 14-16K€. And this is big difference.. :)

David Trotti

Thanks Jakub. I appreciate the information.

For me using the Atomos with the A7sii is more to prevent overheating and extend the take durations. It also serves as a nice monitor where I can apply LUTs to the SLog3 feed on the fly (I don't trust my math when it comes to setting stops for SLog3).

Just using the FS7's internal RAW is a great idea. Thanks.

And you're doing the right thing sticking with the lenses you have. I like all the advantages new cameras offer, but if you have good glass it's worth its weight in gold and for some reason I've found Canon and related EF mount lenses just somehow more pleasing to me than Sony and related E mount lenses. I don't know why.

Thanks for the info!

Jaap Ruurd Feitsma

I'm not a fan of the Ursa Mini 4K camera. The sensor is not as good as the 4.6k and the Ursa Mini Pro (regardless of resolution).

Jakub Micuch

Jaap thanks for answer. So 4.6k is better? Is it a abig difference?

David, this is interesting. My friend photographer also said that he doesnt like sony lenses, he wanted some backup body and looks for an a7sii but because of that lenses he choosed canon mirrorless.

Jaap Ruurd Feitsma

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed your reply! The 4.6K (especially the Pro) works way better in low-light, for starters. It also offers more ISO options. The 4.6K and the 4.6K Pro have the same sensor, but when you compare images, the 4.6K Pro is definitely the better quality one.

That said, have you heard of Kinefinity? They released the Terra 4K a while back. I'm going for that one myself. Philip Bloom is currently testing the Terra 4K and is 'Super impressed.' I added a screenshot from his Facebook. More updates on the camera from Bloom will be posted soon!

A friend of mine owns the KineMINI 4K, an older model. The image quality is superb and outruns The Blackmagic camera's by a long shot. The downside is that it does not shoot cDNG or Cineform. The .krw (kinefinity's RAW file) file needs to be converted to cDNG, etc. after recording.

Larry DeGala

I've shot Sony with Canon lenses, using Metabones Speed Booster. Also done Zeiss CP.2 and XEEN on the Sony. Looks great!

Other topics in Cinematography:

register for stage 32 Register / Log In