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 one mx LOOKS BETTER than Scarlet-X

R

Robert Wauu

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have no scientific proof nor tests to proove it. But the footage out of the Red One Mx just looks better than the footage out of the Scarlet-X. It's more filmic somehow. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there to think so? Or am I?
 
What are you comparing?
Blockbusters shot on the R1 to what shot on Scarlet?
Maybe your answer is on the comparison itself.
 
Maybe it's because the RED ONE MX has 4.5K RAW (2.4:1) ??? And maybe because the PL mount on the RED ONE MX "forces" people to use better lenses than cheap still lenses? Maybe it's because the camera is heavier and you can't just run and gun, but often plan and go with a crew? And didn't the Scarlet-X get sensors that didn't pass Epic QC? This would not be the case with the Red One sensors... It just feels more filmic somehow.
 
H Rob, word is it also has better frame rates, shoots 4.5K, and the brain costs half as much too.
I also have some paper cuts if you have a few spare moments to come and pour lemon juice on them?

:violin: (For me)

No, in all seriousness, have heard this several times. Strangely always from R1 owners though? :ihih: But of course when it comes to the dreaded my camera looks more "filmic" than yours discussions, so many factors of cameras this close that make it far too subjective. Some R1 owners have claimed it is cleaner, which may well be true, but I've yet to see the tests that prove it. And of course you can oversample more with an R1 too... But in all honesty i don't care too much. If you can't make pictures worth watching with either camera, the problem obviously isn't the camera :)) My Scarlet challenges me enough to be worthy of her as it is. And while I'd dearly love an ana mode and 120 @ 2k mind you, the R1 would also challenge my lower back a lot more. :P

Oh... and did someone say...

Upgrade path?

:thumbsup:

Enjoy your subjectively more filmic camera while it lasts buddy :))

Best

Lliam
 
The sensor is exactly the same, it's other hardware that didn't pass QC.
And I think you pretty much answered your own question.
Scarlet appeals to a broad audience now.
 
Oh, no don't get me wrong. I am asking this because I actually am torn between buying a Scarlet-x or the Red One MX, and I have been searching footage comparisions but haven't been able to find any. And I just tought that maybe they actually have better sensors in the Red One MX, because I read somewhere that the Scarlet-X gets sensors that didn't pass QC for the Epic. And 4.5 is better than 4k. And as I said earlier the 2.4:1 widescreen is just more filmic, that you cannot argue about :)
So I am still wondering, why I should give 6000 dollars more for a Scarlet-X ? Somehow it doesn't make sense except for the lighter weight.
 
Okay Philipe...the sensor is the same, but would the other hardware affect image quality?? Does anyone know?
 
If you want WS on Scarlet, just set a guideline and frame for that.
And again, the sensor is the same.
The hardware limitation should affect frame rate only.
Graeme said a few times that at 4k 24 fps, Epic and Scarlet should look exactly the same.
 
Philippe are you saying that you can just crop within the Scarlet-X and get the same 2.4:1 widescreen as the Red One Mx and the Epic offers? Wouldn't you loose resolution when you put it up on a big screen that way. It's hard to believe that one can just set guidlines in the Scarlet-x and get the same 2.4:1 widescreen as on the Red One MX and the Epic...
 
The Red One MX is a better picture than the Scarlet in my opinion substantially, but it's also end of life and quite heavy and cumbersome so you have those two things to consider.
 
I think there's a big need to feel you have justified your purchase among several fabulous RED offerings. Clearly with any of the REDs you could film the next Gone With the Wind. Just last week I went to the movies with my wife and we saw the Man With the Iron Fist. My wife commented on how nice the cinematography was. Didn't realize until a few days later it was filmed with a Red One MX. Made it easier for me to justify my expensive purchase, lol.
 
Red one MX 4k and scarlet 4k should look the same. Maybe better with the scarlet because there is less compression and 16bits. The difference is in the 4.5k option of the red one. But "social network" was shot in 4k only, at a worst compression than scarlet can handle. A lot of other movies were shot at 4.5k but cropped to stabilize or just reframe. Even some famous ones just keeping 3600x1500 pixels (reframed image extraction) like the girl with the dragon tattoo. Many 3d ones, with epic, are cropped for reframing and for the 3d adjustment. David Fincher told that he prefers the grain of the red one. I guess it's because epic at 5k is almost grain free. But at 4k you see some grain, a bit of softness that can make the footages look more "filmic". Until now We just heard some rumor about scarlet vs epic or scarlet vs red one, but nobody showed anything comparing the 2 and highlighting any difference. The 4.5k is nice though, for wider lenses on the image, less grain and sharper.
 
Last edited:
I think this boils down to the fact that the entire sensor isnt being used in the scarlet where as in the red one it is.. more depth of field, 4.5k resolution etc
 
Vladimir Druts said:
I think this boils down to the fact that the entire sensor isnt being used in the scarlet where as in the red one it is.. more depth of field, 4.5k resolution etc
Click to expand...

It's the same sensor, and 4k on the red one use the same sensor area as 4k on the scarlet. The difference being 4.5k use a bigger part of the sensor, the lens appears wider, and shallower depth of field. Am I wrong?
 
I don't believe the scarlet uses the full size of the sensor.
 
Scarlet uses 4096x2160 of the 5120x2700 sensor. RED1mx uses 4096x2304 or 4480x1920 of the 5120x2700. But, yeah, they're the exact same sensor albeit Scarlet goes 16bit at 6:1 while RED1 goes 12bit 7.5:1... On paper, RED1 should look (indistinguishably) worse, but it doesn't. I'd argue that it's due to PL-mount being standard (meaning cine glass instead of Canon/stills glass) and the fact that it does use more resolution (which, no matter how slight the increase, is still an advantage).
 
I'm surprised no one has actually done a side-by-side comparison between Mx One / Scarlet or Epic / Scarlet,

I would have LOVED to see that and many others as well I'm sure :)
 
And where are you going to look at it? Youtube? Jeez......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top