Batter up: 5D MII vs RED

Max R. Wilson

Max R. Wilson

Stream Master
You're receiving this email because of your relationship with Birns & Sawyer, Inc. Please confirm your continued interest in receiving email from us.
*
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

Batter Up - EOS 5D Mk II at the plate
Birns & Sawyer, Inc
6381 De Longpre Ave
Hollywood, California 90028
323-466-8211
RSVP
Get Your Own* Invitation
Ask Marty Meyer
Visit Our Website
I Gotta Buy One
Camera Rental
CANON EOS 5D Mk 11 Camera Takes a Swing at the Competition

Ah, the boys of summer.
*
Noted cinematographer Byron Shah and director Jason Ensler spent a day shooting with the Canon 5D Mk II,* RED and a GH1 in the heart of Hollywood. We'll show you the footage!*

Joining will be Canon's Tim Smith to discuss the pros, cons and insider tips that make this camera such a heavy hitter.

It's a home run for all 21.1 MPixels.

*

Bill Meurer, Owner/Cinematographer and best boy of summer
Canon EOS 5D Mk II Camera Steps up to the Plate

Another brewski?

When:* Thursday* July 30, 2009
Where: B&S Camera Division
*** *** * * * 6381 De Longpre, LA 90028
Time: ** 6:00PM -9:00PM

As always, the best place to meet, greet and eat the best catering this side of Dodger Stadium.* (Have you tried our meat balls?)
** * **

Eat here. Less salt than Dodger dogs, less mess than peanuts.

******* NOTE:* SORRY, WE DO NOT VAIIDATE PARKING
*************** Get 'em while they're hot!*
*** We sell the Canon 5D. We rent the Canon 5D



Birns & Sawyer, Inc | 6381 De Longpre Ave | Hollywood | CA | 90028
 
Uhm... :huh: Unless they have a 24p firmware and the ability to send uncompressed out of the HDMI, there really isn't a comparison here. For web video they can look very very similar. Projected, yikes, the Red will obviously blow everything else away.
 
And I sometimes wonder where people get the idea that any new camera costing a couple of thousand dollars should automatically be compared to the RED One.

I guess now I know.... Birns & Sawyer.
Just a tad ridiculous, in my opinion.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
And I sometimes wonder where people get the idea that any new camera costing a couple of thousand dollars should automatically be compared to the RED One.
.
Click to expand...


They get that idea because technology is progressing. What's happening to video recording now happened to audio recording in 2000. It cost hundreds of thousands to get the same level of features/fidelity in the field of audio recording in the mid 1990's that you can get today for less than $10,000. The same is happening to video now. That's where people get that idea from.

I doubt that there would be so many discussions about the 5DII vs Red One if the quality wasn't very close. The 5DII seems to out perform Red in low light at least from what I"ve gleened from discussions here and elsewhere. Maybe people get this idea from the fact that that Rodney charter is filming 50% of a network series with it (Washington Fields) or that it is being used on the set of Iron Man II and other independant films.

From what I've gathered from the many hours of reading on this subject, the 5DII may not be as featured as Red One, but if you're willing to jump through a few hoops, you can gain IQ very conquerable to Red One and better in low light.

The award winning film "November" was shot on a DVX100. The 5DII is much better than that.

Red broke a price performance barrier with Red One and the Canon has shattered a price performance barrier with the 5DII. I doubt their would be a market for all this support gear that Zacuto and Red Rock Micro are making for the 5DII if the IQ wasn't there. I think we need to take our Red colored glasses off and see the astounding IQ that the 5DII produces for what it is: Pretty spectacular and a benchmark for a new price/performance standard. It's pretty obvious that people are not just using the 5DII for just web productions.
 
Last edited:
I posted this because of the talk in the chat last night, I will be going and checking it out. But thought others might be interested to go also.
 
I think its great that people are using Red as the benchmark to measure against. Red started the rush to lower the cost and with others jumping on board trying to go toe to toe, the ultimate winners are us!

Even though I have a Red One package, if someone can come out with better hardware, better compression/decompression scheme and better price, I will certainly take a look at what they have to offer. It would be nice if these new entries also had something to go up against the redray player system.
 
I just want to say that I shot a music video half RED, and half 5d. They absolutely can be compared, projected on a big screen or otherwise. Blanket statements about comparisons are useless unless you, yourself have already made a legitimate comparison. In this specific example the director often preferred the images we shot with the 5d. In fact, the record label had no idea the footage was shot on two different cameras. (I will post once the video is released)

I have worked many many shoots with the RED and although it is certainly a better camera, when it comes down to pure image quality the 5d and RED absolutely can be compared and in many cases I prefer the 5d (underexposed blacks for example look a lot better IMO on the 5d)

Barring 24p (which isn't necessary for everything) people over at REDUSER love to bash the 5d's codec. After working extensively with both I will say this - RAW workflow is amazing but also not always necessary. Though the math says that the 5d's codec shouldn't be the best - 4:2:0 colorspace, and 8 bit, etc - in practice it is AWESOME. Though the 5d's codec does not hold up to RED or uncompressed workflows, it absolutely holds up in the world of professional filmmaking. It blows the pants off of XDCAM and even with HEAVY motion, it doesn't breakdown.

The 5d is a brilliant camera. Plain and simple. The image can be comparable to RED but the cameras are built with different focuses.

Which camera is better? RED
How much better? Depends on your needs, but for me - not $30,000 better.
 
f64manray said:
They get that idea because technology is progressing. What's happening to video recording now happened to audio recording in 2000. It cost hundreds of thousands to get the same level of features/fidelity in the field of audio recording in the mid 1990's that you can get today for less than $10,000. The same is happening to video now. That's where people get that idea from.
Click to expand...

In 99 I recorded an album on a mac with 24 track hard disc recording in my attic. The album cost 10k to record and I signed a deal with a major for 1.7m and it won a national award for best dance release. Nobody ever complained that it wasn't recorded on an SSL to tape. We did however do everything we could to warm the sound with analog filters, plug-ins and valves.

Now I'm making films thanks to the DSLR technology and again using filters and plug-ins to get the warmth of film and I can bet you nobody is ever going to complain that my films weren't shot on film. Sure the MKII is compressed but the punters will never know the difference. The only thing I want to use the red for is over/undercranking.
 
ryansheffer said:
Barring 24p (which isn't necessary for everything) people over at REDUSER love to bash the 5d's codec. After working extensively with both I will say this - RAW workflow is amazing but also not always necessary. Though the math says that the 5d's codec shouldn't be the best - 4:2:0 colorspace, and 8 bit, etc - in practice it is AWESOME. Though the 5d's codec does not hold up to RED or uncompressed workflows, it absolutely holds up in the world of professional filmmaking. It blows the pants off of XDCAM and even with HEAVY motion, it doesn't breakdown.
Click to expand...


I had a chance to use the 5D this past weekend and I will agree with those on REDuser about the limitations of the codec. The H.264 from the 5D does not hold up well at all to color correction. It doesn't hold up as well as the HVX200 much less a red. Does the camera make pretty pictures? Most certainly. Does it out perform the RED in low light? Yes. Is it a replacement for the REDOne? Depends on what you are shooting and the budget.
 
squig said:
In 99 I recorded an album on a mac with 24 track hard disc recording in my attic. The album cost 10k to record and I signed a deal with a major for 1.7m and it won a national award for best dance release. Nobody ever complained that it wasn't recorded on an SSL to tape. We did however do everything we could to warm the sound with analog filters, plug-ins and valves.

Now I'm making films thanks to the DSLR technology and again using filters and plug-ins to get the warmth of film and I can bet you nobody is ever going to complain that my films weren't shot on film. Sure the MKII is compressed but the punters will never know the difference. The only thing I want to use the red for is over/undercranking.
Click to expand...

Same here, recorded an album on a 8 track sequencer built into a cheap keyboard sampler - released on a small label - and then an album on a major recorded on a mac (1997 and 2002) - both sold really well, made me and my musical partner a load of money and we had a lot of fun - no one ever complained about the quality, played on TV, prime time national radio . . crept into the lower ends of the charts .

But at the time - there was no end of engineers we who would tell us that we can't put stuff out unless it is - 24bit/timecode stamped/recorded on an SSL/ tape . . . and so on.

In fact the keyboard sampler we made our first album on - when we bought it - was described by the guy in the store as 'good as a drum sample expander - but not much else' - we squeezed 10 years of good times out of that piece of crap ! :)

I have also shot a clip on a Canon HV10 (interlaced) - which after screwing around in post ended up being printed to 2k for projection and looked great !
 
DELTA_Rotary,

Your experience sincerely surprises me. I have had much much better luck color correcting 5d footage over HVX footage. Did you transcode the footage before you colored? If so, what utility did you use and what format did you transcode to?

Again - this is an example of real world experience versus the numbers game. I realize the color space of the HVX on paper is much better, but in my experience the real world result does not hold up.

But - since I am saying the numbers are in your opinion's favor, it may just come down to personal opinion.
 
DELTA_Rotary said:
I had a chance to use the 5D this past weekend and I will agree with those on REDuser about the limitations of the codec. The H.264 from the 5D does not hold up well at all to color correction.
Click to expand...

What were you color correcting in? The codec holds up pretty well in apple color. Sure it could do with less compression but for the money nothing comes close.

Yeah Lee it all comes down to working within the limitations of what's available for the money you have on hand. If I had of bought a RED that's all I would have, no tripod, no lights, no lenses, no monitoring, etc. The DSLRs have made it possible for me to put together a full production studio with some money left over to shoot a filmic feature, a year ago that wasn't possible for that amount of money.
 
DELTA_Rotary said:
I had a chance to use the 5D this past weekend and I will agree with those on REDuser about the limitations of the codec. The H.264 from the 5D does not hold up well at all to color correction. It doesn't hold up as well as the HVX200 much less a red. Does the camera make pretty pictures? Most certainly. Does it out perform the RED in low light? Yes. Is it a replacement for the REDOne? Depends on what you are shooting and the budget.
Click to expand...


That is why everyone transcodes the footage to ProRes, which grades beautifully.
 
From a technical standpoint, Both films shot on RED and the 5dM2 shouldn't look any different at the end game since it all gets transcoded to a 4:2:0 medium anyway (Blu-Ray, DVD)

I know there is more latitude to pull from in the RED One, but unless you're doing heavy color grading, the consumer won't see the difference, even in Blu-Ray.
 
Demistate said:
From a technical standpoint, Both films shot on RED and the 5dM2 shouldn't look any different at the end game since it all gets transcoded to a 4:2:0 medium anyway (Blu-Ray, DVD)

I know there is more latitude to pull from in the RED One, but unless you're doing heavy color grading, the consumer won't see the difference, even in Blu-Ray.
Click to expand...


The actual input, and then output end game are two very different things. That's like saying a hollywood movie would look the same as a soap opera on TV because they're both playing at 720p.

Good 35mm film stock, telecinned, and put to a 4:2:0 would still look superior to RED or 5dMII. As would the Red to 5dMII.
5dMii, great images, but the line skipping and the initial compression [lovely blurriness] gives it away.
http://vimeo.com/5160288

I do agree that the average consumer wouldn't care, but if you showed a fair side by side comparison on an awesome huge TV, they'd see.
 
bandanadan said:
the actual input, and then output end game are two very different things. That's like saying a hollywood movie would look the same as a soap opera on tv because they're both playing at 720p.

Good 35mm film stock, telecinned, and put to a 4:2:0 would still look superior to red or 5dmii. As would the red to 5dmii.
5dmii, great images, but the line skipping and the initial compression [lovely blurriness] gives it away.
http://vimeo.com/5160288

i do agree that the average consumer wouldn't care, but if you showed a fair side by side comparison on an awesome huge tv, they'd see.
Click to expand...


a+
 
BandanaDan said:
The actual input, and then output end game are two very different things. That's like saying a hollywood movie would look the same as a soap opera on TV because they're both playing at 720p.

Good 35mm film stock, telecinned, and put to a 4:2:0 would still look superior to RED or 5dMII. As would the Red to 5dMII.
5dMii, great images, but the line skipping and the initial compression [lovely blurriness] gives it away.
http://vimeo.com/5160288

I do agree that the average consumer wouldn't care, but if you showed a fair side by side comparison on an awesome huge TV, they'd see.
Click to expand...
There are differences for sure. Apart @ post, the main or substancial difference is resolution on wide shots. The Richard Darge test is a good example. Beyond that, you practically can get the same level of outcome. For a fraction of the price and (until Scarlet) weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top