Red DMSC1 Cameras vs Modern Sensors

[And1]

What is your opinion about newer "budget" cinema cameras (C70/R5c, Fx3/30, Bmpcc 6k, Ursa, Fuji H2s etc) versus the Red MX sensor? For example, the Epic MX which is the best of the MX cameras in my opinion.

Many people prefer the modern ones, many still believe the MX sensor still holds up better - of course Alexa Mini/LF/Monstro etc excluded.
Is the gap shorter? are modern budget sensors equivalent or even better?

I'm still debating, still not sure.

[QuickHitRecord]

I own a C70 for my full-time freelance business and a Red One MX for personal projects. The C70 creates a more technically perfect image and is the perfect camera for most of my clients, but I find the image from the R1MX to be more evocative. I haven't felt the same emotional response to any other Red camera, otherwise I probably would have picked up an Epic-X. I can't believe how inexpensively they can be had at this point.

Also, the C70 finally has a really fine, random grain structure. But amazingly, the R1MX's is still tighter and better looking.

A while back, I did a shoot with the R1MX, my C200 (pre-C70), and BMPCC 6K. Using Cinematch and a little tweaking, they all looked remarkably close, though the BlackMagic was sharper.

One more thing that may be of interest. In the Digital Bolex D16 episode of the Abandoned Camera series on YouTube, Joel Rubinstein mentioned designing their camera with multiple circuit boards instead of a single board (like in the BMPCC and probably most other mirrorless offerings) so that the image data would not be compromised by crossing other board components more than necessary. I don't know much about camera engineering, but this was really interesting to me because the R1MX is built this way too.

 

[QuickHitRecord]

For reference, here are both cameras. Same lens and same camera settings. The C70, shooting Canon Raw Lite, is first and the R1MX is second. They weren't hard to match.

It's so close that I wonder why I am bothering with the cumbersome R1MX. But once I see the moving images, I'm reminded of why I go through the trouble.

 

 

[TomTheDP]

I had a RED Scarlet MX for a while. My Panasonic S1 had better highlight retention. The MX was noisy but the shadows were richer. Now comparing it against the S1 in RAW might be a little different. I do really like RED and ARRI's color compared to other cheaper cameras I have used. They just hold shadow color so much nicer at least to my eyes. 

Pitting it against the C70 with RAW might start really skewing things against the MX. 

I have used the RED Epic Dragon quite a bit and that guy is definitely a real winner in almost every category except high ISO. Modern cameras are definitely a bit more versatile due to their high ISO capabilities. But if you have a bit of light to work with and aren't shooting any landscapes at night, cinema cameras definitely look better IMO. 

In any given side by side you might not notice, but for example working with a sigma FP and ARRI ALEXA side by side on a feature where I have a ton of footage from both cameras, I am really seeing how much easier the ARRI is to deal with. 

[zlfan]

r1mx r3d footage is so smooth to edit, rendering time is the same as or even better than 4k xavc480 or prores hq or mpeg or avchd in 4k time line. 

[kye]

On 1/19/2023 at 9:26 AM, QuickHitRecord said:

One more thing that may be of interest. In the Digital Bolex D16 episode of the Abandoned Camera series on YouTube, Joel Rubinstein mentioned designing their camera with multiple circuit boards instead of a single board (like in the BMPCC and probably most other mirrorless offerings) so that the image data would not be compromised by crossing other board components more than necessary. I don't know much about camera engineering, but this was really interesting to me because the R1MX is built this way too.

That caught my eye too.

The thing that made me really curious was that he said that on the BMPCC "that image signal crosses other things 23 times on that one board, and in those 23 crossings every time it crosses it gets a noise reduction afterwards because otherwise it would be a completely unrecognisable image afterwards".

This makes no sense to me, from my understanding and experience in designing and building digital circuit boards, so according to my understanding the statement is completely wrong.  However, I trust that the statement is correct, because the source is infinitely more knowledgeable than I am.  There is obviously something there that I don't understand (likely a great many things!) and this is something that isn't talked about anywhere.

It does make me wonder, though, if this might be the reason that some cameras look more analog than others, even when they're recording RAW.

The caveat is that the differences we're used to seeing between sensors, for example between the OG BMPCC and the BMPCC 4K, is that it might simply be due to subtle differences in colour science and colour grading.  Sadly, the level of knowledge of these things applied to most camera tests is practically zero, and it might be that with sufficient skill any RAW camera can be matched to any other RAW camera and that there is no difference at all, beyond differences that occurred downstream from the camera.

Another data point for RAW not really being RAW is that when ARRI released the Alexa 35, they talked about the processing that happened after the data was read from the sensor and before it was debayered:

Quote

The first thing when the image comes from the sensor is that sometimes there are defective pixels. Luckily, most of these defective pixels have been identified during the sensor calibration and they need to be corrected by us.

So, that’s the first step. Then the next step is part of the processing, which we do here—called Textures—that influence the noise in the image and also the look of the noise.

Then comes the ADA-7, the new ARRI Debayer Algorithm.

Source: https://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/free/115FDTimes-June2022-2.04-150.pdf Page 52.

Not only is there some stuff that gets done in between these two steps, there's a whole department for it!

RAW isn't so RAW after all.....

[IronFilm]

I take the brutal business perspective from this:

99.99% of clients won't be able to tell the differences in which a RED MX (or Dragon) image is "better".  (even assuming this is true... and not a placebo effect) 

But just about any modern low / mid range cinema camera will:

1) have better low light. (which means you can squeeze out an extra 30 minutes at the end of the day when you're sprinting against the dying sun. And you'll be able to use a lighting package which is half the size, which means lower costs and a faster moving production)

2) will be more reliable

3) more features 

So why get an old RED??

Also, 99% of clients won't want specifically an older RED. But what if you just want "a cinema camera" to impress them? (as appearances matter! You want them to feel special) For them, the bulk of those clients will be equally "impressed" with a Panasonic EVA1 / Sony PMW-F5 / URSA Mini / etc (or even a fully rigged out mirrorless!). And I'd take those in a heartbeat over an old RED. 

The demographic which owning "a RED" appeals to them are low/no budget music video directors and indie features. And there is no money in those, are those really clients you want to be targeting? 

 

41 minutes ago, kye said:

That caught my eye too.

The thing that made me really curious was that he said that on the BMPCC "that image signal crosses other things 23 times on that one board, and in those 23 crossings every time it crosses it gets a noise reduction afterwards because otherwise it would be a completely unrecognisable image afterwards".

This makes no sense to me, from my understanding and experience in designing and building digital circuit boards, so according to my understanding the statement is completely wrong.  However, I trust that the statement is correct, because the source is infinitely more knowledgeable than I am.  There is obviously something there that I don't understand (likely a great many things!) and this is something that isn't talked about anywhere.

My guess is that "noise reduction" isn't quite the exact term that should be used. 

In digital systems we tend to think of everything flying around as either zeros or ones. But that isn't quite true! (in a very abstract sense it is true, which is why we think about it like this, as it makes the world a lot easier to understand and to work with)

In reality, it's different voltage levels which are being sent around, with one voltage level being "one" and the other being "zero". 

But what if you get a voltage that isn't either of those two voltage levels? (due to for instance crisscrossing paths resulting in some randomly rare interferences between them) Then you'll round it up/down to the nearest correct voltage level, and assume that is the signal that was meant to be sent. 

This might be what he's meaning by saying "noise reduction". It's very much the wrong terminology (unless you're thinking in a very abstract sense? Such as the final image. But we're not, we're discussing signal flow here), I'd call this error correction or signal conditioning. 

You have to remember that Joel has zero formal background in engineering/physics. He's got a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Film and Painting.

(however, this is very much the area of physics I did at uni. One of my mates who was my lab partner way back in first year even, that we then went through uni together, actually has now been working for Apple for the past decade as one of their camera engineers) 

  

41 minutes ago, kye said:

RAW isn't so RAW after all.....

Never was. There are a lot of corrections / processing which it is better to do in camera.  (for instance at the fundamental level, you're always going to be taking an analog input and transforming it into a digital output. Once you've done that, is it truly truly "raw"? haha) 

[kye]

 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I take the brutal business perspective from this:

99.99% of clients won't be able to tell the differences in which a RED MX (or Dragon) image is "better".  (even assuming this is true... and not a placebo effect) 

That's not a brutal business perspective.  This is a brutal business perspective - clients will absolutely be able to tell the difference between buying the better camera and buying the cheapest one and spending the extra on training.  Training on lighting, composition, movement, etc.  

In terms of what is "better"...  in that much referenced blind test with the GH4 in it, many of the Hollywood pros preferred the GH4 over high-end cinema cameras.  Talking about the difference between two RED sensors is fine, but trying to apply that difference to the real world is preposterous.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

My guess is that "noise reduction" isn't quite the exact term that should be used. 

Well, it's one of the following:

• Processing in the analog domain before the ADC occurs
• Noise reduction or other operations that occur in the digital domain that DO change the digital output
• Noise reduction or other operations that occur in the digital domain that DO NOT change the digital output

The last one is simple error correction, and will be invisible.  

If it's the first one, then it makes sense to do noise reduction, but (to be perfectly honest), if you have 23 crossings in between your sensor and the ADC chip then you deserve to be fired from the entire industry, and probably would be because the image would look like ISO 10 billion.

This leaves the middle one, which is explicitly what ARRI are doing, so that's what I think we should be talking about.

[QuickHitRecord]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The demographic which owning "a RED" appeals to them are low/no budget music video directors and indie features. And there is no money in those, are those really clients you want to be targeting? 

You're right, there's no money to be made. At least not in 2023. I don't even bother mentioning to my existing clients that I have two older Red bodies. If I do, it's basically to sell them on my C70s. And honestly, if hired me to use them without a crew, it would be a pain and more stressful to me without the conveniences of modern features.

Also, I don't want to be hired for a passion project based on my camera. So I don't bring it up when networking with people in the local indie scene, unless they specifically ask.

All of this being said, I enjoy owning the camera that produces footage that just looks right to me. And it will be ready to go when I finally helm another of my own passion projects.

[IronFilm]

49 minutes ago, kye said:

That's not a brutal business perspective.  This is a brutal business perspective - clients will absolutely be able to tell the difference between buying the better camera and buying the cheapest one and spending the extra on training.  Training on lighting, composition, movement, etc.  

With the massive amount of free or low cost info online, not necessary to spend that much, or anything at all. 

Instead spend a more minimal amount on gear, put the rest in the bank, so then you have the financial flexibility that you can take on those more creative projects to push yourself and learn more. 

49 minutes ago, kye said:

In terms of what is "better"...  in that much referenced blind test with the GH4 in it, many of the Hollywood pros preferred the GH4 over high-end cinema cameras.  Talking about the difference between two RED sensors is fine, but trying to apply that difference to the real world is preposterous.

Indeed, nobody is putting up untouched images side by side, zoomed in, to compare against each other. 

That's not how the final product is presented to the consumer. 

49 minutes ago, kye said:

The last one is simple error correction, and will be invisible.  

Not necessarily so. I dunno what specific voltages they're using, but let's normalize it and presume you're talking about 0 or 1

If you get 0.6, what do you do? You say it was 1

But what if it was actually a 0?

Error correction by definition won't be perfect. There are not enough atoms in the universe for that. All you can do is reduce down the odds so that it is low enough to be acceptable for your use cases. (two of my third year math papers were on error corrections! Well, that and other applications of graph theory and combinatorial mathematics, such as compression codecs. I took these: https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/326 & https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/328 That's basically what I did in my degree, Physics with an emphasis on electronics especially optoelectronics, plus also Mathematics which was a mix of more the Computer Science side of mathematics + Numerical Computing)

49 minutes ago, kye said:

If it's the first one, then it makes sense to do noise reduction, but (to be perfectly honest)

Again I say, I feel "noise reduction" is bad terminology here. 

Be more precise, unlike Joel who was being sloppy. 

Are you meaning black shading calibration? That's not the same as noise reduction. 

Maybe the calibrations they do at the factory are in the analog domain, but what the user does in the field would definitely be in the digital domain. 

 

49 minutes ago, kye said:

if you have 23 crossings in between your sensor and the ADC chip then you deserve to be fired from the entire industry, and probably would be because the image would look like ISO 10 billion.

Deserved to be fired? Nah. Not necessarily. Depends on how well insulated and thus independent each pathway is from each other. Getting one error per hundred quadrillion? Nobody cares. One error in ten? Then yeah, go be fired, and then burn in the fires of hell. 

49 minutes ago, kye said:

This leaves the middle one, which is explicitly what ARRI are doing, so that's what I think we should be talking about.

Everyone does that. 

  

28 minutes ago, QuickHitRecord said:

All of this being said, I enjoy owning the camera that produces footage that just looks right to me. And it will be ready to go when I finally helm another of my own passion projects.

Yup, buy older REDs for yourself. 

It makes as much sense as buying a Sony F35. 

Or a set of golf clubs. 

Or a Time Trail bike to race your local triathlon with. (oh hi me) 

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

99.99% of clients won't be able to tell the difference

In photography at least, for sure and no one ever asks you what camera you use.

Until recently (last couple of years on this forum) I did not realise what a big thing it seems to be in the video/filmmaking world where you can be hired or not based in the tools you have.

My rule of thumb is which is the least pain in the arse and also gives me the greater joy to use.

I’ve never used nor probably never will use a RED so would choose the C70 just on sheer use ability.

But what do I know…

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

In photography at least, for sure and no one ever asks you what camera you use.

I think it does matter, but only at the very high end (which only exists in major cities, when shooting major campaigns for major brands). When they might expect certain medium format cameras. But I think 

Oh, and also matters if getting hired as a sports photographer for major sporting events. Then there is an expectation you'll have say a Nikon D6 or Sony A9mk3 (or at the very least an older generation high speed sports camera, nothing less than say a Nikon D3S or Nikon D500, just to give a couple of examples). 

Also, I guess at the low end too, but only when you're coming in as a second shooter say for weddings (or other event coverage), and the primary shooter really wants you to have the same brand (and probably similar-ish generation) as theirs. As they'll be doing all the edits for delivery to the bride, and they don't want to learn how to deal with yet another type of camera files. As they've got their speedy workflow dialed in perfectly for their particular camera model. If they're a Canon shooter, they want another Canon fanboy. No Nikons! (and likewise for Nikon shooters, they want another Nikon user)

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Until recently (last couple of years on this forum) I did not realise what a big thing it seems to be in the video/filmmaking world where you can be hired or not based in the tools you have.

Indeed. There is a massive world of difference between a mirrorless camera owner vs Sony FX6 owner vs ALEXA Mini owner. 

Unless.. they're a DoP who is at the level where they don't even own a camera, this all gets handled by the rental house and their ACs. 

[kye]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

With the massive amount of free or low cost info online, not necessary to spend that much, or anything at all. 

Instead spend a more minimal amount on gear, put the rest in the bank, so then you have the financial flexibility that you can take on those more creative projects to push yourself and learn more. 

Indeed, nobody is putting up untouched images side by side, zoomed in, to compare against each other. 

That's not how the final product is presented to the consumer. 

Not necessarily so. I dunno what specific voltages they're using, but let's normalize it and presume you're talking about 0 or 1

If you get 0.6, what do you do? You say it was 1

But what if it was actually a 0?

Error correction by definition won't be perfect. There are not enough atoms in the universe for that. All you can do is reduce down the odds so that it is low enough to be acceptable for your use cases. (two of my third year math papers were on error corrections! Well, that and other applications of graph theory and combinatorial mathematics, such as compression codecs. I took these: https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/326 & https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/328 That's basically what I did in my degree, Physics with an emphasis on electronics especially optoelectronics, plus also Mathematics which was a mix of more the Computer Science side of mathematics + Numerical Computing)

Again I say, I feel "noise reduction" is bad terminology here. 

Be more precise, unlike Joel who was being sloppy. 

Are you meaning black shading calibration? That's not the same as noise reduction. 

Maybe the calibrations they do at the factory are in the analog domain, but what the user does in the field would definitely be in the digital domain. 

 

Deserved to be fired? Nah. Not necessarily. Depends on how well insulated and thus independent each pathway is from each other. Getting one error per hundred quadrillion? Nobody cares. One error in ten? Then yeah, go be fired, and then burn in the fires of hell. 

Everyone does that. 

  

Yup, buy older REDs for yourself. 

It makes as much sense as buying a Sony F35. 

Or a set of golf clubs. 

Or a Time Trail bike to race your local triathlon with. (oh hi me) 

I think we're getting off track here.

1) The first job is getting the signal converted to digital.  I pulled up a few random spec sheets on Sony sensors of different sizes and they all had ADC built into the sensor, and they specifically state they're outputting digital from the sensor.  This effectively takes analog interference out of the design process, unless you're designing the sensor, which almost no-one is.

2) I am talking specifically about error correction.  To be specific, to send digital data in such a way that even with errors in transmission the errors can be detected and corrected.  The ability to send digital data between chips without it getting errors in it is fundamental, and if you can't do it then the product is just as likely to get errors in the most-significant-bits as the least-significant-bits, which would effectively add white noise to the image at full signal strength.

3) I was saying that the deliberate manipulation of the digital signal before writing it to the card as non-de-bayered data (ie, RAW) is the area that I didn't know existed and might be where some of the non-tangible differences are.  Certainly it's something to be looked into more.

4) Going back to the idea of spending money on training, I stand by that.  Here's the problem - there is good info available for free online, but it's mixed in with ten tonnes of garbage and half-truths.  How do you tell the difference?  You can't, unless you already know the answer.  So, how do you get past this impasse?  You pay money to a reputable organisation for training... 
To be frank, the majority of benefit I got from the various training courses I've purchased has probably been from un-learning the vast quantity of crap that I swallowed from people who looked like they knew what they were doing online but really had just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

[zlfan]

the brand of red is gradually out of fashion now. but there is no denial old reds esp mysterium-x and dragon sensors have their mojos, just like f35, alexa ev. 

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I think it does matter, but only at the very high end

Probably/most certainly but then anyone shooting high fashion etc is already shooting medium format and anyone shooting sports, is already shooting Z9/R3, has all the hugely expensive long lenses because you NEED this kit.

With video/filmmaking I guess it’s partly necessity and a bit of sobbery? “Oh, you don’t own 3 Buranos? We could not possibly consider you”.

Photo I reckon it’s just expected but video sounds like they ask?

It doesn’t affect me so not an issue but interesting…

[IronFilm]

17 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

With video/filmmaking I guess it’s partly necessity and a bit of sobbery? “Oh, you don’t own 3 Buranos? We could not possibly consider you”.

Ha! I don't think anybody owns individually 3x Sony BURANOs

But if you're part of a wide production, say just shooting a few days on a doco or coming in as an extra camera on reality tv series or doing a pick up day on a feature film, then yes, what camera you are using is very important.

As you're just one small cog in a bigger machine. (maybe that's one of the big differences vs a lot of photography, there is no "machine". Or if there is, the photographer is a much bigger cog in the machine, or even more likely the driver of it)

 

17 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Photo I reckon it’s just expected but video sounds like they ask?

It doesn’t affect me so not an issue but interesting…

I'd say there is are two very different classes of DoP:

Those who own a camera vs those who don't and just rent in the cameras for a project as is necessary. (although, anybody owning an ARRI ALEXA Mini kinda fits into that second category. Just the difference is whenever they want they can access "a free rental" of their Mini from the rental house where it is being stored. As they probably won't have it being stored at home, or at least that's been the case with people who I know who own one)

And those in that first category are very much so are broken up into different tiers depending on what sort of camera they have. 

Side note: there are people in the second category who own a camera, but still sit in the "second category" because that's how they portray themselves and do most of their work as. Their RED Raven or Sony a7S or whatever that they own is merely just their play thing, and something to do occasional passion projects with. So even though they own "the same" camera as someone in category one, they're still in a very different position, as their personal camera isn't one they daily work with. It's almost more like their hobby camera. 

[MrSMW]

50 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

As you're just one small cog in a bigger machine. (maybe that's one of the big differences vs a lot of photography, there is no "machine". Or if there is, the photographer is a much bigger cog in the machine, or even more likely the driver of it)

I suspect that is it and it makes a lot of sense why you might be asked what tools you might bring to the party for a filming gig whereas nobody asks, or just assumes (that you have suitable tools) for photo work.

At least I have never been asked in 23 years.

[kye]

Hidden camera footage of how people react to a small lens being used...  the judgement is real.

 

[zlfan]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Hidden camera footage of how people react to a small lens being used...  the judgement is real.

 

I have personal experience confirming this. Once I shot a famous local scene site using 5d3 ml raw plus a b4 cine lens with a matt box. A group of travelers were very impressed and one of them said "such an impressive big camera". Notice them mentioned camera not lens not matt box.  

[kye]

1 hour ago, zlfan said:

I have personal experience confirming this. Once I shot a famous local scene site using 5d3 ml raw plus a b4 cine lens with a matt box. A group of travelers were very impressed and one of them said "such an impressive big camera". Notice them mentioned camera not lens not matt box.  

I'm pretty sure there are only 4 types of cameras:

Movie cameras: these are what they use to make movies

Big cameras, which are used by "professional photographers" or rich tourists

Cameras, which are used by normal tourists use to take photos

and phones, which are used by adults to take photos of the family:

or by millennials when they're awake and have left the house:

 

There is another type of camera though.  

When you take any camera and point it at yourself in public, you instantly turn into a narcissist and the size of the camera no longer fits into the above categories, but is an indicator of how much better you are than everyone else: