Build 20 Sensor Testing

[Mark David]

Just caught this on the PVC pipeline...

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/red_build_20_torture_tests/

 

[Jamie Havill]

Very interesting read, thank you.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Art Adams also says (on his blog at the end of same article) just
below the "share this" option:

"What I’m discovering is that there’s a difference
between pretty pictures and accurate pictures.
The RED does pretty pictures, but not accurate ones.
Unless you’re shooting food or fashion that’s probably not an issue."

"There do seem to be a rash of fashion still photographers
who think they can shoot with the RED and then pull
perfect stills from it for print work, but they are completely high."

And I've read a lot of pretty statements that were not accurate ones.
So, does this infer that "accurate cameras" do, well, not so pretty pictures?
Or pretty accurate ones? Both, no doubt.
I wonder what Soderburgh would think if he were
to find out he'd just made a movie with a camera
that doesn't do accurate pictures- maybe he'd wish
he'd inserted more food or fashion.
Gimme a break guys. Where does pretty begin and accurate end?
I understand that there might be an issue here and there
with hair splitting form, but try and stay objective.

As for the fashion photographers: is this a fact?
I know a lot of fashion photographers worth their salt,
and not one would expect anything other than what
they'd tested and prepped for.

 

[Michael Epple]

I know Art and he has nothing against the Red. I see nothing in this article that doesn't simply give exposure and color insights into shooting with it. Also his statements of accuracy are meant for people who are neither against nor for the Red camera and are meant to help them choose a format to shoot on. He put time and energy into providing this resource and doesn't deserve to to be called a Red hater.

 

[mikeburton]

I know Art and he has nothing against the Red. I see nothing in this article that doesn't simply give exposure and color insights into shooting with it. Also his statements of accuracy are meant for people who are neither against nor for the Red camera and are meant to help them choose a format to shoot on. He put time and energy into providing this resource and doesn't deserve to to be called a Red hater.

Agreed, Art isn't knocking the camera, he is simply reporting his findings After taking valuable time for the better of the community and his peers. Don't be too sensitive. RED is a great camera and has proved itself in Hollywood and beyond but isn't the end all be all when it comes to the digital Cinema camera market (this is coming from a very satisfied RED owner btw). No need to start a fuss.

 

[Michael Totten]

Art Adams writes:

"There do seem to be a rash of fashion still photographers
who think they can shoot with the RED and then pull
perfect stills from it for print work, but they are completely high."

Less than two weeks ago I saw 2' X 3' prints of stills pulled from RED (much larger than your average full page layout in Vogue or GQ magazine). My initial impression was that they were shot on a high end DSLR, so I was almost shocked when I found out they were stills pulled from RED. The people that attended this event were still photographers and photo producers who work all the time on the biggest kind of high end shoots... and from what I gathered they were all very happy with the quality of the prints. By no means is the RED designed to replace high end DSLR's (that'll probably change with Epic FF35) but for certain jobs RED definitely fits the bill and people have been quite happy.

If Annie Leibovitz & Steven Meisel are using RED for some of their jobs (and are happy with the quality) then I'm sure you're not speaking for everyone Mr. Adams. You may be right, they could be high, but it's certainly not because they chose to pull stills from RED for print work.

 

[christopher witzke]

Hmmm... I'm having great results pulling stills from my RED. I also own phaseone and canon 1ds3 & 5d2's.... I find that as long as you have decent DR, tint, WB, and sat values that are available from RAW... that the quality and accuracy of the still export as a 16 bit tiff is fantastic. ( with a controlled set/lighting/etc ) Heck.... back in the day shooting 8X10 and 4X5 trans film required some serious finagling with wratten CC filters to get close to acceptable.... each batch of film required a whole new test run at a 45 minute wait form the dip and dunk e6 line.... no I don't miss those days.... and yes we are spoiled now!

There are so many variable to consider in stills and motion photography... quality of the light being a huge issue ( CRI, WB spill, etc ) to name one. The subjectivity of "pretty" is another.

I find myself getting "annoyed" when I read most pundit reviews and tests... Ken Rockwell gets me upset the most... as if he's getting some payola from somewhere.

I think Art is a good guy though.... and appreciate his efforts.