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 :)

Internet compression for Scarlet vs 5D

Bart Allen

Bart Allen

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Here is a video since we cant use Scarlet yet I figure we can examine the internet compression of Epic Vs 5D to see if it's woth buying a scarlet for Internet distribution as most do :boxing_smiley:
 
 
Ian McGrew said:
Well I certainly hope people are not shooting on any kind of Red to post just on the web...
Click to expand...

If my client wants me to shoot RED for web delivery, I will (and do) shoot RED (and ALEXA) for web delivery… The 'hits' from their web campaigns, eventually make it to broadcast; so we do it once and do it right.

G.
 
Ian McGrew said:
Well I certainly hope people are not shooting on any kind of Red to post just on the web...
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think today the web is the "second highest resolution" we have or no? Explain where else except in the move theaters can you watch something above 1920x1080p....? There is move theaters, but then second to that we got the web and computer screens... and then far behind that we have TV commercials etc that is all very compressed, and then you have youtube and all the other bad internet streams ( I guess thats what you refer to)... But for sure there are some great screening possibilities on the web. We have won several gold lions for web productions, that was shot on 35mm film so why not shoot web stuff on Epic... greens screen and tons of other look/post related stuff is superior / doable with a MX/RED that does not fly with a 5D or such so the "just for the web" argument does not go that far I think, it's only the very low end / shot from the hip kind of productions that maybe benefit from using a small cheap camera all other applications very much benefit from the more high end cameras.
 
Agreed +1

Agreed +1

+1 agreed
Björn Benckert said:
Hmm, I think today the web is the "second highest resolution" we have or no? Explain where else except in the move theaters can you watch something above 1920x1080p....? There is move theaters, but then second to that we got the web and computer screens... and then far behind that we have TV commercials etc that is all very compressed, and then you have youtube and all the other bad internet streams ( I guess thats what you refer to)... But for sure there are some great screening possibilities on the web. We have won several gold lions for web productions, that was shot on 35mm film so why not shoot web stuff on Epic... greens screen and tons of other look/post related stuff is superior / doable with a MX/RED that does not fly with a 5D or such so the "just for the web" argument does not go that far I think, it's only the very low end / shot from the hip kind of productions that maybe benefit from using a small cheap camera all other applications very much benefit from the more high end cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Ian McGrew said:
Well I certainly hope people are not shooting on any kind of Red to post just on the web...
Click to expand...
Well, I would.
"Just for web" isn't valid anymore. There are people doing stuff for the web that have high production values and takes the medium serious. It isn't just lol-cats anymore or people being hit in the groin. The web is probably the future for moving pictures. At least that is my belief. I think we are very close to the breaking point where what is a web series and a TV-series starts to blend, and before too long web series will dominate serial narratives(though maybe just be called series at that point).

And even if your final distribution is YouTube(which ours have been for our series) there is a lot to gain with less compression before they crunch it to pieces. The 5D compression breaks wides, especially if there is a lot of foliage involved. I had to do a lot closer shots than I might have done with out all the greenery smudged together. (I shot our web series, The Great Dying, with the 5DMii).

EDIT: Not saying the 5D isn't any good. I think it is an amazing piece of equipment. It is just the hard compression that isn't very nice with your pictures.
 
This has to stop, there is a difference, please check out philip blooms latest piece. If you think a 5d or fs100 can get that clean that sharp and have the color depth of skin tones found in these epic close ups and have the dynamic range found in those wides, i would love to see it. Just look at the closes ups, there are different tones in his skin tones. Its far more accurate that 8 bit from 5d or fs100 even online.

http://vimeo.com/32131978

Now look at the 5d in action on close ups. Even online the epic is on an entirely new level
http://vimeo.com/4704533
 
Last edited:
Ryan...the whole point is to show how they perform relative to other cameras on streaming sites like youtube.
 
Hello all,
This is my first post on Reduser,

Thats like saying shooting jpeg stills @ 4million pixels is the same as shooting RAW stills @ 16million pixels just because you are printing the image to a size 5"x7".
Sure, all going well on the shoot itself the finished products could look the same. But sooner or later when a mistake (regardless of how big or small) was made during an important shoot you'll be glad you were shooting RAW. Thats why its there.
 
Thing is if you light and post the Epic to look like the 5D, it will work just fine...

And it will look very 5D'ish

This is - to me - a good example of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMhXexbDmv8&feature=feedu

The fun part with the Epic/Scarlet is that your palette is so much bigger and I think that may be visible, even in youtube clips.

I think you may see that in this 720p youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkK1hy4j5eI

And there is a lot of examples showing off how different approaches may affect results on the Epic/Scarlet here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?66510-So-what-can-you-do-with-a-Scarlet-X...


Thing is:
Youtube/The net CAN be an equalizer if someone uses a very limited palette.
OTOH when people know how to work the footage, that comes through, even online...

Cheers!

Gunleik
 
I'm working on a web campaign right now shot on Epic 5k 3:1. We're finishing in 4k and downresing to 720p for YouTube. It's a *really* useful workflow for greenscreen work that saves tons of time in post.

When you are looking at $100+ an hour for post an hour or two here for shooting on RED pays for itself in very short order.
 
+1 for higher resolution, better compression method, and more accurate color for green screen/keying. This is something I had to deal with a lot with smaller cameras with multiple camera setups on key removal. I'm so done with h.264. It's left a permanent dent in my skull.

Even worse was matching green screen elements from higher end cameras with HDSLRs and similar little cameras. Really mind numbing work. Scarlet X will solve so many headaches when I just need to quickly grab B roll, Special Unit, of VFX elements.
 
Ryan Emanuel said:
This has to stop, there is a difference, please check out philip blooms latest piece. If you think a 5d or fs100 can get that clean that sharp and have the color depth of skin tones found in these epic close ups and have the dynamic range found in those wides, i would love to see it. Just look at the closes ups, there are different tones in his skin tones. Its far more accurate that 8 bit from 5d or fs100 even online.

http://vimeo.com/32131978

Now look at the 5d in action on close ups. Even online the epic is on an entirely new level
http://vimeo.com/4704533
Click to expand...

Have you see the trailer for Reverie yet in the theaters? All shot on a 5d. Looked pretty good to me.

The Epic footage looks great. Hard to compare those two links though because the 5d stuff was a lot more low light night time stuff, while the Epic stuff looks like late afternoon or early morning.
 
Ryan Emanuel said:
This has to stop, there is a difference, please check out philip blooms latest piece. If you think a 5d or fs100 can get that clean that sharp and have the color depth of skin tones found in these epic close ups and have the dynamic range found in those wides, i would love to see it. Just look at the closes ups, there are different tones in his skin tones. Its far more accurate that 8 bit from 5d or fs100 even online.

http://vimeo.com/32131978

Now look at the 5d in action on close ups. Even online the epic is on an entirely new level
http://vimeo.com/4704533
Click to expand...

That first one is insane...

Good God.
 
Eric Rodemann said:
Have you see the trailer for Reverie yet in the theaters? All shot on a 5d. Looked pretty good to me.

The Epic footage looks great. Hard to compare those two links though because the 5d stuff was a lot more low light night time stuff, while the Epic stuff looks like late afternoon or early morning.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Reverie, but I saw Like Crazy last week, it was shot on 7d with ultra primes. I'm not against 5d on the big screen, I think they pass the big screen test, but just not be a significant margin. the movie worked on 7d, though the image had some problems, rolling shutter was killer on hand held, skin tones were inconsistent, highlight retention was poor, and wide shots even with expensive glass were soft, but nonetheless regular audience probably wouldn't complain, they would just say it looks indie. I asked my girlfriend what she thought about the picture and she only said it looked a little soft sometimes but it was good. By the way Like Crazy is a good movie you guys should check it out.
I don't have a problem with 5d on the big screen, I think it has a place, and I also think the scarlet has a place on the internet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top