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 222 razorsharp on 2K 120p

Daniel Reichenbach said:
Shot a commercial with Phantom HD 1000p and RED222 at 2K with 120p at the same time.
Click to expand...

Daniel,

how well does the RED in 2K mode compete with the Phantom? I found the Phantom HD footage incredible especially in terms of noise and colour space.

Personally for overcranking beyond 50 fps I would prefer the Phantom HD any time (at least for DOF reason). I didn't had the chance of a side by side comparison yet so I'm very interested what you think.

Nice picture BTW. What kind of commecial is this footage for?

Hans
 
Hawaj said:
eee ... let me think ... what about Selective colors in Shop? :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

Not even :-) Just the good old Hue & Saturation, change the hue on the blues, increase stauration and then compensate on the greens, reds and yellows until the flesh tones come back to normal. Good old photoshop, and now I'm importing videos as smart objects directly into it from Premiere and giving the clips the same treatment, and then render back to Premiere and done. Always loved the Adobe workflow.
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Daniel, how well does the RED in 2K mode compete with the Phantom? I found the Phantom HD footage incredible especially in terms of noise and colour space.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to hear, yes!

Would like to see her wildly shaking her hair with your setup...

And great picture, btw.

And a lil photoshopped image trick for your entertainment...

3709_1214267490.jpg


Greetings from munich
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Daniel,

how well does the RED in 2K mode compete with the Phantom? I found the Phantom HD footage incredible especially in terms of noise and colour space.

Personally for overcranking beyond 50 fps I would prefer the Phantom HD any time (at least for DOF reason). I didn't had the chance of a side by side comparison yet so I'm very interested what you think.

Nice picture BTW. What kind of commecial is this footage for?

Hans
Click to expand...

theoretically the Phantom should look a little better because it's RAW is uncompressed, as opposed to RED's REDCODE. But if you don't need more than 120fps, RED has some obvious advantages
 
shutter

shutter

Daniel Reichenbach said:
Shot a commercial with Phantom HD 1000p and RED222 at 2K with 120p at the same time. Zeiss MasterPrimes. Here is a first pict from RED222, one day BEFORE B16. I have to show you, because, this quality IS incredible. If you speak about the quality of a RED picture, you have first to put the best lenses on the camera and you see a big difference. Remember, this is 2K NOT 4K.
Click to expand...


so what shutter settings are you using for high speed work for such a sharp still??
thx
 
The Phantom HD has significantly higher MTF than the RED in 2K, yielding a higher resolution image.
 
Please qualify that Mitch.
OLPF?
Which debayer?
What lens?
etc.
 
The Phantom is a great camera, RED is a great camera, to match both together, there was no problem. If the phantom gives technically a better picture on 2K than RED, I couldn't see a real difference, just judging by eyes, can't tell much about the technical differences between RED and PHANTOM concerning the sensor and resolution, it does not care me this much if after all the results are great . At least, I am very happy with the results, see some examples here

http://elementp.ch/de/portfolio/commercial/bernaqua.php

(shot with phantom, 1000P, additional plates with RED, will not tell you which, hehehe.

The flash films are small, but I can tell you, the quality of the HD picts is just great


 
Wow, nice and clean it seems. Would love to see this projected. Nice job!
 
Hi Guys,

OK this shot is just too fab to miss out on, so here's my take with a little beauty CC added.

Hope you like

Matt
 
Great light Daniel...you used the master primes, right?
 
Hi Abu,

No problem buddy, different strokes for different folks and all that. It would be a bit boring if we all liked the same thing!

Respect

Matt
 
Deanan said:
Please qualify that Mitch.
OLPF?
Which debayer?
What lens?
etc.
Click to expand...

We tested this here in the shop as we routinely do with various camera systems. Phantom HD & Red One shot one after the other, pointing at an industry standard IMATEST chart and the images read through the IMATEST software to measure (among other things) MTF. The Red was Build 16 and the Phantom HD was sporting the latest OLPF and IR absorber -- basically the latest version of each camera. Various forms of de-Bayer were used to eliminate that variant, including a .dng conversion through Photoshop and GlueTool's Phantom QuickTime component. The lens was a UltraPrime (same on each) although I cannot recall the focal lengths at the moment.

I'm not here to bash the performance of the RED in any way. At 4K the RED has higher MTF than the Phantom at 2K. Of course it does with all those pixels! But at 2K v. 2K this is not true. We can look on the graphs from the IMATEST software and clearly see where the OLPF kicks in, doing it's job and knocking out very high frequency detail. Mr. Nattress has stated his opinion in the past on the need for an aggressive OLPF and I'm not disagreeing with him here. This is part of what gives the Red what Jim has called a "creamy" look, which again is not a bad thing. But it does also mean that in 2K resolution will necessarily take a hit.

I only brought this up because someone said that they could not see any difference between the Phantom HD in 2K and the RED One in 2K. This is not our finding so I felt it appropriate to note here. Many people use the Phantom HD along side the RED One shooting in 4K to excellent result. I have nothing against the Red and nothing against anyone using it in 2K. I just believe it is important to note that there are in fact differences.
 
Well, I do believe it's an easily misleading statement.
You're comparing cameras with two different pixels sizes so the same lens will react differently...

Also, if you want to compare sharpness, you also have to compare aliasing at the same time.
 
Deanan, trust me, I didn't set out here to bash RED. We also tried the RED using very high quality 16mm format lenses to get the most out of the 2K area and I can tell you that in comparing the results the glass was not the limiting factor. Different pixel sizes does make a difference of course, but we have a lot of other cameras we test with sensors of various pixel size. And we do compare aliasing, although one should also point out that the effect of aliasing is different when shooting 2K v. 4K and then expanding the image to fill the equivalant image area (which is what a RED user would do if intercutting a 2K high speed shot into a 4K project).

I do not wish to be misleading in any way. The RED has a higher MTF than the Phantom HD when the RED One is shooting in 4K and the Phantom is shooting in 2K. When the RED One's 4K file is supersampled down to 2K to roughly match the match the Phantom HD's 2K image then that is another matter, if you would like to compare apples to apples.

I'm not trying to bust the RED in any way. But when it is used to shoot 2K it delivers a less sharp image. That's common sense as one is using 1/4th the pixels of the full 4K mode. The Phantom HD in 2K has a higher MTF than the RED One in 2K. That's all I said and it is not to be denigrating the RED, only to call a spade a spade. If the image from a RED in 2K is suitable for a client than by all means use it. But when someone says there is no difference then on a purely technical and informational standpoint I must take issue with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top