Red one mx LOOKS BETTER than Scarlet-X

[Matt Ryan]

Great production design, sets etc but it just looks a little fuzzy in the mid-town/shadows. Either way would love to see this once it's ready

Thats a combination of shooting in 3K and the focus in motion. The whole thing is shot on a steadicam in motion.

 

[Adam Johnson]

I have no scientific proof or charts to prove any of my claims, but I am a Scarlet-X owner. I purchased it on Nov. 3rd.

I can firmly tell you that the Red One MX sensor has a cleaner image than the Scarlet. Never once have I ever seen blue noise on a Red One MX (which I used on a regular basis for over a year and a half leading up to my Scarlet purchase). But lets remember that the Red One MX was selling for 25K up until Novermber 1st for a reason. It has a KILLER image. Then again so does the Scarlet! But I'm telling you as a Scarlet owner and soon to be Red One MX owner (yay!!) the image is cleaner. And I never once black shaded a Red One in my life. The Scarlet I have to do one every time I fire it up, or I run the risk of seeing lots of blue speckles in my footage.

But with that said there are MANY benefits of Scarlet that make it a superior camera in my opinion. First of all it is not at the end of its life. Scarlet is much lighter than a Red One! It takes mere seconds to fire up a Scarlet which is a HUGE plus in my book! I love the side handle and modular setup overall. Basically, the Red One MX is a beast that delivers a superior image, but you are much more restricted in my opinion unless you have the funds to purchase the necessary support tools to match it with what you can do with a Scarlet. Also, Scarlet has a native Canon mount which is a BIG plus.

AJ

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

I have no scientific proof or charts to prove any of my claims, but I am a Scarlet-X owner. I purchased it on Nov. 3rd.

I can firmly tell you that the Red One MX sensor has a cleaner image than the Scarlet. Never once have I ever seen blue noise on a Red One MX (which I used on a regular basis for over a year and a half leading up to my Scarlet purchase). But lets remember that the Red One MX was selling for 25K up until Novermber 1st for a reason. It has a KILLER image. Then again so does the Scarlet! But I'm telling you as a Scarlet owner and soon to be Red One MX owner (yay!!) the image is cleaner. And I never once black shaded a Red One in my life. The Scarlet I have to do one every time I fire it up, or I run the risk of seeing lots of blue speckles in my footage.

There is same blue channel problem in Epic too but people shoots feature with that

 

[Adam Johnson]

HAHA I know! believe me I would certainly take an Epic over both cameras any day!!! But Epic has a cleaner way of dealing with the noise. I havent had the same problem with an Epic. FYI - I would actually prefer a Scarlet to a Red One MX for other reasons as well....but BT Red One MX is afordable for me to buy in addtion to my Scarlet. If Scarlet was $4K I would have bought another instead See my above post.

AJ

There is same blue channel problem in Epic too but people shoots feature with that

 

[Matt Ryan]

Do you think it has anything to do with back in the day having only Redcolor 1 and Redgamma 1 on the R1MX? Those were way more contrasty than RC3,RG3 (which would show more noise due to the fact it's less crushed, Red gamma 1 being more crushed shows less visible noise). It forced you to open up more or bring in more light even though you could change the color science in RCX you still exposed more than if it was captured in Red Gamma 2 or 3. Plus like someone already mentioned the camera was bigger and heavier and more expensive rental wise than Scarlet, therefore it was used on more professional sets rather than hobby and or run n gun shoots. Just a theory, but it makes sense.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

I think this thread title is a bit subjective--instead of BETTER, perhaps just "different."

The Red One was designed with the dream of creating an alternative to film.
The Epic was made to be the next succession, but less than half the size and several times as fast.
Then Scarlet is manufactured from the parts not quite strong enough for that second evolution.

When you think about it that way, it is an engineering marvel that the camera performs as well as it does.

Here in New York I have heard mutterings again and again that Red One has a certain texture to the image that is different from Epic/Scarlet. Twice I've heard someone use the word "more organic," and after the nausea passed I resolved myself to do some tests. Different film stocks from Kodak give different looks, why shouldn't different cameras.

PS: I would kill for Red&Arri to leave Sony &Co. dumbfounded by each designing a line of cameras, each optimized for different image qualities, much the way Zeiss did with the Standard and Super speeds... easy to intercut but suited to different images. We got a hell of a gift with Monochome... what's next?

 

[Jason DeSimone]

You'll see bad footage soon enough from the R1.

heh

 

[Adam Johnson]

I was working with Redcolor 2 and Redgamma 2 on the R1MX. I shot in RAW view and often graded in Red Log Film. I used the same lenses on both cameras, Nikon still glass. Honestly, I have always felt that it has something to do with the processing of the image using parts not quite strong/ efficient enough as Ryan mentioned. But I also think the way Scarlet crops the sensor has some kind of effect... is everyone absolutely positive that Epic/ Scarlet have the exact same sized sensor as each other? If they do, I wonder if Epic/ Scarlet's updated way of dealing with the data throughput (which appears much more efficient in many ways) has an inherent negative side effect of creating "blue noise." And for whatever reason, I feel like the 4K crop of Scarlet in comparison to the Red One MX is less quality in terms of pixels...but it is especially noticeable at 2K. However, right now I have nothing to go one besides my own experience working with them.

I will certainly be doing my own little shoot out between the two cameras when I get my BT Red One MX!

Do you think it has anything to do with back in the day having only Redcolor 1 and Redgamma 1 on the R1MX? Those were way more contrasty than RC3,RG3 (which would show more noise due to the fact it's less crushed, Red gamma 1 being more crushed shows less visible noise). It forced you to open up more or bring in more light even though you could change the color science in RCX you still exposed more than if it was captured in Red Gamma 2 or 3. Plus like someone already mentioned the camera was bigger and heavier and more expensive rental wise than Scarlet, therefore it was used on more professional sets rather than hobby and or run n gun shoots. Just a theory, but it makes sense.

 

[sam karr]

If people want to compare they should compare in a scientific way (same image, same frame, 4k, same lens, same compression, etc.). I downloaded some r3d from the r1mx and see tons of blue noise on these, more than on my scarlet footages.
MX sensor is sensor MX, the same for the red one mx, the scarlet and the epic. 4k is 4k, same part of the MX sensor used for the 3 cameras, 22.2mm x 12.6mm. But then if you compare 4.5k to 4k, you can see some differences. And the best compression on the red one is 7.5:1, it's 6:1 on the scarlet, so the grain should look a bit different, maybe sharper, more visible on the scarlet.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

@ Adam...

I think you may find that they behave quite differently in the extremes of the exposurerange. You may even find some explanations as to why R1MX may appear cleaner in the dark, if you shoot a few ab's under the same light with the same glass.

I suggest you do that.
And look foreward to your conclusions, if you wanna share.

"Best" is a term related to "for what"
Both are very good cameras. Kinda...

If you have access to a grayscale ramp, from black to white, and can make that fill the whole exposurerange, i guess that would be a good way to learn how the two cameras respond to light under different conditions.

I suggest looking at them in post with the same gamma/colorscience, log or linearlight

 

[Gunleik Groven]

+ i suggest you take the parallell images through a grade, too - not only look at the off-cam exposures before a grade is applied...

Gradeability is kind of the last part of the equation...

Had a look at the Para test. There are some interesting uncommented things happening on the last page in the lowlights.

 

[Sam Taylor]

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.

It is definitely heavy and cumbersome. This doesn't matter for some set ups and jobs, but for others it really does. I much prefer weight and form factor of scarlet!