DRAGON - ITS THE REAL DEAL !!!!

[Kevin Marshall]

Where did RED promise 20 stops? Everyone keeps saying that. You can get there with Dragon and HDRx but all we have said is 16 stops.

Jim

People are confused. Unfortunately the image of the wedge chart Jarred posted a while back was picked up and sensationalized elsewhere around the web, most places misinterpreting it as representing a 20+ stop range. This then got further misconstrued as an official RED stance. Boils down to lazy journalism.

 

[Scott Crawley]

People are confused. Unfortunately the image of the wedge chart Jarred posted a while back was picked up and sensationalized elsewhere around the web, most places misinterpreting it as representing a 20+ stop range. This then got further misconstrued as an official RED stance. Boils down to lazy journalism.

Hey man, just owning a computer and a blogspot account doesn't make people journalists!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Bad troll! :mad2: ;-)

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Like so many things these days, the nuance gets lost in the noise.

Before anyone moans that RED should have only shown a 16 stop wedge, I must point out that showing the character of the stops beyond the usable range helps us understand the sensor's "personality", which I consider valuable information. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

 

[Jon Carr]

Jim will you be doing any official RED test like the cigar lighting for the MX or the milk girls for the M? Would love to see some graded studio footage to go with marks all natural tests.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

There is no substitute for great lighting. It's underrated if anything.

Agreed. A scene does not look like it feels in reality without lighting - an image in real life and on the screen are not the same thing and lighting/grading translates one from the other. Ever noticed how a glossy brochure about a beloved travel destination looks more like your memories of that place than an "honest" unlit, ungraded amateur snappy of that same place on Flickr? Besides, not everyone is out to make a documentary. Some of us are trying to create the imaginary and the fantastic.

A dear friend of mine is an actress, who has the misfortune of working with many Canadian DPs who are very preachy about how "real" their work is. She looks nothing like the tried, depressed person with bad skin I see in their work. In fact, these hollier-than-thou "truthful" DPs and directors are distorting the truth about how she looks and her performance, not revealing it.

I can only imagine how good Dragon could look outside a stress test, with real lighting.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Don't Worry, Be Happy! LOL

Don't Worry, Be Happy! LOL

So, by that rationale, those who have concerns about perceived weaknesses of the sensor should wait until RED has had time to address those issues, but those who want to celebrate and proclaim it as the wonder of wonders can do so right away? Hummmm....

In a sense... yes.

You can celebrate what is good and right because it is already good and right. But to grouse about what isn't yet right is premature since RED has already indicated they aren't finished yet and the "wrongs" will probably be addressed. One of the problems with the initial release of the RED One was how long the perceptions of weakness plagued its reputation long after they were no longer the reality. As RED owners, we can only hope that misperceptions don't get spread early on as it will be hell to correct people's perceptions. :mad2:

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yes, lighting can be used to make someone look better, worse or depict them with accuracy and to deliberately do any one of those things requires skills that should not be discounted... Particularly in the context of a camera discussion.

But what does that have to do with Dragon?

All hail the Red team and their incredible new baby!

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

FWIW even if I want a naturalistic look I typically will use lighting to add depth and dimension, draw attention to some elements vs others, etc.

IAC, for those times when I do need to shoot in limited available light I look forward to cleaner shadows and perhaps even shooting at 2.8 or 4 instead of fighting focus at 1.4 or 1.9. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19

 

[Rick Darge]

People are confused. Unfortunately the image of the wedge chart Jarred posted a while back was picked up and sensationalized elsewhere around the web, most places misinterpreting it as representing a 20+ stop range. This then got further misconstrued as an official RED stance. Boils down to lazy journalism.

Thanks Kevin but I'm not confused. Somewhere within the past year Red stated that they were getting 18-20 stops of range which seemed like Alien Technology to me at the time. I can't remember 'where' because that thread is buried but it was said. There are others out there that remember Red stating this as well. Regardless, congrats to Toia. The test was nice. Seems like the Dragon is what the MX was to the M after all is said and done. Better noise control with higher ISOs which is to be expected with the way Moore's Law behaves. Looking forward to one day trying a Dragon out on a shoot or two

 

[Martin Stevens]

Martin, if you have unbalanced RGB beam that coming from the sensor you can't get balanced RGB signal even if you would be able to employ the best algorithm during interpolation of a mosaic based sensor.

That means in that case not so much help with grading just because you'll get a colour shift always when you start to correct something...

So basically there are four elements in that circle that are important for a digital cine camera colours: silicon or sensor itself, board around the sensor, OLPF (blur filters) and codec (R3D).

I understand your point of view here Sanjin, but I feel that you are barking up the, "why doesn't Red have a 3 sensor camera, or
at least a 3 layer sensor, so that true RGB can be obtained, as in, 'no' bayer pattern". The Dragon sensor and its color science
are the BEST that Red can provide us given the fact that they are using a bayer pattern.

I personally thinks Marks test images are staggeringly awesome and a gift from the "Red Team" Gods.

If you are not happy with their Dragon tech then shoot with a different camera by all means, but asking them to
fix something that is already beyond exemplary is a bit irritating (but I like your posts).


THE DRAGON IS THE BEST THAT IT CAN BE AT THIS POINT IN TIME!
IF THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT BETTER THEY WOULD HAVE!
THIS IS WHY I AM HERE! I LOVE THAT I CAN GET THE BEST FROM THE BEST!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I'm a bit confused. Didn't RED promise 20+ stops of DR? But based on Mark's test, it looks like only +1 stop in the highlights and +2 in the shadows? Is the DR expected to change drastically over the next few weeks?

Gee but sorry...

+1 stop is 2x the info.

+3 stops (as you suggest) is 2x2x2 = 8x the info

And from the wedge chart, as I remember it, RED was pretty clear that this was a test chart. To make that real, there is a lot of factors comming in.

Geoff Boyle (whom I have a lot of respect for) made a similar remark over at CML.
And I CAN get how RED manages to disappoint by delivering breakthrough tech, if you read every possibility they show us as a promise.

But as you and I have have been here since the start, we should know by now that the proof is in the delivered pudding. And so far, that pudding has been rather sweet, all in all. Beta and all.

Dragon + motionmount/adjustable ND's is pretty rad.
to get 20+ stops out of it, (which would be 13 + 2x+2x+2x+2x+2x+2x+2x = 128x the levels and info) out of it in a sensible way, reed would have to apply a 24bits AD.
Well...
That is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, if the sensor handles the contrast.
Unless RED chooses to give us the Dragon in the Epic body.

Hey
Wait
That is actually wht they did...

 

[Rick Darge]

Fair enough - I'll just throw myself to the wolves then and say that I am actually disappointed with this stress test. I know it's a stress test, I know I know I know. But I thought the Dragon was going to match the Alexa's DR or at least clobber it over the head and I'm just not seeing that. Maybe my eyes are bad. Maybe I'm an idiot. But I'm not seeing a huge increase in DR that was promised. I'm seeing better DR, yes but not a giant leap. Foolish of me to follow the hype.

 

[Jon Carr]

Fair enough - I'll just throw myself to the wolves then and say that I am actually disappointed with this stress test. I know it's a stress test, I know I know I know. But I thought the Dragon was going to match the Alexa's DR or at least clobber it over the head and I'm just not seeing that. Maybe my eyes are bad. Maybe I'm an idiot. But I'm not seeing a huge increase in DR that was promised. I'm seeing better DR, yes but not a giant leap. Foolish of me to follow the hype.

I would wait until you can get your hands on a dragon and do a side to side test before passing judgement. You might be surprised. Either way you look at it, it's a major improvement over the MX sensor. And the MX was and still is a great sensor for cinema.

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Rick, no wolf here, just providing a reality check on your statement about what was "promised" before even more misinformation spreads.
Sorry but you are confused. Go read this thread and click through the RED Team posts. Dragon delivers what Jim says...

It appears that the Dragon will have about 4 stops more DR and less than half the noise of the current Mysterium-X sensor.

Jim

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92158-Enter-the-Dragon&p=1129409&viewfull=1#post1129409

 

[Rick Darge]

I would wait until you can get your hands on a dragon and do a side to side test before passing judgement. You might be surprised. Either way you look at it, it's a major improvement over the MX sensor. And the MX was and still is a great sensor for cinema.

No doubt it's better than MX. It's just not better than film or the Alexa with my tired old eyes. Just one man's opinion. What is better anyway? What's better to Jim might not be better to Mother Theresa. For me lenses and sensors are all about character. They have to feel organic, not fake. Some people want every pixel and everything to be as accurate as possible but where is the chaos factor in that? Where's the life?

I'm not trying to knock Red or their efforts with the Dragon. Kudos to them. It IS BETTER in everyway. I'm just not buying that it's BETTER than film or 65mm based on what I'm seeing. I'll probably be proven wrong after I conduct my own tests in the studio but for now, I'll reserve my judgement and quietly retreat

 

[Martin Stevens]

Fair enough - I'll just throw myself to the wolves then and say that I am actually disappointed with this stress test. I know it's a stress test, I know I know I know. But I thought the Dragon was going to match the Alexa's DR or at least clobber it over the head and I'm just not seeing that. Maybe my eyes are bad. Maybe I'm an idiot. But I'm not seeing a huge increase in DR that was promised. I'm seeing better DR, yes but not a giant leap. Foolish of me to follow the hype.

I am seeing more DR on these Dragon test images than on the Alexa, but remember that more DR makes the image look low in contrast
and perhaps it is this low contrast that is making you think that the Dragon does not have a lot of DR. Also, the Alexa has a built in low-con filter
to make the image more film (halation) like. Just add one to the Dragon and wham....more film like.

 

[Evin Grant]

I have spent alot of time with Alexa footage lately and I really think that what most people confuse with DR is actually the soft rolloff of the halation filter. In terms of usable detail when I've had both Epics and Alexas together on the same shot in the same conditions and lighting I'd guess the Alexa has about 1-1.5 stops more DR than MX, but it's perceived as more because of the blooming. If you add a 1/8 Low con to the Epic it behaves almost identically and magically everyone thinks it's got the same DR. Also the built in curves of the Alexa give a more balanced over/under exposure range at base ISO. The Dragon looks to have even this up and then given us more in the shadows. On Alexa shows the 709 curve specifically looks awful if skin tones are over 45IRE.

I can tell you one thing for sure the color science is definitely improved, check out these skin tones...

This is a 30% saturation boost a little contrast curve and a small primary +blue correction. We all know that you can get good skin tones out of the MX but it takes a little work, I've never seen MX material saturate as easily and naturally as these Jpegs did.

 

[Larry Kelly]

To add to the 18 to 20 stop misunderstanding is the fact that the test that was shown was a bench test of the raw sensor. There was no OLPF on the sensor from what I remember being explained at the time. With filtering on the OLPF you can probably cut close to 2 stops from the maximum achievable which is pretty close to where it is at now.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Great post Evin.

JPEGs!

Let me repeat out loud something that can't be said enough: I am one of those that loves a good lo-con look, and I LOVE that I get to do that all I feel like without HAVING to do that on every single shot.

 

[Robert L. Mickles]

The images look amazing! I can't wait to upgrade! Thanks Mark!