Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RED vs Black Magic cameras

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I don't usually "come out of the camera closet" on these RED vs XXX threads because the price differences usually makes it just silly.

    But FWIW - I frikkin' LOVE the NEWER RED sensors.
    The RED ONE MX is pants compared to many cheap cameras today as was the Scarlet MX in my opinion... but the Epic Dragon and Weapon render some gorgeous images if you know what you're doing. And the new Helium 8k stuff I've seen is simply astounding. Ass. Tound. Ing.

    I just wanted to make it clear that I actually AM a real RED fan.
    But again - with what BMD delivers with the UM4.6k... Geez you could buy TWO of them and a bunch of extras for the price of a better RED package.
    The times they are-a-changin' my friends.... and FAST!
    Cameras: Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Camera (x2), Panasonic GH2 (x2), Sony RX100 ii, Canon 6D, Canon T2i,
    Mics: Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Sanken, Audio-Technica, Audix
    Lights: Every Chinese clone you can imagine

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Roman View Post
      I don't know how much RED has improved with Dragon and Helium, but outside of choosing an MX camera for the general look, it's just a weaker sensor. Less DR, noisier, weaker color and skin tones. It just doesn't hold up (comparitively).
      The MYSTERIUM-X sensor is old...6-7 years. And they probably spent a few years developing it (I don't know). So you would hope the 4.6K is an improvement.

      I know ARRI's sensor is old too, but they are freaks.

      Comment


      • #63
        Honestly, the fact that the MX is even in the discussion at all impresses me, considering how fast camera tech has moved since then.

        Comment


        • #64
          Media is complex. I don't begrudge RED wanting to control their own media. It makes sense because they want to deliver a consistent experience.

          Despite what the specs say along with a lot of armchair IT experts, the fact is some media works well when recording massive data rates from a video camera and some don't. I don't know the technical reasons, but it's why BM changed from using SSD's to CFAST.

          Even SSD's that had superior specs in terms of write speeds would sometimes fail to not work reliably in the 2.5K cameras. From memory there was a San Disk SSD that was working great, then they released a larger size that was meant to be faster but it couldn't keep up, and then San Disk discontinued the drive that WAS officially supported, so there wan't ANY drive that was working.

          On paper they easily exceed the requirements. In reality they don't. It's also why BM built their own speed testing utility. It was originally built for their internal testing when they discovered that media makers LIE allt he time about the sustained speeds, or at best quote sustained speeds on files that aren't anything like the performance you'd need to get with DNG / large video files.

          When you buy certified media, you're buying consistency and reliability. It means they won't change the recipe and that costs because you're asking a plant that changes their memory build every 18 months to keep making the old version of something in small numbers.

          JB

          Comment


          • #65
            I think the original Extreme Pros were the best ones, and then Sandisk made Version II of them (or something like that) and they kept failing in the cameras...so they brought back the original versions. That's what I remember, but could be wrong.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by dbp View Post
              Honestly, the fact that the MX is even in the discussion at all impresses me, considering how fast camera tech has moved since then.
              It was discussed because Fahnon said the RED MX sensor produces better IQ than BMD cameras Ursa Mini 4.6k included.
              I agree the MX is an older generation, like comparing a Ford to a Porsche. Bring on the Dragon, that would be a fair comparison.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by dbp View Post
                Honestly, the fact that the MX is even in the discussion at all impresses me, considering how fast camera tech has moved since then.
                It's Interesting fore sure. The Sensor is old but I personally still think it holds it's own (Not that I would buy into that old of a system at this point).

                Here's some interesting Data too: https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/

                War Films apparently still like their Film at least into 2015.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Jason Finnigan View Post
                  It's Interesting fore sure. The Sensor is old but I personally still think it holds it's own (Not that I would buy into that old of a system at this point).

                  Here's some interesting Data too: https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/

                  War Films apparently still like their Film at least into 2015.
                  Thanks, great link. Interesting data. Nice to see film kicking around for certain genres.

                  2.35:1 seems to have slowly taken over as an aspect ratio as well.

                  RED have a better hold on the market than I thought. It's mostly ARRI, but I assumed the percentages were higher towards the Alexa.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by dbp View Post
                    Honestly, the fact that the MX is even in the discussion at all impresses me, considering how fast camera tech has moved since then.
                    Way I think of it is the Ursa mini is like a brand new Toyota with all the trimmings. Good modern styling, powerful engine and nice creature comforts.

                    Red cameras are like BMWs, and the MX would just be a used model from a couple of refreshes ago. Iconic styling that doesn't really go out of fashion, the best/smoothest engines; They're luxury cars that are over-engineered with features that take years to trickle down to the rest of the market, which is why they cost so much when they are new. And they remain competitive for a lot longer.

                    I mean we are talking about cameras that, just a few years ago, were used in huge productions as A cams. More importantly, productions that don't look dated now. It's kinda already a proven system...

                    Shot on MX:
                    https://youtu.be/DqQe3OrsMKI

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by fahnon View Post
                      Way I think of it is the Ursa mini is like a brand new Toyota with all the trimmings. Good modern styling, powerful engine and nice creature comforts.

                      Red cameras are like BMWs, and the MX would just be a used model from a couple of refreshes ago. Iconic styling that doesn't really go out of fashion, the best/smoothest engines; They're luxury cars that are over-engineered with features that take years to trickle down to the rest of the market, which is why they cost so much when they are new. And they remain competitive for a lot longer.

                      I mean we are talking about cameras that, just a few years ago, were used in huge productions as A cams. More importantly, productions that don't look dated now. It's kinda already a proven system...

                      Shot on MX:
                      https://youtu.be/DqQe3OrsMKI


                      I would agree with that. If you get 3-5 yrs out of an URSA mini you'd be lucky.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Personally, I think the camera matters less than the production values these days.
                        If you know and have mastered your camera's in and out's, pretty much most of them produce a good enough image that most audiences would never see a difference.
                        If I wanted my films to look like the real world I'd buy a video camera.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jason Finnigan
                          It's because the Specs you see listed for most consumer SSDs is PEAK throughput not Sustained. CFAST 2.0 is more akin to enterprise SSD drives than consumer ones. (And priced accordingly too)
                          More complex than that. The figures change a lot depending on the size of the files and number. DNG's are many files (one for each frame) and QT is a large single file for example.

                          JB

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by DPStewart View Post
                            Wassap Roman. Nice to hear from you. Obviously you're 10-times as busy these days...

                            I must say, that if you are liking what the UM4.6k is giving you for skin tones over the Digital Bolex, then that right there would be just about the BEST praise for it that I have heard thus far.

                            ~Cheers mate!
                            Yeah man, been a minute here. Finally getting time to shoot once again haha.

                            DB continues to blow me away, but the DR on the 4.6k simply digs into so many levels of shadow and highlights and pulls out color that it just looks like you're seeing 2020 after you've been blind for a while. Like other's have mentioned, it truly isn't so much about camera specs anymore. You can find Alexas, REDs and other amazing cameras for reasonable used prices. There's not an outrageous investment to defend anymore, but rather your preference.

                            I've always thought of digital cameras like film stocks when comparing them. I think there's a totally valid argument to shooting MX, or an old 2k Alexa or a Digital Bolex instead of the URSA, but it sure wouldn't be because they're "better" cameras. They each have a unique look and that's all there is to it. There are some people who've recently purchased expensive cameras of yesteryear like me, but somehow think they can go head to head with the 4.6k in every aspect and that simply isn't the case, at all. I'm just happy that I have choices among so many different potential looks... and that they're all reasonably affordable at this point!
                            Test footage Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/romanalaivi

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Roman View Post

                              I've always thought of digital cameras like film stocks when comparing them. I think there's a totally valid argument to shooting MX, or an old 2k Alexa or a Digital Bolex instead of the URSA, but it sure wouldn't be because they're "better" cameras. They each have a unique look and that's all there is to it. There are some people who've recently purchased expensive cameras of yesteryear like me, but somehow think they can go head to head with the 4.6k in every aspect and that simply isn't the case, at all. I'm just happy that I have choices among so many different potential looks... and that they're all reasonably affordable at this point!
                              ^This. Totally agree. A good DP choses a camera instead of a film stock these days.
                              He doesnt just go with the cans that have been sitting in his refrigerator for a while.
                              If I wanted my films to look like the real world I'd buy a video camera.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Good Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpX3AO1UtU

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X