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 :)

ARRIFLEX D-21 vs RED

Levan Bakhia said:
I think it was 120000 Euros not $, and yes they are not for selling, unless it is country where there is no ARRI rental. Like a country I am from :*) but I do not think D21 is 6 times better than RED. Is it?
Click to expand...
joke of the week.. :poster_oops: year.. :whistling: ehehehehe
 
ronx said:
Interesting, has anyone dealt with Ken Rich before? famous or infamous?
Click to expand...


Very painful experinece.... well for me anyway.
Nice enough bloke, but man what a dragged out experience.
Best way to deal with him is, cash in hand, go to his office. do the deal there and then and leave.

because he does have a good range of used equipment.

Other person you should be calling if it's LENSES your after.
This guy is good!.

Stuart Rabin
FOCUS OPTICS
TEL.818.757.1007
FAX.818.757.1029
stuart@focusoptics.com
 
manuelwenger said:
Well, the right tool for the right project, some projects will go vor RED some will go D21, and currently there is market for both camera systems.
If you want S35 depht of field with 60fps NOW on digitial, you need to go ARRI D21.

I am a RED camera owner in a couple of weeks myself, but still, i make a camera choice dependent on a project, budget and artistic choice, no need to battle Camera A against Camera B.

Manuel
Click to expand...

Your thoughts will change about 5 minuets after you shoot your first test.
Trust me.
 
Big T said:
Your thoughts will change about 5 minuets after you shoot your first test.
Trust me.
Click to expand...

we have been testing the Arri D20 some years ago.
we then decided to go with the more expensive Sony HDW-750P instead.

reasons to favor sony were latitude, sensitivity, ergonomics and reliability.
price was in favor of arri.
 
Stephen Webb said:
Yes but the point is if Epic has a 4:3 sensor that will be more!

Don't you understand, it goes up to 11???
Click to expand...
I know you're only being semi-serious with the "it goes to 11" comment, but my original post was a reply to your post about the D-21, not the Epic. If Epic is a 4:3 sensor, at 5K, then it would definitely be an advantage for those who like to shoot anamorphic pictures (although it would be worse for those who shoot non-anamorphic, which I imagine is a much larger group of people). However, the D-21's 4:3 sensor, at a lower resolution than RED ONE's, does not seem to me to be a "significant feature," since even if you crop the RED's sensor to a 4:3 area it still maintains more detail. Right? :-)
 
The Reason you get a D-21 has nothing to do with the sensor. It's all about a real mechanical shutter with a real crystal clear optical viewfinder.

The Arriflex exports 2k 16bit Uncompressed Bayer to either a dual-link Codex system or S.two. Your dealing with much higher bit rates then the RED camera.
 
I agree this is comparing apples to oranges. I'm working the pre-pre for a feature. We're still looking for financing and all kinds of figures are thrown at us so every option is looked at.

I have to say the D-20/D-21 is very interesting... but I'm worried about the sensitivity. I've read it has been rated as low as 50 ISO. If I were to shoot the RED, I'd definitely shoot my tungsten stuff optically corrected or at least half corrected, which would bring the sensitivity down... but ISO 50 is... yew... (A lot of night stuff for the said project turns me off the 20/21)

If anyone has first hand experience with the D-20/D-21, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Especially if someone could comment on the sensitivity difference between the 20 and 21. Did they change the sensor? The details are pretty fuzzy there.

EDIT : I just remembered. I saw the D20 demoed at a local rental facility but they didn't run it. How loud is it in a real life situation while recording?
 
Häakon said:
However, the D-21's 4:3 sensor, at a lower resolution than RED ONE's, does not seem to me to be a "significant feature," since even if you crop the RED's sensor to a 4:3 area it still maintains more detail. Right? :-)
Click to expand...

But with reduced FOV/DOF.

Where Arri have got it right is to have a 4:3 sensor to allow for anamorphic shooting. With the Red One, if you shoot Anamorphic you take a resolution hit over shooting flat which is annoying.

Now admittedly the need for anamorphic formats may not be top priority, and the cost of R&D to include a 4:3 sensor in the Epic may not be cost effective, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice feature to have and one which the Arri D-21 can genuinely claim as a unique and positive feature.
 
Stephen Webb said:
But with reduced FOV/DOF.

Where Arri have got it right is to have a 4:3 sensor to allow for anamorphic shooting. With the Red One, if you shoot Anamorphic you take a resolution hit over shooting flat which is annoying.

Now admittedly the need for anamorphic formats may not be top priority, and the cost of R&D to include a 4:3 sensor in the Epic may not be cost effective, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice feature to have and one which the Arri D-21 can genuinely claim as a unique and positive feature.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand, is that you are comparing a 4K resolution sensor, which even if you cropped at the sides to get 4:3, which is still well over 2K of horizontal resolution with a sensor that will only give you 2K resolution max.

Doesn't it make sense to you that the Red One's 4K 16:9 sensor, with anamorphic lenses, cropped to 4:3 still yields a greater resolution than is possible with the Arri?

Does this make sense to anyone else, am I wrong?

4:3 is the same as 12:9, just to make it easier to do the calculations. So horizontally we are comparing 16 to 12, 4K divided into 16 is 256, now we multiply that by 12 to get 3072!

So, my friend, shooting anamorphic with Red, cropping the sensor down to 4:3 yields a resolution of 3072 x 2304.

The most you are going to get out of a 4:3 2K sensor is 2K, so that would be 2048 x 1556.

Tell me, which one is giving you the greater resolution?
 
But like I said, you don't get the full s35 format by shooting anamorphic on Red, whereas you do when shooting on the D-21.

What I don't understand is this compulsive need some people seem to have to knock every other product on the market and not acknowledge that actually sometimes they do have some unique features that are a credit to them.

Is it really that hard???
 
Stephen, you're right to an exctent, especially if the FOV is cropped top/bottom on the RED. If it's not (the full FOV is projected to a cropped 4k sensor) and the rez in that crop is sufficiantly higher for downsampling to 2k, I can uderstand why people point that out.

Me?
I dunno...
 
Right, that's exactly what I was saying. He countered that you take a resolution hit to shoot anamorphically with RED compared to shooting flat, which the Arri doesn't. But of course on that camera, you take a resolution hit shooting flat, which I find even more annoying. The point is, however, that RED has more resolution in it's 4:3 mode than Arri does natively. It's irrelevant what the native sensor size is, as long as the lenses cover it fully. It's the age old question; which is bigger, a square or a rectangle? Obviously it depends on the dimensions of both. I don't see how you're losing DOF if you're only cropping horizontally, since the lenses cover the entire active area. You only lose it when the lens covers more area than the sensor size, like what happens when you shoot in 3K or 2K modes on the RED.

Those who have stated that the real reason to be excited about the D21 is the shutter and viewfinder are correct, but if the tradeoff is having to shoot uncompressed, the data will probably be unmanagable in all but the most specialized projects. I think RED's real ace in the pocket is REDCODE, which makes working with 4K actually doable.
 
Stephen Webb said:
But like I said, you don't get the full s35 format by shooting anamorphic on Red, whereas you do when shooting on the D-21.

What I don't understand is this compulsive need some people seem to have to knock every other product on the market and not acknowledge that actually sometimes they do have some unique features that are a credit to them.

Is it really that hard???
Click to expand...

So in about two weeks Soderbergh is going to show a fake anamorphic s35mm in the movie "Che" shot on RED to the world.

All it sounds more like a "big joke" of Panavision's Jonn Grant that claims too much GREEN in CMOS :) .

D-21 and Genesis are the fighters for survival.

Also I just showed HERE how you could do easy and fast 4K workflow with R3D on a laptop MacBook Pro 17".

Can you do it the same with D-21 RAW or Genesis?
 
Häakon said:
I don't see how you're losing DOF if you're only cropping horizontally, since the lenses cover the entire active area.
Click to expand...

You're not only cropping horizontally.

Because the sensor is 16:9 rather than 4:3 you're already cropped vertically. You then have to crop horizontally as well to get a 4:3 area, so in the end you're losing the comparative FOV/DOF you'd normally have with anamorphic because you're essentially taking a crop from the centre of a s35 image.

If it doesn't matter, then what's the benefit having a s35 sized sensor over having a 2/3" sized one?
 
Anamorphic lenses squeeze the 2:39:1 image into a 4:3 area but since Red is a 16:9 sensor the lens over shoots the sensor at the top of the bottom.
If you where to un squeeze the image as is you would get an image that is far too wide and you've lost half your vertical field of view.
In order to correct this you crop the sides of the 16:9 image back to a 4:3 one and in the process lose a bunch of your horizontal FOV as well.
You still get the 2k image that an ARRI would give you but at a cost of the Benefits of the Anamorphic FOV.
The ARRI D 21 on the other hand has the full 4:3 35mm sensor so it enjoys the full benefit of the anamorphic lens.
 
And another thing...

If you shoot Anamorphic on the Red you're actually taking a 3072x2304 image (when cropped). The D-21 is 2880x2160 - hardly a massive difference in resolution. To be able to shoot anamorphic at full 35mm sensor size is a significant benefit of the D21 (if anamorphic happens to be your thing).

I'm not arguing that the Red One isn't better in other areas btw, just pointing out that the D21 has some useful features that the Red One doesn't (whilst hinting strongly that Red might like to look at adopting it for the Epic if possible).

Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!
 
Stephen Webb said:
And another thing...

If you shoot Anamorphic on the Red you're actually taking a 3072x2304 image (when cropped). The D-21 is 2880x2160 - hardly a massive difference in resolution. To be able to shoot anamorphic at full 35mm sensor size is a significant benefit of the D21 (if anamorphic happens to be your thing).

I'm not arguing that the Red One isn't better in other areas btw, just pointing out that the D21 has some useful features that the Red One doesn't (whilst hinting strongly that Red might like to look at adopting it for the Epic if possible).

Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!
Click to expand...

Actually, you have a point that I only just caught onto with the help of CraigWB. You are actually right, the Red's sensor is physically not large enough in the vertical. So, it's actually not just a case of cropping it to 4:3 because by the fact that it is only 13.7mm on the vertical you are already chopping off the top and bottomof your full frame anamorphic image.

Hmm, so, shooting anamorphic on the Red is not perfect, and I guess I might consider the Arri over the Red one if shooting anamorphic and I had the budget, but, and this is a big but, how does it look in the end? I really liked the look of that Nescafe commercial shot with Red and the Lomo's, I would argue that in the end, the audience may not know any better.

Not to bring up another old topic that has been argued to death but the optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter are still the real selling points for me of the Arri. I would probably pay another $10,000 over the projected cost of Epic to have a mechanical shutter and optical viewfinder, plus a 5K 4:3 aspect sensor that Stephen is suggesting.

I see the uncompressed output of the Arri also as a strength, not a weakness. For all of the extra storage and data bandwidth needed in post, working with a uncompressed output should at least be an option. When I ordered my Red, I wanted the optical port, but by that time it had already been tossed out. Don't get me wrong, Redcode is the cornerstone, or one of the cornerstones why 4K will be accessible to more people than could have ever been imagined a couple years ago, but in some cases, if I had a uncompressed RAW output option, I would take it.

In the end it's all Jims decision, and I have read from others that somewhere along the line, Red said they wouldn't even consider a optical viewfinder or mechanical shutter. So I won't even argue for those anymore, there are more important things.

Still a 4:3 full sized sensor (what would it be about 17.5mm vertical instead of 13.7mm?) isn't a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top