[Karol]

I don’t think the question is really whether the Ursa 17K is usable, technically, it absolutely is (like most cameras in the past decade). At this point, almost any modern cinema camera is capable of producing images good enough for a large-scale feature.

The real question is whether it’s tried, tested, and trusted at that level in the same way something like the Alexa is. Large productions tend to be extremely risk averse. Time is money, and anything that introduces uncertainty even if the potential upside is real is usually avoided.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the Ursa is unreliable. Anecdotally, Blackmagic cameras are generally fine, just as Alexas and (perhaps more often) REDs do fail from time to time as well. But perception, service infrastructure, and institutional confidence matter enormously. On a big, remote, logistically heavy shoot, productions want to know that if something goes wrong, there’s immediate support, rapid replacement, and a workflow everyone already understands.

So even if a newer camera could theoretically outperform an Alexa in certain areas, large productions usually won’t take that risk unless there’s a compelling reason or unless the camera has already proven itself across multiple similar productions.

In short: it’s less about image quality or specs, and much more about reliability, predictability, and the comfort level of the entire production pipeline.

Somewhere between 'The North' and Eastern Europe

[Author]

Replies