Red V F23

[Stephen Williams]

Did somebody get charged for this information? Whatever happened to being grateful for somebody's troubles to share something, with strangers no less!

 

Nobody is declaring any of these tests as being definitive. They're just sharing their observations with others who don't have access to the equipment. I don't think anybody has a right to tell them what tests to do unless you are paying for the rental or piece of equipment. Just be grateful people with varying levels of skill are sharing anything.

 

Hi,

 

I am surprised how few people actually bother to test equipment themselves.

 

Stephen

[Seung Han]

Is it laziness and relying on test results posted on the internet? :lol:

[David Mullen ASC]

If you don't own your own equipment, organizing a decent test, especially a two-camera comparison test or film vs. digital test, is a major pain in the a--. It's like putting together a commercial or short film. I think the ASC Tech committee spent a year planning for the STEM material test and then a year posting it (not continuous time, but volunteer time, which is why it took so long.)

 

This is why I tend not to give people a hard time after watching their tests about what they decided to test or how thorough they were -- if I'm not prepared to do the same, I can hardly complain if others don't. Unless they make inaccurate statements or conclusions based on their test.

 

I'd like to do a simple RED vs. 35mm test with the same lens on both cameras, preferable a Zeiss Master Prime. I'd have to get a 35mm camera in top-notch shape, the Zeiss Master Prime, a RED camera, a roll of 35mm film, processing, and then scanning to 4K. (This doesn't include possible lights and some test subjects.)

 

Then I'd have to get a D.I. facility willing to help me look at the RED material (so they'd have to be able to convert the RED files) and the scanned 35mm on a big screen so I can see the differences as I color-correct.

 

That last bit is the hardest. I think I'd get as far as the roll of film (which I could probably get for free), maybe pay for processing it, and then be stuck with it looking for a friendly, generous D.I. facility not doing anything at the moment.

[Seung Han]

If you don't own your own equipment, organizing a decent test, especially a two-camera comparison test or film vs. digital test, is a major pain in the a--. It's like putting together a commercial or short film. I think the ASC Tech committee spent a year planning for the STEM material test and then a year posting it (not continuous time, but volunteer time, which is why it took so long.)

 

This is why I tend not to give people a hard time after watching their tests about what they decided to test or how thorough they were -- if I'm not prepared to do the same, I can hardly complain if others don't. Unless they make inaccurate statements or conclusions based on their test.

 

I'd like to do a simple RED vs. 35mm test with the same lens on both cameras, preferable a Zeiss Master Prime. I'd have to get a 35mm camera in top-notch shape, the Zeiss Master Prime, a RED camera, a roll of 35mm film, processing, and then scanning to 4K. (This doesn't include possible lights and some test subjects.)

 

Then I'd have to get a D.I. facility willing to help me look at the RED material (so they'd have to be able to convert the RED files) and the scanned 35mm on a big screen so I can see the differences as I color-correct.

 

That last bit is the hardest. I think I'd get as far as the roll of film (which I could probably get for free), maybe pay for processing it, and then be stuck with it looking for a friendly, generous D.I. facility not doing anything at the moment.

 

I can probably arrange this for you...but it would be Spring...and you'd have to come out to Seoul. ;)

[Mike Brennan]

From Claudios web site,

 

http://www.claudiomiranda.com/redvsf23/redvsf23.html

 

 

"This has become too political for my tastes. What I wanted was both parties to benefit and grow from these tests. Again both cameras offer a tremendous value to the industry. There are many shots the Red has an advantage over the F23 and visa versa. These tests are my own and it is my process on how I judge and how I choose to implement them in future jobs. This test only needs to satisfy myself. Everyone has their own tastes and needs to judge what is important for their task at hand.

 

Claudio"

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

Odd thing is that I would have expected that pattern in the F23, being a prism block camera -- I get that pattern all the time on the F900, so I figured it was an artifact of the prism block design (though in the case of the F900, it's worse because you get red, green, and blue patterns of dots in a grid pattern.) So now I'm going to take a guess and say it's an artifact of the low-pass filter? Because I can't explain the pattern of red circles in the grid pattern otherwise.

 

You also have to figure that the two cameras couldn't have been using the same lens, not that that explains the pattern, but it might explain other aspects of the flaring differences.

 

David the most obvious grid pattern internal reflection on early f900s and solved in f900s mark 3 1500s and f23 with what Sony called an improved optical assembly, is this is what you saw in Claudio's footage?

 

If it is you may be right in that a common factor with both cameras is the low pass filter.

 

If RED have solved it by moving the filter forward, Im curious if this is what Sony has done, anyone with a mark 1 and mark 3 f900 could measure distance of filter to mount? I had assumed that either the low pass was set at an angle or the prism was at a slight angle to reflect the problem out of frame.

 

I've had the effect on f900s with many lenses including a 101x shot of jet taking off with landing lights on

 

Knowing how some problems are solved is useful!

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Walter Graff]

These tests are my own and it is my process on how I judge and how I choose to implement them in future jobs. This test only needs to satisfy myself. Everyone has their own tastes and needs to judge what is important for their task at hand.

 

Hence why I say time and again that A/B comparisons are great ONLY for the person doing them. For anyone viewing these results as a gold standard they are getting only a piece of the information but making it a whole. While others can look at the tests and make opinions, they were not there, so don't know many things about the tests, how they were done, or what was being attempted in the exercise.

 

Yea, yell at me again, but I'll stand by this statement because time and again the same results of everyone but the tester who actually experienced it seem to be drawn. I know this because of tests I have shown people only to watch a telephone effect of misinformation and assumption begin once you give someone those pictures. Sort of like giving someone a photo of a body on the ground and a person standing next to it with a gun. Most folks will tell you it was a murder. Some will say it was a brother who picked up the gun after finding the body. Still another will say it was the person who shot in self defense. But none of them were there so can only make limited conclusions from the picture. You simply have to be at a test to really know what the testers results were and more importantly why.

[David Mullen ASC]

That only means tests are never definitive -- doesn't mean they can't be informative, if only to suggest what areas you may want to test yourself. Otherwise, if they weren't informative, I'd never watch a test or demo presentation, yet I see hundreds. The more the merrier. I just keep my conclusions limited after viewing someone else's tests, but I appreciate seeing them.

 

Just as a single test may not be definitive, and even a movie using a new process or format with thousands of shots will not be definitive, after a couple of movies with thousands of shots... well, it starts to add up and give you an idea of general tendancies and weaknesses of that particular format.

 

I mean, look at Claudio's test -- the red dot pattern from the sun flare is the first time I've seen that artifact in any RED footage. Now I have something to watch out for when shooting my own tests, something to consider.

 

Personally, I'd like to see more tests published. The problem isn't the tests, it's the tendency of people to misinterpret them. So it's the people looking at tests that need to make a mental adjustment, to be educated as to how to view them -- not the people shooting tests. The solution isn't to eliminate publishing of test results or to claim they are worthless. Even improperly-shot footage can teach you something about how the camera behaves. In fact, the problem with most tests is that they are too well shot! Most cameras behave fine if shot carefully, but that doesn't correspond to a lot of real life shooting situations.

[Max Jacoby]

I agree with David, I love seeing comparison tests and find them incredibly useful even if they were shot by other people. It's just a matter of knowing what exactly was tested and interpreting that data correctly, keeping in mind that no test is definite. I find one learns a lot when comparing different lenses, stocks, cameras with each other, it is much more informative than just testing one item and looking at it by itself. Also it's important to keep in mind that the technically best solution is not necessarily the artistically best solution for a given project.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, has any one seen Red footage projected from 35mm on the big screen?

 

Maybe this was already posted and I missed it?

 

I saw I Am Legend the other night and the projection was just beautiful, must have been a new print, not a single scratch or piece of dirt. Colour and grain where excellent. I would really like to see what Red looks like on 35mm and then projected, not what it looks like from a digital projector.

 

I'd also like to know at long last what the exact work flow is to go from Red footage, to off-line, to final film out. Again, if this was posted already, I missed it.

 

I noticed definite "issues" with Apocolypto both on the big screen and DVD. Looked nice mind you, although a few scenes had a definite "video" look and there was some "jerkyness" on pans and running shots.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Lens sharpness is one area where an A-B test is better than a stand-alone test, because you don't know if the post path or the viewing environment is showing you the real sharpness of a lens -- but in an A-B comparison, at least you can see relative sharpness if shot in the same conditions. This is one reason I prefer lens tests to have one "reference" shot on something like a Zeiss Master Prime, as a sort of baseline. If that lens looks soft, or if even a cheap lens looks just as sharp as a Zeiss Master Prime, that tells me something about the test itself.

 

Or the Kodak A-B comparison between 5219 and 5218. The differences are so subtle that relying on one's own memory of the grain structure of 5218 isn't going to suffice when judging the grain structure of the new 5219. Now you can say if the difference is so subtle you need an A-B comparison to bring it out, then it's not a difference that matters, and in many practical shooting situations, you'd be right. But it is still informative to know the difference because it may inform your decision-making, for example, if you had a project involving a lot of low-light underexposure and push-processing, where a stock that is slightly finer-grained would handle that better.

[John Sprung]

Just out of curiosity, has any one seen Red footage projected from 35mm on the big screen?

Yes, Jim Mathers of DCS has some tests he shot in Chicago. I saw them at CSUN a few months ago. Alas, the projector there wasn't in particularly good shape, lots of registration and focus issues.

 

http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ian Bloom]

Just out of curiosity, has any one seen Red footage projected from 35mm on the big screen?

 

Maybe this was already posted and I missed it?

 

I saw I Am Legend the other night and the projection was just beautiful, must have been a new print, not a single scratch or piece of dirt. Colour and grain where excellent. I would really like to see what Red looks like on 35mm and then projected, not what it looks like from a digital projector.

 

I'd also like to know at long last what the exact work flow is to go from Red footage, to off-line, to final film out. Again, if this was posted already, I missed it.

 

I noticed definite "issues" with Apocolypto both on the big screen and DVD. Looked nice mind you, although a few scenes had a definite "video" look and there was some "jerkyness" on pans and running shots.

 

R,

 

I've seen Red footage transferred to 35mm and projected in a large movie theatre. Upshot: It looked great, and had an incredible lack of grain. I saw some video looking highlights. But otherwise I was extremely impressed by the sharpness and color rendition of what I saw. I saw images that appear to me to have a similar "emotional quality" to 35mm.

 

Ian Bloom