5d mk II vs. RED One
Yeah the topic seems absurd, just check the clip and please no red/canon fanboy cat fights.
article http://www.freshdv.com/2009/01/canon-5dmk2-vs-red.html
clip http://video.nrkbeta.no/media/filer/...Canon_del2.mp4
based on the footage (the language was beyond my comprehension) here are the biggest results:
Obviously,
RED blows the mark II away almost in everything (quality and dynamic range)
BUT the 5d mk II blows the RED away in Low Light sensitivity.
I saw this the other day and didn't think it was worth posting.
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
i thought so too but when i saw the last clip, i was pretty impressed. RED footage looked like a consumer camcorder
I thought most people knew Red One can't stand up to 5D2 in low light/high iso? but the real triumph is that Canon 5D2 is even compared to Red 1 to begin with.
I think the 5D2's sensor has all the potential in the world. Just look at the stills it takes.. The memory system and codec for the video aspect can be replaced with one that's more robust and allow full potential of the sensor. Then we'll have a Red 1 killer in a small DSLR form factor.
I can imagine the atmosphere at Red headquarter the day they heard about the 5D2.. "ohh.. sh...t.. oh damn..." Same reaction probably occurred at all the 35mm DOF adapter makers around the world
Last edited by booggerg; 2009 January 15th at 14:37.
LMAOOriginally Posted by booggerg
Probably the reason why they changed the Scarlet.
Yes you're right. I still can't believe how ugly that last image was either. I also agree with booggerg that this technolgy in Canon DSLR's have the "potential" to kill Red. if only they make a more cinematic style camera....Red would feel it's (canon's) wrath. lol Canon is basically toying with us to remind us who is king in this industry. But these kind of games end up being a good thing for us consumers.
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
Yeah, that end clip is amazing, although I am not 100% convinced the RED would/could be REALLY that bad. Can that really be?
The Canon 5D Mark II looks great though.
Footnote:
Got to love NRK for trying new stuff like this!
I've even sold them quite a bit of equipment in the past, and they are definitely
keeping up with innovation; maybe due to their relatively small size,
but I think most importantly because there's a bunch of cool people who work there!
Desire, she's a beast.
That, and then make the sensor run 15 times faster. MKII sensor can do about 5fps at full resolution, while RED ONE can do 72fps.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Something does look a bit fishy there... i've seen some pretty decent looking low light red footage, i.e. this:
http://www.przypek.com/red%20page.html
...MKII is on it's own league as far as low light performace goes though...
Last edited by Halsu; 2009 January 15th at 18:56.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
MK2 has a much larger sensor with much more resolution. Makes no sense to compare 72fps with Red's sensor to Canon's vastly different sensor.
many people do not need 72fps nor do they need 3K resolution.. They just need a 24P cam that delivers good HD performance like the 5D2. Red's high ISO is simply weak relative to the 5D2..
Agreed.
But I too think the RED footage could of been made to look AWESOME with very little adjustments or different
lenses or boosting in post....whatever.
It's a statement as it is, but [despite me having no love lost for RDC] an unfair one I think.
MKII has roughly twice as large sensor, with twice the resolution. If you take that into account, the RED sensor is just seven times faster ;-)
Even with croppping to RED size/resolution, MKII sensor probably couldn't do more than 10 fps. Also, the rolling shutter artifacts would probably be something absolutely horrendous... like three times worse than D90, if my math is even roughly correct.
MKII doesn't deliver good HD performance. Skipping pixels means aliasing and horrendous moire problems (try shooting i.e. a brick wall with it and you'll know what i mean).many people do not need 72fps nor do they need 3K resolution.. They just need a 24P cam that delivers good HD performance like the 5D2. Red's high ISO is simply weak relative to the 5D2..
The area where MKII shines is high ISO stuff, but RED can do pretty well around ISO 2000 too, when scaled down to HD resolution, especially if the playing field is leveled with noise reduction filtering (which Canon does in-camera).
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
I think a lot of people who compare the RED to cheaper solutions forget the fact that RED's R3D is a (pseudo) RAW file format, which is a huge deal when making digital similar to film.
Similarly, I think people forget that the RED trumps most other digital cinema solutions (Dalsa, F23/F900/F950, Viper, etc.) and can be OWNED for less than $20Gs. That's insanity -- anyone who tries to downplay that either doesn't work in the industry or is dillusional.
As far as comparisons are concerned, an HV20/30/40 with decent DOF adapter can potentially look better than cameras that are dozens of times more expensive and no one seems to rag on those prosumer cams. And I mean look at the lengths at which the test has to go in order for the 5DmkII to be considered "better" than the RED One -- ultra-low light conditions, compressed to a distributable file format (mp4), mostly still tripod shot, etc... I mean, no one would want to be limited to those conditions, even if it made the $3500 cam comparable to a $17500 cam.
EDIT: All of that said, if the 5DmkII did 24fps, I'd probably buy a couple of those before a Scarlet... But that's because the price of scarlet went way up from the initial 3k for under $3k announcement. I think they could have scored majorly huge if they'd stuck to that... maybe had added a F35 sensor version with interchangable lenses for $5Gs or something.
-Rogue5-
Last edited by -Rogue5-; 2009 January 15th at 19:47.
I've shot brick walls and it looks bangin'
BTW.. are we still in discussion comparing a camera to another camera 10x its cost? Have no doubt that the new wave of digital cinema cameras will be out from the big boys that will drop the Red One to the prosumer price-point. Have no doubt my friend.
I dunno though... I mean how much more could they offer? Higher resolution? Personally, I was hoping that the price of the RED ONE would go down when Scarlet and Epic and the 28K were announced, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen with the exchange program.
Again, I think the 3K at $3k that scarlet was originally aiming for would have hit a sweet spot... but now it's essentially the same as the RED ONE was when it launched (especially after getting the NECESSARY accessories.)
But yeah, it'd be nice if Sony or someone launched their own $20k camera that offers the same resolution and features, etc. OR if they kept producing the F23, F35, F900, F950 and the price of those cams dropped down to <$20k level (as that's about the only thing that'll force RED to lower their prices further.)... alas those cameras are only 1080p... not 4K.
-Rogue5-
Like I said, 5D2's sensor (or another generation of it) in a body like the XLH1 with EOS mount + reasonabl codec would be a killer. MANY MANY people would be satisified with 1080P.. Heck, many people today are using Red to produce broadcast work.. 1080P native would be sufficient. $10K at the most for a camera like that IMO..
1Ds series is about $8Gs, right?
Realistically though, I doubt Canon would cannibalize their camcorder market (consumer, prosumer, or professional level). Otherwise they would have done it with the 5D mk II... hell, at least put in 24p and manual image control.
-Rogue5-
Of all the persons on this planet lucky enough to have a telly,
I bet more than 95% watch it at maximum resolution of SD.
Any higher acquisition than 1080p is still ridiculous, except for delivery to cinema, of which a maximum of 1.24% RED cams are actually used for.
(All statistics in this post are based on 15 seconds of thinking about it and coming up with a best-guess scenario).
Exactly, so what would the other digital cinema manufacturers offer to make their cameras easily distinguishable from what RED One already offers? Better low-light? Less rolling shutter? I doubt there's anything major they could do... not to mention the fact that all other cam makers still want $100k+ for their digital cinema cameras (and in some cases you can't even purchase them outright.)
-Rogue5-
Well, that's what many are saying though, and why RDC is worried:
A DSLR-type cam, or rather: a video cam with DSLR quality, and interchangeable lenses like Canon EOS and Nikon (with use of its IS systems) is pretty much around the corner.
It's not if, it's WHEN!
And it will be at $5000 or less.
No need for what RED is offering - which is GREAT, but mainly superfluous.
There is something called TOO GOOD FOR WHAT WE NEED. I think RED fits that quite well.
I think where the red shines is motion. i.e. frame grab of a moving vehicle and you can still read the license plate. Although almost every sample of one I've seen has TOO shallow of a DOF. i.e. the NOSE is in focus, but everything else is NOT. Which doesn't make for much of a story (unless you're a plastic surgeon specializing in noses).
Unless those DSLR-types offer a RAW-eque format (even if it's something like R3D), then they'll never compete with digital cinema solutions (of which RED ONE is in a league all its own simply because it's price.) Assuming scarlet uses R3D raw, it'll still be a generation ahead of the DSLRs (if they don't have a raw format.) The additional resolution is just a bonus for offering better IQ when scaled down to 1080p (or for the opportunity to be used when 4K projectors make their way to cinemas in the future.)
It's a tight rope -- Canon won't want to eat up it's camcorder market so they'll probably always have limitations on their HDSLRs. Nikon could potentially deliver something worthwhile, but because they aren't traditonally into video, who knows if it'll be any good. NOT ONLY THAT, but even if Canon or Nikon dropped a HDSLR that shot 1080p+ video on a FF35 sensor with varible framerate and complete manual control for $5grand, RED would undoubtedly rethink their price strategy and probably make Scarlet cheaper "because they can."
The question is which do you think will be available first? Scarlet or an HDSLR that actually takes video seriously? Personally, unless Canon release a firmware update, they're DSLR product refreshes come every 3 years or so... I don't want to wait that long. And what if it ends up being the 1D series, instead of the 5D or 50D series... that stuff is $8+grand... at that price it'd be more beneficial to spend the extra cash and get the Scarlet for its video focus and RAW format.
-Rogue5-
The 1D series will never have HD video.. because many events would not allow professional photographers to operate a video capturing device.
That's not what I was told at CES. The people I spoke with said they didn't know which camera would get full video functionality, but that the 1D would be a prime candidate as it would add value to the camera (hopefully pushing potential buyers from getting the 5D or something else.)
Who knows.
-Rogue5-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote