Emanuel

ursa mini weight is 5lbs, red weapon is 3.3lbs and it is said that the Raven will be lighter
weapons bare body is much smaller than the ursa mini bare body, much more compact and better suited for movi type stabilizers.
image quality wise I would be surprised if the new 4.6k ursa sensor performs better than the red dragon sensor but wait and see.
but the price of a working red raven package will likely be at least twice that of a ursa mini 4.6k though.

But, for that, they shall run it in much higher bitrate...
Upcoming post-focus feature will happen.
And I hope for 4K/60p as same as DVX-200.
 
S35 won't happen, I bet. But, have you used the speedbooster going with the GH series? You'll reach the same optically.

8-bit 4:2:2 and I would buy it.
(I will buy pretty much the first DSLR/Mirrorless that does, maybe the 5Div)

This guy is a pathological lier. 
Even for a second don't believe what he claims. He was the one behind the E-M1 4K fiasko. 
Keep your camera safe and away from any of his hacks. 
 

I didn't see the need since I am using old nikon lenses with it.
Maybe a lower setting might be better with very sharp lenses. 

After spending enough time with the camera this is the profile that I have settled with. Very pleasing skin tones, minimal banding and easy for slight grading. 
Gamma: Cine 4, but I switch to Cine 2 in low light. Sometimes I also use S-log in very strong light people far away but I try to avoid it. With a face close up Cine 3 is very good too. 
Color mode: Cinema. Pro gave me too saturated colors. Maybe it will be nice in nature. Avoid s-gamut unless you are using an external recorder and you are very confident with your color grading abilities. Also keep in mind that colors change depending on the exposure so make sure you are exposing consistenly (very hard to do with the LCD in s-log more). 
Black level: 0. Black is black. 
Black gamma: middle. 
Knee: Manual 97.5% -1. This is optimized for a slight highlight roll off. Set the percentage lower for strong contrasts. 
Saturation: 0. Lower this if you plan to play with the colors later.  
Color Phase: 0. I trust sony on this one.
Color Depth: 3,0,0,0,0,0. Just a touch of red. 
Detail: -3.  A bit more organic. 
 

Canon clearly mentioned that 4k is not coming any time soon due to "Cost" issues.
MM: Well, historically, I think that Canon was the first in the world to come out with a 4K product. In 2011, we had the Canon EOS 1D C, and then we had the Canon Cinema EOS C500 for professional use. For the consumer models, I think that we still need to work a little bit more on the balance between the cost and the sensor sensitivity before we can come out in the market. As you may know, Canon's main point of difficulty is to reduce costs.
[Ed. note: This is interesting, in that Canon views cost competitiveness as their main point of challenge in the market. It's also interesting in that it sounds like we won't see much in the way of 4K video in their SLR lineup for a little while yet.]

Footage looks great and both Ursa minis sound as very promising cameras that will establish BM. But I am sure it takes more than the camera to come up with a footage like that. I wonder if you could deliver something like that with a A7s and how much more effort it would take.
Here is some further info from the people that shot the two wedding clips: 
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/everything-you-wanted-know-about-working-blackmagic-ursa-mini

a7RII is a much better deal... :-)
You can always use 4:2:2 8-bit going externally in both anyway... ;-)
LOL OK, apart my jokes, I think you're safer with the most interesting hybrid offer from Sony...

It doesn't even record at the highest bitrate if you don't use the proper cards. 

 

Rolling shutter: Improved but not a new system. How much we will find out in a month I guess. 
Overheating: Due to slow cards. What?  I call that bullshit. 
 

Scarlet? What Scarlet?
3K for 3K aside, now converted as 4K4all (the only point is that's a bit late actually...) Scarlet doesn't exist. There is Mini-Epic or, better put, RED. Once Epic Dragon, whatever is, will be converted soon in Weapon. That's the actual truth.
BTW, RED One was a prototype. Sold to thousands of developers or beta testers who rather than to be paid for, paid the R&D. A couple of big names (v.g. Peter Jackson, Steven Soderbergh) as forfait of their own name and reputation, but probono. The deal comprehended to inscribe their lettering in the history of 4K acquisition.
People always forget RED is more than a camera company, they are simply the best dream sellers the industry has ever met. With a little bit but significant difference, they sell real IQ + QC based on supply and demand.
PS: Last but not least, ...with success as usual.
 
 

LOL On target. The point in behalf of 4K adoption. Anyway. Bitrate is much important than apparently seems. Especially if your target is a bigger screen. And for certain 8-bit hassles for sure. No one here is in love with low bit depth. It is much more to try to survive with.
There's something some of you tend to neglect. High-end is done with well-fed crews, lots of resources, etc. Which means to make poorer the scope of your communication because your audience becomes wider and you'll need to reach a much larger group of people to pay the bill of your investors. Most part of these viewers with no much more than basic visual literacy. I will only give you an example though. Who from here knows José Padilha, the guy who made the last Robocop and the most recent Netflix series Narcos*? Have you ever seen his Bus 174 masterpiece? (the guy weren't born inside the mainstream)
- E :-)
 
* as producer, the first two episodes as director

For some reason, Ursa Mini is 3x the weight of the other... (and so on)

Reason why the external 4:2:2 recording route is the best option available to avoid 8-bit banding. No matter the allergy of a bunch towards low bit depth. This will never happen without new hardware which depends on other variables. Go figure, when the new 4K in-camera from Sony overheats... Packaged in their mirrorless full frame form factor, versus the much smaller BMPCC's sensor size. Apart the fact, Samsung is the only one to enable H.265 acquisition for the simple reason they have no high-end to protect. That is, if we want a solution for real, get that one your hands can reach. If we want a realistic approach, of course, other than wishful thinking on forums.

Of course, variables count. We can't live without them. The same way there'll always be higher bitrate if we change from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2, obviously. On that test, can the difference between codecs, bitrate, etc bring the "whole" difference there? As sunyata wrote three times, maybe. No trouble to second it. Why shouldn't we? What do we have here? Two different teams pretending to themselves their shirt is prettier than the other side? Your loved doll (higher bit depth) is not less mine. Who can say differently? Who would go from Alexa to 8-bit? C'mon.
My beef is with the misconception only 10-bit is the miracle to save your footage from 8-bit banding. This is inaccurate. Countless examples going to the big screen since film has been replaced there (no one is saying it beats film or you said someone said). Dogma falling down? Is that the problem? Something different to believe? And that test fits the case. Beyond 4:2:2 vs 10-bit (a less careful reading has brought your light approach and carefree misinterpretation on the topic of the discussion), with higher bitrate, yeah, better codec and so on. Beware, the devil is in the details.
In behalf of the topic here, ML hack proves these capture devices can top other than the crippled 4:2:0 offer. For some reason, they don't implement it in their more affordable line. OP and article's point. Very accurate BTW.

I am glad Olympus keeps improving video. If the next upgrade improves the resolution then it would be a very nice package for handheld shots. Sony cannot match the "god-mode" ibis that Olympus provides.

Since I'm a hybrid shooter, this is very interesting to me. The EM5ii, is starting to look like a viable option for me now. I just wish they could add at least some time limited 4K, maybe like Panasonic did with LX100. Obviously this would be very useful for filming in certain scenarios, but also a 4K photo mode would be very welcome.

Of course, variables count. We can't live without them. The same way there'll always be higher bitrate if we change from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2, obviously. On that test, can the difference between codecs, bitrate, etc bring the "whole" difference there? As sunyata wrote three times, maybe. No trouble to second it. Why shouldn't we? What do we have here? Two different teams pretending to themselves their shirt is prettier than the other side? Your loved doll (higher bit depth) is not less mine. Who can say differently? Who would go from Alexa to 8-bit? C'mon.
My beef is with the misconception only 10-bit is the miracle to save your footage from 8-bit banding. This is inaccurate. Countless examples going to the big screen since film has been replaced there (no one is saying it beats film or you said someone said). Dogma falling down? Is that the problem? Something different to believe? And that test fits the case. Beyond 4:2:2 vs 10-bit (a less careful reading has brought your light approach and carefree misinterpretation on the topic of the discussion), with higher bitrate, yeah, better codec and so on. Beware, the devil is in the details.
In behalf of the topic here, ML hack proves these capture devices can top other than the crippled 4:2:0 offer. For some reason, they don't implement it in their more affordable line. OP and article's point. Very accurate BTW.

Who said 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit? The difference between 8-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0, it is more significant for your grading. Much different statement. Of course, for certain type of grading. No mention of raw or alike where even 10-bit is short by default. People too much focused on the 10-bit holy grail tend to forget ; ) But, banding was the topic (hence my "the-real-difference" of my post; numbers help but like machines need i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n :-D) :
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106562
Speaking of math, let's see with a very simple case: 1) 100,000; 2) 1,000,000; 3) 10,000,000. Where's the bigger difference? Now, take these figures as bucks and your single expense as any number between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Which step will make the whole difference?
Here goes your single example on pictures, posted and reposted more than once:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9355-canon-announces-development-of-8k-cinema-eos-camera-and-120mp-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=105935

So, we have here a very demanding viewer... LOL : )
You are right. This or that camera can give you less than what you're looking for.
But.
There's no 'pictures' without post. This doesn't exist. And if exists, you can't complain. Much effort on post is mandatory. And that is the territory where you can provide the deterritorialization for reterritorialization* of your material, as you wish (e.g. that Japanese sample/video). For a simple reason, flat is higher because comprehends the wider. Hence the fashionable logs nowadays. Straight out of the box means nothing. What are we expecting for? Godard said motion picture is the truth 24 frames a second. He was right but only in a half. The other half is that actually is a big lie whatever frames you decide to tell.
How can't they give you what you're looking for? Trust me, you're just looking for a decent capture device and post. It is useless to say I like this or that camera in a way or another. The best you can say to yourself is if that camera is decent for your purpose/proposal or not. Believe me that you'll find a lot of decent cameras in the track. The trouble is when we blame technology when this one is already available. It only requires much work to find out the best balance and know-how from all of it. No teal + orange stamp (others would call it look of their own which makes them happy with) will affect the countless options on your choices of and for your set(up).
BTW, Ed is very good & versatile.
E :-)
 
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reterritorialization

Have you followed the basic example I posted up there? (I mean, the A-B-C case). That's the whole point.
In any case, I bet the new BMD cameras will stop the usual whining on 10-bit like a savior mantra.
HDCAM was 8-bit 3:1:1 and all that began the replacement of film for digital. Anything higher is better, yes, but the difference can be pointless or of lower importance when you're able to rid off banding when necessary. No need for an Uzi to hunting birds.
PS: IIRC, it was ProRes and not uncompressed. The comparison is still worthy.

PS: In any case, if you want to "blame" the codec or bitrate for the bigger difference, be my guest. I don't see where this doesn't match the discussion. Your 10-bit request is far away to be mandatory to kill banding. You just need the right balance of some variables. If you read what I'm used to post in these boards, that fits perfectly the equation. Let's not stuck up in our own likings and pay attention to facts with an open mind instead. 10-bit is just a number as any other.

You said it is "not as conclusive as I would like to" based on apparent conclusive stuff. Actually, it is not (as my previous post allegations can detail).
At least, we can agree on the sum up, very well. But please don't tell me I don't much like sunyata's test. Even though, his failed introduction as me and other two posters were able to point out. When finally served for something worthy (you call it better, I would say complementary entry), it is welcome and taken as valid. Except it doesn't touch the other one nor the points observed. The only remark in your behalf is exactly the complementary nature of those other variables beyond the basics 8-bit vs 10-bit dichotomy. And when I see people to still pop up to underestimate 8-bit, I just see the need to reiterate it.
And your point now is? :-)

Mate, so you decide to be my tutor and correct my nonstandard English? LOL C'mon, give a break to your own sanity for your own sake. Yes, it happens people to have some other mother tongue. Your point is? I guess I've just started to repeat myself. We had crossed each other in some other thread earlier today, isn't it? Let me see, the discussion let you move it to here?! ;-) For the sake of your spontaneous invectives, who wrote "the single credible authority on cinematography"?? You : P And don't be disrespectful with EOSHD or you are with every single member used to post here. Go figure if someone would dare to subjectively criticize your own. Ad hominem atacks are a very dirty sport to begin with. They tell a lot about the quality of the man behind an alias. My name and background is in my signature. Yours? Who is the man I have now the commission to chat with? Be a gentleman to this community and reach me on my PM box. You can try to send your message in my native language in order to clear up the things a little bit to me... haha