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.
Robert Knoll said:
They were all set to 320. They described the testing at the begining in detail.
Click to expand...

i don't see how considering an f3 at minus 3 db is 500 iso... and it's max DR is at 0 db, 800. you literally can't dial it down to 320. there must have been some other method. the red mx wouldn't have been able to hold those highlights, exposing at a 320. 800 def.
 
sander kamp said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty well known that the Alexa has a little more dynamic range than the Red One MX out of the box, in large part due to the low con filter used with the Alexa. The Red Team has stated that the dynamic range of the MX versus the Alexa is pretty much the same if you use a low con filter on the MX.

I was also under the impression that the MX is measured to 13.5 stops of dynamic range. Without a low con filter on the MX, this sounds about right, as it is slightly lower than the Alexa. A little over 11 stops of dynamic range though is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 13.5.

ISO 320 sounds like it could (at least partially) be the culprit. I would like to know more info from Steve on this.
 
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...

Graeme Nattress said:
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
Click to expand...

Graeme, I have the greatest respect for your work, and I'm not saying this test will be anywhere near the last word. You are correct, if they can't get the resolution right, then everything else is highly suspect. As I said in my earlier post, I think they should publish a written report of the methodology. And while I've always thought the Zacuto guys were cool, their roots are way off in the video zone, which usually affects how people think about and understand digital cinema.

But as you know, perception is very important in the film community. The shootout was not Snuffy and two pals in the garage with their MacBeth chart. And it was not just posted on the web. They held screenings in Sydney, Amsterdam, N.Y., London, NAB, and Hollywood (albeit on 2K - another mistake). Bob Primes, ASC and Nancy Schreiber, ASC were involved in the shooting. Whatever one might think about their work or the ASC in general, that ASC appellation carries the whiff of authority. In the audience were film shooters Russel Boyd and Don McAlpine. TV guys Rodney Charters, Gale Tattersall, and Ken Glassing were there. Digital cinema "gurus" Philip Bloom and James Mathers were there. And these are just the names who were on camera.

Do the names or the screenings make the test authoritative in my mind? Absolutely not. But those names and the scope of the test will make it authoritative in the minds of many. I promise you that the bar chart showing Alexa at 14.1 stops of DR and Red MX at 11.3 stops (barely above the DSLRs) will spread. DPs care about DR for good reason, and the nearly 3 stops number will take hold in many quarters.

Let me reiterate. I don't put much stock in someone else's test unless I am there, or know absolutely every detail of the test. I am sold on the MX's capabilities. Unfortunately, however, this test could be very damaging in the area of perception.
 
What happened to the Panavision Genesis? Is this no longer a camera worthy of note?

Also, using the Red One MX at 320 ISO does not make too much sense in these tests.

What if the film they were testing was 100 ISO, would they they have rated all the cameras at 100 ISO?
Not a good idea when doing a comparison.
 
I thought the Red MX fared pretty well. It seemed to come out as the best all arounder, a tad behind the Alexa. None of the digital cams were exposed the way you normally would have if you were actually shooting the scene. But there needed to be some starting reference point for each cam to base results off of.

The real issue is: The test doesn't show how each cam would have handled the scene if exposed properly though...I think a lot of us understand that...it's just our clients may not. That's why this "Test" seems a bit scary from the resulting footage.

-Dane
 
Yeah, its going to be annoying defending a camera you have worked with and know fairly intimately with a 15 minute simplified webisode.

Is it a consensus that the 320 benchmark partially explains the loss of those stops? i always thought you had to go to higher iso's to see that effect.
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
Yeah, its going to be annoying defending a camera you have worked with and know fairly intimately with a 15 minute simplified webisode.

Is it a consensus that the 320 benchmark partially explains the loss of those stops? i always thought you had to go to higher iso's to see that effect.
Click to expand...

It is a sliding scale to a degree. If the ISO is set too low, you start clipping in the highlights much sooner. If you go too high, you start to introduce noise into the shadows. With the MX, noise in the shadows isn't apparent until much higher ISOs, so that means you can bump the ISO a good deal to get the highlight protection you need before noise in the shadows are introduced. Though there is no "native" ISO for the MX, there is a "range" in which you will get the most overall dynamic range. ISO 320 is a bit low, and could have very easily chopped the highlights off prematurely for the dynamic range tests. A lot of people shoot the MX at ISO 800, if that tells you anything.

I think I have that right, at least. :}
 
all digital cameras have an iso sweet spot. where you retain equal number of stops on the top and bottom for your dynamic range. most of what you said is true, but red def has it a sweet spot and that's 800. where it retains equal amount on the top and bottom end for a even range, and that's what you want for very high contrast scenes. pumping the iso may retain more highlights, but keep in mind you also need to control your light more.
 
Great discussions guys. Interesting thoughts and angles. This will ignite many more discussions too but for me it is not the end all be all. We all know it is more about the eye behind the Red, not those evaluating the image.

My 2 cents.
 
Jared Caldwell said:
A lot of people shoot the MX at ISO 800, if that tells you anything.
:}
Click to expand...

The problem with ISO is that everybody measures light differently, every condition or environment needs to be measured differently, everybody estimates the readings of the light-meter differently according to experience and the speed of the stock and, even worse, in digital life no ISO is written on the camera. Red says that the ISO of the MX sensor is depending on the scene "natively" 320 ASA but they recommend to set the ISO to 800 to gain a stop and a half more DR at the neclectable expense of (hardly visible) noise.

Red's ISO in the SDK is not an ISO like you find with film stock. It can be called setting X,Y or Z, whatever - Red calls it ISO, like you find within DSLRs. Taking a light-meter, setting it to ISO 800 and then expose to the light-meters readings won't bring the best out of the camera. In high-contrast sunny conditions such as a summerly park underexposing the sensor (ISO 800) makes a lot of sense. In a night exterior the opposite is a wise move, otherwise the footage will become a tad noisy.

I found that the best results with a light-meter was to set it to ISO 160 (M sensor) and ISO 320 (MX) with the benefits of a slight underexposure in mind (1 stop depending on the conditions) likewise we had with film just the opposite way. To be honest I haven't taken advantage of my light-meter with any Red project since 2008. The histogram is now my light-meter and a much better tool. Forget ISO in digital life, ISO is dead.

Hans
 
ISO is not dead............because I like it, and find it very useful when ordering a lighting package etc. etc.

Red Epic MX at 1600 ISO looks great.
 
Martin Stevens said:
Red Epic MX at 1600 ISO looks great.
Click to expand...

ISO 1600 set internally in the Red, or 1600 ISO on the light-meter? Both "ISOs" sometimes meet but often not. But when talking about ISO The term ISO in the digital world in misleading, IMHO.

Please check for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed. ISO/ASA has been an index to determine the speed of film stocks. Further down you will find a chapter about ISO and digital cameras. Interesting how often the word "arbitrary" is mentioned in this article, especially in conjunction with the word "manufacturer".

Hans
 
Personally after watching the tests for under and overexposure, I liked the image from the Red One the best. I don't know if what i saw was the same as what they saw at the screenings, but in my opinion it looked at least as good or even better than Alexa.
 
Guys let's be nice. I love Steve Weiss and the Zacuto guys. We can't be sure what happened with Robert's DR testing, but if we ask nicely they might tell us what ISO was used. Seems like 320 ISO was erroneously selected.

I understand they can't publish every little detail, but we all know cameras must be tested at their sweet-spot to achieve relevant numbers. So such an impactful figure really should be mentioned, please. I think they might oblige if we ask with a smile and a "thank you".

Thank you Zacuto, I enjoy these very much!
:thumbsup:


[0.02][rant]I am not a DP, but something very odd, on the highlight scene:
Alexa looked carefully sharpened for the scene. Perhaps that was the in-camera sharpening? Red didn't look sharpened at all. Of course know we can match that if we wanted, as they wisely stated ;) Get it? Steve Weiss? :) And this was a DR test, so... But, it really threw me off when looking at the side by side. So I wish they would have tried to grade to match, even if just a little. I thought MX it held up quite well even though a full stop might have been thrown away with the likely 320 ISO rating. But nobody can dispute that Alexa looks gorgeous too. Almost feels it was the camera used to compose and light the scene though.

On the low-light scene, I know selecting the Red-MX as the baseline "doesn't mean it is the one that performed best", but it really blew past all the other cameras. It might have been used to compose and light, but it was by far the best image there. Again, wonder what was done with grading here... well, maybe a few lines from Steve might clarify what was done. Unlike a high-light scenario where you can use NDs or close the lens, for low-light you need raw low-light power to get a great looking image, and it is nice to see Red pulling such a gorgeous image from such underexposed light levels. I might have added a little softening to the MX image, per personal taste, or a filter, but that is exactly what I love about Red! No other camera gives you such a massive base to work off. With Red you can make something look like VistaVison, S16, Alexa, S35, or whatever your heart desires. No other camera manufacturer can say the way Red can.

M-X looked gorgeous. And I think Alexa looks gorgeous too. We all know Alexa has about 1 stop more DR (if you know how to use your cameras ;) but Alexa is a far more limiting camera in my honest opinion. That added stop can do a lot! But the ~1.65k limit even shows on 1080 broadcast, and you can't do anything with lighting to add that detail. 12.5 stops DR can pretty easily be made to match Alexa's DR with a little lighting. But what if you want 1.92k worth of detail for a spectacular wide shot in your 1080 final?
(or whatever compression lets you pack in there) Lighting won't give you more detail, and Alexa won't top-off the 1080 bucket, though for many it is close enough... what about 2k then? Is it close enough then?

And regarding the Variety article nonsense, please don't say Red doesn't flatter skin tones, don't be so dumb to think you can't shoot girls with Red... that's as smart as [self-censorship]. We know we can make female leads look utterly, mouth-wateringly irresistible on a Red... For heaven's sake, even I know more than that guy's DP! Ha ha ha... We've seen it done a thousand times, and a thousand DPs are doing that as we speak. :)
[/0.02][/rant]
 
Yeah, nothing but love for Steve. I'm just curious about the ISO issue.

EDIT: At least we know what ISO to shoot the 7D/60D/T3i/T2i if we want equal highlight and shadow dynamic range. :}
 
Yea, and I am very happy to hear that detail about my 7D. Good to know the DR distribution at 800 ISO. Wish I had that info for all ISOs :) :greedy:

One more thing, which is SELDOM mentioned:
The limitation of an HD camera such as the Alexa is staggering when compared to 4.5k and 5k files when you are doing A.Visual Effects and B.Stabilization. 0.02

I'll gladly take that 1 stop DR loss, take the time to set up a workflow with my DP so that he is happy and feels safe that we won't go and ruin his composition with bad re-framing, and shoot with the camera that lets us swing from a VistaVision look where it fits, all the way to a S8 faded film look.

Oh, and I should add (still ticked off over the Variety "article") that my DP will be qualified enough to make girls look attractive.... DUH! lol... I mean, are you serious?! hahaha... why was that article linked here?

Can't wait for the next episode.
 
M-X looked gorgeous. And I think Alexa looks gorgeous too. We all know Alexa has about 1 stop more DR (if you know how to use your cameras ;) but Alexa is a far more limiting camera in my honest opinion. That added stop can do a lot! But the ~1.65k limit even shows on 1080 broadcast, and you can't do anything with lighting to add that detail. 12.5 stops DR can pretty easily be made to match Alexa's DR with a little lighting. But what if you want 1.92k worth of detail for a spectacular wide shot in your 1080 final?
(or whatever compression lets you pack in there) Lighting won't give you more detail, and Alexa won't top-off the 1080 bucket, though for many it is close enough... what about 2k then? Is it close enough then?
Click to expand...

Good post Roberto,

My concern is that while we in the Red community may know or believe in a one stop difference in DR between MX and Alexa, many DPs, both prominent and obscure, will not. When respected DPs are attached to a test that is seen by many other prominent cinematographers in the US, Australia, and Europe, it will have an effect. When many of those cameramen, already having a long history with Arri, see a real number, not just images, and that number is nearly 3 stops additional DR with Alexa, they will latch onto it like dogs to a bone. I would be very happy if I'm wrong. I just know from long experience that when some of these stories get started, they have a way of becoming legend.

I think resolution is hugely in favor of MX. I'm sure the Zacuto guys are fine people and well intentioned. But I wouldn't count on the resolution tests showing off the capabilities of the MX. In any case, right now 3 stops, however misguided or misinterpreted, is problematic when so many cinematographers are involved. My best guess.

Tim
 
I absolutely agree with you there Timothy. Though I'd like to think that Steve would notice such a big error and include a clarification in the opening of the next episode.

Like you said, rumor damage is done, for many anyway. Thought the real shame is that so few understand these intricacies. And since we are in the teen years of digital, it is more than understandable. Even if we weren't in the middle of the analogue to digital revolution (or the 3rd act some could argue), at the end of the day a DP's job isn't to to count 1's and 0's, or to know how a film negative's chemistry leads to the blah, blah, blah... Give them a great DIT they can trust and problem solved. For DPs, and for those that correctly value DPs, it is all about their ability to paint and tell a story with light, camera moves, composition, so on, so forth... We should just be happy to be among the few that understand digital acquisition, and will be capable of explaining why we feel Red is a better choice, from producer's stand point. Might not be the case 100% of the time, sometimes other cameras are be a better choice, of course; I am just thinking about no-compromise features here (without full length IMAX budgets ;) Unless you need insane-easy 120fps, or HDRx, or everything else that makes Epic so wild it takes a few paragraphs to sum up.

And I wouldn't worry about Red's reputation. Not at all. Give it a bit and even those DPs that take a single number and run without looking back will be blow away by movies like Spiderman, Hobbit, the list goes on, and on, and on... numbers will go out the window when they are forced to see what Red can do because all the big films on the theater were shot on Epic. ;)

Bottom line, these shows are hella'fun, and we all know Epic is king right now. Period. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top