R1-MX versus Epic-X

[Paul S.]

I've been trying to absorb all the different strands of information out there about what the Epic promises over the R1, and being a stage 4 contender I'm interested in the scale of the step-up we could expect. (I think it's a dilemma many Stage 4 people will face while everyone begins to pick up their new Epics - whether to go for a secondhand R1-MX or wait.)

With the R1 now having the Mysterium-X sensor, am I right in thinking that waiting for the Epic will essentially bring the following benefits:

• up to 5K
• Better dynamic range (with HDRx)
• Higher frame rate at higher res
• More flexible modular form factor
• More likely to have accessories designed for it (obsolescence obsolete)

What have I missed?
This is similar to some other questions currently out there, but I wanted to try and pin down the points - thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Nils Ruinet]

Less compression
Full debayer 1080P HDSDI 10bit output
Different monitoring paths for each output
Autofocus / Touch focus
intelligent Canon / Nikon mounts
Wireless Redmote
Touchscreen
Still mode
Better / easier backfocus adjustment
Less power consumption, less heat
Takes about 10 seconds to boot

...and probably a few other things we haven't heard of yet...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I do fully expect the Epic to have better dynamic performance despite the sensor being the same.

The DR tests published by RED with MX on pre-prod Epics seem to back that up.
I cannot say that I have seen similar performance from MX'ed RED-ones.

Good thing is that that makes sense...

 

[Robert Frank]

I think that R1-MX outputs 12 bits R3D files vs 16 bit R3D files for Epic-X.

EPIC-S outputs 12 bit R3D's also?

If incorrect let me know!

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

well there are a few epics out in the field.. hopefully a epic vs alexa DR test comes out soon

(and not with epic using HDR.. but standard shooting mode)

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I want to see an M-X versus Epic tests so we can all see how closely the two cameras will match under the same shooting circumstances. That will be essential for A-B camera work. The key here being, when Epic is at its best, does an M-X RED One get close enough that it is still totally cutable.

Stephen

 

[Elsie N]

I think that R1-MX outputs 12 bits R3D files vs 16 bit R3D files for Epic-X.

EPIC-S outputs 12 bit R3D's also?

If incorrect let me know!

I really hope it is on a par with Epic X, just not as high framerates. I seem to recall someone at RED saying that Epic S will work with Epic shooting 3D... but I may have misinterpreted their answer.

I want to see an M-X versus Epic tests so we can all see how closely the two cameras will match under the same shooting circumstances. That will be essential for A-B camera work. The key here being, when Epic is at its best, does an M-X RED One get close enough that it is still totally cutable.
Stephen

I also remember someone saying that RED One MX footage would cut with Epic X. But the operative word here may be would it do so seamlessly.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think that R1-MX outputs 12 bits R3D files vs 16 bit R3D files for Epic-X.

...

This should add more latitude to the bottom end. More fine gradations to map the shadows to.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

I am shooting my MX right next to the Epics and they cut well together. I am using my MX primarily in a crash housing when the camera is in harm's way.

Peter

 

[Uli Plank]

I do fully expect the Epic to have better dynamic performance despite the sensor being the same.

I can't imagine how the DR of the same sensor would be extended (apart from HDRx) without any in-camera processing – which would be against RED's philosophy!

OK, finer mapping in 16 bit might reduce some quantization noise.