Red Scarlet Vs. 5D3 Raw Sharpness Comparison

Ryan Lightbourn said:
9 times out of 10 they'd ask me to pull the 5D2 shots because they stood out and didn't look very nice.
Click to expand...

Were your clients looking on a funko screen in an office or were they looking after compression for the final delivery?

I dont know where you 'broadcast' but 90% of 'broadcasting' is via a horrible web stream which I guess would have muzzed out the difference?

S
 
morgan_moore said:
Were your clients looking on a funko screen in an office or were they looking after compression for the final delivery?

I dont know where you 'broadcast' but 90% of 'broadcasting' is via a horrible web stream which I guess would have muzzed out the difference?

S
Click to expand...

I agree with Ryan on this, though. It really didn't have anything to do with the screen, etc. 5D MK2 footage always looked bad in a timeline with any other capable camera. It's worse if you attempt to cut it into RED footage for more than anything but b-roll cut aways (hands, two second close ups, etc). Would like to say two years ago's when we completely removed the 5D from our options list, people writing the checks couldn't stand how soft it was and just overall "unpleasant", regardless of how well lit it was etc.

We did add a hacked GH2, however, and never had a single complaint about the footage. There was, in these instances, a Hot Rod PL adapter attached to it, so that the camera could borrow the same primes as the Epic(s).

5D3 hack is definitely a completely different image from the camera, and seems as if you shoot carefully you wouldn't have the same complaints when cutting it in with better cameras.
 
morgan_moore said:
Yep on the timeline but I guess 90% of content we are paid to make goes out at compressed 480p - where the 5d2 just looks great

S
Click to expand...

That might be the difference: most of our deliveries are 720 or 1080. Even if it's going out SD in the end, money people always see the 720 at the least.
 
morgan_moore said:
Were your clients looking on a funko screen in an office or were they looking after compression for the final delivery?
I dont know where you 'broadcast' but 90% of 'broadcasting' is via a horrible web stream which I guess would have muzzed out the difference?
Click to expand...

Actually...webstreams are nowadays even better looking than standard def broadcasts, atleast here in Finland. Broadcasts look horrible.
 
Kholi said:
Would like to say two years ago's when we completely removed the 5D from our options list, people writing the checks couldn't stand how soft it was and just overall "unpleasant", regardless of how well lit it was etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe you just had a bad 5d dp? There are loads of people who can make that camera look horrible.
 
Ryan Lightbourn said:
You're 100% right about the comparison video pixel peeping...I was wrong to criticize that.

And btw many of those videos only contain 1 or 2 shots w/ 5D2. When I'd send clients videos with F3 s-log as A-cam, and 5D2 as B-cam, 9 times out of 10 they'd ask me to pull the 5D2 shots because they stood out and didn't look very nice.

The 5D2 was revolutionary when it first came out. But I remember selling my EX1 & Letus adapter, receiving the 5D2, seeing the footage straight out of the camera for the first time, and thinking "oh s*%t...what have I done!?". It was soft. There was moire and aliasing. The dynamic range was not super great and the compression sucked. But I got used to it. Most of my projects were straight to web, so the lightweight setups were great for my back.

But years passed and DSLRs simply didn't improve. I eventually figured out that THEY were the limiting factor in the D.P. side of my career. My visuals weren't getting any better. Once I moved on, I got bigger & better paying gigs.

I got an FS-100 and it added a little sharpness, still not good enough so I eventually upgraded to the F3 and got more sharpness and dynamic range...something was still not right. It wasn't until the too-good-to-be true Red Nov. '12 deal, that I bit the bullet and ordered a BT One. Once I shot on the MX sensor, everything changed. The camera was no longer the limiting factor. It was me. Sharpness, high dynamic range, raw, and filmic motion rendering were the three things I needed for the image I had been craving (4k was a nice addition, but my clients are still requesting 1080p deliveries). I also bought a used Scarlet to have this image in a smaller form factor. I always hated Red fanboys...but they're right...their cameras are incredible.

I strongly considered the $9,500 Scarlet-Dragon upgrade, but the Magic Lantern hack changed my decision. I love full frame. I love raw. I love sharp 1080p. I love 4k, but don't really need it yet. By the time I need 4k, some f**ker will have it hacked raw into a full frame DSLR with 14+ stops of dynamic range and my life will be complete.

So to make a long story short...I don't hate DSLRs. They're revolutionary and have no doubt changed the independent film world for the better. I just hate the 2008 DSLR look that plagued the industry until now. Many people say it's your story that sells. But some hipster with a T3i is gonna make a hell of a lot less money on their artsy Vimeo Staff Pick than the guy shooting Nike commercials on a Red Epic.
Click to expand...

Well Dang!!! The thread could have been closed after this. Nice! Especially that last paragraph.


....Tito....I need a tissue.
 
Ryan Lightbourn said:
So to make a long story short...I don't hate DSLRs. They're revolutionary and have no doubt changed the independent film world for the better. I just hate the 2008 DSLR look that plagued the industry until now. Many people say it's your story that sells. But some hipster with a T3i is gonna make a hell of a lot less money on their artsy Vimeo Staff Pick than the guy shooting Nike commercials on a Red Epic.
Click to expand...

Good post, this stuck out.
 
maarek said:
Actually...webstreams are nowadays even better looking than standard def broadcasts, atleast here in Finland. Broadcasts look horrible.
Click to expand...

Yep that could be true. I think when I was mainly shooting 5d2 I was aware of the limitations, but also of the opinion that those limitations were less limiting than the delivery platform - generally 480px web in 2008

As our viewers get fatter pipe then even the end users will be seeing in 720 or more I agree.

Im only making this point as ultimately we only need to out-resolve the enduser by a bit..

S
 
ErikTande said:
Ha, good stuff! Cheers!
Click to expand...

I'm glad some of you enjoyed the rant, I was worried I'd get trashed for the "story sells, but" line!

This video/thread was initially a reaction to the GH3/Red users who keep bombarding our raw hack posts and saying it's worthless or sucks for whatever reason. I'm not seeing the same negativity from Black Magic users, because I assume they're more satisfied with their purchase.

Am I saying 5D3-ML better than the Scarlet? No. But it's DAMN close.

Am I saying it's better* than the GH3 or any other sub $10k DSLR (as of July 10th 2013)? Sorry, but f**k yes.
*by better, I mean more "pro" image in the majority of scenarios. I realize each has it's pros & cons for a variety of jobs.

But GH3 users, you shouldn't be bitter....this hack is a HUGE win for you. Nikons already have a raw hack in the works (albiet with super-low frame rates right now). Which camera do you think is up next for a raw hack? If I had to put money on it, I'd say the GH3. When you see a graded, raw 1080p image from your sensors, you'll understand what all the hype is about. Maybe you already shot something on your GH3 with top notch art direction and lighting, and don't think it could possibly get any better...it sure as hell can, with raw.

Look at the shot at :44 in Smith Rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8A7FH2Qg4
That beautiful, natural, yet almost-HDR look. It's a look I can pull out of Redcode, but only after the raw hack am I able to achieve looks like that with the 5D3. Raw simply holds SO much information & detail, it's insane.

High end clients can spot the DSLR look and depending on the project, they typically don't like it. But that will be out the door soon. The only people who lose out here are Red users who maybe aren't so talented, but could afford something completely out of our league. Those guys are royally f**ked. The talented Red users will do just fine and continue to make money.

And just a fun note: on day 3 of shooting in the Bahamas, the 'Enter' button jammed on my Scarlet side handle and I wasn’t using a Red Touch (lost the ability to format cards and ran out of space). I’ve never been less upset to think, “well at least I have my DSLR”. This hack is a win for ALL DSLR users, because after all these years, we're finally, FINALLY about to enter a post-2008-look, next generation DSLR era. Where the differences between DSLR & Red are negligible, and these little cameras the size of a soda can become a much, much more widely accepted option.
 
Agreed.

The other great thing about dSLR's is just how well they hold their resell value vs dedicated video cameras.

When the 5D Mark III is eclipsed in the video world by 4k or higher dynamic range or whatever - that does nothing to diminish its desirability in the photography world.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Agreed.

The other great thing about dSLR's is just how well they hold their resell value vs dedicated video cameras.

When the 5D Mark III is eclipsed in the video world by 4k or higher dynamic range or whatever - that does nothing to diminish its desirability in the photography world.
Click to expand...

Very true. it broke my soul when I received a measly $7,000 for my F3 less than a year after paying $14,000. Luckily, I shot some decent gigs with it...so not many regrets in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top