Rob Ruffo
Well-known member
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".
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".
