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 :)

redone vs. SI-2k vs. f23 vs. f900 vs. phantom hd vs. EX1

It seems that some of their conclusions take into account a certain use that they may have and many of the tests were judged subjectively. Also, they didn't judge the RAW capabilities of the RED since they did color tests and such based on the monitor (where they got their stills from, not from actual footage).

Also, they liked the SI2K format most for its small size, and the EX1 for usability, but they are Not on even playing fields at all when it comes to compression. Long-GOP verses RAW should not be based on file sizes.

Not that the test is not valuable, but I disagree with some of their conclusions, and I have used most of the cameras on that list.
 
HAHA, too sharp, that's right, footage can be too sharp.

What morons. There's no such thing as too sharp, it's not a "feature" of a format that it takes lousy pictures that are soft and look like crap. That's called outdated, bad technology. RED takes crystal clear, beautiful images. If you'd like to dirty them up in post, you're welcome to do that! That's why post exists, so you can take your original footage and add a certain style to it, make it how you want. But if your original footage isn't crystal clear and perfect, there's a problem. Also what exactly are they talking about? Of course you need a good lens, it's a pro cinema camera not your cousin's camcorder!

Any test that compares a RED One to an HVX200, I cannot take seriously. I have two HVX200s, I like them, they are fantastic for Web work, corporate work, you can make music videos look great on them for sure, but come on, one is a high end prosumer camera / low end professional camera, the other is a professional digital cinema camera with like 25 times the resolution. RED blows it away. I'm not sure how you could compare those two unless you knew nothing about cameras.
 
I think that these guys are in Colombia, South America. And here I don't mean physically located but from perspective.

Getting a lineup of these cameras from the US, buying or hiring is not a hassle as such. But speaking as an "Emerging Markets" person, I have noticed that countries without a long film production history before video came along can not see merits of the different cameras.

So how can one compare a RED ONE a HVX200? Only if you are looking at it from a video perspective including post, that is does it do NTSC, PAL, minimum 4:2:2. Difference between 1/3 and 2/3 inch, let alone 4K, does not change much. Video is a picture acquisition device. WYSIWYG, period.

Coming from a film background, its about resolution, DOF, and mood lighting. The film is part of the artistic process (Bleach Bypass, anyone?).

To bridge the gap between "digital acquisition" and film, we get the DI process and LUTs. This is where video gets off the bus.

I am not saying that these guys don't understand film or video, but we have been having a discussion with one of the equipment rental guys in Kenya and one of the bosses didn't see need for the RED in Kenya! "Who needs the resolution anyway?" He asked.

Problem? Video perspective.
 
It's nice to compare cameras, and even to watch other people compare cameras, but at the end of the day the only comparison that anyone ought to take seriously is the one that they do themselves. Here's to hoping that, a year after the release of the RED ONE, everyone on the forums has grown tired of this "Pepsi vs. Coke" nonsense and this thread doesn't turn into a massive flamewar.
 
One more translation from Spanish to English (Google Language Tools):

"Conclusion:

REDONE>>> This camera is a dispute. It is a camera that offers quite a few doubts because any evidence which goes online matches with another. Some ISO gives them minors, and other older people, gives them some latitude of up to 9 steps and others only 4. Some say it is very loud and others say that not so much. Some say they are easily damaged and others say that only the first versions. Finally, the only thing that makes it clear that if one is going to use this camera is better to have a backup. In terms of proof therefore not surprised as much as expected. It does not meet everything that is not promising and that one Super believe it is. However offers a very good image quality, definitely has the best resolution of all but just have a little more detail of 1080p. Its sharpness makes your image is very 'video' and requires lenses that give it a look more soft. For its opaque colors, its noise level, how little sensitive, complex assembly and by their inability to vary his look, perhaps not the best camera for commercial or television. But definitely is a very good camera for digital cinematography, especially in controlled lighting conditions, such as studies. Thanks to its possibility of optical resolution and color realism, is one of the best for feature films."

http://translate.google.com/transla...o/comparativo2.htm&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
 
I guess they just cabled the cameras in to a sony monitor and look at it there, and not in a computer. If Red is perceived as "too sharp" it can just be the downscale method to the SDI output.
 
These people don't understand what detail and or resolution means:
"It was not 400% more detailed than others, to be honest hardly was a little more clear that the F23..."

"It..." refers to Red1.

Our eyes do not see resolution they see detail and contrast. So when Red1 shoots a 4K format it is not implied that the amount of detail will be 400% that of a HD format. There are so many other factors (codec, latitude, compression, noise, etc...) involved in the delivery of detail. Where as hi resolution enables us to deliver a theatrical release with little if any lose of image quality upon blow up.

Resolution is a subjective test the results of which should be averaged out across the results of several peoples observations. One person may rate a format at 850 lines where as another person would see the same format test on the same monitor or projection at 870...

Oh and not to mention the tremendous price difference between the 2 cameras...
 
They didn't know what they were doing - unfortunately.

They judged the quality of the preview signal! What were they thinking? :angry03:

They judged the sensitivity by measuring IRE values on the preview signal! That must be a joke!

They judged the dynamic range by measuring the preview image!
 
Hi,

I always am interested to see other peoples tests. I may not agree with what they are saying but it's interesting never the less. Remember Claudio Miranda posted some tests here and people did not like what he said.

Stephen
 
big lebowski said:
They didn't know what they were doing - unfortunately.

They judged the quality of the preview signal! What were they thinking? :angry03:

They judged the sensitivity by measuring IRE values on the preview signal! That must be a joke!

They judged the dynamic range by measuring the preview image!
Click to expand...

Exctly, this is exaclty what i though while reading the spanish test.
So there was no point going on reading it, it lacks professionalism.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

I always am interested to see other peoples tests. I may not agree with what they are saying but it's interesting never the less. Remember Claudio Miranda posted some tests here and people did not like what he said.

Stephen
Click to expand...

I have no problem with tests as long as they are performed on a professional level. I personally found Claudio's Test very interesting and revealing - we all know who's responsible for his departure from this forum.

But judging the RED ONE by its preview signal is almost like judging a 35 mm camera by its video tap signal! :wink:
 
big lebowski said:
But judging the RED ONE by its preview signal is almost like judging a 35 mm camera by its video tap signal! :wink:
Click to expand...

Hi,

I was more interested in what they say about the other cameras, clearly not all accurate but all opinions are interesting IMO.

Stephen
 
i have 3 hvx's and after reading this post....i think I'll sell my red and by 5 more....:bleh:

seriously judging the latitude by the preview monitor?????

8 bit moniter....12 bit recording

the real question for me is....how did these amateurs get a hold of all this gear.

BTW that Phantom is a pretty sweet camera....the only thing red has on it is resolution(and price of course)
 
By the way, I wonder what Luki has to say about the new name of their flagship:

Scrash :wink: :biggrin:

(yeah, that's really how it's written in the article)
 
mdharrington said:
The real question for me is....how did these amateurs get a hold of all this gear.
Click to expand...

Hello? Colombia?

You have no idea on what people with dirty money will spend their money, even if they dont know how to use it, it works as a cover up. :shiftyph34r:

Things work differently down there, maybe they just shoot "Tv Comercials", with little budget and little Post.

Something like you would see late night on Public TV. "Yes remember that lawyer from TV". Stuff like that....

They even make this counclusion "red is fine for film like shooting". Hello? What did you espect from a digital cinema camara?
 
Just a comment on the Si2k. I was lucky enough to shoot on the Si2K over several sessions. I then played with the images using Cineform Neo. In my view it is still very much a work in progress. To me there seemed a lot of noise with the image though of course I dont want to pass final judgment until we do some more testing.

Suffice to say that I put down a deposit on the Red!

Rob
 
I liked some of the testing but had some serious issues with other aspects. In all I think the testers attempted to be fair but their methods were flawed. Certainly it is not an accurate way to measure sensitivity, dynamic range or color space. And there is a long-established methodology for measuring resolving capabilities which is to use MTF as read from a specifically designed chart, not from gazing at a monitor.

Phantom came out pretty well in many of these tests and not so well in others. And I think that some of both were not entirely deserved. I won't go into the details of what I felt was incorrect on Phantom, RED, or any of the other cameras. But I do believe that the testers came into this experience with no biases unlike other tests, and even with their poor methods they arrived at some decent results for at least some of their tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top