Phantom_RED_Comparison

[Mark Toia]

Hi all.
Interesting day today. During a prep day we did our normal pre shoot checks, checking lenses, cameras, batteries etc. During these tests we shoot a bit of footage off, throw it into the laptop, check lens sharps etc. In this case a RED camera and a Phantom.
So I'd thought id share the tests. Same lens was used on both cameras.

Now before this turns into a fight of words and Mitch from Abel jumps in to defend everything that is not RED.. I just want to say I love Phantom cameras as much as RED. They are the best slow motion cameras on the market and are truly the best camera to have in the tool kit. I love them!

So here are our lens tests, Please make your own opinion.
Also to remember at 100% resolution and what everyone on this planet is going to view them at, the phantom camera is still great.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm only sharing.

http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/TO_FIN/Phantom_RED/Phantom_RED_%20Comparison.mov

PS... Im pulling this movie off my FTP site in 4 days.. To much traffic.
RED or if anyone else wants to post this file do so please with my permission. thanks.

http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/TO_FIN/Phantom_RED/Phantom_RED_%20Comparison.mov

:attention9ha:

[David Birdy]

Interesting Mark, thanks for posting!


Dave

[Jim Hoffman]

Thanks Mark. Interesting differences. I'll be thrilled to get more FPS out of RED with Epic.

[Graeme Nattress]

You need to run the Phantom through a better demosaic than "bilinear" to make it a fair comparison. That demosaic is doing the Phantom no justice at all.

Graeme

[M Most]

In this case a RED camera and a Phantom.

There are different Phantom models. I'm going to assume from your post that you were using a Phantom HD, not a Phantom 65. That in itself would account for the resolution difference. Also, as you know (and I hope others here would know), the Phantom is usually ordered as a specialty camera for high speed use, not as an "A" camera for general purpose use. And, of course, it's very rare that would would intentionally shoot something to be used with a 300, 400, or 800% blowup. At "normal" size, I think these images are pretty comparable considering that one device is capable of shooting at 1000fps and the other isn't.

Graeme's point about the demosaic is also very well taken. You didn't mention whose demosaic software you used for this, or what filter was employed (although I certainly wouldn't doubt Graeme's assessment).

[Dane Brehm]

You need to run the Phantom through a better demosaic than "bilinear" to make it a fair comparison. That demosaic is doing the Phantom no justice at all.

Graeme

2nd that!

Did you kick it out from 663? I use the Gluetools Plug-in and the Hybrid GT debayer for most of my transcoded phantom footage. Looks alot better.

Try doing a low-light test Phantom vs Red assuming you BB the camera correctly:)

This is why we test:)

goodluck,

[Greg M]

There are different Phantom models. I'm going to assume from your post that you were using a Phantom HD, not a Phantom 65. That in itself would account for the resolution difference. Also, as you know (and I hope others here would know), the Phantom is usually ordered as a specialty camera for high speed use, not as an "A" camera for general purpose use. And, of course, it's very rare that would would intentionally shoot something to be used with a 300, 400, or 800% blowup. At "normal" size, I think these images are pretty comparable considering that one device is capable of shooting at 1000fps and the other isn't.

Graeme's point about the demosaic is also very well taken. You didn't mention whose demosaic software you used for this, or what filter was employed (although I certainly wouldn't doubt Graeme's assessment).

What Mike said. I have shot several Red/Phantom projects and the two cameras cut together pretty seamlessly. I have never had the need to blow-up Phantom footage 20% much less 400%+...and I think if you try the Gluetools plugin, you will see much better results.

[Mark Toia]

Completely agree with all of you... The 65 is bad ass.

There is no need to defend or support either camera. I use Phantom cameras all the time and always will do. Same goes for RED.

To Graeme Nattress, The files I received from the Phantom tec are 16 bit uncompressed tiffs... No funny business from me. They look exactly the same in photoshop as what they do in this movie file. Haven't graded them either. same as the RED, just straight out of the camera.
Now if there is a completely different way of processing the actual Phantom files other than the way taught to him by Phantom. Id love to tell the owner of the Phantom how or what he is doing wrong?.

Regardless, I'm still very comfortable in using the Phantom and don't care about the blocky pixels at all.

have a nice day all.

[Graeme Nattress]

See the advice above on the raw files. I'm no Phantom expert, but I do know that the standard demosaic is sub-optimal.

Graeme

[Mark Toia]

What Mike said. I have shot several Red/Phantom projects and the two cameras cut together pretty seamlessly. I have never had the need to blow-up Phantom footage 20% much less 400%+...and I think if you try the Gluetools plugin, you will see much better results.

Hey... I shoot Phantom and RED seamlessly as well, I completely don't have a problem at all. I was only sharing a quick test. nothing more.

There is no need to blow up phantom footage. (but if you did... well thats another story) I do blow up my RED footage from time to time though.

Repeating. I have no problem at all with Phantom. Awesome camera.

[Mark Toia]

2nd that!

Did you kick it out from 663? I use the Gluetools Plug-in and the Hybrid GT debayer for most of my transcoded phantom footage. Looks alot better.

Try doing a low-light test Phantom vs Red assuming you BB the camera correctly:)

This is why we test:)

goodluck,

Hi Dane,

I'm no Phantom tech, but the tec that owns and runs the phantom does not sound like a goose. Quite intelligent i thought.

That said, Please explain the way you process your Phantom files. I'll relay this to him in the morning. Looking over his shoulder during the processing of the files, looked very Phantom regulated to me...

Regardless, Im not worried anyway, I don't plan on blowing the footage up to 800% anyway :)

thanks

[Mark Toia]

You didn't mention whose demosaic software you used for this

??? I'm only the DP, The Phantom TEC (hopefully doing it the correct way) is in charge of rendering out files to the correct spec?

Regardless, You don't have to do any silly rendering with RED files. The RED image next to the Phantom footage was just the 2k Proxie! no rendering, no de-mosaic, no anything, just shot and dropped into the time line and it plays.

Please tell me how you'd process & Render Phantom files, Id like to share this with the Phantom Tec in the morning.

Thanks :smile5:

[Mark Toia]

Sorry boys and girls, I only had about 2 gig free to host this movie.
173 hits in 1 hour was a bit quicker than I thought.
I'm taking it down now, If any one wants me to post it to them, just PM me.
seeya.

[Pedro Guimaraes]

yeah, proper post processing of the phantom files in something like glue tools is extremely important. 663 is a mess in comparison. Always important to compare apples to apples....

[Jeff Coatney]

The Phantom 65 and HD systems rock. They're great cameras to complement any shoot where high FPS is needed.

[Gabriele Turchi]

the link seems not working?

g

[Subhadip Sen]

I would be very interested in seeing this. Perhaps you can upload it to a free hosting service like MediaFire.com. Would be grateful!