RED Monstro 8K VV & ARRI Alexa LF 4.5K Camera Test 2019

[Mike P.]

From the RED VV manual p.78
"ISO NOTE: To see the full range of ISO ratings, select ISO in the Upper Status Row, select Edit List, and select Custom. Select the camera ISO rating. The sensitivity value increments in 1/3 stops. When the ISO rating is adjusted, the camera logs the change as metadata and the monitor path reacts accordingly. Higher ISO values lead to brighter images in the monitor path, and vice versa. RED recommends setting the ISO to the default, then adjusting the aperture, lighting, and ND filters to match. The ISO can later be adjusted around one (1) stop for fine-tuning. Range is ISO 250 to 12,800. Default is ISO 800."

If the dynamic range is the same and the default is 800 why are we debayering at iso 3200?

Also how is there any way to compare the two camera sensor sensitivities to a xyla chart when Monstro has a custom LUT on top of Log3G10?

Setting the ISO (aka monitor path) to a higher/lower ISO while shooting will have a direct effect on how you physically light/expose a scene. Hence why the *higher* ISOs appear to capture more highlight information (because you'll end up using physical exposure tools -- ND, shutter, aperture, and/or less light -- to get your exposure down/correct).

The trick is finding a balance of noise/usable DR that you're personally comfortable with. RED suggest ~800 because it's the safest relatively bright/relatively clean ISO across their line. So much so that I think all the raw exposure checks - Gio scope, raw view, goal posts, stop lights - use ISO800/RLF as the base (regardless of OLPF and sensor, and regardless of the ISO you've selected for monitoring).

For this test specifically, Phil may have lit the dark scene at 800 (as that's the recommended default for both cameras), but then debayered/rendered at ISO3200~12800 to exaggerate and show the noise/grain structure of the sensors (which Monstro clearly dominated at, even after crappy youtube compression.)

Sidenote: This is another area where I think Arri does it better. They recommend ISO800 because it's not only clean across the entire DR, but also because that's where their exposure has even over/under (-7/+7). It makes it easier/more straightforward, and adjusting the ISO moves the stops up or down in a simple way -- (e.g. ISO1600 is ~-6/+8, ISO100 is -10/+4, etc.)

 

[Phil Holland]

Sidenote: This is another area where I think Arri does it better. They recommend ISO800 because it's not only clean across the entire DR, but also because that's where their exposure has even over/under (-7/+7). It makes it easier/more straightforward, and adjusting the ISO moves the stops up or down in a simple way -- (e.g. ISO1600 is ~-6/+8, ISO100 is -10/+4, etc.)

Correct Mike, this is all about looking for the ugly bits and not the pretty ones when "boosting". Pretty standard fair in camera tests.

For Aharon, I'll post some log3G10/LogC side by sides of the Xyla, but again, this is about taking the gamma curve out of the equation as much as possible to show how the system is capturing light and "where".

And for your last point there, that's also what RED promotes really and more or less what other manufacturers do at this point. ISO 800 is the nice little Base ISO for their current sensor lineup and it's what they recommend and even default to. Sans the Gemini which has a different Base ISO when in Low Light Mode of course.

The whole reason I post those Xylas like in every sensor test I've posted here is so you know exactly how many stops up and down you got.

Native Sensor ISO is something you don't want to know, it's a low number and dealing with linear light typically.

However, Base ISO typically is where an image is pretty damn clean and you have about even dispersion of stops above and below 18% gray. Though on Monstro that could easily be ISO 1600 honestly, but 800 is a nice and safe place and simplifies it.

 

[David J. Buchanan]

Then is the RED's base ISO even? (over/under) still 800 ISO?

 

[Phil Holland]

Then is the RED's base ISO even? (over/under) still 800 ISO?

Yes, see my post before yours.

And all that really means for all of these companies and cameras is that's probably a good starting place. For instance most people I know working on LF right now are at 400, despite 800 being the recommended Base ISO.

 

[James Darren]

It's good to do these tests and have a discussion but keep in mind that they're being done by arguably the biggest fanboy RED has.

It's not to say they're invalid or inaccurate, but I urge you all do your own tests and make decisions based on real shooting situations. You'd be surprised at the differences when the cameras are not locked shooting charts.

I've been involved both directly & indirectly in at least 20 camera tests between various Red, Arri, Sony & Canon cameras, and I'd say at least 90% of the projects go with Arri in the end.

 

[Phil Holland]

It's good to do these tests and have a discussion but keep in mind that they're being done by arguably the biggest fanboy RED has.

First person in my 20+ year career who has ever called me a fanboy. Won't forget that. It's a feels good moment I guess. Not for Kodak, not for Arri, not for Panasonic, not for Canon, not for Sony, not for RED. But hey. I'll take it.

And to just site some of my more critical past with RED, they have listened a great deal to filmmakers to get to where they are now. IR contamination related things and color being two of the major ones I was grumpy about in the MX days.

I've only worked for one rather large client in the last year who has "made me" use Arri and that's their choice as it is what main unit was using.

 

[Misha Engel]

I've been involved both directly & indirectly in at least 20 camera tests between various Red, Arri, Sony & Canon cameras, and I'd say at least 90% of the projects go with Arri in the end.

The fun thing is that they did a blind test like this with digital photo cameras with Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic.

60% pick the worst color to be sony and 70 % picked the best color to be Canon. But it wasn't. It was the other way around.

When it's just picture quality, do a blind test, ask a tester to shoot something and then decide without knowing the camera which is the most pleasing image(with minor post processing).
Also show the same thing to a movie theater audience(the once who pay the bill). The outcome might surprise you.

There is ofcourse more to a camera than picture quality(resolution, color, etc...).

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

James,

I am sorry but Phil is certainly in the Red Universe but I do not know ANYONE else who gives so much to the search for knowledge, agnostically, about sensors and lenses and all of it. He has really given so much back to many of us. I humbly say that Phil is not a "fanboy" but actually works to help inform.

God bless John Singleton,

Peter

 

[David J. Buchanan]

I've been involved both directly & indirectly in at least 20 camera tests between various Red, Arri, Sony & Canon cameras, and I'd say at least 90% of the projects go with Arri in the end.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I doubt anyone would be able to tell which camera is which if all were used on the same picture. I agree that this forum is full of "fanboys" but at this point, image is pretty moot.

That being said, I did see "Chambers" and I'm pretty damn certain it was shot with a RED Helium. Only because I owned one and recognized the faults of the sensor and bad IQ in terms of backlight and greencast.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I doubt anyone would be able to tell which camera is which if all were used on the same picture. I agree that this forum is full of "fanboys" but at this point, image is pretty moot.

Not only it is possible, it becomes annoying after a while.
Though it depends on quite a few factors, mostly related to viewing environment, post work and shot content.

 

[Tom Dowler]

Yup, there is no question that we are still learning. Arri is "easy" for the same reasons you listed. I like to think you can squeeze more out of a RED, but you need to invest in learning the tool. That's an asset but also a liability.

That's why when you look at the cinematographers that shoot RED, they are usually far more technical and they understand the technology behind the image a bit more than others. You don't need the Phil Hollands of the world on the ARRI side, because there just isn't that depth. That's why it is so polarizing.

Arri isn't a company that invents things... they just don't. They are a company that does a really, really great job of refining.

We are the opposite... We are pretty good at inventing things, and we kinda suck on the refinement . And that's what we are doing now.... Learning the refinement part.

That's fair.

I think it's also important to remember that without Red there wouldn't necessarily even be an Alexa yet. The Red One was one giant kick up the ass for Arri and everyone else.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

That's fair.

I think it's also important to remember that without Red there wouldn't necessarily even be an Alexa yet. The Red One was one giant kick up the ass for Arri and everyone else.

but bro, D-20 was out a couple years prior. best thing red ever did was sell R1 for under $20K. now that was a kick



also base iso? native iso? who even came up with that? 800? 1600? it like it don't even matter. Iz got sooooo many stops



dr charts are kinda trash. stops are doubling of light. what happens in between the doubling tho? i bet sooooo much. linear is cool. it's scientific but curves are what our eyes see. maybe more important? that curve between the stops? kinda like the smoothness of transitions? highlights and all dat? that inbetweeny is that what we call micro-contrast? cause that's what makes an image more more. gotta get me more more curves to even out all dat harsh chip chart squares.



and we're shooting LF on my current show. no pause to go 2000+ on that EI. noise? yeah maybe? she got nice noise tho.

 

[David J. Buchanan]

and we're shooting LF on my current show. no pause to go 2000+ on that EI. noise? yeah maybe? she got nice noise tho.

Another good reason here why it's all subjective. I want ZERO noise, no matter how "pretty" it may be. Also, if I end up wanting that "filmic" look, I just put it in post.

 

[Timur Civan]

The monstro trounced it in lowlight. The grain is much more than i expected, even with a mild downscale.

The one place the Alexa took the lead was the highlights of the flashlight in the warehouse with the guy and the light box. the monstro bloomed white, the Alexa held it together all the way to the source.

I feel like the monstro was exposed 1/4 stop hotter the whole time. especially in the scene with the four women in the garage. Had it been pulled slightly, the skin tones would have built up a bit more density. Under exposure is kind of your friend with modern RED.

Thank you Phil. Great work.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Thank you Phil. Very informative! Did not make me love my Monstro less. Shooting ALEV III next week and will also enjoy that

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Thanks Phil. Good work.

 

[Ugo Del]

I purposefully am not talking much about what's better or worse, I'm not going to tell anybody what they should use and you can make nice images with both systems. This is a test mainly to highlight the differences and let them decide for themselves really.

Haha, yes, the following explanations were totally unbiased.
After 10 years of Red vs Arri comparisons on RU, nothing change.
Arri vs MX: "Red looks better".
Arri vs Dragon: "Dragon is so much better than MX, now it's on par with Arri, even better".
Arri vs DSMC2: "Dragon was ok, but now we're getting closer to the Alexa, Red is even superior".
Can't wait for the DSMC3 vs Arri to tell us that finally, despite the so so previous models, Red beats the Alexa.
But on my calibrated monitor, there's no comparison, Arri is still the king, and it's insane after 10 years with the same sensor.