Emanuel

that's nuts - it has no audio in or out.  man curious if these guys have used a c300 or fs7 before?  Mid range productions usually like to record audio into them. Lord help us all.

RED Raven or URSA Mini 4.6K? Which to go for if their body price is the same & you could pick either? (which they're not! URSA Mini is clearly going to be many thousands cheaper to own)
Clearly the URSA Mini comes out the winner here, as I don't think the Raven is better specced. 
URSA Mini is:
a) has 4K ProRes (Raven doesn't)
b) has XLR inputs 
c) better ergonomics
d) global shutter option
e) sensor size which is a better match for the Canon EF mount (URSA Mini is a little larger than APS-C vs GH2 sized for the Raven)
f) as well as PL/B4 (and more??) mount options available instead
g) cheaper media (and rapidly getting cheaper!! You won't see the same rate of price drops happen with RED's media)
h) I half suspect URSA Mini will have the edge over Raven in low light (though not by a huge amount,. a stop or less). I suspect dynamic range to be close too, given how RED overstates theirs. Will have to wait for each to ship however before this can be really clear which way it falls.
i) way cheaper EVF (and better too I reckon)
j) better slow motion (same fps, but Raven's is heavily compressed RedCode at 13:1 while the BMD URSA Mini can do it in uncompressed raw!)
k) better input/output options. 
l) BMD wins with the higher resolution (ironically so.... as that is RED's big obsession, resolution)
m) free copy of the industry standard DaVinci Resolve (which you'll need to purchase if you wish to colour grade Raven's footage with it)
n) and last but not least.... URSA Mini will ship earlier!! (yes, even with BMD's record of always being late)
Of course the usual caveats apply with this analysis: nobody has either of these in their hands yet, so specs analysis vs real world use might be far apart!

thanks Ebrahim - well said.  That is a place of frustration especially for filmmakers who exist to be critical of the current state of affairs.  Filmmakers should not be sheep.

I suppose that 8th grade episode might also show the Edvolution some kids are made of ; ) I also anticipate if you all had the chance to personally meet, you'd find more similarities full of proficuous diversity than somewhat substantial differences between you at both sides. You, a lesson for a lot of readers if they could accurately read you...
In any case, I also believe you fairly guess I appreciate the way you really are an authentic breeze inside a virtual container and never hostage of somehow politically correct at any rate. God be with you!
PS: That thread is a classic today, Ed... I've just had a good laugh each new reading on the characters' dialogue present there. You truly created a legit narrative essay throughout a simple thread: it is now a masterpiece of the web.
Emanuel :-)
PPS: Ed's other (genuinely ;)) disruptive sin : P http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?133547-Reduser-Viewing-Count-has-Been-Off-Since-Beginning&p=1522588#post1522588

I suppose that 8th grade episode might also show the Edvolution some kids are made of ; ) I also anticipate if you all had the chance to personally meet, you'd find more similarities full of proficuous diversity than somewhat substantial differences between you at both sides. You, a lesson for a lot of readers if they could accurately read you...
In any case, I also believe you fairly guess I appreciate the way you really are an authentic breeze inside a virtual container and never hostage of somehow politically correct at any rate. God be with you!
PS: That thread is a classic today, Ed... I've just had a good laugh each new reading on the characters' dialogue present there. You truly created a legit narrative essay throughout a simple thread: it is now a masterpiece of the web.
Emanuel :-)
PPS: Ed's other (genuinely ;)) disruptive sin : P http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?133547-Reduser-Viewing-Count-has-Been-Off-Since-Beginning&p=1522588#post1522588

This a modest homage to Ed... RED Weapon is already included! : D

Time for your Raven footage... Spill the beans! ;-) That is, RED Weapon Raven MX footage... : P
Who doesn't miss your incarnate posts , Ed?
PS: To those who don't know the story:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?133440-Red-One-Short-Film-Falling-Pieces-A-Short-Film-by-Anh-Vu-about-Alzheimers

This a modest homage to Ed... RED Weapon is already included! : D

This is the biggest joke I have ever seen in my all life. 
The price of the accessories... This is an insult. 
Anywone buying those accessories at this price is twice less smart as an earthworm.
 

This is the biggest joke I have ever seen in my all life.

Output A7R M2 is 8 bit 422. Better bit rate, less compression help. That test posted by Emanuel is correct.
We will test with a GH4 of a friend of us. I can inform you later.

It is clear internal 4:2:0 is much compressed. 4:2:2, higher bitrate. You miss the point of Emanuel. He didn't say 4:2:0 is the reason for banding. He said you don't need 10 bit to avoid banding. Higher bitrate 4:2:2 is okay. I've done tests with the Shogun. Same results of that test.

I also find them useful. We just bought a Shogun for our A7 M2. That test made our purchase. No buyer's remorse.

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...

The Man of the Renaissance is not wrong when says it depends on the priorities, of course. But, tell me where the announced a7SII goes where the a7RII is unable to offer? (that is, apart the 8K stills / 5fps burst as bonus for mere 200 bucks of difference for the 42MP higher density)
Full pixel readout in FF? But you have speedbooster option, if so. The same applies on the lowlight department. Noisy higher ISOs mean too little, as the last footage released from the new prototype of Canon easily proves it. Aside the fact the difference is nickel-and-dime. Much because of a newer BSI sensor tech.
399 hybrid phase detection AF points is a way more efficient than only 169 contrast (slower too) detection AF points.
Even overheating, once it is not coming from sensor but processing, it can happen a negligible difference if any, with the a7SII, because of downsampling has more impact on the a7RII, but I doubt of importance.
Even rolling shutter won't be much better, considering what we've seen from the older sisters. Actually, the apparent advantage for lowlight performance you gain going FF on a7SII, without mention the speedbooster option available shooting with S35 (on a7RII) but not in FF, you'll end to lose it with rolling shutter.
Last but not least, the native 800 ISO for S-Log2 on a7RII is much more interesting than 1600 on a7SII (S-Log3), with no mention the PITA of 3200 for the old a7S (S-Log2).
And let's not forget the color accuracy issues on such sensor (a7S).

LOL
I'm sorry to disappoint you when I can't neglect the benefit of higher bitrate 4:2:2 even if 8-bit...

LOL Good one, Ebrahim! I am a bit done to see people whining of sky bandings but never tested it with a fancy HDMI recorder to compare the differences... ;-)
 
PS: From a previous discussion on dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?335344-New-PIX-E-recorders-monitors-from-Sound-Devices&p=1986537988&viewfull=1#post1986537988

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

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

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when:
a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect?
b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues?
The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit.
Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-)
No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth.
That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary.
Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth.
A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine.
Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?!
So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera.
I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten.
(your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-)
 
PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when:
a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect?
b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues?
The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit.
Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-)
No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth.
That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary.
Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth.
A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine.
Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?!
So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera.
I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten.
(your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-)
 
PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

The difference can be another one depending on our setup choices, as for instance where 500gr can make a whole difference:
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt-xl
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt
 
On the leftover, this is the philosophy:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67366-Is-it-possible-to-use-Scarlet-EPIC-without-any-Red-LCD-or-EVF
 
Yes, no reason on contrary.
:-)