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 :)

Shootout: RedOne vs F35

danbrazda

danbrazda

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Age
66
Location
Richmond, VA
Website
www.vcutvhd.com
I'd love to see a side-by-side shootout between these two cameras. Same lighting, lenses...etc. Would take a lot of connections to get the 2 cams in the same place at the same time but as diverse as this forum is maybe someone can pull it off. Just curious if the differences would be apparent enough to justify the cost of the F35. Any conjectures?
 
One thing that concerns me about the Red is the compression, ie 36 and 28 mb/sec. I confess straight off that I'm by no mens an expert here. I know wavelet codecs are supposed to be good, but it seems there's a big drop from the 130 mb/sec or whatever HDCam is, to 36. And if you're downloading from 4k sensor instead of 2/3" surely that means even more compression to fit into the bandwidth? Having said all that, by all accounts the images look stunning, so great! There have been reports of graininess here and there and a few other little issues that could be result of high compression?
Feel free to correct me if I'm entirely wrong, I won't take it personally!
Steve
 
I talked to a rental house here in copenhagen - www.ebh.dk. They had seen
f35, HPX3000, regular 35mm and red1 footage, all "video" scanned to 35mm.
I think maybe the test was done in Norway... maybe ask some of the norwegians in the forum if they were involved with it...

The rental house - and this is ofcourse completely "hearsay" - that the RED1 blew all the videocams away. 35mm is another matter. Film is film... that comes down to an aestetic choice - and ofcourse financially:)
 
Steve Phillipps said:
One thing that concerns me about the Red is the compression, ie 36 and 28 mb/sec. I confess straight off that I'm by no mens an expert here. I know wavelet codecs are supposed to be good, but it seems there's a big drop from the 130 mb/sec or whatever HDCam is, to 36. And if you're downloading from 4k sensor instead of 2/3" surely that means even more compression to fit into the bandwidth? Having said all that, by all accounts the images look stunning, so great! There have been reports of graininess here and there and a few other little issues that could be result of high compression?
Feel free to correct me if I'm entirely wrong, I won't take it personally!
Steve
Click to expand...

I don't know how much HDCam is but red is 36,28MB/s (288, 224mbps). And thats a lot
 
So am I getting my bits and bytes mixed up here? HDCam is 144 megabits per second and Red is 36 megabytes per second (ie 288 megabits)?
I thought I was an expert until 3 minutes ago!
Steve:waaa:
 
Hi,

Claudia Miranda tested Red v The Sony F23. Red did not blow the F23 out of the water, some people were very offended by the results of a real world test.

Stephen
 
Red-one

Red-one

Steve Phillipps said:
So am I getting my bits and bytes mixed up here? HDCam is 144 megabits per second and Red is 36 megabytes per second (ie 288 megabits)? I thought I was an expert until 3 minutes ago!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but its O.K.. we are all learning :construction: and something else that is non-intuitive - as the resolution goes up the ability to compress gets easier. So there are a whole bunch of reasons why you can't simply extrapolate what you know about existing cameras and compression and apply that to RED.
 
Folks;

It would be folly to assume Sony can't make a camera for 200K that
might be able to compete...maybe even favorably...with RED. No one
should mis-underestimate (as our political leadership might say) the
engineering abilities of other camera manufacturers. Just revel in the
cost/quality convergence that RED offers. If you have the bucks to use the Sony F35, your concerns are much different than most of us.

Mark Tyson
 
I imagine the pictures from the F35 will be stunning, with a wide dynamic range. I understand its a full 35mm 12Mp CCD sensor being downsampled to 4:4:4 1080p.

Of course the F35 will probably cost $300,000
 
its the sony version of panavision genesis camera and it shoots great images but it looks really sterile. there is such a thing as too clean. it feels like all the texture or the feel of texture is gone. it makes people look a little plastic. at least it did in superman returns. red images feel more organic , they have texture, not as much as film but it's early days yet
 
4K Hub said:
The F35 has a 35mm sized sensor right?
Click to expand...

"F23 Chassis with 35mm full aperture size striped CCD sensor and PL mount, camera has 1920 X 1080 output. Currently available only in Japan from Omnibus, rest of world after late 2008/Early 2009. 50P 4:4:4 maximum frame rate vs 60P 4:4:4 with F23. F35 is 1 Chip with Stripped CCD array vs 3 dedicated RGB sensors on F23. 35mm DOF vs 2/3" with DigiPrimes DOF."
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Claudia Miranda tested Red v The Sony F23. Red did not blow the F23 out of the water, some people were very offended by the results of a real world test.

Stephen
Click to expand...

why would they be offended, its an apple to oranges comparison. The F23 is 10X the price of a Red One, so anyone expecting Red to "blow it out of the water" was dreaming. Reality is they are two different animals, Red One is 4k, F23 is 1080....the F23 is tape based vs data based. I have used the F23 and it is a fine camera, the dynamic range is incredible, and its current workflow works. Once Red delivers the SDX and opens up the files to other post solutions then Red will have the post advantage, and at $18k it is one hell of a camera that can compete nicely with the very expensive Sony's.
In a few months I suspect the Red One will close the gap on quality issues.
 
Steve Phillipps said:
So am I getting my bits and bytes mixed up here? HDCam is 144 megabits per second and Red is 36 megabytes per second (ie 288 megabits)?
I thought I was an expert until 3 minutes ago!
Steve:waaa:
Click to expand...

It's all in the capitalization and most folk tend to mix and match to ill effect. MBps is megabytes per second and Mbps is megabits per second.
 
I think it would be interesting to do a short film or whatever only you shoot with various cameras and intercut them, Say some of it on the f35 some on RED ONE other stuff on D21. Maybe even a few shots on 35 mm film.
Use all the same glass on all of then have people try and guess which shots came from which camera. I think if you shot if right it would be too seamless to tell.
 
Almost all HDCAM Cameras can record uncompressed via HD-SDI.

The 750/790/900 (etc) record uncompressed YUV422@10bit, the 950/F23 (etc) and probably F35 RGB444 as well.

To avoid the HDCAM 144-180 Mbit (depending on framerate) or 440-880 HDCAM SR is recommendable for VFX / key etc, but not necessary. The same applies to redcode.

However colorists and VFX artists often require more time for the same work, and can get less excellent results, if massive datareduction is in the source.

The resolution bottleneck, if distributed via film, is 35mm projection and the interpositive/negatives anyhow in both cases.

We, being HDCAM owners and users since 2002 prefer RED over HDCAM incl. F23 for many scenarios and vice versa.

The Imagequality in resolution is much better with the red, and having a raw workflow is excellent. The flexible framerates are excellent for many creative scenarios, and having 35mm DOF and PL-mounts is very good. The formfactor and the size of red is much better than F23/genesis/F35. Having recordable

However, the still constrained red workflow is rather unflexible and slow for most postproduction systems and houses who different than us dont have a specialised red-workflow. Until the support of these systems will be allowed, while HDCAM is widely supported, completely stable and unbuggy and realtime throughout, this is therefore a 50/50 neutral / depends on the situation thing for us.

HDCAM also had advantages, as top-quality 1080p live, exchange media (tape), a slightly higher light sensitivity especially at interlace, and for some scenarios the 2/3 is in fact an advantage (one-man crew animal, long zoom etc), also hdcams CCD-FITs cameras are less depending on light temperature and have no skew.

Therefore we are very happy to use both systems, and i often prefer red when i can control light and can go wild on the creative side (overcranking etc), while HDCAM offers benefits for international doc, live, fast turnarounds, exchange etc.

I am very happy that red offered a excellent alternative to hdcam, however we dont feel a reduction of the value of our hdcam - in fact the class 1 crts, hdcam (sr) VTRs etc are often plannend and used additionally also when using red. And hey, its BIG fun to have a red or a hdcam as making-of camera when shooting in hdcam or red :)
 
Stuart English said:
Yeah, but its O.K.. we are all learning :construction: and something else that is non-intuitive - as the resolution goes up the ability to compress gets easier. So there are a whole bunch of reasons why you can't simply extrapolate what you know about existing cameras and compression and apply that to RED.
Click to expand...

many DTV broadcaster used HDCAM 108oi only as their HD master then recompressed to either MPEG-2 or H.264 in their head-end down to 13mb/s and the 1080i pcitures look Crapped !!!

Even in HKG like this. Double Compression is no good unless the 1st compression is RAW material. RECODE capture to RECODE display is the way of 4/3/2K to some serious watchers then average TV watchers.

Stuart, did you listen to SRV music in TX, and I am a big fan of him and Freddie King.

Cheers mate.

Stewart
HKG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top