rodney charters mx and alexa

[Häakon]

oh come on ..not again! this 4k and future stories..

"Not again?" I think it's a completely valid point. It should always be a factor in discussion. What do you have against capturing your material in the highest resolution possible, right here, right now?

I'm not saying that resolution trumps everything else - not at all. But my post was in reply to Mike's post that 1080 is good enough for TV now so the added resolution isn't really a consideration. I think that's flawed logic.

 

[Steve G]

The biggest joke I heard from R.C blog at Vimeo page when he was talking something about:

"this is the first camera in my experience to come close to matching films dynamic range".

Given that Rodney Charters has shot rather a lot more film than most of us, his opinion is certainly not a joke.

Arri wants now to sell a certain "knowledge" about DI experience with Alexa but they were not there from early beginning,

actually they came last there to catch up with the latest digital revolution.

Arri released their first dmc, Arri D20, in november 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriflex_D-20,
red 1 was released in 2007. So how was Arri the last ?

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

The real problem with the Alexa is the veiwfinder- it is impossible to pull focus with- practically unusable....

Could you please tell us something about this issue you've encountered while testing Alexa? Thanks!

"Not again?" I think it's a completely valid point. It should always be a factor in discussion. What do you have against capturing your material in the highest resolution possible, right here, right now?

Häakon, then why not shoot 65mm for everything?

 

[Sid Idris]

The HD-SDI output from RED ONE is only a very "quick & dirty" debayer and more importantly an INTERPRETATION of the RAW data based on Your monitoring setting. It does not represent the entire RAW data range - which is impossible with the current monitoring technologies. We use the LCD/EVF mostly for composing the shot only. I always check my RAW meters and false colors to check my exposure. Trying to "judge" camera's DR based on "video-tap" and making such a statement is in my opinion unprofessional (and misleading)...

Does the Alexa have a better DR then the M-X sensor? Maybe. But this is not the way to find out.
Only proper chart/exposure tests in a controlled environment would reveal the actual DR of any sensor...

Just my two cents,

Peter

hear hear...

this test is akin to testing 35 film cams based on the video tap attached....RC clearly is seeking out a WYSIWYG type technology which RED is not.

 

[Brian Petrie]

Häakon, then why not shoot 65mm for everything?

The cost of shooting 65mm is not quite the same as 4k/5k. People can realistically shoot everything in 4k+ on Red(currently), while 65mm film isn't cost efficient..

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

The cost of shooting 65mm is not quite the same as 4k/5k. People can realistically shoot everything in 4k+ on Red(currently), while 65mm film isn't cost efficient..

he's not talking about cost..Size!

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

The cost of shooting 65mm is not quite the same as 4k/5k. People can realistically shoot everything in 4k+ on Red(currently), while 65mm film isn't cost efficient..

Brian, my question was somehow provocative, and I agree with you, 65mm is indeed too expensive for most people, but if we keep thinking about what resolution the screens will have 10, 20 or 30 years from now (5k, 10k, 20k?), then even 4k+ sounds like a compromise, don't you think?
My point being, there are many many important things to take in consideration when choosing a camera, and resolution is just one of those: for some it's the most important thing, for others it's not.


edit: Kemalettin Sert, exactly ;-)

 

[M Most]

"Not again?" I think it's a completely valid point. It should always be a factor in discussion. What do you have against capturing your material in the highest resolution possible, right here, right now?

I'm not saying that resolution trumps everything else - not at all. But my post was in reply to Mike's post that 1080 is good enough for TV now so the added resolution isn't really a consideration. I think that's flawed logic.

It's also not what I said.

I said that monitoring on a 1080p monitor was completely appropriate if you're shooting a television series. What would be the point of looking at 4K projection if your primary and only deliverable is HD video? Whether or not I feel that 1080 production is sufficient for television was not a part of the question or my answer to it.

 

[chrislancaster]

he's not talking about cost..Size!

Wrong! He asked why they dont shoot in 65 mm and a perfectly good answer for that would be IT IS NOT COST EFFICIENT.

have you ever considered the weight and size of the rig. It makes filming with one totally unacceptable except for the rare occasion.

That is a big reason why better resolution was not pushed but now with digital it is possible and will be. Same thing with 3d I imagine it is now much much easier for a 3d film to be shot with digital.


I also have to question your motivation here as every one of your post has a negative slant towards RED.

 

[Häakon]

It's also not what I said.

I said that monitoring on a 1080p monitor was completely appropriate if you're shooting a television series. What would be the point of looking at 4K projection if your primary and only deliverable is HD video? Whether or not I feel that 1080 production is sufficient for television was not a part of the question or my answer to it.

I apologize, I didn't see that it was referring to the monitoring path. In that case, I agree with you. :smilielol5:

 

[Jose Lomeña]

I can't believe this. It's sound to me like a war.

The only thing that i cannot understand is why not a direct reply from red to this war?

Side by side from red an arri?. Who is scared?.

Red don't want agresive marketing?... Or Alexa is superior to MX?. I think red must defend to this atack in representation of red customers.

In my opinion this is so bad publicy to redone, and it can affect a lot of rentals.
Red must post the next vimeo atack.

Arri vs Red. I know that Red is the winner, but i don't have an alexa for making the test that prove it.

Saludos,

Jose.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

But Michael, are the Alexa's pixels three times bigger so they can take three times the light?

No. One pixel three times as big collects exactly (all other things being equal) as much light as three smaller pixels. However, three smaller pixels have three times as much resolution as the large pixel. :ihih:

 

[Álex Montoya]

What I meant is that three stops of difference is a humongous performance difference that can't be explained by slightly bigger photosites

 

[Brian Petrie]

he's not talking about cost..Size!

I understand... I was just saying that shooting 65mmm wasn't efficient cost wise, therefore, it wasn't used often. Whereas, shooting higher resolutions digitally is a viable cost efficient option.

 

[Mark Pugh]

Has anyone pointed this out?... Take a look at how much extra detail is visible in the more darkly-displayed lookaround area of the Red MX.

 

[Stuart English]

HD-SDI output

HD-SDI output

Has anyone pointed this out?... Take a look at how much extra detail is visible in the more darkly-displayed lookaround area of the Red MX.

Yes that is very interesting comment, it suggests the HD-SDI output difference is a LUT setting...

( software setting for whoever asked that question i.e. user-adjustable LOOK parameters )

 

[Mark Pugh]

Looks like at least 3 stops to me... ?

 

[ChrisLyon]

he's not talking about cost..Size!

Cost is an certainly a factor. The question is: If you can shoot RED and Alexa at the same price, why chose less resolution? As Hakkon said, it's not the only consideration, but if you're comparing apples to apples, it certainly is a major factor. 65mm isn't comparable to 35mm in a parallel discussion because, cost aside, the cameras and related equipment for 65 are much larger and heavier making them less desirable for feature or television work. There's a physical element that factors in along side cost.

What you have in Alexa vs. Red is one where, if all the specs were exactly the same, the choice easily would be Red on resolution and cost alone. Future proofing is important, modularity is important which is something I feel like we've failed to mention on this thread. Red DSMC, modularity, and cost changes that are fast approaching. Odds are that Alexa will remain in the professional market only, so there are market demographics to look at as well.

At this point in the game, Arri is stepping up to the plate with a product that- as far as we can tell- is a real challenger and may take up the 4k+ mantle in the future. As it's been said, competition is always good and always welcome in my book. It's my opinion that Red is ahead right now, but it could be that is because it's such a small, focused company with a mentality that it still has something to prove, and to build upon rapidly. Both companies are poised to drastically change the market this year- and if it were to go the way I hope it will, this will all be for the better for everyone.

 

[Michael Totten]

No. One pixel three times as big collects exactly (all other things being equal) as much light as three smaller pixels. However, three smaller pixels have three times as much resolution as the large pixel. :ihih:

Pawel are you sure about this?

My technical knowledge doesn't go so deep as sensor design... but I'm pretty sure I have always read that there is a direct correlation between the size of the pixel/photosite, the amount of light the sensor is able to 'see' and then process cleanly (which relates back to dynamic range as well).

I guess the less noisy the shadows the more acceptable that particular part of the range / image; hence = more DR ?

Am I wrong in thinking this? If so, someone set me straight.

 

[Chris Parker]

wow. lots of people willing to discredit lots of other people's opinions very quickly and skip straight to mud slinging and wild accusations. seems odd. but i guess that's life.