Alexa, Red MX & Sony F3 Camera Test Comparison

[Robert Frank]

Joofa, WTH are you talking about? :arf:

For the record, I posted this comment earlier because I'm not a mind reader.

Joofa wasn't being specific, and it seemed to be a cheap shot to imply something rather than just stating your opinion clearly and taking a stand.

And, I can tell you one right away, some newer methods in color acquisitions - an area Red is quite pedestrian in, as far as I see. (No, fancily-named color spaces don't count). I can point a few other areas as my personal projection, but I think color suffices.

I call FUD.

 

[albert rudnicki]

For the record, I posted this comment earlier because I'm not a mind reader.

Joofa wasn't being specific, and it seemed to be a cheap shot to imply something rather than just stating your opinion clearly and taking a stand.



I call FUD. The double FU hand signal doesn't help either.

+1
Joofa, you need to come back with a clear head.

 

[Robert Frank]

With regard to the test itself, it's clearly flawed, but I'm not going to beat up the tester.

I'm not a rental house, so I don't have to worry about which gear will be in demand.

I've made my choice. I'm spending my personal money on EPIC. And if I need to rent another camera for a project, it will be another EPIC. Indeed, I can see a number of proposed projects needing to rent multiple Scarlets on a regular basis. IMO Scarlet is the ultimate Reality-TV cam.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sorry to disagree (again). With 4K delivery in the near future... 1080P cameras fall short. Just like shooting a Varicam in the past couple of years.

It's a shame that much of PLANET EARTH was shot at so-called 720p on Varicams. When you see portions of PLANET EARTH on a good 1080p HDTV, it looks like trash, image quality wise. It's just a shame, considering how much effort so many shooters put into that series.

 

[Michael Totten]

It's a shame that much of PLANET EARTH was shot at so-called 720p on Varicams. When you see portions of PLANET EARTH on a good 1080p HDTV, it looks like trash, image quality wise. It's just a shame, considering how much effort so many shooters put into that series.

Yeah I was always confused about that decision. I think the Sony F900 would've been a better choice (at the time). Must've been the 60p that broke the camels back ?

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

For what it is worth, I think Planet Earth looks really, really good. . . at least on our TV (Samsun 1080p LCD). We just have the DVDs and play them up-rezzed via our DVD/Blu-Ray player.

Stephen

 

[Joshua Raven]

Fair Enough.

 

[András Puiz]

I don't really get this, but I'm genuinely curious and interested, so please enlighten me.

I go to a big multiplex cinema every week, a lot of the films are shown digitally in 1080p on huge screens, and I can barely notice any pixelation from the third row. Not to mention watching DVDs upscaled to my 1080p HDTV, providing acceptable quality. Blu-ray seems to be a rather hard sell, as most people don't really see the advantage.

True, there have been some digitally-shot films such as Public Enemies which look awful, even today. But I think the majority of them looks good today, and I don't see why they would look any worse when upscaled to a 4K projection.

A small majority will certainly notice the difference. However, I'm not sure anyone will call the 1080 period a huge mistake in retrospect. Besides, would 4K have been feasible just a few years ago?

What am I missing here?

If and when 4K becomes the norm,

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

When ever I see stuff like that 1080p will be considered a mistake remark I can't help but think that the really forward thinking filmmakers will be the ones who stuck with film and shot 65mm.

 

[Vincent Rice]

I think the real issue here is that some of these cameras, as noted by others, were specifically designed for a simple workflow. They are capable of delivering terrific 1080p images with absolutely minimal effort.

RED was designed to produce vastly higher resolution images and is capable of achieving extremely high-quality images, but achieving this isn't exactly "easy" (certainly not as easy as running a tap off the back of the camera).

People who bought the RED One and who did not make the efforts to properly process their footage were probably disappointed. Those of us who do take that time (or, like in my case, pay people to do that work for them), are thrilled.

It's that classic golden triangle of "good," "fast," and "cheap." We got "good" and "cheap." But it isn't as fast as a true video camera. Others have opted for "fast" and "good," but it sure as heck isn't cheap (way over our heads, at least).

We couldn't be happier with the way our films look.

Stephen

Yep. Nailed it.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

András, it's all to do with MTF. When you shoot at 4k (or even much better still, 5k on Epic) the MTF at 2k is incredibly high - there's very little loss of contrast with detail meaning things look sharp - very sharp, but because there's no electronic sharpness added, the image looks natural. Project that at 4k and you need less (or no) sharpness added for display. End result is a sharp and supremely natural looking image, like 65mm I think.

Start at 1080p and you have a dilemma - either a reasonable MTF at full detail and strong aliasing, or poor MTF and negligible aliasing. Either way you either get a soft image, a soft image with electronic sharpening or an aliased image. The soft image will look natural enough, but neither the sharpened nor the aliased image will look natural.

End result is very high resolution capture looks more natural, less forced, less artificial - higher measured resolution is just the rather nice cherry on the top of the cake - the other benefits that derive from that high resolution capture are equally important.

Graeme

 

[Dj Joofa]

For the record, I posted this comment earlier because I'm not a mind reader.

Joofa wasn't being specific, and it seemed to be a cheap shot to imply something rather than just stating your opinion clearly and taking a stand.



I call FUD. The double FU hand signal doesn't help either.

Hi Robert,

It was late at night and I didn't realize that what I thought was a smiley symbol was a more suggested one. I appologize to Mr. Jannard for mistakenly using that symbol, as not in my wildest dreams I want to be offensive to him or anybody else. I am grateful to Jim for taking that in good stride.

I'm going to remove that symbol from my original message by editing and would request others to remove it from my quoted message in their messages.

Best regards

Joofa

 

[David Rasberry]

When ever I see stuff like that 1080p will be considered a mistake remark I can't help but think that the really forward thinking filmmakers will be the ones who stuck with film and shot 65mm.

He He, I recently bought the blu-ray remaster of Jacques Tati's Playtime, filmed in 65mm originally. Absolutely stunning in HD. Looking forward to Lawrence of Arabia done the same way. Big difference in DVD and blu-ray for some things.
Looking forward to Red Ray too.
IMO the better your acquisition format, the better off you are regardless of what you release too.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I got off a Chapman University shoot about a week or so ago that filmed with RED. I've been on one or two sets in the past that have used RED instead of the usual S16mm or 35mm route. I'd sort of taken a break from cameras for a while, mostly focusing on school and creative research, all the while toying with my 5D Mark II taking 3D animation reference pictures and occasionally a few short videos here and there.

Coming back to a set and seeing the live output of a RED camera at 4K, sometimes 4.5K on this particular shoot, it's definitely clear to me that you just can't get away from the benefits of 4K. The image is so clear, you can see every detail in a scene, and can fix problems immediately on set, no problem. Not to mention, higher resolution really helps sell the 35mm DOF look overall. My 5D Mark II comes rather close visually as far as overall feeling goes, I wouldn't be itching for an AF100 or Sony F3 to replace it if I wanted to make a film right now, I've done heavy VFX on a D90, I'm not scared of h.264 at all. But if there were any other option, it would and could only be on a RED, there is absolutely no competition in my book, the game's over unless the other guys step up and release a price-conscious 4K+ competitor. Tests like this only prove that fact even more.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

András, it's all to do with MTF. When you shoot at 4k (or even much better still, 5k on Epic) the MTF at 2k is incredibly high - there's very little loss of contrast with detail meaning things look sharp - very sharp, but because there's no electronic sharpness added, the image looks natural. Project that at 4k and you need less (or no) sharpness added for display. End result is a sharp and supremely natural looking image, like 65mm I think.

Start at 1080p and you have a dilemma - either a reasonable MTF at full detail and strong aliasing, or poor MTF and negligible aliasing. Either way you either get a soft image, a soft image with electronic sharpening or an aliased image. The soft image will look natural enough, but neither the sharpened nor the aliased image will look natural.

End result is very high resolution capture looks more natural, less forced, less artificial - higher measured resolution is just the rather nice cherry on the top of the cake - the other benefits that derive from that high resolution capture are equally important.

Graeme

Thanks for this explanation Graeme. Helps me understand things much better.

Anthony

 

[Christian Munoz D]

It's a shame that much of PLANET EARTH was shot at so-called 720p on Varicams. When you see portions of PLANET EARTH on a good 1080p HDTV, it looks like trash, image quality wise. It's just a shame, considering how much effort so many shooters put into that series.

For what it is worth, I think Planet Earth looks really, really good. . . at least on our TV (Samsun 1080p LCD). We just have the DVDs and play them up-rezzed via our DVD/Blu-Ray player.

Stephen

Tom, Planet Earth wasn’t shot only on 720p Varicams, they also used film super 16mm shot with Arri SR2 and SR3, Cineflex V14 HD with Sony CineAlta and Panasonic cameras, Photron Fastcam for high speed, etc.
Since Planet Earth Production began in 2002 and ended in 2006.So, there is a ton of mixed resolutions and of course nothing close to 4K… and, Stephen, yes you can see some sequences with very low quality.

Life, on the other hand is looking better and also there is a large mix of formats. The Episode of the plants IMO looks the best.

Planet Earth is a remake of The Living Planet (1984), So, I will not be surprised if they make a new Planet Earth the next decade and in 4K.

 

[Robert Frank]

It was late at night and I didn't realize that what I thought was a smiley symbol was a more suggested one. I appologize to Mr. Jannard for mistakenly using that symbol, as not in my wildest dreams I want to be offensive to him or anybody else. I am grateful to Jim for taking that in good stride.

I'm going to remove that symbol from my original message by editing and would request others to remove it from my quoted message in their messages.

Done. I am all about solving problems, not perpetuating them and certainly not creating them.

Speaking of solving problems Joofa, when you have a chance perhaps you can discuss your thoughts about RED and color that you made reference to in one of your posts. Merely implying something isn't very useful or constructive.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

I think the real issue here is that some of these cameras, as noted by others, were specifically designed for a simple workflow. They are capable of delivering terrific 1080p images with absolutely minimal effort.

I always hate to butt-in, because I'm generally a ghost on this forum versus the other, this idea frustrates me to no end. The idea that you can't shoot RED MX on a simple job and treat it like a video camera.

RED was designed to produce vastly higher resolution images and is capable of achieving extremely high-quality images, but achieving this isn't exactly "easy" (certainly not as easy as running a tap off the back of the camera).

But, my problem with this is that it is very easy to treat the camera like a video camera. There's no reason why you cannot chop all of the extras off of the camera body and break it down to its basic form, shoot to CF Cards (Like you would with the F3 if you plan on going nanoflash--like everyone seems to be) or a drive and still get the best HD that you can.

If someone can tell me why, at least to my working knowledge this is a perfectly acceptable workflow, you cannot take the Proxy's, sync them, cut them in FCP and then export an EDL back to REDCINE for your final output and get the best that the digital image has to offer.

An instance where I could see this not being applicable is where you have to turn around a product in two days and the amount of footage gathered is beyond the capacity of one's general post workflow (ingest, convert, cut, deliver) and you may need the extra horsepower of a RED ROCKET.

Alright, I can buy that.

In any other circumstance, is it that difficult for people to break out of the mentality, in production and post, that you must use a RED as a massive camera that only produces material for the big screen.

People who bought the RED One and who did not make the efforts to properly process their footage were probably disappointed. Those of us who do take that time (or, like in my case, pay people to do that work for them), are thrilled.

Agreed. I'm not an owner, I operate and have come to appreciate--after a long and interesting stint of DSLRism and other cameras--the modularity of even the four year old RED body with an MX implant, not to mention the flexibility in production and post capturing to this flavor of raw it offers.

It's that classic golden triangle of "good," "fast," and "cheap." We got "good" and "cheap." But it isn't as fast as a true video camera. Others have opted for "fast" and "good," but it sure as heck isn't cheap (way over our heads, at least).

We couldn't be happier with the way our films look.

Stephen

You may disagree, and I know of a few people that do, but I don't think the F3 or Alexa are as fast as a true video camera, either. Once you move beyond 2/3" Sensors, you're out of the video camera realm and into another one that requires you tailor your workflow and ethic to the tool.

To me, neither of these cameras take anymore or any less crew, patience, post to achieve optimal results for any working and/or given situation than a RED. May that be in its stripped down form, or, god mode.

You still need to grade Alexa footage if you're shooting REC709.

You still need to grade F3 footage if you're shooting REC709.

And, as far as I see, the F3's big promise to those who can't go RED is REC709 and S-LOG... on top of tacking on external recorders to tap the camera's true potential.

By the way, I am not disagreeing with you for sake of any argument, Stephen, just speaking in general since the thread is allowed to stand open here in Off Topic forums.

I can't think of many situations where I would not simply shoot RED, especially if the end product is a representation of self. That may just be me.

Having alternatives are great, it breeds competition and competition is great for the consumer.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Off color

Off color

1) RAW color provides a wide and deep palette. Until recently, the best color grading tools were optimized for DPX log and rec.709. In order to use those tools, at some point in the process, you had to transcode the r3ds to something else which left you with compromised color.

2) All due respect to Graeme and the Red Team, RED's color science has been evolving these last 3 years and I expect it will continue to do so. The Alexa, like the D-21 before it, has very good color rendition for which they deserve props. As companies like FilmLight, Quantel, Assimilate, etc refine their treatment of RAW data from Red1/Epic, ArriRaw, etc I expect colorists to be able to craft terrific color. IMHO properly handled RAW fed into an IIF/ACES workflow in 16bit OpenEXR will render 10bit log DPX based pipelines obsolete sooner than most people think.

3) I couldn't agree more with Graeme about the value of oversampling in creating a clean 1080/2K deliverable. I actually expected the Alexa to do better than it appears to, since it actually reads around 3K and then scales to 1080/2K in camera - a theoretically sufficient oversample to overcome the bayer pattern decode.

Cheers - #19

 

[David Mullen ASC]

3) I couldn't agree more with Graeme about the value of oversampling in creating a clean 1080/2K deliverable. I actually expected the Alexa to do better than it appears to, since it actually reads around 3K and then scales to 1080/2K in camera - a theoretically sufficient oversample to overcome the bayer pattern decode.

There may be some mild improvement in resolution (and reduction in aliasing) once Alexa starts allowing 2.8K RAW recording. Plus post conversion/downsampling to 1080P or 2K from ARRIRAW may produce better results than their real-time in-camera conversion to 1080P.