Panasonic Vs Red.... images?

N

neomoviedude

Member
Hi everyone,

I'm not trying to troll any particular camera I'm going expressing what I see. Just going strictly on the images and not the numbers. I think the Panny makes more beautiful images. Sure the Red is sharper, has more pixels and dynamic range but I still find the images very video like. Maybe the images are too sharp and the edges are a dead give away that it's a video medium. I'm not sure if Red has gamma software built in it like the Panasonic but maybe it should consider this. I've heard others say these type of gamma settings can be done in post and that raw images allow for more control. Well that's probably true but right out the box Panasonic makes beautiful images that don't need a lot of tweaking. Again, I applaud the guys at Red for making advances in digital cinema but I think the camera needs more work on the image. Now I could be wrong but I'm only going on what my eyes see. Not trying to troll or pick a fight here. Intelligent responses are welcome. Thanks.
 
If you're criteria for a camera is that it delivers a beautiful image out of the box, than yeah, you probably don't want to be shooting uncompressed RAW, period.

If you're happy with Panasonic's CineGamma, why worry about Red? It certainly isn't for everyone. If you think the HVX200 delivers a better image than Red, more power to you. I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly, but hey, you just saved yourself $12,000. :)
 
Well, not necessarily comparing the Hvx200 but I have seen the images a Varicam makes and the images are beyond amazing! I mean aside from the fact that digital offers a cost effective solution I would think the reason a person uses a digital 24p camera to shoot a music video or narrative is because it comes close to a film look. The Panasonic with their built in Cinegamma achieves this. And I'm sure the new high end Panny will make wonderful images. I know that Red is a powerful camera but I think the raw images are video like. Just my opinion.
 
i dont think youre comparing apples to apples here. this is like saying that a plymouth voyager is better for driving the family to church than a ferrari - no kidding?
 
Yes, we all agree that they are aimed at different markets. We all agree that Red is a digital cinema camera on steroids. However I was talking strictly about the aesthetics and imagery. I think Panasonic has created cameras that produce beautiful film like images. I think the raw Red images are still a little video like.
 
I think this topic is irrelevant...seeing as the image a camera is capable of is only one part of the equation, and (like wgzn and Barry mentioned) these are different tools aimed at different markets.

Given that, I'll at least add this to it - you'll be able to make RED footage look like it came from a Varicam in post, if you like.
You will not be able to make Varicam footage look like it came from a RED.

Dynamic Range, Color, Resolution, Compression... the RED has the advantage in all those areas.

IF we're just talking about pure image, like you said.
 
Last edited:
neomoviedude said:
Maybe the images are too sharp and the edges are a dead give away that it's a video medium. .
Click to expand...


Hmmm.
There's a difference between real detail and artificial detail.

The RED gives you real image information. Try turning the detail settings off on the HVX200 and report back.

All the things you mention that the RED has is what actually is making it closer to film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top