@JDN Can you add Red Epic / Scarlet to the title of this topic, as Vitaliy prefers we keep real world testing on Red Cameras in this topic?


I laughed at the initial comparison topic, but then saw the footage and said "damn"



Can anybody else confirm this,
the GH2 Hack produces a better default image than the EPIC at 1080 24p?
Especially in low light?

Closed red thread listed here with Jannard comment:
"This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever read.

Jim"

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64983-RED-Epic-verus-Panasonic-GH2

I think Janard et al are in fact shocked by how quickly the playing field is leveling out. Look at the data rates between driftwood's best patches and the older redcodes. The image is there, the data is now there... and the damned little camera turn on in seconds, ready for work.

Edit: And seemingly ready to accept nearly every lens ever invented.

What ever anyone thinks. Even if we all agree RED is better. The difference in image quality is minimul. With proper exposure, setting, you can cut the GH-2 footage with the RED and I doubt anyone would be able to pick it out. Now, this does not take into account the higher dynamic range of RED, and the farther you can push the grade in post. But A well exposed jpeg looks just as good as a well exposed RAW assuming you don't need to fix things.

Well, I use both and actually tested all of them for Digital Production (Munich). Sorry, from all technical aspects the EPIC is better. But I fully support the notion that it's all about the artistic quality of the film in the end.

Only pixel-peepers may sit on the edge of their seats for technical quality, but the whole audience can get drawn into a good film – whatever it originated on. There have been great films in cinemas that originated on DV, like "In This World", "Lost Children" or the like and nobody complained.

There have been projects intercut with RED and Canon 5D footage, and I think we can all agree the the hacked GH2 blows the 5D out of the water (for film, not photography). Sure you can intercut GH2 and RED!

But I don't think that Jim Jannard closed that thread because of 'sacred cows', he closed it because it became so silly and pure digital noise. He owns that site, and it's up to him to close a thread, just like Vitaliy does it where he sees it appropriate. We can all discuss cameras ad nauseam on other sites instead of shooting with them…

IMHO, Jim and Vitaliy are similar personalities in one respect: they are both trying to give us better tools, only in different fields. If RED wouldn't have kicked the big ones asses, they would still try to sell us outdated technology with minor improvements year by year and we'd choke up our hard earned money again and again.

An Alexa would have never existed, neither a F65 (not at that price point) without RED. I'm sure well see better codecs soon in the lower price range, maybe even 4:2:2 and 10 bit because of Vitaliy (not forgetting Driftwood and all the others here).

If you are shooting a high-budget film, tools like the Epic make sense, since it allows more range for exposure correction, re-framing and better VFX. But if you are a budding film-maker with very little money, but talent and passion, you can replace the difference in money by excellent knowledge of the workflow and your tools, very careful lighting and exposure, patience in post and you'll get results that can stand their own on the big screen.

I laughed at 'My softest lens' test on REDUSER! Here's mine :-) FD55mm 1.2 ASPH. lens on Driftwood INTRA 176M Ex Tele

@disneytoy, sorry, was away shooting and missed your question: when I did the test, all that was stable low GOP was kaes 3gop 66 from ptools 3.61. Now I exclusively use driftwoods excellent patches -- hope to have the chance soon to test them against other cameras.

@alcomposer - hmmmmm, tough choice =P

(A friends current art project: not GH2)

However we digress - Was just a graphic for comparison... Nothing else.

@smsjr Hi, would it be possible to do so day test and contrasty lighting just to see not only resolution but also dynamic range. Thanks.

Hey all, I just joined over here a couple weeks ago, but I've been a member at reduser for 3 years now..

The big reaction over there is the fact that were talking about a compressed 1080p comparison. And I understand their reaction... Since were not even talking about uncompressed HD, seeing GH2 footage end up even on blu-ray as clean as Epic footage is probably unlikely.. But the real point is seeing it in theaters on a *good* 4k projector. The thread seemed pretty calm to me compared to other stuff... Jim seemed the most ticked off lol.

If you're just shooting for local commercials, vimeo, and low (LOW!) budget film stuff.. You're not going to be picking an Epic anyway (unless u got that cash). Maybe the occasional rental.

On the other hand, even on a feature with a budget of 500k to 1 million USD, if 3D is the goal, using GH2's would probably give u more bang for you're buck than anything. I guess in general, you could argue that to be true of the GH2.

Scientifically, this comparison is nonsense. Practically, there's a huge crowd of students and indie film makers that are scrambling to add a couple more of these great little cameras to their gear. Me included.

That's true as far as understand it.

Just like people don't see the need for 5k, theaters didn't (and some still don't) see the need for 4k projection. But when your competition has it, it matters.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br />
Sorry, I don't buy this, at least not until 4k has a credible penetration. If major studios are overwhelmingly displaying in 2k, that should be and is our gold standard. 4k seems like more of a Jannard marketing ploy than anything else. It's perfect for a brochure, but in the real world it's not all that.

That GH2/Epic test is sketchy at best, but the fact the Epic and GH2 were compared at 1080/2k (approx) is fair since that's the primary high end display format at this point in time and space.

The Epic is awesome, but for me, it's not awesome because it's 4k or 5k whatever it is.

A lot of good points made so far but I think you forget the difference between "what can people tell" and "what can people be told".

4k is not only real and available, but projection format has been a deciding factor in selecting a movie theater when I go out with my friends (and has been since 2007, much like surround sound was during the 90s. That's not because all of my friends think of and see the difference, it's because they want "the best" and what that is depends on marketing. Dolby Surround, DTS, SDDS, IMAX... if there's a label out there that people sense on some level can provide a superior experience, they will feel like they "might" be missing something if it isn't there.

It's worth noting that high profile 4k projectors are about to hit the home.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/sony-announces-a-4k-projector-for-the-home-at-cedia-prices-hmz/

That means that theaters will rapidly adopt them in order to maintain their claim of providing the highest quality movie experience.

Marketing and public perception are very important in terms of the bottom-line (much more so than our personal perceptions as industry professionals or independents) and that is what will drive industry adoption.