Epic vs 5D3 Raw Side by Side

[paul schefz]

Not really sure why you're calling me a troll. If anything, you're coming off as a bit of a RED fanboy. As I stated in my original post, I own a Scarlet and a 5D3. I use both regularly, and for all the reasons stated above, I much prefer using my RED. That said, I don't think anyone can deny that this comparison shows that the images coming off the hacked 5D3 look pretty damn similar to the RED. And if one is only concerned with final image quality, I do find it a bit disconcerting that a RED costs 10x more.

i can understand why he is calling you a troll....you keep saying the same thing over and over....and you have both a scarlet and a 5DIII, so the easy thing would be to conduct your own test, on your own terms and make your own conclusions....writing over and over that you don't understand why one camera is 30K more and provides the same 1080 does not make much sense....
this hopeless discussion reminds me of digital backs (phase one, hasselblad,...) vs 5DII....and nobody ever questioned that the 30k back shoots sharper, more detailed images....but the question for most people is can you tell the difference when you print the file as 8x10....and the answer is no...you can't tell the difference....so why is one camera 10x more then the other?
you have to make that decision for yourself....red won't drop their prices because someone hacked a 5DIII and i actually don't think canon is worried that people won't be buying their C300 for 15k either....imo THEY should be worried and i would take this up with them...why do they keep selling neutered cameras?

 

[RivaiC]

Michael, do you regret your Scarlet investment somehow ?

 

[Mike Quill]

Michael, do you regret your Scarlet investment somehow ?

Not at all. I love my Scarlet and it's a complete joy to own and work with. Every time I build it I'm in awe of it and think, "this is the best piece of gear I've ever handled."

 

[RivaiC]

Good, dont beat yourself with the comparison with EPIC since you dont own one. At least you're happy with your Scarlet. I personally get what you are trying to ask and show. I know you are still agree somewhere in your heart that EPIC is still a better camera overall with highspeed, HDR-X, etc. Jim mentioned before highspeed does cost more money. ML captures stills at burst mode and produced REALLY good pictures, but if im you, i will compare it to their own Canon C300 at HD and Blackmagic Camera.

Im more pissed at Canon that they dont push their camera enough. RED gives everything they got, i will still put my money on RED.

PS. I really wish ML will success at capturing full frame at 4:3. I dont know how it will eventually overcome CF limitation, i dont see any workaround.

Rivai

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Why do I sense some sort of a public relations effort here? LOL I wonder how many additional hits the OP's web site haas gotten since this post? Very clever. :-/

 

[Les Dittert]

Bottom line: You spend the extra money to get 4K and frames rates. Get it ?

I can't wait to see the thread activity on the BMCC 4K vs Red Dragon thread. That one will be a do-zie. !!!

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Why do I sense some sort of a public relations effort here? LOL I wonder how many additional hits the OP's web site haas gotten since this post? Very clever. :-/

I dunno, Terry...IMPO its just the same 12 people sitting here pissing and moaning about any and everything!
(me included, of course!)

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Brandon - you're probably right. LOL

 

[Vico Martin]

The MKIII is a great Cam, it´s great to have another tool, as always the good move is to choose the right one for the job.

Someone ever seen a Canon panning?

 

[Brian Boyer]

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/luke-neumann-aviv-vana-canon-5d-mark-iii-red-epic/#more-54637

The reality is that when you look at these photos side by side (in 1080), there is absolutely no discernible difference, image wise. Yes the ergonomics are different, the Epic can shoot high speeds, the "motion" on the RED may look more filmic, 4K is future proof, yada yada, but really, in 1080 24p I see absolutely no difference.

I am a RED Scarlet and 5D3 owner. If I'm only concerned with final image quality, someone tell me why it's worth spending $30k+ more on an Epic when I can get the exact same image on a 5D3?

Mike

Michael, the premise for your question seems flawed.

But, before I get to that, you keep using words like "identical" and "no discernible difference" when it's obvious there are differences in the pictures. The differences are subtle, but they're there. If your argument was they were close enough for rock 'n' roll in this particular case, that would be different. But, you insist you can't tell them apart, which seems a highly dubious claim.

Back to your question...

It's flawed because you want to ignore almost all of the things that make the camera more expensive (which numerous people have mentioned they make great use of in this thread) and then ask why it costs $30K (actually, $19K, but I see where you're coming from). You're paying for image quality and functionality.

Much higher resolutions, much higher frame rates, fairly high native DR (admittedly, not as high as some others now), HDRx, interchangeable (and smart) lens mounts, clip playback and a pleasing image quality in a small, relatively lightweight and modular production proven box all got factored into the price of the Epic.

If you don't agree, please tell us one other camera that offers as much for less money.

Your question, as asked, would be more relevant if it were a comparison between the 5DMKIII and another camera with the exact same feature set (minus the ML RAW hack) that costs $30K.

You ask, " If I'm only concerned with final image quality...?"

How many times on real-world productions with real-world issues do you realistically have the luxury of only being concerned with image quality?

As a strictly philosophical question, sure, very little discernible difference in picture quality may be the deciding factor for which camera you choose.

If you need 120fps for a scene, your ML hacked, 14 bit RAW 5DMKIII won't cut it. I don't care how "identical" the image is to an Epic at 1080p. If you need 1000fps, an Epic won't cut it, either.

You're a cinematographer. You know this, which makes me think Terry might be on to something.

 

[John Marchant]

A couple of things stick out for me, and I have only skimmed this thread so apologies for repetition.

1. Who do you call when the hacked camera doesn't work? What will your production insurance tell you when you cost someone a days shoot (and all it entails) because the hacked camera didn't perform as expected? Nobody's going to stand by it in any sense, particularly the manufacturer, which makes it foolhardy to employ commercially for any mission critical purpose IMHO.

2. I shoot and deliver corporate content on the kind of mid sized budgets mentioned earlier on by the OP all the time. Beyond HD delivery in that market has been up and running a while. So far this year more than 50% of our work has delivered in some form for either large screen projection, multi-screen installations, or has been briefed to include large printable stills extraction. The remainder benefits every time from the ability to stabilise and punch in from 5k.

 

[Matt Doane]

No use arguing with someone who's already made up his mind.

 

[Simon Knight]

John, I agree one hundred percent...
however the OP was talking about what the images look like at HD quality. And I agree if you only deliver to 1080P why bother? But then that's me, and I've gone Red. And for me its because I can produce what I believe is a better image from a Red Raw image.
The posters that have mentioned shooting with a Red makes you feel "better" is actually interesting as they believe they've shot a better image..

the problem I have with the OPs point of view is the subjective statement about the images looking the same.. Many disagree...

SK

 

[RivaiC]

Overall look, it "feels" the same. It has some certain degree of truth in it. Of course it's wrong to say it's exactly the same.

R

 

[Mike Quill]

Hey Brian,

I agree with what you and others are saying about why all the features of the RED make it cost more than a dslr. I really don't have an alternative agenda as Terry has implied, I'm just interested to hear what others think.

I really just wanted to limit this thread to a discussion about ultimate image quality, not what it takes to get that image. Maybe a good analogy is still glass vs cine glass. You can get the same image on a top of the line cine lens as you can on a Canon EF lens. The huge price difference is due to build quality and ease of focusing.

When I compare RED and 5D3 footage on my 42" 1080 tv, I want to be able to immediately say, "Holy shit, the RED images look so much better than a 5D3." The honest truth is that I don't always see a night and day difference. And this 5D3 hack is only going to make the image better.

Mike

 

[Nick Gardner]

I don't understand how you can honestly compare the two images. They are obviously very different. I don't think they are bad different, just different. There is a lot more about a camera than how it looks. I can make good looking images with just about any camera available. it's easier with some than others, and some of them make me want to stab myself in the face. I just turned down a job where they wanted me to shoot on a 5d. If I was broke and the mortgage was due, I would have taken it, but as it stands right now, using a 5d on a motion picture shoot is such a pain in the ass compromise where you have to use shitty bullshit lenses and goofy work arounds, I don't want the head ache. As others have said, if you can't see a difference in image quality, great, if you don't mind the monkey fuck clown show that is shooting on a dslr instead of a real camera, then great. But honestly comparing the two as equals is just stupid.

Nick

 

[Arthur Woo]

Mike I will buy your scarlet for 5 bucks and a coney island corndog. Let me know when you can meet.

 

[Mike Quill]

Hey Nick, I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you. Though this thread was supposed to only consider the image quality, not the drawbacks to working with dslrs. On a totally different note, I now own your old Lomo Ekran Super Speeds. Love these lenses!

Thanks,
Mike

I don't understand how you can honestly compare the two images. They are obviously very different. I don't think they are bad different, just different. There is a lot more about a camera than how it looks. I can make good looking images with just about any camera available. it's easier with some than others, and some of them make me want to stab myself in the face. I just turned down a job where they wanted me to shoot on a 5d. If I was broke and the mortgage was due, I would have taken it, but as it stands right now, using a 5d on a motion picture shoot is such a pain in the ass compromise where you have to use shitty bullshit lenses and goofy work arounds, I don't want the head ache. As others have said, if you can't see a difference in image quality, great, if you don't mind the monkey fuck clown show that is shooting on a dslr instead of a real camera, then great. But honestly comparing the two as equals is just stupid.

Nick

 

[Jaime Vallés]

When I compare RED and 5D3 footage on my 42" 1080 tv, I want to be able to immediately say, "Holy shit, the RED images look so much better than a 5D3." The honest truth is that I don't always see a night and day difference. And this 5D3 hack is only going to make the image better.

There's not a huge difference when watching in 1080p. It's there, but it's subtle. However, as soon as 4K UHD televisions become widespread (I give it a couple of years) there will be a very big difference between footage from those two cameras. And then you'll have to ask yourself if it was worth it shooting at 1080p vs 4K+.

But it depends on what you're shooting. If it's a car commercial that wont be seen after the first 3 months it airs, then 4K+ doesn't matter. 1080p should be perfectly fine for something with a short shelf life (industrials, commercials, etc.) But if it's a short or feature film, you're going to want those original files in 4K so that when you go to a distributor and they ask you for deliverables in 4K you can comply. They're going to ask for 4K deliverables very, very soon.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Hey Brian,

I agree with what you and others are saying about why all the features of the RED make it cost more than a dslr. I really don't have an alternative agenda as Terry has implied, I'm just interested to hear what others think.

I really just wanted to limit this thread to a discussion about ultimate image quality, not what it takes to get that image. Maybe a good analogy is still glass vs cine glass. You can get the same image on a top of the line cine lens as you can on a Canon EF lens. The huge price difference is due to build quality and ease of focusing.

When I compare RED and 5D3 footage on my 42" 1080 tv, I want to be able to immediately say, "Holy shit, the RED images look so much better than a 5D3." The honest truth is that I don't always see a night and day difference. And this 5D3 hack is only going to make the image better.

Mike

There won't always be a discernible difference when comparing many cameras, depending on the scene and how it was shot. Some scenes just don't flex a camera's muscles enough for the more capable ones to make that much of an impact, especially with how good many are these days.

It's the same thing with computers. Reading emails on a $400 dual core laptop won't be any different than reading them on a 12-core workstation. Try rendering 5 seconds of 3D animation with millions of polygons, subsurface scattering and final gathering and you'll notice a huge difference.

Or, take the example of a team of 8 horses pulling an empty chariot racing 2 horses pulling an empty chariot. The 2 horse chariot would almost certainly win. Put two 800 pound gorillas in the chariots and the benefit of having 8 horses in that situation becomes clear.

Of course, my analogies are over the top for illustrative purposes but you get my point. You won't see the power of the 12-core machine or the 8 horses until you tax them.

I don't think comparing a subset of overall image quality that doesn't encompass where either camera's image breaks (like the pics you reference in your post) is enough to declare either one a winner or loser.

Owning both cameras, I'm finding it hard to believe you rarely encounter (or are able to manufacture) instances where your 4K, compressed RAW footage doesn't kick the crap out of 8-bit, 1080p, H.264 footage on a fairly routine basis in terms of sharpness, DR, gradability, etc.

Perhaps, either you're going easy on the Canon or you aren't pushing the Scarlet nearly enough.