Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

The answer is...

Jannard

Jannard

Red Leader
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Canon on top.
RED on the bottom.

Some observations.

1. The Canon file is almost ten times as big at capture. It SHOULD be better!

2. While Canon has done an excellent good job at color, my opinion is that they "help" a bit too much with processing. The saturation is "significant" (for my taste) when you open the RAW file. RED errs on the side of natural saturation and lets you add as needed. I had to add a TON of saturation to the RED image to get it close.

3. Canon does in-camera sharpening... for better or worse.

4. Canon does a great job overall. Give them credit. They have been at this a long time and it shows. We have been at this "since yesterday". I am very proud of the images RED makes and think it can only improve as time goes on. Just like it has from yesterday to today.

I personally prefer the more organic look of RED. The differences in these two cameras is by design and not accident. Even the file size has a purpose.

Thanks to all for playing. I am comfortable that we are in the "Big League" now. We are still rookies. Not for long...

Jim
 
well I am real happy to here that the bottom was Red, what I saw was maybe
jpeg artifacts but if you zoom to 500 percent and compare both on the handle there is more noise in the blacks on the Canon pic, which does not make sense since its a huge file.
 
Jannard said:
Canon on top.
3. Canon does in-camera sharpening... for better or worse.
Jim
Click to expand...

I thought you said you turned sharpening off. Does this mean there's some in camera sharpening with Canon cameras even when shooting RAW and turning the sharpening to 0 in Adobe RAW?

Either way, it's pretty darn impressive that we can get this sort of quality out of a motion picture camera that rivals or comes close to a still camera. At 24fps the perceived resolution becomes a lot more than staring at a still frame.
 
Since you posted this before I could post my answer... I was picking the RED on Bottom, but not because of color or resolution, etc. My logic for RED on bottom... 200mm lens on the Canon with a slightly smaller imaging size (~1.4 on the magnification factor). 150mm lens on the Red, w/ no magnification. Image A was shot at a longer focal length than B. Means A was shot on Canon, B was shot on RED.

I didn't really know, but that was the basis for my reasoning. In any case. It was definitely a cool exercise, an exciting the see how close that comparison actually is. Kudo's Jim!
 
Geeeze...i was wrong!

I thought the best colors were coming from the DSLR...but #2 is the RED, and it has cleaner colors...!!!

Bravo à toute l'équipe!!! Superbe travail.

Antoine
 
RED was great before built 16, RED will give us some extras with built 16, I am very impressed, what you are able to take of from this Mysterium thing. Thanks guys for squeezing everything out of the box, what is possible.
 
Jannard said:
2. While Canon has done an excellent good job at color, my opinion is that they "help" a bit too much with processing. The saturation is "significant" (for my taste) when you open the RAW file. RED errs on the side of natural saturation and lets you add as needed.

I personally prefer the more organic look of RED.
Click to expand...

Nice. this is exactly how I felt about the colors between the two. I'm surprised and glad that RED happens to be the look I preferred. Feel free to friggin' release 16 beta anytime now, OK?!!
 
I see my guess was correct :) http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=232964&postcount=182

It seems to me that quite a bit of that extra filesize from the Canon is actually just noise, not real image data; particularly in the blue channel. The color chart has almost no texture within the color patches, but the Canon shows significant noise there. In this case the Red image is closer to the real scene. Of course it's just a chart. Looking forward to the B16 release so we can see some real-life scenes!
 
Wait a minute...

Maybe make a place for a RED DSLR in the front page of RED.COM ? :)
 
jbeale said:
It seems to me that quite a bit of that extra filesize from the Canon is actually just noise, not real image data; particularly in the blue channel. The color chart has almost no texture within the color patches, but the Canon shows significant noise there. In this case the Red image is closer to the real scene.
Click to expand...

There's definitely detail there as well. Check out the little dust and scratches that get lost on the Red image.

And check out just the blue channel of the lower right square on each. It looks like there is some actual color information there that is getting lost on the Red. Or it might just be the difference in the CC between the two.
 
The Canon one looks... "nicer", but also - more "processed".

I suppose the RED one... the one from the Red One :).. is closer to the RAW.
 
For those who prefer the 'Canon look', keep in mind that it would be very easy to achieve a similar look with Red One footage, with just some basic grading (curves and saturation would do the trick).

Nils.
 
Slinnn said:
For those who prefer the 'Canon look', keep in mind that it would be very easy to achieve a similar look with Red One footage, with just some basic grading (curves and saturation would do the trick).

Nils.
Click to expand...


Yep. But they're pretty close, anyway.

Good job, RED folks! :sorcerer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top