Why are RED Cameras Industry Standard?

@James- the 5D2/3 and Venice match well because they provide Right Color ®

The F35, F65, Alexa's, even current Reds (along with Venice) are converging on Right Color ®. ARRI got there first 9 years ago!

Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, BM occasionally can look OK, however they've got a ways to go for skintones and achieving Right Color ®.

I spent a lot of time trying to fix the C300 II's color, as well as the 1DX II and EOS R. I made a lot more progress with the DSLRs! And the 5D3 shooting RAW didn't need anything- looked gorgeous straight from camera (even the 5D3 H.264 using minor built-in settings tweaks looked better than the recent cameras which need major tweaks with custom picture styles).
 
There is something, difficult to say sometimes, but definitely some cameras are set right.

Between the C300 and the 1DC, i felt the 1DC had better iq. Once you get beyond bad compression, the higjer end Canon dslr’s were pretty great. They just lacked DR at the ends.
 
Last edited:
The Venice feels like what i would have thought the Varicam 35 cameeas would have tried to be. But they seem to have abandoned Panasonic mojo for Sony-esque scinetifically acurate colors. Surprised Sony went for mojo. They still can’t quite leave their Sony roots though.
 
achieply said:
I was curious if anyone could provide some insight for me as to why RED Cameras are industry-standard right behind Arri with the Alexa Cameras? I know many feature films choose to shoot with the Alexa but when they don't it's usually one of the RED cameras. I not saying RED makes bad cameras but why do many production choice RED over Sony, Panasonic, or Canon when they can't use the Alexa?


Please keep this civil.
Click to expand...

Red cameras became popular in Hollywood because of the fact that they offered a combination of dynamic range, frame rates, resolution, and latitude, combined with a codec that made all that data manageable. A lot of shows that use Alexas as A cameras actually use Reds for effects heavy scenes because of that -- the detail enables the compositors to get cleaner keys, and the amount of gradeability in the footage makes it very flexible.

That plus the fact that they're relatively compact and light compared to other cinema cameras is draw, as well.

Why do they get chosen over Sony, Panasonic, and Canon?

Well, Panasonic and Canon are easy to answer; they didn't really emphasize cinema for a long time, so in a lot of ways the new Varicam line is basically a newcomer. Panasonic has been huge in ENG, studio and that sort of thing for a long time, as has Canon. None of the Canon cameras until rather recently, mainly with the C700, offered what Hollywood wanted, and the C700 joined the market with not much new, so it's been largely ignored mainly because it was late to the party.

Sony's a different story altogether. A lot of people have disliked Sony's color science, even though its camera technology has been second only to Red's for a long time. There are also people who rather liked the F65, but that was a beast -- and being an 8K camera it produced a LOT of data that was rather a bear to manage. That's why Sony developed X-OCN.

So you might wonder why Venice isn't as popular as Helium and/or Monstro? Well, Venice is brand spanking new, and only recently has gotten some of the features like higher frame rates implemented. Give it time, it will gain popularity.
 
@James- IMO Canon's DSLR's look better than their cine cameras. I did a LOT of side-by-side tests with the C300 II, and tweaked the color as much as the C300 II allowed (including the matrix). I could not make it look as good as the tweaked 1DX II for skin tones. The stock 1DX II didn't look nearly as good as the stock 5D3 for video. And 5D3 ML RAW still compares well to 2019 camera for skintones: it's kind of a baby Alexa.

I've owned a few Sony cameras: FS700, A7S I, A7S II (+ a bunch of camcorders). I wouldn't call the color scientifically accurate, I'd just call it Wrong. Have you done the mirror test? While tuning cameras, I'd hold up a hand mirror to see skintones while viewing also on a high quality monitor. Cameras are a LONG way away from being 'Right', and Sony IMO has been farther away than Canon and especially ARRI. Matching color chips doesn't cut it- need to match multiple types of skintones correctly, which is what ARRI does and why they've dominated, especially for commercials as the requirements for high accuracy are paramount. Producing 'Right' color under mixed/bad lighting is another level of camera skill where ARRI still leads.

When I look at Venice footage- I see that it's mostly right, perhaps not as accurate as ARRI, however it does have as you say mojo that deviates from 'Right' in a pleasing way. I'd hope that someday Sony provides a 'Right' mode too, to match ARRI. In any case, ARRI, Venice, current Reds are all very close to Right, which is cool. Now we wait for that to trickle down to the cameras most of us purchase (5D3 ML RAW is also close to Right, straight from the camera).

I've been raving about the Venice since it was launched: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?360234-Sony-VENICE-Impressive-Skin-Tones and the examples keep impressing.

This is outstanding straight out of camera Venice color and it looks fantastic (thumbnail is non-WB'd Red Monstro, not the Venice; watch the clip):

Venice frame with Cooke 2x Anamorphic (ungraded straight from camera):
VeniceSkintonesCooke2xAna.jpg
 
James0b57 said:
The Venice feels like what i would have thought the Varicam 35 cameeas would have tried to be. But they seem to have abandoned Panasonic mojo for Sony-esque scinetifically acurate colors. Surprised Sony went for mojo. They still can’t quite leave their Sony roots though.
Click to expand...

Not this time... Sony's approach to Venice's color was to follow Arri's example, rather than emphasizing accuracy.

Arri didn't design its cameras to have accurate color, it designed its cameras to have beautiful color. Red followed suit with its IPP2, and Sony followed suit with Venice.
 
Tamerlin said:
Not this time... Sony's approach to Venice's color was to follow Arri's example, rather than emphasizing accuracy.

Arri didn't design its cameras to have accurate color, it designed its cameras to have beautiful color. Red followed suit with its IPP2, and Sony followed suit with Venice.
Click to expand...

You disagree to say the same thing? Sony went for mojo in the Venice, but because it is Sony, it still kind of comes off as video.
 
jcs said:
@James- IMO Canon's DSLR's look better than their cine cameras.
Click to expand...

I totally agree!

Because of the seperation of the video and stills divisions within Canon, they had to reinvent the wheel. Total waste of resources, and customers’ money.
 
I know that. I checked the IMDB when you posted it.

I'm saying no one would be able to tell the difference (meaning it looks good, IMO).

OS.jpg
 
Venice has a new high end digital look, which is also true of the higher end Red cameras. That's what's in vogue these days.

PS. F65 should have been the dominant high end camera of the 2010's. Its colors are great and it had superior resolution to Alexa, a 17.6 MPX (4K 4:2:2) sensor. Somehow, Sony managed to self-destroy on that front similar to the way it screwed up Elcaset and Beta.

 
DLD said:
Venice has a new high end digital look, which is also true of the higher end Red cameras. That's what's in vogue these days.

PS. F65 should have been the dominant high end camera of the 2010's. Its colors are great and it had superior resolution to Alexa, a 17.6 MPX (4K 4:2:2) sensor. Somehow, Sony managed to self-destroy on that front similar to the way it screwed up Elcaset and Beta.

Click to expand...

You are probably right, but Luc Besson was an early adopter, and we know what he made film look like:
48669604317_7f44a5bacb.jpg
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Why do I always feel like Venice footage looks brown? It also tends to look more sharp (course, harsh) than Arri, as Red can, but not necessarily in a good way.
Click to expand...

Does always mean two movies? Or are there more?

[If not, I'd assume the assumption would be based on including test footage in the evaluation/observation as well.]
 
NorBro said:
Does always mean two movies? Or are there more?

[If not, I'd assume the assumption would be based on including test footage in the evaluation/observation as well.]
Click to expand...
Always meaning all of the four online samples that I've seen of the Sony Venice. It's a simple question and I don't need to provide my own test footage to ask the question. Is it just a coincidence I'm seeing so much brown in all the Sony Venice sample videos? Are they all just graded coincidentally in an unnatural way?

Case in point...

Rather brown.
Sony-Venice-2.png


Super brown. (Okay, so the girl is brown skinned but I'm still left with a brown feeling here)
Sony-Venice-3.png


Closest to natural but with a hint of brown.
Sony-Venice-4.png


Quite brown.
Sony-Venice-1.png



And what do natural skin tones look like again?

Arri-4.png


Arri-3.png


More white and natural. Right. Thanks for reminding me, Arri.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top