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 :)

Camera shootout 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
M Most said:
You do have that choice, but at least the way Redcine X is currently set up, to do that quickly means either all or nothing. In other words, you have to select which parts of the metadata you standardize and which you keep from the camera settings, on a per shot basis as far as I know. One way around this is to generate EXR files using ACES (it's in the EXR setup dialog), which ignores all metadata other than exposure and white balance (color temperature and tint), which are the two camera settings you usually want to keep anyway. It might not be a bad idea to allow export settings that allow you to select which metadata to keep and which to reset to a default value regardless of the export file format. That would be the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

It's very easy in RCX to set which metadata you want to keep and which to set to whatever you want.
Just create a preset with what you want to be your baseline settings and use the "look setup" option in the preset
window to paste only the those settings to any or all clips.

Edit: Graeme said the same thing... need to refresh browser more often :)
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
I always use 5600k or 3200k for colour temprature. Using tint in the metadata and relying on it means that I trust the on-set monitoring, which I don't. Balancing out tint can only be done accurately late in the grading process. Compensating inside the camera via metadata leads to funky footage, IMHO.

Hans
Click to expand...

Tint is an important component of white balance. Assuming everything is 3200 or 5600 isn't necessarily a better approach.
Having a grey card in the shot (or slate) can help set WB in post for the best results. Using tint is better done with
WB tool or picker rather than set manually.
 
I always get a good chart like the RED Cambook in shot for each lighting set up.

Graeme
 
IMO, Comparing that many cameras has so many objectionable steps... how the camera was graded, how they translated the "equal camera settings", how the digital footage was dealt with, etc etc. Interesting test, but like they said in the video, each camera can be manipulated to make the scene look beautiful.

I think the one thing it does show is just how much the Canon DSLRs have disrupted things.
 
Jared, I am not getting the video yet. Instead I see some Vimeo embedding permission error screen. I don't see it in their Vimeo channel either.

Sadly, this test is already/rapidly becoming obsolete with the release of Epic. But I look forward to seeing the episode anyway. I really enjoyed the last.
 
I watched it earlier today. If you go to Zacuto.com, they have it on the front page. I got a weird message when I tried the link above on my iPad as well, but I figured it would work on an actual workstation. I just wanted to link to something that wasn't the main page as Zacuto is sure to update it over the coming weeks.
 
Something that was mentioned in the video was comparing film and digital at 320 ISO. For the MX, this could be one reason why the DR was rated as so low...
 
Jared Caldwell said:
Something that was mentioned in the video was comparing film and digital at 320 ISO. For the MX, this could be one reason why the DR was rated as so low...
Click to expand...

I think Bob Primes mentioned rating all the cameras at the same "film speed." When I hear something like that, I begin to wonder about the methodology they used. In any true test of the cameras' capabilities, they should be rated at their sweet spot ISO. With tests, as everyone knows, everything is in the details. Without knowing how the cameras were rated, the footage exposed, and especially how it was graded, I'm not prepared to accept the DR numbers. I wonder if someone on the Red side of things could discreetly ask Zacuto for a written description of the methodology.

Tests like these are very unfortunate for those of us who make our living with the camera. I'm an MX owner and diehard fan. I know what the Red can do and how to use it, but there is an ocean of misconception, rumor, and bias for the Alexa (I'm sure it's a wonderful camera) that is not helped by this kind of "independent" shootout. I learned long ago that not every cinematographer sees, understands, or tests in the same way. When some element of a film stock or camera's performance is misunderstood or misinterpreted, it often has a terrible way of taking hold, true or not. I am quite certain that people who have know idea what they are taking about, as well as those who should but are thoughtless, will begin to cite this test as evidence that Alexa has 3 stops greater dynamic range than MX. At that point, like it or not, true or not, Alexa gains a stronger foothold, and HDRx in the Epic becomes a fix, not a feature.

If I can help it, I never want to be in the position of having to persuade producers or directors to use a superior camera when they believe it's inferior. I know the Red Team has worked extraordinarily hard to develop spectacular cameras and promote them. I'm wondering if now might be the time to counter some of this "shootout" data with a new test of MX, or resurrect some of the earlier tests with Alexa. I could use some new ammo.

Tim Eaton
 
Why the concern when every other week a big name is purchasing an EPIC? There really was no mention of the RED MX, the discussion was either Alexa or DSLR. In this test at least the Alexa looked amazing. The results made me think, yes this one is better, but is it 10x the price better? I think this will be seen by many, many people both experienced and not so experienced.
 
Matt Steinauer said:
I don't think you need much ammo to counter these guys. They'd probably measure my Fisher Price Pixelvision camera at around 2k.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Problem is when people publish a bunch of figures and put their reputations on them, and one set of figures (the resolution measurements) are not just wrong, but obviously wrong (because they show more resolution then many of the cameras have pixels) it really calls everything into question.

Graeme
 
Kalani Prince said:
the "resolution" episode should be interesting ; )
Click to expand...

And it's one of the easiest (in comparison) things to measure too. It's not too hard, you just need a good chart.

Graeme
 
Kalani Prince said:
the "resolution" episode should be interesting ; )
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.
We will be able to see how it is they arrived at those numbers rather than speculating on how moronic they must be lacking the ability to count or something. It bothers me that some here are more interested in taking a dump on the tests and the people who ran them then enjoying the video for what it is and discussing their results, it's not like Red MX performed poorly or anything.
 
I watched it, and here are my thoughts:
In the shadows, RED One MX rules. 2nd place goes to Sony F3 and ARRI Alexa.
In the highlights, Film still reigns supreme. Alexa comes in 2nd place, followed by RED One MX and Sony F3.

Some things to consider:
- They did not mention which firmware they had for each of the cameras.
- They did not mention which Color/Gamma profiles they used for the RED One MX.
- I don't think they had the new SLog for the Sony F3, which improves its capability.
- I don't think they had the new TechniColor profile for the Canons.
- And finally, they didn't have the EPIC, which is what we would have liked to see most.
 
Last edited:
Eric Z said:
I watched it, and here are my thoughts:
In the shadows, RED One MX rules. 2nd place goes to Sony F3 and ARRI Alexa.
In the highlights, Film still reigns supreme. Alexa comes in 2nd place, followed by RED One MX and Sony F3.
Click to expand...

I would have put the F35 up with the Red One in terms of highlights the F3 performed okay but not as well as the F35 in the highlights.
 
I'm still curious what ISO they used for the digital cameras. I have a lot of respect for Steve and the ASC members that conducted this test, but if they just used 320 ISO to test DR, I think this is a major factor that compromises these results.

Any digital camera is going to clip fast in the highlights if the ISO is set (far) below the goalposts and sweet spots.
 
Jared Caldwell said:
Something that was mentioned in the video was comparing film and digital at 320 ISO. For the MX, this could be one reason why the DR was rated as so low...
Click to expand...

I think they say the cameras were rated at iso 800, but they don't go much into detail about the settings for each camera and how they treated them in post so it is hard to say what they did exactly to the RED ONe MX.

I don't think DR was low on the RED One MX, in the test it has the second highest DR of the digital cameras and lower noise than the film stocks. It might have been possible to squeeze a little bit more out of it with different settings of different handling in post, but all tests so far seem to indicate that the Alexa has more DR than the RED One MX so you can't expect it suddenly to come out as a winner.

Personally I think it is an interesting test and the RED One MX still looks really good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top