URSA Cine 17K on major features: viability?

[NASA1988]

Hi Roger,

I’m not a DP — just someone who studies cinematography choices and cinema history, and I’m trying to understand how camera decisions get made at the highest production level.

I’m curious about practical viability, not brand debates: do you think a camera like the Blackmagic URSA Cine 17K is realistically usable as an A-camera on a large-scale feature — the sort of big-location, heavy logistics production people casually shorthand as a “Lawrence of Arabia”-type show — or is it still a less common choice right now?

If it’s less common today, I’d really appreciate your perspective on what the main limiting factors tend to be, and which ones matter most in real-world production:
1. Reliability & support

• How much does service infrastructure / rapid replacement influence these decisions, especially on remote shoots?

2. Monitoring / LUT / dailies consistency

• Is the challenge more about keeping a stable, predictable look chain (camera → monitors/VF → dailies → DI), especially across a big crew?

3. Post + VFX integration / predictability

• On large productions, how much does the decision come down to pipeline standardization and what editorial/VFX/DI are already optimized for?

4. Data rates / media / on-set workflow

• Do capture formats, offload/backup time, and data wrangling become a meaningful constraint at scale?

5. Lens & accessory ecosystem

• How important is the surrounding ecosystem (ND approach, power, mounting, transmit, accessories) in making a camera “production-safe” for a big show?

6. Image characteristics

• Assuming the workflow is handled well, do you think image/texture is usually not the deciding factor compared to the practical items above?

If you had to rank the top 2–3 reasons a camera like that is less common on major features, what would they be?

Thanks — I’m mainly trying to learn how you evaluate viability beyond specs.

Topic