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 :)

F900 Comparison

P

PMascetta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am about to loose a rental to an F900. Have the comparisons between the two cameras been discussed. If so where would I find this discussion. Is it just me who feels the f900 is now outdated because of Red?
 
I had a job that went one day on Red for location and was going one day on F900 in a studio for greenscreen. We had a three-person full-body shot that blew the budget for the lighting unless we went tungsten. Tungsten greenscreen meant F900 and not Red ...

Jason
 
pureRED said:
I had a job that went one day on Red for location and was going one day on F900 in a studio for greenscreen. We had a three-person full-body shot that blew the budget for the lighting unless we went tungsten. Tungsten greenscreen meant F900 and not Red ...

Jason
Click to expand...

Why is that? Why can't a RED shoot green screen on tungsten?
 
In rare situations, the knee circuit on the F900 will do wacky things (colors don't look right, possible banding). Red has no knee circuit (and Redcine won't do it / you would use RGB curves). You can probably disable the knee circuit on the F900. F900 is non-RAW workflow so that stuff is burned into the footage.

This is from some footage I worked with that was dubbed from HDCAM --> DVCPRO HD --> DV50 (don't ask). Considering that, it's pretty hard to judge all the other qualities. But I have a suspicion that HDCAM compression isn't great by today's standards (keep in mind that HDCAM was developed a long time ago) based on what I've seen elsewhere (FXPHD). For normal-looking shows and reality-type shows, the footage looks fine. So does XDCAM HD, HDV, and some HDCAM stuff looks very close to film (or the other way around). Those types of shows come down mostly to lighting, DOF, etc. If you want to push the look or do VFX work, then the format and quality of the camera system absolutely makes a difference.

2- Workflow is absolutely different. Advantages and disadvantages to either depend on the situation.
 
To each their own..I would much prefer Red over 900 for a tungsten green screen.
Aloha
-A
 
Red is the best greenscreen camera, period. 4K, RAW info, nothing baked in. Light it correctly and you'll have the cleanest keys you've ever seen.

Plus, you can downscale back to HD later and it'll show far less jaggies than the F900....

HTH

Paul
 
I did a test RED 4k with master primes vs F900R and digi primes one month ago. It was a night shooting with available night, only street tungsten lamps. I dont know if i am allowed to post samples here....;-( In case you are interested, you could write me an email....
 
The "problem" with keying RED on tungsten is grossly overstated, But as with everything RED that is dependant on the development of the RAW files.

Have you checked my one-click tests.

RED keys better than... well most things. It can be even better at daylight, but that is not the point...
 
greens screen, 100 fps, 2k, arri 9.5 mm s16 lens = soft!!!

greens screen, 100 fps, 2k, arri 9.5 mm s16 lens = soft!!!

we shot 4 days of greens screen lately.
the setup was:

arri 9.5 mm (wide) s16 lens, T 2.8
100 fps, 2k 16/9, redcode 36
tungsten lighting.

image was visibly soft.
way softer than the panasonic 500 that was doing b steady-camera shots.

softer doesn't mean bad, but the clients and the post guys i think liked the panasonic footage better. and, as the are using avids, postproduction of hours of footage was a nightmare for them.
if they don't need 100 fps again, i'm not shure they would go again with red over the panasonic...

i believe (or hope..) that the cause of the softness was largely due to the lens.
maybe 100 fps helped a little. but we tested 2k @ 25fps, and couldn't tell the difference.
also tried the ultraprime 10 mm. (35 mm.), but the image was even softer.

too bad.
 
Soft? That's odd.
I shot 2K, tungsten 100fps @ 24fps and it was as sharp as anything I've got from an F900 in the past. It was a little grainy (I shot on build 15 beta), but I believe that build 16 fixed that.
 
I'd have to echo Gunleik's sentiment, i think that while it is something you want to be aware of and plan accordingly for, the whole tungsten - greenscreen issue is overstated. Plus, blanket statements just make dealing with production companies more difficult than it already is ;)
We're on day 3 of a 4 day commercial shoot, about 70% of which has been greenscreen & tungsten. We're shooting redcode36, 4k, 16:9, 25-250hr zoom and standard primes between a t5.6 1/3 and t4 1/2 and so far all the images have looked great.
The editor is offsite, but working on the more intnse greenscreen footage today so if i hear of any issues from him I'll pass it along, but he was more than happy with day 1 footage.

have fun!
-c


-edit-
to bring it back to the red vs f900
i agree, they are different tools and depending on your application and workflow needs, one may be better than the other.
I'd love to see that test footage hideffe !
 
could be backfocus, yes.
but backfocus is accurately checked every time the camera goes out.
i could also believe that heat could deform the lens mount enough to cause backfocus issues. but still... i believe that, whenever is possible, it's not a great idea to shoot green screen with such a wide angle lens.
 
comparing Red shot at 2k with other cameras

comparing Red shot at 2k with other cameras

alex trettenero said:
we shot 4 days of greens screen lately.
the setup was:

arri 9.5 mm (wide) s16 lens, T 2.8
100 fps, 2k 16/9, redcode 36
tungsten lighting.

image was visibly soft.
way softer than the panasonic 500 that was doing b steady-camera shots.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? Seems like there has been a general recognition that choosing to shoot at 2k for the higher framerates will yield softer footage than shooting at 4k. That's just a tradeoff for the higher framerates, no? So to make an overall comparison of Red with another camera based on Red footage shot using the 2k mode, doesn't seem to make sense.
 
In regards to the first post, all I can do is give you my take on the two.

When we received our Red at the beginning of the year, we held on to our F900 until we could fully test out the camera and new workflow. Even with the older builds, it was quickly evident that the images the Red produces is vastly superior. Once we were able to completely test the Red, we quickly sold our beloved F900. Don't get me wrong the F900 is a fantastic camera and has produced some amazing footage for us over the last 5 years, but personally I feel that once you start working with these images side by side, it becomes clear that the Red One is in an entirely different league. The images are sharper, cleaner and can be stretched and pushed around so much more in post compared to HDCAM material. Even tungsten shot footage. Is it better to shoot daylight balanced? Well if it's possible yes, but people need to put this in perspective. There is definately some fear and misconception out there about using this camera with tungsten lighting. When you compare it to tungsten lit F900 footage, to my eye, Red tungsten lit footage is still far superior, especially if you are going to an 1080 finish. We just finished a 7 day tungsten lit studio shoot with 2 Reds. For the past 5 years we've done quite a few of these with the exact same set-up and shooting situation, but with F900's. All I can say is that when I look at the footage from the last five years and compare it to the footage we just shot with build 16, the difference is night and day. Everyone who has seen it, especially side by side with the F900 material is just blown away.

Now keep in mind that what camera you shoot with is one thing, but your post work-flow is another story. Red work-flow and HDCAM work-flow are very different. And there are a lot of different ways to handle your Red material. Red work-flow is not hard, it's just different. So you need to make sure that everything on the post side is in place.

If you are looking for a very educational un-biased opinion and the camera in a real working environment, then I would highly suggest you read David Mullen's two threads over in the Cinematography forum. Even if it's just for yourself and not just your clients. Mr. Mullen's contributions to this forum are true jems, we are all very fortunate to have him hanging around here.


http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13921

and

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17105

Just my 2 cents, I hope it can be of some help.
 
This thread is covering ground that has been plowed long ago.

When it comes to image quality, there is no question that Red is far superior to the industry standard 2/3" HD cameras, the Sony 900 & Panasonic VariCam.

The Red footage is not only superior, it's vastly superior. Period. End of story.

For green screen, the Red superiority is equally clear, no matter what Kelvin temperature you're using.

Does this mean the Red is a better choice for all jobs? I don't think so.

Sometimes the lighter weight, longer depth of field, and more universal work flow trump the Red camera's image advantage.

Of course I would much rather shoot with the Red.

Good shooting and best regards,

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