Red vs DSLR's

blakroc

blakroc

Active member
Ok I'm shooting a music video for someone and I'm trying to explain to him the difference between the DSLR look vs the RED one but to not much avail. He thinks the DSLR look is cheaper and more documentary style but he can't put his finder on it and the RED give a more cinematic look. I said it was probably the depth of field and filming style but he said it wasn't that. I don't know what else would really be the major difference between them besides that? Maybe just the dynamic range, so the colours.. what do you guys know about them?
 
I'm not sure exactly what would be the big difference in picture, but you've gotta remember that almost all DLSR videos are lower budget and worse than REDs videos, so that will affect the film- like look
 
There's honestly no difference. It's mostly because the Red camera is much more expensive so only people making serious movies buy them. They filmed an episode of House entirely on a DSLR and nobody noticed.
 
True. I'm sure a pro who uses a RED a lot would be able to make 5d footage usable in a big cinematic movie. Obviously a RED cam is way better though. Much more dynamic range, shoots 4k 2k, 120fps I dunno a lot, but there is a reason a RED cam is 20k and 5d is 2.5k. Although the 5d is better in lowlight.
On the internet though there are many times where I can't tell RED footage and 5d footage apart.
 
magnets-550x327.jpg
 
They only used DSLR's for a few short shots. Only the subway stuff.

I just sat through 30 short films at a film festival earlier today, and the stuff shot on a DSLR was first of all, quite obviously shot on a dslr, because it was a bunch of out of focus footage shot in daylight with the aperture wide open (bleh), but also the dslr footage didn't really look that good on the big screen, even with an HDCAM presentation. The shorts shot on the Red camera however looked fantastic. A lot of that has to do with the fact that many of the shorts clearly didn't use any sort of lighting whatsoever.

It really comes down to your budget though. If you can use a DSLR and rent some really nice glass and some good lights, then you'll be able to make something really beautiful and cinematic. And besides if you don't know the difference between the DSLR and the Red, you probably shouldn't be shooting on a red.
 
that sounds like the filmers fault, not the cameras.

no doubt RED's are much much better cameras, but its not a fair comparison when you have a sub par filmer on one end.
 
You're comparing a $700-$2800 line of cameras to a $20k camera...

The reason the DSLRs look cheap is because most people who use them open the lenses all the way, and sporadically focus on random objects, and often don't even have the skill to get those objects in focus. The reason why so many DSLR videos look like garbage is because people get so caught up in shallow DOF that they approach the art of cinematography impulsively by opening the lenses all the way rather than correctly lighting a scene. I'm all for tools making jobs easier, but it's a double-edged sword. While some people will use these tools correctly, most people will use them as a crutch for their shitty artwork. DOF does not constitute a "cinematic" look. No self-respecting cinematographer would have only half of his subject's eyelid in focus...

RED cameras are essentially 4k image sensors with a laptop built into them. They don't have moiré, aliasing, or line skipping problems, so from a technological standpoint I don't see how you can even compare the two. Having said that, RED cameras aren't perfect either. Hollywood films shot on RED stick out like a sore thumb compared to their 35mm counterparts; to some this is a good thing, to others it is a bad thing.

Ultimately, the cinematographer dictates the quality or "look." Technical specs are only as good as the glass in front of it, which is only as good as the person using them, so this argument really doesn't make sense. I've seen tones of DSLR videos that were amazing, and RED footage that was absolute garbage, and vice versa.
 
*Mark II. (I'm assuming by Mach II you were talking about the 5D Mark II, which is what they used for House)
 
Isn't one of the largest differences between the two is a much higher dynamic range that the RED can achieve?
 
That and resolution, codec, low light, and a number of other things too, which is why its 20k for the body.
 
First of all, the footage in the House episode looks VERY much like DSLR footage. You can't possibly say the footage looks the same unless you consider yourself a part of the uneducated general public, in which case, you're right.

Second, RED cameras are so popular because they are very capable for being relatively cheap. $20k for a body is pocket change in that industry, so it's no surprise that you see a lot of people using RED ONEs. Any filmmaker will say that a good cinematographer can make a handycam look good, so naturally 5D footage looks good in the right hands. But RED cameras have higher dynamic range, more color space, RAW codec, the list goes on. All these features give the cinematographer more freedom but they are far from necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top