RED One slammed in Feb issue of AC?

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, someone should write a carefully-worded response to the article, pointing out errors and omissions, and hope it gets published in the letters section. That will help the magazine.

But people implying that the magazine is "out to get Red" and telling people to "read between the lines" and other innuendo suggesting that there is a conspiracy going on is not going to help improve the quality of journalism. I know the publisher, the editor, the writers of the magazine and they have no agenda regarding the Red one way or the other. They don't go to bed dreaming about how they are going to attack Red next -- most of them aren't even cinematographers, they look to us to tell them what's going on technically. And they don't base how positive the coverage is on how much advertising is spent.

I should also say that I'm on the publishing committee of the magazine, and it's a small group, though we don't meet monthly to review everything written or set some sort of agenda, the magazine runs itself. But Martha the publisher and Stephen the editor do not have some sort of personal agenda regarding the Red. They are the finest folks you would ever meet and run an award-winning publication.

 

[Mike Gross]

Public vs Private:

With the more established crowd, i've heard long time red users be negative red so as to make a point of not being pro-red while in private or amongst other red users.

The article seems to be more of the same.

 

[Deanan]

EDIT EDIT: No I take that back. That's not a gaff. There are shots I would have been willing to dig a lot deeper into but the noise was getting too muddy due to REDCode. I'll disagree with Graeme on that one. It's an aesthetic decision whether or not noise is tolerable and personally fine noise is ok but compressed noise less so.

Noise comes in many many forms/sizes and we often see people confusing what is actually R1-M sensor noise for compression noise.

 

[Mike Gross]

Fair points David. But how can we expect AC's coverage to improve if no-one points out technical errors and the lack of balance? If by your estimation we've got enough power to marginalize a camera and an entire company through nothing more than forum postings - then surely that same power could have a positive effect in pushing AC to better journalism?

Interesting perspective.

In the same way, both red and ac mac are public entities and exposed to criticism. If an article in ac is critical of red it's very much the same as red users being critical of the article. Fair game either way?

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Great points David... thanks for sharing your involvement in AC. I just wish they had less ads I read the article and don't see it as a negative for RED.. just outdated.

Kind of like all the Build 15 movies coming out... including an Oscar Nom in D9!

Those in the know, should not even care, unless they are struggling to convince people to shoot RED... at which point I concur with other users...

talk is cheap... pull out your laptop and SHOW them how great RED can look in capable hands... like David Mullen's.

 

[Dan Graetz]

Interesting perspective.

In the same way, both red and ac mac are public entities and exposed to criticism. If an article in ac is critical of red it's very much the same as red users being critical of the article. Fair game either way?

Agreed 100%

 

[Graeme Nattress]

- Bayer patterns can't deliver 1:1 resolution. Always shoot 4k if possible for supesampling *Ding!*

And there we have it: No mention of Arri D21, SI 2k, Phantom, the old Dalsa, etc. and no mention at all the the resolution noticed is almost entirely down to the optical low pass filtering, and no mention of what the actual measured resolution is.

Why is it always the case that when RED does a bayer sensor it's bad, but Arri get a free ride, even though their in-camera downsampling implementation to 1080p from their 3k is not what I'd call nice?

But as I said before, it's not the article that is the bias - all it needed was a bit of tech editing, but that there's a relative lack of similarly critical (and I have no problem with constructive criticism) articles on the D21, Genesis/F35, F23, SI 2K, Phantom etc.

Graeme

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

And there we have it: No mention of Arri D21, SI 2k, Phantom, the old Dalsa, etc. and no mention at all the the resolution noticed is almost entirely down to the optical low pass filtering, and no mention of what the actual measured resolution is.

Why is it always the case that when RED does a bayer sensor it's bad, but Arri get a free ride, even though their in-camera downsampling implementation to 1080p from their 3k is not what I'd call nice?

But as I said before, it's not the article that is the bias - all it needed was a bit of tech editing, but that there's a relative lack of similarly critical (and I have no problem with constructive criticism) articles on the D21, Genesis/F35, F23, SI 2K, Phantom etc.

Graeme

Totally agree with all Graeme's points.

 

[Roger Crouse]

And there we have it: No mention of Arri D21, SI 2k, Phantom, the old Dalsa, etc. and no mention at all the the resolution noticed is almost entirely down to the optical low pass filtering, and no mention of what the actual measured resolution is.

Why is it always the case that when RED does a bayer sensor it's bad, but Arri get a free ride, even though their in-camera downsampling implementation to 1080p from their 3k is not what I'd call nice?

But as I said before, it's not the article that is the bias - all it needed was a bit of tech editing, but that there's a relative lack of similarly critical (and I have no problem with constructive criticism) articles on the D21, Genesis/F35, F23, SI 2K, Phantom etc.

Graeme

Perhaps the real problem with articles like these is that the pace of technical developments and advances in this field far outpace the abilities of printed media to keep up...by it's very nature? So much so that the technically oriented magazines struggle to maintain relavance and subscribers. Many magazines and newspapers may be dying a slow death and we'll be stuck with mostly advertisements instead of content until the last tree killing issue rolls off the press. Those who can't adapt and deliver fast, accurate info in multiple formats will be replaced by those who can. It's the law of nature. I have nothing against AC or anyone who has made this a respected publication. Congrats, in fact. I have had problems with my Reds. I adapt and change. If I had the choice to make again... I would get these cameras again.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, technically things do move very fast, but faster on RED than most, so you'd think that would mean more chance of a good constructively critical article on the D21, F35, Genesis, Phantom, SI 2k etc.

Now - I don't read every issue of AC. So, to someone who does: was their a similar Dalsa article back in the day? Or more recently with any of the above mentioned? Or any film cameras?

Graeme

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Printed media. Ha!

OK for art books, but if technology is the subject, it'snot too different from doing astronomy with a hand-held 10-power telescope.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Michel Hafner]

Now - I don't read every issue of AC. So, to someone who does: was their a similar Dalsa article back in the day? Or more recently with any of the above mentioned? Or any film cameras?
Graeme

Have never seen anything like this the last couple of years.

 

[Rodrigo Lizana]

One could also start talking about the quality of the printed edition of AC. For a magazine meant for people who cares about images, the quality of the pictures is a joke !.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

And there we have it: No mention of Arri D21, SI 2k, Phantom, the old Dalsa, etc. and no mention at all the the resolution noticed is almost entirely down to the optical low pass filtering, and no mention of what the actual measured resolution is.
Graeme

Probably because it's so oversampled. You might not like the oversampling but it's still oversampled.

I felt like the point of the bayer pattern resolution section was just to ensure that people didn't shoot 2k and expect 2k. There is no D21 mode to my knowledge which crops the sensor for faster frame rates so there is no need to warn people that they only achieve 1080p through super-sampling.

If RED only delivered 1080p and only used the full sensor to create that 1080p I'm sure nobody would be discussing the resolution of the sensor. '4k isn't 4k, so don't shoot 2k and expect 2k, shoot 4k for 2k and you'll be safe.' The article mentions the 'slippery slope' of assuming you're getting 1:1 resolution.

None of the cameras you list advertise 1:1 deliverables except for RED which heavily promotes itself as a 4k camera. Hence, you get special treatment.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Gavin - All the above have 1:1 modes - the SI 2k and Phantoms for 1:1 deliverable.

The cropped modes are a feature - they allow you to trade resolution for fps. Of course, it would be better if we could get higher fps without cropping, hence Epic. But what would have been worse would be not have implemented the cropped mode features. It's not as if the camera defaults to those modes. You have to actively choose them, and you should as a professional know what you're doing when you do so.

Graeme

 

[Graeme Nattress]

You can politely take issue with a writer and facts (as Graeme has done) without disrespecting a revered, legendary publication and pillar of cinematography knowledge like American Cinematographer. You guys realize that David basically taught himself cinematography by reading hundreds of back issues of AC cover to cover?

That might help to explain why David hit the ceiling when he saw people dissing AC like it was some fly-by-night, two-bit, biased blog.

I only take issue with three things - one, I think the article is for the most part a reasonable catalogue of gotchas. Some of the analysis of the "whys" on the gotchas I'd take nit-picky technical issues with, but fair enough, I can live with that.

Two - issues that are "cameras in general" issues rather than RED specific issues: other cameras with similar "issues" should be mentioned.

Three - lack of similar articles for other cameras.

THought - the mention of the Phantom camera and it's frame size of 8 times the size for 2k compared to RED 4k? 2048x1152x12bit? - only way I can get 8 times is by doing a multiply by 3 as if it were a 3chip camera, but it's not - it's Bayer CFA just like the RED. That turns that x8 into ~x2.6? Check my math?

Graeme

 

[Stephen Strangways]

THought - the mention of the Phantom camera and it's frame size of 8 times the size for 2k compared to RED 4k?

He didn't say the frame size is 8 times larger, he said the file size was 8 times larger. Which means, Graeme, that he thinks Redcode is just too damn good, and he'd like less efficient compression, please and thank you.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, I meant file size. What is implied is that a 2k image from the Phantom is uncompressed and 8 times larger in file size than the RED 4K compressed frame size. But it doesn't take into account, I'm guessing - need confirmation - that the 8 times larger file from the Phantom is post-demosaic. Multiply up the ~1.5MB/frame R3D size, x8 = 12MB. Phantom HD Gold is 2048 x 1104, with selectable 8 through 14 bit depth - even at full whack gives 3.7MB/ frame.

Graeme

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Noise comes in many many forms/sizes and we often see people confusing what is actually R1-M sensor noise for compression noise.

And Graeme Nattress is one of the very few people on the face of the earth that has been able to directly compare uncompressed footage from the Mysterium with Redcode compressed versions of the same, so he can speak about it from a technically correct standpoint. It is not an aesthetic decision, it's something he's actually tested and measured.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

As has Deanan.

Graeme