HBO 2017 CAS Camera Test - My Review

[Brody_B]

Can you point to the example here, on which you conclude and suggest that people "like to hear themselves type" and are lacking grounds ? Nonsensical babble is counter productive for the discussion so raising awareness helps to avoid it.

Yes definitely counter productive, and my point exactly. I have a strong feeling they know who they are. I could call out names and even post# but I don't think that would be necessary, or any more helpful.

 

[Joe Cage]

What blackmagic ursa was tested? the 4K, the 4.6K, the ursa mini pro? I find these results really surprising as it just won the best camera NAB award. But then again the other camera's are 10 times its price so maybe not a fair contest. (Im pretty sure it would beat c3OO II, FS7 etc.)

 

[Ben Scott]

What blackmagic ursa was tested? the 4K, the 4.6K, the ursa mini pro? I find these results really surprising as it just won the best camera NAB award. But then again the other camera's are 10 times its price so maybe not a fair contest. (Im pretty sure it would beat c3OO II, FS7 etc.)

It's almost as if those awards don't mean anything. ..

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The imagery I've seen from the Ursa 4.6K is weak sauce. Hrvoje's reference to RED's puzzlingly poor results on several high profile tests over the years due to mishandling might apply to the Ursa as well. I have an open mind and open eyes - I look forward to seeing what the Ursa is capable of in the right hands. Until then...

Cheers - #19

 

[Elsie N]

It's almost as if those awards don't mean anything. ..

That's just not fair... those awards are meant to lift the participant's esteem so that when they grow up they will be... oh, nevermind.

It's just that award winners are chosen subjectively rather than objectively, IMO so they don't mean much to me.

For me the award winner would have been the hyper charge battery pointed to in a thread by Brian Goff here on REDuser.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The imagery I've seen from the Ursa 4.6K is weak sauce. Hrvoje's reference to RED's puzzlingly poor results on several high profile tests over the years due to mishandling might apply to the Ursa as well. I have an open mind and open eyes - I look forward to seeing what the Ursa is capable of in the right hands. Until then...

Cheers - #19

Not interested in promoting Ursa or any particular camera but opposing experiences draw the questions for their causes and I really don't think it's you or Nick, or anyone sitting in the audience watching the test footage.

Testing methodology inherited from previous era and underestimation of post is misleading. Post and it's effect on final outcome and on exposure choices when DoP gets to understand camera specific properties through post feedback, is determining factor for every raw/log shooting camera. The last stage from log to video is greatly underestimated.

I propose a large sign at camera test presentations:

RAW / log camera material is not a finished and fully defined image.
What the camera does ends at raw /log step and rest is defined by the last step to a final image.

If one wants to get the most out of any raw/log shooting camera and not use specific transform routes but do it manually, basic LGG route is child's play. This is not film any more, digital cameras a) see the world differently and b) deviate the signal in very complex ways and basic balancing and gamma correction is not enough to display their full potential. Not even close.

Using simple and traditional approaches to a first light, approaches which worked with film, might make one interpret the camera drawbacks which are not in original material, but caused by the very post procedure, tearing up the image or further deviating the signal of electronically gathered quantized light.

It all boils down to how one valorizes the camera, by what it does with a few easy steps to a usable image or how it can look with proper log material treatment, showing the potential which lies buried in the footage.
Nick's comment referring to blown highlights sounds like generic factory LUT was applied, the effect of which is clearly seen in my examples, and if that principle was chosen for these tests, all other camera interpretations are understandable.

In the off topic thread I have posted 4 examples from Mini Pro, very telling ones. From borderline clipping, over high key and medium light values to night and 3200 K front and 5600 background. All ISO800. This was the DoP first experience with the camera and I had analysed it recently so we found the optimal route for the shoot and post.

Camera has its quirks but nothing dramatic like this feedback might make it seem. It is not targeting high-end segment and attempting to valorize it through that context and when pushed more out of its optimal exposure range than cameras costing 10-20 times as much is misleading. Let's be fair here, remember R1 and avoid the high horse route now that Red reached maturity, what we disliked with others 10 years ago. Ursa Mini is in puberty phase...with very good prospects.

 

[Nick Morrison]

My subjective ratings:

Alexa - 9
DXL - 8
Red - 8.5
Varicam - 7
C700 - 6
Blackmagic - 8.5

Steven, I respect your opinion, but have a hard time agreeing with you.

The Blackmagic was certainly NOT as good as Helium, and certainly not better than DXL. In some tests, like moire, it completely fell apart and drew gasps from the audience.

If you were there, I have to imagine you heard them too...

Sounds fairly similar to the screening I saw Steven.

Was an amazing test.

Tim, forgive me, but you work for Blackmagic right?

If you do, I’m going to assume you have rose colored glasses, as well you should!

Now THAT explains a lot.

By the way, the Ursa Mini Pro was just awarded "Best Camera on NAB 2017"

I'm happy for Blackmagic. However the camera tested by HBO I believe was NOT the pro. Just the Ursa Mini 4.6K.

Also, it's worth noting last year the Scarlet-W won camera of the year, suggesting NAB also takes "value" into account?

However HBO's test was not about VALUE, but simply about PERFORMANCE.

It should come as no surprise that the cameras costing $50,000-$200,000 performed the best. I don't understand why this is causing so much consternation.

And to your issue with the testers only adjusting LIFT, GAMMA, GAIN...why is that significant? It was applied to all cameras equally. We also shouldn't assume they applied a stock LUT. They may well have graded everything in ACES for all we know, and thrown out each camera's color science.

There is a lot of speculation happening here, all in attempts to discredit a test done by some of Hollywood's finest. I'm sort of taken back by the hubris here.

Now the conclusions here are mine, and mine alone, but I share them with the group of colleagues I was with, and with many of the folks I spoke to afterwards, so I stand behind them.

It's also worth noting these tests were brutal. I doubt the Epic Dragons I shoot on regularly would have fared amazingly either. A lot about shooting on modern cameras is about knowing their strengths and weaknesses. Even the Alexa 65 had it's flaws.

Nothing is perfect. All camera's are usable, if you know how to use them.

Good night.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

And to your issue with the testers only adjusting LIFT, GAMMA, GAIN...why is that significant? It was applied to all cameras equally.

It cannot be applied equally to all cameras since all differ in response.

If same process was copy/pasted to all cameras it would clip some cameras in either highs or lows or enhance noise.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It cannot be applied equally to all cameras since all differ in response.

If same process was copy/pasted to all cameras it would clip some cameras in either highs or lows or enhance noise.

Why are you assuming they copy and pasted to all cameras?

It was my understanding they GRADED each camera with only primaries to get the max DR, response, etc required to pass each test. They were trying to make sure every camera had the best chance to pass each test.

In chats after the screening, I learned it was HBO's POV that every camera has a purpose - and they were as interested in where cameras succeeded as where they failed.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Why are you assuming they copy and pasted to all cameras?

I'm not assuming, I wrote in conditional, based on your quote.

All cool, nothing against tests, but for interpretation of the results it is beneficial to take many factors into consideration, many of which are not in the camera and often disregarded.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Is there a link to the test?

 

[Joe Cage]

Aah its the ursa mini 4k, that explains a lot! They are different beasts. Now do the same with the ursa mini pro. The results will be very different

 

[Brett Harrison]

Can you point to the example here, on which you conclude and suggest that people "like to hear themselves type" and are lacking grounds ? Nonsensical babble is counter productive for the discussion so raising awareness helps to avoid it.

Hrvoje, brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Aah its the ursa mini 4k, that explains a lot! They are different beasts. Now do the same with the ursa mini pro. The results will be very different

I believe it was the 4.6K, just not the brand new Pro (though they have the same sensor, etc yes?).

 

[Joe Cage]

I believe it was the 4.6K, just not the brand new Pro (though they have the same sensor, etc yes?).

Oh yes, they indeed use the same sensor.

 

[Thomas Koch]

For the price, the Ursa Mini Pro is pretty good. Depends on your needs though. I love my Redcode and find all other systems that offer RAW use too much data for me. But I definitely see a use for it. Not for everything, but a use.

If the Raven was back at $5000 I'd choose that over it, but It's not available, and they're raised the price, so why not buy an FS7 or a Black Magic Pro at that price point? If it fits the job, then it fits the job.

I'm about to dive into a massive camera test with the 4K, 4.6k Pro, and will shoot Dragon Epic and Helium Epic-W as well. Maybe I'll think differently. I wish I could see this test myself.

 

[Joe Cage]

Yeah please share the test! I just bought a ursa mini pro myself. So I am eager to shoot my first project with it.

This is the best ursa mini 4.6k footage I came across.
https://vimeo.com/204459247

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I have secretively (NDA) and publicly (some) tested and shot Helium 8k, Dragon VV8k, Panavision Millennium DXL 8k & Alexa65 6k...

I must say that I have come to extremely similar conclusions, but must admit that I am a lover of LARGER sensors, and that my love for Alexa65 strictly came from that, the extreme well distributed SDOF given not just by the wider apertures but by the larger sensor given depth and richness in it's grand exposure capability.

The Dragon VV is however in my opinion superior in many aspects, and in this the Panavision Millennium DXL holds and surpasses the regular RED Dragon VV in almost everything.

But there is no equals to the Helium 8k sensor currently on the market, if to put in place all aspects form form factor, to R3D codec, to 8k RAW cleanliness and power of low light resolve there is simply no comparison.

However in extra large screens such for IMAX, the larger sensors still get better results.

Didn't care to test any of the other cameras as they have nothing going for me, but at the end of day it's all about what fits best your shoots needs, and what performs best for you under the shooting conditions, as they do vary greatly, and all controlled tests while fun, serve only a partial purpose but always a welcome read

PS: Once the new Large(r) Helium Sensor will be out then all bets will be most absolutely OFF for all other cameras currently on the market, unless Arri pools a miracle rabbit out of an extra large hat of course, which I so very much so doubt according to my sources, as what they are working on will be only marginally better then the great Alexa65, and surely not even close to stand next to what in my expectations the new Helium Large Format Sensor will bring, especially if it will come out in it's newer and more advance then ever DSMC3 body

Panavision Millennium DXL pulled Frame that Adrien and I shot on an early Prototype las year thanks to Michael Cioni.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Ketch, any chance you're allowed to share a .r3d from that frame? I'd love to play with that in Resolve.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

I wish the test were online. I would love to take a gander. We recently did a test with the 4.6k, helium, and gemini. I gotta say to date the gemini is my favorite looking RED camera. Its the first time I have considered coming back to RED for a couple projects in recent years. It is pretty incredible how much range it has on the over exposure end of things... and just rolls of so smoothly. The dual ISO is very helpful for certain situations and can see this camera being a work horse for network TV.

Some of the things that I have seen on this thread though that were incongruous with our tests were:

- The helium has quite a bit of moire on a tight patterned shirt we tested. it displayed more than the 4.6k did in our tests

- The helium had over all about 1 stop less dynamic range than the 4.6k

- The gemini had a solid 2 stops more latitude over the 4.6k on the over, but about 1 to 1.5 less on the shadow side

- the gemini seemed to have more retained detail than the 8k helium and every so slightly more than the 4.6k

- noise on helium seemed very colorful, the gemini was very controlled on the color side of noise, but still just a bit more colorful than that of the 4.6k

The biggest thing me and my DP stepped away from the test with was... now a days the camera is not an excuse for why images look bad... We live in a wonderful time in camera world.