Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RED vs Black Magic cameras

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

  • DPStewart
    replied
    Originally posted by LochnessDigital View Post
    I have an Epic-W and a BMCC. Believe it or not, both are being used just as often as the other. For the lesser budget projects, the BMCC is still kicking some serious ass. I can only imagine how much closer the UM4.6K has bridged that gap.

    Technology is pretty amazing, but in the past ten years, it's been about good lighting and composition more than anything.
    DING! DING! DING!

    Winner by technical knockout.

    Leave a comment:


  • LochnessDigital
    replied
    I have an Epic-W and a BMCC. Believe it or not, both are being used just as often as the other. For the lesser budget projects, the BMCC is still kicking some serious ass. I can only imagine how much closer the UM4.6K has bridged that gap.

    Technology is pretty amazing, but in the past ten years, it's been about good lighting and composition more than anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakesh Malik
    replied
    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!
    I agree. I wish more people would recognize that, especially people who are hiring camera dongles. I know a lot of people who get their jobs primarily based on the gear they have, even though their work all looks the same, and none of it very good.

    Of course, those same people claim that the camera determines the quality of the image, even though in reality it's the lighting, composition, art design, blocking, and so on. A very old, low end camera can limit your image quality, but once you're looking at anything starting with a Pocket cinema all the way up to an Alexa 65, the camera is definitely not the limiting factor. The visual and lighting skills of the cinematographer are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakesh Malik
    replied
    Originally posted by DPStewart View Post
    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!
    Totally a fan of Helium as well... http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogr...83754027171840

    Gorgeous color... but a bit more than 2x the price of an UM 4.6K. Most like 7X, since the less expensive Helium brain is $30K, and you still need several thousand bux worth of accessories to make it work.

    Leave a comment:


  • EYu
    replied
    "Camera is a remarkable piece of innovation. However, it is the person behind the camera that makes it truly remarkable. It’s his imagination, passion, talent and knowledge of the medium. You don’t need a high-end costly equipment to get beautiful results. Just your talent and a way of looking at things differently along with ability to envision the final result in your mind is more than enough for a great shot.' - Quoted from Vialancio Rogrigues

    Get a camera. Learn it well. Use it to capture your imaginations. Train your perspectives with it. Doesn't matter which camera it is. It is just as a capture tool. Good luck to all!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mestizo Devon
    replied
    I've been on the outside for some time now, has the Ursa's QC issues been worked out? Early on I was really game for the 4.6 but all the issues turned me away. From the content I've come across I was not seeing 4 years of progress translated into image quality. The Ursa 4.6 has more DR and less noise, I found myself more fond of the MX image. Something should be said for the fact the MX sensor is still in the conversation, the longer I have this camera the better I get with it. Not to mention the price you can get a kit for now....

    Leave a comment:


  • Marshall Harrington
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
    I want that on a shirt...

    "YOUR CAMERA is worthless...if you cannot record the shot."

    Designed By Denny Smith // Sold By Lord and Taylor
    +1

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    I want that on a shirt...

    "YOUR CAMERA is worthless...if you cannot record the shot."

    Designed By Denny Smith // Sold By Lord and Taylor

    Leave a comment:


  • Denny Smith
    replied
    Good point John, how many times have we seen complaints about this SD or SSD card not working in their camera, when they buy and try to use some off the shelf cheap media, not on the recommended list for use. The recording media is the next most important bit aside from the camera and lenses. If your media fails... the best camera rig is worthless, if you can not record the shot.
    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Jason Finnigan
    True but Enterprise SSDs have the ability to handles this loads doing crazy amounts of IOPS where as consumer desktop SSDs do not. They also Have much better ECC than a consumer NAND chip.
    That's not the point is it.

    That's not what people put in their cameras when the media is open. I'm sick of hearing this argument.

    JB

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason Finnigan
    replied
    Good Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpX3AO1UtU

    Leave a comment:


  • yoclay
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roman
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • yoclay
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X