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 skintones.

Erich Ocean said:
Yup, which is why I said 4.67MP, based on the 2880x1620 recordable RAW area of the sensor. :-)

Epic (and Red One) are the king for green screen work, hands down.
Click to expand...

And motion tracking, thanks to the short shutter stream you can get with HDRx.

And on top of it they are REDCODE files... Epic is the VFX king, hands down. :)
 
Alexa has a bit more pleasing image and is a bit closer to film, but EPIC wins pretty much on all other aspects.
 
Florian Stadler said:
How is that 25P instead of PsF working to synch with the Milo for you? Last time I tried we had the Milo go into earthquake jitters quite a bit because of it. At least when you need frame accurate repeatability. Any good workarounds yet?
But your point is clear and valid. When shooting material for severe post manipulation resolution does matter quite a bit.
Click to expand...

1.7.x has both shutter pulse in and shutter pulse out enabled to you can drive the shutter
at arbitrary frame rates for moco or drive from the shutter pulses from camera.
1.7 should be out in beta very soon.
 
Josh Snyder said:
Alexa has a bit more pleasing image and is a bit closer to film, but EPIC wins pretty much on all other aspects.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. In the controlled tests I've seen it's all down to the user. In none controlled tests there's too many variables. And you've got to make the compare blind or the biases creep in...

Graeme
 
Josh Snyder said:
Alexa has a bit more pleasing image and is a bit closer to film, but EPIC wins pretty much on all other aspects.
Click to expand...

It drives me nuts when people say "is a bit closer to film" with respect to Alexa and Epic. This statement is 100% silly.

If you compare a "Log C" Alexa workflow (majority of folks are shooting Alexa to LOG C - ProRes 444) to REDgamma>REDcolor2 - which is what most folks do - that is a highly flawed comparison. It's always a surprise to me that DPs who really like the Alexa are not even aware they can use a "LOG / LUT" workflow with EPIC if they want.

Take R3D into REDLogFilm and apply film emulation luts .... it's another ball game (aesthetically). And skin tones react completely differently from the RAW depending on if you use a film emulation lut, and which one you use.

There is simply no such thing as a "look" that you can create on Alexa that you can not re-create or achieve (in a much higher resolution) on the EPIC.

But I would argue that there are "looks" (HDRx, etc.) that CAN be achieved on the EPIC that cannot be achieved in the Alexa (in a much lower resolution).

A slippery, subjective slope .... but I think many post houses are STILL not showing the true power of R3D, and the options for finishing - to DPs.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Take R3D into REDLogFilm and apply film emulation luts .... it's another ball game (aesthetically). And skin tones react completely differently from the RAW depending on if you use a film emulation lut, and which one you use.

There is simply no such thing as a "look" that you can create on Alexa that you can not re-create or achieve (in a much higher resolution) on the EPIC.
Click to expand...


Hey Mark, are these custom LUTs that you speak of, or are they freely available for download somewhere?
 
Brad Hawkins said:
Hey Mark, are these custom LUTs that you speak of, or are they freely available for download somewhere?
Click to expand...

We use cineSPACE (now THX) for color management and profiling - http://www.thx.com/professional/thx-technology-professional/cinespace/

They can create a profile from a specific film out test so you can make a profile that is not only specific to the film stock, but also the labs processing.

Then you export a LUT in the LUT type you want from the cineCube Visual application.

Many times, these LUTs are then "customized" a further in cineCube Visual.

There are also "generic" Kodak and Fuji profiles - that you can use to build/export a LUT from cineCube - there are TONS of kinds of LUT formats for various applications - cineCube Visual lets you export to the most popular types.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
We use cineSPACE (now THX) for color management and profiling - http://www.thx.com/professional/thx-technology-professional/cinespace/

They can create a profile from a specific film out test so you can make a profile that is not only specific to the film stock, but also the labs processing.

Then you export a LUT in the LUT type you want from the cineCube Visual application.

Many times, these LUTs are then "customized" a further in cineCube Visual.

There are also "generic" Kodak and Fuji profiles - that you can use to build/export a LUT from cineCube - there are TONS of kinds of LUT formats for various applications - cineCube Visual lets you export to the most popular types.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks for the info!
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
It is pretty clear he is referring to resolution, Rivai.

The Alexa can only record one of your talent's shoulders at the same detail level. :-)
Click to expand...
This is not true at all. Resolution doesn't mean detail, as we know from Canon DSLR's. If you compare both Alexa and EPIC at 100% you see that Alexa has a lot more detail in it.
 
Last edited:
Mark Pugh said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
Impossible to prove on internet according to users here. You have to make your own test shoots with professional crew.
 
I've done that particular comparison and no, it doesn't. The Alexa is rather soft, but it's aliasing may think you have more detail than you do, but you don't.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I've done that particular comparison and no, it doesn't. The Alexa is rather soft, but it's aliasing may think you have more detail than you do, but you don't.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I've also done this test and can confirm there's more "detail" on the Epic side of the fence.
 
Josh Snyder said:
This is not true at all. Resolution doesn't mean detail, as we know from Canon DSLR's. If you compare both Alexa and EPIC at 100% you see that Alexa has a lot more detail in it.
Click to expand...

Thats wrong...

Do this instead. compare a 21megapixel frame from your 5D and compare it with a video frame from the same camera. tHen they are shot trough the same lens etc... then yes you will see that resolution matters. I know the HD frame is a truly bad down ress but still you would never fit the 21megapixels in the HD frame. Same with epic it has more pixels to show the picture so the right comparison would be to upress alexa footage to 5k and then compare... then yes alexa is a lot softer than epic. no doubt.
 
Phil Holland said:
I've also done this test and can confirm there's more "detail" on the Epic side of the fence.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that EPIC has like 3x the detail of Alexa? Seriously?

Björn Benckert said:
Thats wrong...

Do this instead. compare a 21megapixel frame from your 5D and compare it with a video frame from the same camera. tHen they are shot trough the same lens etc... then yes you will see that resolution matters. I know the HD frame is a truly bad down ress but still you would never fit the 21megapixels in the HD frame. Same with epic it has more pixels to show the picture so the right comparison would be to upress alexa footage to 5k and then compare... then yes alexa is a lot softer than epic. no doubt.
Click to expand...
5D has 1080p video recording and the video file has detail of 720p video. The quality of the pixels is what matters.
 
ease to solve, though it doesn't need solving as the numbers don't lie and neither do the pictures, or true structure of how all this works it's not just the pixels that matters.

Get a dp who owns each camera and is considered to be very adept with it, Epic, Alexa, REDMX, F3... heck even a hacked GH2 maybe. Oh and 35mm film, maybe even s16mm as well.

get a proper set of res charts, doesn't matter which as long as they cover a range of close to 5k or more, and as long as they are all shot under the same conditions it doesn't matter the limitations of the chart, back illuminated or what as they should effect all the cameras across the board and give a jumping off point for comparison and not definite numbers on resolution.

Have each shooter focus and shoot the chart, voila you have a fairly well done res test... Considering all the effort to do this you might as well set up a few scene's, vivid colour, high contrast, low light, fast action, slow motion. And then have each shooter get the best from their camera on those scene's.

Then the key is to have that footage all processed to the best of it's capability, by people who know what they are doing with each respective format. Blow them all up with a 2k or better yet a 4k projector (closest to 35mm projection) and view the footage from there.

Some would say this has already been done but I don't think it has, to be honest this should be a yearly gathering paid for by some kind philanthropist.... and done in the name of filmmakers everywhere trying to sift through all the crap that is out there about all of these camera's...

Happy Sunday funday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top