I recently concluded my first shoot using the RED ONE MX camera, or rather a pair of them because I was doing reshoots for a film in 3D that I originally shot on film in 2D using anamorphic lenses. I consider anamorphic film the "gold standard" for cinema. The film was "The Green Hornet" which is currently in the process of being converted to 3D, at the time of the reshoots the option for shooting film and converting the new scenes was not an option due to the time constraints of conversion, the vendors are working 24 hours a day just to do the work they were contracted for and adding to their plate was not an option. The dilemma for me was how was a going to find a digital camera that had enough resolution to intercut with anamorphic film, I tested every system, The Arri Alexa, 12 bit F35, RED ONE MX and anamorphic film at the same time, based on this test I chose the RED ONE MX because it had incredible resolution, both the Alexa and the F35 didn't hold up well in 2:40. 2 weeks ago I finished timing the DI with Stefan Sonnenfeld at Co3, in addition to 2 new scenes, there were 4 scenes in which the RED ONE data was intercut with existing Anamorphic film, I was amazed at how transparent the match was, Stefan did a great job and actually we added grain to the MX data to match the film. I would venture to guess that the only way anyone will be able to tell the difference between the film and the MX data is not in the image quality but in field of view differences between shooting flat vs scope. As a die hard film user I must say I have been blown away by the image quality of the MX, it doesn't have the same dynamic range in the highlights as film but I believe with EPIC and HDRX it will.