V-Raptor X: best there will EVER BE???
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2024
- Some thoughts, rants, and opinions on cinema technology, stills vs digital, and more. Just me thinking out loud and talking unprompted into camera. Enjoy. Also, read everything by Peter Zeihan: www.amazon.com/s?k=Peter+Zeihan
![RED V-Raptor [X] Review: Four Months of Awesome](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xTygbLtfvqo/mqdefault.jpg)
![RED V-Raptor [X] Review: Four Months of Awesome](/img/tr.png)
Film motion picture cameras always had rotating shutter artifacts. But because they were most noticeable in one corner of the frame, it was possible to minimize its effects on the image. So a digital global shutter is better in that regard than any film motion picture camera.
If Arri (or any other company) would create a 65~70mm film printer you would need a 16K camera to properly feed it. There are a handful of technical reasons why 65~70mm film would be superior to current gen projectors, but those might be solved if theatrical projectors ever go laser.
The only other reason to "push pixel count" is special effects. The bigger the canvas the easier it is to get cleaner composites. Working with 12K footage that will ultimately be reduced down to 4K makes even jr SFX artists look good.
But ... 4k projection at ordinary theater sizes already beats our eyeballs. 1080 was close already (watch something like Drive, Avengers 1, Skyfall, etc), and 4k just stomps it, unless you either have a HUGE screen (like the Sphere) or you get VERY close to it (such that you'd have to move your head around). True that cleaner footage can make VFX artist' lives easier, but it's by no means required. Just watch the creator. Or work by Zack King. Or Starship Troopers!
Love the content, Nick! Raptor X owner as well. Couldn't be more happy with my purchase!
It's an astonishingly good camera.
A great take on the very topic everyone should think about! Majority of prosumer cameras are good enough, sure they have ther shortcomings like overheating, DR, frame rate and also resolution but the bottom like any pro camera built in the last 5 years and can record good quality 10bit 4k is good enough!
The Red,Arrie,Ursa cameras are more specials tools required for the task (RAW, SDI, XLR etc)
The biggest thing most people have to battle is also FOMO and the desire for the next “thing” to acquire
My FOMO and GAS are very strong. I battle those DAILY.
She is a beauty. Congrats on the RED acquisition and journey
Excellent post mate! LOve to see videos in YT like this! Pure info... and no nonsense about coffee beans and cool effects! 😂 Planning to get this bad boy soon! Subbed!
Truly enjoyed this! Great perspective!
I regret selling my old Oconnor DVS, especially now with lighter cameras available-it would have been perfect. I wonder what RED's next move will be after the Raptor X. Perhaps they'll need to bump up the resolution once more to stay competitive in VR capture space. Great to see some RED content.
35mm stills peaked about 8 years ago in my op. I only just moved to the GFX system from my Canon 5ds. Video wise I agree the current ARRI DSMC3 RED's will be all thats needed for cinema moving forward
Very informative video, thanks you!! Just subscribed 🙏🏻
I need this in my life 🔴
Love the video! My first digital camera was a Nikon D100, and that was my very first thought during my first shoot with it - if Nikon got together with, say Ikegami (who can make video cameras with proper cooling and video processing systems), and just put this sensor just in a BOX (doesn't hafta be pretty - just WORK) and use this to shoot 24fps video, THIS could shoot MOVIES!
Subbed. You have made a very excellent video, well done my man!
Thank you!
My only disagreement was when you mentioned 12K. To say 8K on the Raptor is great for reframing in post, but just a moment before say 12K (Blackmagic) is unnecessary due to "data pushing" doesn't really make a good argument against 12K. One could easily justify 12K is also really great for reframing but also a huge bonus for VFX. Side note, the new Cine 12K can do 8K and 4K without any cropping so at least there is a good option for those who are concerned about storage.
Great video!
You have to remember that full 12k is about 81 megapixels, and that’s just in 16:9 mode. There are very few situations in which you can actually capture that much resolution. You need a lens, a scene, an f stop, and true sensor resolution to get there. It’s just so rare that all the ducks line up in a row, that 95% of the time you’re shooting 12k, you aren’t capturing 12k of resolution, and you’re just wasting data.
This was a lovely opinion piece thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
Thank you! Fortunately I've got LOTS of opinions, hahaha, no risk of this well running dry 🙂
@@nick_salazar That's good!
Brilliant..
Dude we met at NAB! great content subbed!
Oh we did? Where was that? It was all quite a whirlwind.
@@nick_salazar I was working for Cine D and me and my producer interviewed you and your wife was there
The amount of hot takes in this video is unparalleled
It is overshadowed only by my unending need for attention and validation! Thanks for watching :-)
I think tech in general will continue to develop at high speed (look at AI), but you're right about smartphones and cameras. We just don't need them to improve much more.
Blackmagic likes 12K because it divides by 2, 3, 4, 6 into a whole number of pixels, so I can see why that might be convenient.
Although I agree with majority of your theory, I completely disagree with the statement at 5:55. I don’t think there’s any digital still camera that can capture as much detail as an 8x10 camera.
So I'd point to the written comment in the video - while large-format photography definitely has larger theoretical spatial resolution, the lens development for those systems just hasn't kept up. Sure, if you want to lug around a 20-lb Aero Ektar and 8x10 film, you can reproduce a larger-resolution still on an absolute basis. But again, per the written note, for 99.9% of delivery formats, you won't see a difference. Whether magazine or billboard, existing digital is more than enough to outperform the capabilities of the printers themselves. And obviously we aren't even talking about motion capture! No practical 8x10 motion capture exists anywhere.
I'm with MKBHD on this one... Team 30 FPS! I find when I shoot 24 fps, it's super jittery anytime I pan or move the camera, no matter how slow. Almost as if it's not enough frames for smooth motion. I don't know how Hollywood makes 24 look so good. My guess is there is a lot more going into that look than just simply frames per second. Yet people think if you shoot 24, at least on this platform, your footage will look "cinematic."
I think we will get a camera that can capture all the stops all the colors and all the frames that exist
Lens technology effectively peaked decades ago. I own some of the rarest anamorphics out there from the last 70 years. plenty of chinese companies trying to make cheap cylindrical glass; thus far they still cant touch the real deal without cost going through the roof.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. While there are indeed some amazing lenses from decades past, there is still outstanding glass being engineered to this day. For example, you can get a near-flawless optical design in a package under 300g see this video: czcams.com/video/PZoaNjrcVJ8/video.html - and these designs take advantage of computer-aided optical design along with precision-molded plastic elements. Knock it if you like, but the images hold up in my opinion. These benefits are largely driven by consumer stills lenses, but by no means are reserved to that realm. Optical design is sometimes described as "walking blindfolded with a walking stick, poking around trying to find the lowest point in the valley." And computer simulations really help with that. I'm sure your treasure trove of lenses is outstanding. But if Panavision already had the crown jewels, they wouldn't have developed new sets like the H-Series or Ultra Vista, which are proving VERY popular. 🙂
PMo aspheres have been around for 5 plus decades...computer aided lens design since the 50s or 60s. the technology really has not advanced very far. Panavision's H-Series and Ultra Vista didn't push technological boundaries; they were built simply to suit larger format sensors. H-Series are just rehoused and modified decades-old stills glass. Ultra Vista just applied decades-old tech to a new 1.6x squeeze ratio more suited to modern sensor dimensions. The last time Panavision really pushed lens design forward was the Primos...in 1989.
Yes they’ve been around … but to say they haven’t advanced is unfair, in my opinion. Take the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF. There’s nothing with that aperture, coverage (low vignette), resolution, apochromatism, sharpness, bokeh correction, and low weight, anywhere in the past. Only now does it exist with all of that at once. And it’s not as if no one was trying.
Or take Atlas Mercury. Find me any other anamorphic in history with that apochromatism, resolution, flare characteristic, and weight.
@@nick_salazar you're right that stills glass has seen some interesting advances recently. suppose my point was more that old glass has not become obsolete and in many cases still remains at the top tier of the film industry. some incremental advances have been made in various measures of performance, sure, but not even close to enough to throw the old stuff off. It's used as much today as it was decades ago. They're still considered top-tier image-capturing devices and that doesnt look to be changing anytime soon.
Mercurys are indeed quite nice...yet even they are designed in an attempt to replicate a 60 year old anamorphic lens (The Franscope zoom...which I own an example of, and am actually about to sell to the founder of Atlas 😄). The Mercurys also had to make compromises to achieve their price point, mainly the squeeze ratio. The original Franscope the Mercurys took inspiration from is indeed actually still unmatched today...35-140mm 2x front anamorphic with a close focus of 1.5 feet, made back in 1963. The owner of Atlas himself will tell you that that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to match, even today.
Take the recent DZO Pavo 2x set...roughly the same price range as the Mercurys, and they have pretty serious issues due to being 2x. Designs 40+ years their senior put them to shame. The new 2x Blazars just announced are even worse.
Desde el principio pensé lo mismo. Cuando compré la Sony a100 supe que no volvería a los rollos.
god damn it was interesting to watch
Thanks Daniel!
nobody is impressed when i take digital pictures and everyone asks me what i did when i took film photos. maybe these are technically better. but i don’t have to spend time in the editing room to make something dreamy that makes people feels something when i shoot film.
Interesting! Well, ultimately each artist has their own preferred tools. Perhaps film just marries better to your particular talents and is the right tool for you!
@@nick_salazar It’s not a me or you thing. there is something to be said about modern digital cameras that have basically become one to one scanners of the real world. The real work happens in crafting light and then doing tons of post production work to make something look “good”. A painting with its strokes is not “realistic” and will never have the ‘dynamic range’ or ‘resolution’ comparable to what a camera makes. But it can aesthetically be more beautiful than a 1 to 1 rendition of the real thing. To me celluloid is the painting of cinematic image making and then have no problem using a digital camera to capture what’s on the film accurately to be displayed on a digital screen.
Also Nick, i’m not familiar with Zeihan’s theories, but any theory that declares to have insight into what will be in the future is met with extreme skepticism in my mind.
If you take a pie chart of knowledge, 1/8 would be “What we know we know”; 1/8 would be “What we know we DON’T know; and the remaining 3/4 would be, “What we DON’T know we DON’T know.
I mean, what if they come out with something like programmable pixels or programmable dynamic range? Just to throw out something frivolous that could alter image capture in an unknown way?
Zeihan’s not trying to make prophecy. Just stating that because A, B, and C are true, D looks very likely. Of course he could be wrong, and of course new facts should always inform our current understanding. But as I read his books, I had a hard time finding any fault in his arguments. Similarly, yes of course new things could arrive that revolutionize our cameras. This video is asking a question, not stating a rock solid answer.
@@nick_salazar I hope I didn’t come off as hypercritical, I was just engaging with you about the notion of a glass ceiling on innovation? :-) I definitely am going to pick up his writing though! I’d be interested in seeing the observations that lead up to his conclusions?
@@cogmission1 not at all. I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to have V-Raptor image quality and framerates in a mirrorless body running on 25 Watts, and maybe it will happen! Right now it looks like we've hit a plateau, but fortunately that plateau allows us to have content delivered that just about matches our visual perception. Just as 16-bit audio delivery allowed us to have perfect sound reproduction, 4k DCI-P3 gave us video that is near-perfect video reproduction (as far as our eyes are concerned). Maybe there will be more astounding revolutions to come. But at least, if they DON'T come, we've arrived at a place where film can be produced with magnificent quality by anyone with enough tenacity to pursue it.
@@nick_salazar oddly, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the merger, especially directly following the V-Raptor X release, was that they had pushed the envelope of innovations in image quality, and dynamic range to their research capacity limit, and maybe had ideas about going further but would need much deeper pockets in order to continue along the same high innovation trajectory? I saw it as tactical for their R&D?
The reason film is better has nothing to do with the technology. Its like the difference between a real human being and an AI robot like the ones we see in movies that don’t exist yet but will. The AI robot is smarter, stronger, it doesn’t make mistakes etc, but it can’t experience love, pain, it doesn’t miss you when you go away, it doesn’t feel sad, it doesn’t have memories of a childhood hood. It can’t experience what we experience the first time we attended a major league baseball game. Digital is AI, film is the human real being. Difference is not quantifiable in specs. Films doesn’t just capture images. It actually captures moments in time and traps them forever in a piece of celluloid. You can lift it up to the light and look at with out a piece of gear. You can put it away in a box for people in the future to look at who might not have any technology.
Interesting perspective, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Some of the most beautiful and meaningful movies of all time were made in the modern era and shot on digital. Look to the work of folks like Roger Deakins, Greig Fraser, Steve Yedlin, and others. They've all embraced digital and turned out incredible work. All of those emotional things you describe can be recorded with digital cameras.
like your content so far but that vocal fry thoo...inspire my snaping turtle to sing ballad song.
hopefully be can watch your content with low pass filter off in the future, cheers
Haha, sorry my voice bugs you! Unfortunately, at this point in my life I'm not sure it's going to change. I think lots of folks conflate vocal fry ("gravely sounds") with high rising terminal ("valley girl voice"). The latter is a deliberate idiolectic choice, while the former is a bit more physiological. My vocal chords just do that. But if you own a snapping turtle that can legitimately sing ballads, I'll bet you could make a lot of money off of that.
@@nick_salazar I'll gladly watch your future content.
with my turtle 🐢 also.
Digital Cinema started with Sony’s release of the HDW-F900. Go back and watch Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Mencae (1999). George Lucas worked with Sony to actually usher in the age of “digital cinema”. So stop with the Arri and Red disrespect to Sony’s cinema legacy. Arri is the best and RED is at the top of its game, but Sony was first and still has a good share of the pie. Btw, I don’t even enjoy shooting Sony
I’m aware of the Sony cameras (it was actually Episodes 2 and 3, TPM was shot on film). But those were like 2/3” sensors and fair to say that was the more experimental phase. Those cameras did not by any means become a standard in cinema. I don’t think it’s disrespect to say so, that’s just how it went down. Digital cinema did not become a real part of the landscape until around 2010.
Loved the Sony F35-that one still holds up.
Thank you for this Nick. I love the coverage and observations about the V-Raptor X - it nurtures my passion for being able to capture images in my imagination using my DREAM camera! Thank you again! 🙂
The 3D hating is interesting to me. So you hate all the CGI in Dune?
I’m not talking about CGI. I’m talking about stereoscopic presentations (you know, where you wear the funky looking glasses).
@@nick_salazar Oh ok
“640K of RAM ought to be enough for anybody.”
Haha, love it. But unlike Bill Gates' thoughts on document storage, 8k video recording vastly outpaces your own eyeballs. It's like 32-bit audio - we will never record in a higher bitrate because there is literally no reason. 32 bits encompasses and vastly surpasses the entire range of volume of sounds made on the planet.
We're just starting the AI journey in technology. Not a good time to call the "peak"
I’m sure AI tools will bring wonderful new things to the world of cinematography. But in what way do you propose it will give us a fundamentally better camera? We are at a place where our cameras record better fidelity than our eyes can capture, for final deliverables that are again better than our eyes can resolve. AI, it seems to me, is not relevant to what I’m discussing. But maybe I’m wrong! Please let me know what you think it will do.
@@nick_salazar I'm not an engineer but I think AI with advanced cpu's and sensors in each camera will be able to analyze and "make better" every aspect of that camera from dynamic range, rolling shutter, focus, object detection, sound, etc. Let's take a look at this post in 10yrs and see where we're at.
Again, let’s ask what it is we even can or wish to improve. Rolling shutter CANNOT be improved beyond the global one we have in the Raptor X. It’s at zero already. Resolution, it’s beyond anything our eyes can take in. Dynamic range, it’s more than enough to capture any reasonably well-controlled scene. Let’s not make the mistake of just saying “oh, computers will fix things” when there are not things to fix.
@@nick_salazar I don't think we've even seen the Tesla of the camera market yet. Better rolling shutter is still at the sacrifice of dynamic range. Not saying things "need to be fixed". What we have available now looks spectacular. I think it's exciting to envision what we'll see next.
@@danhundley the V-Raptor [X] is precisely the camera in which global shutter does NOT come at the expense of dynamic range, that's the point! Now I'll grant you that in terms of vertical integration, you're right that there is no "Apple-esque" or "Tesla-esque" camera with all its functions smoothly bundled together into one slick body. We could certainly have sleeker cameras. But technically superior ones? There isn't too much blue sky left.
NO we are not at the peak because:
1) It still is using a traditional bayer sensor meaning it doesn't have perfect scaling at different resolutions.
2) The extended highlight dynamic range has motion artefacts, so it isn't a single pass high dynamic range like an Alexa35.
3) It still doesn't have the best features from the hybrid mirrorless (AF, stabilization and weather sealing).
4) There are still a ton of steps we need to take to finish a film. Peak would mean a single device in a single step finishes the entire film for us.
Peak to me means objectively perfect.
However, if you were to talk about subjective perfection, then yes, even an S5ii is good enough for most applications.
I would take the 12k cine over this camera any day. But it's a great video all the same.
Interesting take! What do you prefer about the Ursa Cine 12k that you don’t get here? For me the V-Raptor is close to unbeatable. Not perfect … but close.
Ok, let's start with the price. At 16k, you get a 12k camera with 2 screens and a fantastic EVF. 8TB of included storage, and you can record at all frame rates uncropped. That's just for starters. And it comes in at half the price of your camera.
Ah ok. I thought you considered it a better camera on the merits of the footage. Sounds like it’s mostly a value proposition for you. Which is a fair way to pick your cameras!
@@nick_salazar Well, that's subjective, right? The footage will depend on who is operating the camera and your skill level. We have only seen a handful of shots from the 12k Cine, but what I saw was extremely impressive. With that said, the Disney film that was shot on the original 12k was on par with the Arri, if I may say so.
I’m not familiar with Zeihan’s take on geopolitics but, coming from a Bible Prophecy prospective, I would agree this is as good or almost as good as it’s going to get. The world is about to change significantly, including right here in the U.S. This Christian nationalism thing is in Bible prophecy (and no it’s not good) and it’s not going to go away. We will see the Christian (so-called but not true Christianity) use the state to legislate Sunday observance. Turkey is going to take Jerusalem and set up its capital there and many other things I won’t go into here. Suffice it to say, I don’t think there will even be enough time or stability for Nikon and Red to come out with a new camera (they say they need 2 years to bring it to market). So this Raptor[X] may be as good as it gets. Obviously I don’t know what Red has planned for 2025, but at the very least, it seems like the Raptor[X] could be the very last truly “Red” camera. So be it. As you pointed out it more than suffices as most people even today still don’t watch 98% of their content (my guess) even in 4K. By the way, what kind of content do you create? Are your projects here or somewhere else?
I make a variety of content on different platforms. This channel is different - something of a dairy as I go through this personal project of making a feature length film. So it’s unstructured, unsponsored, and a bit unfocused as you can see. But hopefully still interesting!
The next 10-30 years of tech could be developed in the next 2-3 years with minimal to moderate money. If they released it all right now they would go bankrupt in a decade.
I think the concept of "conspiratorial planned obsolescence" is vastly overstated. If company X was sitting on technology that vastly outpaced its competitors, it would release that technology to improve its own market share. Sure, RED and ARRI want to sell their newest cameras. But there's a reason that the old ones still sell for THOUSANDS or TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. They're still good!
Exactly. People also always forget the third driving motivation of world history. 1) Genuine earnestness 2) Genuine malice 3) Genuine stupidity.
I'm a bit confused with your having "used the camera a LOT," and yet still "pretty slim pickings" when it comes to actual footage from the camera. You obviously love the camera. Why are you basically only telling us about it with words, instead of actually showing us footage so we can see for ourselves? I do enjoy all of your videos, including this one, but I'm feeling a bit stumped as to why you aren't featuring more of the actual "footage" you've created with this "gift of the gods" camera.