GH1 vs Red One vs Canon 5D Mk II footage comparison shoot out!

[commanderspike]

If you rent and pull one or two favors you can have for your shoot:

RED one package, Optimo 24-290, Set of ultra primes, a dolley, a 3ton grip package with a gaffer an grip!


this is the SAME MONEY!!!!!!!!!! Now you can focus on your story.

now your short will have some visual firepower, with real tools, and therefore will make it more competetive in the film market. Godforbid you make some money.... then you can have the same awesome tools for your next film / musicvideo/ commercial...

Well, I don't rent. Because if I did rent every time the urge to be creative came along, I'd be a bankrupt by now. I want something at my side whenever I wanna call some friends and I have an idea, or if I wanna just go out and shoot the city lights or something - it has got to be 'mine'. Did Gollum rent the ring?

I think the GH1 with the right lens can give visual firepower to a short film almost to the standard that a RED can, as we saw from this footage comparison.

To me, the lack of noise, the dynamic range and DOF, plus the lens choice is all a lot higher than you could get previously from a £1500 outlay. Those Zeiss T* lenses I got were the bargain of the century. Something you could have never stuck on the front of a DVX or VX2100 without a LOT of hassle.

 

[Barry_Green]

before the next revolution begins apace... 3D.

3D? Seriously? Not until they have proper self-contained 3D displays. 3D with glasses will flame out this time just like it did in the 50's, and also in the 60's, and also in the 70's, and also in the 80's, and also in the 90's. 3D with glasses -- who cares? It's been around since the 1890's. The first 3D film in a theater was shown in 1922. Never been more than a curiosity, and it'll stay that way.

But if they can perfect a glasses-less 3D display, then you're talking about some magic. They had a 3D display at Broadcast Asia that was playing some video game, and you didn't need glasses to see the effect, and it was actually pretty awesome. I mean, it was low-tech and low-res and whatever, but it really did seem to point the way towards the future. That was dang cool. But the video quality on it wasn't any better than an original Nintendo Entertainment System.

Whereas I went into the best 3D theaters at NAB and at Broadcast Asia and... yeah, more of the same, big whoop, it'll flop just like it's always flopped.

 

[Kholi]

Yeah, forget that whole "full frame" sensor, I meant to say S35. Full frame isn't where it's at, even the S35 sensor is bigger than the Red One's.

And yeah, is it a dream? The GH1 has a nearly 35mm-sized sensor, body-only at $800. Red's about the REVOLUTION, right? Doing things the other guys can't (or won't)? Why would it be such a snorechoke dream to think that they'd at least match what's going on with the others? Nikon's got a bowl of jello in their 35mm-sized sensor, but it's $900 including lens.

And forget 6K, or 5K, or any of that. Just give me a solid robust 1080p. Shoot it at 3K and downconvert to a 1080p recording, and that's all I need.

If someone can do 1080 from an S35 sensor without the horrible aliasing issues (a better downscaling) for 3K right now I'll take it. I'm referring to the raw and the extras you'll get from a Scarlet.

1) Redcode Raw
2) No weird Aliasing
3) 120FPS or More
4) Larger body possibly with XLR ports, HDMI out, SDI out

You think an S35mm version of that could come in at 3K? I suppose if it was ONLY 1080/24p and subpar compression (GH-1 or MKii), no XLR ports, No SDI ports... pretty much what's out now.

But what would be the point of that?

 

[TimurCivan]

And forget 6K, or 5K, or any of that. Just give me a solid robust 1080p.

 

[TimurCivan]

dude, i would love a camera that literally, just recorded XLR audio, had 24P and a S35 sized CCD block. Thats it. on button, off button and record.

let it record to REDcode like RAW format, or Mpeg50 4:2:2 1080P. Kinda like the Phantom but without the speed. I want pixels so big i can see them.....

ifi had that i would be so damn happy.

 

[commanderspike]

3D? Seriously? Not until they have proper self-contained 3D displays. 3D with glasses will flame out this time just like it did in the 50's, and also in the 60's, and also in the 70's, and also in the 80's, and also in the 90's. 3D with glasses -- who cares?

But if they can perfect a glasses-less 3D display, then you're talking about some magic. They had a 3D display at Broadcast Asia that was playing some video game, and you didn't need glasses to see the effect, and it was actually pretty awesome. I mean, it was low-tech and low-res and whatever, but it really did seem to point the way towards the future.

Whereas I went into the best 3D theaters at NAB and at Broadcast Asia and... yeah, more of the same, big whoop, it'll flop just like it's always flopped.

Those displays are coming... you said it yourself. When the displays arrive, everyone will demand 3D cameras.

But year, ok I was talking up the future a bit there. 3D is a while off yet. Even the likes of James Cameron have only just started moving the technology along properly, for cinema. And it's taken him all his career to get to that point.

Technology moves fast... markets move fast... that's why we have a GH1 body for $800 and that is sadly why RED simply will not be able to compete with the larger corporations such as Panasonic, who can afford to absolutely nail the R&D side, throw money at it for YEARS to make an affordable cam like the GH1.

How could such a corporate beast have been so innovative?

Well I actually think it happened by accident. CMOS sensors were getting cheaper to manufacturer, offered increasing image quality gains, and due to becoming faster it was only a matter of time before video was a no-brainer add on for DSLRS.

That's not to say it was easy - but rather, that it was inevitable.

RED didn't see it coming. The Scarlet should not be the direction for RED... they cannot compete at the low end of the market. They belong at the higher end.

 

[Barry_Green]

But have you seen the cinema 3D experience? Do you really think it's worth it?

I paid the extra $4 to see "Up" in 3-D. Won't do that again.

I've seen the King Kong and Star Wars 3D conversions, theatrically projected, with the on/off infrared glasses. Cute technology, but watching an entire film that way? I don't think so.

 

[TimurCivan]

They belong at the higher end.

EPIC. thats going to be their meat and potatoes. All the benefits of recording the 8k optical scan, right out of the lens.... no film to act as intermediary.

on the low end, they need to abandon this Brain/Powerpack thing and just make some thign that shoots out of the box that isnt deceptivly priced low. A scarlet loaded out, will still be 25-35K for a good package.

 

[TimurCivan]

But have you seen the cinema 3D experience? Do you really think it's worth it?

I paid the extra $4 to see "Up" in 3-D. Won't do that again.

I've seen the King Kong and Star Wars 3D conversions, theatrically projected, with the on/off infrared glasses. Cute technology, but watching an entire film that way? I don't think so.

i hate 3D so much......

Its such a monumental waste of time. it always gives me a headache, and everythign looks out of focus. I cant even enjoy good cinematography through it....

 

[Kholi]

RED didn't see it coming. The Scarlet should not be the direction for RED... they cannot compete at the low end of the market. They belong at the higher end.

I comPLETELY disagree with this. It's only a choice of pissing current RED owners off and completely obliterating the market worse than they already have, OR, releasing a crippled SCARLET.

And to say they didn't see it coming? I highly doubt this. Still cameras have been shooting video for years now. It just now got ported into larger cameras. It was inevitable that it would progress into something much better.

Nobody's really beaten them to the punch either. Look how crippled all of the offerings are? Especially the MKii as far as this minuscule niche is concerned.

 

[commanderspike]

dude, i would love a camera that literally, just recorded XLR audio, had 24P and a S35 sized CCD block. Thats it. on button, off button and record.

let it record to REDcode like RAW format, or Mpeg50 4:2:2 1080P. Kinda like the Phantom but without the speed. I want pixels so big i can see them.....

ifi had that i would be so damn happy.

Well, I agree. But that kinda goes against your earlier statements that the GH1 had too simplistic a feature set.

For me, to be able to press a record button and get clean 1080p from a huge range of Zeiss & Leica SLR lenses, along with manageable DOF is all I'll be needing for quite a while.

Now, how can the Scarlet compete with that for the same money? Answer: it cannot.

And whilst the 5D2 was a tempting proposition for me especially having got over my consumerist obsession with having AF in a video camera, the nail in the coffin is this:

The 5D's image quality advantage is that it's better in low light. But that is completely null and void, because if your lens is wide open at say F1.4 you get almost unmanageably shallow DOF. So you have to stop down your lens and lose your low light advantage... great.

Sometimes more a good thing isn't what's needed. Sometimes shallow DOF can be impractical as well as beautiful looking.

The GH1 is the most practical camera I've used for a while.

 

[ChipG]

Why would it be such a snorechoke dream to think that they'd at least match what's going on with the others?

I hear they are, just takes them 3 years of hype and pr before they can release it. :thumbsup:

I know the compnay is owned by a billionaire and can feed it money for a long time but things will come to a hault at some point trying to compete wth the majors in product developement. Probably a decent move to hedge the compnay with a studio in Vegas, although he should have done it in NM with the 25% rebate.

 

[Kholi]

And whilst the 5D2 was a tempting proposition for me especially having got over my consumerist obsession with having AF in a video camera, the nail in the coffin is this:

The 5D's image quality advantage is that it's better in low light. But that is completely null and void, because if your lens is wide open at say F1.4 you get almost unmanageably shallow DOF. So you have to stop down your lens and lose your low light advantage... great.

Been tryin' to tell people this for a while now. What use is it @ 1.4 being (so fast wow crazy man) if you have to stop down to F4 to gain something useful?

You CAN crop 720p out of it and to my eye, framing as if it were a smaller sensor does change things. It doesn't change the fact that it's still aliased to all hell and it's 30p. Yuck.

 

[Barry_Green]

If someone can do 1080 from an S35 sensor without the horrible aliasing issues (a better downscaling) for 3K right now I'll take it.

Well, Red can't either -- that's why there's no downscaling in the camera. With the Red workflow you have to do everything in post. And in post, you can take all the time you need and use the best algorithms possible. Red's workflow makes sense for the cinema market. I just can't see how the end consumer is expected to adopt a raw workflow!

I'm referring to the raw and the extras you'll get from a Scarlet.

1) Redcode Raw
2) No weird Aliasing
3) 120FPS or More
4) Larger body possibly with XLR ports, HDMI out, SDI out

You think an S35mm version of that could come in at 3K?

Well... if it doesn't have those things, then what's the point in releasing it?

They have said that they want everyone to have a Scarlet, that they'll sell them to filmmakers and commercial producers and soccer moms. Do you think that'll happen at $10,000?

If the Scarlet is $10k, it'll be a small niche product. The Red One has sold, what, 5,000 units in its lifetime? The HPX170 and EX1 together probably sell that many every month. So Scarlet would take a chunk of that market, the cinema chunk, which probably accounts for maybe 1/4, so ... a thousand units a month?

Whereas if they were to compete for the end consumer, they could do 10,000 units a month.

But they'd have to be in the $3k price bracket or below to have a chance at the end consumer.

And if it doesn't have all the features that the others do, and more, why would anyone buy it?

But what would be the point of that?

Agreed. So that raises the huge question: where's the revolution? Where does Scarlet fit in? How can they Red-ize a market where we already have $800 1080/24p cameras with cinema DOF?

I mean, RED was originally all about giving you an F900 at 1/5 the price, right? Why should the Scarlet be different? I just don't see how it works if they offer things like an intensive computer-dependent raw workflow, at 5x the price... that doesn't seem like an appealing deal for the end consumer.

They've just now gotten the workflow speeded up so you can get some high-speed output, but that takes a Red Rocket. Are Scarlet buyers going to shell out $5,000 for a Red Rocket? Or an Octo-Mac? It doesn't make sense to me.

The other cameras make recorded files that can be dragged and dropped onto the timeline in today's NLEs. The raw workflow, while powerful, is also a pain in the butt for those who a) aren't used to it, or b) don't have the time to go through that. I can't fathom how a same-day-edit would be imagined to be done in raw, right? Yet people are shooting GH1s and 5D MK IIs at weddings for a same-day edit... people who shoot home movie footage, who want to trim out clips, are they gonna work in raw?

Then again, Red could solve that by simply offering a dual recording format, like SLRs do -- record Raw for those who want/need it, and record AVCHD for the end consumer. So it's solvable, but is that the approach they'll take? We'll see.

I don't get where something like a Scarlet fits in, now that the whole market has shifted over. I know RED said everything about the Scarlet was changing for the better, so I'll trust that they have some amazing tricks up their sleeves. But I would be very surprised if they had too much of an impact on the market at $10k. I think you'll see the sales orders of GH1s and 5D Mk III (assuming 24p) at something like 100 units sold for every Scarlet sold, if the Scarlet comes in at $10k. Whether or not it records 6K, etc. That will take a few sales from the HPX300 and EX3, but those are small-market movers as compared to GH1s and 5D Mk IIs.

I mean, I'll probably still buy a Scarlet anyway, but then again, I bought a Red One. How many of our folks here can swing that? And, how many of them would, when they're talking about a camera that (if it embraces the current raw workflow) would be way more difficult to use in ENG/EPK/News/Wedding/Sports coverage? That's a whole huge segment of the market for whom the raw workflow would be a hindrance rather than a help!

If RED can price their unit at under $3k and offer more than the other guys do, then we're talking about the same formula that makes the Red One so popular.

But let's turn it on its head for a moment: if a Red One cost $100k, and a Sony F950 cost $15,000 -- do you really think the Red One would have stormed the market like it has? Of course not. So why should a Scarlet costing 6x as much as the GH1 be expected to storm the market?

That's why I say they will need to have something very special up their sleeves. I don't think the existing Scarlet announcements hold the same kind of sway that they did a couple of years ago. The market's moved way too fast, and the existing Scarlet would probably be CinePorter II if released as-is.

 

[Martti Ekstrand]

Why do you need to own a camera? Spend that money on your film! rent it from someone, and then you dont have to count pennies to have an additional lens....

For a young filmmaker trying to hone his/hers skills it's better to own a camera to practice and testing out ideas than renting it and stressed and nervously trying to use to the max for the few days it can be afforded. And now GH1 allows for practice full out cinematic DOF, learning both the language that comes with it and the techniques of focus pulling.

For a old film dog like me it's incredibly refreshing to have a camera sitting on my shelf and when I feel like it pop out and shoot something for my own fun. Without coming back with images sharp from glass to horizon looking like cheap pr0n. Or having to do the funding rat race which can be a horrible inspiration killer. Just look at the 3 shorts I've done so far at the link in my sig, none of those would have happened without me owning the GH1. Just raw stock, processing and telecine for "Closing Time" would have cost more than the GH1. For the first time in my working life I feel like I can do my thing without having to explain myself to a bunch of bureaucrats with little insights in creative processes. I can easily see myself doing a no-budget feature with GH1. To do the same with a 35mm or a Red cam I'd have to sell my apartment and live under a bridge.

Here's a little equation from a writer / director's perspective:

creative control > technical image quality

Always. Now the latter is easily quantifiable and measurable, one can throw numbers and test charts at it and prove stuff - the former a very diffuse cloud of personal preferences, budgets and practicalities.

 

[Barry_Green]

EPIC. thats going to be their meat and potatoes. All the benefits of recording the 8k optical scan, right out of the lens.... no film to act as intermediary.

on the low end, they need to abandon this Brain/Powerpack thing and just make some thign that shoots out of the box that isnt deceptivly priced low. A scarlet loaded out, will still be 25-35K for a good package.

Agreed 100%, on both points.

 

[Barry_Green]

I comPLETELY disagree with this. It's only a choice of pissing current RED owners off and completely obliterating the market worse than they already have, OR, releasing a crippled SCARLET.

And I comPLETELY disagree. I think Timur has it right. Red belongs on the high end, with the Epic.

Nobody's really beaten them to the punch either. Look how crippled all of the offerings are? Especially the MKii as far as this minuscule niche is concerned.

Miniscule niche? I don't know the sales numbers directly, but I bet there will be at least 1000 MkII/GH1/D90 cameras sold for every Red One sold. This is a huge "niche."

 

[Kholi]

Well, Red can't either -- that's why there's no downscaling in the camera. With the Red workflow you have to do everything in post.


Well... if it doesn't have those things, then what's the point in releasing it?

They have said that they want everyone to have a Scarlet, that they'll sell them to filmmakers and commercial producers and soccer moms. Do you think that'll happen at $10,000?

If the Scarlet is $10k, it'll be a small niche product. The Red One has sold, what, 5,000 units in its lifetime? The HPX170 and EX1 together probably sell that many every month. So Scarlet would take a chunk of that market, the cinema chunk, which probably accounts for maybe 1/4, so ... a thousand units a month?

Whereas if they were to compete for the end consumer, they could do 10,000 units a month.

But they'd have to be in the $3k price bracket or below to have a chance at the end consumer.

And if it doesn't have all the features that the others do, and more, why would anyone buy it?

Agreed. So where's the revolution? Where does Scarlet fit in? Wasn't RED all about giving you an F900 at 1/5 the price? Why should the Scarlet be different? I just don't see how it works if they offer things like an intensive computer-dependent raw workflow, at 5x the price.

They've just now gotten the workflow speeded up so you can get some high-speed output, but that takes a Red Rocket. Are Scarlet buyers going to shell out $5,000 for a Red Rocket? Or an Octo-Mac? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't get where they fit in. I know they said everything was changing for the better, so I'll trust that they have some amazing tricks up their sleeves. But I would be very surprised if they had too much of an impact on the market at $10k. I think you'll see the sales orders of GH1s and 5D Mk III (assuming 24p) at something like 100 units sold for every Scarlet sold, if the Scarlet comes in at $10k.

I mean, I'll still buy one, but then again, I bought a Red One. How many of our folks here can swing that? And, how many of them would, when they're talking about a camera that (if it embraces the current raw workflow) would be way more difficult to use in ENG/EPK/News/Wedding/Sports coverage?

If they can price their unit at under $3k and offer more than the other guys do, then we're talking about the same formula that makes the Red One so popular.

But let's turn it on its head for a moment: if a Red One cost $100k, and a Sony F950 cost $15,000 -- do you really think the Red One would have stormed the market like it has? Of course not. So why should a Scarlet costing 6x as much as the GH1 be expected to storm the market?

That's why I say they will need to have something very special up their sleeves. I don't think the existing Scarlet announcements hold the same kind of sway that they did a couple of years ago. The market's moved way too fast, and the existing Scarlet would probably be CinePorter II if released as-is.

Can't disagree with any of that. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like a reality that an S35 Scarlet could be priced at 3K for a fully working module that offers anything better than what's already out.

Ideally, to beat all the aliasing and everything else, you would probably want a 3K Raw Image to scale as you please in post. Otherwise, then we just get all the same junk that we're getting with the GH-1 and MKii.

But you're right, a 10K scarlet will just fill the gap between this and RED that hasn't been satisfied yet.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

This was shot on a very early 2/3" mysterium X sensor using a 35mm lens as well... DOF is quite adequate.

http://www.redgrabs.com/izzy/

No kind of processing or anything like that, so it wasn't meant as a quality judge of what's to come from Scarlet... just a teaser that Jarred shot and posted some months back.

Point being... Seen a couple of things from teh 2/3" sensor, and concerning DOF seems like a great middle ground to me... one you can go shallow or deep without having to do anything too crazy in order to achieve the look you want as far as that is concerned...

2500 dollars for a 2/3" interchangeable... use old 16mm lenses... or even use 35mm lenses (wth proper lens mount) if you take into account crop factor and all... Should have plenty to work with in terms of DOF.

My personal opinion: I still don't see the comparison between cams like the gh1, or canon, etc, and Scarlet... Great for what they do and all... But, at the end of the day, in the same ballpark concerning price, the magic is in Redcode RAW (and manual controls and all the things we use to take for granted as standard features, but now live without on the gh1, d90, 5d, etc), and that's just not something I've seen these hybrid dslr's be able to really stand up to yet... At least in terms of robustness and overall quality of codec... Not to say that there isn't a great place for these gh1's and such... and there will undoubtedly be some spillover... But, I thought we all wanted cams with great, robust codecs, and minimal rolling shutter, and other workarounds? Now, suddenly affordable cams hit with shallower DOF and everyone sees the scarlet as unecessary... (personal opinion) I still see these cams as more of a stop gap for a lot of people waiting on scarlet... or who gave up on it for now, but will be looking at it again when it comes out.

SCARLET is meant to be a true professional digital cinema camera is it not? With full manual control, and all the things that we want in our gear (well, not all, but you get my point).. These vdslr's have either a terrible jello, or mud, or no decent way of getting audio into the camera, or no manual controls, or no 24p, etc, etc, etc.... Folks live with those shortcomings, b/c they know the price of these cameras and what they are capable of in PROPER hands and under PROPER, CONTROLLED shooting scenarios... But, a comparison to what I think it's safe to say even the 2/3" 3k Scarlet will be at the very least? I just don't get it. Maybe if the 2/3" Scarlet cost 6 grand or something... But, in this case, you are gaining back all of those things that you used to consider standard in your camera for a grand or so, as well as redccode, etc, etc... Those cams are in the same ballpark in terms of price... but not nearly so in feature set as far as I can tell.

As to the S35 Scarlet at 7 grand... I see that cam more honestly compared to the red one at 3.5x the cost or whatever from the spec sheet.... Even more robust implementation of redcode still, etc, etc, etc... It won't have everything the RED one does, but it will have a lot, and some things it will do better, etc, etc. Not as a comparison to the 1080 canon or what not...

As far as motion is concerned and robustness of codec, etc... AND cameras with all the functions that we USED to take for granted as standard requirement, but are NOW willing to do without for the price tag... my money is still on the DSMC's as far as things stand now. Who knows what it will be 6 months from now though. These other cams still have a couple of more generations to begin to be competitive in terms of price/quality and robustness of what I think we will see from the dsmc line in my opinion.

 

[Kholi]

And I comPLETELY disagree. I think Timur has it right. Red belongs on the high end, with the Epic.


Miniscule niche? I don't know the sales numbers directly, but I bet there will be at least 1000 MkII/GH1/D90 cameras sold for every Red One sold. This is a huge "niche."

Noooo way. I seriously think they could totally compete in this market IF they offer the lowest of the low that they can muster but still retain better image quality than what's available. And in comparison to consumers? How many GH-1's or MKii's were actually sold to Filmmakers versus Photographers and People looking for a Cheap DSLR, not even considering video?

Especially the MKii.