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 MX blown away by f35, d-21, alexa in DR test?

P

Peter Dmitriyev

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
506
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUl_iuWHx2g&feature=youtu.be

Can anyone poke holes in this test? It seems to show the sony f35, and even antiquated Arri D21 having massively more dynamic range than Red MX. Something just doesn't seem right to me though.

How is it even at f11 and only ISO 800 indoors the red footage is completely blown out compared to everything else. I've never shot ISO 800 @ f11 indoors like that and seen such blowouts unless HMI's are blasting the subject out.

I don't want to sound like a fan boy but something seems wrong here as all other cameras are relatively close to each other and yet Red MX seems to show atrocious dynamic range compared to them.

What's your thoughts on th is test?
 
Apparently someone doesn't know how to process REDCODE RAW footage.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Apparently someone doesn't know how to process REDCODE RAW footage.

Jim
Click to expand...


Just two days ago, I was witness to a rejected shoot because the footage out of the R1 MX was completely FLAT with NO LIFE... Of course it was viewed in REDLogFilm, all I had switch the footage to Redcolor 3 and Red Gamma 3, without even touching anything else the footage was immediately accepted... ;)

Sadly this happens a lot, this is why upon my return form Sardinia, in September I'll put together an EPIC Workshop here in Rome, it is embarrassing to me when I see this kind of stuff.


I would say there is the need desperately for a Reducation, but unfortunately here people are not very willing nor able to pay for it, for this I'll give the workshop for FREE, I have tired to hear people talk shit about MY CAMERA, or TV shows shoot Film because they can't get what they need out of the RED???
 
Jim can you elaborate? Do you mean that it seems he's showing Red Gamma as opposed to Redlogfilm? Because that's what it looked like to me. On other cameras it says the log or format but for Red on the slateboard it just says "RAW".
Yet the shots look contrasty as if they are being shown/processed in redgamma as opposed to redlogfilm.

Anyone have any idea what's going on here
 
they converted red into DPX for grading (I think) seems like they did no initial grading in redcinex before outputting loosing all the advantages of shooting RAW(perhaps they didn't even white balance, but maybe they did everything right I don't know..), they should have just taken the raw files into resolve and graded in log(after setting white balance in redcinex), would have gotten much better results much faster. I find many people misunderstand the goal posts and stop lights, as long as you have not blow those in raw everything can be brought back. Either way there is something glaringly wrong with the test as he concludes there is only 4 stops at 800 ISO. But hey if those are the camera's he gets the most from great all the power to him, but as a teaching aid... it's a whole other issue.

found this in the info for the video... rather interesting perspective he has...

"3- Red users are claiming that it has outstanding ISO800 performance and it is 13Stops. Well, that's not true at all. I've used each red (one, oneMX and epic) on my feature films. as you see here on test, red one (first generation) and MX(second gen, on test) are 4 stops at ISO800, and their real ISO is 160."
 
Jim can you provide a link for the resource on how to process REDCODE RAW correctly?

Jannard said:
Apparently someone doesn't know how to process REDCODE RAW footage.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Incredible FUD. Where do all these "experts" come from?
 
Jannard said:
Apparently someone doesn't know how to process REDCODE RAW footage.

Jim
Click to expand...


In the early days of RED in my country, Austria, I got all sorts of complaints about workflow, DR and stuff and I have used this mantra over and over again: the problems of this camera (or any camera) are it´s users - meaning that sometimes people with only basic technical knowledge handle equipment and footage in a very straightforward analogue way and blame their sub-optimal results on gear or software.
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUl_iuWHx2g&feature=youtu.be

Can anyone poke holes in this test? It seems to show the sony f35, and even antiquated Arri D21 having massively more dynamic range than Red MX. Something just doesn't seem right to me though.

How is it even at f11 and only ISO 800 indoors the red footage is completely blown out compared to everything else. I've never shot ISO 800 @ f11 indoors like that and seen such blowouts unless HMI's are blasting the subject out.

I don't want to sound like a fan boy but something seems wrong here as all other cameras are relatively close to each other and yet Red MX seems to show atrocious dynamic range compared to them.

What's your thoughts on th is test?
Click to expand...

He also claims the camera's native ISO is 160! I guess ASC cinematographers who rate the camera and shoot at 800ISO don't know what they are talking about :banghead:
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
I would say there is the need desperately for a Reducation
Click to expand...

The trouble is less with the owners but those new to the workflow in our rentals. DP's, friends, teaching kids. They need an online resource to guide them in the right direction. Reducation is great, if you can go to it...

I want people using our RED gear to love their results and to come back happy, making their dream come true and expanding their future opportunity. I've seen many struggle with the RED workflow and have spent time teaching myself and them how to get the most from the camera, but I can't teach everyone.

RED, please, give us an online resource to learn from / teach others.
 
To me there's definitely something wrong with the test, the only reason I'm asking is to find out what it is exactly?
To me the problem seems to be that he's viewing all the other cams in their most flattest logs whereas the Red slate says only "RAW" and doesn't say which gamma space/log space it's being viewed in and the contrasty nature (dark blacks etc) of the footage seems that the Red is being viewed in Redgamma as opposed to redlogfilm which is presumably what it should be viewed at to match the other cameras. Can anyone confirm these suspicions with their better trained eyes? Seeing as how I'm not an expert at these things
 
Will Keir said:
Jim can you provide a link for the resource on how to process REDCODE RAW correctly?
Click to expand...

+100 Alot of folks seem to be "in the know" but hiding this information from others leads to FUD, because many people have no idea how to use a RED. When i first got my scarlet i was called "an uneducated Amateur", for not knowing right off the bat how to process R3D's properly. The RED is completely different way of working and it takes time to get used to it. Yet there isnt really a starter point, on what that means, at least i havent seen one.

The best i can offer in getting the best out of it, is over expose by a half stop, and add more fill thank you think you need. keep the "black" above the noise floor, and remember that you can recover all the way from 100IRE and down. Rate the camera at 800, and let the image go a bit hot. In post drop it to 500 and you will be gold.

EDIT:


Matt Ryan said:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/redcine-x-grading-tutorial
Click to expand...


Awesome, great starting place!
 
By the way even the Zacuto test had the Red coming clearly on top of the f35 in dynamic range (and every other possible category)

As can be seen here:

23hn8ld.jpg


So how is it possible in this guy's test the f35 obliterates the Red MX to such a degree?
 
Any camera can produce crap if you give it a lousy grade; I know, I've done it... hopefully I have a clue now!

And you can get lucky; I have stills shot on a ten year old pocket Leica digicam that look as good as anything I've shot in the last year, at least at low res.

What I want to know is, how exactly HAVE Arri managed to get more DR out of their sensor than RED? RED have plenty secret sauce - Raw, HDRx etc. and of course Dragon to come - all cool stuff. What have Arri done to get their measured DR on their existing sensor? Have they traded off something else? Why, technically, does it appear 'better' than RED on this measure?

Mike
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Any camera can produce crap if you give it a lousy grade; I know, I've done it... hopefully I have a clue now!

And you can get lucky; I have stills shot on a ten year old pocket Leica digicam that look as good as anything I've shot in the last year, at least at low res.

What I want to know is, how exactly HAVE Arri managed to get more DR out of their sensor than RED? RED have plenty secret sauce - Raw, HDRx etc. and of course Dragon to come - all cool stuff. What have Arri done to get their measured DR on their existing sensor? Have they traded off something else? Why, technically, does it appear 'better' than RED on this measure?

Mike
Click to expand...

as I understand it dynamic range is all about photosite size. (well other things play a role but that's the most important) as the size of the photosites determines the light gathering capabilities and such. Red's Photosites are around 5 microns, Alexa is about 8 or more from what I remember.
The bigger your photosites are the less of them you can have obviously as the size of the sensor can only fit so much of them. So, since photosites comprise pixels, that means the bigger your photosites the less pixels you have and thus the less resolution. So in short, Arri sacrifices resolution for dynamic range. Red has super resolution and thus less dynamic range because its photosites are smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top