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 :)

Red & Dslr...

Jannard said:
You tell me which is which.
Click to expand...

You don't make it easy, do you? Frankly, after staring at them for 20 minutes and slicing and dicing in Photoshop I must categoricaly say that... I have no idea which one is which :help: But, here is my take on comparison:

1. Neither clips highlights and the brightest reflections fall just within the DR, so both were exposed correctly. Highlights on both fall off nicely.

2. The first picture has more shadow information, roughly 0.5 stop to my eye.

3. Uniformity of pure colours is about the same on both (used Photoshop picker)

4. Looking at the corner crop, The first has significantly less CA than the second. I would say the first CA is about 1/2 pixel, the second has CA of about 2-3 pixels.

5. Contrast: The first one has higher contrast than the first second. Not much, though.

6. Resolution (sharpness) is very close, I can't determine which one is sharper. Both are wicked sharp, as Jarred likes to say.

7. Noise levels are about the same. I prefer the way it renders on the first one, but there is little between them. I would take either happily.

Conclusion: Both are superb pictures and it is unbelievable that one was shot with Red. I will accept any of them any time. If I had to pick a better one, it would be the first one. I have never thought a digital video camera could match a top-of-the-line DSLR. Simply amazing!!! :w00t:
 
My vote goes for

1rst Canon
2nd RED (seems to be under exposed of about 1/2 to 2/3 stop)

It's great to be able to compare RED with a high quality DSLR on a still picture!

Thanks for the tease.

Patrick

Hope to see the answer anytime soooon!
 
Bottom image: Look at the table immediately right from where the text 8.0 megapixels is printed on the camera. You'll find there a small hole/scratch in the table. Then locate the same spot in the upper image and you'll clearly recognize the effect of RED's (wavelet) compression. Or, in the top image, look immediately left from the reflection of gretagmacbeth. The effect of compression is there.

Afterthought: Took a look with a better monitor and started to hesitate immediately. What I thought is due to compression may well just follow from the focus. So, mix thoughts ... better to give up from speculating.
 
People here don't know well both, RED and Canon.

Top one is RED.

Bottom is Canon.

First thing you have to look it's about DoP.

Second if you ever were worked with RED or Canon you know something about a color rendition difference between them.

Third thing are the picture quality, resolution, sharpness, etc,... that all are on RED side.
Click to expand...

Right on! I agree!

Bob
 
Personally, given the quality of both pictures, and the fact that this whole community has turned upside down trying to deduce which is which - I don't give a flying f**k which is which :)

I remember only a few years ago when I fantasized about having digital motion pictures with the same quality as my Canon EOS 10D (which is of course by todays standards quite far from the most impressive). And here we are, with RED, shooting impressive fps with high DR, rich color depth, in (red)raw, with low noise.... and it is freaking inexpensive! And of *top* of that, we have excellent customer support and direct communication with the Big Guys on the forum. I am so speechless that it's painful... but in a good way :)
 
Top one Canon. Guessing mostly by the overall detail, especially on wood. Lower one shows what looks like compression.

Unless they're both Red - before and after...
 
This is a box full of Jim's tricks, color rendering, etc,...

Let's go back to the CA issue.

Have a look at this Mitchell's part of Arco Dolly:

jim_before_example.jpg

This is a crop from one Jim's example before, look at CA, ...
Original LINK>>>

jim_RED_CA.jpg

Blow up crop 200% from the top picture with CA issue = RED

jim_canon_lessCA.jpg

Blow up crop 200% from the bottom picture with another CA issue = Canon
 
Jim,

This is really exciting stuff. One of the first things I was planning on doing with my camera is to shoot a similar comparison on one of our yearly shoots, with the same equipment. You've confirmed what I was suspecting all along.

You are having way too much fun with this, aren't you? :)
 
el_stupido said:
I have it! BOTH are the Red One. There was never a DSLR. Jim was just playing the mind games like they did back to me in '82....
Click to expand...

This is build 15 on the top and build 16 on the bottom.
MK III will blow the RED out of the water.

Edit:

After examining both pictures at 200% zoom.
The bottom is RED for sure.
The top has much better resolving power, MK III or maybe B16

I was thinking that grain in the top picture is compression artefact, in fact it is the texture of the chart material.
 
Andrew said:
This is build 16 on the top and build 15 on the bottom.
MK III will blow the RED out of the water.
Click to expand...

C'mon, now you said something that could equal B16 to a sort of lens magic correction :).
 
Jannard said:
What the hell is everyone doing up at this hour? I have an excuse... I'm nuts.

Jim
Click to expand...


We're in Australia, mate :usd: we are all nuts!
 
I didn't measure anything, just used my eyes.
After all it is the eyes that are ultimate judge.

I like the bottom since it is, I call it Graeme look.
Smooooooth good colors, partially because of compression RED is using.
It normally should be considered as a big minus, flattening the surface texture with the compression.
Well, maybe it is minus, but it is what I like, edges are knife sharp and this less contrast in the colors on the bottom picture should not mislead you, you can push it more than any other RAW.
The top picture is pushed bit more in saturation, but take the saturation out and what you get?

One thing I am not sure is the grain on the top picture in most of the color squares, if it is not grain then it is the texture of the chart, the material that chart is made from. If it is the texture of the material coming out of the picture then it may be, just may be, the top picture is MK III or B16

Bottom picture looks very familiar, very familiar, I am staring at this type of pictures for last few month all too often, for sure it is not Cannon MK III.
 
I don't care which is which! I can only say one thing: It's very impressive that most folks on this list are having difficulties finding out. Remember: Red is compressed, Canon is uncompressed. This is very good proof to anyone out there that high quality compression of RAW is possible – and IMHO it's one of the core concepts of the Red One as opposed to any other moving images camera out there.

Regards,

Uli
 
I just put both pictures at 200% zoom.
Woooowww, it is the texture of the squares material, not noise or bad compression on the top picture!!!!

Top picture has much better resolution then.

Looks like we need much better material for charts while testing 4K. It could be very misleading. At this resolution looks like our old Macbeth needs face lift otherwise you can accuse the camera of noise at the first glance.
Whatever it is on the top the whole chain, lenses->sensor->post gives much better resolving power.
I don't know the lenses Jim mentioned Canon 70-200 L, I have 16-35 L II that can deliver this resolving power that we see in the upper picture.
 
I prefer #1. The difference in focus is distracting but there still is something about the texture of the wood on the table, apart from focus, that looks much better on #1.
 
I think the first is Red and the second is Cannon based on color rendition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top