Shootout: RedOne vs F35

[danbrazda]

I'd love to see a side-by-side shootout between these two cameras. Same lighting, lenses...etc. Would take a lot of connections to get the 2 cams in the same place at the same time but as diverse as this forum is maybe someone can pull it off. Just curious if the differences would be apparent enough to justify the cost of the F35. Any conjectures?

[Steve Phillipps]

One thing that concerns me about the Red is the compression, ie 36 and 28 mb/sec. I confess straight off that I'm by no mens an expert here. I know wavelet codecs are supposed to be good, but it seems there's a big drop from the 130 mb/sec or whatever HDCam is, to 36. And if you're downloading from 4k sensor instead of 2/3" surely that means even more compression to fit into the bandwidth? Having said all that, by all accounts the images look stunning, so great! There have been reports of graininess here and there and a few other little issues that could be result of high compression?
Feel free to correct me if I'm entirely wrong, I won't take it personally!
Steve

[Sidney L. Plaut]

I talked to a rental house here in copenhagen - www.ebh.dk. They had seen
f35, HPX3000, regular 35mm and red1 footage, all "video" scanned to 35mm.
I think maybe the test was done in Norway... maybe ask some of the norwegians in the forum if they were involved with it...

The rental house - and this is ofcourse completely "hearsay" - that the RED1 blew all the videocams away. 35mm is another matter. Film is film... that comes down to an aestetic choice - and ofcourse financially:)

[esmilis]

One thing that concerns me about the Red is the compression, ie 36 and 28 mb/sec. I confess straight off that I'm by no mens an expert here. I know wavelet codecs are supposed to be good, but it seems there's a big drop from the 130 mb/sec or whatever HDCam is, to 36. And if you're downloading from 4k sensor instead of 2/3" surely that means even more compression to fit into the bandwidth? Having said all that, by all accounts the images look stunning, so great! There have been reports of graininess here and there and a few other little issues that could be result of high compression?
Feel free to correct me if I'm entirely wrong, I won't take it personally!
Steve

I don't know how much HDCam is but red is 36,28MB/s (288, 224mbps). And thats a lot

[Steve Phillipps]

So am I getting my bits and bytes mixed up here? HDCam is 144 megabits per second and Red is 36 megabytes per second (ie 288 megabits)?
I thought I was an expert until 3 minutes ago!
Steve:waaa:

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Claudia Miranda tested Red v The Sony F23. Red did not blow the F23 out of the water, some people were very offended by the results of a real world test.

Stephen

[Richard Lackey]

The F35 has a 35mm sized sensor right?

[Steve Phillipps]

Was the Red expected to blow the megabucks Sony out of the water?

[Stuart English]

So am I getting my bits and bytes mixed up here? HDCam is 144 megabits per second and Red is 36 megabytes per second (ie 288 megabits)? I thought I was an expert until 3 minutes ago!

Yeah, but its O.K.. we are all learning :construction: and something else that is non-intuitive - as the resolution goes up the ability to compress gets easier. So there are a whole bunch of reasons why you can't simply extrapolate what you know about existing cameras and compression and apply that to RED.

[Mark Tyson]

Folks;

It would be folly to assume Sony can't make a camera for 200K that
might be able to compete...maybe even favorably...with RED. No one
should mis-underestimate (as our political leadership might say) the
engineering abilities of other camera manufacturers. Just revel in the
cost/quality convergence that RED offers. If you have the bucks to use the Sony F35, your concerns are much different than most of us.

Mark Tyson