I'll be honest - Dragon disappoints me

[Rob Ruffo]

What we really wanted was very good performance at extreme high ISOs. It's not every shoot that needs this, but it does open up possibilities that would have been expensive or impossible to do without it. (I'm NOT advocating doing away with lights, just using lower amp heads in tough locations where power and the ability to disturb local residents are at a premium.)

We also wanted a bigger field of view. Give us full frame. That's cool, and useful.

Give us even more precise color fidelity. There is no end to how good color rendition can be. More of that is always better.

Instead the main touted feature is even higher pixel density, and "6K".

6K is a problem. Its' not a good thing. 5K already nearly chokes most fo our workstations here, and we never, EVER say "Gee I wish this was higher resolution" Computer tech is advancing slowly these days. It's not just our computers, but the computers of all the people we hand in footage to that would have to be upgraded. My head hurst just thinking about it. If anything we would prefer slightly FEWER pixels per square inch of field of view, not more. Or just keep it the same.

Most camera makers have understood that the "megapixel race" has become silly. In my personal opinion, at the current 5K, Red should too.

I think proof is that there is very little excitement over Dragon. Epic solved a real problems ("Gee, I love my Red, but I wish it were lighter and started up faster, and that 3K and 2K slomo is cool, I wish it were more and full-frame)") and got/gets everybody excited. Mx upgrade also solved many very real problems with the old M sensor, as every Red one D.P. had a time when they wished they had more useable high ISOs with nicer-looking and less noise.

Dragon seems to mainly aim to solve an imaginary problem of lack of resolution that no one is really having, not even if you use an Epic for high-end stills work.

WIth MX and Epic all in the community were clamoring with excitement and anticipation. Dragon? Let's face it, not really.

I say this with the best of intentions. It's not too late for Dragon to be "subject to change".

[Clint Lealos]

What about 2 more stops dynamic range? That's pretty useful, eh?

[Stivan Widick]

And a much lower noise floor.

[Will Keir]

Better lower light performance is really the kicker for me. More DR is nice, but I can live with ND filters, 13 stops is still fantastic but "dancing flies" in my daylight image in the blacks is unacceptable. Moreover, being able to shoot dusk/dawn is pretty incredible, I look forward to the Dragon but not the ditch digging to pay for it. Anyone here past ditch digging? :)

And a much lower noise floor.

[Matthew Scott]

Maybe you will be impressed once you actually see images from it!

[George Tsai]

I'd have to disagree. Dragon is hardly solving the "lack of resolution problem", thats what Epic has already accomplished by surpassing S35 film resolution. However it does bring a lot of us one step closer to that of an IMAX resolution, and that for me just can't come soon enough. Dynamic range is another, 15+ stops is hard to argue against. and I'd speculate better low light performance as well. and who knows what color science can do with the amount of data provided by the dragon sensor.

And even tho clock speed of computing has more or less level out at 3-4GHz excluding over clocking, the sppeed performances and benchmarks still continue to shoot up very fast with new multi threading processing and ever more powerfull video cards. Many processes are also being integrated into the CPU reducing the time needed for seperate devices to communicate. New materials being developed will bring faster and more efficiency to our processors. There is tons more advancments to be made in computing technology.

Granted it's definitely not for everyone, not yet anyways. But for those of us who always wants to push the boundaries and be above and beyond, we are extremely excited:-)

[Rob Ruffo]

I'd have to disagree. Dragon is hardly solving the "lack of resolution problem", thats what Epic has already accomplished by surpassing S35 film resolution. However it does bring a lot of us one step closer to that of an IMAX resolution, and that for me just can't come soon enough. Dynamic range is another, 15+ stops is hard to argue against. and I'd speculate better low light performance as well. and who knows what color science can do with the amount of data provided by the dragon sensor.

And even tho clock speed of computing has more or less level out at 3-4GHz excluding over clocking, the sppeed performances and benchmarks still continue to shoot up very fast with new multi threading processing and ever more powerfull video cards. Many processes are also being integrated into the CPU reducing the time needed for seperate devices to communicate. New materials being developed will bring faster and more efficiency to our processors. There is tons more advancments to be made in computing technology.

Granted it's definitely not for everyone, not yet anyways. But for those of us who always wants to push the boundaries and be above and beyond, we are extremely excited:-)

Dynamic range is cool, yes, but that's not the first foot they put forward - the foot they put forward is "6K for 6K". ALready executive producers complain about the expense of processing 5K footage - they may be right or wrong, but they are the ones who pay the bills. 6K is, in their minds, an even worse problem which will, in reality, only make them ask for Alexa all the more Again, they are the client, so arguing beyond a certain point is not very useful. almost noen of us will ever make anything destined for an Imax screen.

99.999% of our work is for HD broadcast. 99.999% of our work is for use maybe 1 year, maybe less. We are like most Red camera users in that way. 5K was already a bit much. 6K is of NO USE to us. I don't work in the future, I work today, and deal with deadlines today. I also don't work for clients and financiers who think the way you or I think they should, I work for clients and financiers who think the way they do, right or wrong.

In practical terms, we have 5 workstations here. You want me to upgrade all 5 to handle 6K? Then it's not 6K for 6K, it's 6K for about 40K or more. And agin, sometimes we hand in footage to others too - you want me to pay for their upgrades too?

There is no mass consumer demand for faster processors. Study after study shows that people think their computers are "more than fast enough". They did not say that in the 1990s when Moore's Law was completely true. The money has (mostly) left the building in terms of processor research directed at speed - now they are aiming for lower production costs and longer laptop battery life because this means something to Joe and Jane computer shoppers.

[Brad Webb]

You can still shoot 5K or 4K with a Dragon upgraded Epic

[Rob Ruffo]

You can still shoot 5K or 4K with a Dragon upgraded Epic

No, you can't, not with as wide a field of view as they stated the pixel density will be smaller. Thus I will be paying more processor overhead to deal with footage that has the same field of view. In the very real reality of budget and time constraints, this will not make my life better and will make me think twice about upgrading, maybe even pass.

[George Tsai]

Dynamic range is cool, yes, but that's not the first foot they put forward - the foot they put forward is "6K for 6K". ALready executive producers complain about the expense of processing 5K footage - they may be right or wrong, but they are the ones who pay the bills. 6K is, in their minds, an even worse problem which will, in reality, only make them ask for Alexa all the more Again, they are the client, so arguing beyond a certain point is not very useful. almost noen of us will ever make anything destined for an Imax screen.

99.999% of our work is for HD broadcast. 99.999% of our work is for use maybe 1 year, maybe less. We are like most Red camera users in that way. 5K was already a bit much. 6K is of NO USE to us. I don't work in the future, I work today, and deal with deadlines today. I also don't work for clients and financiers who think the way you or I think they should, I work for clients and financiers who think the way they do, right or wrong.

In practical terms, we have 5 workstations here. You want me to upgrade all 5 to handle 6K? Then it's not 6K for 6K, it's 6K for about 40K or more. And agin, sometimes we hand in footage to others too - you want me to pay for their upgrades too?

There is no mass consumer demand for faster processors. Study after study shows that people think their computers are "more than fast enough". They did not say that in the 1990s when Moore's Law was completely true. The money has (mostly) left the building in terms of processor research directed at speed - now they are aiming for lower production costs and longer laptop battery life because this means something to Joe and Jane computer shoppers.

Hearing the announcment first hand at NAB I would hardly say the dragon sensor is a one line 6K trumps all. Regardless of what Red is perceived to be putting on a mantel (which has been 4K, and I'll admit makes it seem like all Red cares about is resolution), it doesn't take away from the announced dynamic range and frame rate.

But yes, 1080P is good enough for current HD broadcast. 2K is good enough for most people. Very few people will have an IMAX screening. But there are many who believe in shooting 4K+, there are those who can present in 4K and beyond, and for people like me always have very ambitious goals. I certainly don't want you to upgrade your system, because then you'll have better system than mine hehehe:-P Joking aside, it's like I said, it's not for everyone. But things like this has to start somewhere and then over the years trickle it's way down to consumers and lower prices. For me and i'm sure many others, this is a great push forward.

I dont know where the study you refer to comes from, but I'd always take those studies with a grain of salt. Statistical numbers and studies are easily and far too often skewed to "prove" one's point. And I have a hunch that people will think their computers are "more than fast enough" until they see how much faster the new computers are. I also don't think it matter if there is no mass consumer demand for faster processors because some company somewhere will always be pushing technology forward and eventually it will trickle down to consumers.

The dragon will really only be a big dissapointment if it didn't have a higher resolution, it's kind of what many expect of Red. And it would be just as big a dissapointment without the increase in dynamic range. Sensor size increase would be nice, but with some s35 lenses already vignetting, it really is a whole new ball game.