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 :)

5D VS RED ONE

Status
Not open for further replies.
not meaning to offend or criticize on either video but why compare the two? Considerably different arent they? But either way both videos look nice...I just don't know how I would compare either one...since 5D is well a DSLR and the RED One is a cinema grade camera (not saying 5D can't do cinema but still...)
 
Speechless, what can I say?. Hands down, the RED footage was better than the Canon. Freshman trying to make the Varsity squad. Not going to happen. Scrimmage in practice maybe, not the Varsity team.
 
Last edited:
MichaelHalsell said:
Speechless, what can I say?. Hands down, the RED footage was better than the Canon. Freshman trying to make the Varsity squad. Not going to happen. Scrimmage in practice maybe, not the Varsity team.
Click to expand...

What was the RED footage? It would have been going through an Optimo at 290mm. I'm not sure I saw any.

EDIT - There are two videos linked to in the original post. One is the doc and the other is the teaser. After watching the teaser I think the Canon with a 300mm lens on it would have been worth trying. No audio, low light, not much motion.

I'm totally impressed that you could use a 5D to shoot all this behind the scenes run and gun style, get audio and focus. And it looks better than a lot of F900 stuff. No hypersharpening and no skew. It worked really well for that application.

And you can't say that wasn't a serious pro shoot where they didn't really care about the behind the scenes. They let a 5D shoot it. That's saying something all by itself. You'd think it would have been an XDcam. (Thanks GOD is wasn't an HVX. It would have been noisy as hell in all that low light)
 
Andy Taplin said:
Looks like the 5D was using the REDs cinema primes? Check out the perfect circular highlights in the bokeh.
Click to expand...

From the guy's blog:
"I used a manual focus Nikon 50mm f1.4, which I’d been using since ‘pre-firmware-update’ days for manual aperture control – it’s great to have a long throw manual focus ring, using AF lenses can be much too jittery for focusing. I also used the Canon 17-40mm f4 lens for the wide shots of the crew in action."
http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/07/behind-the-scenes-on-a-new-movie-shot-on-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/

A old Nikon 50mm 1.4 and a 17-40 F/4. And it worked? Wow. Which just continues to illustrate the real point. Here we're looking at a $200 lens on the Canon and an $80K Optimo on the RED - and dammit if the little lenses don't look just fine at the HD web resolution. So much so that at least one person wondered if RED lenses were on it.
 
I'd say the R1 product comes across with more style and continuity (I especially appreciate the DP's efforts to acheive "95% of the look in camera"), whereas the 5D creates some great individual shots, but lacks continuity from shot to shot. As a director, this would bug the crap out of me because it would pull attention away from the story, but in a news/behind the scenes/reality setting it's fine because we (as an audience) have grown to ignore rude changes in color or look.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
What point?
That the quality of your gear should be determined by the viewing medium?
Click to expand...

To some extent, that's reasonable. At web qualities, I defy most people to tell the difference between any well-shot prosumer/professional cameras (excluding DOF).
 
That 5D footage did look gorgeous, but the bottom line is it is a 1-trick pony. You just could not use it in a larger professional production. But for web clips, music videos etc., I think it looks amazing!

Now back to my Red...
 
Sorry to disagree, but the 5D footage looks a lot better in this case. If I hadn't seen so much other good looking RED stuff I would think that the 5D is a better camera, but I know better.
 
lots of camera's can be compared when comparing them on the basis of compressed web footy... just keep it in perspective.
 
cyc901 said:
Try compare it on a 40' screen

Chan Chi Ying
DP HK
Click to expand...

The question is not the size of the screen, IMO, it's the resolution. Can the 5D2 stand up, pixel for pixel, against serious digital cinema cameras? Not really. It's quite soft for 1080p. Probably closer to a true 720p, in my experience. But it will stand up against most cameras for night shooting, where almost all digital cinema cameras right now lag quite a bit behind the stills world.
 
jimhare said:
That 5D footage did look gorgeous, but the bottom line is it is a 1-trick pony. You just could not use it in a larger professional production. But for web clips, music videos etc., I think it looks amazing!

Now back to my Red...
Click to expand...

We use the 5D and 7D on NBC's prime time TV show "Southland".

Like anything, those cameras are a tool. They are a limited tool, with far fewer abilities and functions than a camera like the RED... but a tool nonetheless. And when you need it for its strengths, it's perfect.
 
I hate to say this , but in this case, except the highlights and the overexposure,
I must admit that I like the 5D footage a lot more.

I agree with the continuity along the making of , which seems a lot better on the R1, but then how much time could they spend on post and I suppose there wasn't the same time amount as with the grading of the feature of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top