Thread: Ursa Mini Disclaimer

Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77
  1. #41  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cyprus
    Posts
    54
    I only wish other manufacturers were so honest regarding their mistakes. Not sure about recall (after all they should have kept batch numbers) but obviously as far as i know there were a lot of replacements/refunds on that issue. I have noticed my BMCC 2.5 with that issue right out of the box and it got replaced by CVP UK (Awesome company to deal with, got my Dragon from them too)
    RED EPIC DRAGON #8131
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Nice try Jake.

    So, nowhere in that statement does it talk about a recall. Nowhere... That's because there wasn't a recall. Your quote from Grant is in reference to them chasing down a problem they had with the cover glass of the sensor, not the sensor itself.

    When Grant issued that statement, they'd stopped deliveries for several months after only initially shipping less than a hundred of their first cameras of many thousands they had on back order.

    You can't have it both ways Jake. They stopped shipping cameras almost right after they started to first ship and then stopped shipping them for months while they chased down and fixed the problem. Not every camera was affected, and it was basically debris left behind because the company that makes the paper wrapping that they wrapped the cover glass in changed their adhesive. The sensor company was then installing the coverglass and on a few cameras it was leaving debris behind. Then they were shipped to Blackmagic to be installed.

    So there's the paper making company making the new adhesive backed paper, that gets sent to a different company who make the cover glass, which they wrap in this paper, who then send it to the sensor fab company, who then assemble the sensors, who then send it to BM. A company three steps removed from Blackmagic changed a manufacturing process, and caused an issue that none of the three companies picked up in THEIR quality control processes. They changed a process without anything and Blackmagic stopped shipping cameras when they themselves realised something wasn't right and tried to figure out where there were sometimes getting debris after having only shipped a small number of cameras a portion of which had debris on the glass that covers their sensors.

    So, you're wrong.


    This never happened. Maybe be the better man and concede you got it wrong.

    They didn't have a recall.

    They picked up a problem and stopped shipping.

    They stopped shipping but it wasn't because of bad sensors, it was because the glass that covers the sensor had some crap on it. It affected a small portion of the tiny number for very first cameras they ever shipped (and had ever made) When they saw something unexplained happening they halted production at probably the worst possible time, chasing down the cause to company three steps removed from them when none of the other in-between companies had picked it up and then, they fixed it. The "batches" of sensors doesn't mean they shipped cameras in the same batches.
    Grant says "it had taken them months to work out what was going on and to get new packaging to ship the glass to the factory mounting it on the sensors. The way I read it, when glass is mounted on a sensor, it becomes the part of a sensor, hence defective sensor. For some reason you feel, that this is an important distinction. In this particular discussion what is truly important the fact, that the defective part made it's way into the production model and eventually cameras with that defective part needed to be replaced.
    You conceded, that "They stopped shipping cameras almost right after they started to first ship". So, I ask you one more time John. What happened to that batch with defective sensor ASSEMBLY? Did they all get replaced? This is not a court of law, where the difference between replacing a defective camera and a replacing camera as a result of a recall matters. What really matters, sensor ASSEMBLY issue was identified and then all those defective cameras with defective sensor ASSEMBLY were replaced, as noted by a couple of posters above. You can't argue with the facts John.
    But, somehow, I feel, you'll try anyway...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Piss and moan all you like with your Blackmagic vendetta, but at least get the facts right. You inference that they the shipped faulty cameras after picking up an issue is again, another attempt at misdirection and another attempt to sledge your favourite company, based on making stuff up in your own mind that fits your Blackmagic narrative that you like to trot out at any opportunity.
    Please point to me where I said, that cameras were shipped AFTER the defect was discovered?
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
    Posts
    1,162
    A product can be recalled even if it's to replace just one defective part. The current Takata air bag recall is going to result in close to 80 million vehicle recalls. Even though it's only the airbag being recalled, the entire vehicle is considered under recall. So whether BMD shipped 10 cameras or 10,000 cameras with a defective sensor cover glass, it's still a recall on those cameras that have that defective sensor cover glass.

    But let's not forget the issues that Red needed to have customers send cameras in for servicing... sensor gate flare? OLPF? Remember those? What others were there, if any? Even though Red turned it into a new feature, there were still issues with the initial Dragon OLPF that Red needed to replace them, but allowed some to keep use of them by turning it into an interchangeable OLPF. But it was still a problem that essentially could be considered a recall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    90
    I recently shot a full length movie with the Ursa Mini 4.6k PL and the camera performed flawlessly. So contrary to what others have said in this thread, my experience with the camera is very positive. So yes, it can be used in a professional setting, I did it for 26 days during which the camera was turned on 12 hours nonstop every day (thanks to its low power consumption). No FPN, No magenta issue, no lockups, not one single problem.
    What's not to like about this camera: For one thing, the images are lovely, the resolution is more than enough for what I shoot, the sensor is big enough to take advantage of s35m lenses including anamorphic (sensor is not as tall as an Alexa 4:3r, but tall enough), you can shoot to very, very cheap media at very high bitrates; in any flavor of Prores at 4k resolution (including 4444 XQ) and 1/3/4:1 compressed raw, onboard monitor, sound inputs, inexpensive accessories, including a beautiful EVF option, quiet, runs cool, Davinci Studio dongle, 15 stops of latitude, low noise, clean blacks, low weight, etc etc.
    I haven't been so excited about a camera since the Red One and the Epic X (back then best bang for the money).
    BTW, we could have shot the movie with Arri or Red, but we opted for the Ursa Mini 4.6k with no regrets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member M.Halsell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York-NY
    Posts
    1,175
    Is the magenta issue in the PL mount version or just the EF version?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    478
    Jake did Blackmagic issue a recall of their first camera ? Were you wrong about that ? I think you are.

    I don't speak for BM. But here's what I understand of what happened.

    They stopped shipping cameras when their second and third batches of sensors had problems. Those sensors never got to customers. They failed at the factory and didn't leave.

    JB
    John Brawley
    Cinematographer
    London UK
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Jake did Blackmagic issue a recall of their first camera ? Were you wrong about that ? I think you are.

    I don't speak for BM. But here's what I understand of what happened.

    They stopped shipping cameras when their second and third batches of sensors had problems. Those sensors never got to customers. They failed at the factory and didn't leave.

    JB.

    Some users from the first batch
    As I said twice, BMD shipped some defective cameras, realized there was a problem with sensor ASSEMBLY, stopped the production, rectified the hardware issue, voluntarily replaced all defective cameras which were already delivered in the process also known as a recall and then resumed shipments. How do I know I'm right and you're not? Because there are two real users who posted here, that did get those faulty sensor ASSEMBLIES in their cameras So, where was I wrong?

    John.
    I patiently answered all your baseless and personal accusations.
    So now please answer the question, that I asked you earlier in response to this baseless accusation:

    "You inference that they the shipped faulty cameras after picking up an issue is again, another attempt at misdirection and another attempt to sledge your favourite company, based on making stuff up in your own mind that fits your Blackmagic narrative that you like to trot out at any opportunity."

    So, I'm going to ask you again John.
    Please point out where did I say, that the first BMD cameras were shipped AFTER the defect was discovered? It's not that difficult to prove. But if you can't show, that I said it, then, I think, an apology is in order.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    478
    Jake.

    Show me where they issued a recall.

    JB.
    John Brawley
    Cinematographer
    London UK
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Jake.

    Show me where they issued a recall.

    JB.
    Potato-potato.
    All defective cameras, that were produced BEFORE the defect was discovered were replaced by BMD as a result of defective sensor ASSEMBLY. I call it a recall.
    You want to call it what, a replace? Is there a such sing? No, seriously, what do you want to call it, when manufacturer replaces all produced products, that subsequently were discovered to be defective? I'm really curious...
    You do realize, that probably right now BMD would love for this thread to end, right? You're the one who keeps bringing this sorry page in their corporate history up over and over. The more you protest, the more this will be repeated...
    Now, apologize for trying to misrepresent what I wrote and we all can move on.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    Senior Member Ryan Hamblin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Nashville TN
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Hernan Herrera View Post
    I recently shot a full length movie with the Ursa Mini 4.6k PL and the camera performed flawlessly. So contrary to what others have said in this thread, my experience with the camera is very positive. So yes, it can be used in a professional setting, I did it for 26 days during which the camera was turned on 12 hours nonstop every day (thanks to its low power consumption). No FPN, No magenta issue, no lockups, not one single problem.
    What's not to like about this camera: For one thing, the images are lovely, the resolution is more than enough for what I shoot, the sensor is big enough to take advantage of s35m lenses including anamorphic (sensor is not as tall as an Alexa 4:3r, but tall enough), you can shoot to very, very cheap media at very high bitrates; in any flavor of Prores at 4k resolution (including 4444 XQ) and 1/3/4:1 compressed raw, onboard monitor, sound inputs, inexpensive accessories, including a beautiful EVF option, quiet, runs cool, Davinci Studio dongle, 15 stops of latitude, low noise, clean blacks, low weight, etc etc.
    I haven't been so excited about a camera since the Red One and the Epic X (back then best bang for the money).
    BTW, we could have shot the movie with Arri or Red, but we opted for the Ursa Mini 4.6k with no regrets.
    I mirror these thoughts. I can have my pick usually as to what to shoot on and since I've gotten the 4.6k it's all we have used. I still feel the Alexa gets about a half stop-Ish more in the highlights, but I like the higher res of the 4.6k over the half stop. All in all its getting more dynamic range than anything I've owned or used previously other than possibly the Alexa.
    www.ryanhamblin.com

    BrainStemDigital production|post|vfx
    info@brainstem.tv
    www.brainstem.tv
    follow us on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/brainstemdigit

    Gear list: Rokinon 14mm T/3.1, Rokinon 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm T/1.5, Pentax 90mmLS, Pentax 165mm f/2.8 various ND and filtration
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts