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

Do I read it right?!
EX1 records only 4:2:0?
Is there any way to get at minimum 4:2:2 out from any port on it?
 
Greg Syverson said:
I regret I do not have anything of value to add.
Click to expand...

How about some risque photo's of your girlfriend.

There was that stills photographer on here about 3 or so months ago that always use to post his nude photo work but Brook kicked him off. Got to wonder what goes through Brooks head sometimes?
 
Greg Syverson said:
Finner,

I have some I took in Mexico I would love to post. I am afraid if I posted them I would be booted as well. Finner dont forget you use to date her as well
Click to expand...

Ya I got some real good pics I can put up. Say hi to Margret for me.
 
Joofa said:
Lets put some number games on Ex1 Vs. Red.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that all made sense to me

EX1 - 1920x1080 at 8-bit at 24fps = 1140mbit/s
1140 / 35 = 1:32.5 Compression Ratio

RED - 3306.5mbit/s (by your calculation)
3306.5 / 270 (roughly?) = 1:12.25 Compression Ratio

So looking at it that way, RED is about 1/3 'as compressed' as XDCAM EX HQ 1080 footage. But no matter what the numbers are, it's all totally academic anyway. It's always going to be a lot more than just numbers where comparing these things.

You can never compare these sorts of things by numbers.

If shooting for 1080 HD, it could be that EX1 will look better than RED (which isn't 1080-native) - as RED will require debayer and resizing (or cropping). Depending on process and workflow, it is entirely possible that in some cases the EX1 may create a preferable image. but even then it's all somewhat subjective. And in the end image quality often isn't the deciding factor in what is 'good'.
 
I must confess that when I was in a local sony store I immediately ordered the ex1 after having seen the pros for my national tv work. Not having to carry all the weight everyday and being able to shoot in a format that exceeds the previous xdcam hd in quality a lot, it was'nt hard to decide.

But I can't say I'm not waiting stressfull till I got my own Reds...with pl mount....and Scratch....

I'm also thinking that it won't take to long from now Sony or Pana adopting the Raw idea and copying it to their systems. Sony hasn't worried about changing to another format in the last years , it almost became very hard to see which of their formats would be the most supported over time, so why wouldn't they do it in the near future,????
 
John Godden said:
They can spin in a bunch of ways but it's still long GOP. Fine for some things (talking head interviews, etc) but not fine for action.
Click to expand...

Turns out they spun it a bunch of ways - to 10G's in an aerobatic aircraft.

mms://sony.wmsvc.vitalstreamcdn.com/sony_vitalstream_com/Patty%20Wagstaff%2010G%20Demo.wmv
mms://sony.wmsvc.vitalstreamcdn.com/sony_vitalstream_com/Patty%20Wagstaff%2010G%20Demo.wmv

The footage is the footage. The first tests I did were of a soccer game zoomed into the long end of the lens. I was panning with the action and it looked great. Again - just go shoot the thing side by side with the HVX. Feel free to continue arguing specs and ignoring the footage though...

Cineform now supports the EX1 so your post workflow is better than DVCPRO.
 
Sycophant said:
I'm not sure that all made sense to me

EX1 - 1920x1080 at 8-bit at 24fps = 1140mbit/s
1140 / 35 = 1:32.5 Compression Ratio

RED - 3306.5mbit/s (by your calculation)
3306.5 / 270 (roughly?) = 1:12.25 Compression Ratio

So looking at it that way, RED is about 1/3 'as compressed' as XDCAM EX HQ 1080 footage. But no matter what the numbers are, it's all totally academic anyway. It's always going to be a lot more than just numbers where comparing these things.
Click to expand...

You are right, and that is one way of looking at the data. However, your calculation is working on Ex1 and Red independently without regard to their respective image qualities. Remember, Red has more resolution. So that even if both Red and Ex1 images were uncompressed and had no compression applied at all, a Red image would have an higher "apparent" image quality because of its sensor pixel count. This is what I was trying to capture. What I did was to fix what ever quality Red offers and then assume that if Ex1 offered the *same* Red image quality (in terms of some visual metrics) then what are the numbers.

Sycophant said:
You can never compare these sorts of things by numbers.
Click to expand...

I agree. Seeing is believing. The numbers game is just to keep us occupied ;-)))))

Remember they say: "I pretend to work, they pretend to pay!"
 
Also, the apparent 1:66 ratio may seem to be too high is because of whatever number the Red is working on without regard to what Ex1 is doing. It does not mean at all that at 35 Mbits/sec Ex1 can't offer great images, just that what if sensor sizes are *normalized*, then given Red's data rate what does Ex1 need to do to have the same picture quality. Another thing here is that this number may be biased because of Red's "artificially" large data rate in the first place -- artificial meaning here, that it actually never needed those numbers; just inflated numbers. Again, I am not saying that Red is having more pixels than it should, just that what ever it has, we are working off from there.

In addition, I should not have used the word "compression ratio", as it has the connotations that you used more accurately that I did. May be "quality factor" is a better term. Hence, I am sorry for this usage -- why do I always run in to using wrongly worded messages? Family problem ????????

May be I made a mistake in the numbers. If that is the case, please correct me.
 
sven said:
I must confess that when I was in a local sony store I immediately ordered the ex1 after having seen the pros for my national tv work. Not having to carry all the weight everyday and being able to shoot in a format that exceeds the previous xdcam hd in quality a lot, it was'nt hard to decide.

But I can't say I'm not waiting stressfull till I got my own Reds...with pl mount....and Scratch....

I'm also thinking that it won't take to long from now Sony or Pana adopting the Raw idea and copying it to their systems. Sony hasn't worried about changing to another format in the last years , it almost became very hard to see which of their formats would be the most supported over time, so why wouldn't they do it in the near future,????
Click to expand...

Yeah I reckon I'm going to go with the EX1 too.. But I'll can my RED reservation for now :watsup:
I wonder if Canon will move into the 1080P RAW 35mm market? Think about how many of their L series lenses they would sell on the back of a 35mm Digital RAW film camera..
 
Sycophant said:
Why can't we stop comparing things and just accept things for the beauty they have within each of them.

(Sorry, my parents were hippies)
Click to expand...

I shall have to agree -- but sometimes I can't control myself -- I just get too possessed by demons.

In addition, I personally think Ex1 data range of VBR 35 Mbits / sec for a compressed footage is great. Many a times you would not even need that much bandwidth. If the image data is not moving enough in your image the data rate required should be much lower, in fact.
 
It's a fair stretch from where their technology is at now... I don't think they have any cameras that can shoot more than 8-10 fps and even then usually burst only.
 
I was thinking about it - the 100mbit/s for DVCPRO HD is for 1280x720 at 60fps (Varicam) - In my experience, when the non-flagged frames are dropped and only active frames are recorded, the actual data rate is closer to 30-40mbit/s (on 25fps material anyway).
 
Sycophant said:
I was thinking about it - the 100mbit/s for DVCPRO HD is for 1280x720 at 60fps (Varicam) - In my experience, when the non-flagged frames are dropped and only active frames are recorded, the actual data rate is closer to 30-40mbit/s (on 25fps material anyway).
Click to expand...

Interesting point. That brings it closer to Ex1. Wow!
 
Illya Friedman said:
The goal of my posts here is generally to correct errors. So, the short answer is no. While I may be quite opinionated, I'll refrain because it's just not appropriate in this public forum. Never mind the fact that this thread is still an EX1 vs. RED comparison, which I'm guessing will become a popular cost/performance comparison among a number of forums in the coming months.


I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc
Click to expand...

Thank you Illya, for your input on this forum. It's great that we have all this information about other cameras, and people who can knowledgeably keep us educated on both the EX1 and the Dalsa.
 
Maybe somebody can help me with the following 3 short questions:

1) Is there somebody with stereoscopic 3D filming experience who could give a note in comparing the 2 cameras? Even if I'm a RED-ONE reservation holder, I'm thinking to buy 2 EX1s for a s-3D short.

2) The zoom lens: is it possible to rise the zoom by fix steps (need to have on both cameras the same zoom level), if not then RED wins here

3) is it possible to gen-lock the 2 EX1 cameras? If not then RED wins here too

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top