AF100 vs. RED

Or work on CS5 with Cuda and just throw it at your timeline without Log and Transfer. :laugh:

SCNR

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
I am a uncompressed guy so I may be biased.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Michael Olsen said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
PerroneFord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
TheDingo said:
Have you shot with the HMC-150 camera?
Click to expand...

Nope. I've worked with the footage though.


TheDingo said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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

TheDingo said:
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.
Click to expand...

:)
 
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?
 
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!
 
Michael Olsen said:
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:
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
...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.
 
Michael Olsen said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 doesn´t 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.

That´s 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 that´s me, to each his own.

Have you ever worked with material that was recorded uncompressed?

Frank
 
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.
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top