Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Towd

  1. Yeah, this is just my point.  Unless you want to fork over the money for a Red Weapon, you are going to be making a trade off.  The trade off with the Raven is that you will be shooting using Red's 4.5k  or 4k sensor size for your projects instead of the 6k size.  I know for people who are used to shooting full frame or S35 this feels like a big trade off, but at least the FOV can be compensated for with lens and framing.  It is a lot harder to fix bad color that was shot on an inferior sensor-- and many times can't be fixed.

    If you shoot with PL glass, spend another $5k and get the Scarlet-w.

    I sound like a Red fanboy and I'm not.  I've just graded a lot of Red footage in addition to Sony, Canon, Nikon, GoPro, DJI, Phantom flex, and others.  Red is just a very workable image that gives nice results.  Same can't be said for some of those other options.  

    Obviously, different tools for different projects, but I hate to see people write off a Red just because the sensor is slightly smaller than S35.

  2. The Raven's EOS only mount and crop is ridiculous at this level of investment. I'm interested going Red when I get higher end, but Super 35 or bust.

    I think you are doing yourself a big disservice with this kind of attitude.  Red is a great professional option.  You can like it or not, but don't avoid it just because you think the sensor is too small.  FWIW, if you shoot on a Red Weapon at 4k you'll be using the same sensor area as the Raven.  From what I can tell, the same goes for the Red One or Red Epic.  Red seems to keep its photo sites the same size across different sensors, so the exposure area only get larger as the resolution goes up.  Just seems to be a Red thing.

    Personally, if the image that comes off the camera looks great, the sensor size is secondary to me.  Just shoot with wider lenses and adjust accordingly.

  3. 1. Actual shutter angle. In my experience 24fps and 1/50 does not always give the same result in different cameras. There must be something else that is done in the background and we are not aware for some of them (E-M5ii was an example). 

    2. Codec. Usually interframe  low bitrate codecs produce macro coding blocks instead of motion blur. 

    3. Rolling shutter. While 180 degrees with 24p many times can produce pleasing blur, adding jello effect can become sickening really fast. 

    I can see the third one affecting the cadence of an image and a jello'd frame is pretty easy to spot in fast motion.  And its something that camera's like the Digital Bolex love to point out as a selling point for global shutters. 

    Is #2 really a huge issue?  I guess overly compressed footage would be softer and affect cadence to an extent, but that just seems like soft footage.

    I could see #1 being an issue if a camera recorded in 30 fps and then dropped frames to get to 24 fps.  Or do some cameras possibly record at 48fps interlaced and then reconstruct frames?  Seems weird and I'd be interested in seeing some real examples.

    I'm not calling BS because I believe its a real phenomenon to some extent with various cameras.  I just wonder how visually perceptible it really is and to the extent it affects the NX1 if at all.

    Personally, the only cadence issue I've encountered is when uploading 24fps footage to Youtube and watching in dismay as it plays back at 30fps through frame doubling.  Same for TV with some weird interlacing or frame doubling applied.  

    Thinking along those lines, I'd imagine that the monitor the footage was viewed on would affect cadence as well.  At 72hz you'd get 3 refresh cycles per frame where a 60hz monitor would give you alternating 2 and 3 refresh cycles per frame.   I wonder if that would not be biasing an opinion.

  4. First time poster.

    In regards to the Samsung NX1, I'm considering a purchase, but I'm a bit curious about your comment regarding "3. Unnatural motion cadence when panning or recording a moving subject (deal breaker)."   Is this in reference to some form of extreme rolling shutter when recording UHD or 4k?  

    I've seen that the 4k rolling shutter is pretty bad on the Samsung but its also not great on the Sony A7 series.  However, the Samsung 1080p rolling shutter is one of the best among CMOS sensors.  My thought is that during scenes with extreme action or during lots of hand held shooting, I could drop to 1080p to compensate.

    Or does motion cadence refer to something else?  To my mind, something shot at 24 fps at 1/50th shutter speed should be pretty much the same across cameras unless rolling shutter plays a major role in what is perceived by the viewer.

    I'm very curious in regards to what people are referring to when they reference motion cadence.  Seems a very nebulous trait of a camera and I'm very interested in what makes good cadence vs bad cadence that would constitute a deal-breaker for a certain camera.

  • Create New...