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 :)

EX1 vs. RED

EX - price, portability, workflow speed, first compact "actual HD"
RED - everything else

Both are great cameras.
Definitely not comparable.
 
If you have a good script and good actors, the pixel count does not matter. You can shoot a very good theatrical feature with an EX1.
35 mm adaptor would make it better, but not necessary.
Deep Throat made with a super 8 mm camera on a budget of $28,500 grossed $600 Million.
Water World made on a $175 Million (or, was it $400 Million as originally reported) bombed in theaters.
Quality or pixel count of the camera does not matter for the success of a movie.
In the right hands, EX1 can make a theatrical production success.
 
35mm adapters are a compromise from the start. A couple years back I tested the Movietube PS technic and the redrock.

Back focus is an issue on some and light loss is always an issue.

Of course you can make them work, and they are great for the right projects.

The EX1 (which I own) and the RED (which I have tested and have on order) are such totally different cameras.

Comparing the two is perhaps inevetable but a bit silly really.

I am a dp and as such should not really be buying cameras because:

1. the turnover in the digital realm is too high
2. you will get pinion holed as a dp if you advertise that you own your own kit.
3. film cameras are expensive and at this point and time may be a bad investment as a individual.

I buy cameras because I also have a company and produce as well. If the price is right and you do enough work it can be cheaper than renting.

I ordered the RED since it does not put a big dent in my finances and it's a great ride seeing how things pan out.

but I would not be able to do the run and gun stuff I do on the EX1 or many other HD cameras including the RED.
 
Adam Levins said:
3. film cameras are expensive and at this point and time may be a bad investment as a individual..
Click to expand...

Film cameras will be in demand for at least 5 more years.
After that, you can still use the lenses.
In five years, you will see RED TWO, THREE, FOUR and FIVE, if the RED company is still around after five years.
In five years, everybody will have a 4K camera on their cell phone.
Film camera has not changed in 75 years.
 
chuckt said:
Film cameras will be in demand for at least 5 more years.
After that, you can still use the lenses.
In five years, you will see RED TWO, THREE, FOUR and FIVE, if the RED company is still around after five years.
In five years, everybody will have a 4K camera on their cell phone.
Film camera has not changed in 75 years.
Click to expand...

What happened to the whole Red one is modular upgradeable and there is no need for a Red two three or four pitch.
 
chuckt said:
If you have a good script and good actors, the pixel count does not matter. You can shoot a very good theatrical feature with an EX1.
35 mm adaptor would make it better, but not necessary.
Deep Throat made with a super 8 mm camera on a budget of $28,500 grossed $600 Million.
Water World made on a $175 Million (or, was it $400 Million as originally reported) bombed in theaters.
Quality or pixel count of the camera does not matter for the success of a movie.
In the right hands, EX1 can make a theatrical production success.
Click to expand...

Good image quality doesn't make a bad movie good, but bad image quality can spoil an otherwise good movie.
 
sander kamp said:
Good image quality doesn't make a bad movie good, but bad image quality can spoil an otherwise good movie.
Click to expand...

While image quality certainly makes a good movie more pleasing to watch its not likely to ruin the movie unless it's a pretty bad image.
I tend to find that good sound quality matters alot more however.
 
Sycophant said:
The critical and financial success of 28 Days and Blair Witch both suggest otherwise. Audiences will forgive a lot in terms of image quality. Sound on the otherhand...
Click to expand...

The look of those movies served a purpose: to make it feel more real. I think people would have complained if LOTR would have been made on a DV camera.
 
If your project is heading for HD broadcast then EX1 vs RED starts to get interesting.
Here in the UK the BBC guidelines for HD broadcast disqualify a lot of cameras-
EX1, all HDV, several Panasonics and super16 for example don't qualify
Unfortunately MPEG and super16, whilst they might survive the post production process, come a cropper at the final transmission compression stages

There were some great posts about this on DVdoctor.net from Alan Roberts (ex BBC R&D)
 
sander kamp said:
The look of those movies served a purpose: to make it feel more real. I think people would have complained if LOTR would have been made on a DV camera.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that depends on how they would have gone about it. Considering the amount of compositing on the movie it certainly would have been a piss poor choice not to mention the cinemascope aspect ratio.
However I don't think it would look like a couple guys went out into their back yards with crappy outfits and shot 3 3 hour movies and threw it together in imovie.
 
4igiff said:
If your project is heading for HD broadcast then EX1 vs RED starts to get interesting.
Here in the UK the BBC guidelines for HD broadcast disqualify a lot of cameras-
EX1, all HDV, several Panasonics and super16 for example don't qualify
Unfortunately MPEG and super16, whilst they might survive the post production process, come a cropper at the final transmission compression stages

There were some great posts about this on DVdoctor.net from Alan Roberts (ex BBC R&D)
Click to expand...

You know, I always wondered how the BBC (Discovery does something similar) can police that. I mean, if you deliver a finished product on HDCAM SR, or whatever other high end tape format they require, and it looks great, how can they enforce this policy?
 
Rudi Herbert said:
You know, I always wondered how the BBC (Discovery does something similar) can police that. I mean, if you deliver a finished product on HDCAM SR, or whatever other high end tape format they require, and it looks great, how can they enforce this policy?
Click to expand...

Also, I thought I read in another post, that Discovery approved the EX1 as long as it was 35mb HQ mode.
 
if you deliver a finished product on HDCAM SR, or whatever other high end tape format they require, and it looks great, how can they enforce this policy?
Click to expand...
If they can tell (e.g. run it through a compressor and it looks bad), then they'd be able to tell. Legally, they could protect themselves there.

If they can't tell, then I don't think their policy makes that much sense to begin with. (Sometimes broadcasters have particular technical requirements that don't make a lot of sense.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top