RED MX IMAGES APPEAR BETTER THAN SCARLET-X

[Wil Wong]

I don't want to argue for R1 but if size mattered, Alexa wouldn't be doing half as well because it's bigger. Although handheld versus shoulder mount tend to be two different looks and styles (for different occasions), one might argue that R1 is similar to Alexa in size.

Still, can't wait for Dragon. Perhaps that's when we should do some tests. Either way, all Red cameras do a damn good job don't they

FORM FACTOR.. Hollywood Shoots Epics as oposed to R1MX I would say Form Factor. THis is why DSLRS Blew up the Indi World($$$ too). You can Get a DSMC in places that the R1MX cant Go regardless of Image. now Besides the Prices, I would Imagine that the R1MX which is the Foundation of the RED Company would produce a quality Image superior or with Greater ability than the Intro-to Cinema Camera that is the Scarlet. Now the EPIC is now the Flagship, I would Assume that Camera is Superior to the R1.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Personally the R1MX has more of a plastic skin tone look to it than Epic/Scarlet. Could just be the higher compression ratios. I would like to see someone post samples of a shot from R1MX, and Epic to compare (Same shot, same settings). That would be a more fitting test than by just looking at images and films shot on one or the other and saying one is better.

Hm... sounds familiar... I know someone who did exactly that...

 

[Matt Ryan]

Hm... sounds familiar... I know someone who did exactly that...

hahaha I remember! Your conclusions favored the Epic if I remember correctly?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

hahaha I remember! Your conclusions favored the Epic if I remember correctly?

Kinda...

Onlined 24 episodes that was shot mostly on MX, a bit on M and a bit on Epic.

Even on the small TV's (tubes) I have seen some of it, I can still pic the epic shots. Mostly for skintones and fidelity. under "any" light... (and these are matched in firstlight prior to color, and the colorists haven't known that there is a difference...)

I did post a side-by-side exposure bracketing under tungsten in high-contrast with Master Primes test here somewhere, but not at the time I shot, as at that time, most didn't have access to Epics....

was part of a decissionmaking test to shoot mixed mx/epic or not for a 2-cam series.

All agreed on a matched epic shoot. the epic was not bugfree at the time, so size/practicalities wasn't the deciding points...

 

[Matt Ryan]

Kinda...

Onlined 24 episodes that was shot mostly on MX, a bit on M and a bit on Epic.

Even on the small TV's (tubes) I have seen some of it, I can still pic the epic shots. Mostly for skintones and fidelity. under "any" light... (and these are matched in firstlight prior to color, and the colorists haven't known that there is a difference...)

I did post a side-by-side exposure bracketing under tungsten in high-contrast with Master Primes test here somewhere, but not at the time I shot, as at that time, most didn't have access to Epics....

After using the Epic for a while, which image is better to your eyes, Epic or R1MX? Epic is going to look cleaner, sharper, and have better compression obviously.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

After using the Epic for a while, which image is better to your eyes, Epic or R1MX?

Epic, no question.

but you are not forced into as narrow a bracket on the epic, so you are kinda "allowed to" go outside ideal exposure. but also the downsides of that are fewer on the epic than on the mx.

I like the R1 M a lot, though, but not for its latitude... just how the latitude it has performs... and not at least skin tones

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Main differences (Epic/R1 NX) are how they over/underexpose (artefacts), how they roll into black/white, fidelity, skintones (even with the same compression and resolution). Practical latitude is "not equal" to my eyes... But you have to include post in that process. And some of the "to my eyes" things are rather obvious to see...

 

[Matt Ryan]

Main differences (Epic/R1 NX) are how they over/underexpose (artefacts), how they roll into black/white, fidelity, skintones (even with the same compression and resolution). Practical latitude is "not equal" to my eyes...

Sounds right to me. I just don't get how someone can say they getter better results from R1MX over Scarlet when shooting the same scene with the same settings... They are the same sensor, with the benefit of slightly better compression and higher bit rate in Scarlet. So that argument never really made sense to me. I think the higher compression on R1MX smoothes out a bit of noise, and I believe the R1MX crushes the blacks and blows the highlights a bit faster. Not gathered from a scientific standpoint or test, but from shooting with both cameras over a number of shoots. I notice more compression artifacts in R1MX footage than Scarlet/Epic.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sounds right to me. I just don't get how someone can say they getter better results from R1MX over Scarlet when shooting the same scene with the same settings... They are the same sensor, with the benefit of slightly better compression and higher bit rate in Scarlet. So that argument never really made sense to me. I think the higher compression on R1MX smoothes out a bit of noise, and I believe the R1MX crushes the blacks and blows the highlights a bit faster. Not gathered from a scientific standpoint or test, but from shooting with both cameras over a number of shoots. I notice more compression artifacts in R1MX footage than Scarlet/Epic.

The n your observations corresponds with mine...
And I think there are a lot of good reasons behind those decissions on the R1 MX.
It may appear cleaner in the blacks, but that is mostly because it just falls into pure black in the bottom. This was also quite apparent on all the side-by-side tests at the time.
ANd will make for a "cleaner" image but not really "richer blacks" at really low exposures.

There are also quite a few differences in the highlights.

Anyhow.
This can come out like I don't like the R1 MX.
It's not my point.

Just that there were good reasons to upgrade for those who could at the time.

If I was to really go back to geeky-me, I would like to have a discussion on whitebalancing in post, prior to grade with you, MMost and Jake Blackstone... But I am afraid it could become a bit confusing for a broader userbase and lead to a few shortcuts and problems.... It is another interesting thing to discuss, though...

 

[Bob Gundu]

And when there is less latitude, a seasoned cinematographer will adjust the lighting to compensate and essentially make the scene look cinematic. This is just my opinion, but as dynamic range advances in technology, the less we rely on introducing light. I believe less light, less mood, less filmic. Not too long ago, films required a heck of a lot of light and they were positioned to enhance the scene. Today you can definitely get away with less, but they aren't less important. If you want your stuff to look filmic, light it! So my point was, the stuff we saw on R1 in the past, did indeed look great because they were created through the necessity of good production standards. Just my 2 cents.

Sounds right to me. I just don't get how someone can say they getter better results from R1MX over Scarlet when shooting the same scene with the same settings... They are the same sensor, with the benefit of slightly better compression and higher bit rate in Scarlet. So that argument never really made sense to me. I think the higher compression on R1MX smoothes out a bit of noise, and I believe the R1MX crushes the blacks and blows the highlights a bit faster. Not gathered from a scientific standpoint or test, but from shooting with both cameras over a number of shoots. I notice more compression artifacts in R1MX footage than Scarlet/Epic.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

And when there is less latitude, a seasoned cinematographer will adjust the lighting to compensate and essentially make the scene look cinematic. This is just my opinion, but as dynamic range advances in technology, the less we rely on introducing light. I believe less light, less mood, less filmic. Not too long ago, films required a heck of a lot of light and they were positioned to enhance the scene. Today you can definitely get away with less, but they aren't less important. If you want your stuff to look filmic, light it! So my point was, the stuff we saw on R1 in the past, did indeed look great because they were created through the necessity of good production standards. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed!
BUT...

As the Epic has a better response over and under center-exposure than the R1 MX (and alexa...), you can again really have the joy of high-contrast lighting with that cam... Or at least I can.

Yup. I'll smash the blacks and blow the highs (with my lighting setup). But it will look cool.

More like it did on film, without the digital "overdrive" artefacts of older cams...

Often need to add a bit of noise, though...

From a musicvideo I am workin on....

These are examples of shots I wouldn't be comfortable lighting for on Alexa/R1 MX

 

[Matt Ryan]

And when there is less latitude, a seasoned cinematographer will adjust the lighting to compensate and essentially make the scene look cinematic. This is just my opinion, but as dynamic range advances in technology, the less we rely on introducing light. I believe less light, less mood, less filmic. Not too long ago, films required a heck of a lot of light and they were positioned to enhance the scene. Today you can definitely get away with less, but they aren't less important. If you want your stuff to look filmic, light it! So my point was, the stuff we saw on R1 in the past, did indeed look great because they were created through the necessity of good production standards. Just my 2 cents.

Thats another point I wanted to make and forgot lol! Thanks for bringing it up. A lot of Scarlet footage I have seen is in no way comparable to material shot on the R1MX where great lighting was achieved. The R1MX being more expensive at the time meant it was only really utilized for higher budget stuff or at least shoots with a proper lighting package. I think way too many people expect a film look without having to light or expose properly, and then post process it properly. Too many times have I seen Scarlet footage on here that is "noisy" because they didn't bring down their black levels in post. It drives me crazy that they then complain how noisy the image is. Anyways, I think the Epic/Scarlet are superior tech specs and image wise to the R1MX, but I'd shoot on any of them any day. But I don't think in any way that the R1MX is superior image wise to Epic/Scarlet.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Ouch, yes....

"Available light" is fine and all, but.... Even then, you shape your images with light.

It doesn't mean that "any image shot under any light condition" will look good.

And actually I think it has become allmost a "religious belief based on the willingness to not learn to light". Even practicals can be used well. they are not "just there"...

 

[Matt Ryan]

I shot this on the Epic with available light to see how the image would fair with just the one 50w practical lamp. Had never tried it before but definitely acceptable at 1600ISO (If I was to shoot a film I'd definitely light it though):

These are 3K shots from the Scarlet that were lit for the look I wanted (Even at 3K I don't see any less quality than with the R1MX):

Scarlet @ 4K:

I should also note that these still are all shot under tungsten lighting with no filtration or gelling to get closer to daylight.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Yup, Matt. Those are basically very good example of the "fatness" (which I basically think is "computing overhead" compared to sensor DR) that I feel when playing with Epic on-set and in post compared to R1MX...

There is headroom in the signal and signal processing...

And photography and post is a lot about "what you want the audience to see", which implies deciding "what is not so necessary" in an image...

 

[Adam Johnson]

I have to admit.... I have gotten better results on both Epic and Red One MX in comparison to my recently sold Scarlet. I did not have the time or tools to do any kind of scientific test. I did not need to as it was apparent looking at both images on board the monitor and in Redcine-X. I don't know if I still have the footage laying around anywhere...it was literarly filming the underneath of the kitchen table in my apartment, no big deal. But my BT Red One MX appeared less noisy to my eyes in EVERY avenue. And in 1:1 mode it was extremely apparent how the blue noise in Scarlet was bothersome. And this was after I carefully black shaded the camera at a specific temperature and shot with the camera at that very temperature...which I DREADED doing more than anything else!!! I always had to dedicate at least 30-minutes before every damn shoot, and go through the blackshading/ temperature ritual with my Scarlet. Maybe I am to sensitive as to how the RAW image looked on my Scarlet (in RAW mode) but I KNOW what it looks like in RAW on my BT MX and on an EPIC and it did not look as noisy....thats without either being black shaded and pampered to death lol

Before my Scarlet I NEVER once in my entire life had to black shade to get a less noisy looking image from the Red One M or MX, or Epic. Honestly, I believe this is a product of the way both cameras dissipate heat...especially in favor of the old Red One model...Epic is supposedly a tad bit better in dealing with the heat than the Scarlet (but that could be a rumor...)

But I do believe something inside both the MX and Scarlet there is a MAJOR difference in terms of how the camera "works its magic" with the image/ compression, etc. One way or another the MX has a better way of dealing with the image internally than the Scarlet. But at the same token, I believe the Epic has a better way of dealing with the image internally over both cameras. But of course the Epic has superior insides than Scarlet. Moreover, 4K on Epic/ Scarlet is not created equal. The Epic image looks cleaner. I have viewed properly black shaded 4K footage of the exact same image from a Scarlet and Epic and the Epic had FAR less blue noise then the Scarlet. Same thing happened when I compared the Scarlet to my BT Red One MX at 4K...which is what confirmed what I already knew from previous experience.

Now there is of a course a major caveat to all of this... I only had MY SCARLET to test out. I know Matt and many others swear by the 4K image put out by their Scarlet...and honestly I believe them. They have to not be seeing what I was seeing on mine. But then again, I know other Scarleteers that where experiencing what I was experiencing... So maybe its a case of not all Scarlets are created equal? :-/

Put it this way- There are certain elements (small form factor, red handle!, image, fan noise, black shading, etc.) I LOVE and HATE about each Red camera model (love faaaaar outweighs the hate of course!)

Now let me look and see if I can't dig up some footage to compare........

 

[Matt Ryan]

And photography and post is a lot about "what you want the audience to see", which implies deciding "what is not so necessary" in an image...

Exactly. I shot these on the R1MX at film school. All lit of course, but I don't see anything superior in them to the Epic/Scarlet. If someone else does, please point them out. But I'm sure I could get identical results with the Scarlet.

This entire short was shot at 800ISO, 4KHD with the Red Pro Zoom 18-85 @ t2.8:

 

[Gunleik Groven]

There is one thing I see a bit when I teach, (which is not a thing I claim to always be able to live by), and that is that people insist on taking bad images.

They see it in the monitor that the composition, lighting or motion sucks, and still insist on grabbing that frame, because they don't have the capacity to make new decissions when the original plan didn't work. And then they frequently start blaming the camera...

That has made up my 1st rule of thumb when teaching:

• Don't take bad images!

Also explained a bit in the sentence:

• If you think what you see looks like it sucks, it probably does.

Sometimes I think it looks like people expose and compose like it had no consequence, and somehow magically expect "Pirates" or "Girl with the dragon tattoo" or "Spiderman" to show up in post.

I can reveal a secret:

It won't. Even though it is shot on RED and graded in Resolve...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

@ Matt

Of course you cannot directly compare different lighting and post and all other uncontrolled factors, but again I think these are good examples of the difference in "richness" between the R1 MX and the Epic/scarlet...
See it a lot in the skin tones...

 

[Bob Gundu]

Matt you're killing my bandwidth! :badputer: