Originally Posted by Mr.D
All you are talking about is resolution. Dynamic range and gamut are just as important if not more so once you have enough resolution.
One of the big differences between RED and Alexa is resolution and ability to resolve detail.
Alexa is 14 stops of DR, Red One is 13.5 stops, same for Epic plus the additional HDRx which gives Epic 18 stops.
Alexa clips highlights a little later than the RED's, while the RED's hold shadows longer without noise.
So you see, DR is not such an important difference.
RED is also continuously upgrading their software/firmware, so with the new Redcolor/Redgamma 3 very soon to be released you can even improve material that was shot years ago. Also means that dynamic range is improved.
That's one of the beauties of RAW.
There is nothing notionally more "transparent" about the RED that produces nice imagery beyond its resolution. A sharp ugly image is still an ugly image. Not once have I ever watched a film shot on RED where I didn't think "yuk" a fair few times.
Well, you have been haunting every thread on AVS where RED has been discussed and criticised the camera on every opportunity, blaming the camera for every ugly image you have supposedly seen.
The strange thing about it is that the camera gets the blame and not the people behind the camera or the post production.
I have never seen anybody blaming an bad looking movie for the filmstock used or seen any film criticised because it was shot on F35 or the Genesis.
The RED cameras must be the first in history where the fault is blamed on the camera and not by human "errors".
Why you are on this "mission" to discredit RED without ever showing that you have any particular understanding of the matter or examples to demonstrate your claims is to me a puzzle, particularly when you so many times has been shown examples of that with a RED camera you can make the image look any way you please.
If anybody needs proof that you can make images from RED cameras look anything you want to. In this RedForum section are posted new videos daily, everything from test footage, music videos and trailers. A good source for seeing the width image styles of what RED cameras and the people behind them can produce. Forum: SHOT ON RED
For a view of how RED cameras are used in fashion and other print media, this section is good; Forum: DSMC FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY Still meets Motion
Just about everything I've watched on Alexa has been characterised by it looking "nice".
Beside the fact that Alexa was released three years after RED One, it is no doubt that it makes good images.
But one have to understand the great and very important difference between these cameras in the way they produce images. I have explained this before, but I see that I have to repeat myself and maybe make it clearer.
Alexa downsamples in camera to a 2K Apple ProRes format with a "readymade" baked in quality courtesy of the Arri engineers.
That is also why it is so big, need a lot of processing power.
To illustrate; DP's that has derived their knowledge and craft from shooting film usually had to keep updated on new film-stock and how it reacted to different light. So for them Alexa becomes just another "film-stock flavour". Not very challenging, doesn't bring them out of their "comfort-zone".
Many DP's have started their profession shooting video cameras, and for them they are on familiar grounds because Alexa behaves very much as a "Video camera on steroids.
To compare Alexa to the DSLR world; It is like shooting 2MP Jpeg with a picture style set by an engineer working for an Japanese camera manufacturer.
Always nice looking but has limited detail and limited possibility to adjust the image afterwards compare to shooting RAW. Jpeg's are created in the camera, RAW is created in post.
RED cameras gives only RAW image data.
The mistake that is frequently done in post with RED RAW is that the RAW gets an average setting and is transcoded to 2K ProRes and the RAW with all its meta data is discarded and not visited again. That means about 80% of the data from the RAW file is discarded.
The result can be "disastrous" when on encounter badly exposed material or the initial RAW decoding was not set correct for the material.
Alexa "develops the film" in camera. RAW "develops the film" in post, as anybody shooting with a DSLR knows.
Shoot RED and Alexa side by side with same lenses and you can make the RED footage look just like Alexa by twaking the RAW. Much harder the other way around because of the ProRes restriction from Alexa.
You can take RED RAW and edit directly in RED's free editing tool RedCine Pro or Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid and most of editor programs without transcoding except Apple Final Cut Pro.
Because so many want to edit in FCP this transcoding is done, often with bad results.
If you absolutely want to edit in FCP, you can make a "edit copy transfer" to ProRes without discarding the RAW files. This workflow type has had a very hard time penetrating the "brains" of the post house people.
You can then when you have done the edit and you come to Color Grading do the grading directly on the RAW files and don't be stuck on an inferior ProRes transcode.
More info on this in the end of the post.
A rant from one experienced RED shooter who usually does his own post work but needed a post house for other reasons and his frustration of their response; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...l=1#post929720
There are still high charging Post Facilities that still don't understand the importance of always grade the footage on the the RAW files.
I would hypothesise that once you have "enough" resolution the improved dynamic range and gamut are more beneficial than merely improving the res. We see "light" not pixels.
Dynamic range and other qualities improves all the time. Besides RED's new Redcolr/Redgamma 3 (which will not be the last one), they have also announced a new sensor upgrade for Epic-X, the Dragon sensor which we might see this year.
But what is "enough" resolution?
I find it strange that people in the film community not immediately want to use cameras with higher resolution when they are available.
In stead we see, like in this and other threads and forums that argue that 2K is "good enough" even if it is less resolution than 35mm film.
Why don't they see the benefit of higher resolution than 2K? 2MP is passè in still photo. Is it the lack of good 4K projectors that making this adoption so slow.
When we know that Sony has installed many thousands of the CineAlta 4K projectors and Barco has installed 3.400 Series-2 projectors in the Cinemark chain, and the 4K projectors installations increase every month the world over; Why do movie makers still want to shoot movies in 2K, a quarter of the resolution of 4K?
Why is the first James Bond film that is shot 100% digital shot in 2K when there will be thousands of 4K projectors that could show the movie in 4K?
When we know that 4K home media delivery is just some few years in the future, why are movies, TV series, nature documentaries still made in 2K when the movie studios out of experience how much they can earn on selling media again and again.
The first digital movie that had a 4K workflow from start to end is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. There will be some more movies this year shot on RED that is going through a proper post production and have all the chance to look great.
Those who want to know more about 4K RAW workflow; MICHAEL CIONI from Hollywood post facility Lightiron that did "..dragon tattoo" has written a good description on how it was done; If you really wanted to make a 4K end-to-end movie, what would that entail?
Long Interview with Cioni and several others about the "...dragon tattoo" workflow; 4K DI on The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
30 minutes youtube video of some of the same in a presentation Michael Cioni did to The L.A. Final Cut Pro User Group; http://youtu.be/Qztrb9arZl4