Some people seem to be taking this as what camera is 'better' as opposed to a general guide of how they perform.

This test clearly shows how the cameras perform in controlled and reproduced situations. You can use this as a general guide on how to design your own tests.

Rating a camera isn't really set science as it was in film days when. In digital the sensor has a dynamic range, a clip point and a noise floor. Once you know how much light blows out the sensor, you need to make a decision on how much noise you can tolerate in your image. You noise tolerance sets the dynamic range. Then you pick how many stops of highlight(or shadow) you want and place your midgrey in the right place.

If you have a 1600 iso camera with 5 stops above midgrey and 5 below, and you decide you only want 3 stops of headroom, you now have a 400 iso camera. that camera now has 3 stops above midgrey, and 7 below.

That is addressable in post. Many DP's specifically want the default RED look.

It only takes a day or so with the camera to figure out how to light for the skin-tones you want, if you want a different look.

What was the jist of the complaints on the test? I don't see anything on RED facebook page, nor anything official on REDuser.net

Many other factors affect apparent sharpness at 4k mastering there is little effect between shooting at 3.2k vs 4, 6 or 8k or a 4k presentation.

DP Steve Yedlin did a very nice presentation on that at Cameraimage called "
Steve Yedlin Seminar: On Image Acquisition and Pipeline for High-Resolution Exhibition" that clearly shows the effects or lack of effect of camera resolution on presentation resolution.

He showed acquisition from 2k to 13k for a 4k dcp presentation. It's really great to see all of the cameras side by side. Any professional cinema camera is perfectly acceptable for mastering in 4k with no loss in quality.

The test is still very valid. This is not any indication of what this camera will do in a year, or five down the line. The sensor is shipping in camera and this is a pretty fair representation of what you can get today.

The tests were using the same lights setting and lenses. It's hard to argue with the transparency of this test.

There was nothing wrong at all with the performance of the Red in this test. It had different performance than than the ARRI, not worse. If the camera has radically different performance at 800 vs 1250 that would be alarming.

Thanks for that comparison.

I am curious about the note made stating the log3g10 isn't giving highlight advantages when compared to RedLogFilm. Did you run a quick test of the old vs the new to make that statement?

When shot in the center of the range it is remarkable that the two cameras perform so well.