4K NAB WAR - SUMMARY

[Will Keir]

It's funny how fast RED moves, wiki cannot keep up to date. That wiki is great to look at the past, for the present I'll stick to REDUSER for my quandaries.

[Liana]

$4,300 - Panasonic AF100: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$5,000 – Sony FS100: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$10,000 – Sony FS700: 12-bit 4K RAW
$13,000 – Sony F3: 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p
$13,200 – RED Scarlet: 16-bit 4K RAW
$15,000 – Canon 1DC: 8-bit 4:2:2 4K MJPEG
$16,000 – Canon C300: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$25,000 – RED One MX: 12-bit 4.5K RAW
$30,000 – Canon C500: 10-bit 4K RAW
$38,000 – RED Epic-X: 16-bit 5K RAW
$60,000 – Arri Alexa – 12-bit 3K RAW
$65,000 – Sony F65 – 16-bit 4K RAW

Most of these non-Red cameras are DoA / abortions when you consider what Red is offering. The lower end cost-sensitive 1080p segment is already dominated by existing DSLRs. Why would they spend $10k+ to buy another 1080p product for -at best- an incremental increase in quality. They might as well get the Scarlet for a proper leap in quality and abilities.

When Red decided to move Scarlet to a higher price point (with corresponding higher capabilities), I was disappointed. There was something very seductive about 3k for 3K, or 3K for 7.5K even. But now that we can see how the market is evolving (1080p getting eviscerated by cheap DSLRs), I must acknowledge that Red took an unpopular but correct decision.

Sony FS700 is the only camera on this list which might make its mark in the market, provided it lives up to the promised specs. Some people are just allergic to anything with Red logo, so for them it might suffice as a diluted alternative to Scarlet. The rest, though, are just so much fluff.

[Yusuf Thakur]

When I posted this the intention was to show the misuse of the word 4K, to me a a 4K camera means,
1, It records minimum at 4K
2,Records RAW inside the camera
Costs, and other factors are there for people to make a choice on what you want, or like.
Maybe you like form factor,or german,japanese manufcturing, maybe the look and feel.
But definitely not the size of the sensor just because it is more than 4K and badge it
pretending that it is a 4K camera but cannot record 4K.

Yusuf Thakur
VFX, Dubai.
www.vfxme.com

[Chuck Z]

- Crappy Blacks
- Crappy Sheering
- Crappy color rendition

and then there was Canon's 4k display. :D

Is SED risen from the grave?

Tech specs haven't been released AFAIK, but I hope against hope.

[Hrvoje Simic]

From a RAW point of view what is true according to RED is that REDCODE RAW from Epic and Scarlet offers 4 more bits of precision than REDCODE RAW from a Red ONE. Gunliek is the only person I have seen talking about this in particular with his regular assertion that Epic and Scarlet have a much thicker neg than Red One MX.

It is not only "thicker". It is "finer" as well.
Speaking about Epic, not sure about Scarlet.

It behaves more organically during grading and more precise steps are available with less loss of precision. Apart from extremes, this is less technically quantifiable and more of a subjective perception thing from a colorist point of view, which for the most can be inside a realm of nitpicking.

However, this does not negate the potential of cameras or workflows with lower bit depth.

I'd also say that we are yet to see the full potential of 16 bits pouring out of Red cameras.

I'd wager you have to dig pretty deep to visually see the difference between say 16bit linear and 10bit log from a visual point of view, especially given the bit depth limitations of current display devices, and you'd be digging into a purely maths arena to do comparisons of say 16bit linear RGB outputs from two cameras, unless you were doing developmental work on a compositing app where that levl of precision may help more complicated transforms hold up (the idea when compositing being numbers with larger precision plugged in to big complicated equations means more accurate results out the other end).

Visual perception of the unaltered material depends not only on display properties but also on viewer's visual sensibility, as well as visual experience built on that sensibility. The main advantage of 16 bit sampling, apart from more precise starting point, is usability for colorists and VFX artists.

Heavy VFX and grading excluded, for the most part perceivable difference in the material is not within technically quantifiable range, it reaches into a subliminal aesthetical realm. UHD and 16 bits territory is where counting line pairs and shades gets replaced by impressions, more natural interpretation of the world around us. Something which can be tricky to present to more technically oriented mindsets (left brain thinking), yet rarely requires elaborate explanations to more aesthetically oriented ones (right brain thinking).

Bit depth at recording in RAW is a measure of precision. How good the color science in the RED SDK is at using that precision to derive RGB images of whatever bit depth is ultimately all that matters when you are comparing to most other comparable codecs and camera recording bit depths I think.

Depends on individual priorities and workflow requirements.


Color sampling potential from a multiple-segment colorist perspective in 2012:

8 bit is gravel. 12 bit is sand. 16 bit is fluid.


As everything, each has advantages and drawbacks.

[Craig Parkes]

It is not only "thicker". It is "finer" as well.
Speaking about Epic, not sure about Scarlet.
...
Color sampling potential from a multiple-segment colorist perspective in 2012:

8 bit is gravel. 12 bit is sand. 16 bit is fluid.

As everything, each has advantages and drawbacks.

This is a very good analogy, although probably a litte broad if you aren't working heavily in color correction or VFX. But it's certainly true that higher bit depth allows for finer changes, rather than just giving greater accuracy to more extreme changes, and this allows colorists to work more organically. When you can see the number of steps in an image, like with 8bit color depth, color work is often more technical, you can get it in the ballpark, but there is no nuance to go further. When you have 16bits of depth you really can feel the subtlest changes more than see them, because yes, the differing gradations are individually impercibtle steps, but add up to a different look across the whole picture.

[L. Langer]

Is SED risen from the grave?

Tech specs haven't been released AFAIK, but I hope against hope.

We won't know until next year's NAB, most likely. I cannot see it being SED given that Canon shut down their SED development subsidiary a while back but it may be OLED or something else that's newfangled.

[Marc Wielage]

Most of these non-Red cameras are DoA / abortions when you consider what Red is offering. The lower end cost-sensitive 1080p segment is already dominated by existing DSLRs. Why would they spend $10k+ to buy another 1080p product for -at best- an incremental increase in quality. They might as well get the Scarlet for a proper leap in quality and abilities.

You'd be surprised. I'm not impressed with the Canon offerings, either, but Alexa has made a huge dent in TV production. And I think the F65 will find a lot of takers in high end Hollywood-style production.

To me, having lots of choices for filmmakers is a positive step, not a drawback. Bear in mind that many, many producers and productions don't buy cameras at all -- they just rent them for the duration of the project. Camera rental prices are not as vastly different as you might think, especially in NY, LA, Vancouver, London, Sydney, and other parts of the world. To me, lights, lenses, and support gear are the killers, and those don't change, regardless of what camera you use.

There are also applications where 1080p is perfectly fine: web videos, broadcast commercials, industrial shoots, music videos, and so on. 4K might even be overkill, especially for a small facility working on (say) a modest-budget direct-to-video project. I honestly believe that exposure is a bigger battle than resolution per se -- speaking as a digital colorist who worked a couple of decades for Technicolor here in LA. For TV series and features, my preference would be for 4K, but ultimately, it's the decision of the cinematographer and the people paying the bills. We can make beautiful pictures with damn near anything these days.

[Wayne Morellini]

Till now this is the best summary of NAB 2012
4k camera availability, and is courtesy of nofilmschool.

$4,300 - Panasonic AF100: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$5,000 – Sony FS100: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$10,000 – Sony FS700: 12-bit 4K RAW
$13,000 – Sony F3: 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p
$13,200 – RED Scarlet: 16-bit 4K RAW
$15,000 – Canon 1DC: 8-bit 4:2:2 4K MJPEG
$16,000 – Canon C300: 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p
$25,000 – RED One MX: 12-bit 4.5K RAW
$30,000 – Canon C500: 10-bit 4K RAW
$38,000 – RED Epic-X: 16-bit 5K RAW
$60,000 – Arri Alexa – 12-bit 3K RAW
$65,000 – Sony F65 – 16-bit 4K RAW

For all of the RAW cameras (except RED), you’re going to have to
add $5,000-$10,000 (or more) for RAW recording ability.

Please add/comment and put this in perspective for all who
were at NAB or followed it via the Net.

Yusuf Thakur
VFX,Dubai.
www.vfxme.com

Actually, not the only summary, I had two threads summarizing 4k cameras, one got closed once we started on the nab cameras, the other got canned (even though I was saying how good scarlet was compared to the rest of them, am I supposed to do that in a JVC, panasonic or BMD only forum instead?), and the back magic design hitler one got canned as well. So Jeff and Red should be really nice and even handed and can this one aswell for mentioning other Caneras :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

BTW, you forgot the raw $3k Black Magic Design Digital Cinema Camera in your list, really hot compared to all the sub $10k cameras (cough, fs700) but not compared to a Scarlet X. Don't be fooled also, it is rather big from the dimensions they give. They are on a big thing, a film school learner package to learn system respect, before they allow them to touch a Scarlet package.

[Wayne Morellini]

- Crappy Blacks
- Crappy Sheering
- Crappy color rendition

and then there was Canon's 4k display. :D

Hey, what are you saying about the redray laser, Gavin? :-)