RED MX IMAGES APPEAR BETTER THAN SCARLET-X

[Stelios Kokotos]

We've shot 3 projects using both the RED MX and the Scarlet-X, interchanging the same lenses between the cameras as required. I must say that to my eye the RED MX is producing consistently less noisy, 'smoother' looking images than the Scarlet-X when evaluated on a 2k monitor. The Scarlet-X is set up to match the settings of the RED MX, but the RED MX just seems to produce higher quality images.

Has anyone else noticed this difference? I read in earlier post that the RED MX and EPICS have the 'A' grade sensors but I didn't expect the difference to be that noticeable when compared to the Scarlet-X (especially with respect to the noise level).

 

[Stelios Kokotos]

Oops...double posted. Please ignore this post.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I have noticed. With Red One you pay in weight and long start up times (and also price - body only is $25 000) but you get amazing quality. 4K 16:9 (which Scarlet can't do) looks way better than 4K HD on a Scarlet, and even 4K HD on One MX is cleaner than same on Scarlet.

Megabyte for megabyte, I've also noticed that the compression on Red One MX is better than Epic. You have to pay a lot more in data on a Epic to get the same freedom from artifacts.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Are you sure it's not just that the Red One is compressing the footage more? More compression suppresses noise, less compression lets it through.

 

[Niko Pueringer]

Post some stills, because the images should be identical...

 

[Erich Ocean]

Post some stills, because the images should be identical...

Well, that's clearly not right– at the very least, the A/D conversion and bit depth are different. Sensor is just one part of the overall equation between light entering the camera and bits being written down to storage. No one should be surprised they look different, but it is surprising (to me at least) that the Scarlet is noisier, since usually noise levels get lower on newer camera designs, not higher.

Has anyone noticed this with the Epic? I know the boards are different between Scarlet/Epic, so perhaps the Epic has lower noise/better AD converters vs. the Scarlet?

 

[Carmine Scalzi]

I'm starting to think every Scarlet is different then the other ones. I mean we know we're talking about stuff not good enough to become epic hardware, so in this case we'll get Scarlet with different issues. I'm saying this 'cause there are some Scarlet with issues and other ones without issues. Some Scarlet is noisier then a minidv )) and other ones got other bugs like lack of sharpness and stuff like that. (of course I know the big part of the Scarlets don't have any problem, I'm talking about the issues I'm reading in here in the forum) Mine, for instance, is clear, sharp, without any kind of noise - of course I'm lighting the scene as it should be (if U want a film look, U have to light as film) and downscaling in fullhd or 2k the image is even sharper and clear. I used to work with different cameras, and I've seen the images coming from all of 'em, like the fs100, the c300, the epic, the alexa, etc., and it seems to me that my Scarlet got a bigger value over all of 'em... maybe it's something about the experiences of anyone using the camera that make judge it different (minusvalue) then as it should be - I'm talking in general . The red one mx got wonderful image coming from, I know, I worked with it, but I can't judge some minor quality issue with the scarlet, maybe the opposite.
But, I'll repeat, maybe this is just my lucky case, maybe my Scarlet is a lucky one, I really don't know.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Hm.. I've done side-by side Epic og R1 MX tests. The Epic runs in circles around the R1 in all those. The R1 may appear cleaner "out of the box" due to RedGamma which really crushes the black and presses out the highlights, but that does not equal a less noisy image or better fidelity...


So far I think reds reasoning for not letting RG2 into the R1MX, seems very smart and valid. As valid as it was to let RG2 and now 3 be available on the Epic/Scarlet...

 

[Stelios Kokotos]

I am guessing that the EPIC-X cameras will probably have the A-grade sensors as will the RED MX cameras. I'm just curious as to what the quality difference (noise, latitude, etc) is expected to be between the A-grade sensors used in the RED MX and the EPIC-X and those that are used in the Scarlet-X, as I am noticing difference in the cameras we use.

I don't think the noise between the MX and Scarlet-X is due to the differences in the gamma being used. In the source settings or REDCINE you are able to set the footage of both cameras to equivalent gammas, etc, as this is just metadata. The RED MX (at least in the footage from the cameras we use) has an apparent quality difference to the Scarlet-X. At ISO 800 the RED MX is incredibly noise free whereas the Scarlet-X has visible noise. It seems that one would need to expose the Scarlet-X as much as a stop more (or lower the ISO) to match the noise level of the RED MX.

Again this is based on my personal observation on a 2K monitor.

 

[Alexandre Desjardins]

According to Graeme from RED, the sensor is the same, only the processors are slower... And I shot as well on RED One MX and on my Scarlet X, not side by side testing, but I don't "feel" that the Scarlet is noisier.

Each and every camera gets a high quality sensor. Just because you buy a Scarlet doesn't mean your sensor is any less worthy than if you bought an Epic.

What is different on the Scarlet is the processing speed of the ASICs. That limits functionality (high fps, high redcode), not sensor image quality.

Graeme

 

[JanneJansson]

According to Graeme from RED, the sensor is the same, only the processors are slower... And I shot as well on RED One MX and on my Scarlet X, not side by side testing, but I don't "feel" that the Scarlet is noisier.

I don't have much experience with scarlet, but I have been shooting R1MX and EPIC for some time now and EPIC is a MUCH better camera then R1MX. That said I can also say that the noise pattern on R1MX have a particular "look" that mimic film more then video noise that I sometimes get from underexposed EPIC frames. This is just my non-scientific feel and experience not any hardcore test have been done.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I am guessing that the EPIC-X cameras will probably have the A-grade sensors as will the RED MX cameras. I'm just curious as to what the quality difference (noise, latitude, etc) is expected to be between the A-grade sensors used in the RED MX and the EPIC-X and those that are used in the Scarlet-X, as I am noticing difference in the cameras we use.

I don't think the noise between the MX and Scarlet-X is due to the differences in the gamma being used. In the source settings or REDCINE you are able to set the footage of both cameras to equivalent gammas, etc, as this is just metadata. The RED MX (at least in the footage from the cameras we use) has an apparent quality difference to the Scarlet-X. At ISO 800 the RED MX is incredibly noise free whereas the Scarlet-X has visible noise. It seems that one would need to expose the Scarlet-X as much as a stop more (or lower the ISO) to match the noise level of the RED MX.

Again this is based on my personal observation on a 2K monitor.

Why do you say 2k monitor? Of you are to compare noise then the only way is to look at 1:1 pixel level. So Im guessing what you see is a poor downscale to fit screen our such from the two cameras, then the MX1 is easer to downscale since it has 4xHD and will probably give you a smother image for the scarlet on the other hand the numbers are not as easy to divide so then you get noise.

Open the files in photo shop and look at them zoomed in, i.e pixel to pixel size. Then the resolution of our monitor is super irrelevant so my advice is to do it on your macbook or such.

 

[david_winters]

I have not done side by sides tests, but the Scarlet I'm working with does appear to have higher noise (noticeable in blacks and midtones) vs R1MX. Curious to see how this thread plays out.

 

[Karl Krings]

hey guys, i think if there is no reliable test from a laboratory you better forget talking about all this. i think most of you using these cams the wrong way...try to make movies with intelligent stories ...and remember "tech. quality of picture is not all". basta - and sorry for my hard words but there are more important issues to talk about! thanks

 

[Jon Carr]

My Scarlet is just as noisy as the REDone MX. Epic on the other hand... All in all if you light it well, noise isn't much an issue.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I don't have much experience with scarlet, but I have been shooting R1MX and EPIC for some time now and EPIC is a MUCH better camera then R1MX. (...)

This resonates very well with both the tests and practical use I have experienced...

 

[Rob Ruffo]

This resonates very well with both the tests and practical use I have experienced...

Gunleik I agree with you as usual. Epic is better. Scarlet, however, in my tests, no. Also, compression in Red One seems more efficient: you get better quality for less data (But I need to do more tests, this is just an impression) , but R1 does not have super-high quality compression like 5:1 - and 5:1 holds up in grading much better than anything I have ever seen.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

hey guys, i think if there is no reliable test from a laboratory you better forget talking about all this. i think most of you using these cams the wrong way...try to make movies with intelligent stories ...and remember "tech. quality of picture is not all". basta - and sorry for my hard words but there are more important issues to talk about! thanks

This is a tech forum, not a screenwriting forum. If you really think tech is irrelevant you should not be a DP or even a director, nor wasting your time on a forum like this. There are many great screenwriting and acting forums on the net. What don't you post there? BTW - the most popular and respected directors, including Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and James Cameron do not have your condescending attitude to deep technical knowledge. The makers of dreary, pretentious, poorly shot stuff that never goes anywhere do. They are the ones always talking about "truth", "moments" and "art", whereas the people actually succeeding in this business are talking about technique and craft, and learning as much as they can about them.

 

[Jesse Hunt]

This is a tech forum, not a screenwriting forum. If you really think tech is irrelevant you should not be a DP or even a director, nor wasting your time on a forum like this. There are many great screenwriting and acting forums on the net. What don't you post there? BTW - the most popular and respected directors, including Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock and James Cameron do not have your condescending attitude to deep technical knowledge. The makers of dreary, pretentious, poorly shot stuff that never goes anywhere do. They are the ones always talking about "truth", "moments" and "art", whereas the people actually succeeding in this business are talking about technique and craft, and learning as much as they can about them.

+1 haha

 

[Steve Sherrick]

One must take into account all kinds of factors with this discussion. On paper, all of these cameras are running the same sensor but as we all know are being processed differently internally. I'd also argue that no two cameras within the same family are identical. This can become evident in multicamera shoots. You have the glass in front of the camera, as well as OLPFs which all contribute to a camera's personality. I think when you start comparing cameras from two different families the gap widens even further. In the end, the key is to get to know YOUR camera, identify its "personality" and maximize its performance. A lot of times we're talking about subtleties here, so it's not always night and day differences. When Epic is brought into the conversation then yes, often times we are talking big differences.