Red Weapon Top of Food Chain???

[FilmMan]

Shane Hurlbut seems to think highly of the Red now.  More to come in the near future.  Out of most of our price range.  Cheers.

https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/03/red-dragon-test-part-1-basic/

[enny]

sold my red one mx why to big and even the screw on that camera cost 200 dollars wanted to use canon lens canon mount 2000 dollars

[jcs]

Referencing Oblivion and Lucy, the F65 is top of the food chain for color and skintones (Luc Besson and his DP reached the same conclusion). The ARRI 65 looks interesting- expect it to be very competitive. For ease of use and the most foolproof color, ARRI is top of the food chain (check the cameras used in all the Oscar winners for the last few years).

For Shane's test referenced above, the Dragon was noisier and the skin tones look better on the C500. Didn't see anything showing better performance vs. ARRI for skin tones or highlight rolloff. The Dragon sensor and software upgrades are certainly a step in the right direction for Red, and the Weapon looks to continue that trend. Red cameras are priced right for their performance level (looks like the ARRI 65 is $10k/day (rental only)). Sony has improved the F55 with firmware/LUTs (including matching Alexa skintones), and expect Sony to be competitive at the Red price range (above and below as well). Panasonic's Varicam 35 doesn't get much love, but the skintones looked pretty good from what I've seen so far.

Some friends are moving away from Red after the latest branding- "Weapon" and skulls, etc. Weapon & skulls might be good branding for firearms/motorcycles, but seems odd for a camera company.

[j.f.r.]

Referencing Oblivion and Lucy, the F65 is top of the food chain for color and skintones (Luc Besson and his DP reached the same conclusion). The ARRI 65 looks interesting- expect it to be very competitive. For ease of use and the most foolproof color, ARRI is top of the food chain (check the cameras used in all the Oscar winners for the last few years).

For Shane's test referenced above, the Dragon was noisier and the skin tones look better on the C500. Didn't see anything showing better performance vs. ARRI for skin tones or highlight rolloff. The Dragon sensor and software upgrades are certainly a step in the right direction for Red, and the Weapon looks to continue that trend. Red cameras are priced right for their performance level (looks like the ARRI 65 is $10k/day (rental only)). Sony has improved the F55 with firmware/LUTs (including matching Alexa skintones), and expect Sony to be competitive at the Red price range (above and below as well). Panasonic's Varicam 35 doesn't get much love, but the skintones looked pretty good from what I've seen so far.

Some friends are moving away from Red after the latest branding- "Weapon" and skulls, etc. Weapon & skulls might be good branding for firearms/motorcycles, but seems odd for a camera company.

​

You really can't say this....... RED CAMERAS are generally used on every single movie for Resolution and High Speed , so in a way they are top of the food chain for that alone. "House Of Cars" is shot on RED, the new "Dare Devil" movie as well + countless other projects. May films use Sony Cameras because a lot of them are funded by Sony..........

 

At the end of the day all of these cameras are great and RED is basically a new camera when compared to Sony/Arri so it takes time to fully get your feet in the door.

[jcs]

Hey j.f.r, if we want to be objective, top of the food chain means best of the best. Hurlbut's article via the OP was about skin tones & color, AOT HFR. House of Cards doesn't look very compelling for color & skin tone quality. Marco Polo, shot on the F55 didn't look very good either in the beginning, but looked better in later episodes (different DPs & directors throughout the series). How do we measure something that can be very subjective? By looking at what cameras were used to win Oscars: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/which-cameras-were-used-on-the-oscar-nominated-films-of-2014 . For 2014 the A-cameras were ARRI (Alexa or film). I rate the F65 higher than the Alexa for the same reason Besson and his DP did: it provides the best color and skin tones. Why wasn't the F65 used much in Hollywood? Because it is physically an ugly camera (per Besson's DP; absurd but apparently true). They looked past that and tested all the top cameras, and went with the F65. I don't know how hard it is to make an F65 look good, but I do know it's relatively easy with an Alexa, yet another reason it is used so much. Ease of use and reliability put some cameras much higher than others (regardless of image quality). Red makes fine cameras for the price, however Sony, Panasonic, and ARRI make cameras which provide higher image quality, are much easier to use, are more reliable, at similar and higher price points. No one would spend extra for an Alexa over Red if the quality wasn't there. While the F65 has the best skin tones and color, the Alexa is the top of the food chain in Hollywood for the simple fact that it's the most used high end camera when budgets can afford it. A combination of great skin tones & color quality, usability, and ease of getting said great color & skin tones in post.

Besson used a bunch of Reds for the car chase in Lucy because they couldn't find more F65s in Europe (they had to purchase 2 F65s of their own- none were available for rental). Reds, 5Ds, C300s, etc. are fine cameras for many purposes, but they are not top of the food chain for skin tones and image quality as A-cameras. For HFR, Phantom is top of the food chain (ARRI also provides excellent HFR).

[AaronChicago]

You can have a "top of the food chain" in a specs comparison, but if you're judging by beautiful images just look at the past 4 years of Best Cinematography Oscars. Hint: Arri Alexa.

[dbp]

The Alexa definitely seems to have some secret sauce that appeals to DPs, particularly in the highlight handling.

I've never used these cameras but from reading a lot on reduser, workflow plays a big role. The ease and familiarity of the Alexa workflow can be huge for producers. 

[jcs]

The Alexa definitely seems to have some secret sauce that appeals to DPs, particularly in the highlight handling.

I've never used these cameras but from reading a lot on reduser, workflow plays a big role. The ease and familiarity of the Alexa workflow can be huge for producers. 

Part of ​ARRI's secret sauce is their camera ergonomics and menu system: very easy to use and widely praised. Compare the Red menu system: great for technophiles, but with so much complexity, it's not easy to use. I've seen very experienced Red operators hunt around for menu settings. These seconds and minutes add up during production while everyone waits- time is money and it also gets on the cast & crews nerves waiting for something that really shouldn't require waiting. Capturing a scene without highlight or shadow clipping with maximum flexibility in post is the most efficient workflow: ARRI is currently the best. ARRI's ProRes files easily compete with Red's raw files and are much faster & easier to work with in post. ARRI now provides 50Mbps 422 MPEG2 for broadcast work! Smaller files are faster to work with and cheaper in the long run. Sony's XAVC (H.264 422 10-bit) available from the FS7 and up is very efficient and useful. H.264 with 444 12-bit would be another useful option. H.265 provides twice the efficiency of H.264 and can also support 444 and 10+ bits. Even without using a GPU, current H.265 decoders easily run much faster than real-time on current computers. The trend is clear, even at the high end, compressed codecs are replacing raw (which is Red's case is lightly wavelet compressed Bayer data).

In terms of image quality vs. resolution, for Skyfall's 4K they could have shot Red 5K and scaled down, instead they shot on Alexa and scaled up from ~3K. ARRI has years of experience with film cameras and digital film scanners: their cameras produce the most film-like images possible. That said, the F65 is less film like and more... something else- addictive color for the eyes, perhaps different in the way Technicolor 3 strip was compared to Kodak film:

The F65 is of course different from Technicolor 3 strip; the point is the color rendering makes you stare at the beauty of it. ARRI, Canon, Red, Sony, Panasonic (even the NX1!) can produce this kind of color, however Oblivion & Lucy (even After Earth's F65 shots) look different than other cameras (perhaps not better if wanting a film look, but the color is amazingly addictive).

[Oliver Daniel]

RED Weapon, Alexa, F65 etc are not at the top of the food chain. It's the person behind the camera and whatever is in front of it.  At the least, that's how I like to think of it.

[Policar]

I don't like the F65's look. The Alexa renders colors much more nicely, but I suppose with less detail.

The Dragon is a huge improvement from a color and highlight rendering perspective over the MX, which is really pretty bad. 

Wait until NAB. I have no insider knowledge on the Weapon, but I do know what some other companies are introducing and there's going to be some very amazing products pushing things in exciting new directions. 

I wish I had a lot more money now than I have right now.

[Ed_David]

I don't like the F65's look. The Alexa renders colors much more nicely, but I suppose with less detail.

The Dragon is a huge improvement from a color and highlight rendering perspective over the MX, which is really pretty bad. 

Wait until NAB. I have no insider knowledge on the Weapon, but I do know what some other companies are introducing and there's going to be some very amazing products pushing things in exciting new directions. 

I wish I had a lot more money now than I have right now.

​Wait until - no don't wait.  The Sony F35 has amazing color and motion and you can get it for around $8k on ebay.

F65 I love what I say of it in the theatre.

But I also love the red look in the theathre.

and I love the look of the red one mx - so you can already get amazing results.

Stop waiting for the next and greatest - it's already there - buy used.

[Policar]

​Wait until - no don't wait.  The Sony F35 has amazing color and motion and you can get it for around $8k on ebay.

F65 I love what I say of it in the theatre.

But I also love the red look in the theathre.

and I love the look of the red one mx - so you can already get amazing results.

Stop waiting for the next and greatest - it's already there - buy used.

​I say "wait" with specific inside information into both exhibition and acquisition. The next generation of cameras will be a real step up and announced in a month. I'm not saying "wait" as a broad recommendation. I mean it very specifically for those who can afford what's coming next.

The Red MX delivers awful color, tonality, and highlight rendering. Horrible low light and tungsten performance. Dreadful imagery, lifeless, and a pain to work with still. If that's good enough for you, though, fine. But I'd steer clear unless you need 4k for really cheap. 

You're broadly right, however. The upcoming announcements won't make the F35 any less awesome than it was 10 years ago. And fwiw, the Alexa will still be tops after NAB. Or at least close to it. But what's coming next is worth waiting for. Unless you're someone who's blind enough to think the MX produces a good image.  

[Ed_David]

​I say "wait" with specific inside information into both exhibition and acquisition. The next generation of cameras will be a real step up and announced in a month. I'm not saying "wait" as a broad recommendation. I mean it very specifically for those who can afford what's coming next.

The Red MX delivers awful color, tonality, and highlight rendering. Horrible low light and tungsten performance. Dreadful imagery, lifeless, and a pain to work with still. If that's good enough for you, though, fine. But I'd steer clear unless you need 4k for really cheap. 

You're broadly right, however. The upcoming announcements won't make the F35 any less awesome than it was 10 years ago. And fwiw, the Alexa will still be tops after NAB. Or at least close to it. But what's coming next is worth waiting for. Unless you're someone who's blind enough to think the MX produces a good image.  

​I have heard that one so many times.

It was the Red Epic.

then the red dragon.

then the blackmagic cinema camera.

once a camera is announced, then it takes about 12 months for the firmware to get the camera up to to speed - so it's about a 2 year process.

so why not just own an older camera that has all its problems figured out.  and then get that brand new camera one year later, used, for cheaper, with its problems figured out.  Not just be a beta tester for something that isn't perfect.

 

[Policar]

I'm not trying to argue with you because I am not much of a fan of Red, Black Magic, etc. or even Sony's undercooked products... I was on one of the early F5 features and that thing was a mess out of the gate. But I think Canon and Arri have gotten it nearly perfect out of the gate. The C300 was a first-gen product that was useable even with its first firmware. Same with the Alexa. Both might have been under-specced, but they shot to known codecs so they were useable in post from day one, too.

Some places innovate and still get it right. Those cameras were useable from day one.

I don't mean to argue with you because that's all good advice in theory... just... if you're thinking of placing an order for a $10k-$30k camera system now and can rent in the interim, wait until after NAB.

[dbp]

 

so why not just own an older camera that has all its problems figured out.  and then get that brand new camera one year later, used, for cheaper, with its problems figured out.  Not just be a beta tester for something that isn't perfect.

 

​True words. Its nice watching other people guinea pig stuff. The BMPCC was rough out of the gate, but a lot of the problems have been ironed out at this point. Good time to buy. Cameras are also going to take longer to become obsolete at this point. 

As long as 1080p is a popular delivery format, something like a Canon C300 will be viable for a long time to come, even if newer and better tech emerges. 

[Policar]

There are dimensions other than resolution to be explored. The C300 will be viable for delivery to 95% of clients for a very very long time, but when it becomes dated, it won't be because of its lack of resolution. The 1080p out of that thing looks sharper than the Alexa's 2.8k, which is already sharper than 35mm film, which is already sharp enough. Of course the ability to reframe that 4k provides is pretty nice.

2k is already sharper than the human eye can see on any tv screen less than 80" (at normal viewing distances) and any seat not in the first third of a theater. There's a reason the leap from SD to HD was huge but not from HD to 4k except when you look closely at the screen as you do with an iPhone or laptop. We've already gone about as far as we can go toward matching the human eye's spatial resolution.  Retina screens caught on because of how close you hold them but for theatrical exhibition and televisions, 2k is good enough. Completely. Not for IMAX or whatever, though, or for massive home projectors or 80''+ tvs. There's a market for which 4k matters, it's just not big. Ironically, if it catches on anywhere it will be on computers phones. Small screens held close. Not big.

Spatially, the eye can see about 60fps before it all blurs together and everything looks equally smooth. 24fps has caught on aesthetically, but slow motion is quite popular and HFR may catch on after Avatar 2. This is a dimension that might be explored further and that the C300, for instance, can't really push far into. 

We can see gobs more DR than any camera or tv currently produces or captures. This is somewhere more worthy of exploration than the jump from HD to 4k.

FF/Vistavision isn't just great for using cheap vintage still lenses and cheap still lenses in general. It also provides a large enough sensor to shoot proper anamorphic, something currently only the higher-specced Alexas and A7S can do properly.

rec709 is a very tiny gamut. This is another dimension that is worthy of being expanded upon. rec2020 is coming.

Low light will just improve more and more. Skew decrease more and more.

There are much more exciting things than the jump from 1080p to 4k on the horizon. And closer than most realize...

Again, I'm just saying if your finger is hovering over that F5 or FS7 buy button and you don't need it for a project in the next month...

 

...hold off a little longer. It's worth it.

[neosushi]

2k is already sharper than the human eye can see on any tv screen less than 80" (at normal viewing distances) and any seat not in the first third of a theater. There's a reason the leap from SD to HD was huge but not from HD to 4k except when you look closely at the screen as you do with an iPhone or laptop. We've already gone about as far as we can go toward matching the human eye's spatial resolution.  

​Could you give a source for this statement please ?  

[Policar]

http://cdn.referencehometheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg?dfb8f9

Ten feet is the average viewing distance.

If you need 4k get it. If your clients are demanding it they demand it. I have 20/15 vision and can't tell the difference on my reference-level plasma against the Sony 4k LCDs I've seen EXCEPT WHEN VIEWING SMALL TEXT UP CLOSE or at the Arclight, which is about as good a screening facility as you'll find, except possibly when reading text the edges are enhanced in 4k.

Sharpness is based on local contrast and resolution, both about equally important.

The contrast ratio of a very high end screen is about 1000:1, ten stops. Movie theaters less. (The best plasmas approach 10000:1, but there are no 4k plasmas.) The eye can see maybe nearly twenty stops of DR. That's a contrast ratio of a million to one.

With a screen larger than 80'' at closer than ten feet, 4k might improve your perceived sharpness by as much as a factor of two (in each dimension) if you have perfect vision and perfect source material.

Whereas higher contrast screens can improve your perceived sharpness by a factor of a thousand.

Those of you who've shot 4x5 Velvia will undoubtedly know how much sharper it looks than any digital presentation of an image--when it's on the light table. But that has more to do with its higher DMAX than it does with its greater sharpness. Sharp as 4x5 is, the IQ80 matches it. The contrast ratio of a computer monitor doesn't match a light table, however.

[Policar]

*I used sharpness and resolution interchangeably in the above paragraph. So dumb. What I meant is that contrast and resolution equal sharpness. And one needs more work than the rest. 

There are so many factors it's all just what you want.

[neosushi]

Thanks, it is really interesting. 

However there is another parameter I think is being left from the equation, imo: Viewing full hd on a 4k screen. Meaning upscaling.

Choosing a resolution based on the distance of an audience and a screen size is one thing. It means that you have a controlled environment. 

 But 99% of the time you won't. And by controlled environment I mean for example the fact that more and more of our customers / consumers will be watching our work on 4k and more screens. I know I have said this several times now on eoshd.com, but most of us when we debate about 4k vs full hd, we don't take into consideration the fact that in one year, most people we will be showing our work to, will be watching it on a 4K or even 5k monitor (imac for ex.). 

Prior to having my 5k imac I didn't think much of 4K except for the stabilisation, global increase in quality, etc. But if I start to think in terms of: my work will be seen on a 4K or 5K screen, then there is no way, that I'm delivering 1080p. 

But I agree that if you compare a 1080p footage on a 1080p screen vs a 4K footage on a 4K screen, you will see the difference only from a certain distance / screen size. It is logic and it is also something I notice on my screen.  Thanks for sharing this table with us btw