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 :)

What differences have you noticed between Epic and Red MX?

R

Rob Ruffo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Montreal
Is colour really better than shooting a Red one MX and switching to RedColour 2 in post?

Is dynamic range better? (Except for HDRX of course- I mean just straight, non-HDRX).

Any other differences you really notice?

I am wondering between shooting a 1080p job on MX or Epic whether I will see any difference, really (job has no slo-mo, just 24fps). Weight and start-up time are pretty much irrelevant to how we shoot, and Red One MX is REALLY good.
 
I can shoot a test but this is A) Expensive - our Epic is always booked and is not available now
B) time consuming
C) (Most important) I might miss things that the many enlightned folks here at Reduser have noticed, and that only occur under circumstances not covered by my tests - you can't test everything - especially not light set-ups that involve gigantic light rentals and weird shiny sets I could not afford to rent/build out of pocket. Besides, I think this is a good topic that has been been discussed very little - why shoot Epic if you don't need slo-mo or HDRX. This is good info for producers, too, who so far in large numbers seem to think MX is "the same" unless you need light weight or HDRX or slomo. I'm sure this is not true, and a complete discussion from many contributors would help educate them, and me.
 
Last edited:
I second that Rob....

A nice reading would be Finchers's thoughts about this from the last issue of the American cinematographer.

He seemed to like only the form factor on the Epic...

Of course it's a matter of subject that you shoot and personal taste...
 
Cristian Nicolescu said:
A nice reading would be Finchers's thoughts about this from the last issue of the American cinematographer.

He seemed to like only the form factor on the Epic...
Click to expand...

It was a quick quote in the new AC...
"I like the Red One MX a lot. In fact I wish we hadn't switched to the Epic at the end of our shoot. There's nothing wrong with the Epic, but I sort of like the graininess of the MX. It's an aesthetic choice, not a technical one." -David Fincher
 
We shot the first movie in Italy on Epic M, the second camera was a red one MX. Besides Hdrx and slow motion, on the Epic I like very much the capacity to use redlogfilm, the form factor, the fast booting time. We used for the exterior always the Epic (also without Hdrx) because from our tests the outdoor images were better compared to the red one mx (although it's the same sensor the electronic in the Epic is better). Indoor the two cameras match very well.
 
So Luca, indoors you noticed less difference? What do you mean by "better" color?
 
From our tests Epic shots in exterior are richer, more pleasant, maybe also for the possibility to use less compression (5:1 or 6:1 but also 8:1 works most of the times).
In the interior if you have an environment with controlled lights the 2 cameras match easily. You can use also the R1 MX in exterior but we found Epic is better and HDRx is huge when you need it. Also, but this is my personal opinion, R1 MX is a great camera but Epic images are esthetically closer to film.
 
Compression, 5K, HDRx, and 16 bit depth versus 12 make a real difference in the shots between Epic and MX.

Controlled lighting helps with matching, and I personally feel the close ups match better on an MX as compared to wides when intercutting with the Epic, and that's evidenced by all those factors above. So I believe Luca and I are on the same page.
 
Yes. On our movie the R1 MX was the close-up camera in the interior shots.
 
I think 90% of people would never in a million years be able to tell the difference in a double blind test, that's how close the cameras are
 
Thank you all so far - this is very interesting - Peter, have you shot/edited both?
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
I think 90% of people would never in a million years be able to tell the difference in a double blind test, that's how close the cameras are
Click to expand...
And in 2 millions? :)
My Dp is a very good one and I work with red images all day long
 
So i can use EPIC and R1 MX for shooting simultaneously i mean the same scenes with the same lens set?

What setup/presets are needed to get both cameras as close as possible?

I simply need to make a movie on two cameras that both having the same image (the production is for TV only)
 
In my experience on the last feature I shot, the DR seemed better on the EPIC, at least according to the histogram and stop lights. This was without HDRx too. Sometimes I would 2nd guess what I was seeing but it really just took a lot more to clip highlights than on the ONE MX. At least that was my experience.

We started the first half on RED ONE MX, and then switched to EPIC X a little past the halfway point.

Lookwise I felt there was more noise than I thought there would be on EPIC, but I haven't upgraded to 2.05 yet. Think i read there are noticeable improvements in overall image. I think both cams produce similar results, though I bump contrast and saturation on EPIC to get the look I'm used to on the ONE MX.
 
As a general rule the Epic is able to pull more out of the MX sensor than the R1 can. Under controlled lighting with fat histograms the differences are subtle. In more challenging exposure environments or scenes with a lot of moving detail the Epic data set is deeper and wider so its got more meat for grading. Moreover, by using lower compression ratios like 6:1 you can get more detail vs the roughly 10:1 compression of RobCode 36.

In re Mike's note about noise levels on Epic and the need to bump contrast & sat. It is my belief that the greater bit depth on the Epic has the same effect as playing back a piece of music on a high end system versus a medium grade one, the greater fidelity reveals more nuances and flaws - like noise. I also theorize that since since the display you are making these judgements on is unlikely to show more than 9 stops that the R1 MX 12 bit files have more values that land in the wheelhouse of the display pre-grade.

To paraphrase Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility. In this case, taking all that image information in the Epic file and placing it wisely within the contrast range and color space of the display and deliverable format may require more skill to get the most out of it. I love RAW and the ability to take an image where I want to go without it falling apart, but it is easier to mess it up.

Cheers - #19
 
Guess this is a bit off topic since the thread was about the image but I think the major difference is the EPIC-X's size and weight. I can buy lighter gear used for DSLR cameras making it cheaper in the long run plus that I don't have to go and straighten my spine every time I've been on a handheld shoot.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
In re Mike's note about noise levels on Epic and the need to bump contrast & sat. It is my belief that the greater bit depth on the Epic has the same effect as playing back a piece of music on a high end system versus a medium grade one, the greater fidelity reveals more nuances and flaws - like noise. I also theorize that since since the display you are making these judgements on is unlikely to show more than 9 stops that the R1 MX 12 bit files have more values that land in the wheelhouse of the display pre-grade.
Click to expand...

Blair, I always thought that difference was because R1 is using Redcolor and Epic is using Redcolor2.
 
R1 can be decoded to Redcolor2 as well. That's Graeme's magic: improving on decode even of the oldest footage from R1s, since there is no color in RAW…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top