Red Vs Viper [Archive]

Clayton Harper

03-31-2007, 12:06 PM

I've seen the Red 4K demo screening and I've seen Viper footage on a Barco.

From an image quality standpoint, they ain't even on the same planet.

Honestly, I don't know why everybody gets so excited about the Viper. It's workflow is a pain in the ass and in ideal lighting conditions its images are barely better than the HVX, although I think that is testament to the HVX but you get my point.

I am mainly looking forward to having less image noise,more latitude and ease of workflow with Red.

Corrado Silveri

03-31-2007, 12:12 PM

Agree.
I've seen the Red Demo screening at IBC and some footage from a Viper in a theatre in Italy.

Mercury vs. Pluto.

IAN SUN

03-31-2007, 12:39 PM

Agree.
I've seen the Red Demo screening at IBC and some footage from a Viper in a theatre in Italy.

Mercury vs. Pluto.

Hold on,.... it would suck to live on either of those places! :devil: :cold:

Martin Jäger

03-31-2007, 01:14 PM

funny :biggrin:

after seeing the viper shots (dpx) in ae i can tell how it looks on the backside of the moon - not that shiny..

JVB

03-31-2007, 02:05 PM

I think people need to stop comparing RED ONE to other digital cameras. ONE is 4k, the others are HD. What is there to compare?

Paris Remillard

03-31-2007, 02:16 PM

Better is a very subjective word. You should really just compare the specs of each camera at their respective websites:

http://www.grassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/

http://red.com/

If you're gonna spend $10 million, you (or the producer and cinematographer, I'm not sure what your function is on the production) should probably take a few minutes to try to understand the technology and the differences between the two camera systems. If you understand the differences, then you will know which one is better for a given project. If you don't know what the differences are or don't understand what they mean in terms of image characteristics or quality, feel free to ask questions about that back on this board or use the search function to help you find the answers.

To be more specific, and as a quick leg up, some of the more obvious differences are in resolution, and sensor size and sensor arcitechture. There will be many other significant differences(REDCODE, framerates, storage, workflow, etc, etc...) when all the dust settles, but all of that should wait until after NAB.

The sensor of the RED is the same size as 35mm film (roughly 3-perf super35) and is a single CMOS chip. This allows the use of 35mm cinema lenses and gives one the same depth of field and field of view as 35mm. The Viper is a 2/3" 3-CCD design, which means that you have to use B4 mount lenses designed for use with 3-chip cameras, and the 2/3" size of the sensor is slightly smaller that 16mm film, giving you a similar depth of field and field of view to the 16mm format.

The resolution of the RED will be 4.5K (or 4520x2540 pixels in size) and down. The Viper is just less than 2K at 1920x1080 pixels. If you compare that to still cameras, the RED image will be like an image from a 12 megapixel DSLR and the viper will be like an image from a 2 megapixel point and shoot, in terms of sensor size and resolution.

Then there are frame rates, and exposure latitude, and RAW(or compressed RAW) capture, and storage options and PRICE, and really many other differences which should be considered when making such a decision.

One thing to consider, though, is when your production is scheduled. It doesn't matter which one is better if you start shooting next week. Or even in the next few months for that matter, as the RED hasn't been delivered and there is no promise on when it will be. But you didn't ask about that, did you, so I'll stop typing now.

Andrew M.

03-31-2007, 02:19 PM

Häakon

03-31-2007, 02:22 PM

I have never been impressed with any footage I've seen shot with the Viper. I think a better comparison would be the Genesis, which has true 35mm DOF. Of course, the Genesis costs nearly $300,000 (and they aren't for sale, only for rent) and yet still tops out at 1080p. The Red is a 4K system with amazing/lightweight/long-capacity onboard storage systems and they've thought everything through from acquisition to post. Of course, Red hasn't been "field tested" by many people yet, but judging by the footage I've seen and the confidence I have in the team who is behind it, I don't think there's much of a comparison at all. Red is ushering in a completely new era of digital filmmaking.

Häakon

03-31-2007, 02:27 PM

What about DALSA it is 4K?
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/index.asp

CCDs are not as fast as CMOS so much slower sensor.
Functionality and workflow I can't comment.
Anyone had seen anything live from this camera?

I have seen Dalsa output projected on a very large screen and I was thorougly impressed. Again, though, it's a very pricey rent ($3,000 a day) and I don't think you can purchase their cameras either. It's also extremely bulky, and has nothing like REDCODE RAW with which to deal with the mammoth amounts of data it spits out at 4K uncompressed. The recorder alone is another $2,500 a day rental. So while I do believe that the Origin can produce very nice pictures, it's far too expensive, bulky, and hard to manage, and in my opinion Red makes a clear alternative for the majority of us that want to own gear, take it out shooting wherever we need to, and not have to break the bank trying to deal with the footage in post.

Michael Schrengohst

03-31-2007, 02:37 PM

10$ Mil Ehh?
Why not shoot it on 35MM?

Andrew M.

03-31-2007, 02:41 PM

Yes, [Dalsa] very heavy and bulky, looks like 5 years old design.
But is it the only 4K out there?
If they are the first, then it is quite a good job.
After all it was good prove of concept for RED

Damien Molineaux

03-31-2007, 03:26 PM

In all honesty, you cannot compare an unreleased camera to any other camera. Red still has to live up to its expectations. Can you shoot with a Red all day, day in and day out for one, two or three months ? Will the drives hold up ? Will Red Code live up to ITs expectations. Will the workflow truely function : Red Cine, Red Pull List, etc. What will be the error rate or percentage of the production process of the Red cameras be ? Of the mysteriums, view finders, LCDs, batteries, etc.

I'm a believer, I'm a reservation holder and I'm trying to convince people Red is IT, but I'm also waiting to see if truely Red have managed to pull it ALL together in this short a time frame. So that we have working cameras with visually lossless compression, the best digital viewfinder, a revolutionary recording system and workflow, batteries, etc, etc. All that resulting in higher quality than anything in the industry at less then one tenth of the price of whatever comes next and mass produced (hundreds per month) !

If you really think about all the pieces involved to make it all come together, it is mind boggling.

I'm ready.

Ready to shoot... or ready to wait while the details are ironned out.

Cheers,
Damien

Yash Keough

03-31-2007, 03:37 PM

Actually, if I may add my two cents, I believe this is a very poor comparison. A much better one would be to compare the Arri D-20 to the RED. This camera is getting a lot of attention from mainstream Hollywood for its workflow and integration into existing ones. I went to a workshop at Clairmont Camera in Toronto on Friday and was very impressed with how everything was thought out.

There are many things that feature film DP's seem to like about this and it is apparently going to become the new standard for Digital (although obviously RED has not shown its hand yet) according to many camera people and DP's I've heard from. One good example is the fact that it has an optical viewfinder that can be viewed without being turned on. What this means, according to the DP doing the presentation is that the scene can be set up without losing any battery power. Also, Arri has a reputation for reliability and has good service (as they outlined in their presentation) and that is very attractive. They also maintain consistency in that nobody owns the cameras rather they are all rented from Arri. Thus when they want to upgrade the camera (it is modular including the sensor) they can simply service all rental units which gives them the same standard around the world. Furthermore, the Arri D-20 is basically a 4-35 with a digital back, making it highly familiar to anybody who has worked with that camera, as many have.

In addition, the D-20 also does RAW, although that capability is not available yet due to storage. This is similar to RED but less resolution. In tests done by the Director of the ASC, they discussed how the main cameras (Viper, F900, Genesis, Dalsa, etc compared and also to 35mm. They generally came to the conclusion that the D-20 was the best for integration into existing workflows and also produced some of the best images.

Anyways, all this is to say simply that I think the D-20 will be the RED's main competitor due to workflow, features, and manufacturer reputation and service. The Viper is not a very relative comparison in my opinion. All this should be quite interesting though! :)

Just my views though.

Yash

mezmo

03-31-2007, 04:38 PM

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but is Red better than the Viper? In other words, is this the best digital camera ever?

We're shooting a movie with a 10 million dollar budget and I'm pushing for the Red camera.

Hi Philmaker.
For feature drama work let's see all cameras tested and the
results burned to 35mm Negative.
Film is still the way most films are screened worldwide.
Burned 35mm Neg Images have to be very sharp and clean to survive
the Interpos/interneg/Release Print three generation quality loss prior to exhibition.
A Trial Print from the burned Neg should show you this.
This shouild be a concern for you and your project unless you plan
on Digital/HD Release only?
_______________________________Mezmo

Joe Carney

03-31-2007, 05:16 PM

If you're shooting before RED is released try talking to the guys over at SiliconImageing (SI2K). They have a working 2k cmos camera with an established and field proven workflow. It was used on Mutant Chronicles and got good reviews. If they have the PL mount issues fixed, you can shoot S16. And they are a lot less expensive than the Viper or CineAlta.
Once Red is released, have to think long and hard about other options.

John Allardice

03-31-2007, 05:44 PM

What you guys have gotta remember is that the Viper workflow has been PROVEN to work in a feature environment. Beginning to end.

Zodiac, anyone?

..and in the hands of a good DP the Viper looks gorgeous

http://www.claudiomiranda.com/heinekenttl.html

Now I'm not bashing the RED here...no way, I've got #177 on order, but the whole "our camera's great, yours is crap" attitude I sometimes find on this board doesn't go any way towards helping Jim get the Red taken seriously in professional circles.

Y'know, they can BOTH look good.

Brook Willard

03-31-2007, 05:54 PM

Phil Maker

03-31-2007, 05:56 PM

Thanks for all the great replies.

We're making this film with a 10 million dollar budget and I'm pushing for digital. Which means I'm pushing for RED. (unlesss there's something cheaper, better already out there -- which there's not)

Why not shoot on film? Because I believe in digital, the future, change, and in being a pioneer.

If the RED is a good as its claims, I wouldn't shoot on film if I had a 100 million dollar budget. Nevermind 10.

I'm also thinking long term. I'm thinking of my next ten films.

Brainstorm

03-31-2007, 06:42 PM

... the whole "our camera's great, yours is crap" attitude I sometimes find on this board doesn't go any way towards helping Jim get the Red taken seriously in professional circles.

Y'know, they can BOTH look good.

Good point John. It's just plain dumb for people to get into a slanging match over what's better, especially when they haven't even had a chance to get their hands on a RED yet!

No doubt, different cameras are going to work better than others in different situations, under different conditions and with different demands on what look is trying to be achieved. We should all just be happy that there's going to be a wider range of choices than ever before – and at more affordable prices.

The funny thing is, if/when RED becomes the most popular digital cine camera on the planet, some people are just as likely to start arguing for another reason... because once everything looks really good, their films will no longer stand out on look alone. That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.

Substance is always going to be more important than style or resolution.

fightordie

03-31-2007, 07:02 PM

Read the ASC article on Zodiac and using the Viper. He tore the poor thing a new one. The whole article was about overcoming shortfalls, not taking advantage of strengths.

That's not to say that the Viper is a bad camera - I think it's amazing. I'm just saying that referencing Zodiac may not be the best idea.

You can read all you want. Just saw Zodiac and it looked amazing. I don't care if it had any issues. If red exceeds this than all will be good.

Chris Gearhart

03-31-2007, 07:09 PM

That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.

Substance is always going to be more important than style or resolution.

One can dream. I can't imagine it happening though. "Substance" and "selling point" don't always share the same screens at the same showtime.

Dan Blanchett

03-31-2007, 07:32 PM

I'm producing/directing a feature in the fall and have the opportunity to use a F900 for basically no money, since my DP owns it and is willing to donate to the cause. But I have made the decision to use a portion of my shooting budget to invest in the RED ONE, and I think this will result in a better looking movie and a great tool for future productions. The Viper was never really an option so I can't comment on that. Also, my budget is nowhere near 10M (knock off a couple zeroes... :umm: )

IF the RED didn't exist, I would have gratefully used the free F900 and my movie still would kick ass. You use the tools you have available and make the best of it. Especially if you're in my shoes and tend to do things on a shoestring. But thank GOD for RED. Now I feel there will be no compromise.

Häakon

03-31-2007, 07:45 PM

The funny thing is, if/when RED becomes the most popular digital cine camera on the planet, some people are just as likely to start arguing for another reason... because once everything looks really good, their films will no longer stand out on look alone. That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.
No offense, but there's a lot more than just the camera that has to do with "the look." Obviously RED isn't automatically going to give you a good story, but it's not going to automatically give you great lighting, compostition, precise focusing, shot variety, well designed color schemes, and pretty much everything else a DP is responsible for either. Let's not sell the position short just because one may happen to be using a great camera.

Brainstorm

03-31-2007, 08:20 PM

No offense, but there's a lot more than just the camera that has to do with "the look." Obviously RED isn't automatically going to give you a good story, but it's not going to automatically give you great lighting, compostition, precise focusing, shot variety, well designed color schemes, and pretty much everything else a DP is responsible for either. Let's not sell the position short just because one may happen to be using a great camera.

No offense taken Häakon. I agree completely with what you're saying!

Brainstorm

03-31-2007, 08:24 PM

One can dream. I can't imagine it happening though. "Substance" and "selling point" don't always share the same screens at the same showtime.

I think the recent "box-office bombing" of several very expensive action/FX -driven blockbusters points to the possibility that audiences are increasingly more interested in good stories than just visual "wow" value.

garageman

04-01-2007, 05:17 AM

I think the recent "box-office bombing" of several very expensive action/FX -driven blockbusters points to the possibility that audiences are increasingly more interested in good stories than just visual "wow" value.

What, you mean films like 300. :clown2:

Chris Kenny

04-01-2007, 08:19 AM

What, you mean films like 300. :clown2:

That's an interesting case. 300 demonstrates that you can still get audiences into theaters with an amazing looking movie, but while the look it delivers happens to be the result of extensive VFX work, that's largely incidental to audiences now. That is to say, people are no longer watching movies and saying "Wow, these effects are amazing! How did they do that?" They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

By analogy, consider the difference between people being impressed by the technical characteristics of an image ("Wow, the resolution is amazing!"), and people actually being impressed by the cinematography.

Brainstorm

04-01-2007, 02:42 PM

That's an interesting case. 300 demonstrates that you can still get audiences into theaters with an amazing looking movie, but while the look it delivers happens to be the result of extensive VFX work, that's largely incidental to audiences now. That is to say, people are no longer watching movies and saying "Wow, these effects are amazing! How did they do that?" They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

By analogy, consider the difference between people being impressed by the technical characteristics of an image ("Wow, the resolution is amazing!"), and people actually being impressed by the cinematography.

Thanks Chris. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Besides that Garageman, I didn't say action films would NEVER work at the box office. I just said that 'look' – by itself – increasingly isn't enough to ensure a hit.

e.g. Mission Impossible 4: Budget $150 million; U.S. Box Office take: $134,029,801 or Alexander: Budget $155 million; U.S. Box Office take just $34,297,191 !

But then look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That had an amazing look, fantastic FX AND a great screenplay... and obviously that was a huge winner at the cinema. But if the story had been crap, I'll bet if wouldn't have done so well!

:greedy:

garageman

04-01-2007, 03:32 PM

They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

Call it art if you will but it's no different for most blockbusters. Audiences are as smart and as dumb, however & whenever they choose to be.

The point is that there ain't much story or characterization in 300 and it still goes down a storm because for many, the noise and look is enough to entertain them for a few hours. The same way worse crap like Armageddon was a hit for no good reason.

You can't predict the market and can never tell what will be a hit or a flop, there are too many impulses and factors involved that are sometimes obvious and many times not. It's mostly luck. There has always been big budget films that flop since movies began it's no different now, just a bigger market, however I'm pretty sure Spiderman 3 will do well, auspicious beginnings and all that.

Darren Orange

04-02-2007, 11:40 AM

You guys are talking about US box office. When you release international it changes everything. All films that are less then 20 million dollars including marketing turn profit by the time they release DVD, so long as it appeals to the masses, i.e. being a high concept film. Plus DVD's or home release produce endless amounts of income, So long as the film is not garbage....look at house of the dead. :bleh:

Tom Lowe

04-02-2007, 11:52 AM

Wouldn't the sensor size alone, and the accompanying DOF, in and of itself finish this debate?

Andrew Benz

04-02-2007, 12:17 PM

am i the only one who seriously gets driven crazy when they read stuff like that? its just so obvious, and the most overplayed comment in the history of these boards, it drives me nuts. "you have a red camera but you will still have to breathe air on the set..."

You are not alone by a long shot. But, at least now I can concentrate on owning one camera and spending the money on glass to make the most of it's broad range of mounts and genre bending capabilities. To me and my wallet the comparison is moot. I could not make the viper work for my many needs. She is a much different animal and mindset than the REDONE. But this not to say that comparisons should not be made and things learned... Add price to your great observation Tom and I completely agree.

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 12:30 PM

Wouldn't the sensor size alone, and the accompanying DOF, in and of itself finish this debate?

Hi,

No I don't think so. Due to the 3 x 9,200,000 pixels (27,600,000 total) the Viper resolves far more than other HD cameras. When used with Zeiss Digi Primes, the DOF is rather less than you would expect.

The Viper is no ordinary HD camera.

I look forward to doing a back to back myself, as soon as Jim will let me have a camera to test. I know I am at the back of the queue.

Stephen

jbeale

04-02-2007, 12:39 PM

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 12:43 PM

Due to the 3 x 9,200,000 pixels (27,600,000 total) the Viper resolves far more than other HD cameras.

That's not how you count pixels on 3 CCD cameras! It's got 9.2 mio pixels and that's it. :nerd:

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 12:53 PM

That's not how you count pixels on 3 CCD cameras! It's got 9.2 mio pixels and that's it. :nerd:

Hi,

No it has 9,200,000 Red, 9,200,000 Green & 9,200,000 blue. It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Stephen

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 12:58 PM

I always thought that DOF is determined by sensor size and focal length. However it does depend on a subjective determination of what is "in focus" so the higher the native resolution, the easier it is to see what is really in focus and what is close, but not quite. Maybe that's your point if you are comparing the Zeiss lens to something less crisp.

Hi,

If a lens on a 2/3 inch chip camera were able to out resolve the lenses of a 35mm camera by 2.5 times then I beleive the DOF would be the same.

The Zeiss Digi Prime lenses are very sharp wide open. FWIW they cost more than twice that of Cooke S4's!

Stephen

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 01:05 PM

If the RED is a good as its claims, I wouldn't shoot on film if I had a 100 million dollar budget. Nevermind 10.

Hi,

You will have to convince the Insurance company, that the risks are no greater than shooting with a Viper. With $10 million at stake they will want to see some tests of the camera & workflow, before giving the green light.

Stephen

Chris Kenny

04-02-2007, 01:10 PM

It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Yes, but not by nearly as large a margin as the 27.6M figure suggests.

KETCH ROSSi

04-02-2007, 01:13 PM

Hi Guys,

I almost purchase a Viper, because I was not going to give thousands of $ in rentals fees to get the not for sale D20 or Dalsa Origin, but then I come to find out about Jim's RED, and I put a down payment on my new home in California insted, very very happy, this is why.

The Dalsa Origin is a fantastic camera, at almost full 4k it gives lots of image to work with in S35 format, the problem with small budgets is just that, the info recorded by this camera it is so much that you need a monster recording/editing system, ups already out of budjet, also the camera is big, wrilly BIG, at a rate of nearly $3,000.00 a day, no thanks.

The Arri D20 is a different camera all togheter, also not for sale and a rate more reasonable then the Dalsa but not easy to find, but also not 4k, sorry.

So the RED is not only the best solution, is the only solution, I do not want to show off but I reserved 3 of them, hey 3 cameras and still less the one Viper tag price? Now that is a deal to me, and as far as those in this or other forums everywere that still say that you can not compere aplles to oranges because this camera is not out yet, well, not yet, but soon in off to make it worth well to pospone all of your projects, definitelly it is the case for my projects, and believe me wen I say I do not have the luxury of waysting time, I seriusly do not!!!

D20, not 4k, images very good in deed but at what price tag?

Dalsa yes 4k but not an easy choice of workflow at all and very very costly.

Viper in filmstream mode is an animal of its own, not S35, not 4k and making the color corrections of the green screen is also not an easy task, but still a great camera, just not affordable.

RedOne is 4k, RedOne has Redcode, so no complicated and very costly proposition for recording/editing, now if you also take in consideration the recording media in wich Red can record, thats a all different ball game, the costs here are so low can not be compered at all, you consider package size, not heavy at all, different lens mounts, well you know where I go with this so no choices left for me, Red is my solo choice.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 01:20 PM

It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Only if pixel shifting is applied. And as far as I know the Viper doesn't do that.

Right from the Viper Datasheet:
Picture elements: 9.2 million pixels 1920 (H) x 4320 (V) effective
So the horizontal resolution is no more than 1920 pixels... :wacko:

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 01:22 PM

Viper in filmstream mode is an animal of its own, not S35, not 4k and making the color corrections of the green screen is also not an easy task, but still a great camera, just not affordable.

KETCH ROSSI

Hi Ketch,

I find -23 green with XnView (a free programme) removes the color cast.

After Effects is just as easy, just not free!

Stephen

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 01:26 PM

Only if pixel shifting is applied. And as far as I know the Viper doesn't do that.

Right from the Viper Datasheet:
Picture elements: 9.2 million pixels 1920 (H) x 4320 (V) effective
So the horizontal resolution is no more than 1920 pixels... :wacko:

Hi,

If you compare the Viper images to other HD cameras, they are sharper with greater dynamic range. Pixel averaging rather than pixel shifting seems to work rather well IMHO.

As I said, I am waiting to see a back to back test.

Stephen

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 01:32 PM

Pixel averaging rather than pixel shifting seems to work rather well IMHO.

Oversampling is a good thing, no doubt. But it's only applied in the vertical direction. Horizontally you don't have spare pixels.

And the maximum output of the Viper is only 1080P.

As I said, I am waiting to see a back to back test.

Me too! :biggrin:

Chris Kenny

04-02-2007, 01:34 PM

Hi,
If a lens on a 2/3 inch chip camera were able to out resolve the lenses of a 35mm camera by 2.5 times then I beleive the DOF would be the same.

If deep DOF were simply a matter of low resolution disguising out of focus areas, 35mm footage on DVD would appear to have similar DOF to footage from 1/3" cameras on DVD. It doesn't. It's not even close.

We say larger formats have shallower DOF basically because longer lenses have shallower DOF, and with a larger format you use a longer lens to achieve an equivalent field of view.

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 01:34 PM

I can hardly wait for the test to confirm that Red crushes Viper.
-A

Jeff Kilgroe

04-02-2007, 01:41 PM

No it has 9,200,000 Red, 9,200,000 Green & 9,200,000 blue. It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure I would agree. The correlation between pixels/photosites and how they distribute across RGB layers isn't always that simple and it doesn't automatically mean it has superior resolving power to a similar sized bayer sensor... Let alone one that's 3M pixels larger.

Most manufacturers don't play off of pixels in each CCD layer for resolution numbers, and even less so recently. Thomson/GV is a little fuzzy in their own literature on this. Most of their newer stuff simply calles it a 9.2Mpixel CCD block. But the older published materials and the PDF spec sheet on their site like to say 9.2 megapixels per RGB channel. Wooohooo. Like, uh, duh...

In most situations, a 3CCD imager has no more spatial or temporal resolution than a single-layer CMOS (nor does a 3-layer CMOS). Although by having separate color layers, certain tricks like pixel shifting can be used to help boost some properties of resolution.

Anyway, all that said, I'm inclined to disagree with your statement. I'm eager to see a side by side comparison of the Viper and RED One. However, even if the RED One only matches the Viper when shooting 1080p, it will still be the better camera (IMO). And for that reason, I'm expecting RED to have the superior workflow, better configurability and flexibility as well as far more mode and format options. Oh, it costs less too... I can own RED instead of just renting a Viper.

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 01:56 PM

If deep DOF were simply a matter of low resolution disguising out of focus areas, 35mm footage on DVD would appear to have similar DOF to footage from 1/3" cameras on DVD. It doesn't. It's not even close.

We say larger formats have shallower DOF basically because longer lenses have shallower DOF, and with a larger format you use a longer lens to achieve an equivalent field of view.

Hi Chris,

The large DOF on 1/3 inch sensors is due to minimal resoloution of the lenses & sensors. Turn off any detail and you will see what I mean. Nothing is really sharp & that gives the effect of huge DOF.

Focal length does not effect DOF, just F stop an image magnification at the sensor.

Stephen

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:03 PM

I can hardly wait for the test to confirm that Red crushes Viper.
-A

Hi,

I have not seen any recent wedge tests from Red, just heard about 11.3 stops. Depends of course on how you define 'crushes' I suppose.

Stephen

Anders Holck

04-02-2007, 02:08 PM

Oversampling is a good thing, no doubt.

Note that pixel binning is not oversampling. It equals a larger photosite, but won't help reduce aliasing between adjacent bins.

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 02:12 PM

Focal length does not effect DOF

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html :whistling:

Chris Kenny

04-02-2007, 02:15 PM

The large DOF on 1/3 inch sensors is due to minimal resoloution of the lenses & sensors. Turn off any detail and you will see what I mean. Nothing is really sharp & that gives the effect of huge DOF.

The far deeper DOF on 1/3" cameras simply cannot be accounted for by differences in lens or sensor resolution.

If that were the explanation, 35mm adaptors for 1/3" cameras wouldn't be able to achieve shallow DOF.

Focal length does not effect DOF, just F stop an image magnification at the sensor.

Um... focal length is what determines image magnification.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Note that pixel binning is not oversampling. It equals a larger photosite, but won't help reduce aliasing between adjacent bins.

You're right. Used the wrong wording here. Oversampling is temporal while pixel binning is spatial. Sorry about that. :blush:

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:20 PM

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html :whistling:

Hi,

Please quote me in full!

Check out a 100mm @ 40 feet, 50mm @ 20 feet & 25mm @10 feet.

In all cases the image size will be the same, at the same F stop so will the DOF.

Stephen

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 02:21 PM

I don't believe that is true Brook.
-A

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:22 PM

I don't believe that is true Brook.
-A

It is true. What part troubles you?

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:23 PM

DOF discussions rapidly become semantic. Simply put, DOF is determined by your stop, focal length and subject distance. Format has no effect on DOF. A 100mm lens on a 35mm camera has the same DOF as a 100mm lens on a 1/3" camera. Only the FOV changes in that equation.

Hi Brook,

If the 1/3 inch had enough resoloution that would be true.

I maintain DOF is determined by stop & image size only.

Stephen

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 02:24 PM

a 100 mm lens at any f stop will have more dof on a 1/3' sensor than on a 35mm sensor at the same f stop.
-A

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:25 PM

I maintain DOF is determined by stop & image size only.

Stephen

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, mathematically speaking you are incorrect.

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:27 PM

Um... focal length is what determines image magnification.

Hi Chris,

Focal length and distance equal image magnification.

If image magnification remains constant DOF remains constant regardless of lens focal length.

Stephen

Jeff Kilgroe

04-02-2007, 02:28 PM

Chris beat me to it...

So uh, what he said.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:29 PM

a 100 mm lens at any f stop will have more dof on a 1/3' sensor than on a 35mm sensor at the same f stop.
-A

Not true. A 100mm lens on a 1/3" sensor will have a dramatically narrower FOV than it would on a 35mm sensor. It will appear that the focal length is longer [the apparent focal length will be longer], but the actual focal length will be the same. Accordingly, as the focal lengths are identical, the DOF is identical.

Look on a 1/3" camera [think HVX]. The focal lengths available are something like 4.2mm to 15mm. A 4.2mm lens on the HVX is a wide/normal lens. A 4.2mm lens on 35 would be ungodly wide... I'm not even sure if it's optically possible. That's just an aside to consider the available focal lengths on a 1/3" camera vs. a 35mm camera.

If you matched FOV instead of focal length, the 1/3" camera would have something like a 15mm lens and the 35mm camera would have something like an 85mm lens. Then, with the FOV matched, the DOF would be different... because you would be comparing a 15mm lens to an 85mm lens.

Poorly explained, I know. Did it make any more sense?

Paris Remillard

04-02-2007, 02:29 PM

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:29 PM

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, mathematically speaking you are incorrect.

Hi Brook,

100mm @ 40'
50mm @ 20'
25mm @ 10'

The image will be the same size on the sensor and at the same F stop so will the DOF.

Stephen

Anders Holck

04-02-2007, 02:36 PM

The dof is defined by the following variables: Focallenght, F stop, Subject distance (focal point) and COC.
If you change any of these your variables DOF will change.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:38 PM

Hi Brook,

100mm @ 40'
50mm @ 20'
25mm @ 10'

The image will be the same size on the sensor and at the same F stop so will the DOF.

Stephen

Completely agreed. But in this scenario, you are changing two factors: the focal length and the subject distance. If the subject distance was maintained [which is what I was thinking of], then the different focal lengths would have an effect on the DOF.

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 02:39 PM

100mm @ 40'
50mm @ 20'
25mm @ 10'

The image will be the same size on the sensor and at the same F stop so will the DOF.

That's right. But now you're changing two variables at the same time: subject distance and focal length. In the field you don't know about any magnification factor (subject distance divided by focal length) but you know exactly what subject distance and focal length you have.

So we're both right. But calculating the DOF using focal length, f-stop and subject distance is far more practical.

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:39 PM

Format size has to do with FOV ONLY.

.

Hi,

Exactly, take a 65mm neg zoom in to 35mm or 16mm size. Has the DOF changed? Of course not!

Stephen

Jeff Kilgroe

04-02-2007, 02:40 PM

I think the focal length vs. magnification argument is getting a little pedantic. While the magnification level combined with f-stop does account for the DOF, focal length is what determines the FOV at the desired magnification level.

Point being, in the real world, we use longer lenses or different focal lengths to alter DOF properties as that's often the most practical solution.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:41 PM

I think we're all agreeing... we just don't know how to say it.

Stop, subject distance and focal length. Change any single factor and DOF will change. Change multiple factors in a complimentary fashion and DOF will not change.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:41 PM

Hi,

Exactly, take a 65mm neg zoom in to 35mm or 16mm size. Has the DOF changed? Of course not!

Stephen

Of course it hasn't! But the FOV has changed. That's where a lot of people get confused.

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 02:44 PM

OK, I learned something after reading that link. The dof doesn't technically change. However the illusion of dof most certainly does therefore I'll change my statement . A 100 mm lens at any f stop will have the ILLUSION of more dof on a 1/3' sensor than on a 35mm sensor at the same f stop.
-A

Adrian T.

04-02-2007, 02:44 PM

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 02:45 PM

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:45 PM

That's right. But now you're changing two variables at the same time: subject distance and focal length. In the field you don't know about any magnification factor (subject distance divided by focal length) but you know exactly what subject distance and focal length you have.
.

Hi,

Changing the lens and the image magnification are also 2 variables! L.O.L

To increase the DOF stop down the lens or make the image smaller. There are 2 ways to make the image smaller!

Stephen

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 02:48 PM

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 02:49 PM

I'd say most anyone looking, that is why the myth persists.
-A

Paris Remillard

04-02-2007, 02:51 PM

>Point being, in the real world, we use longer lenses or different focal lengths to alter DOF properties as that's often the most practical solution.<

But technically speaking, you could get the same shallow depth of field by moving in closer with a wider lens to achieve the same image size. The problem with that, though, as I stated before, is that the image characteristics, or perspective, change. The compression of longer lenses makes the out of focus objects in the background larger and harder to distinguish making them look more out of focus than they would with a wider angle lens even though the DOF would be exactly the same given the same image size.
Also, things like peoples noses looking huge and clownish, and perspective on buildings, etc. But technically speaking, DOF is not affected by focal length. Perspective is.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 03:05 PM

But technically speaking, DOF is not affected by focal length. Perspective is.

This is only true if you are moving the camera to maintain the same frame. As mentioned before, if you keep the camera at 10' from your subject and swap out the 18mm for an 85mm, the 85mm lens [at the same stop] will have shallower DOF.

This is just to prevent confusion.

zak forrest

04-02-2007, 03:07 PM

I suppose that depends on who's looking... ;)

smart ass :clown2:

Chris Kenny

04-02-2007, 03:23 PM

Regarding DOF, read this:

http://www.bluesky-web.com/dofmyth.htm

Focal length IS NOT a factor. It's determined f-stop and subject distance or focus distance (which is where the image size issue comes into play).

The stretching of wide angle lenses and compression of long lenses will give the images different characteristics which can also lend to the impression of more or less DOF.

Format size has to do with FOV ONLY.

So, Stephen is correct on this issue.

Um... Stephen was saying DOF was determined by the resolution of the lens and the imaging system, which it's mostly not. (This does have some marginal impact, as it determines what counts as acceptable focus.)

As to the argument that varying focal length while maintaining subject size doesn't impact DOF, I've presented it here (or, actually, I think over at DVXUser) previously. I've thought about it since then, and decided that whether or not it's true is largely semantics.

Using a wider lens exaggerates perspective, which causes background objects to look smaller. Because they look smaller, they also look sharper. This results in them appearing to be more in focus.

Tom Lowe

04-02-2007, 03:25 PM

So how does sensor size play into all of this?

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 03:28 PM

It doesn't. DOF does not change depending on format size. What changes is FOV.

For example:

http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/FOV.jpg

Here is a scale diagram of a 50mm lens on S16mm and S35mm. You can see that they have different FOV. But DOF? It's not accounted for on this diagram, but the DOF would be the same.

So why do smaller formats appear to have deeper DOF? It's simple.

To match the FOV of S35mm on a 50mm lens, you'd put a 25mm lens on S16mm. While the FOVs will match, the focal length itself has changed. Different focal length = different DOF. The 50mm lens on the S35mm camera will have a shallower DOF than the 25mm lens on the S16mm camera [with nothing else changed].

So the format itself does not change the DOF, it merely changes the FOV. If you match FOV between formats, that's when the DOF changes [because the only way to match FOV between formats is to modify focal length].

Make sense?

Ace

04-02-2007, 03:29 PM

One of my favourite past times on reduser is reading up on all the theories regarding depth of field. Every post presents a whole new version of it!

Its almost like that Airplane on a conveyor belt physics question that floated around the web a couple of years back.

Anders Holck

04-02-2007, 03:29 PM

Using a wider lens exaggerates perspective, which causes background objects to look smaller. Because they look smaller, they also look sharper. This results in them appearing to be more in focus.

Yes the funny thing here is that there is actually only one exact distance that is 100% in focus, DOF is only an illusion of objects "appearing to be in focus" based on the Circle of confusion.

Now back to the subject "Red vs. Viper"

Chris Kenny

04-02-2007, 03:30 PM

This is only true if you are moving the camera to maintain the same frame. As mentioned before, if you keep the camera at 10' from your subject and swap out the 18mm for an 85mm, the 85mm lens [at the same stop] will have shallower DOF.

Right. And if you stand in the same place and replace your 18mm lens with an 85mm lens, and then switch to a larger format camera, you get both the shallower DOF and the same field of view. As I said before, this is why we say larger format cameras have shallower DOF. Basically, because you can use a longer lens from the same distance (which lowers DOF) without having an unacceptably narrow field of view.

Edit: Oops, you already beat me to it with this explanation.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 03:32 PM

Bingo. Semantics.

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 03:33 PM

Its almost like that Airplane on a conveyor belt physics question that floated around the web a couple of years back.

The plane could take off, dammit! Thrust is independent of the wheels and the wheels are independent of airspeed! :)

Ace

04-02-2007, 03:36 PM

The plane could take off, dammit! Thrust is independent of the wheels and the wheels are independent of airspeed! :)

Absoloutely! Thats what I said. Einsteins third law.

Ace

04-02-2007, 03:37 PM

Sorry NEWTONS third law.

Poi Boy

04-02-2007, 03:40 PM

I think it was copernicus.
-A

Brainstorm

04-02-2007, 04:45 PM

i agree with haakon completely. but boy am i sick of hearing that, either here on the red boards, or on CML, and in real life. the next time i hear anyone talk about how "its more than just the camera" to make a good film it will be TOO SOON. this is the most obvious thing in the world, and even if you think its not, its been said probably more times than anything else, ever, on these boards. the boys over at cml really love to say that one too... "just because you have a red doesnt mean you have talent, or good lighting, blablablablablabla

OH MY

am i the only one who seriously gets driven crazy when they read stuff like that? its just so obvious, and the most overplayed comment in the history of these boards, it drives me nuts. "you have a red camera but you will still have to breathe air on the set..."

Zak... :cold:

The ONLY point I was trying to make was that audiences don't give a toss what any film is shot on, as long as it looks good. Does anybody (other than people like you, me and other filmmakers) watch Zodiac to see what the Viper's images looked like? Probably not. Do they care what it's shot on? Probably not. Do they know if it's digital video of celluloid? Probably not. Do they care or know if it's 4K, 2K or 1080P? Probably not. Do they care if it's entertaining? Well, the answer to that is obvious.

I'm so sorry if my earlier comment bored you. It won't happen again. Maybe I'll take to posting images of my dog instead of mentioning "storyline" in relation to film at any time in the future.:nuke:

Paris Remillard

04-02-2007, 07:05 PM

Um... Stephen was saying DOF was determined by the resolution of the lens and the imaging system, which it's mostly not. (This does have some marginal impact, as it determines what counts as acceptable focus.)

As to the argument that varying focal length while maintaining subject size doesn't impact DOF, I've presented it here (or, actually, I think over at DVXUser) previously. I've thought about it since then, and decided that whether or not it's true is largely semantics.

Using a wider lens exaggerates perspective, which causes background objects to look smaller. Because they look smaller, they also look sharper. This results in them appearing to be more in focus.

I was referring to Stephen saying, "I maintain DOF is determined by stop & image size only."

The rest of what you said is exactly what I said in my previous post.

KETCH ROSSi

04-02-2007, 07:45 PM

Hi Ketch,

I find -23 green with XnView (a free programme) removes the color cast.

After Effects is just as easy, just not free!

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

there is many options with the Viper workflow in color correction, the problem remains the cost of recording, transfering to a powerfull in off system to have the capacity for it, and there for the choice from my view point remains the RedOne, workflow is much important then some people are let to believe, you definitely do not want to find your self in the position of not having in off money to post your shots.

Thanks for pointing out the options do, just I fill strongly about Jim's project and I do not think I will be neding the softwere for the Viper.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

Stephen Williams

04-02-2007, 10:41 PM

Using a wider lens exaggerates perspective, which causes background objects to look smaller. Because they look smaller, they also look sharper. This results in them appearing to be more in focus.

Hi Chris,

If you enlarge the background image from the wide lens to the same size as it was with the longer lens you will find it to be equally soft. You have not increased DOF at all.

Stephen

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 10:45 PM

He was only referring to appearance, not actual DOF.

Tom Lowe

04-02-2007, 11:38 PM

A couple things I'm still not clear on.

Stephen is saying focal length does not affect DOF. But it seems that the larger your sensor, the longer focal length you need to get a similar FOV. And the longer focal length gives you a more shallow DOF, right?

Here is what wikipedia says:

The image format size also will affect the depth of field. The larger the format size, the longer a lens will need to be to capture the same framing as a smaller format. In motion pictures, for example, a frame with a 12 degree horizontal field of view will require a 50 mm lens on 16 mm film, a 100 mm lens on 35 mm film, and a 250 mm lens on 65 mm film. Conversely, using the same focal length lens with each of these formats will yield a progressively wider image as the film format gets larger: a 50 mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 12 degrees on 16 mm film, 23.6 degrees on 35 mm film, and 55.6 degrees on 65 mm film. What this all means is that because the larger formats require longer lenses than the smaller ones, they will accordingly have a smaller depth of field. Therefore, compensations in exposure, framing, or subject distance need to be made in order to make one format look like it was filmed in another format.

....

The image format size also will affect the depth of field. The larger the format size, the longer a lens will need to be to capture the same framing as a smaller format. In motion pictures, for example, a frame with a 12 degree horizontal field of view will require a 50 mm lens on 16 mm film, a 100 mm lens on 35 mm film, and a 250 mm lens on 65 mm film. Conversely, using the same focal length lens with each of these formats will yield a progressively wider image as the film format gets larger: a 50 mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 12 degrees on 16 mm film, 23.6 degrees on 35 mm film, and 55.6 degrees on 65 mm film. What this all means is that because the larger formats require longer lenses than the smaller ones, they will accordingly have a smaller depth of field. Therefore, compensations in exposure, framing, or subject distance need to be made in order to make one format look like it was filmed in another format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

So it seems that focal length does have an effect on depth of field, as we all assume. When Stephan said "Focal length does not effect DOF, just F stop and image magnification at the sensor"... what is he talking about?

BTW, what is the image sensor size of the Viper vs the Red?

Brook Willard

04-02-2007, 11:46 PM

Stephen was referring to focal length not having an effect on DOF in only one particular scenario: where the subject distance is increased to maintain the same framing. For example:

50mm lens @ 25' subject distance.
100mm lens @ 50' subject distance.

These two would have the same DOF. This is what he meant when he said that focal length has no effect... just to debunk that whole "back up and zoom in" myth. But if focal length is the only factor that changes, yes, DOF will be affected. If multiple factors [the three factors are focal length, stop and subject distance] are changed in complementary ways [such as in the example above], DOF will not change.