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 :)

EPIC Canon Footage - same sensor so could be of interest for you

Michael...Killer stuff.
Thanks for posting the shots in details.
Cheers from Brazil
 
Ruben and Sheri O. said:
this is fs100 looks just as good on internet notice we say internet ,Have to disagree we love RED, but to buy 60k camera for internet use is not cost effective because of the huge way internet compression messes up the beauty that is Epic, but luv RED for big screen and 4k monitors beauty =) RED wins all the way but just saying internet sucks with the way it compresses stuff No offense =)
Click to expand...

Dude, it is not the same. First the wide shots are soft as shit. Next compression artifacts riddle the fs100 footage, while the red is clean even at h.264. Since the source material has more information you will have a cleaner image. Next dynamic range is not effected by compression, theres a huge difference between 11 stops and 13.5-18 stops of dynamic range. Higher end cameras have a place on the internet. For instance the way the dynamic range is tested in this sony f3 video could not have been attained on a fs100, only with a log signal camera.

http://vimeo.com/29927115


For most internet projects the fs100 would be fine, but when you need to deliver quality, the epic is a safer bet.
 
Last edited:
I guess we see different cause it doesn't look soft at all on my screen, but there is no need to curse, We agree to disagree we still said red is beteer relax, just saying buying an Epic for internet distribution is not cost effective.
Ryan Emanuel said:
Dude, it is not the same. First the wide shots are soft as shit. Next compression artifacts riddle the fs100 footage, while the red is clean even at h.264. Since the source material has more information you will have a cleaner image. Next dynamic range is not effected by compression, theres a huge difference between 11 stops and 13.5-18 stops of dynamic range. Higher end cameras have a place on the internet. For instance the way the dynamic range is tested in this sony f3 video could not have been attained on a fs100, only with a log signal camera.

http://vimeo.com/29927115


For most internet projects the fs100 would be fine, but when you need to deliver quality, the epic is a safer bet.
Click to expand...
 
Here's a little thing I shot on Epic with Canon 70-200 and 24-70. If you seriously think FS100 footage looks as good as Epic, you need to get your head checked.

 
sorry looks the same on the internet just showed a couple of different ppl Fs100 footage and Epic footage and they say they see no real difference, mind you this is internet quality we are talking about 1080p max and compression RED wins on big screen and on DR... I agree to disagree no offense just our point of view we luv u all!!
Jonathan Stevenson said:
Here's a little thing I shot on Epic with Canon 70-200 and 24-70. If you seriously think FS100 footage looks as good as Epic, you need to get your head checked.

Click to expand...
 
Ruben and Sheri O. said:
I guess we see different cause it doesn't look soft at all on my screen, but there is no need to curse, We agree to disagree we still said red is beteer relax, just saying buying an Epic for internet distribution is not cost effective.
Click to expand...

For some reason you want to focus on the word shit and not dynamic range? I'll put it to you again 11 stops vs. 13.5-18 stops, visible online. The cost effectiveness is dependent on what production value you need. If you're shooting a small music video then its fine, but if you have a serious client why risk it.
 
I also think there are huge benefits of the Scarlet even for Internet distribution. I can see the difference... Raw workflow, dynamic range,etc. But remember how quickly quality of internet video has been improving over the last year, who knows where it will be in the next year or two, for example youtube already supports 4K resolution and home internet speeds are on the rise in certain areas of the US.

Also the ability to pull high resolution stills from the video for your clients is a huge bonus.
 
Tyler Bourns said:
I also think there are huge benefits of the Scarlet even for Internet distribution. I can see the difference... Raw workflow, dynamic range,etc. But remember how quickly quality of internet video has been improving over the last year, who knows where it will be in the next year or two, for example youtube already supports 4K resolution and home internet speeds are on the rise in certain areas of the US.

Also the ability to pull high resolution stills from the video for your clients is a huge bonus.
Click to expand...

I"m keeping an eye on the google high speed project in Kansas city. It's ultra high speed, can't remember the figures but like 10x faster than comcast cable internet.

Also, google is now trying a pay tv business plan. They are considering competing against cable and satellite with the high speed internet service.

So hard to say, but 4k delivery could be possible.
 
Rubin and Sheri O. said:
sorry looks the same on the internet just showed a couple of different ppl Fs100 footage and Epic footage and they say they see no real difference,
Click to expand...

It’s possible that the playback enviroment everyone is viewing the content in is effecting how it is perceived. Some of these services are using MBR encoding, which means the resolution, and bitrate, you are seeing is based on system performance and Internet speed. The quality of the display one is viewing on could also be a factor.

Another problem is that people are comparing one clip from camera A to another clip from camera B.
 
YOUR RIGHT =)
Stacey Spears said:
It’s possible that the playback enviroment everyone is viewing the content in is effecting how it is perceived. Some of these services are using MBR encoding, which means the resolution, and bitrate, you are seeing is based on system performance and Internet speed. The quality of the display one is viewing on could also be a factor.

Another problem is that people are comparing one clip from camera A to another clip from camera B.
Click to expand...
 
Beautifully shot, artfully cut and scored. Loved it all.
We won't be able to capture useful 5k motion on Scarlet, but 3k and 4k will be AMAZING!, even with DSLR lenses.
That's actually very comforting to know.
 
Hi Michael,

Thank you for posting this as it has a direct bearing on my post-Scarlet lens purchasing decisions. I'm still keen to try cine lenses with the Scarlet, but you've given me real pause for thought with the film you posted as I have some of the Canon lenses you used.

I think it looks amazing and I'm sure that there's much more to the footage than just the lenses and the camera. It gives me great hope though, that at least from a technical standpoint :), I have a chance to create some extremely high-quality, compelling images.

As for internet distribution, well people are talking as though it's a static thing. Let's not forget that streaming HD simply didn't exist a few years ago and now we have streaming 4K. Someone already posted a movie on reduser in 4K via YouTube and though I couldn't watch it at 4k, at 2k it was wonderful.

Thanks again for sharing and for taking the time to detail how the shots were achieved, it's inspiring and informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top