Find a way to play with both cameras and see for yourself which one you prefer using and make your own list of reasons why. Both are good enough cameras that it will come down to your talent and skill with it, not the camera itself.

Once you have played with both cameras, take away some footage and post it using an appropriate workflow for a theatrical release.

All your questions should be able to be answered, at that point. You will have all the information that you need, and you probably will have learned quite a few things that you did not already know.

Amir, I loved CLICHE. Who did that? How did they get that film look?

Hey Meryem..
Thanks.. and yes that's what I intend to do shortly. It'll cost me a bit of money but learning does not come cheap I guess. will keep you all posted as to how I fare...

And Brian B..
another one bites the dust I guess. haha. The info is in the thread. i think they've used After Effects for the look.

While RED does have a 4K sensor it does not deliver 4K resolution because it employes a Bayer Matrix to reproduce colour. Reds output resolution is closer to 3K than 4K. It does have a bigger sensor which means shallower DoF.

In terms of latitude and dynamic range the EX is very good giving in excess of 11 stops if set up correctly. I've seen both RED and EX footage on the same 40ft screen and I could not really see any difference, however the subject matter for the two clips was quite different making it hard to evaluate properly.

Resolution is only a small part of the whole equation. Star Wars EP II was shot using HDCAM at 1440x1080 and I doubt that many cinema goers noticed that it wasn't film. Even more features use a 2K intermediate so 4K is not a "must have" for movies and shorts. Nice admittedly but not essential IMHO.

If you do go the EX route then you should consider recording using a FlashXDR or NanoFlash as this will give you 4:2:2 and less compression which should give a little more flexibility in post, not that the EX at 35Mbps is all that bad.

Where did you find this information? Although it is true that de-bayering reduces the number of effective pixels from a true 4K image, I don't believe there is any reliable published data on the number of effective pixels after de-bayering. If there is, I would be very interested in knowing about it.

I doubt that the naked eye would be able to see a difference between true 4K and RED's de-bayered output at 4096 x 2048, except possibly in the closest side-by-side still image scrutiny. Graeme Nattress has gone on record saying that the major resolution reduction is not the bayer pattern but the optical low pass filter -- something necessary to all cameras, not just RED.

So I'm not convinced that de-bayering brings the RED/EX cameras any closer in terms of resolution.

In the right hands, they are both amazing cameras, but I don't think effective resolution has a lot to do with it.

I have not seen any comparisons between these cameras since the latest release of RED's new color science. That would be interesting, and if anyone in Colorado wants to bring an EX by my studio, we could have some fun playing with gear.

I often see the RED image judged on footage developed from old firmware, especially in terms of latitude and low light performance, it would be more productive to base judgments on what is happening with the camera right now.

I haven't even had a chance to mess with the new build yet, because my RED camera has been in the audio upgrade program...but I'm looking forward to testing it.

In ball park figures, Alisters right, but it's actually an impossible comparison to make in strict numerical terms. The reason is that no system delivers 100% resolution up to a given point, then nothing, in practice all imaging systems tail off at higher resolutions. Look up "modulation transfer function" for the full science. That's especially true of Bayer systems, where each output pixel is formed from several surrounding pixels. All you can say definitively is that the output resolution will be considerably less than if it was formed from 3 4k R,G,B chips.

It gets even more complicated, as it's inherent in Bayer systems that luminance resolution will be higher than chrominance - exactly the same as for 3 chip systems using pixel shift. This shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, the eye resolves more luminance detail than chrominance, and resolution tailing off can look pleasing.

The problem with using Bayer sensors for video, as opposed to stills, is with aliasing - high frequencies maifesting as lower frequencies. They're not really a problem with a still image, but with video it's quite a different story as they move in the opposite direction to the objects causing them. That's not nice in itself, but the real problem is that it can completely mess up a compression system, and to make matters even worse could pass through a complete (lightly compressed) post system, only to cause unforeseen problems on final transmission compression. The only way to control them is with good low pass filtering, but that can mean the resolution is much less than pixel count numbers will have you believe.

But beware of numbers. A 4k chip may sound 4x as good in area terms as 3 2k chips, but that's not the case.

I passed on my RED 1 for the EX1. Mainly for the easy laptop workflow of the EX1. If you are gonna try to edit in 4k or proxy... do your homework as RED takes up huge amounts of hard drives and processing. For short form, RED is ok... long form you better have lots of $$$ for drives, computers and time processing. Scarlet is coming, but even 3k workflow vs EX1 is a huge increase in storage and processing. I will stick with my ex1 for Blu-ray and dvds at the moment. Cant wait to see Nikon or Scarlet at 1080p though.

RED themselves say the resolution of the RED One is just over 3k. That's why they're going for the higher pixel sensors on their next generation 35mm sensor cameras, so that they'll have 4k resolution for 4k digital cinemas. Also why the Scarlet 2/3" has a 3k sensor for 2k final output.

The post is something to be considered and costed in advance.

I doubt an over 11 stop range for the EX3, the BBC White Papers seem to suggest around 10 stops, which is the same as the RED.

I swear that whole 11 stops of DR has always been a tough sell for me. It's a great camera, the EX, but 11 stops? Hard to believe, especially in that I've seen it come up way short and not be especially forgiving in difficult circumstances.

resolution chart testing has put the red around 2.4k

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

Adam Wilt found a 10 stop range for the EX1 when he reviewed it as well.

I seem to recall that following discussion that it was generally agreed that the lens being used was the limiting factor in this particular test. Quite a few people seemed to come up with a 3k figure.

I have used both the EX1 and Red and they are both great cameras. Of course Red has a bit more organic feel to it considering the material is visually lossless. In terms of resolution it is higher then the EX1 but not by a huge amount. There is nothing wrong with 2k or 1920x1080 at all and many films even shot on film are edited as 2k. In fact most effects work is usually scanned at 2k although a few newer super high budget movies will use 4k scanning but I doubt anybody on this forum asking any of these question has the bank to even worry about this.

One thing I can tell you is that dealing with Red footage can be a pain compared to the EX1. I'm not saying it is hard but it is more complex then the EX1.

Personally my favorite way of working with Red is to down convert to 1080p. The stuff looks amazing and is much easier to work with. With that said by the time you down convert the EX1 isn't very far behind. This is even more true if you live capture during shooting into a better format with a product like the Flash XDR.

Specs and science aside I could comment regarding my personal experience with the look of so called RED "4k", since there is some contention on it, vs. EX with stock lens. This having been under controlled conditions with same subject, professional lighting, ungraded, test charts in the scene and projected 35mm. At "4k" the RED was leaps and bounds beyond the EX and it blew me away. At 2k it was hardly something to cough at however.

At 4k, Very natural looking, not electronic, and no grain like film. Although it looks organic, I wouldn't compare the RED 4k to film. I think the RED has a unique and distinct look, not film and not video. Maybe we can call it RAW. RED 4k professionally lit with a good workflow certainly looks like nothing else in the history of motion picture that I've seen.

Jay Gladwell sent me a useful link and it has a lot of relevance to this thread and is a well presented series of videos on resolution and optics. Well worth watching.

Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications Part 1: What?s in a Pixel?