PDA

View Full Version : AF100 vs. RED



NextWaveG
10-20-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't expect the AF100 to beat out the Red One in any chart or resolution tests...BUT, I do want to talk about the AF100 vs Red for a typical production/film company.

I've never shot on Red, but I do know several DPs who have and I've heard mixed reviews. Some love it, some hate it. One guy told me they never did a Red shoot without having to hire a Red tech just to make sure the camera would keep running during the shoot.

My point is, if you aren't doing extensive visual effects, green screen, or post work that would benefit from RAW 4K, would the AF100 be a better option? Not just from the point of camera rental cost, but also dependability, staffing, post workflow (editing HD over 4K) etc.

Jay Birch
10-20-2010, 12:30 PM
I think the old days of REDs crashing are much more limited.

If you can afford it and can cope with the workflow (which is easier now), it is the best option, especially MX.

If budgets are tight and/or you need fast turnaround, AF100 might be a better option.

carlweston
10-20-2010, 12:32 PM
I think the af-100 nano flash combo can compete with the red for many jobs where the final output is going to be 1080. The 7d and the 5d are already doing this.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 12:36 PM
This might seem a silly comparison on the surface, but at the core, it's really a good discussion. I agree that a lot of the early pains of the RED have been sorted out, and it's finding it's way into a lot more mainstream shoots these days. But honestly, even though the workflow is a lot easier these days, a micro-budget film might well be better served spending their money elsewhere. The AF100 is the first of it's kind and it may be more appropriate down the road to talk not about it per se, but about the coming genre of large sensor sub $10k cameras.

I think the AF100's biggest issue is going to be it's codec. We've lived with that codec for a while now, and understand the limitations. I was VERY disappointed to see this choice by Panasonic as I am sure others were too. And it means there will need to be an external video recorder attached to it. Something not really necessary with the RED, though it remains to be seen what others in the AF100 segment will do.

I think if I was going to re-shoot any of the movies I've done in the past two years, I'd be happy to shoot them on the AF100. More so than the RED due to cost and post considerations. However, if I had my choice and time and money were not a factor, I'd shoot the RED every time.

dmpsk8
10-20-2010, 12:42 PM
We shoot RED. It definitely has its advantages, especially for visual effects and heavy compositing. It's a killer when it comes to grading - the power of raw, wow!

That being said, its also overkill at times. To work efficiently it takes more people, and it can be slow. The size / weight of the R1 is annoying to deal with after tasting the speed and compactness of DSLRS (which we use very frequently). We were actually debating last week on shooting with the RED vs 5D for an upcoming project. For this particular shoot, the 5D won due to speed and the ability to use a small, light weight slider. We were going to have to rent a panther dolly if we went R1 - very cool but this also means logistics, money, size, slower.

I believe this will change quite a bit with the epic and scarlet, but so will the price tag. Overall, I think we're just as excited for the af-100 (price, workflow, compactness) as we are for the Epic (Raw 5K + frame rates). Different cams, each have their strong points. No one cam is perfect, and every project has its own specific needs.

Full disclosure, my personal cam will be an AF-100 come January unless something crazy happens over the next 2 months.

Homunculus
10-20-2010, 12:44 PM
I'll be honest AF100 compared to NON MX Red is going to be very close. I just shot a film with a director on hacked gh1 who did his previous film with the same actors on a Red non MX and I got to see it all together and my footage on hacked gh1 looks better than the nonMX Red footage so honestly I think AF100 will give non MX 2007 Red a run for its money.

Now MX $25,000 Red on the other hand with RPP's is another story

Postmaster
10-20-2010, 12:47 PM
...And it means there will need to be an external video recorder attached to it. Something not really necessary with the RED, .


Than try to record with a brain only. You always need some sort of recording module attached to a RED brain. RED Drive, RED RAM or RED Flash .


.....though it remains to be seen what others in the AF100 segment will do.


Yeah, I want to throw the DRAMA into that equation ,
Cheap media, uncompressed (priceless) and with fast and affordable c-mount lenses, about the same DOF as a full sensor.
The most underrated camera IMHO. Around 10000 Euro with monitor, media, lens, battery and charger.

Frank

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 12:52 PM
I've never shot on Red, but I do know several DPs who have and I've heard mixed reviews. Some love it, some hate it. One guy told me they never did a Red shoot without having to hire a Red tech just to make sure the camera would keep running during the shoot.

Shooting on RED is not like shooting with a video camera. Knowledge of the camera system is of absolute importance. It's not the kind of situation where one can just say "Oh, I've shot on an HVX before, so an EX-1 won't be that different." With RED it's different. And if you don't know the camera, it can cause major problems.

It's a different set up and workflow from start to finish. Having a DIT on a production set is always a good idea, in my opinion, regardless of production format - F35, ALEXA, RED, etc. That being said, there are plenty of people who are out and about shooting successfully entirely by themselves.

Having the proper equipment to handle RED makes it much easier - those with REDROCKET cards (and now CUDA enabled GPUs), RAID arrays, etc. are able to transcode, edit, and delivery footage very quickly.


My point is, if you aren't doing extensive visual effects, green screen, or post work that would benefit from RAW 4K, would the AF100 be a better option? Not just from the point of camera rental cost, but also dependability, staffing, post workflow (editing HD over 4K) etc.

Well, here's where it gets divisive. I believe that any format of delivery benefits from REDCODE 4K over typically encoded video (MPEG-2, DVCPROHD, AVC-I, etc. at HD when looking at image fidelity and capability alone. A DVD from a RED M-X, ceteris paribus, will look better than a DVD from an HVX or a 7D or an AF-100. Likewise with a Blu-Ray. Or a film print.

The 4.5K wavelet compressed-RAW is just such a huge boon to the image quality and the post possibilities. It does, however, take more time and/or money to post it properly than something like MPEG-2 or even AVCHD.

So what it really comes down to is - how much do you need, how much do you want, and how much are you willing to pay to cover that gap?

--

Talent is also a big part of this. When everything is equal and the crew is great, I believe there would be a clear difference between say a RED (M or M-X) and a camera like the AF-100.

But just as anyone can pick up a pencil and draw a stick figure, a great camera does not make great images alone.

--

I recommend downloading REDCINE-X (it's free) and some of the .r3d clips from the RED M-X reel and spending some time with it. The power of RAW is huge.

Jim Brennan
10-20-2010, 12:53 PM
I see them as two different cameras whose features overlap in some ways. I love working with the Red and as dmpsk8 stated, there are times for some of us when it is overkill for what we need.

Sometimes I use a screw. Sometimes I use a nail. Depends on the job.

dmpsk8
10-20-2010, 12:53 PM
So what it really comes down to is - how much do you need, how much do you want, and how much are you willing to pay to cover that gap?

exactly

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 12:57 PM
I'm discounting the Sony F35; far too rare and expensive to be a significant part of this discussion. It does make very pretty pictures, however. There simply isn't anything else out there in Red's class, except the Arri Alexa which is much more costly. Anyone telling you that you need a DIT or some technical expert to shoot Red is either lying, uninformed, or incompetent. The camera is NOT complicated and very easy to use; for most jobs it does require the help of an AC to handle the many of the same jobs that would be required on a 35MM film shoot, mainly follow focus. I might add that the DOF characteristics of the AF100 are so similar that an AC will be required on that as well.

As with the shooting side, post with Red couldn't be much easier; there's no voodoo, no expensive hardware or software required. Anyone saying otherwise is, as above, either lying, uninformed, or incompetent. It's completely routine and any high school kid with FCP can cut it.

On negative side, the Red is a very heavy camera and much larger than the AF100, so you'll need heavier support, stronger sticks and head. Also, the Red has no built-in filter wheel and changing filters is much more time consuming than simply turning a dial.

When the ultimate image quality is required, there's no question that the Red camera is superior, probably far superior. For smaller crews, moving faster, the everything built-in design of the AF100 makes it a logical choice.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 01:01 PM
Anyone telling you that you need a DIT or some technical expert to shoot Red is either lying, uninformed, or incompetent. The camera is NOT complicated and very easy to use; for most jobs it does require the help of an AC to handle the many of the same jobs that would be required on a 35MM film shoot, mainly follow focus.

Just wanted to add emphasis here - there was a lot of FUD about the camera being "hard/difficult/problematic". It's not. It's just different. If you take the time to learn about it, how to use it properly, and how to post it properly, it can be a breeze. If you don't, that ignorance can become a liability.

If you want someone with instant knowledge on set, a good DIT is invaluable. Likewise, if you are shooting something where there is serious money invested in each shot, or you need extremely quick turnarounds a well equipped DIT with cart is good to have around. And that's not to say that you (or someone in your production company) can't act as a DIT.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 01:12 PM
I'll agree, Michael, that it's definitely a bad idea for someone with zero knowledge of the Red camera to grab it out of the case and start shooting; in those cases, a DIT is more than just a good idea. On the other hand, almost anyone with general knowledge of video cameras and how menus work, can spend a little time at a rental house and learn what they need to know to shoot Red.

When in doubt, get expert help!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

dmpsk8
10-20-2010, 01:40 PM
post with Red couldn't be much easier; there's no voodoo, no expensive hardware or software required. Anyone saying otherwise is, as above, either lying, uninformed, or incompetent. It's completely routine and any high school kid with FCP can cut it

I've gotta disagree here. The introduction of an online/offline workflow, increased storage needs, and the processing demands of RAW is nothing to fluff off. You don't necessarily need a red rocket, and industry standard NLEs will do the trick, but the post is more complicated than that of most video cameras. No "voodoo," but its a bit more complicated than some expect.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 01:42 PM
I think due consideration needs to be given to something here, and the last few points have touched on it.

And that's learning the camera. The person shooting the AF100 will likely OWN the camera. They will have sussed it's menu's played with all the settings, done tests like we see here in the forums so often, etc. That same LEVEL of shooter will often be RENTING a RED. And it's pretty darn hard and/or expensive to put in that kind of test time with a camera you don't own.

Those levels of shooters that OWN a RED are in a different space, and that is not what I am considering here. For those moving up from a DSLR, HPX170, HVX, etc., it's an ownership v rental kind of scenario most likely, and I think that needs to be given due weight.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 01:43 PM
Than try to record with a brain only. You always need some sort of recording module attached to a RED brain. RED Drive, RED RAM or RED Flash .

Frank

True Frank, but it's MADE for that. Look at that AF100, and tell me where you put your NanoFlash on that camera...

Postmaster
10-20-2010, 01:55 PM
Yeah thats right.
You would need rods and a bracket (most people will have rods anyway. for FF and mattebox).

http://www.pronews.jp/photo/AJAkipromini.jpg

Maybe a Ninja could be mounted with a hot shoe adapter like we used to do with the Firestores on a HVX.

Anyway, as I said, I consider the DRAMA a way better deal in the moment, than a RED or AF100 - but I am a uncompressed guy so I may be biased.

Frank

awelgraven
10-20-2010, 01:56 PM
These x vs x camera threads are always interesting, but at the same time, the end result is always the same. You use the camera that best suits your project... or in some cases, you choose the best camera that suits your budget.

My camera of choice right now is a GH1, not because it's better than the RED, but because I can afford it and it works pretty well for my projects. RED is vastly superior to AF-100... that's really the bottom line in the x vs. x debate.

But it might not be vastly superior for your project.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 01:57 PM
I've gotta disagree here. The introduction of an online/offline workflow, increased storage needs, and the processing demands of RAW is nothing to fluff off. You don't necessarily need a red rocket, and industry standard NLEs will do the trick, but the post is more complicated than that of most video cameras. No "voodoo," but its a bit more complicated than some expect.

Disagree all you wish, but we edit with our Red footage constantly with nothing more elaborate than FCP and Color. Of course one needs adequate storage, but that's no issue today; storage is cheap. Bring in the footage with Log and Transfer and edit. I fail to see the "complicated" part.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Jim Brennan
10-20-2010, 02:04 PM
I've gotta disagree here. The introduction of an online/offline workflow, increased storage needs, and the processing demands of RAW is nothing to fluff off. You don't necessarily need a red rocket, and industry standard NLEs will do the trick, but the post is more complicated than that of most video cameras. No "voodoo," but its a bit more complicated than some expect.

I primarily edit HVX and RED footage for my bread and butter. I L&T RED files into FCP, and I L&T MXF files from the HVX. I find no real difference in workflow. Of course, RED offers the added option of tweaking the raw files if necessary, but I find that working with the prores files works for me 99% of the times.

There was a time when RED was more complicated, but I find that no longer to be the case.

Postmaster
10-20-2010, 02:05 PM
Or work on CS5 with Cuda and just throw it at your timeline without Log and Transfer. :laugh:

SCNR

Frank

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 02:10 PM
I am a uncompressed guy so I may be biased.


Just out of curiosity, have you worked at all with mathematically lossless compressed RAW footage? RED is poised to launch 2.5:1 mathematically lossless compression with EPIC and I was just curious how people that are big fans of "true uncompressed" feel about it. I mean...it should equate to exactly the same thing, right? (No pun intended.) Just with half the file size?

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 02:11 PM
Leo and Jim -

I assume you are both running your footage through REDCINE-X for a one light then into ProRes444? I'm always learning :)

Jim Brennan
10-20-2010, 02:12 PM
Or work on CS5 with Cuda and just throw it at your timeline without Log and Transfer. :laugh:

SCNR

Frank

True enough.

mcgeedigital
10-20-2010, 02:20 PM
I shoot on a (rental) RED when the project warrants it.

The cost of entry is the thing.

If the client is willing to pay for it then I will certainly rent the whole RED kaboodle and enjoy it.

But it certainly isn't a light run and gun fast moving setup like I plan on using the AF-100.

Jim Brennan
10-20-2010, 02:21 PM
Leo and Jim -

I assume you are both running your footage through REDCINE-X for a one light then into ProRes444? I'm always learning :)

I typically don't and I have gotten some grief for that form other editors. But I have found that bringing it into FCP and then Color usually does the trick. RedCineX is a great program, but I have found that 9 times out of 10, what FCP brings in is pretty close to what I would do to a Raw file anyway. Not always, but often enough that RedCineX is not a standard part of my workflow.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 02:23 PM
Leo and Jim -

I assume you are both running your footage through REDCINE-X for a one light then into ProRes444? I'm always learning :)

We usually skip RedCine.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 02:25 PM
Interesting...it's referenced so often as a virtual necessity by many people in attaining exactly the look they want. I'll have to see what I can manage by skipping it. Thanks, guys. :beer:

TheDingo
10-20-2010, 02:39 PM
I think the AF100's biggest issue is going to be it's codec. We've lived with that codec for a while now, and understand the limitations. I was VERY disappointed to see this choice by Panasonic as I am sure others were too.

Have you shot with the HMC-150 camera?

...I was very surprised when I first saw how good the AVCHD files produced by the Panasonic HMC-150 camera actually are, even when put up side by side with HPX-170 / HVX-200A P2 footage the AVCHD files hold up very well.

In testing the pre-production AF100 camera, the Crews.tv guys commented how they were surprised at how little difference there was between the AVCHD footage compared to identical AVC-Intra footage recorded at the same time at 100 MBits.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 02:40 PM
I don't fool with RED footage too much, but I've done RedCine and RedCine-X as well as skipping it, and I haven't missed it when I've skipped it. Both Vegas and Avid get me what I need for a 1-light, and I can grade from there.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 02:45 PM
Have you shot with the HMC-150 camera?


Nope. I've worked with the footage though.




...I was very surprised when I first saw how good the AVCHD files produced by the Panasonic HMC-150 camera actually are, even when put up side by side with HPX-170 / HVX-200A P2 footage the AVCHD files hold up very well.


I don't rate the HPX170 and HVX highly either. Thin raster has never been my thing.



In testing the pre-production AF100 camera, the Crews.tv guys commented how they were very surprised at how little difference there was between the AVCHD footage compared to identical AVC-Intra footage recorded at the same time at 100 MBits.

:)

NextWaveG
10-20-2010, 02:48 PM
I guess another way to put it is this: Should you use a Hasselblad or 5D MkII (RED being the Hasselblad and the AF100 being the 5D MkII).

Up till now, video cameras have been the Point and Shoot equivalent. No interchangeable lenses, very little control over your DOF. RED came out and made waves by being an extremely affordable option for higher budgets, but smaller end users would not be able to take advantage of this. Now the AF100 is coming out and it's a mid level option that gives the aesthetic of the higher end cameras.

So would you use a Hasselblad when you could use a 5D MkII?

I know production companies that would shoot on an EX1 DOF rig when they needed the video functions that a DSLR couldn't offer. If you asked me the aesthetic and technical difference between an EX1 and RED, I could list off plenty...but the EX1 was a more cost effective option. I expect the AF100 to replace the majority of DOF rigs out there.

Let me ask the question this way. You're shooting a movie digitally and you want it to look like film. For that, your options are basically RED, HDSLR, AF100, or DOF rig. If you were to compare each camera to RED, they would have dramatic difference that stand out.

RED vs HDSLR - lower resolution, dynamic range, codec, moire, aliasing, etc.
RED vs DOF adapter - lower resolution, softer image, etc.

Would the gap between the AF100 and the RED be large enough to justify the cost of the RED? Or will the AF100 stand up as a better option than the RED for the cost?

eddavid
10-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Arri Alexa is easier to deal with in post and workflow than Red. Also no annoying properitary cables. I hate that about Red. IMHO. Anyway, agree - AF100 for smaller budget shoots. I'm super excited about it. I've been shooting on the Sony EX1 with Letus Ultimate for a long time, and only use the Canon 7D for a b camera. To finally chuck out the old lens adapter - man this is going to be a great day!

TheDingo
10-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Nope. I've worked with the footage though.

...So when you say "you've worked with the footage" you are talking about HMC-150 shot footage, as I've found that most other AVCHD cameras produce pretty crappy footage in comparison.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 02:51 PM
Interesting...it's referenced so often as a virtual necessity by many people in attaining exactly the look they want. I'll have to see what I can manage by skipping it. Thanks, guys. :beer:

Most of my shooting is under very controlled conditions, so with very rare exceptions, my footage requires very little grading; it's possible that RedCine could be very useful if things are really off.

I'm not knocking RedCine, it's just that we don't need it as a matter of course.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 02:53 PM
I must come back to what I said before - I think that depends on what you absolutely need, what you desire in terms of image quality, and what you can afford to pay to get from what you need, at the bare minimum, to what you dream to achieve.

If you dream to achieve an image that the AF-100 produces easily, there is no reason at all I can think of to go and spend an extra $25,000 on a RED M-X.

If you dream to achieve an image which can't be produced by the AF-100, or at least not with any assurances, then it chiefly becomes a question of math. If: [budget] - [costs] = N where N is positive, then some of N may go towards getting a RED, be it renting or owning.

TheDingo
10-20-2010, 03:11 PM
...So what happens when you need to choose a camera for an all day hand-held documentary shoot?

The RED is an absolute pig when it comes to handheld shoots, especially when you can't use CF cards because of the short recording time.

The AF100 on a good shoulder mount would likely be a comfortable fit, and weigh about 1/4 of the weight of a RED.

Postmaster
10-20-2010, 03:18 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you worked at all with mathematically lossless compressed RAW footage? RED is poised to launch 2.5:1 mathematically lossless compression with EPIC and I was just curious how people that are big fans of "true uncompressed" feel about it. I mean...it should equate to exactly the same thing, right? (No pun intended.) Just with half the file size?

I often work with RED footy, also used Cineform which are both based on wavelet.
They are the next best thing after uncompressed in my book.
File size doesnīt matter to me, since storage is cheap these days.
I even recorded (and still do) uncompressed with my HVX200 whenever possible, cause I hated the artifacts that DVCProHD introduces in the material.

Thatīs one reason why I drool for the DRAMA. Uncompressed right in the camera, no need to schlep a workstation to the set.
The new Cinedeck also comes with an uncompressed option now.

For me the uncompressed material is so much "richer" and "truer" (hard to explayn) absolutely worth the afford - but thatīs me, to each his own.

Have you ever worked with material that was recorded uncompressed?

Frank

biginvegas
10-20-2010, 03:23 PM
For the micro budget filmmakers ($20k-$30) wanting to make that 1st feature it's the deal of the decade. Buy the camera and Hot Rod PL = $6200, rent lenses, FF, MB etc of your choice, hire a sound guy and start shooting. No way RED can come close to that $ number. Use the limitations set by the specs of the camera and you have possibility of doing what French New Wave filmmakers first did with the Eclair Cameflex and the NPR in the 60's - start a revolution.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 03:24 PM
...So what happens when you need to choose a camera for an all day hand-held documentary shoot?

The RED is an absolute pig when it comes to handheld shoots, especially when you can't use CF cards because of the short recording time.

The AF100 on a good shoulder mount would likely be a comfortable fit, and weigh about 1/4 of the weight of a RED.

Have you not answered your own question?

Although it's not my shooting style, I have seen the Red stripped down to a relatively light-weight rig suitable for hand-holding. Forgo the Rods, Follow-Focus, Matte Box, and Top Plate, etc, use a battery belt rather than a camera-mounted brick, and a compact lens, such as a Zeiss Standard or 17-50 Red Zoom. With proper shoulder rig, it's not bad if you're physically up to that sort of job.

I've got a Gaffer and excellent Shooter I work with who can bench-press a Buick, so I throw the camera at him when the situation calls for hand-held. One of the few rewards of "maturity."

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Essami
10-20-2010, 03:25 PM
I've done one music video on Red and the rest with assorted DSLR's. I gotta say the Red One image quality is stunning and what you can do with it is crazy amazing. As far as workflow goes I've edited all on my Dell dual core laptop. Yes, including the Red One shoot. Just drop the files to Vegas Pro and edit. Just like with DSLR footage. Only drawbacks working with Red in post were slightly lower resolution preview and huge file sizes. Instead of the usual 10GB I had 60GB of material for a 5 minute video.

If only I had the money :D

Mike@AF
10-20-2010, 03:25 PM
You don't even need to have PL mount lenses if you want to spend even less money.

Everts
10-20-2010, 03:35 PM
January unless something crazy happens over the next 2 months.


oh there will be craziness !

dmpsk8
10-20-2010, 03:36 PM
Disagree all you wish, but we edit with our Red footage constantly with nothing more elaborate than FCP and Color. Of course one needs adequate storage, but that's no issue today; storage is cheap. Bring in the footage with Log and Transfer and edit. I fail to see the "complicated" part.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Are you transcoding direct PR every time, bypassing the R3D completely? I take it you don't work offline either then?

There are many workflow options to consider - REDCINE on the front end for example. Some yield different results, this is where it has the potential to get a bit less simple. I'm not saying its really difficult, just different.

Ticheli
10-20-2010, 03:40 PM
Are you transcoding direct PR every time, bypassing the R3D completely? I take it you don't work offline either then?

There are many workflow options to consider - REDCINE on the front end for example. Some yield different results, this is where it has the potential to get a bit less simple. I'm not saying its really difficult, just different.

No offline, ever. Straight from the R3D files via Log and Transfer. Yes, there are many paths, but this is very direct and easy.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 03:51 PM
...So what happens when you need to choose a camera for an all day hand-held documentary shoot?

The RED is an absolute pig when it comes to handheld shoots, especially when you can't use CF cards because of the short recording time.

The AF100 on a good shoulder mount would likely be a comfortable fit, and weigh about 1/4 of the weight of a RED.

I'd say it's time to either 1) invest in a shoulder rig 2) hit the gym or 3) settle for less image quality and use a lighter camera.

Fortunately, Epic and Scarlet look to be solving a lot of that. Lightweight brains, lightweight lens options, modular battery options (handgrip for ~30 minutes, module for ~1 hour but hot swappable, or just run a tap to the brain from an AB belt), and some serious storage capacity via SSD (over 2 hours of 5K). I'll be interested to see how Soderbergh uses the Epic over the next few months.

Michael Olsen
10-20-2010, 03:54 PM
For me the uncompressed material is so much "richer" and "truer" (hard to explayn) absolutely worth the afford - but thatīs me, to each his own.

Have you ever worked with material that was recorded uncompressed?

Frank

I haven't actually, but look forward to being able to experiment with it. If I have some surplus budget after my next purchase, I'd love to get a DRAMA.

dmpsk8
10-20-2010, 04:31 PM
No offline, ever. Straight from the R3D files via Log and Transfer. Yes, there are many paths, but this is very direct and easy.

Leo

Gotcha. Offline can be really handy, but it is a few more steps.

NVentive
10-20-2010, 04:49 PM
I, too, was very disappointed to see the codec choice for the 100. A Red is serious overkill for what we are doing, for now we're just running with hacked GH1's.

PerroneFord
10-20-2010, 09:32 PM
...So when you say "you've worked with the footage" you are talking about HMC-150 shot footage, as I've found that most other AVCHD cameras produce pretty crappy footage in comparison.

Yes, I am.

Joe Walker
10-20-2010, 10:00 PM
I will have to concur with Leo in one of his earlier assertions, the Sony F35 is just plain beautiful, I mean you can't compare how good its footage looks, yes I know its horrifically expensive but it is the stuff dreams are made of. Probably the one camera Sony got "right".

Multi-Media
10-21-2010, 01:27 AM
What will the finished product be? Personally, I don't see myself ever outputting to 35mm film for theatre release. So, do I need 4K?
Probably not... Am I ready to have my own HD cam? After renting for the odd HD shoot, I'm finally (kicking and dragging my feet) ready to upgrade to HD full on... Even though it means changing out the workstation to 64bit and letting go of the DVX (the comfortable old shoe).
But that is all counterbalanced with the excitement and anticipation of finally getting pretty much what I was waiting for in Scarlett... To be frank, I was sort of dreading having to learn a whole new system and workflow. I mean, I love working with still images in Camera Raw from the Nikon... it's like having color negative and a darkroom on steroids. But for video, not so much. I really like the picture that Panasonic produces... it doesn't look like "video"... you can really tweak the gamma and other settings to make it more filmic. I'm comfortable with the menus and controls and am relieved not to have to start from scratch... it's more of a natural transition.... Thank You Panasonic!

ROne
10-21-2010, 07:27 AM
I'll be honest AF100 compared to NON MX Red is going to be very close. I just shot a film with a director on hacked gh1 who did his previous film with the same actors on a Red non MX and I got to see it all together and my footage on hacked gh1 looks better than the nonMX Red footage so honestly I think AF100 will give non MX 2007 Red a run for its money.

Now MX $25,000 Red on the other hand with RPP's is another story

No not at all.

We own a Gh13, HPX171, HPX301, and Red One (soon to be MX) with Nikon Lenses and RPP.

I was and still am a P2/Panasonic advocat.

But a Gh1 doesn't get close to either a Red1 or MX.

I've shot with the both th GH1 and R1 on the same shoot, same images > to blu-ray and then to 1080p projector and the GH1 looks poor on a 60" screen. It just has the inherent sharpening, over-saturation and iffy colour-sampling of a camera at this price point.

Red is a doddle to edit and use especially with Cs4/5. Easy.

The only disadvantage to R1 is weight, everything else is sortable. Don't forget with your AF100 - you're likely to be adding stuff to it too!

As I always say in these situations anyone who wants to come and have a look at the Gh1 side by the R1 is welcome. You will be shocked how much better the R1 is even when operating 1/4 of it's resolution. But to be expected at the price!

Adam J McKay
10-21-2010, 01:48 PM
Without getting too off topic, if you L&T the R3D files into FCP to say prores at say 1080p and edit, can you still export and EDL and essentially use that as your offline edit if you later need say a 4k? Is it the same in CS5?

Homunculus
10-21-2010, 01:50 PM
is sony f35 better than mx red 1 and if so how?

Ticheli
10-21-2010, 02:01 PM
is sony f35 better than mx red 1 and if so how?

Resolution isn't everything. Red is a great camera for owner-operators and it makes very pretty pictures, but it's not perfect. Both Alexa and the F35 make really stunning pictures. F35 is far too expensive for most individuals; Alexa is a lot more than the Red body, but not so much so when one considers the total price of a full package with all accessories and lenses. Had Alexa existed when Red started delivering, I might have stretched the budget for it. It's a very close call in my opinion; Red or Alexa: tough call. The companies are very different; Red is brash, Arri is quiet and solid.

As to the question, what makes one better than the others, you just have to look at the pictures to see for your self; go to one of the major shows and see.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Homunculus
10-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Resolution isn't everything. Red is a great camera for owner-operators and it makes very pretty pictures, but it's not perfect. Both Alexa and the F35 make really stunning pictures. F35 is far too expensive for most individuals; Alexa is a lot more than the Red body, but not so much so when one considers the total price of a full package with all accessories and lenses. Had Alexa existed when Red started delivering, I might have stretched the budget for it. It's a very close call in my opinion; Red or Alexa: tough call. The companies are very different; Red is brash, Arri is quiet and solid.

As to the question, what makes one better than the others, you just have to look at the pictures to see for your self; go to one of the major shows and see.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Roger Deakins swears by alexa on his forum and seems to think it destroys the Red MX

Homunculus
10-21-2010, 02:05 PM
oh and a while back there was that ASC shootout between all film cameras including arri 535, red one, alexa etc. I seem to remember Red One placing in last place and even Alexa blowing it away in that shootout. Anyone can confirm?

Camera Expert
10-21-2010, 02:06 PM
I'd say a better example would be the HMC40 than am HMC150 to determine the codec quality since it has 3 native chips. That's assuming theirs plenty of lights.

Jim Brennan
10-21-2010, 02:07 PM
Without getting too off topic, if you L&T the R3D files into FCP to say prores at say 1080p and edit, can you still export and EDL and essentially use that as your offline edit if you later need say a 4k? Is it the same in CS5?

Don't know. I have never tried.

Mike@AF
10-21-2010, 02:20 PM
Without getting too off topic, if you L&T the R3D files into FCP to say prores at say 1080p and edit, can you still export and EDL and essentially use that as your offline edit if you later need say a 4k? Is it the same in CS5?

It's a little more complicated than that, but basically yes. You're much better off using Clipfinder than FCP L&T though. I don't know about the CS5 workflow.

TheDingo
10-21-2010, 08:12 PM
Interesting comparison between 24 MBit AVCHD and 100 MBit AVC-Intra footage produced with the AF100

AF100 CODEC Stress Test (http://crews.tv/blog/2010/10/22/af100-images-pushed-to-the-limit/)

craigbowman
10-22-2010, 06:10 PM
oh and a while back there was that ASC shootout between all film cameras including arri 535, red one, alexa etc. I seem to remember Red One placing in last place and even Alexa blowing it away in that shootout. Anyone can confirm?

I've been very impressed with the look of the images from the Alexa. Its a very fine camera. I haven't yet had a scenario pop up where I could actually put one through its paces or go full tilt with the workflow. For me, the only way to really get to know how a camera will perform is to get in the trenches and take it to hell and back.

Homunculus
10-22-2010, 06:24 PM
I've been very impressed with the look of the images from the Alexa. Its a very fine camera. I haven't yet had a scenario pop up where I could actually put one through its paces or go full tilt with the workflow. For me, the only way to really get to know how a camera will perform is to get in the trenches and take it to hell and back.

well most pro DP's like roger deakins consider Alexa far superior to Red 1

Michael Olsen
10-22-2010, 06:24 PM
well most pro DP's like roger deakins consider Alexa far superior to Red 1

Now that is quite a statement.

Homunculus
10-22-2010, 06:34 PM
Now that is quite a statement.


What?

notharrylume
10-22-2010, 07:03 PM
On a thread on Roger Deakins' forum entitled:

Re: RED EPIC 5K HDR 18fstops ! (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1537&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17#p7589)

a poster commented:

Also RED EPIC 5K achieves real 4K resolution, Arri Alexa has 1.6k resolution and Sony F35 a little more...

RED EPIC-X 5K is a leader in resolution, dynamic range and size/performance.

Mr. Roger, please consider this camera as a film tool in the future.
Filip Stojan (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=25750&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) and Roger responded:

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?p=7589&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17#p7589)by Roger (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) ŧ Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:48 am

Sounds like another sales pitch to me! I have not seen the Epic yet. My next project will be shot using the Alexa, which produces substantially 'better' quality images than any other camera I have seen to date.

Roger (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) Location: Torquay, Devon UK / Santa Monica, CA USA

Homunculus
10-22-2010, 07:14 PM
On a thread on Roger Deakins' forum entitled:

Re: RED EPIC 5K HDR 18fstops ! (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1537&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17#p7589)

a poster commented:

Also RED EPIC 5K achieves real 4K resolution, Arri Alexa has 1.6k resolution and Sony F35 a little more...

RED EPIC-X 5K is a leader in resolution, dynamic range and size/performance.

Mr. Roger, please consider this camera as a film tool in the future.
Filip Stojan (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=25750&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) and Roger responded:

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?p=7589&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17#p7589)by Roger (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) ŧ Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:48 am

Sounds like another sales pitch to me! I have not seen the Epic yet. My next project will be shot using the Alexa, which produces substantially 'better' quality images than any other camera I have seen to date.

Roger (http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3&sid=94cc976afefe3d434f18bd24b9df3b17) Location: Torquay, Devon UK / Santa Monica, CA USA
lol i know he really hates the red and bashes it constantly on his forum