EPIC and Alexa...

[Elijah Kelley]

REDCODE 50?

REDCODE 50?

Is that a typo?
Why REDCODE 50?
REDCODE 250 is 2:1 lossless right?
Wouldnt that produce a better result?
I'm no tech. Just saying.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

REDCODE in itself doesn't effect dynamic range. It's not like traditional compression in a video camera.

Graeme

 

[Elijah Kelley]

understood

understood

Ok.
Thanks G.

 

[Martin Stevens]

So if the Alexa has a bit more DR, can someone at RED say how much the chart shows?
Is this a 13.5 Stops DR for MX vs 13.7 Stops DR for Alexa???


Also, which DSC Chart was used???

 

[Phil Bates]

I agree, both cameras look awesome. Lots of choices for the cinematographer, and the more tools available, the more everybody wins.

Phil

 

[Graeme Nattress]

It's a DSC102 chart - I think they're special order. Similar to the old Stouffer we use, but wider range and easier to read, but not as fine (1 stop compared to 1/3 stop per step).

Graeme

 

[Martin Stevens]

It's a DSC102 chart - I think they're special order. Similar to the old Stouffer we use, but wider range and easier to read, but not as fine (1 stop compared to 1/3 stop per step).

Graeme

THANKS Graeme!

 

[Adam Clark]

thanks for the objective post jim.

it's still unbelievable to me that for an additional 10.5ish grand, i can magically turn my red one into an epic.

cheers.

 

[BradWright]

The highlights look blown out on the Red. I'm not sure if this was the way the test was conducted. The first two strips of white can be seen clearly on the Arri, but not so much on the Red.

 

[Thomas Mark Schaefer]

But what about sinal to noise?

But what about sinal to noise?

Both are important image parameters.

Graeme

Re: DR and Resolution. I guess these shots were not designed to impress on signal to noise, or were the charts shot not extremely uniform?

 

[Dan Kanes]

The Alexa looks very green and the Epic looks more neutral albeit maybe Sliiiightly magenta.

 

[Michael Olsen]

So............Rodney Charter, what do you say now???

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Now there's a good reason to stop improving things. :huh:

 

[Tico Llaurador]

resolution matters.

Jim

Jim, I didn't know you wore a copywriter hat as well.

Yup, I can already see it...

"RED Epic. Because resolution matters."

 

[Graeme Nattress]

If too much resolution is an issue, perhaps we should all go back to shooting standard def and forget all this high def and beyond nonsense

Fact is because we have a lot of resolution, we don't need to "force" it through the means of electronic sharpening or otherwise, and it's badly applied electronic sharpening that emphasizes unwanted facial detail. Similarly, a high native resolution responds better to creative filter choices too.

Graeme

 

[Michael Olsen]

If too much resolution is an issue, perhaps we should all go back to shooting standard def and forget all this high def and beyond nonsense

We'd best forget film, too. Lots of resolution beyond HD there. :tongue_smilie:

 

[Graeme Nattress]

We'd best forget film, too. Lots of resolution beyond HD there. :tongue_smilie:

Yes - got to ignore film too, especially 65mm and IMAX as they have too much resolution. I think we're seeing the start of the "back to SD" movement.

Graeme

 

[Steve G]

We'd best forget film, too. Lots of resolution beyond HD there. :tongue_smilie:

IMHO, there is a marked aesthetic difference between film resolution at the capture stage and electronic resolution, be it sd, hd, 2k , 4k, 5k etc at the capture stage.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Humm, I've always thought (after doing a crap load of shooting with the RED) that it was pretty kind of actors faces compared to other HD cameras. It was sharp, but not in a bad (AKA: fake, over sharpening) way.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Yes - got to ignore film too, especially 65mm and IMAX as they have too much resolution. I think we're seeing the start of the "back to SD" movement.

Graeme

In all seriousness, you have an important point, Graeme. True resolution is one thing. Electronic/computed/software sharpening to "create" resolution is quite another. Then again, from what I've heard, Mr. Charters is quite well-versed in everything RED and has made his decision based on his personal experience.

Just because an image has a lot of resolution doesn't mean it has to be anaesthetically or overly sharp. Film is a perfect example of this, helped, of course, by the slight difference in focal plane created by the different dye layers.

And if 5K to 4K (or 4K to 3K) is still too "sharp" for the desired look because of the single focal plane inherent in digital acquisition, many DPs (such as David Mullen in the "Ask..." thread) have suggested a number of options, from smoking the room, using light diffusion filters, or simply softening in post.