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 :)

EX1 vs. RED

Joofa said:
Where as the higher end cameras such as Dalsa and others can give you true 1920 x 1080.
Click to expand...

As can the EX1 (albeit sampled at 4:2:0 so more like 1920x1080 Luma and 960x540 Chroma).

Red clearly has more pixels than anything else even remotely in the same league (price and availability wise). But that's not all that matters I guess.
 
Sycophant said:
As can the EX1 (albeit sampled at 4:2:0 so more like 1920x1080 Luma and 960x540 Chroma).

Red clearly has more pixels than anything else even remotely in the same league (price and availability wise). But that's not all that matters I guess.
Click to expand...

I shall check out EX1. But if it really can do a 4:2:0 at true 1920 x 1080 then it can be a great camera. I am assuming it is relatively cheap.
 
It's slightly more than the HVX200 (but comes with 2x 8GB cards, so that pretty much offsets it). It has 3CMOS native 1920x1080 sensor, and records HDV-variant XDCAM EX 1920x1080 at 35Mb/s VBR.

It's a pretty excellent camera.
 
The EX1 looked very compelling to me too, but have a look at the review here.

This is a detail of one of the frame grabs on the website. I applied a s-curve in photoshop to make the problem more clear but even without that it is pretty visible. As said, doesn't hold a candle to RED.
 
sander kamp said:
The EX1 looked very compelling to me too, but have a look at the review here.

This is a detail of one of the frame grabs on the website. I applied a s-curve in photoshop to make the problem more clear but even without that it is pretty visible. As said, doesn't hold a candle to RED.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the "blocking" in the image, (probably caused by the compression)?
 
albert rudnicki said:
Shame on you number 141:angry03:
Click to expand...

Are you joking? :)

Someone with a RED camera needs to do a test..

RED
EX1
F900
F23 (if you can get hold of one)

Pick a contrasty scene, set them up side by side, rate each camera so that the whites are just not clipping and lets see the footage and learn the ISO rating of each camera.

We need simple tests to establish the truth of all the opinion flying around here. :innocent:
 
Give me a break ! EX1 is a great camcorder but doesn't belong in the same sentence with Red.
-A
 
Sycophant said:
It's slightly more than the HVX200 (but comes with 2x 8GB cards, so that pretty much offsets it). It has 3CMOS native 1920x1080 sensor, and records HDV-variant XDCAM EX 1920x1080 at 35Mb/s VBR.

It's a pretty excellent camera.
Click to expand...

The EX codec is not to be confused with the word HDV, It's actually closer to the more mature XDCAM codec MPEG IMX.
 
fergus said:
Are you talking about the "blocking" in the image, (probably caused by the compression)?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Okay, some of it might be because of jpeg compression used to put the stills on the web but since the stills are fairly large for that size I don't think that is the case.
 
CraigWB said:
The EX codec is not to be confused with the word HDV, It's actually closer to the more mature XDCAM codec MPEG IMX.
Click to expand...

HDV codec is MPEG-2 internally, and MPEG IMX is also MPEG-2. However, in my understanding in MPEG IMX, there may be no temporal compression. Also, just specifying the codecs is one thing on a paper and their actual implementation is another thing. These codec standards actually don't specify the compressor, they only specify the decompressor. Hence, companies are free to come up with different approaches on how to achieve the compression within the framework of that codec. Their implementations for the same codecs for the compressor part vary and can have widely varying results.

Of course one should not compare a compressed image to a Raw image from Red One either.
 
I've attached two frames from a couple of my EX1 clips. They are fairly arbitrary really. There is mosquito noise on edges, and some visible compression on fine detail, but it's far more evident as a still than it is in motion. I have DVCPRO HD clips that look much worse (from HVX and Varicam).

These are 1920x1080 100% quality JPEGs (from PNG exported from FCP)
 
Sycophant said:
I've attached two frames from a couple of my EX1 clips. They are fairly arbitrary really. There is mosquito noise on edges, and some visible compression on fine detail, but it's far more evident as a still than it is in motion. I have DVCPRO HD clips that look much worse (from HVX and Varicam).

These are 1920x1080 100% quality JPEGs (from PNG exported from FCP)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pictures. Don't look too bad.
 
Sycophant said:
As can the EX1 (albeit sampled at 4:2:0 so more like 1920x1080 Luma and 960x540 Chroma).

Red clearly has more pixels than anything else even remotely in the same league (price and availability wise). But that's not all that matters I guess.
Click to expand...

I did a quick Google search and found out that Red One has 4520 x 2540 pixels. Lets compare that with a true 1920 x 1080 HD camera. Red raw image is in Bayer pattern, and I assume it is the standard one. Hence, on every line there will be 4520 / 2 = 2260 green samples, and every other line will have 2260 Red or Blue samples, but not both. Hence, a green image before demosaicing will be 2260 x 2540 and red and blue each will be 2260 x 1270. The remaining samples will be interpolated, which is a whole beast in itself. The good thing is that they will do the demosaicing interpolation off-line so that they can go for more sophisticated algorithms that look at second or higher-order curvatures and derivatives compared to simpler algorithms if they had to do that in real time in the camera. Same goes for temporal filtering and they can do more sophisticated versions that do not confuse it with actual motion in off-line demosacing.
 
Okay, I'm new to this site and I'm confused. I surfed in here when I saw a lens test for the Nikon f 1.4 85mm AF lens. Good post - very well done. So I registered and now I'm in. BUT WHAT IS ALL THIS TALK ABOUT RED? RED WHAT? Is it a sensor, a camera, a technique, a religion, a state of mind? I surfed around on FAQ but didn't get the answer.

This is a sincere question. Thanks! FeltonPhoto
 
joelnet said:
Has anyone done a RED and EX1 side by side test?I guess a EX1 +adapter vs. RED would be a better test.
Click to expand...

I used RED and an EX1 with Redrock on subsequent days. Different shooting environments, but it was impossible not to compare the two experiences.

Certainly the RED will have many advantages particularly for projection. However I continue to marvel that so many people who until perhaps last year had shot little on HD to begin with are now turning their noses down at full 1080p acquisition as essentially inferior. The EX1 is a fantastic camera for the money, which of course is 1/3 that of the RED camera body alone. Thus it is somewhat meaningless to compare the two.

Would it be possible to shoot a feature on an EX1? Based on my experiences, yes, and it could look very good. Would it look better on RED? Yes, it should. The reality is that for many users, the end product will not necessarily be seen in a format that allows for the distinction to be made. The project I shot on RED (for a prominent director) has so far only been seen online; I heard that a clip will be seen on Entertainment Tonight but apparently they are planning to pull it off DVD. The 1080p master may never be aired. While this is discouraging, it's not atypical. Few projects being shot on RED will be able to take advantage of the full resolution of the camera, and while it is always better to start with more, at a certain point the differences become pretty subtle.

FYI the clips are viewable at:
RED
EX1
 
Charles, I saw your ad over on dvxuser; amazing stuff. But clearly the lighting set up was pretty involved and shooting on a stage costs money, too. If you could achieve something similar on location with smaller lights, it would more than make up for the cost of renting a red versus an ex1 and adapter.

I'm curious, at what speed did you rate the EX1 + adapter? And at what speed was the EX1 alone?

From what I've seen the dvx is around 640 progressive, 1000 interlaced (so I'd assume the EX1 is around there) and the HVX is around 250 progressive. Red seems to be around 250 as well? (But of course, you can use faster lenses with it... Although the EX1's lens is a full stop faster than the HVX's at telephoto, too....so this makes the HVX seem very slow.)
 
Charles Papert said:
The 1080p master may never be aired. While this is discouraging, it's not atypical. Few projects being shot on RED will be able to take advantage of the full resolution of the camera, and while it is always better to start with more, at a certain point the differences become pretty subtle.
Click to expand...

Well - I'm glad someone with a helluvalot more experience than I could boil down the issue so well. How did you feel the on set usability of an adapter rig compared with RED?

Oh man - Charles... Table Manners. That's hilarious. Well done. How did you mic that? Sounded awesome. One boom? Anyway - that pretty much drives the point home that story is key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top