Raptor Vs Monstro

[Alex Werjefelt]

Interested to know many Raptor/DSMC2 users feel HDRx, battery life and other nuanced benefits of Monstro is valuable enough to justify future purchase of Monstros over Raptor?

Trying to understand the retention of the 54K price point of Monstro, with the Raptor being as exceptional as it is.

 

[Russ Fill]

Ive been thinking about what the difference is between Monstro and Raptor as I have both now and debating on letting go of my Monstro..

Here are just a few in my mind some pretty big differences...
1, A lot of previous DSMC AKS and support are interchangeable. Mags, Modules, EVF, Monitors and a few other things that add up.
2. I like being able to change my OPLF.. From Low Light to High Lite to IR to what ever 3rd party is out there....AKA Kippertie. all kinds of cool OPLF filters
3. As for now, and I know some if not all will probably be available on Raptor at some time,,,,but we don't know... HDRx, Time Laps, Frame Summing, Frame Averaging. Duel Format R3D/Pro Res,

3.b. Time Code is kept when camera is disconnected from Battery on all Previous DSMC cameras. maybe a update fix but haven't seen it yet.

4. Different Lens Mount system...the Monstro or DSMC2 seems a little more robust but time and about a thousand lens changes will tell...
5, Power use...
6. Being able to change camera setting from Operator side while looking through EVF with out looking via Side Kick or Side handle. maybe one of the most intuitive UI controller on a camera.
This also lets you use just about any monitor that will plug in to the DSMC camera to view control and make adjustments.

7. Lens height still work with my Monstro and DSMC cameras in my Underwater housings. And other gear,I may have to get new housings for the Raptor but maybe a spacer or riser will fix that.. and figure out how the lenses will line up in the housings.

There are probably a few more but these are the most noticeable to me right now.
Like I mentioned some of these will come online in the future but its kind of ruff having that new camera smell and it doesn't do what my older camera does...YET!

All in all the Raptor is an amazing camera but the Monstro will still be a very valuable and awesome camera for a good while yet. Side by side they are both pretty close.
And it would be very difficult for someone who didn't have the funds to justify getting the Raptor if they owned the Monstro right now unless they need some crazy frame rates for the type of work they do. I am one of those people so for me it was a pretty easy decision. I had been using the Wave camera for a while now on some projects and I have to say the Wave is an amazing camera but really has some stumbling blocks... work flow, dynamic range.. and having to take the camera to post and plug it in to offload is to say the least a pain. Can you imagine having to drag your Phantom 4K flex to post every time you wanted to offload your days work...
So when the Raptor was available with frame rates and formats that filled what I needed and to be able to have crazy dynamic range and a work flow that I know works was amazing.

Im going to probably keep both at least for a while.

 

[Alex Werjefelt]

Thanks Russ that is the most comprehensive Pros/Cons list I’ve seen yet, nice work! One other thing I am interested in seeing is the data file sizes between Wavelet/DCT. I was told by Red that best compression settings in DSMC2 equate to MQ in Raptor, in that instance with equal specs would be cool to know the difference between file sizes. Do you happen to have any intel there? Some of the other threads here touch on it, but couldn’t find any definitive results.

 

[Mark Andersen]

I was surprised that RED went with the terms regarding quality as high, medium and low. Who really wants to tell a producer that the camera is set to "Low Quality" maybe they should have said "high compression, medium compression and low compression" or something similar. if some was asks me what setting is being used I'll say "medium compression" not "Medium quality" just my 2 cents

 

[Phil Holland]

I was told by Red that best compression settings in DSMC2 equate to MQ in Raptor, in that instance with equal specs would be cool to know the difference between file sizes. Do you happen to have any intel there? Some of the other threads here touch on it, but couldn’t find any definitive results.

Essentially the highest data rate you get on Monstro is around 260MB/s. REDCODE RAW is a variable compessed RAW codec, so there's a bit of +/- to that depending on what you have in your frame.

V-Raptor is around 745 MB/s (currently) at it's highest data rate, which is a significant move to a very, very low compressed image. This also serves equally well as higher frame rates and gets pretty impressive when you start using other formats like anamorphic. This is actually something people have been asking for and combined with the new Enhanced Demosiac this is a pretty big deal.

I was surprised that RED went with the terms regarding quality as high, medium and low. Who really wants to tell a producer that the camera is set to "Low Quality" maybe they should have said "high compression, medium compression and low compression" or something similar. if some was asks me what setting is being used I'll say "medium compression" not "Medium quality" just my 2 cents

If this is somehow a concern I would recommend describing it as High, Medium, or Low Data Rates. Can't fathom in a world that lived with ProrRes and crap for so long this even being an issue, but who knows. Under the hood they are variable compression ratios. RED's just simplifying it a lot now, which is clearly a direction they are going with the cams these days.

 

[Alex Werjefelt]

Thanks Phil. The question I have is what would the file size of say an 8K 60 clip at best compression on Montro be compared to an 8K 60 file at MQ on Raptor be? Not sure I have seen any apples to apples comps there.

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks Phil. The question I have is what would the file size of say an 8K 60 clip at best compression on Montro be compared to an 8K 60 file at MQ on Raptor be? Not sure I have seen any apples to apples comps there.

I'll fire off a test if needed, at MQ would be a larger filesize. Likely slightly higher quality on Raptor however. Raptor can do 8K 17:9 60fps at HQ which will be closer to that 745MB/s range and Monstro would be around 12:1, or 108MB/s.

For those who haven't figured that aspect out really. A critical strength of Raptor is increased quality when shooting high frame rates. Pretty obvious when you read the tin, but in practice it's more than noticeable.

I'll echo what I have said in the past. On Monstro full 17:9 I worked between 5:1-12:1 at 8K resolution mainly. Raptor allows for a significant increase in quality for those who look closer there.

I'm hesitant to post this because of various factors that will inevitably lead to confusion. Monstro uses DWT to compress and Raptor uses DCT. Right there alone the data rate compared to equivalent file size is already going to be different as those two things "work differently".

But if you're looking for a data footprint approximation regarding V-Raptor versus Monstro/DCT versus DWT it looks like this:
- HQ is around 2.5-5 compression
- MQ is around 5-7 compression
- LQ is around 7-9 compression

I'll underline the critical bit. MQ does look better than 5:1 in a side by side and that's interesting. HQ is something Monstro can't possibly do and does look the best. LQ will look better than say 12:1 or higher for the obvious gains there as well.

Hope that helps. It's going to be a tricky one and Komodo was a soft introduction to all this. But DSMC3 has a whole lot of new concepts that long time RED shooters will both be familiar and unfamiliar with.

 

[Alex Werjefelt]

Thanks Phil, that’s helpful stuff. If you could shoot a black clip (lens cap on) to limit variations in write speed, for say 10 seconds on each at same specs on Monstro and Raptor (MQ on Raptor vs best compression setting on Monstro) and share file sizes it could be very helpful.

Ultimately we are getting the Raptor, but we just got 2 Monstros in the past year, and this would be pretty important distinction to know more about. We work in Natural History, and when it comes to download times, processing dailies, on top of hard drive considerations, knowing what to expect compared to DSMC2 workflow is important.

That said the Raptor specs for high speed shooting are Gold, especially for Nat History film making, but I think many existing film makers would be interested to know the apples to apples comparisons on the file size front.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Russ,

Are you saying that Time Code is not kept when the Raptor camera is disconnected from power ? If so this would be a disaster on any kind of long form production ! If the TC is not being remembered I hope Red is prioritising a fix

 

[Phil Holland]

Russ,

Are you saying that Time Code is not kept when the Raptor camera is disconnected from power ? If so this would be a disaster on any kind of long form production ! If the TC is not being remembered I hope Red is prioritising a fix

Don't know if there is a fix for this, but generally in the last 5 years or so it's been rather common to "constantly feed" timecode via wireless units living on the camera all day. Haven't actually worked any other way in a long while.

Some I've used and own:
- Atomos UltraSync (previously Timecode Systems)
- Ambient Lockit
- Tentacle Sync

I'll do some testing on this front tomorrow.

 

[Vicky Marie Marks]

Russ,
Are you saying that Time Code is not kept when the Raptor camera is disconnected from power ? If so this would be a disaster on any kind of long form production ! If the TC is not being remembered I hope Red is prioritising a fix

Timecode is lost at every power down, even if battery is still connected.

If your AC forgets to push the jam button in the menu at every power up you end up with a zillion clips starting at 0:00:00:00. Big Mess.

This is not normal on any other camera, except Komodo. Worsened by the fact that you will be powering down often with mini batteries.

The raptor manual originally stated "NOTE: The timecode is reset when the camera is turned off, unless an external power source remains connected and powered."
now it says "NOTE: The timecode is reset when the camera is turned off."

They need to fix this.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Phil,

Yes there are work arounds with external boxes and most sound recordists on large gigs will insist on these. But TC disappearing on every power down is an unnecessary PIA. Even thirty year old video cameras could remember TC between power downs. Many of these cameras will be used with small crews even one or two man bands and not on large productions. Luckily a tentacle sync box is small and cheap but its another box that needs to be charged up and strapped to the camera. Sigh

 

[Vicky Marie Marks]

If you could shoot a black clip (lens cap on) to limit variations in write speed, for say 10 seconds on each at same specs on Monstro and Raptor (MQ on Raptor vs best compression setting on Monstro) and share file sizes it could be very helpful.

Uncompressed 8192x4320 48bit = 212MB per frame
[TABLE="border: 10, cellpadding: 1, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Format[/TD]
[TD]Max Frames/sec[/TD]
[TD]Frame File Size MB[/TD]
[TD]Data Rate MB/sec[/TD]
[TD]True Compression Ratio vs 48bit RGB[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 2:1[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]16.7[/TD]
[TD]167[/TD]
[TD]13 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 5:1[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]12.8[/TD]
[TD]307.2[/TD]
[TD]17 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 10:1[/TD]
[TD]49[/TD]
[TD]6.3[/TD]
[TD]308.7[/TD]
[TD]34 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 12:1[/TD]
[TD]59[/TD]
[TD]5.2[/TD]
[TD]306.8[/TD]
[TD]41 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 15:1[/TD]
[TD]60.55[/TD]
[TD]4.1[/TD]
[TD]248.3[/TD]
[TD]52 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Wavelet Monstro 20:1[/TD]
[TD]60.55[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]181.7[/TD]
[TD]71 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor HQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]12.5[/TD]
[TD]800[/TD]
[TD]17 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor MQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]103[/TD]
[TD]7.8[/TD]
[TD]803.4[/TD]
[TD]27 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor LQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]120[/TD]
[TD]6.6[/TD]
[TD]792[/TD]
[TD]32 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Raptor benefit is less compression at higher frame rates, you can shoot at 60fps at the equivalent of monstro 5:1, where on monstro you are limited to 12:1 at 60 fps.

Monstro data rate is fixed for a given compression ratio.

Raptor adjusts a little to use more data available at lower frame rates to compensate for the DCT quality loss:


[TABLE="border: 10, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Format[/TD]
[TD]Frames/sec[/TD]
[TD]Frame File Size[/TD]
[TD]Data Rate MB/sec[/TD]
[TD]True Compression Ratio vs 48bit RGB[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor HQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]15.2[/TD]
[TD]364.8[/TD]
[TD]14 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor HQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]14.7[/TD]
[TD]705.6[/TD]
[TD]14 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor MQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]12.4[/TD]
[TD]297.6[/TD]
[TD]17 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor MQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]12.4[/TD]
[TD]595.2[/TD]
[TD]17 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor LQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]7.8[/TD]
[TD]187.2[/TD]
[TD]27 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Raptor LQ DCT[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]7.7[/TD]
[TD]369.6[/TD]
[TD]28 to 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Arri data rates for comparison:
[TABLE="border: 10, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Format[/TD]
[TD]Max Frames/sec[/TD]
[TD]Frame File Size MB[/TD]
[TD]Data Rate MB/sec[/TD]
[TD]True Compression Ratio vs 48bit RGB[/TD]
[TD]Uncompressed Frame[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Alexa LF 4448 x 3096 noHDE[/TD]
[TD]90[/TD]
[TD]20.9[/TD]
[TD]1879[/TD]
[TD]4 to 1[/TD]
[TD]82.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Alexa65 6560 x 3100 noHDE[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]30.8[/TD]
[TD]1845[/TD]
[TD]4 to 1[/TD]
[TD]122[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]





Looking at MTF charts in imatest, 24fps Raptor HQ 364 MB/sec is about the same quality as Monstro 5:1 at 307 MB/sec.

At 24fps its only using 365MB out of 800MB available transfer rate, so in theory there is room to add an UltraHQ mode - I'd vote for that.

 

[Phil Holland]

Well VIcky. First good and thorough job.

Second. Couple of notable questions. Did you test Enhanced Demosaic or "current"? Also, on Monstro did you test the Skin Tone Highlight OLPF in particular against Raptor?

I did suggest an XQ mode a bit ago for exactly this.

 

[Alex Werjefelt]

Thanks Vicky, nicely done adds a lot of clarity to the comparison.

 

[Vicky Marie Marks]

Second. Couple of notable questions. Did you test Enhanced Demosaic or "current"? Also, on Monstro did you test the Skin Tone Highlight OLPF in particular against Raptor?
.

RCX release 54,so new debayer. and yes skintone olpf, always use that for awhile now. This was a quick test, main purpose was to see if I was trading more fps for a worse resolution camera. I thought Red might be lazy at 24fps, so I was nicely surprised that it does use some higher data rate available to it as lower fps - and speaks to why they changed the naming to LQ/HQ vs fixed ratios. I imagine the OLPF is tuned to the compression ratio, so it could be that at HQ is all you get - it would be interesting to test using a linear polarizer to cancel out Raptor's olpf to see if you can eek out more resolution. I'm sure you've seen Pawel's large format camera test, the Sydney shots are a real eye opener, I'd like to a similar test with raptor in the near future.

 

[Phil Holland]

RCX release 54,so new debayer. and yes skintone olpf, always use that for awhile now. This was a quick test, main purpose was to see if I was trading more fps for a worse resolution camera. I thought Red might be lazy at 24fps, so I was nicely surprised that it does use some higher data rate available to it as lower fps - and speaks to why they changed the naming to LQ/HQ vs fixed ratios. I imagine the OLPF is tuned to the compression ratio, so it could be that at HQ is all you get - it would be interesting to test using a linear polarizer to cancel out Raptor's olpf to see if you can eek out more resolution. I'm sure you've seen Pawel's large format camera test, the Sydney shots are a real eye opener, I'd like to a similar test with raptor in the near future.

Won't comment too much on the 9x7, but I have thoroughly tested the sensor and recording platform he's using. Personally I don't think removing the AA aspect from the cinema camera is going to be ideal for anybody considering what issues that allows to enter into frame. The recording platform is a full uncompressed and rather heavy data solution. That aspect I do like however for those who need it.

I have seen Raptor footage without the OLPF and the gains versus the reality of aliasing potential are a worthy tradeoff. Just my opinion though. I have found I am getting better results at HQ than 5:1 Monstro however. Subtle things. Something that can be seen in fine details and IQ.