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 :)

Hannover Hands On comparisons of RED F35 & D21

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, not bad when you consider you're working in an 8bit file on the RED dpxs compared to a 10bit file on the others. And it's so bloody obvious when you look at the file sizes of 6MB for the RED files and 8MB for the others. I noticed as soon as I downloaded them and the RED files came in quicker.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Yeah, not bad when you consider you're working in an 8bit file on the RED dpxs compared to a 10bit file on the others. And it's so bloody obvious when you look at the file sizes of 6MB for the RED files and 8MB for the others. I noticed as soon as I downloaded them and the RED files came in quicker.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Graeme,

totally agree>>>

dpx_sizes.jpg

CML Hannover tests>> DPX comparison sizes
 
Makes you wonder what else was done incorrectly.
How can we trust these tests with something as simple as outputting DPXes is done wrong. I put alot of faith in Goeff having sound testing methodology but I'm about to throw that trust out the window. What there any documentation on the test methodology was this just a quick hack?

Hacks like this shouldn't be publicized. It does damage to those of us needing real solid information. Arrrggh!
 
Peter Rollins said:
O how the mighty have fallen.

This is a great example of how the old guard in this industry is coming to an end. CML is a good example of a bunch of the old elite sitting around scared shitless. I see this when i goto the ASC technical committee meetings as well.

Viva la revolution!
Click to expand...

... etc...

Don't panic.
A mistakes has been done.
Not the first in the industry, and it is easily enough rectified.
No reason to discredit anyone. Even less to suspect intentions.

And there is no way to know if the results would've been diferent.

I would have loved to have a look at the RAW file, though...

But that's just me.
 
These tests have been interesting from the start.

In defence of the testers, all they are doing is using their instincts and treating the camera/post process as they would anything else. Fair enough as that's what many of us do. I certainly don't call Ted every time I process some footage to make sure I'm squeezing every bit of quality out. But then again, if I burn my toast I don't blame the bread...

What I find interesting though is that time after time, the testers choose to do this rather than really understanding what they are doing.

To do a "real" test (in my opinion) they should be done with reps from each company on site, just to stand over their shoulder and say "with experience you would know to set this as blah instead of blah..." Don't let them take the footage and work it to death, just the basics of how their system best responds. Again in their defence, the test was purposely not set up that way, it was set up to put cameras in identical situations and compare the results. I'm just not sure what this demonstrates.

One test I saw actually used the preview out of the Red to evaluate it for God's sake!

I'm all for fair comparisons, and, for Sony's sake, I sincerely hope their camera that costs 15 times what I paid fares slightly better. :ihih:

But I don't think I've seen a test yet, by anybody, that I can hold up and say it shows the strength or weakness of any camera over another. They only show what works best for the tester's existing methodology.
 
Peter Rollins said:
O how the mighty have fallen.

This is a great example of how the old guard in this industry is coming to an end. CML is a good example of a bunch of the old elite sitting around scared shitless. I see this when i goto the ASC technical committee meetings as well.
Click to expand...

As a member of CML and the ASC Technical committee...
What a load of nonsense. Many of us, like Geoff, work every day with all sorts of digital camera systems -- we are hardly scared shitless by digital cameras, and by what exactly? One more digital camera on the market??? For some reason, I'm not scared of using a F35 or Genesis... but I'm scared of using a RED? And are you aware that Geoff has shot both features and television series on the RED already??? In fact, many ASC members have already shot features and TV shows on the RED. So where is this fear you are speaking of? Honestly, I would never put the words "scared shitless" and "Geoff Boyle" in the same sentence, especially when it's regarding technology.

Such an overreaction to a test that merely suggests that the F35 has more dynamic range than the RED, when Jim Jannard already admitted over a year ago that the F23 had more dynamic range than the RED when Claudio Miranda showed us his tests, only to be chased out of this website by certain people here.
 
Great post Jim. I agree, people that know what they are doing should be used for tests like this since everyone looks towards these for professional guidance.

If this test was done by someone with a little less credibility in the industry I would really have no problem with the errors. It is the fact that this test will be used by many to judge fact. Geoff travels all over the world teaching this stuff, he is writing books about it, so i cannot just shrug this off the mistakes. There is a certain responsibility that someone in that position must adhere to, which goes back to my topic of questioning the elite.

Perhaps I am just being a little rebellious and looking too much into this.
 
Hmm, I think if Geoff was trying to deliberately sabotage Red with these tests, he'd hardly come on here to do it. So he's made a mistake with how he's processed the footage - who's never got that one wrong before??? Would be great to see how this test pans out once things have been corrected.

Would be nice if things could be kept respectful and unbiased.
 
My hat is off to anyone brave enough to publish any test, because the results or methodology are never going to please everyone. Geoff does not play "favorites" with any manufacturer, whether it comes to film stocks, 35mm cameras, post technology, nor digital cameras -- he has used them all, and he continues to try new techniques and technologies, regardless of past preferences. And his motivation is simply to find the right tool to get the look he wants for specific projects -- he's a cinematographer and artist, not an engineer, he's only interested in real world results, practical applications, and he always tests equipment with that attitude. We don't shoot charts in the real world, we deal with subjects with wide contrast ranges and we deal in the world of f-stops and under and overexposure... i.e. photography.

The ironic thing is that ever since digital cameras came into the world of filmmaking, professional cinematographers have been called elitist snobs for pointing out any defects in the imaging, only to be proven correct over time. If it hadn't been for people calling manufacturers out on these issues, all movies today would be shot on the Sony F900.
 
David it is not the dynamic range that has anyone up in arms. It is the multiple errors in processing.

I always love when people bring up "well he/she has shot multiple features and TV shows" Guess what, That isn't so special anymore. Specially ( no disrespect) the caliber of shows that Geoff has shot.

As for your summary of the ASC issue, Do you know that many of the more open-minded members of the committee are now meeting separately to discuss the future of digital because those ASC meetings have become so useless? You are actually the first person I have honestly heard defend the committee in a long time ( well except for Stump ).
 
David Mullen ASC said:
As a member of CML and the ASC Technical committee...
What a load of nonsense. Many of us, like Geoff, work every day with all sorts of digital camera systems -- we are hardly scared shitless by digital cameras, and by what exactly? One more digital camera on the market??? For some reason, I'm not scared of using a F35 or Genesis... but I'm scared of using a RED? And are you aware that Geoff has shot both features and television series on the RED already??? In fact, many ASC members have already shot features and TV shows on the RED. So where is this fear you are speaking of? Honestly, I would never put the words "scared shitless" and "Geoff Boyle" in the same sentence, especially when it's regarding technology.

Such an overreaction to a test that merely suggests that the F35 has more dynamic range than the RED, when Jim Jannard already admitted over a year ago that the F23 had more dynamic range than the RED when Claudio Miranda showed us his tests, only to be chased out of this website by certain people here.
Click to expand...


All truth!!! but even a novice like me would be happy to hear an explanation on what went wrong, so obviously wrong, in this test.

I do not have nothing against results of probably known people (since I never heard of them) from comities of deferent kinds, but this is not the way to publish constrictive information.

Although I come from a remote part of the neighborhood, old school intuitions do not prove to be right in the RED case.

RED has opened a door for people not constrained to the old school structure of knowledge, although we try to learn from it as much as possible, and the impact on all film industries, I believe, is yet to be seen.
 
Peter Rollins said:
David it is not the dynamic range that has anyone up in arms. It is the multiple errors in processing.

I always love when people bring up "well he/she has shot multiple features and TV shows" Guess what, That isn't so special anymore. Specially ( no disrespect) the caliber of shows that Geoff has shot.

As for your summary of the ASC issue, Do you know that many of the more open-minded members of the committee are now meeting separately to discuss the future of digital because those ASC meetings have become so useless? You are actually the first person I have honestly heard defend the committee in a long time ( well except for Stump ).
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering how Geoff's tests are an example of "being scared shitless" (I assume by the "RED Revolution"). My point is that many of us are shooting digitally everyday, which seems would not be possible if we were so frightened by the equipment we had to use daily. Plus publishing tests and being open to criticism seems to me to be the very opposite of being scared.

The ASC is a large organization and has a wide range of opinions on any topic, whether it involves Kodak or Sony or RED. Some opinions are more well-reasoned than others, just as in the world at large. And not all technological "conservatism" is a bad thing, not when it means holding people and manufacturers to higher standards.

It's far too easy to be critical of committee work, which is by and large a thankless volunteer job.

For all the changes in technology going on, most working cinematographers still deal with the same problems everyday -- the sun is going down, an actor won't come out of his trailer, the wind just blew your 20'x20' silk away just as the actor was delivering a great performance, etc. So we look at new tools mainly with an eye towards how they are going to solve this age-old challenges, the fact that they are new is not ultimately relevant, what matters is real-world results. If some cinematographers are cynical or wary of the advocates of change, it's only because they see things in terms of how these tools will help them achieve their artistic and logistical goals in the here and now, they aren't interested in broader notions of "revolution" or what the filmmaking world will be like in a decade, they are more interested in what they have to shoot today, tomorrow, and at the most, two months from now.
 
Stephen Webb said:
Would be nice if things could be kept respectful and unbiased.
Click to expand...

On Red User?? It's tough to do that when so many here seem to feel that the only acceptable answer and conclusion is the one they want to hear, regardless of its accuracy or truth. I'm not saying that's always the case, but the level of intolerance of contrary opinions is considerably higher here than just about everywhere else, including CML. That's not universal here, but it is very, very pervasive.

Interestingly, the one poster here who increasingly seems to be the most interested, reasonable, and respectful of such things is Jim Jannard.
 
Peter Rollins said:
If this test was done by someone with a little less credibility in the industry I would really have no problem with the errors. It is the fact that this test will be used by many to judge fact.
Click to expand...

This is really true. After this, I will take test results from many of the new guys over what CML tells us. If Evin and Geoff had a showdown I would probably put my money on Evin. It wasn't always like that. Just a few short years ago I was naive enough to take everything that came out of Geoffs mouth to be fact and everything on CML to be coming from people that knew more than anyone else. Dumb Dumb me. Back then, I based many of my purchase decisions off of what came out of those CML tests. I am sure I am not alone.

Someone said Geoff loves RED. That is nice to see. People that talked to him a few years ago know that was not always the case. He had a pretty ignorant view of Jim and the RED camera. Good for him to swallow that pride and take another look.

I am done talking smack about Geoff, as the good thing is that he is now taking the time to learn the RED system which in the end should mean good things. We all just need to take his results right now with a grain of salt and remember that he is still learning. ( just like all the rest of us ). And that is the point I think Peter is trying to make.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
My hat is off to anyone brave enough to publish any test, because the results or methodology are never going to please everyone.
Click to expand...

So true. And for comparative tests to be, well, comparative, there has to be common methodology and a common base. Adjusting every parameter in order to show each device's abilities "to the fullest" is fine if you're making demo reels for each device, but it's not so fine if you're trying to compare them. If anything, tests are meant to push devices to their limits, hopefully to their breaking point, and in some ways, to deliver information based on either a "typical" scenario or a worst case scenario. Those are the tests that yield meaningful, instructional results. With film, that's a bit easier because you've got common processing methodologies, and common printing methodologies if you're doing the tests photochemically. Even in a DI situation, there are common standards for scanning that can help make comparative tests somewhat fair. But when you get into electronic cameras, it becomes something of a free for all if everyone is going to use different methods for their particular device, because in the end, it doesn't really show a cameraman a direct comparison based on production variations - it only shows the results of different methods of processing and post production, which is not what exposure tests are intended to do.
 
M Most said:
I'm not saying that's always the case, but the level of intolerance of contrary opinions is considerably higher here than just about everywhere else, including CML
Click to expand...

Completely accurate. If anyone argued that REDuser was not biased towards one camera (RED) they need a reality check.

If the name of the website didn't give it away, the fact the owner of REDuser works for RED and the most active users are RED camera owners, there really isn't any argument that the majority of opinions have bias :)

As for comparing how conflict is dealt with, it's hard to compare REDUSER to CML in terms of how people deal with a difference of opinions.

It is adjacent to comparing someone walking into a BestBuy that sells multiple brands of computers and saying "Apple sucks" vs. someone walking into the Apple store and saying "Apple sucks". Excuse the pun, but it is not an apples to apples comparison. You are going to usually get a much more emotionally heated response peppered with pack mentality at the apple store 9 times out of 10.
 
The tests now about bravery?

How about tests that are done reasonably well and don't mislead.

If Geoff's going to complain about the BSC tests, the least he could do is not make similar mistakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top