Bob Gundu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,238
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Toronto, ON Canada
- Website
- www.10fh.com
Still scratching my head over not having internal 4K prores or at the very least 4K output on the weapon.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Jarred basically confirmed 4k prores the other day, just still waiting on apple approval
Still scratching my head over not having internal 4K prores or at the very least 4K output on the weapon.
I'm sure you know this already, but 6k R3D files are way smaller in data than 4k PRORES of equal dimensions. And not colour backed like PRORES either.
You can drop a RAW directly into a time line and you can grade RAW in that time line...
Not sure what the attraction to PRORES is anymore. ? other than low res editing ?
I only use PRORES when Im forced to edit swiftly on a laptop. With bigger machines I don't go near PRORES. Your limited within that colour baked world and your images then become compromised in that world. Not to mention your hard drive has to be twice the size to handle 4444 4k even 422HQ 4k is bigger than R3D's.
However, I do use PRORES for final Mastering once I get that perfect look Im after.
Food for thought.
I saw Geoff's tests, and took them with a grain of salt, for various reasons:
1) Geoff's determination of DR was apparantly decided by his subjective choice of acceptable/usable noise in the blacks/highlights.
As many redusers are aware, the amount of "noise" in a RED capture is highly influenced by your signal chain, so:
2) Geoff' insistance on handicapping the Dragon and shooting it at 5K (to keep it at s35), clearly had an influence on the signal chain - 5K is less clean than 6K, as you are punched in on the noise (notice also that Geoff I believe did not similarly punish the BMCC for being s16).
3) Compression. I don't believe we know what compression he shot. I never saw it listed. Was it 5K 5:1, 5K 8:1, or 5K 10:1. These choices have a major outcome on noise, and Geoff's choice of compression was not clearly labeled the few times I checked. Like 5K, the compression appeared to be a personal choice on his part.
4) Blackshading has a major influence on noise. To not do so before a test, could dramatically affect noise - Dragon is much more sensitive to MX in this regard. Again, we have no idea if Geoff properly blackshaded before his test. Each time I checked, this was never made clear.
My point being - Dragon shoot 5K @ 8:1 w/out a blackshade will have significantly more noise than Dragon 6K 5:1 with a proper blackshade. Without more clear info, er have no idea if were seeing the results of the former or latter (even at 5K) in Geoff's test. Geoff's failure to mention compression or blackshading made me assume he wasn't aware of their significance. I dont believe he's a regular RED shooter anymore, so this is actually understandable.
Nevetheless, because of the many uknown variables, no matter how well intentioned, Inhave taken these tests with a grain of salt.
Nick,
your post underlines the very things many people don't want to go to the trouble of knowing or understanding. Black shading, compression, operating temp, cropping factors "most" folks don't give a shit. They want to turn the effing camera on and shoot.
The boot time has crept up to 32 seconds last time I checked. So I know enough to put the battery on and turn on the camera before I add the lcd, lens, rods, mb etc but many other cameras are instant on.
Its the small, seemingly insignificant things that tend to matter. Personally, The geek in me loves and appreciates this stuff and my curious mind and problem solving nature is ok with having to learn, know and understand this stuff.
Others, not so much, so they lean toward what is good and what is easiest.
Has anyone read the result of Geoff Boyles test at the University of the West of England. This is not meant to challenge anything or change anyones opinions, I'm just curious about what people think of it.
According to the test....
Red Dragon with the skin tone filter in daylight showed a D.R of 12.5 stops
Alexa showed a D.R in daylight of 15 stops
The Varicam in daylight 12.5 stops
The C500 in daylight 12 stops
I'm not trying to instigate another Reduser "battle"... I'm just wondering if anyone has seem the test and what they think of it.
Here is a link to the results below
http://www.cinematography.net/CML-UWE-tech.html
On the other side of the argument, it gives a knowledgeable D.P or operator finer control of the tool.
Compression was 5:1 - noted on the Dragon Skin page.
I couldn't find anything on the black shade - I suppose it is possible that Geoff - who by any measure is very experienced - could have made a mistake... but I doubt it. I also think he could have squeezed a bit more out of ISO 250, but only a little. And looking at these clips in resolve, I don't think 5k versus 6k would really move the needle. There is a lot more noise in the Dragon image.
I think the test pretty well spells it out. It is what it is. Dragon is noisier in all channels, especially the red channel - Dragon also clips sooner than the Alexa by a couple stops.
That's just how the cameras behave. I don't think there is much wiggle room in these tests unless they didn't black shade or they black shaded incorrectly. Maybe Geoff will chime in on that.
And Alexa could've been 3k.
I don't want to go into discussion on Geoffs results, but I think it's silly to suggest that he does anything to deliberately cripple anything, and his reasons for shooting 5k are good.
And many would agree. That if you know a lens range and change the FOV you no longer know that lens-range. (or the quality of the lens if you shoot it wider than intended).
Also, knowing that a lot of TV is shot 4kHD, even on Dragon, the case that Dragon CAN be shot at 6k, is not really the most realistic scenario.
Geoffs tests are as far as I know good, with a very practical approach and seriously and well documentedly done.
And even though I agree that they should be read like any bible, the good part with them is that they are done in a way that you or I could recreate.
They're actually well documented.
Which basically means. if u do what he does, you'll probably get similar results.
And I like that a lot about them.
Now DxO also do their tests in a good manner.
But I don't think those results nullify eachother.