EPIC and Alexa...

[David Battistella]

I have one rule when I test.

I never want to be right about anything I "think" I am going to be right about.

This means that every test is a discovery of something new, of discovering what is or is not there. That is why I test to see for myself. I never look at the camera, the brand or or the image wanting it to be a certain way.

I have nothing to prove by testing. I just want to discover what the tools strength or weakness is. In my experience this is the best way to never get burned by the tool because you know what it can and can not do.

So Jim's advice is good. Shoot tests of real world things. Charts can be used as a baseline, but a chart never emulates what is happening in front of the lens when you are making cinema.

Insulting other peoples tests is like insulting science. You might argue their method, but you really have to test for yourself to see.

Few people here have seen, touched or filmed with an ALEXA or an EPIC for that matter, but they still feel it's really important to comment.

David

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

You sure are good at insulting people.

I would say it's just opposite.

The tests like those are sort of direct insult to thousands of RED MX users.

That means our RED MX was not able to show any decent image on a monitor comparable to Alexa's,...

I can't believe in that kind of jokes especially how it was presented in that particular test...

 

[Gino Papineau]

I would say it's just opposite.

The tests like those are sort of direct insult to thousands of RED MX users.

That means our RED MX was not able to show any decent image on a monitor comparable to Alexa's,...

I can't believe in that kind of jokes especially how it was presented in that particular test...

I have to agree 100% with Sanjin.

Who lit this fire and why with this video ?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Sorry I didn't mean it like that.
Actually I originally started out with: "Yeah, please don't drag that old chestnet out..." etc
However the doorbell rang before I managed to finish tidying up the post before submitting and I had to go out on an errand, and I didn't get back to it until about 7 hours later, when I realized the computer was still on. I hurriedly patched it and sent it off.

Haha, no worries... :biggrin:

 

[Bill Anderson]

Chart tests, like this one, and when conducted expertly and impartially, are a very good point of departure- they eliminate many of the variables common in real world tests- variables thrown up by a monitor for example. Not to mention the sex factor, but we're all beyond being seduced by that number, aren't we?
I doubt if real world testing is going to find a three stop discrepancy between these two cameras as they now stand. Any (pre real world) testing that I have ever carried out regarding film, sensitometry, developers, lenses and so on, has never failed to give an accurate account of what one might expect to encounter in the real world. Occasional idiosyncrasies might arise in the field but these are rarely things that annul test data.

Let me ask this of the experts and the testers themselves, and Rodney if he's out there - since he calls this a "science experiment" and infers it is not acceptable- not real world: where could this test have gone wrong as far as failing to show a whopping three stop difference between the two cameras? Tungsten? Daylight? ISO? Why should this test not be considered a reasonable depiction of sensor performance: Dynamic Range? Graeme, Jim, Rodney, David Mullen? Anyone?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

As someone else suggested, it's likely that you are seeing the result of two different gamma settings for monitor output. I'm not sure there is even a Log option for monitor viewing with the Red, the closest would have to be RawView, but it seems more likely Rodney was viewing the Red using Redcolor or Rec709? Whereas the ARRI was sending out a Log image to the monitor.

If Rodney's real complaint is about the monitor output selections for the Red not giving him the option of viewing an image corrected for ASA and Color Temp but with full DR being displayed (is there an option for that?), which would have an impact on how he likes to shoot creatively, this would be a different issue than one of actual recorded DR. But without knowing more about the details of the test, I can't say what is going on, but common sense, based on my experience with the M-X Red and Genesis, suggests that a 1-stop difference in DR between the Alexa and M-X Red is possible, but a 3-stop difference is unlikely, so if Rodney was seeing a 3-stop difference, then the gamma of the monitor output is likely to be a culprit.

 

[Jannard]

Chart tests, like this one, and when conducted expertly and impartially, are a very good point of departure- they eliminate many of the variables common in real world tests- variables thrown up by a monitor for example. Not to mention the sex factor, but we're all beyond being seduced by that number, aren't we?
I doubt if real world testing is going to find a three stop discrepancy between these two cameras as they now stand. Any (pre real world) testing that I have ever carried out regarding film, sensitometry, developers, lenses and so on, has never failed to give an accurate account of what one might expect to encounter in the real world. Occasional idiosyncrasies might arise in the field but these are rarely things that annul test data.

Let me ask this of the experts and the testers themselves, and Rodney if he's out there - since he calls this a "science experiment" and infers it is not acceptable- not real world: where could this test have gone wrong as far as failing to show a whopping three stop difference between the two cameras? Tungsten? Daylight? ISO? Why should this test not be considered a reasonable depiction of sensor performance: Dynamic Range? Graeme, Jim, Rodney, David Mullen? Anyone?

The problem with Dynamic Range testing is that there are a ton of ways to do it and it is very subjective. Unlike resolution measurements, DR is quite difficult to get "right". The source of the confusion begins with the definition of dynamic range... signal/noise. The subjective part is the noise aspect. What is acceptable noise level for the test? Also... unlike resolution tests, the way an image is processed is critical to getting the best result. And in fact, it may not be the way you normally process your footage. It is more a theoretical measurement than most would like to admit.

The punchline is that people have been deciding if there is enough DR in a camera to work with for almost a century without seeing a chart. The only reason this topic became interesting is that the 1st digital cameras were so deficient in DR. I think we are now at a place where there is enough... and digital is fast adding "more than enough" every year. I expect the DR discussion to end fairly quickly because digital is fast approaching film... and will exceed film in short order.

Jim

 

[David Battistella]

but it seems more likely Rodney was viewing the Red using Redcolor or Rec709?

I believe that with the RED "ehM-XA" ( ) and build 30 color science you can only view REDCOLOR or RAW. I am pretty sure they took REC709 out of the monitoring path to simplify things for this very reason.

As tested the ALEXA would have log-C or REC709 as monitor out options.

David

 

[Martin Stevens]

Looks like about a half a Stop to me......and then because the shadow noise
is so low on the MX this half stop is irrelevant to me and most likely to others.

The Red MX is so smooth in the shadows that I am in love with it.
The Alexa also is wonderful, but has too many other issues for me.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Methodologies change over time too, whereas a b&w video tap on a 35mm camera was once considered a luxury, not a necessity, now some people feel that a 1080P image on set from a digital camera is a necessity, not a luxury. Same goes for optical viewfinders, for one person, they can't live without it, for another, they can't live without an EVF.

This is why modern digital cameras need so many display options these days. For example, I think the lookaround area on the Red One display is one of its greatest features but for others used to seeing full-frame 16x9 HD all the time, rather than a film groundglass, it's no big deal not having a lookaround area. Who is right and who is wrong? Nobody, it's just a case of personal methodology, and as long as the results are consistently good, I'm not going to question someone's idiosyncrasies.

 

[Martin Stevens]

I expect the DR discussion to end fairly quickly because digital is fast approaching film... and will exceed film in short order.

Jim

So.......Jim, do you believe/know your Monstro sensor to have more
DR than film?

Also, will you say how much DR you believe/know film to have?

 

[David Battistella]

I think we are now at a place where there is enough... and digital is fast adding "more than enough" every year. I expect the DR discussion to end fairly quickly because digital is fast approaching film... and will exceed film in short order.

Jim

Yes. Also much of the DR we capture and "see" is lost through grading and other creative choices. We always want to start with the widest amount of DR but most finished films never show off all of that DR.

That is not to say it is not important in the first place, but video/digital started so far behind film that it was too much of a DR hit to go digital.

I think we should be thinking beyond film. Let's get past the bar (film) not just meet it. Getting beyond films DR would be an advancement in science.

David

 

[David Battistella]

now some people feel that a 1080P image on set from a digital camera is a necessity, not a luxury.

I think this is what Rodney was getting at with the comments in his vimeo page. On his set, it removes headaches and questions and under his circumstances that is valuable to the way his is working in that environment.

David

 

[Rick Burnett]

Yes. Also much of the DR we capture and "see" is lost through grading and other creative choices. We always want to start with the widest amount of DR but most finished films never show off all of that DR.

That is not to say it is not important in the first place, but video/digital started so far behind film that it was too much of a DR hit to go digital.

I think we should be thinking beyond film. Let's get past the bar (film) not just meet it. Getting beyond films DR would be an advancement in science.

David

You couldn't show all the dynamic range if you wanted to anyways since most display technologies don't have that much dynamic range! So your statement is going to be true *almost* 100% of the time at the moment.

That said, what I explain to people is that DR is about making it easier to capture life. When shooting outside in areas with extreme differences in dynamic range, the larger you have in camera, the more you get to have that detail in the shadows to play with in post. To me *that* is the true beauty of a large dynamic range and what I look forward to SO MUCH.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Yes. Also much of the DR we capture and "see" is lost through grading and other creative choices. We always want to start with the widest amount of DR but most finished films never show off all of that DR.

David

This is a very important point, and I am glad it was brought up. For some shots, I just want a high contrast image – with barely 6 or 7 stops of dynamic range. It makes a difference starting off with 13 stops, no doubt. One could argue that a ½ stop difference in DR between 13 and 13.5 is not a significant advantage when less that 10 can be viewed on your average LCD display and release print; and in any case the final image will contain lesser DR. What I do find interesting about film, though, is that it can retain a relatively high dynamic range as well as a high contrast.

I remember Jim mentioning Monstro having a target DR of 15 stops. My memories are flawed, so take that with a grain of salt. But 15 stops would be great. Still a long way off the human eye, though!

 

[Wolf]

On-camera debayer?

On-camera debayer?

Was this test done with Arri Alexa's on-camera de-bayer? And recorded to ProRes? If yes, which flavor? Or recorded to something else? If yes, what else?

Thanks,

 

[Rick Darge]

Send in the Wolf

 

[Dj Joofa]

which is more important for Red,DR or Resolution?

The important thing for Red is to produce a camera! Red One had a great success, despite it shortcomings and bugs, and a prime reason for that was timing. Red One was introduced with virtually little competition in the price point it was operating while still providing good quality. But things are not going to stay the same any more.

Resolution is just one part in the complex equation of the filmmaking process. People will be happy to make a good film on a relatively lower resolution camera that exists than a hypothetical camera advertised through charts and demos.

Joofa

 

[Subhadip Sen]

For some reason I assumed it was 1080p ProRes, but of course, it could be 2.88K ARRIRAW debayered. Good question by Wolf. I will be extremely disappointed if 2.88K debayered to only 1.6K. I think we were all expecting proper 1080p ProRes outputs too. Certainly, Arri must speak up.

 

[Jannard]

The point is that we are quickly moving to a place with no compromises. Every RED sensor is increasing both resolution AND dynamic range. There is no reason to accept low resolution or low DR going forward. I see the day coming very soon where digital outperforms film in every aspect. At least that is our goal. And it appears that we have motivated others to step up their programs as well. That really is a good thing for the industry. There are so many advantages to shooting digital... we just need to systematically remove the deficiencies. I think we are. And with our modular system, you don't have to buy a whole new camera every time something improves. It isn't just about sensors.

Jim