Yet another flawed test...............

[Stephen Williams]

Interestingly Mr Charters was an early adopter or the RED One camera.

http://vimeo.com/13352311

[Keith Walters]

Interestingly Mr Charters was an early adopter or the RED One camera.

http://vimeo.com/13352311

A handycam shot of a monitor screen??!

(Or from the Jello-cam effect, possible a digital stills camera in video mode)

And then when they zoom in for a closer look, the handycam (or whatever) activates its auto-iris or AGC or whatever, and - what ho - we see the over-exposure isn't quite as bad after all.

 

The only valid test is what comes out the other end after your post team has done the very best they can with the raw footage. However, at least this guy has made some effort to equalize the shots as far as possible.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a much better test would be to set both irises wide open, and see how much ND needs to be put in the matte boxes to get a decent picture, how much shadow detail gets lost when the windows are exposed correctly and so on.

 

I'm sure plenty of people have already have already done such tests, but are keeping the results for their own consumption, since they see no need to expose themselves to Pro-RED flack.

 

I think this test is somewhat surious anyway. Obviously we all know the Alexa is going to be the better camera because its German, has a cooler name and it's well, Arri, but there's no need to rub it in quite like this, surely. :lol:

[Phil Rhodes]

Not quite sure what's going on here.

 

My default assumption, having used neither, is that Alexa is a nicer piece of kit. It seems its monitor output is considerably in advance of Red's, possibly because it's designed to do a much more competent onboard debayer.

 

But isn't this rather missing the point?

 

P

[Ken Willinger]

The HD-SDI output on the Red from what I understand is for monitoring only and does not represent what the camera is actually recording. Seems to be a very flawed test IMO and quite unfair of Rodney to post such a stunt in the first place. If you're going to do a test and have the kits available, do it correctly. What was posted seemed meant to be inflammatory and is BS. It shows nothing.

[Phil Rhodes]

On the other hand the purpose of the test could simply be to demonstrate that Red's monitoring output is rubbish.

 

Which it is.

 

P

[John Sprung]

The last thing Charters says on the tape is something like we'll have to wait and see what we have in post. Absolutely right. I hope he can post what he gets out of post.

 

Having a superior monitor image does help when you have suits on the set. If it looks good to them, you don't have to make explanations they might not believe.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.