Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

URSA Mini EF 4K Resolution question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • URSA Mini EF 4K Resolution question

    Although I don't have the money, I am very interested in the URSA 4K EF camera from Blackmagic. But I am wondering about the specs: Everywhere it says the maximum resolution is 4000 x 2160 Pixels. Is this true? No 4096 x 2160 mode? Is it something very odd about the Blackmagic 4K cameras?

    And I have got another one: The DNG mode offers 3:1 compression, is this compression lossless?

    Very interesting cameras, even though the reviews on BHPhotoVideo don't look good.

  • #2
    It is 4000 and I'm not sure about the RAW compression, but take the B&H reviews lightly. Search this forum for better feedback and experience. For the price, it's an excellent value.

    Comment


    • #3
      Pascal, raw is lossless, and raw 3:1 is lossy, but it's referred to as 'visually lossless' because for most people and purposes, you can see any significant difference. There can be a difference side by side or pulling a 'difference' effect, but in normal use most everyone shooting raw is very impressed with raw 3:1 and worth the savings in media storage, hence increased recording duration. I have shot with raw 4:1 and was happy with the results. That's as extreme as BMD will go as they always want to stay 'visually lossless.'

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the answers. The 4000 Pixels are a bummer, as my screen has 4096...Well, still the best deal out there if you want lossless video.

        About the raw compression: This could be lossless, as a Zip-file has to be lossless.

        Comment


        • #5
          Uncompressed raw is compressed, 1.5:1ish and mathematically lossless like a zip file. 3:1 and 4:1 are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            You just get the tiny tiny black strips from the lef and the right sides of the screen. About 50 pixels wide. You can spot the lossy compression by grading your picture by the hard way. I think nobody can spot it but I like to peep pixels.
            Andrew Bell
            Blackmagic Production 4K Camera
            https://www.youtube.com/user/reklama4demo

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rick.lang View Post
              Pascal, raw is lossless, and raw 3:1 is lossy, but it's referred to as 'visually lossless' because for most people and purposes, you can see any significant difference. There can be a difference side by side or pulling a 'difference' effect, but in normal use most everyone shooting raw is very impressed with raw 3:1 and worth the savings in media storage, hence increased recording duration. I have shot with raw 4:1 and was happy with the results. That's as extreme as BMD will go as they always want to stay 'visually lossless.'
              Just FYI, BMD's visually lossless isn't lossy. For the pedantic technical definition of lossless you have to have bit for bit (1001001011010010101010) identical binary that went in, come out (like a zip). BMD's raw compression for a intents and purposes is lossless, it just isnt bit for bit perfect so can't technically be called lossless.

              I just wanted to point this out so people don't get it confused with say RED's compression where you can start to have quality degradation that would be considered lossy.

              Comment


              • #8
                What can I say without just repeating my post on raw versus raw 3:1?

                Comment

                Working...
                X