Comparing 3K and 2.5K IQ

[Les Dittert]

As someone who is always pursuing the maximum detail possible from my 3K Scarlet footage, I pre-ordered a 2.5 K camera today.
I am keen on seeing fine detail, noise, etc.

This is indeed an interesting time for filmmakers!

edit: I'm not planning to keep the 2.5k , only getting it for a reality check test.

[Bob Gundu]

Why not shoot 4K? Your 3K will look great from that :)

[Les Dittert]

I like the higher frame rates of 3K.

[Bob Gundu]

I see.... but the other camera can only shoot up to 30P as well.

I like the higher frame rates of 3K.

[Les Dittert]

Indeed. But it's 2.5 K at 30 better not look better than my 3K RED at 30.
Now do you see where I'm coming from ?

I see.... but the other camera can only shoot up to 30P as well.

[Mike P.]

What are the sensor-size and resolution comparisons between the two sensors? E.g. what is the frame/sensor size of MX at 2k (or 3k) in millimetres compared to the 2.5k camera sensor? I'd imagine that would cause differences in the image characteristics (pixel density and pixel size play a pretty fundamental role in noise/grain and fine detail departments, right)? Also, I think it might be CCD while the other is CMOS (BMD said it was CMOS, but in one of the interviews, the CEO said, "we aren't even using all of the CCD"... wasn't sure if it was a verbal typo or not.... by the way, I'm coining the phrase "verbal typo" as of right now.)

Off topic, but if you do end up selling your 2.5k test machine relatively quickly, I'll buy it for $2.5k (solely because I want to say I got 2.5k for $2.5k now that 3k for $3k is dead.)

[Les Dittert]

6.5 micron vs 5.5 micron size.
With good amounts of light, this won't matter. It's going to be all about image processing and that's what I want optimal.

An idea for RED : Hearing the news of the 512 SSD's being fast, let the scarlet shoot uncompressed to it (new RC setting =ZERO ) , avoiding any wavelet smear.
Chews up SDD, but cleaner for those difficult shots. You saw it here first ;)

[M Most]

Indeed. But it's 2.5 K at 30 better not look better than my 3K RED at 30.
Now do you see where I'm coming from ?

No, because pixel resolution is not the sole determining characteristic of image characteristics. Far more important is the size of the sensor, the size of the pixels on that sensor, the optical system, the color science - in fact, everything other than the number of pixels.

I know for many on RedUser (not necessarily you) "resolution is everything." Except that it's not.

[Mike P.]

6.5 micron vs 5.5 micron size.
With good amounts of light, this won't matter. It's going to be all about image processing and that's what I want optimal.

I'd imagine Scarlet would have more processing power solely for offloading 4k, although the 2.5 does have ProRes/DNxHD compression built-in which wouldn't be processor-free.

Anyone know how CinemaDNG stacks up to R3DRAW (on paper at least)? Actually, is CinemaDNG compressed much if at all (the 1080p files are double that of even 5k r3d RAW)? I have some Ikonoskop footage somewhere (which is cDNG) and it looks a lot like 16mm filmscan, but that's (presumably) because of the sensor rather than the codec/format... it certainly lacks resolution though.

I get the feeling that it's going to be very difficult to objectively compare the two (MX at 2-3k and BMD at 2.5k). I mean look at all the hoops and stipulations that have to be made for the comparison -- MX restricted to 2-3k, at what compression ratio, running at 30fps (when really you'd only drop down to those resolutions for the higher frame rates, anyway)... seems kind of forced.

As for RC1:1; I didn't think it was the read/write speed of the REDmag that prevented it, but the actually throughput of the data (at 4k, anyway)... Again, I think CinemaDNG's compression scheme isn't as aggressive as RC (which itself isn't as aggressive as going to ProRes/DNxHD), and at 2.5k it's being dumped to over-the-counter/regular SSDs.

[M Most]

Anyone know how CinemaDNG stacks up to R3DRAW (on paper at least)? Actually, is CinemaDNG compressed much if at all (the 1080p files are double that of even 5k r3d RAW)?

Well, as a format it's a lot more open than RC, for one thing.......

CinemaDNG only allows lossless compression, but is usually passed uncompressed, whether it's in single frame sequence form or wrapped into an MXF wrapper. An HD sized frame is approximately 3 - 3.5 MB, which comes out to about 85MB per second (at 24 fps) , 5GB per minute, or 300 GB per hour. That is about double the size of Redcode 42 at 4K, or Redcode 10:1 at 5K. Utilities are available to convert Cinema DNG files to, say, Cineform RAW, which would greatly reduce that file size, but Cinema DNG itself does not support lossy compression of any type at this point in time.