What can Weapon/Scarlett/etc do that Raven can't?

[Olly Fawcett]

I was saying to someone last week that Red have bought out this new brain and its awesome, and it only costs £5k. They said, if the weapon costs roughly £8x more then it must be leagues apart...
They then said to me; "so, what are the differences"?

Might sound stupid, but I got stuck after mentioning resolution, and things like olpf's/Higher frame rates/processor power etc.

So, pretend you took a weapon, and limited it to 4.5k res. What sets it £35k apart?

Many thanks, Olly

 

[Ugo Del]

Why limiting it to 4.5k when shooting with weapon? Weapon: sharper, lower noise, 3DLUTs, larger FOV, more DOF, better in lowlight, different mounts, different OLPFs, better for still photography, better HFR, better compression, better for reframing and stabilizing, better prores, anamorphic functions. @4.5k it has still better compression, 3Dluts, anamorphic capabilities, OLPFs, mounts, better prores and full frame 4.5k. But almost everytime being more limited means being more creative. So there's nothing bad with Raven. The Raven could have shot almost all the Red movies we've seen so far in theaters, with better quality for most of them.

 

[Phil Holland]

This mainly:

 

[Björn Benckert]

I was saying to someone last week that Red have bought out this new brain and its awesome, and it only costs £5k. They said, if the weapon costs roughly £8x more then it must be leagues apart...
They then said to me; "so, what are the differences"?

Might sound stupid, but I got stuck after mentioning resolution, and things like olpf's/Higher frame rates/processor power etc.

So, pretend you took a weapon, and limited it to 4.5k res. What sets it £35k apart?

Many thanks, Olly

Its like comparing a 16mm camera with a 35mm camera. and the 16mm camera can only use one sort of lenses. on top of that it can only use film stock that is not as good (raven has less bitrate at 4.5k) And weapon is a stepping stone to 8k weapon which raven is not.

 

[Daniel Stilling]

The Raven and the Scarlet-W are an incredible bang for the buck. The fact that at 4K they can do the same frame rates as the top of the line cameras is mind-blowing. I have a WPN CF but I also have a Scarlet-W on order as I can see the immense value in this camera. If you need to change lens mounts, go SW. If you only have and only will use Canon lenses go Raven. Either one will give you access to incredible possibilities. Now the rest is on you: the cameras are the top of the line in picture quality today. It's up to you to point them in the right direction, give them the right amount of light and tell a good story. The camera is not a limiting factor today...

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

One thing that is not spoken of often but bears some slight thinking about is that given the pixel size of the red sensor the best 4K that the cameras can put out is when reduced down from 5K or above. What that means in simple terms is that compared to other cameras like a C300 M2, or UM4.6 or Sony FS7 - the straight 4K will not look as crisp and limpid. It will have great color and be "filmic" but it will not have the same clarity. The Scarlet W on the other hand, shooting 5K for 4K will have a great picture by comparison. 6K for 4K even better. So it depends on a couple of things. The work you want to do. What sort of 'look' you like. I actually know people who like images that for me scream video/digital more than more filmic so what can one say. If your main 'theater' is internet or 2K or 1080, then the Raven is perfectly adequate. The Scarlet would open up 4K broadcast. I say this because I know behind the scenes on Netflix stuff that the camera tests that got Dragon the job were shot at 5K for 4K as preferred for 'bite'.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Frame rates are and frame sizes are a big difference. As are LUTs and interchangeable mounts.

If you want to shoot 16:9, Raven is limited to 4k 16:9 whereas Scarlet does 5K 16:9. Also keep in mind that RED's OLPFs are pretty aggressive which is great if you want moire-free images, but mean you really need to oversample if you want your 4k delivery to be sharp, so 5k comes in very handy in that regard. And remember Dragon 4k is <S35 in sensor size.

Also keep in mind that noise is partly tied to resolution so more resolution means less noise.

LUTs are a pretty big deal too, and interchangeable mounts mean you can use nikon/leica/PL mount lenses and a motion mount if needed and anything else that comes along (perhaps a future focal reducer mount or anamorphic mount or rear filter mount...)

 

[Björn Benckert]

One thing that is not spoken of often but bears some slight thinking about is that given the pixel size of the red sensor the best 4K that the cameras can put out is when reduced down from 5K or above. What that means in simple terms is that compared to other cameras like a C300 M2, or UM4.6 or Sony FS7 - the straight 4K will not look as crisp and limpid. It will have great color and be "filmic" but it will not have the same clarity. The Scarlet W on the other hand, shooting 5K for 4K will have a great picture by comparison. 6K for 4K even better. So it depends on a couple of things. The work you want to do. What sort of 'look' you like. I actually know people who like images that for me scream video/digital more than more filmic so what can one say. If your main 'theater' is internet or 2K or 1080, then the Raven is perfectly adequate. The Scarlet would open up 4K broadcast. I say this because I know behind the scenes on Netflix stuff that the camera tests that got Dragon the job were shot at 5K for 4K as preferred for 'bite'.

I would say raven is on par or better than any other 4k camera the talk about small dragon pixels not holding the same quality as larger pixels does not really hold water any longer. the improvements made for the weapon line of cameras is quite grand compared to dragon cameras.

On dragon the sensor has everything from bkackshade issues to low bit rate and the older boards and lightpath. so even if weapon has the dragon sensor its in a different camera all together. And the small pixels holds impressive qualities. how ever a small cut of the weapon dragon sensor through FF ef glas is possibly not optimal as you do not use the full potential of the glas.

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

I would say raven is on par or better than any other 4k camera the talk about small dragon pixels not holding the same quality as larger pixels does not really hold water any longer. the improvements made for the weapon line of cameras is quite grand compared to dragon cameras.

On dragon the sensor has everything from bkackshade issues to low bit rate and the older boards and lightpath. so even if weapon has the dragon sensor its in a different camera all together. And the small pixels holds impressive qualities. how ever a small cut of the weapon dragon sensor through FF ef glas is possibly not optimal as you do not use the full potential of the glas.

Have not had a chance to cross compare Weapon4K with other stuff yet. But I am confident, given the Raven target, that we will be treated to a bazillion tests around this subject

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

I would say raven is on par or better than any other 4k camera the talk about small dragon pixels not holding the same quality as larger pixels does not really hold water any longer.

It's not about the size of the pixels, its about the aggressiveness of the OLPF or whatever else in the imaging chain that makes RED pixels very soft compared to sony/canon/etc pixels. Some people like it and I'm sure it's great for avoiding any chance of aliasing, but I've never seen any test that showed any RED shot in 4K RAW could produce a reasonably sharp 4k output. This is especially important for people who think they can crop coverage or pan-and-scan their 4k footage for 1080p delivery etc. In my experience, the 1:1 pixel detail is very soft compared to every other manufacturer, and there are other threads on this forum that confirm this. It's bad enough that you would have a hard time telling the difference between a RED Dragon 4k image that was scaled down to 2.5k and then back up to 4k and the original 4k image....

 

[Nick Morrison]

but I've never seen any test that showed any RED shot in 4K RAW could produce a reasonably sharp 4k output. This is especially important for people who think they can crop coverage or pan-and-scan their 4k footage for 1080p delivery etc.

Noah you keep presenting your SUBJECTIVE opinion as fact.

For YOU, RED 4K isn't sharp enough. That's fine.

That doesn't mean this is true for others.

Entire shows have been shot in 4K Dragon (ie Daredevil on Netflix).

And at Small Giant we regularly pan/scan/reframe shots at resolutions lower than Dragon 4K and think they look great. Clients have been very happy with their 1080 deliverables.

For US and many others, RED 4K is plenty sharp enough.

I understand for YOU this may not be true, but your OPINION is not FACT.

I find it hard to believe RED would have built a whole 4K camera (RAVEN) if it wasn't sharp enough.

Again, we're talking about aesthetics. Things like sharpness and noise are areas that fall very quickly into a GREY ZONE of opinion.

We need to be mindful that there is a WORKING RANGE.

I for example, find Sony cameras TOO SHARP and DIGITAL looking. This is my OPINION. And not necessarily FACT. As again, we're talking about aesthetics.

Every camera has it's place. These are tools. But RED's OLPF choices and pixel design may not be a MISTAKE. It coule be a conscious choice by their designers because they felt it LOOKED BETTER.

For many on the RED platform, they tend to agree. RED is often associated with having a FILMIC LOOK. That is, in large part, because of their choice in OLPF and PIXEL design.

I understand we all have different needs, and that's what makes this age and marketplace great. But we all need to keep an open mind, and understand that our own aesthetics are a major variable when it comes to camera choices, and similarly...camera designs are often made for a reason.

Thanks!

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Noah you keep presenting your SUBJECTIVE opinion as fact.

I don't believe I've presented anything as fact... I appreciate that you may not share some opinions or experiences I mentioned. No need to yell

I apologize if my statement came off somehow as absolutist but I thought I was pretty clear in my first sentence that I was comparing to other cameras on the market that compete in the 4k space. I thought I was clear in using fairly subjective wording, but perhaps I was not clear enough. No need to defend RED, I totally understand that some people prefer softer images, and RED more than makes up for it in its 6k sensors. Most people never even notice that softness because people are pretty used to and regularly impressed by 1080p images anyway. I mean DSLRs that sample <1080p Bayer pixels are still a thing to some degree so softness is hardly the first concern of 99% of work. So maybe red does have the right approach since there is a point of diminishing returns with resolution but aliasing could always cause a big problem in post so it's not necessarily a bad balance.

I thought this is especially relevant in a raven thread since many raven users may not be as familiar with the attributes of the red family of cameras so comparisons certainly seem important to note, especially as many new raven users may be upgrading from Sony/Canon/BM. In my opinion that pixel softness does make over sampling especially relevant which goes back to Scarlet-W 's 5k being a particularly important difference over raven's 4k.

We are all gathering evidence and developing theories until they are disproven, no need to accuse anyone of misrepresenting their views, they are only one persons views in one person's post. I never really even stated whether I thought softness was good or bad, but from the evidence and experience I have it's there and something to be aware of. As I mentioned there are reasons to like softness and protection against aliasing and there may be reasons to be wary of it when cropping.

I guess I'm also a bit confused what you are disagreeing about. You seem to agree that RED is softer than Sony at least and you state that you prefer it. I totally understand that and even referred to that in my previous post as a common position on the issue.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Just because the "nominal" image created by default settings looks soft, doesn't mean that is the only way to process that data set into an RGB image. Most RED footage can be made quite sharp by simply selecting a scaling filter well matched to the scene/detail/target resolution and working the sharpness slider in post effects.

Most cameras that are being cited as comparisons do a great deal more image processing in camera, including sharpening, that can't be "undone". RED is more about a "first do no harm" approach that puts the sharpening level adjustment in post where one, typically, has a much better view of the results and can fine tune to taste.

Cheers - #19

 

[Erick Liu]

Also, Raven has no Upgrade Roadmap planned, so you won't be looking at 8K or even 6K as a future RED, Scarlet-W and beyond is eligible for upgrade to 8K

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Are you talking about downscaling footage? We're talking about Raven here, so for 16:9 it's max is 4k so if you are delivering 4k no scaling filters would be involved would they? And sharpening debayered images can help a little but no more than it would help other cameras.

I don't think Sony RAW does any sharpening in camera... how could RAW be sharpened? I've never seen any evidence of in-camera sharpening from Sony RAW files...

I know soft pixels can be a sore subject on reduser and perhaps sometimes just not even looked at critically given that we live in a world where 4K is a format that seems so important for the future yet so much content is viewed increasingly viewed on smaller screens at low resolutions so actual resolution is hardly ever questioned and even in theaters a lot of people can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k anyway, but it seems to be something worth considering especially given the OPs question.

 

[M.Halsell]

I don't get the sense that the Raven image will feel less substantial than its bigger siblings. The forensic tests would punctuate the telling evidence more succinctly ie compression+quality+file size, more wraparound image, more delivery format options, image optimization based on shooting conditions.

Color rendition, I suspect will largely be spot on, translation being that the color application can used effectively to hide less sharpness. Exhibit A being the smaller sensor BM cameras, punched well above their weight class aesthetically. But got away with most times because of the color rendition. I guess, I could sheepishly include Alexa in my color argument as BM and Arrive both got a lot of mileage out of the color presentation AND ProRes delivery. Raven, to its credit as a baseline will deliver color and a technically correct 4k for productions that require it.

At first glance, arguably one would hard pressed to tell the difference under general shooting conditions, unless it was a center punched A/B magnified comparison, at which point the pixel density and noise behavior and/or the specialized filtration option could get at the image more effectively making the more expensive camera easier to spot.

Also as a sidebar, gear purchase is less speculative when there is an existing client base and revenue model to help zero in on what's needed. When it's speculative, and ROI isn't achieved, it robs you financially and creatively. 2 cents.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Don't underestimate the amount of in camera sharpening done via front end DSPs on the vast majority of cameras mentioned. Typically some DNR and black compensation is done as well before the signal hits the internal media or the spigot. For a lot of of scenes, this internal processing mimics adjustments you'd likely make anyway. But there's a catch - if you want a more nuanced look with unique creative adjustments to the gamma curve - there are fewer discrete code values in the toe and shoulder. I mention the black compensation in a sharpness note, because contrast can extend the Nyqvist limit (Wiki it if you're curious, too off thread).

Cheers - #19

 

[M.Halsell]

Just an additional consideration on image protection Raven users should avoid lens choices that step on the image sharpness. Also, when cooking up your post sharpening recipes, be mindful good post sharpening technique considers the final pixel delivery and viewing distance of the deliverable.