Single Chip Camera Evaluation by Robert Primes, ASC

[Fat Duke]

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera- ... pisode-one

In this (latitude) test, Robert Primes tested almost every single digital camera on the market "suitable" for digital cinema. From the Alexa down to the Nikon D7000, including Kodak 5213 & 5219, in order to base their results on. Although Kodak held the latitude tests without any major problems, the Alexa was clearly above everything else, but the new Red MX chip proved also to be very powerful.

Although these kinds of tests can only please so many people, it was amazing to see in how so little time, digital capture has offered so many distinct products and results. It feels like all these institutions are rushing and fighting for the top spot, but are they really doing the best they can with the current available technology, in terms of what is really needed? Maybe the problem is that some of these companies are trying too hard to please the entire spectrum of users, from students to seasoned pros in one single camera. Or maybe it's that we don't really know what it is that we want, until someone shows us... Á la Steve Jobs...

[Roger]

I think film was and to a large extent still is the standard for most cinematographers so, naturally, most cinematographers judge whatever a digital camera has to offer against the equivalent in film. As far as the camera goes you might want a good hand held camera, you might want a good optical viewfinder, you might want a camera which will take your preferred lenses, you might consider it's size to be important and also it's weight. As far as image resolution goes you might want latitude, speed, resolution for sure, and you might want a good rendition and colour saturation.
I feel digital cameras (well one or two) have now surpassed film in many of these categories. The viewing system being the glaring exception as far as I m concerned.

[MarcVanOsdale]

Hey Roger

Any interest in the Sony F65? It still hasn't been officially released, but unlike some other companies I can think of, Sony has demonstrated that they can meet their honest spec projections. Their Beta version is the only True 4K camera that I know of at this point (It's actually an 8K sensor with 4K of Green Pixels)...and, I've heard that Sony is actively pursuing a version with an optical viewfinder!

Obviously, one would have to wait to see the images that come out of the camera...but do you think this would be a camera you would consider using....or is Arri too close to your heart???

[Fat Duke]

Just in case you want to take a look at the F65: http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/digital ... y/f65.html

Although the 20 mgp sensor where half is sensitive to green as Marc mentioned, is probably a bonus only to effects and keying shots. I don't think anyone will "see" the 8k difference. But I guess that we'll have to wait and see its image, but the white paper sure is impressive.

On the plus side (for Arri) there will be the new Arri Alexa studio (rumoured to come out late this year) that is built upon the Alexa Plus with its modular architecture, and it will have an optical viewfinder. This viewfinder has been specifically designed for ALEXA, and accepts both Arriflex 435 and ARRICAM style eyepieces and viewfinder extensions. (as mentioned somewhere else here) but still couldn't find out about the sensor ISO native rate.

See demo pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38908089@N ... /lightbox/

Oh, and it will have a full 4:3 sensor. I believe this will be great news for true anamorphic users/lovers!

I don't see any other cameras proposing these types of hardware configurations, seems like Arri is the only one listening to what their core clients want from them.

[Andrew Rieger]

Hey Roger

Any interest in the Sony F65? It still hasn't been officially released, but unlike some other companies I can think of, Sony has demonstrated that they can meet their honest spec projections. Their Beta version is the only True 4K camera that I know of at this point (It's actually an 8K sensor with 4K of Green Pixels)...and, I've heard that Sony is actively pursuing a version with an optical viewfinder!

Obviously, one would have to wait to see the images that come out of the camera...but do you think this would be a camera you would consider using....or is Arri too close to your heart???

Not trying to toot the Red Horn but the Red Epic M was the first true 4K camera (captures slightly less than 5K for true 4K projection). The cam is 100% production ready and they have shipped around 900 cameras across the globe. I'm sure the Sony F65 will be a spectacularly good camera but let's be honest, the Epic and the Alexa are going to rule the digital cinema game. Plus, the Epic has a spectacular HDRX mode which is already being put to good use by professionals.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/ ... -and-hdrx/

http://blog.localheropost.com/main/2011 ... mples.html

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/hdrx-th ... ible-shot/

[MarcVanOsdale]

Theres a great deal of confusing math that goes into measuring the true perceived resolution of a single chip CMOS. Red claims that their Epic is a true 4K image derived from it's 5K sensor...but that evaluation of the Epic has been conducted by only Red as far as I've heard. The only way to have an undoubtable 4K image would come from actually having 4K of Green pixels in your sensor...which only the F65 has, unquestionably 4K.

It's hard to say who will dominate the digital cinema game as cameras seem to change every 18 months now. Epic will no doubt be the camera of choice for 3D Production simply because of it's tiny size...but seeing that the F35 is still the most popular digital camera for large scale production, I'm sure the F65 will find a comfortable place in the market.

[Fat Duke]

Vincent LaForet is an excellent photographer, but he is not a DP and certainly not a professional DP. Perhaps that's why he thinks the HDRx option is so cool... We'll have to wait and see if there will be any cinematographers that will use HDR in a creative way, meaning, not using HDR just because they can't light a scene properly...

Besides, my personal opinion is that cinematography is about the "beauty" and the dynamics between light and dark, and HDR points in the exact opposite direction. Its a shame that Red still has the mindset of seeing cameras as "toys" with fancy gimmicks like HDR and "K" count, as opposed to a tool of expression, or an extension of the human mind.

As Roger said before, and I agree, the 4K situation is nothing more than a technical exercise, I don't think it has any real use in a film, maybe for special effect shots or any other technical situation where a bigger spacial resolution is needed. But to this day, everything as been done in 2K. Avatar being what it is in post production work, was shot at 1080! So, I ask, who is so desperately in need of 6K, and why?

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, 35mm isn't 2K and we've been using that for a long time... philosophically, I don't want to see 35mm replaced by something just below it in resolution rather than at it or just above it. The 2K D.I. has become a standard for feature post-production not because it is a superior format but because it is cheaper, faster, and less work than doing a 4K D.I. I don't want the new gold standard for feature filmmaking to be chosen because it is the most convenient for everyone -- but because it is the same or better than what we've had with 35mm! In the long view of history, 2K and 1080P for feature work will be seen as a transitionary period between the film era and 4K.

I don't think even ARRI believes that the Alexa matches 35mm resolution -- when they came up with the D20, which has a sensor of similar resolution, they called it the D20 as an in-joke more or less, feeling that the resolution was somewhere between 16mm and 35mm, hence the number "20" as if there was an imaginary 20mm film format.

[Andrew Rieger]

Theres a great deal of confusing math that goes into measuring the true perceived resolution of a single chip CMOS. Red claims that their Epic is a true 4K image derived from it's 5K sensor...but that evaluation of the Epic has been conducted by only Red as far as I've heard. The only way to have an undoubtable 4K image would come from actually having 4K of Green pixels in your sensor...which only the F65 has, unquestionably 4K.

It's hard to say who will dominate the digital cinema game as cameras seem to change every 18 months now. Epic will no doubt be the camera of choice for 3D Production simply because of it's tiny size...but seeing that the F35 is still the most popular digital camera for large scale production, I'm sure the F65 will find a comfortable place in the market.

I just want to address a couple of points you made:

1. The F65 is also a CMOS cam like the Epic, not a CCD so it does not have equal amounts of red, green and blue pixels. It has some funky design where the pixels are positioned at an angle which Sony claims will add more green pixels but it wont be like a CCD which has equal amounts of the three colors. Still, I have no doubt that it is a true 4K cam but I disagree with you that it is the only TRUE 4K cam.

2. They have shipped over 900 cameras so Red is certainly not the only company to evaluate the resolution claims of the cam. I have seen EPIC footage projected at 4K and it was certainly the highest resolution digital footage I had ever seen, it was almost unreal how sharp it was. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it looked almost too perfect.

3. Also, I don't think that the F35 is the most popular digital cam for big budget films. I think that the Genesis has shot the most A list films but I could be wrong. The Red One has also has shot quite a few and Arri is racking up a pretty high shoot count. Really, the only F35 films I can think of are Transformers 3, Tron, Harry Brown and the most recent resident evil film.

[Andrew Rieger]

Vincent LaForet is an excellent photographer, but he is not a DP and certainly not a professional DP. Perhaps that's why he thinks the HDRx option is so cool... We'll have to wait and see if there will be any cinematographers that will use HDR in a creative way, meaning, not using HDR just because they can't light a scene properly...

Besides, my personal opinion is that cinematography is about the "beauty" and the dynamics between light and dark, and HDR points in the exact opposite direction. Its a shame that Red still has the mindset of seeing cameras as "toys" with fancy gimmicks like HDR and "K" count, as opposed to a tool of expression, or an extension of the human mind.

As Roger said before, and I agree, the 4K situation is nothing more than a technical exercise, I don't think it has any real use in a film, maybe for special effect shots or any other technical situation where a bigger spacial resolution is needed. But to this day, everything as been done in 2K. Avatar being what it is in post production work, was shot at 1080! So, I ask, who is so desperately in need of 6K, and why?

I highly doubt, that Red sees their cameras as "toys". I also don't see HDRX as a gimmick. The Red One was often criticized for the ugliness of its highlights but this essentially solves the problem. Think of this as a feature that rivals the pleasing highlight roll off of film. Besides, any camera can be an extension of the human mind. It has always been about the man behind the camera, not the camera itself. This is just natural progression, not gimmicks.

As more and more theaters install 4K projectors, assuming that 2K is good enough is kind of silly, you should always go for the highest quality possible. It also produces better results when you down res for blu ray.

[Fat Duke]

I'm really not technical enough to understand how these chips are built and what makes them different from each other in terms of "look", but (my) problem with the Red chip is that it looks "too digital" or "too unemotional" (for lack of a better meaning), and I'm not disputing resolution or overall image quality, just the "feel" of the image itself. I don't feel that with the Alexa, as its image tends to be more "organic" looking, and apparently they share the same sensor technology.

David, you are right about 35mm being scanned at 2K, and that not being the best "technical" option. But appart from digital post work, would another 2K difference be of any addition to the image quality? Red One is 4K (or close to that) and its image quality is (in my opinion) far below from that of the Alexa which is only 2K? Is this spacial resolution really what is standing in the way of achieving a richer file? Wouldn't it be perhaps more significant to increase the size of the sensor? Wouldn't that increase the overall power structure of the captured image?

Andrew, when I said toys I didn't mean it in a derogative way, but rather in the way that they put things in their cameras to entertain the user, without any real value to a film. And also the way they market their cameras almost like they were a commodity, something you can own, like a fancy car... And I don't see any of this having any valuable impact in film making, that's all.

I'm all for having the best of the best, but that's not how our industry has grown, very few films were shot on VistaVision or on 65mm, it was more expensive. But that didn't stop people from being creative, and in the end of the day that's what is all about, is what you can do with the story, with the actors, with the sets and with the light and the framing, if its not 4K, it won't make one bit of difference in the commercial or critical success of the film. I mean the new Pirates movie was shot at 5K, but I don't see how that film is technically or photographically superior to Avatar, Northfork or A Serious Man... or any other film for that matter.

PS - I'm not a producer...

[David Mullen ASC]

Resolution is obviously just one aspect to an image -- and even just looking at the issue of resolution, sharpness, detail, etc. you have a complex mix of elements.

But if we are really discussing what will actually replace 35mm film, we shouldn't accept something that is lower in resolution than 35mm, just as we shouldn't accept something that has less latitude or poorer color information, etc. Now of course today 35mm is still with us and these digital cameras are merely an alternative choice, though an increasingly popular one.

I think today with the ARRI Alexa and the Red Epic, we have come pretty darn close to matching 35mm quality, even surpassing it in some ways. The Alexa's main weak spot is resolution and I think ARRI realizes this, but it was a reasonable compromise they made in order to get more dynamic range and sensitivity out of the sensor, given that most post work today is done at 2K anyway. But I'd feel more secure in seeing something like the Alexa take over 35mm film when it gets closer to 4K in measurable resolution. Right now, I think max recordable information from the Alexa is 2.8K RAW, which would probably measure out to 2.1K if you take the generally accepted notion that you get something like 75% of the resolution in RAW once converted to RGB using a debayering algorithm.

Many tests of 35mm movie film show something like 3.5K measurable resolution (which means that it needs to be scanned at somewhat higher resolution, hence why you hear figures like 4K and even 6K as optimal scanning resolutions.)

But like I said, resolution is mainly perceptible to us in the form of sharpness and detail, and both are somewhat subjective. I believe digital images tend to fall off less quickly in sharpness at high frequencies, that "edgy crispness" one perceives sometimes (which can be enhanced further with tricks like edge enhancement) -- this is one reason why 1080P HD images, though they don't record as much actual detail as 35mm film does, often "feel" just as sharp if not sharper.

As for the Red One, I'd throw away your old notions of what that looks like -- for one thing, to some extent, the Red One is always going to be limited by its 12-bit processor. Take a look at the Epic instead -- same M-X sensor but with a 16-bit processor, allowing more dynamic range. Plus with a more powerful processor you can shoot with less compression and at higher frame rates (120 fps at 5K RAW). The overall look of Epic footage is much more pleasant and "film like" than the Red One, while also exceeding 35mm film in resolution. No, without its HDRx mode turned-on, it falls a bit short of the Alexa in terms of dynamic range, but tests that people have been posting online only show maybe a 1/2-stop of difference, much better than the 2-stop difference in DR that some people find when comparing the Red One to the Alexa. (And if you find a situation where HDRx is useful, you can end up with a lot more dynamic range available to you for color-correction than either 35mm film or the Alexa can deliver.)

And given a wide dynamic range image like either the Epic or the Alexa has, if you main problem is with having too much sharpness, well, that's what filters are for -- you can always throw away resolution in some manner, in-camera or in-post, but you can't get it back if you don't have it in the first place.

As for marketing techniques and hype, I find that irrelevant one way or the other, all I care about is how the image looks and how practical and flexible the camera and its workflow is -- the rest is just peripheral.

Anyway, the Alexa is a great camera and I love the images from it, I just hope that ARRI addresses the resolution issue in the next generation after their 4x3 sensor / optical viewfinder version comes out. I don't see it as an unsurmountable hurdle getting their sensor design approach to be applied to something with a few more photosites.

Sure, not every movie ever needs to be shot in 65mm... but on the other hand, it would have been nice had more films made over the past thirty years had been able to use 65mm. Storaro certainly regretted that "The Last Emperor" wasn't shot in 65mm, not that there was anything wrong with the movie. I don't need every movie to be shot at high resolutions, but I also don't want every movie made to be limited to lower resolutions. It would be nice to return to the days when we had the occasional "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia" in terms of big-screen clarity and detail.

Today, it's great that we have 35mm, Alexa, and the Epic as choices. I've shot with all three in the past year and I was happy with all three; individually they have their strengths and weaknesses, particularly in camera operation and post workflow, but they all can produce beautiful pictures.

[Andrew Rieger]

I'm really not technical enough to understand how these chips are built and what makes them different from each other in terms of "look", but (my) problem with the Red chip is that it looks "too digital" or "too unemotional" (for lack of a better meaning), and I'm not disputing resolution or overall image quality, just the "feel" of the image itself. I don't feel that with the Alexa, as its image tends to be more "organic" looking, and apparently they share the same sensor technology.

David, you are right about 35mm being scanned at 2K, and that not being the best "technical" option. But appart from digital post work, would another 2K difference be of any addition to the image quality? Red One is 4K (or close to that) and its image quality is (in my opinion) far below from that of the Alexa which is only 2K? Is this spacial resolution really what is standing in the way of achieving a richer file? Wouldn't it be perhaps more significant to increase the size of the sensor? Wouldn't that increase the overall power structure of the captured image?

Yes, both the Epic and the Alexa use CMOS technology but I believe that the Alexa's softer "organic" image is due to the fact that it has less resolution and I believe they also have a Low Con filter in the sensor which adds a bit of softness in the highlights (I'm sure Roger could talk more about this since I'm not really an Alexa expert). I myself have been critical of the crazy sharpness of the Red Footage but the great thing is, it is very flexible and you can get pretty much any look you want. If it's too sharp you can always dial down the resolution with diffusion filters, nets, low cons and vintage glass. In other instances, some will want maximum clarity. The harshness would be perfect for a documentary style look, a gritty war film, anything where you want the audience to see every pore on the actors face. It's also strange that you say that the Alexa looks much better than Red because from what I have seen, they look pretty darn close. See this:

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/06/digital ... including/

Andrew, when I said toys I didn't mean it in a derogative way, but rather in the way that they put things in their cameras to entertain the user, without any real value to a film. And also the way they market their cameras almost like they were a commodity, something you can own, like a fancy car... And I don't see any of this having any valuable impact in film making, that's all.

I don't get this at all. I think that their customers are excited about the epic's features but they were never added to "entertain" the user. Yes, Jim and his boys can be a bit flamboyant when it comes to the whole red culture thing but this certainly does not mean that their cameras are toys for fanboys. Your criticism of HDRX as adding nothing to filmmaking could be said about any new piece of technology. This criticism could be leveled against the steadicam, the technocrane, technicolor, 3D, CGI, DI, IMAX, basically anything that did something new. Red is simply contributing to the natural technical progression of the industry. Nothing wrong with that. I believe that 3 extra stops of dynamic range will certainly have it's uses (Roger, chime in if you think I'm wrong). DP's gel windows for a reason. Besides if you don't like the idea of extending the dynamic range, you can always turn of HDRX and stick to the standard 13 stops.

I think people like to give Red a hard time and their rocky start has been hard to overcome but their technical contributions have caused every other company to reevaluate their future products. No technology is perfect and there is no such thing as a perfect camera. The Alexa has it's flaws and the Epic has its flaws but I'm glad we have both because competition can only result in further technological advancements and better products.

[Fat Duke]

Andrew I must admit that I might be a bit critical of the Red company because of the way they "sell" their products. I didn't say the Alexa looked "better" than the Epic, just that it "felt" different, very different things, if anything the Epic certainly looks better in "technical" terms than the Alexa.

And I must add that I give it to Red to up the game on this all digital revolution, they were the ones that kicked butt in the first place, making it possible for companies like Panavision and Arri to get their act together, and inciting other companies to join in with their solutions, and therefore to provide the film industry with a much needed update on capture technology. For sure.

But unfortunately I think that Red likes to make a lot of drama about their products, and I tend to favour drama in front of the camera, not behind it...

Maybe what is going to happen is that there will be a few choices to choose from, as there was with different types of film. And every cinematographer will be able to choose from this variety of offers. I'm not a DP, but I need to understand where is everything going, and why...

I have not shot with the Epic, but as a director I have shot with film (the most), with the Red One (pre MX), and with the Alexa, and there was something about the Alexa that was just really effortless and provided me with anything I needed to do with the image, and I didn't feel there was anything standing between me and the camera. I only shoot TV commercials and therefore, I feel I must provide these commercials with a strong creative visual approach (in other words fancy but shallow visuals), due to the lack of good, (and sometimes very stupid) ideas we are given to shoot. But in the meantime, that's what I need to do to pay the rent and feed my cats and dogs...

Also I have read somewhere that James Cameron has ordered 50 Epics! I'm not sure if this is a ridiculous rumour or what he intends to do with them, maybe set them up in the pod or perhaps he just wants a really fancy surveillance system in his property... and also Ridley Scott and Dariusz Wolski are shooting Prometheus with Epics, and that will be Ridley's first time use of digital capture.

Roger's "In Time" should be out soon, and this was also his first shoot on digital, and I can't wait to see it. And I might be wrong but David shot "Big Sur" also on the Epic and this is David's third feature on digital, but the first with 16 bit and 5K resolution, and lets not forget that David was most probably one of the first cinematographers to embrace digital capture. So lots of good things in the pipeline from people who can truly have a powerful say in these new technologies.

Peace.

[David Mullen ASC]

Technically, "Big Sur" was my 11th digital feature out of about 37 features... 8 on the Sony F900, 2 on the Red One (pre-M-X), and 1 on the Epic. I used the Alexa for a TV pilot this February. I've also shot a TV pilot of the M-X Red One, and a TV series on the Genesis.