Red epic raw vs Blackmagic 4k raw on post

[jorge krausch]

Anyone know how much weaker the blackmagic 4k would be in grading in post using their raw format? The main thing about the red I love isnt the camera.. its the amazing raw on how much I can manipulate after its shot regardless of iso or f stop... does the blackmagic raw have any similar advantages? Can I shoot without worrying about iso? Color grading ect? (Im speaking of the 4k model)
Or is the epic still worth 8 times its value?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Grading would be the same advantages. But I think a better comparison is with the Scarlet. If you're go into compare it to Epic you need to acknowledge all the other goodies like 5k and Framerates.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Blackmagic 4K would be harder to grade because it does not exist. My experience grading pamphlets has been less than stellar, and generally when choosing between a real camera and an imaginary one, I tend to opt for the real one, as it most often does a better job of capturing shots in the real world.

Blackmagic 4K has no raw compression (I think Red owns the patent for that) and BM 4K has less dynamic range, even on paper, and a color rendition no one has seen. BM camera has no OLPF, so look forward to lots of over-sharpening and aliasing, for that awesome 5D low budget corporate look.

 

[Mike P.]

You make some pretty bold assertions for someone who admitted hasn't used the camera (have you even used the BMCC?) Case in point, the BMPC is actually supposed to have compressed raw. Global Shutter and built-in Prores/DNxHD are huge advantages over 1 extra stop of DR for 99% of jobs, especially when they are being lit properly (and honestly, there have been a lot of tests that put MX closer to 12 stops usable anyway). As for no OLPF -- if its images are anything like the BMCC's it means clearer images more than over-sharpened aliasing... 4k that actually resolves 4k. You want to get rid of aliasing, you can blur it down to match REDs 4k (~3.2k resolved) and they'd probably look fairly similar (moreso when rendered out to 2k/1080p). Plus it's shootable out of the box and doesn't require proprietary media.

Crapping on a camera that isn't out yet (but actually looks amazing on paper and/or based of the company's previous products, much like REDheads do about RED's unreleased hardware) is a bit like saying, 'Dragon is the best sensor ever' without using it. Don't be foolish.

To the OP: At the very least the BMPC is going to force Scarlet prices to ~$4k, so if you're actually considering a purchase and money is tight, the smart thing to do is rent (at least until you know for sure if it meets your needs).

 

[M Most]

Blackmagic 4K would be harder to grade because it does not exist. My experience grading pamphlets has been less than stellar, and generally when choosing between a real camera and an imaginary one, I tend to opt for the real one, as it most often does a better job of capturing shots in the real world.

Blackmagic 4K has no raw compression (I think Red owns the patent for that) and BM 4K has less dynamic range, even on paper, and a color rendition no one has seen. BM camera has no OLPF, so look forward to lots of over-sharpening and aliasing, for that awesome 5D low budget corporate look.

It is certainly true that the BM 4K camera doesn't exist quite yet, and that the original poster's questions are therefore premature since nobody can answer them. But at the same time, your negative comments about it are just as unfounded and premature. You are incorrect about compression (BM has indicated that the RAW files will be compressed, regardless of any patents...). You are probably correct about the low pass filter, as the BM Cinema Camera doesn't have one and yes, that does lead to some moire and aliasing issues on that product. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the 4K camera will have the same problems or not, especially when there are apparently many happy users of the Cinema Camera, regardless of those issues. I would caution against spreading rumors and personal conclusions as fact prior to the release of an actual shipping product.

 

[Björn Benckert]

It is certainly true that the BM 4K camera doesn't exist quite yet, and that the original poster's questions are therefore premature since nobody can answer them. But at the same time, your negative comments about it are just as unfounded and premature. You are incorrect about compression (BM has indicated that the RAW files will be compressed, regardless of any patents...). You are probably correct about the low pass filter, as the BM Cinema Camera doesn't have one and yes, that does lead to some moire and aliasing issues on that product. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the 4K camera will have the same problems or not, especially when there are apparently many happy users of the Cinema Camera, regardless of those issues. I would caution against spreading rumors and personal conclusions as fact prior to the release of an actual shipping product.

Could you name a few professionals that prefer the BMCC camera that was not forced to choose it due to anything than budget restrains. Like real DOP's / not bloggers. The bloggers ofcourse love to hype the BMC as it gives them huge click rates as there are so many that can afford the camera. Same reason why they are not so interested of writing about the F65 feature set. Personally I only seen it on one project that we worked on where they needed a small sensor camera to get large dof. It's Picture did not impress me much though.

 

[M Most]

Could you name a few professionals that prefer the BMCC camera that was not forced to choose it due to anything than budget restrains. Like real DOP's / not bloggers. The bloggers ofcourse love to hype the BMC as it gives them huge click rates as there are so many that can afford the camera. Same reason why they are not so interested of writing about the F65 feature set. Personally I only seen it on one project that we worked on where they needed a small sensor camera to get large dof. It's Picture did not impress me much though.

First, I said "users" without regard to type. Some are likely "professionals" and others are not. That doesn't discount the fact that BM has sold quite a few of these, people are using them, and are happily doing so. Second, I can point to a feature shooting in New Orleans at the moment that is using it for "body cam" shots. It was tested against the Canon 7D and 5D, as well as GoPro for specifically this purpose. It was chosen because despite the moire issues, the image was sharper, cleaner, and had better color fidelity than any of the other options, not to mention considerably better resolution, in a package that is not vastly different than the 5d in terms of size and weight. Any really objectionable moire will be cleaned up, as these shots are "specialty" shots and will not be on screen for any great length of time. In other words, it's not being used as an "A" camera (on this picture, the "A" camera is an Alexa, recording 2K Prores). But it is being used. By a professional cameraman.

 

[Dave Blackham]

First, I said "users" without regard to type. Some are likely "professionals" and others are not. That doesn't discount the fact that BM has sold quite a few of these, people are using them, and are happily doing so. Second, I can point to a feature shooting in New Orleans at the moment that is using it for "body cam" shots. It was tested against the Canon 7D and 5D, as well as GoPro for specifically this purpose. It was chosen because despite the moire issues, the image was sharper, cleaner, and had better color fidelity than any of the other options, not to mention considerably better resolution, in a package that is not vastly different than the 5d in terms of size and weight. Any really objectionable moire will be cleaned up, as these shots are "specialty" shots and will not be on screen for any great length of time. In other words, it's not being used as an "A" camera (on this picture, the "A" camera is an Alexa, recording 2K Prores). But it is being used. By a professional cameraman.

Is the Moire thought to be attributed to the lack of OLPF on the BM camera ?

 

[Peter Moretti]

Could you name a few professionals that prefer the BMCC camera that was not forced to choose it due to anything than budget restrains. Like real DOP's / not bloggers. ...

The same can be asked about "real DOP's" using Red over film.

 

[Brian Merlen]

how can you compare cameras that are so radically different in specs and price? you can compare a red to a go pro, flip cam, iphone, poleroid, all you want...but in the end...they aint a red. you seen the red reel for 2013? you seen how many high end shows/films/whatever shoot red/arri/phantom? unless 5ds. bmcs, or iphones get used on production work that pays well who cares... cuz i ain't aiming for low budget work ya know? will i buy a bmc, probably not...probably would rather buy a flex4k or a dragon...stuff that pays well or rents well

 

[M Most]

Is the Moire thought to be attributed to the lack of OLPF on the BM camera ?

Yes. It is an aliasing artifact.

 

[M Most]

how can you compare cameras that are so radically different in specs and price? you can compare a red to a go pro, flip cam, iphone, poleroid, all you want...but in the end...they aint a red. you seen the red reel for 2013? you seen how many high end shows/films/whatever shoot red/arri/phantom? unless 5ds. bmcs, or iphones get used on production work that pays well who cares... cuz i ain't aiming for low budget work ya know? will i buy a bmc, probably not...probably would rather buy a flex4k or a dragon...stuff that pays well or rents well

Price is irrelevant. Red started that trend way back in 2007. It has accelerated into an ever increasing race to the bottom, but judging a product based solely on price is no longer logical in today's world. You now have a color corrector that's less than 1% of its price less than 4 years ago (Resolve) for not only the same product, but a vastly improved version of it. You have digital cinema projectors that are half what they cost 5 years ago (and better). You have computers that are 10 times more powerful than those of 3 years ago at 1/3 the price. And yes, you have a Red camera (Scarlet) that's less than half the price of the Red One and arguably a better product. The Blackmagic camera products may be good or not, but price is not the way to judge that.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Something of a nit but if one is to get all analytical about it... comparing prices of three years ago with prices today is not comparable to discussing varying prices of products all of which are available today - at today;s prices. Today's GoPro and today's Scarlet are very different prices.. and very different cameras.

 

[Brian Merlen]

i said "specs AND price"

mentioned specs first since the specs of Epic clearly are better then BMC4k.. 2k at 300fps is gorgeous! i dont even need 4k for most of what i do, but i'm moving into rentals out of camera usage now since im booked as a DIT/Editor until 2014

 

[M Most]

Something of a nit but if one is to get all analytical about it... comparing prices of three years ago with prices today is not comparable to discussing varying prices of products all of which are available today - at today;s prices. Today's GoPro and today's Scarlet are very different prices.. and very different cameras.

I wasn't comparing. I was pointing out a trend that has caused just about everything connected with digital imaging, computers, and technology in general to be vastly cheaper, thus relegating the actual price - even when directly compared - to be largely irrelevant. When you can buy all of this stuff at ridiculously affordable prices, price alone is not only not a barrier, it is irrelevant as a criteria for judging quality, because even the better quality devices are relatively cheap.

 

[M Most]

i said "specs AND price"

mentioned specs first since the specs of Epic clearly are better then BMC4k.. 2k at 300fps is gorgeous! i dont even need 4k for most of what i do, but i'm moving into rentals out of camera usage now since im booked as a DIT/Editor until 2014

I would counter that the BM camera is not aimed at those who would buy and/or use an Epic. It is aimed at those who would look at Scarlet, which admittedly does have superior specs to the BM (although, as I said earlier, the "current" BM spec is only a general guide because the product doesn't exist yet - everything is subject to change - count on it :laugh: ). And those features are meaningful to many prospective buyers. But the price of the Scarlet - although almost twice that of the BM - is still very, very low. And I'm not sure - nobody is - that the image quality itself is going to be twice as good. Better, sure. Significantly better, probably. But twice as good? Who knows. That's what I meant by price not being relevant. Dismissing these low priced products as being unusable based on price is done at one's own peril. Does anyone still think that Resolve is a less than professional product simply because it only costs $1000? Or that Avid Media Composer isn't as good as it used to be because they lowered the price dramatically?

 

[Nook Kim]

It's tough to be Robert Ruffo New on Reduser these days.

 

[jorge krausch]

Sorry Brian, I cant agree that it rents well.. you may have built a nice long portfolio of clients, (which would make any camera rent well), an advantage when you don't get hit by the crisis and have to change country and restart from 0, I have a Red Epic X right here and its not exactly renting out at all. I cant even get hired as a DP throwing in the RED for FREE.. and ive done camerawork for 25 years. Sorry its all relative. You are booked till 2014, happy for you, but you may have lost touch of reality because of it.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Mike Most:

Sort of back to the original question: I'm trying to understand the differences in the BMD Raw and RedRaw. From my less than fully informed understanding the BMD Raw is base on an Adobe raw that either was somehow "uncompressed" or significantly less compressed than RedRaw and that Red's compressed raw may throw out a fair amount of sensor information before it gets compressed and since it is proprietary nobody other than Red really knows what gets thrown out.

In the underwater shooting world we have been experiencing some significant color issues which Graeme has been trying to help us sort out but I am wondering if this has anything to with the choices Red's compressed raw makes on what to throw out before compression as those choices may be completely valid for "normal" abovewater shooting but be causing problems for oddball conditions like our underwater shooting.

It is my understanding that the Adobe raw used by BMD is an open standard so whatever is happening can be understood by those that understand these things.

As someone that has done significant high level grading of all manner of formats, I would appreciate your helping me understand the differences between BMD raw and Red Raw (maybe as used on the current 2.5K BMD cinema camera since although there may be a few differences on the 4K it seems that they are pretty much the same) .

 

[M Most]

Your use of the term "throw out" is indicative of the way a lot of people look at compression, and it is very inaccurate. Information is never "thrown out." What compression techniques do, among other things, is look for things like redundancies in the data to allow a lot of information to be expressed in a much smaller space. So, for instance, if you photograph a black table, and the light is fairly even, you can express those values digitally in multiple ways. One way would be to write every pixel into a file with the same value, so you have a one to one relationship - i.e., if you're describing 1000 pixels, you have 1000 recorded values. Or, you could say "take the first value and use it for the next 1000 pixels." The second way takes up about 999 times less space in a file, but when the image is reconstructed, you get the same result. That's what would be referred to as "lossless" compression. Other techniques use mathematical formulas to record information in a similar way (using channel math, things like subtracting the green value from the red and the blue to produce smaller numbers to encode, are common). Still others use different levels of resolution to express the image at different detail levels which, when combined, yield a very close match to the original image, but can also provide less detailed versions at lower resolutions by not including the "overlays" of the highest resolution, and only extracting the lower resolution records. That's essentially what wavelet compression is, and that is the basis for what Red - and Sony, and Cineform, and others - do. So while you might be under the impression that information is simply "thrown away," that is not the case. It is encoded in a way that takes up less space, and the amount of precision that is retained is dependent on both the level and type of compression used. Obviously, I'm leaving out a lot of other details (intra vs. interframe encoding, DCT algorithms, etc., etc.) but that is the gist of it. The Cinema DNG format was developed by Adobe as an adjunct to its DNG format that was already on the table for still images, and proposed as a standard, but it has only really been adopted by Blackmagic, Ikonoscop, and Adobe at this point. As I recall (and I could be wrong on this) the original format allowed for a degree of lossless compression, and that is likely what Blackmagic is employing. I'm not aware of the specific techniques they're using, but suffice it to say that what Red does with Redcode and what Blackmagic does are considerably different, with different results. Redcode is lossy, but with the higher resolution images that Red captures that is far less significant. Blackmagic's is a lot less lossy - and possibly lossless - but that also limits the amount of compression that they can use, which explains why their files are considerably larger even though the captured image is at a lower resolution. In terms of color grading, none of this is particularly significant because you can't grade any image until you decompress it. Anything that you're doing is being done on a fully reconstructed RGB image by definition. So although one needs to be aware of possible artifacts generated by either the compression, decompression, or reconstruction processes, it has no direct bearing on the colors you mix.

Hopefully that doesn't complicate this even more.....