First impressions of RED One for wildlife shooting

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

I like the idea of shooting 2K for 1080P.

I gather that there are some issues with 2k, seem to remember it was excessive noise, and that the sweet spot was 3k. Also at 2k, after debayering you're goong to be well below 1080HD. But then again so's the Varicam I suppose and that does OK.
Steve

[Lauri Kettunen]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

I gather that there are some issues with 2k

Well, not sure there's an issue, but as a rule of thumb, the "true" resolution of the 2K debayer image is 80% of 2K and in this sense the resolution is bit lower than 1080p. However, if one takes any HD camera the resolution is not "full" 1080p because every camera must have an optical low pass filter. For instance, the resolution of XL-H1 is somewhere in 850 lines. So, taking this into account, the 2K image is just fine for full HD 1080p. This applies both to SI and RED cameras.

[Don Miller]

I wasn't so much thinking about current Red , but rather that for difficult subjects I would like to have extra resolution and extra image size.

Shooting 3K on the 2/3" scarlet seems about ideal.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Yes, 3K is indeed better. The reason why Epic-X will be a 5K camera is that then the true resolution will be 4K (80% x 5K = 4K). Graeme Nattress has explained this somewhere in RedUserNet. Quick and hasty calculation yields 80% x 2K = 1.6K which corresponds 1686 x 948 resolution, i.e., about 950 lines.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Here are two shots of a difficult situation the other taken with Canon D50 and the other with Red One using the same lens and as much same settings as possible. The images are as much as I was able to do without any kind of postprocessing. I simply opened the files with neutral settings and exported the files as is.

The last image is taken with Red One in 3K mode and it's going to a document I'm working with. It's also beauty of the Finnish nature in October.

[Brendan Marnell]

Image #3 is a wonderful example of contrast, Lauri. Super editing of one background for another, perhaps?

[Lauri Kettunen]

In fact, there are no tricks whtasoever behind #3. Instead, it's all about natural light. The sun was directly in front of me and the canyon in shadow reflects the sky blue. The pine tree is lit by the light reflecting from the snow as if there was a mirrow in front of me and there's direct sun light through the Siberian jay's wings.

[Brendan Marnell]

That pine tree at that time on that date given the same sunlight would be a seasonal treasure in my world. What an achievement to have captured that moment with a Siberian Jay taking a bow! I must open my eyes and get off my butt for similar possibilities in Ireland.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Couple panaroma made from Red One footages. Shot couple days ago near the official home region of Santa close to the arctic circle.

Best wishes for Xmas/Happy holidays for everybody!

[Alan Melville]

Lauri,

I've read this thread with real interest, as a passionate amateur who carries far too much gear, both stills and video, I can't help but think my Noblex 150E2 surpasses all in the capture of detail, one thing people tend to forget these days is, even though one may own a 10 / 12 MP camera, as I myself do, (x2 actually) there is often not that amount of information captured with an electronic camera, let alone the RED, where as with the old film cameras, if the files are digitised, they can easily exceed 80 / 100MP. I am, in no way, trying to detract nor demean your efforts at all, I believe, lugging all the associated gear for the RED, requires an incredible effort and your subsequent product is excellent.

One has to remember, video has the huge advantage of not lingering long enough on most scenes for the human brain to capture all the detail. The human eye naturally gravitates toward movement thus passing over the rest of the scene and this tends to make the technical arguments irrelevant, to a degree. When one places a stills scene in front of a person that person has no predisposition to follow any movement and will therefore focus, critically, on detail. It is for this reason sharpness, use of light and composition are absolutely critical in stills. This is not to say the same doesn't apply to video, it's just that it's not as critical as often that sort of criticism will only be raised by ones peers and contemporaries. This thread is a prime example!

You have, without a doubt, the huge advantage of capturing a defining moment with far greater ease than the likes of me. However, when I capture a defining moment, be it with wildlife or scenery, I get tremendous satisfaction because I have to anticipate to a far greater degree than yourself. My one bonus is, from the clanky old Noblex, I can produce an image up to 3M long by 1.5M high and one can count the veins on a leaf or the hair on an animals back! This form of media, was pronounced dead 10 years ago but it's still here!

Don't get me wrong, digital media is making inroads through the likes of Hasselblad's H4D60, or a Seitz 6x17 Digital, but at an anticipated price of 29000 Euro and $36000US respectively, they're a little out of reach for even a passionate amateur as myself. People have mentioned in this thread that stills and video will likely reach a point of convergence in the near future, to be honest in my opinion, what's happening is professionals, who are always under the hammer to "produce" in today's "want it now" society, are allowing their standards to drop to meet the needs of the the market. In this way, technology will meet expectations simply because one is moving forward whilst the other is moving backwards. I honestly believe, there will not be, in the foreseeable future, a hybrid system that is both affordable and has the quality of either a standalone stills or video unit.

I want to make it clear however, that I for one, would be happy to eat humble pie should a hybrid system be developed that resounds the quality of stills and video. It'd make my logistical challenges one hell of a lot easier.....

In wrapping up, you quite obviously love and enjoy using the RED and good luck to you for it. It takes people such as yourself to move technology forward.

I'd like to complement you on your use & understanding of light, I strongly suspect you could get outstanding results from a Box Brownie or and old VHS unit.

If you see someone struggling with far too much crap and and juggling a Noblex, stop and say hello!!!!

Bottom line IHO, carry both a good stills AND video unit

Good luck with your project.

Al

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I agree with you, Alan. At least at certain levels and for many reasons.

I have held on to my professional film cameras all through the growing digital years, and have had no problems at all using them for the bulk of all my worldwide photo sales and illustrations for magazines, books and calendars etc, even up to the present day.
I can produce fabulous digital 200MB Tiff files from 35mm Velvia. And the same film in a larger format such as a Pentax 645n or 67 produces even better and bigger files with huge amounts of detail. With the help of Photoshop, even the hidden shadow detail lost in scans of yesteryear can now be brought back to life with ease.

There has always been a difference to my eye, between the very best digital file produced by a DSLR and the very best digital file originating from colour transparency film. Even though both in terms of quality and pixel count are equal (and sometimes surpassed by the DSLR) there has always been an immediate preference for the photographs originating from film. I think it is a certain depth of detail and colour range, plus, and probably far more importantly, is the way the eye views a scene...it is an emotional aspect I think that is difficult to describe but natural to feel when you view the images on screen or on a light table. I think it is a similar impact that reaches an emotional level when we view a movie originating from 35mm film compared to a modern HD video camera.

However, there are so many advantages to modern digital cameras (both stills & video) that I have finally succumbed this Christmas and sold my main Nikon F5 SLR system and will replace it soon with a complete DSLR system. I will still hold on to my Nikonos RS AF underwater SLR film system for a while longer though, because nothing as yet compares to it.

The huge advantage of using cameras like the RED, as already noted, is that a fleeting moment – such as the Jay flying into the gorgeous tones of a sunlit tree – can be captured in both video & stills – so that the moving flight and calls can be viewed and heard, together with a beautiful single image that displays a moment in time. This would be almost impossible to do with two separate cameras (video & stills) without the huge risk of losing the magic moment of perfect light.

The latest hybrid cameras such as the Nikon D3s and EOS1D mk IV are now bridging that gap between both...allowing the photographer to capture both stills & video in amazing detail in all light (even extreme low light) conditions using a single device.

[Steve Phillipps]

"The latest hybrid cameras such as the Nikon D3s and EOS1D mk IV are now bridging that gap between both"
But people are beginning to realise that they are not quite as good as they first thought. And the D3s for instance AFAIK only shoots 24P - what use is that except for cinema? No good for wildlife or documentary stuff. Then take CMOS skew, massive aliasing and awful codec compression and it starts to fall apart a bit. Still amazing cameras though considering that they are not dedicated video cameras, come in tiny packages and are ludicrously cheap compared to the video equivalents, but still not something that would stop one from buying a Varicam or F900 for instance if you had the funds.
Steve

[Don Miller]

The trouble I have with the claimed superiority of film is this:
In still photography, the typical professional quality nature shot is considerably better now than ten years ago. What has changed is the technology.
The same thing will now happen with video. You can pick apart details like skew, but the images from Red and to some extent Canon are gorgeous and give control and capability exceeding anything but past high-end production. Most good nature shots are made by "being there". Being able to carry the equipment and being able to afford the equipment is a big part of being there.
In stills I can still shoot up to 5x7 and 6x17. But in situations where those formats are possible I can also stitch 5DII frames to whatever resolution I want. There are always specific situations where film makes a better image, but "cherry picking" shots is not a good way to evaluate technologies.
We're at the beginning of a technological sea change in videography because the best of the single cmos cameras are affordable and make beautiful images. Nature videography is going to follow the same path as nature photography. And it's not going to be for just fleeting images.

[Steve Phillipps]

I agree with you in terms of stills. For certain with nature photography there is just no contest any more, the advantages of digital cameras massively outweigh those of film - for instance the Nikon D3 can shoot at ISO3200 with virtually no noise allowing fast shutter speed to freeze action. Of course autofocus lenses and advanced metering are also a massive reason why today's shots are superior (on the whole), though these things can be seen and used in film cameras too (ie a Nikon F6 with a 600mm f4 AFS VR lens will have the same AF and meter capabilities as the DSLRs).
For video though, it's not just about picking "apart details like skew", this is a big issue for anything moving, as is aliasing and other problems. I agree that they'll probably get there eventually, but as always there is never a free lunch, and those people who were so excited because they thought instead of spending £40k on a pro-level video camera they could get something as good or better for £2.5k have had to become a bit more realistic.
Steve

[Lauri Kettunen]

Al, Tony, Steve, Don,

Wov, thank you very much for posting your sincere views. Al, I find it rather surprising that you took all the trouble to read the whole thread.

Thanks to Al I just realized something that I've never thought explicitly; I never had a chance to shoot with film cameras except SLRs so don't have experience of them. Not that I would not have liked to, but shooting wildlife with film cameras never made economically any sense in this part of world. I started with Sony Betacams and then happily moved to Canon XL1, then to XL2 and finaly to XLH1. Especially, I still remember well, Canon XL1 implied the weight of all equipment was suddenly less than 1/2 of that of the betacam and still had a much larger set of lenses available. Indeed, before getting Red One I was quite puzzled how I will manage with the much heavier camera set, but have not thought about it for the joy of image quality compensates for all the excessive troubles.

For me the point is, the camera equipment should not cost or weight like mad. That would not make economically any sense. Most of the time I carry everything myself or I have somebody assisting me. Second, I just want to document the best moments of the wilderness I know rather well since my early childhood. At this point Red One is equipmentwise the best match between these two points. I've tried to write on this forum how things have gone with the camera. When I started I did not know which way this thread will evolve, but guess I thought whatever is the case that other people like you will be interested in such findings. For somebody else the best compromise is likely some other equipment.

What comes to the nature here, it takes a considerable effort to get good images. One needs to know when one can anticipate certain images to be taken, then prepare everything, wait for the right wheather, and finally have good luck as well. And yes, it all takes a lot of traveling to the right places. As one friend of mine, a still photographer says, 90% of the work is about preparing everything and knowing what one is going to shoot.