r1 v scarlet PICTURE QUALITY

[daniel dayani]

ok so obviously there is a big difference in the form factor/ all around ease of use with the scarlet. my big question is, and i can't seem to find that much on it, how does the picture quality really stack up? i know they are both mx sensors but to me they have very different characters. the r1 seems less sharp and a bit more natural whereas the scarlet has a more sharp and 'newer' looking image. 8/10 people will tell me scarlet > r1 simply because ease of use and form factor but that is not my biggest concern. I don't mind really setting up the shot and I'm not 'run and gunning' it like many do. I've looked endlessly for video comparisons and can't find one that nails it. thanks!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Its basically the same.

 

[Saumene Mehrdady]

red one mx actually shoots 4.5k, other than that the image is the effectively same if both cameras are at the same settings with the same lens

 

[D. O'Bryan]

I've had both - like Nick said they're basically the same. I loved the R1, it was a tank and had presence in a room. haha. The Scarlet is nice because it can take EF and PL (as well as a few other) lens options.

Both go to 4.5k, same exact MX pixels. If memory serves Scarlet has a little higher bitrate options as opposed to R1, so if anything I think you could coax a little better quality out of the S-X? Also S-X can do HDR-X (at 3k res) which is useful in tricky lighting situations.

 

[Samir Patel]

I've had both - like Nick said they're basically the same. I loved the R1, it was a tank and had presence in a room. haha. The Scarlet is nice because it can take EF and PL (as well as a few other) lens options.

Both go to 4.5k, same exact MX pixels. If memory serves Scarlet has a little higher bitrate options as opposed to R1, so if anything I think you could coax a little better quality out of the S-X? Also S-X can do HDR-X (at 3k res) which is useful in tricky lighting situations.

Scarlet-X doesn't do 4.5k. It can go up to 5k but only 12fps so not usable for video unless maybe shooting timelapse or intending to pull frames anyway.

 

[daniel dayani]

you guys see no discernible difference in look? i am probably just crazy then but red one looks slightly different to me. thanks for your help!!

 

[Todd T]

One reason for the difference you are seeing might be due to REDCODE compression.
to quote this article, "...the equivalent ratios for REDCODE 28, 36 and 42 are 10:1, 8:1 and 7.5:1, respectively. Currently, the Epic supports a REDCODE ratio range of 3:1 to 18:1 with 8:1 being its default."

The Scarlet-X can go as low as 5:1 in 4K resolution.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

The big difference is obviously the weight. A real negative for the Scarlet-X is that it only has two audio inputs without using the Pro I/O module. That was a big deal to us, but not so much for others.

Loved our RED Ones.

Stephen

 

[George Butterfield]

'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' was shot completely with RED cameras – about three-quarters using the RED One with the M-X sensor.

 

[daniel dayani]

thanks for the help! hopefully i'll be conducting a few tests down the line for all of us that use some of these older systems cheers

 

[Mike Finegan]

'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' was shot completely with RED cameras – about three-quarters using the RED One with the M-X sensor.

Interesting but why? I would think they would have used epic for all cameras so they had 5k to work with - unless DP happened to own several red one

 

[Mike P.]

R1 also has a full 4k (non-UHD) 16:9 (4096x2308) whereas Scarlet is 4kDCP/UHD (4096x2160 or 3840x2160)... Also, R1 has 4.5k (which is 4608x1920 or 4480x1920 or something), which the Scarlet really should've had... OH, and R1 does 60fps at 3k and 120fps at 2k (instead of Scarlet is 3k/48fps and 2k/60fps)... But R1 is 7.5:1 compression ratio, while Scarlet is 6:1 (the 4.5k or 4096x2308 downsample to UHD easily makes up for the 1.5 difference in compression ratio in my opinion.)

I/O is also in the R1s favour -- has built-in 4x mini-XLRs (I think), has built-in 2x Monitor ports, built-in control (whereas DSMC needs an additional sidehandle or REDmote or 5" touch).

But yeah, the form factor of the R1 is crippling...

 

[daniel dayani]

brilliant, that must be where my eye really see's the difference. thanks mike

 

[Rolf Kestermann]

Comparing the footage between the Epic-MX and R1 MX, there is a true advantage of the RI in spite of the compression numbers. Owning both, I find the R1 having cleaner blacks as well as lower chromatic noise at its highest compression than the Epic. If You don't need to hand hold it, it is a much better camera, better interface, multiple media choices and simultaneous EVF and LCD monitoring without lag. Of course the Epic has its own advantages,
size, HDR, 5K and Slow motion, but compared to the Scarlet the difference may shrink. However, as much as I like the R1, the biggest concern is about RED actually being able or willing to service the camera, also, RED no longer sells media for the Camera, and its considered 'end of life' (obsolete) Don't really hate to bring it up, but a complete BMC Mini Ursa Pro is actually cheaper and better.