EX3 vs RED One
 

hi guys..
I've been seeing a lot of test footage of RED one and EX1/EX3 on the net. Is it only me or does anyone else too think that the EX3 footage is quite at par with that of Red One? Yes I know RED One will beat EX but what but what I really want to know is the price difference between the two justified as compared to their image quality? An expert opinion would be of great help. Thanks

I wouldn't judge any footage by what I see on the net. The material is so compressed that you can't tell anything, the only way you can really make a decision is by looking at the footage using the format, screen size and transmission chain that it's going to be distributed/broadcast on. What looks good on a computer screen may not look so good on a 40 ft cinema screen

The EX1 and EX3 do produce extremely good images for their price point and stood up well on the recent BSC test with high end cameras. That's not saying it they're as good as, but for the money they're impressive.

Hi Brian,
Yes absolutely, I do find your observation to be true that internet clips are not the ones to be judged. But wouldn't also it be ok to assume that such a comparison between various cameras is somewhat valid since ALL clips we are watching are compressed anyways?
I am more interested in knowing how well would high res EX3 footage converted to film and projected on 40ft screen hold up against say a 2K/4K footage off the Red One projected similarly. (I am aware that the 4k Red One footage gets down converted to 2k when creating digital intermediates) Is it possible that you are anyone else for that matter has done this comparison first hand?
Thanks for posting.

Well, the different sensor size plays a part in the images as well. Giving the Red a shallower depth of field and it's also often used with high end prime lenses that influences the image quite a bit.
The ex-3 holds up well though and I have never seen a side by side comparison

Have you seen Adam Wilt's comparison here? ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

Lots of dramatic productions are shot on RED because it has the film look . . . I am considering producing a dramatic presentation, and will shoot with RED if I do.
(I own an EX-3)

That would be OK if you're only going to be using the cameras for distribution as on line clips. You can have material which looks fine on the small screen, but when projected clean on the large screen is actually out of focus. I suspect quite a lot of subtle stuff is also being lost during the compression for the on line distribution. I recall compression being demonstrated, one set of footage looked very sharp, the other softer - it turned out the latter was the uncompressed, the compression process had removed the effect of the diffusion filter the cameraman had used.

You could check out Micheal Mann's latest epic, it has some EX1/3 shots in it

It's hard to compare these cameras, they're different in almost every way. Red doesn't even shoot video. They both offer a lot of bang for the buck at vastly different price points, that's for sure.

Hey Boyd,
thanks for the link. Pretty useful I must say. Though my confusion remains.. The tests seemed more between REDOne and F23, and EX1 was just hanging in there. haha.

My dilemma is between hiring a Red ONe for my feature film or buying two EX3s (for much less) doing a two camera shoot thus saving more time and money... I am only intrigued by the quality of converted to film EX3 Vs. RED one footage for the big screen. A test shoot would solve that mystery and if the difference isn't much vis a vis the costs then I'm going in with the EX3s. Will keep you guys posted as to how I fare on my tests. Any pointers that I need to watch out for would be much appreiciated..
Thanks..

My 2c is if you can shoot 4k the choice is no doubt the RED. If you can only do 2k for whatever reason then I think EX has a good chance.

I don't know much about going to a printed film master, but it seems like an involved and expensive process.

Trying to make a prosumer video camera fit the bill seems a bit of a stretch imho.

If you have the project that is important enough to go to film, then the project should warrant the of use more expensive cameras more suited to the task. Or be happy with whatever quality level you get from the EX-3 as it was not made for a filmout, it is an $8,000 video camera.

I am sure it will look fine, but the real question is are you o.k. with "fine"?

That's a very different style of shooting a film. The RED is closer to a 35mm film camera in many ways and there are other factors involved such as the lighting etc, which are key to how a film looks.

Highlight handling and how much colour space you have available for colour correction are factors to be considered. The look from a 35mm sized sensor is very different to that from a 1/2" camera. Pick the camera that's best suited to telling your story, plus if you don't have the budget to shoot with a RED why consider using it? The post work flow for a RED is very different to that of an EX3, and that's another factor to be considered.

Hey Brian/Tim/Max..
thanks for your posts guys..
Now let me tell you who the culprits are which are making me think EX3 can cut for me close to what RED ONe can..

pl go through these links.. can you really blame me for my way of thinking ???

EX1 and Red One on Vimeo
Virgin Mobile on Vimeo
CLICHE / sony EX1 on Vimeo
Storyteller's Night (Trailer 2) on Vimeo

I am so floored by the look of the virgin commercial in the second link, and the EX3/RED comparison in the first - unless these guys are not telling us something we should know (which I doubt very very much)

I am planning to NOT compromise on my lighting since I am taking on the services of a professional skilled cinematographer with complete lighting rigs and good art direction.
and about 4k, well the post production happens in 2k anyways.

In the end, I know I'll most likely end up shooting on REDone to be safe, but I don't want to go down without putting up a decent fight for the EX3. So please maul me towards that direction with your comments ;-)
regards..

For a first feature, there's something to be said about the luxury of two cameras. It'

The decision should be based on your story and how you wish to tell it. As Brian pointed out the RED is a bigger beast, so that could be a factor and having 35mm experience in the crew really helps because the associated kit is usually the same. It's also power hungry, so you need a steady supply of charged batteries.

The EX1/3 series do make impressive pictures, although there seems to a be a underlying "video" feel to the Virgin spot. Everything is under control lighting wise, so you can't really tell much about the camera's highlight handling.

In any tests you should really push the cameras until the images fall apart, then you can decide which is suitable for your film. You should also try and make the recording codec fall apart and see if that could create any issues for you.

There are a number of factors involved in deciding which camera to go for on any production.

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?

And then, of course, we have those who do not have a problem with using BOTH! See the latest first season DVD collection of the cable series, "Leverage", and the extras segment on "Cameras", featuring their equipment - RED, and EX-1.

all very intriguing discussions about pixel count and pixel quality, but RED puts out a true 4096 x 2048 that is visually lossless, and that is all I need to know. there's a lot of politicking in these discussions. Would you expect a Panavision engineer to have kind things to say about the RED camera or come out publicly endorsing the quality of the footage?... of course you would not.

I've shot test footage a fulldome screen and was told that the image was the best quality live-action footage ever projected on the dome - and this was an unprocessed REDSPACE image, with ample room to push the blacks for richer contrast and color tones - this same dome was the very first in the nation to incorporate live-action footage into an actual commercial project, using Sony high-def cameras to acquire the footage.

You can debate pixel count and pixel quality all you want, but what matters is what you can do with the footage, at the end of the day. Very few of us will ever shoot for fulldome delivery, but the point is that, measured under the most strenuous environment, there is flexibility to the RED image that is not present in the HD cam images.

I've regularly stated that, until we have common 4K delivery systems, the revolution isn't pixel count, anyway. It is shooting RAW that gives the image its elasticity. RAW is the revolution, not so much 4K which, while very nice for future-proofing footage, has very few real-world applications, besides the advantages of downsampling and a very clean 2K output.

There are any number of blockbuster features (KNOWING, THE BOOK OF ELI, DISTRICT 9) in the pipeline that are forthcoming, shot on RED. Would you see these same budgets trusted to an EX-1 or EX-3? Amir's original question was, would these cameras stand up equally on a 40-ft. screen. I believe the answer is no, they are not equal, otherwise everybody would be out there banging out major blockbusters on the EX-3.

The EX series are phenomenal cameras. There are situations where I wish I owned an EX-1, and I may buy one still - what holds me back is that SCARLET's lens mount may accept my existing body of Canon EF lenses, and that would be a game changer which is well worth the wait.

But we are at a juncture where the available technology is so good, it all comes down to the issue of how good is the operator and how compelling is the story. Content and artistry matter way more than the camera that you use.

Camera choices, based on their output, are increasingly less relevant than ever. Seeing how great camera technology has become means ergonomics has more relevancy to me, it is the last mile. I have a lot of challenges with RED's ergonomics and the style of shooting that I do most. But then again, I have heard a lot of EX-1 users lodging complaints about its ergonomics. Har de har, they should run around doing doc and event work with a RED, they would never complain again....

Please let me first clarify that for me the idea of experimenting a shoot on EX for the big screen is dictated only by my budgetary constraints than wanting to spin a controversy of running down one camera over the other. Honestly, and this is the bottom line..if I had the money I'd shoot on film, period. No EX no Red, no matter if it was 4k, 6k or whatever. Film is no pixels, nor lines, it's molecules.

And in the end it perhaps seems that that EX is considerably close to RED.. but RED is no where close to film. I'm sure you all know that.

In an interesting test, here's an opportunity to judge EX and Red footage side by side at the link below. Make your guesses first as to which is which and then scroll down the thread for the result. I bet you'll be surprised..

EX1 and RED playing nice together... - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

well, that's funny - that is my test - well Jim Arthurs' test, really, I just supplied the RED camera and the fun,...

I am planet E on my barely-ever-used (I have posted a grand total of 11 times...) DVXuser account. Unmasked!

...and I'm glad you resurrected that old thread, because this is exactly what I mean by basing assumptions upon using dated material - in fact, I had that exact thread in my mind, the first time that I pointed this out...

we did that test over a year ago (a light-year in RED time...) and that test was made, if my memory serves me, on Build 15, and the camera has undergone 2 major transformational Builds (16 and now 20) since then. People are still using that thread as a viable comparison. It was, once. Now it probably isn't...

Moreover, as Jim stated, he was doing a very specific test for keying the footage at 1080p, but of course, everyone steamrolls over that context and uses that test to assume that these cameras are therefore of equal value...

And it begs the question, how many landmark firmware re-writes has Sony supplied to their users, in the same time frame?

The right tool for the right job is all that really counts...or--the right tool for the right budget, I guess.

The rest is you.

P.S. I don't really enjoy defending the RED ONE, but since there is no longer a forum here, and DVinfo seems to be the de facto EX-1 users site, this question of which camera is better receives a lot of lopsided opinions and some outright misinformation - just trying to add some balance.

I suspect Sony wouldn't introduce a camera to the market at such an early stage of development as the RED ONE was, so there usually isn't the need for major upgrades, perhaps more tweaks due to unexpected problems. The new Sony products currently seem to be doing extremely well on major productions and TV series, so I suspect both manufacturers will continue to exist side by side in the market place.

Both company's products have advantages and disadvantages and it's up to the user to decide which is best for their production.

Having said that, the old F900 was upgraded by Sony to the V3.

Right, to access the major upgrades released by Sony, you have to buy a whole new camera.

RED could have reasonably stopped at Build 17, called the camera complete, and withheld new innovations for the release of their new line of cameras. But they didn't.

It depends what is meant by "a true 4096 x 2048". Most people would take it to mean that many pixels, each of which could take any colour - that's certainly what would be meant in projection or film scanning terms. Practically, that means 3x4096x2048 bytes.

In the case of Red it does not mean that. It means a total of 4096x2048 sites - of which half represent a green value at that point, a quarter red, and a quarter blue.

In the case of the EX, it's valid to describe the front end as "a true 1920x1080" because you do have R,G and B values at each of those locations. Of course, some of the colour resolution is lost through subsampling before recording.

None of this is intended to decry Red, on the contrary, the figures back up the claim that it will produce a sharper image than the EX. It's intended to try to point out the differences between Bayer and 3-chip sensors, and try to give some ballpark measures for comparing the two technologies. As already said, it's impossible to compare directly two things with such different characteristics.

Practically, Red and the EX are such different animals that I find it impossible to say that one or the other is "best" - it depends what you want to use them for. For cinematic type of work, Red surely must be the winner, for more run of the mill type work, I'd go for the EX. That's as much down to practicalities as "quality".

It wasn't a new camera it was also an upgrade available to existing cameras, although I suspect you needed to pay for it.

Being basically a computer, the upgrades for the RED ONE are easier and people can download and do the upgrade themselves rather then involving servicing technicians etc. Certainly, you can run your own custom curves in a number of the Sony cameras, which allow you to extract the best from them. They are different animals, although the upcoming RED cameras may, perhaps, be less amiable to large upgrades compared to the RED ONE, but with gains in start up times and other things.

The RED ONE doesn't really need defending, like all cameras it has its strengths and weakness. It's out there making films and all this can come down to comparing those apples and oranges.

I had been involved in a Red feature film shooting and I have to say that Redcode Raw behaves very differently than video or film. If your cinematographer doesn't have experience with the Red or you can't afford a color technician on set, go with the Sony, because your footage may not live up to your expectations and/or your budget can skyrocket. I also thing the Red workflow is cumbersome and can be very slow unless of course you have very fast machines.

You can have much better results from Sony if you can afford an external recorder such as KiPro or FlashXDR.

It's not the camera itself that needs defending as much as the remarkable amount of dis- and mis-information - for instance, I've never yet paid for an upgrade to the camera itself, so your suspicions are entirely unfounded.

The first upgrade that RED will charge for the camera itself will be its new Monstro sensor technology. At $4500, it's considerably less than replacing a camera and will be a much more substantial breakthrough in image quality -- the primary focus seems to be increased latitude.

As for workflow, there have also been dramatic breakthroughs in workflow, some of them emerging as we speak (FC 7 has some pretty important new offerings), and the recent Adobe release, it's already right there - integrated metadate, the ability to toggle freely around your resolution and playback in real time in Premiere, and true 4K output in After Effects - it's pretty complete from end to end.

If you think the RED workflow is challenging, then that means that you aren't informed about the current options, once again working from old information.

Definitely working with RED requires more current hardware than an EX-1 and that can rack up the expenses on the post side.

But at the end of the day, I can still edit RED footage with my 17'' laptop and a 500GB portable hard drive or 1 TB LaCie piece of crap hard drive, and the Adobe suite...

It really can be that simple.