EX1 vs. RED

[Jamie Metzger]

You must have used tons of camera's in your experience to make the claims you did. everyone is entitled to voicing their own opinion, but disseminating construed information is never cool.

The EX1 is the best small-form-factor camera I have used. But the pictures I have from the EX1 don't hold a candle to the RED pictures I have - the RAW nature of RED's images alone assure it of that. Perhpas the EX1 has a dynamic range approaching (exceeding?) that of RED, but that is not the only measure of a camera clearly.

Certainly the EX1 is a great camera (and an HVX-killer I think) and Adam's review of it just cemented that for me, but it really is apples and oranges with the RED.

We have a tendency to want to compare things, and we do so by grasping hold of easily comparable factors (dynamic range, pixels, framerate, samplng method, imaging type) and simply comparing them - it fails to look at th whole picture.

 

[Jamie Metzger]

Got to see P. Jacksons short film screened at 4K, I'm a beleiver big time!

A lot of people are taking stances on all the wrong elements. I'm sure 90% of people haven't seen anything screened at 4K, especially RED footage.

If I can see it I'll believe it. RED's not really 4:4:4 though. It is it's own wacky thing. Toss all the numbers in the trash and show me the footage. I think that's the only rational approach. I did that with my HVX and sold it a month after I bought one of the very first ones. The BOX says real 1080P right on it. Yeah... take the specs of all these cameras and flush 'em down the toilet. Just look at the footage.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Got to see P. Jacksons short film screened at 4K, I'm a beleiver big time!

A lot of people are taking stances on all the wrong elements. I'm sure 90% of people haven't seen anything screened at 4K, especially RED footage.

I'm in that 10%. It looked pretty good.:biggrin:

I hear what you're saying though. Too many variables to consider between the 2 cameras. But at the end of the day, which one looks better to you, for the project you are using it for. Match the tools to the job and to your style. Adam's observations were interesting, and I expect he will dig even deeper with all of these cameras and is a good resource.

 

[Jamie Metzger]

I just sat through a work flow session for the RED and RED Cine, and we basically discovered that there are a million possiblities when it comes to working with your raw footage in RED cine. Exporting, 1 light, conforming, gamma curves, dvd/hd output...etc.

These are all options that greatly effect the outcome of your footage, I have left many out. Also, the way that the cinematographer shot their footage is another universe of possibilities.

At the end of the day what matters to you, might not be what matters to your client. With the RED you can shoot 4K2:1 and incorporate any aspect ratio; you can downres in redcine to 3k/2k/1k...etc. The versatility of the size of the image beats the EX-1 anyday, also to mention the frame rates....etc

I think anyone that isn't a believer should try to come to a future RED Day, if and when it's open to the public, or stop by the booth at NAB.

To sum it up, I believe that people come to conclusions way too fast, without enough experience, or supporting evidence to make seasoned professionals happy or content with the information at hand. Notice how there are not many ASC guys on here, probably because they are doing their own legitimate tests.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

It's all about testing. Like you said, lots of possibilities.

 

[chuckt]

Notice how there are not many ASC guys on here, probably because they are doing their own legitimate tests.

Don't be so sure that there are no ASC guys here.
ASC guys use mostly 35 mm film cameras, though.

 

[laguun]

ASC guys use mostly 35 mm film cameras, though.

And 1080P and HDCAMs (SR), from Panavision, Thomson and Sony.

 

[cinemano]

hum.. for what its worth.. i own a RED but i asked my producer to get an EX1 for our feature film shoot, simply because we will have lots of scenes with very very little time.. we'll need something light, longer battery life, AutoFocus when doing handheld stuff, no time for focus pullers, we'll be shooting and running most the time.. Just doing zoom in-focus-zoom out old fashioned techniques. Im saving my RED for a calmer more relaxed shoot where we can do things in more perfection without getting off-schedule. So I gotta say, both the ex1 and Red have their own advantages.. I wouldn't take my RED to a complicated small crew low budget shoot.

 

[Raphael Varandas]

Lets put joio in one box and trigo in the other... "If EX is a hdv format with I-frames it will never be an HVX-killer." I agree...
Bit Rate, Color Sample...100mb/s 4:2:2 ... ex1 is a Z1 siliconned.

If this thread was about hvx X ex1 ...OK

But RED X ex1...comm'on guys.

 

[mezmo]

The time to compare RED with the EXI is when RED produces a
1080 build and Convergent Design release the new compressed/uncompressed 1080
CF recorder they have in the pipeline for use with cameras like the EX1.
With the CF recorder and a 35mm adapter the EX1 would be about the same price as a RED
One camera body.
Then it's down to which camera produces the best visual (1080) results and
other associated costs like media, service costs and how available the camera is in the marketplace at the time you want to buy it.
Compare 1080 with 1080 acquisition. The EX1 has the ability to break down and be used
as a 'Run & Gun' camera but has to use adapters to acheive 35 DOF and higher quality acquisition.
RED has trouble in the 'Run & Gun' area but is already set up for 35mm DOF cinematography, (and in 4K if needed).
At the moment you should compare RED with the SI2K, the only other compressed
2K+ Digital Cinema computer camera.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[Joel Kaye]

The time to compare RED with the EXI is when RED produces a 1080 build and Convergent Design release the new compressed/uncompressed 1080 CF recorder they have in the pipeline for use with cameras like the EX1.

The 35mbit compression built into the EX1 right now is pretty good. Uncompressed that camera will be amazing.

I'm a bit curious to see the difference in DOF at 1080P for RED vs. EX1 since the EX1 has 1/2" chips. I guess RED would be equilvilent to 2/3". I think the dynamic range of the EX1 is similar to the RED (build 15). Sharpness at 2K probably is similar. But I don't know that.

RED has the advantage of interchangeable lenses. EX1 has the advantage of size and weight.

To me RED is for people who want 35mm lenses on their camera with 35mm DOF.

I'll add that I do think you can run and gun with RED and a low budget crew. Or even 1 or 2 people. You can focus it by eye just as easily as the EX1 now. You can record for 3ish hours on the RED drive. Dump it at night. If you can handle the weight, go for it.

 

[Barry Green]

I guess RED would be equilvilent to 2/3".

No, Red would be about 4x larger than 2/3. A 2/3" sensor is smaller than a S16 frame of film, Red is twice as wide and twice as tall as S16, so it's over 4x larger than S16, which is about twice as large as the EX1's 1/2". So in strictly rough ballpark numbers, the Red sensor is probably 8x as large as the EX1's.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

No, Red would be about 4x larger than 2/3. A 2/3" sensor is smaller than a S16 frame of film, Red is twice as wide and twice as tall as S16, so it's over 4x larger than S16, which is about twice as large as the EX1's 1/2". So in strictly rough ballpark numbers, the Red sensor is probably 8x as large as the EX1's.

I think he was comparing it to the dynamic range of the average 2/3" sensor as opposed to the size of the sensor.
no need for the fancy math we get it 35mm is bigger then 2/3" which in turn is bigger then 1/2".

 

[Joel Kaye]

No, Red would be about 4x larger than 2/3. A 2/3" sensor is smaller than a S16 frame of film, Red is twice as wide and twice as tall as S16, so it's over 4x larger than S16, which is about twice as large as the EX1's 1/2". So in strictly rough ballpark numbers, the Red sensor is probably 8x as large as the EX1's.

I was talking about when RED is shooting 1080P cropped. Not full frame 4K scaled down to 1080P. That currently can't happen in camera (according to Jim)

So when RED shoots 1080P cropped it's 1/4 it's normal size... how big is that compared to a F-900 or a EX1? And does the camera really perform as well as they do at that resolution. I think my point was, if you want to shoot that size then RED is probably not your camera. The EX1 probably does is faster, better and cheaper.

RED is for people who want 35mm and don't want to mess with adapters and their shortcomings.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

RED is for people who want 35mm and don't want to mess with adapters and their shortcomings.

That would be my area, Personally I can't stand adaptors. Problem is I need to find someone in NZL foolish enough... I mean enterprising enough to lend me the money needed to place an order.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

That would be my area, Personally I can't stand adaptors. Problem is I need to find someone in NZL foolish enough... I mean enterprising enough to lend me the money needed to place an order.

Yeah, it's a shame all those finance companies folded.

To my mind however, there's not much sense in owning (which is not to say I won't buy my own when I sell a million SolidStores and get rich) - given that to really use it properly you need to drop a huge amount on lenses and other associated stuff...

A lot of people really are dreaming if they think they're getting all they need for 4k film making for $17,500.

I think at the moment, for the enterprising indie, the EX1 offers the best bang for buck. Side by side against the HVX-200, to my mind, there's no competition. It's less than half the price of a RED body. You can post it pretty easily.

I love the RED, but for most people I don't think it's a justified purchase - something like an EX1 offers much better return on investment (hell, shoot weddings with it in your spare time, you'll have it paid off in a few months).

As for HVX, I believe it shoots 60fps at 100Mb/s, other framerates are less - about 1.66Mb/s per frame... So about 40Mb/s for 24fps...

 

[David Wyatt]

Maybe the fairer comparison would be EX1 vs Scarlet ;-) - we'll have to wait and see...

Purely subjectively I think the EX1 produces great images considering it's HDV (although I haven't tried really abusing the image grading-wise). Other great features are the great lens (with "proper" end stop focus barrel which you can dis-engage if you want - v.clever!), great time lapse & slow shutter options, slow mo ability & SxS cards (much smaller than I expected). Personally I think it's better than the HVX200 (I've never been that impressed with the HVX's images but the more reliable codec seems to please lots of post people).

 

[Joel Kaye]

Maybe the fairer comparison would be EX1 vs Scarlet ;-) - we'll have to wait and see...

Yeah. That'll be interesting. I've personally been kinda skeptical that Scarlet will top the EX1. You use an EX1 and it's like everything and the kitchen sink is in that camera.

The EX1 certainly blows the HVX out of the water at literally every level. Faster lens, better manual focus, WAY better resolution,WAY better dynamic range, WAY better focus assist, WAY less noise, more programmable, better low light sensitivity... it never ends. They took the best things off every other camera in that price range and tossed it into the EX1.

The EX1 and RED are more comparable than the HVX and the EX1 in every area other than 35mm DOF and sheer native chip size/resolution. The HVX was old the day it came out and it's really old now. Luckily P2 prices have plummeted as we were told back then.

The codec koolaid drinkers always amuse me. Stop reading the hype and start looking at images. There are guys pulling great greenscreen on the EX1. It's even got HD-SDI uncompressed out for max quality.

I might switch to Cineform for editing if I owned one. Heck, if I could switch to Cineform to edit RED I would.

I think Scarlet needs to be something else altogether and not bother trying to beat the EX1. Like truly jeans pocket sized. That's a good idea.

 

[Barry Green]

I was talking about when RED is shooting 1080P cropped.

Ah, gotcha.

So when RED shoots 1080P cropped it's 1/4 it's normal size... how big is that compared to a F-900 or a EX1?

About the same size as the F-900 and twice as big as the EX1. But the EX1 and F900 would both be sharper because they're three chips rather than a Bayer single chip, so you're looking at six million pixels rather than 2 million. In practical terms, Red @ cropped 1080p = a bit better than 720p res, probably 10% better. Now, red @ 3K, rescaled to 1080p, that'll give you full 1080p res, shallower DOF, no aliasing, and 60P overcranking. But as a live 1080p camera head, the Red would probably not deliver sharpness to match an EX1 or F900.

I think my point was, if you want to shoot that size then RED is probably not your camera. The EX1 probably does is faster, better and cheaper.

Faster, cheaper, and sharper, yes.

RED is for people who want 35mm and don't want to mess with adapters and their shortcomings.

Yep.

 

[mdo]

It's even got HD-SDI uncompressed out for max quality.

Someone told me the HD-SDI output only provides 1080i -- you can't get 1080p out of it. Anyone know for sure?