Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

MX Vs 5D

David Ellison said:
Is the MX sensor less noisy and more sensitive in low light levels than the 5d Now?
Click to expand...

One factor to keep in mind is the DOF. If you have to keep a certain DOF, then larger sensors lose their low light advantage. In other words, you have to shoot f/4.5 on FF35 in order to get the same DOF as f/2.8 on MX.

Another issue to consider is dynamic range. On the 5D2, the only way to decrease noise is to decrease dynamic range. It's one stop for every ISO setting, so at ISO 3200 you've lost *5* stops of highlight headroom. On MX, you don't lose any dynamic range.
 
Daniel Browning said:
One factor to keep in mind is the DOF. If you have to keep a certain DOF, then larger sensors lose their low light advantage. In other words, you have to shoot f/4.5 on FF35 in order to get the same DOF as f/2.8 on MX.
Click to expand...

This isn't just academic. It's incredibly hard to pull focus on the 5D, so stopping down is mandatory. Hell, it's hard to pull focus on S35. T2.8 is the highest I'll go unless I really, *really* need the low-light capabilities. Sitting at T4 is pretty nice.

We'll put up with out-of-focus footage on something like Reverie, but in the real world, it's not acceptable. And with immediate "digital dailies", it's trivial to determine if the AC did their job. There's just no excuse for out-of-focus footage any more.
 
Mx: Less noise than 5D at same ISO
Noise looks nicer, almost like film grain
Noise is very easy to clean up, since it is regular and image is so high res
Much higher resolution image, with much, much more dynamic range, and much more well-defined colors.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615599&postcount=153

A 1D Mk III, not a 5D2, but RAW stills v REDCODE RAW R3D.

Graeme
Click to expand...

but, I see more details in the blacks of the 1D MK III image.. which was brought from the noise floor..
the inside shadows of the MX sensor has no details.. I think the noise in 1D MKIII image is a matter of raw processing than a sensor resoponse..
and really the two images are different in size which can make you confused about the details handling of each sensor..
I see this comparison as apples and oranges.. the benefit you get from MX is that you can shoot motion RAW.. that's another domain for sensors..
 
No, the benefit you get from MX is that you are shooting a smooth, truly high resolution image, not some line-skipped, aliased piece of crap.
 
After getting my MX RED back this week, I don't see how in any situation the RED won't win simply because of the record format. I shot some footage that was only lit by some candles and an iPod touch and then converted it over to prores. It looked absolutely fantastic in the ProRes. However, when I tried to convert the footage to H264 to share with some people, the low light gradients on the wall turned to total crap. This was compressor doing a full bit rate H264, so not a heavy heavy compression and it still couldn't keep up.

Wondering how a camera that records in H264 can deal with that info.

Matthew
 
Rob Ruffo said:
No, the benefit you get from MX is that you are shooting a smooth, truly high resolution image, not some line-skipped, aliased piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Correction: ...not some line-skipped, aliased 'relative' piece of crap.

Not too long ago I shot a teaser for a feature using a MXed Red for A-cam and a 5D for B-Cam. I used the 5D only for closeups, letting the soft background hide the relative lack of detail and DR. It just barely worked and we were able to use some of the 5D footage intercut with the RedMX. For the few times both cameras were shooting CUs the footage was not able to intercut do to the significantly superior color fidelity and detail in the RedMX footage.

An important aspect of this work was that for certain situations 5D & RedMX can play together acceptably. Both cameras can shoot crap. Both cameras can shoot beauty...you just have a lot fewer options and have to work harder with the 5D, vs RedMX in that quest.
 
Paul Nordin said:
Correction: ...not some line-skipped, aliased 'relative' piece of crap.

Not too long ago I shot a teaser for a feature using a MXed Red for A-cam and a 5D for B-Cam. I used the 5D only for closeups, letting the soft background hide the relative lack of detail and DR. It just barely worked and we were able to use some of the 5D footage intercut with the RedMX. For the few times both cameras were shooting CUs the footage was not able to intercut do to the significantly superior color fidelity and detail in the RedMX footage.

An important aspect of this work was that for certain situations 5D & RedMX can play together acceptably. Both cameras can shoot crap. Both cameras can shoot beauty...you just have a lot fewer options and have to work harder with the 5D, vs RedMX in that quest.
Click to expand...

the limit depends on your output..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top