4K vs. 4.6K

[Bill Bruner]

Three extra stops of dynamic range (15 versus 12) plus the extra resolution.

If the $4995 4.6K Mini produces results like those seen in this test of the classic URSA with the same higher resolution sensor (embedded about a third of the way down the page), then the 4.6K camera is definitely worth the extra $2000.

I plan to get the 4.6K Mini, if I can afford it. But I will settle for the 4K version if I can’t swing the extra $2K.

Good luck with your decision!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

[Gary Huff]

[Bob Cole] “Why is the 4.6K Blackmagic URSA Mini going to be so much more expensive than the 4K? And is it by any stretch worth it?”

Really should wait until “in the wild” footage starts coming out to say for certain, but it strikes me that the 4.6K version of the Mini is the only one to really consider.

[Don Scioli]

I sorry, but I’ve looked at the test footage of the 4.6 Ursa and it doesn’t look that good. The color is flat, the skating shots are terribly backlit with no detail of the subjects and the overall image is washed out. The footage in the kitchen looks like 80’s Betacam underexposed with the classic video “brown” look.

I’m sorry to be so critical, but if we shot footage like that for our clients and own projects, we’d be in trouble…and I know you can fix it in post, but why use a cameraperson at all, just use a remote control or drone.