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 :)

Red & Dslr...

I agree that Red cant beat a D3 Nikon. D3's low light ability is way superior and you can take decent pictures even at 10 000 iso.. But that top picture is really good anyhow and IMO it surly kick many slr's butt, if it is a Red.
 
kmikami said:
Are those white lines around the boxes sharpening artifacts or CA? Image A may have more blue noise but it's a nice noise. Image B looks like it's been denoised which on the one hand makes me think it's the Red since I've seen Red grabs with that "median filter" look. But on the other hand, if the Canon image has been scaled up slightly it might have that blurry, loss of detail look.
Click to expand...

Looks like sharpening to me, because it is symmetric about each color box. Chromatic abberation is symmetric about the optical axis (center of the image), and since this crop is to one side of the image, CA would look different on opposite sides of the box.
 
Ok, my reasoning was in the edges of the gray squares in the color chart. For reasons I don't pretend to know, there are softer edges on the Red image. Perhaps its something to do with the in-camera sharpening of Canon. It would be good to see a side-by-side in which the focus was the same.
Note to the US redsters, I've spelled gray, not grey as we do in NZ and color, not colour! Just being culturally sensitive!
 
Fix said:
PS: Nikon D3 is a full frame s35 size chip camera.
Click to expand...
The Nikon D3 is a full frame 35mm dSLR, which is not equivalent to s35. RED has recently been calling their camera "full frame," as it matches the size of single frame of s35mm motion picture film. So while technically this is correct, the term "full frame" was coined for and is most commonly used in correlation with digital still cameras and does NOT carry the same meaning. Nearly all dSLRs had "cropped sensors" (ie, they did not take advantage of a 35mm lens' full area of coverage) - in the same way that the RED shoots 2K windowed. A full-frame dSLR, like the Nikon D3, has a much larger sensor than the one in the RED ONE.

This post explains the differences:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=232566&postcount=31

As has been mentioned several times, the Canon XSi or Nikon D300 would much more closely match the frame size of the RED.
 
You are absolutely right Haakon. My bad. I meant of course full frame 35mm dSLR (D3). I dident mean that the RED have a "Full frame" chip in the same terms. Trust me, I do know the difference. Thx for clearing it out though. I dont want to make confusion around here.
 
I'd say Red 1 and Canon 2.....I love that is is so hard to tell. Bring on 16 ! I can't take any more.
Aloha
-A
 
jbeale said:
Looks like sharpening to me, because it is symmetric about each color box. Chromatic abberation is symmetric about the optical axis (center of the image), and since this crop is to one side of the image, CA would look different on opposite sides of the box.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. The thing is, those edges are really obvious when looking at the blue channel but the edges of the squares don't really look unnaturally sharpened when looking at the full RGB image.

But on the RED image, what are these artifacts in the red channel (exaggerated with levels) if not sharpening artifacts?
 
I found some busy work to keep me occupied for the afternoon, hoping to come back and see the answer. The house has never looked cleaner. Now tell us before I have to go mow the lawn!!!
 
the answer

the answer

wedowee said:
I found some busy work to keep me occupied for the afternoon, hoping to come back and see the answer. The house has never looked cleaner. Now tell us before I have to go mow the lawn!!!
Click to expand...

Jim posted the answer in a separate thread (below), I guess so you don't have to look if you enjoy savoring the suspense.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14689
 
Well, this is certainly a treat. While I had my defective Mark III replaced and sold the replacement last year, the image quality out of that camera was fantastic. Seeing this comparison makes me even more thrilled to be in a position where this camera will be available to me.

The posting of all these stills may make us all pixel peepers, but we must remember not to think too much like still photographers. After all, for the most part, we are buying RED not to shoot single frames but rather to shoot moving pictures. Coming from a background with a lot of DV but nothing high quality, and a much more intensive background in high end still photography, I'm used to thinking like a still photographer technically.

So while the Mark III image may have some advantages as is, the fact that RED can even be in the same league while shooting 24fps for extended periods of time, and that there is still room for improvement with standard processing techniques is simply incredible. Not to mention the fact that the Mark III, though 10mp, has a significantly larger sensor (APS-H 28.1x18.7mm).

RED can hang with the very best here. And I shudder to think of what is coming from RED Digital Cinema say 2 years down the line. Look at the advancements in the past 2-3 years in the still world with CMOS sensors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top