Red MX vs Alexa vs 16mm Dynamic Range Test

[Halsu]

the good thing about the debate "alexa-red" is that one camera that didn't want to compete in the resolution aspect is now chosen by technicians and movie makers because it's beautiful images. so maybe Jim Jannard's stubbornness about resolution is not necessary.

The images the two put out are in fact very similar, in vast majority of cases, if you don't count resolution - both can be (and usually are) color graded to look like pretty much anything. They don't have a "look" per se.

Red:


Alexa:


Alexa's default preset is the prettier one in many people's opinion though.

Red @ ISO 320 (Factory default)


Alexa:


...but then again, if you change Red to ISO 2000, it gets closer to the Alexa default look...
It's just that many don't seem to dare to do so on the set, and end up overexposing highlights because they want a brighter image.

Red @ ISO 2000

[brawlster]

The images the two put out are in fact very similar, in vast majority of cases, if you don't count resolution - both can be (and usually are) color graded to look like pretty much anything. They don't have a "look" per se.

Of course they have a different look.

They use different sensors that capture different colour gamuts. You can *grade* them to be visually indistinct in lots of cases but it's greatly oversimplifying to say they don't have a "look", as is typical of a post production mentality where images are simply "acquired" or "captured".

jb

[Halsu]

Of course they have a different look.

They use different sensors that capture different colour gamuts. You can *grade* them to be visually indistinct in lots of cases but it's greatly oversimplifying to say they don't have a "look", as is typical of a post production mentality where images are simply "acquired" or "captured".

Pretty much all sensors capture linear images that are never meant to be used as is, and as such they don't really have much of a "look". Both Red and Alexa use bayer sensors, which do not even output an RGB data as is - they both need to be debayered before viewing. The color differences you see with cameras when watching the monitor are mostly due to differences in digital processing applied to the image in-camera. And it doesn't really make a big difference whether you use in-camera adjustments (either set by factory or modified by user), or if you do those in post, like you can with RAW capable cameras, or when shooting log, or doing DI for film footage for that matter.

And yes, you could say images are "acquired", when shooting with Alexa's log or Red's RAW, or shooting film for DI. Unlike with regular video cameras, there's no baked in look in any of these, only metadata settings if even that. It's a rule rather than an exception that the images are color graded in post for the "look", not on the set.

The main point is, no-one uses a scanned negative, Arri's LOG file, or red's RAW as-is. None of those are meant to be viewable as is, they are meant for flexibility in digital color correction. They all will be invariably graded to look vastly different from the original files (Red is an exception in that there is literally no viewable image at all in the camera file, it always needs to be processed in post with one settings or another before viewing) - and as said, in most cases they all can also be graded to look more or less the same color wise. All can give the results one needs just as easily in most cases.

As far as the mentality goes, i wear both hats. I both shoot and do post production professionally. I see both as equally demanding creative tasks, one is not superior to the other.

[brawlster]

Pretty much all sensors capture linear images that are never meant to be used as is, and as such they don't really have much of a "look". Both Red and Alexa use bayer sensors,

....




The main point is, no-one uses a scanned negative, Arri's LOG file, or red's RAW as-is. None of those are meant to be viewable as is, they are meant for flexibility in digital color correction. .....

in most cases they all can also be graded to look more or less the same color wise. All can give the results one needs just as easily in most cases.

As far as the mentality goes, i wear both hats. I both shoot and do post production professionally. I see both as equally demanding creative tasks, one is not superior to the other.

I don't think you can wear both hats or wouldn't be making these kinds of statements.

It's all good and well to talk of the linear nature of the image of the sensor, but each sensor produces a DIFFERENT LOOKING IMAGE. They are made by different companies and are tuned in different ways. They have a different spectral response. Look up the CIE plots of film vs RED vs even a Genesis or the freaky wide gamut mode on the F35. They are all totally different. What you're saying is so simplistic.

You're saying they don't have a "look" and they can be graded to look the same. They do have a distinctive look, and they can often be graded to look the same would be my perspective.

You sound to me like a post guy that shoots. Not a Cinematographer.

jb

[Halsu]

I don't think you can wear both hats or wouldn't be making these kinds of statements.

Why not? I see having a good working knowledge of both as a big benefit, also when it comes to shooting - it helps one to shoot with post in mind, so that the work is easier further down the line.

It's all good and well to talk of the linear nature of the image of the sensor, but each sensor produces a DIFFERENT LOOKING IMAGE. They are made by different companies and are tuned in different ways. They have a different spectral response. Look up the CIE plots of film vs RED vs even a Genesis or the freaky wide gamut mode on the F35. They are all totally different. What you're saying is so simplistic.

That's the point - sensors do not produce images. They produce bayer patterned raw data that needs to be converted to a visible image. Differences in that conversion generally affect the resulting look much more than the differences in sensors themselves. And that conversion and fine tuning is actually just digital image processing, not that much unlike color grading - even if it's done in-camera. In Red's case (and Alexa, if shooting RAW) all that processing and fine tuning is done in post (it's possible to use settings from the camera though).

You're saying they don't have a "look" and they can be graded to look the same. They do have a distinctive look, and they can often be graded to look the same would be my perspective.

I do understand this point, but it only applies to staying with the "presets" - which is pretty rarely the case in real life.

You sound to me like a post guy that shoots. Not a Cinematographer.

You are right in a way - i do spend more time in post than on the sets nowadays. I also dislike the word "cinematographer" - sounds a bit too self-important or pompous to me - i don't see myself as an auteur but rather a member of the team, also when i direct or shoot.

Regardless, i've shot television drama, commercials, documentaries, music videos... pretty much everything except theatrical features. Some of those have won an award or two, even.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/cv.html#Festivals:

[koolpenguin89]

I also dislike the word "cinematographer" - sounds a bit too self-important or pompous to me - i don't see myself as an auteur but rather a member of the team, also when i direct or shoot.

Either I'm reading this wrong or your confusing terms. In film, an auteur is a director whose film represents his creative vision (generally an auteur controls multiple aspects of production), and a cinematographer is another word for Director of Photography, the head of the camera department. Two very different jobs. Sorry if everyone here already knows this, the above statement confused me.

Dylan

[Halsu]

Either I'm reading this wrong or your confusing terms. In film, an auteur is a director whose film represents his creative vision (generally an auteur controls multiple aspects of production), and a cinematographer is another word for Director of Photography, the head of the camera department. Two very different jobs. Sorry if everyone here already knows this, the above statement confused me.

Dylan

My point was that no-one is really an auteur in a production, at least not in the productions i have ever worked on, including the ones i directed. They are a collaboration. And that "cinematographer" sounds a bit pompous to my taste... But yeah, my wording was a bit confusing i guess.

[Krane]

In my view the terms that define these positions have specific meanings at specific times. The one that controls the camera in a production can be generally descriptive or specific. With the term Director of Photography, you would be describing a position of control or authority within a hierarchy.

Conversely, the term cinematographer would be a more encompassing descriptive term representing someone trained or specialized in the art of motion pictures. A director of photography is always a cinematographer, but a cinematographer is not necessarily a director of photography.

[brawlster]

Of course a cinematographer or DOP is in a position of collaboration. The title shouldn't infer otherwise, and if it does, then you haven't been working with the right cinematographers.

It's also European / US centric differences.

I agree. A cinematographer is the more correct all encompassing title. A DOP, or DP is a more US version of the same thing, and especially when on UNION films, they also MUST have an operator that is employed separately (whether the DP operates or not). It also infers multiple cameras and multiple units as well.

jb

[drapeama]

A director of photography is always a cinematographer, but a cinematographer is not necessarily a director of photography.

That resume well the difference.

[cgbier]

Thanks for the hint, but I think my workout regimen - one-armed weightlifting in the 12oz class - is superior to yours.

But one question: is that chick in the middle poster included in the 72 bucks? If yes, count me in.

[1]

Sorry cgbier, I deleted the SPAM message. Your posts now stands in open, making no sense. lols

[cgbier]

Yes, those deleted spammers leave some pretty Dadaist posts. I like that.

[drapeama]

I deleted the SPAM message.

When I did, I'm always stuck with the View/Manage option...soft delete. Normal?

[cgbier]

Soft? Nah, you have to be tough to spammers!

[drapeama]

Soft? Nah, you have to be tough to spammers!

I would, but I can't! That's why!