250 ISO Looks great.

[jacob.schwarz]

Thanks. Cannon 100mm Macro at f16.

 

[Elsie N]

Heh, heh... I think this new OLPF has been a good thing for the industry. Helps the big guys separate the men from the boys, come hiring time.

Lohhhhtsa people are unwittingly posting their resumes here on Reduser.

 

[Jon Carr]

Heh, heh... I think this new OLPF has been a good thing for the industry. Helps the big guys separate the men from the boys, come hiring time.

+1

Been rocking 250-1280 with no issues when rented the camera with the new OLPF, when mine comes back from RED next week, I can do the big stress tests.

 

[Andy Roberts]

Thanks. Cannon 100mm Macro at f16.

f16 explains the great detail in the skin. I get so used to seeing shallow DOF, it is refreshing to see all that detail.

P.S. I think you meant "bearded" dragon and not "breaded" in your OP

 

[paul schefz]

Paul, at every chance you get, you seem to try to rally people around your disappointment in Dragon. The funny thing is, you don't even own one yet. With all the complaining you've done, I thought you paid for something you now felt stuck with, but that's not the case. I see nothing but a sea of options in front of you.

You have the option to not upgrade to Dragon. It's not mandatory, you know.

You have the option to upgrade to Dragon with the old OLPF, if you fancy.

You have the option to upgrade with the new OLPF and accept that it won't be the ideal camera for every shooting situation and learn to get the most out of the situations for which it is.

You have the option to upgrade to Dragon with the new or old OLPF and see how the swappable OLPFs pan out.

But, I think your best option might be to consider the possibility that RED just doesn't make the type of camera you need at this point, especially since you often need to shoot between 2000 and 4000 ISO. Maybe Sony, Canon or Panasonic would suit your needs better.

If you consciously choose to shoot on a camera you know (or should know) doesn't have built-in NR, you're unwilling/unable to implement NR reduction in post and unwilling/unable to add more lights, I wonder why Dragon is even still on your radar.

Whatever you do, please let the people who write about positive experiences with their Dragons post their results without you constantly throwing a wet blanket on it and trying to convince people it's wrong for them because it's wrong for you. Sheesh.

Plenty of disappointment out there....I don't have to rally anyone....and why?
I thought a forum was the place for critical discussion....and I still think that asking for promised specs is not out of line....
not sure what critiquing me personally adds to this but I guess it falls in with the :shooting at 250 separates the men from the boys quote (which is actually does....the boys are out shooting features and the men are sitting at home stroking theri cameras)
all I am and have been asking for is a raw comparison between epic and dragon putting all these silly little arguments about noise or DR or rolloff to rest.....
i am at this point still a customer and I think this is the place to bring things like that up.....
hey or maybe this thread will be shut down as well....

 

[Brian Boyer]

Plenty of disappointment out there....I don't have to rally anyone....and why?
I thought a forum was the place for critical discussion....and I still think that asking for promised specs is not out of line....
not sure what critiquing me personally adds to this but I guess it falls in with the :shooting at 250 separates the men from the boys quote (which is actually does....the boys are out shooting features and the men are sitting at home stroking theri cameras)
all I am and have been asking for is a raw comparison between epic and dragon putting all these silly little arguments about noise or DR or rolloff to rest.....
i am at this point still a customer and I think this is the place to bring things like that up.....
hey or maybe this thread will be shut down as well....

I'm not trying to silence anyone and I'm always down for a spirited debate. What I'm saying is it seems to me that you've already made up your mind and there's no discussion left to have. You've already seen "a raw comparison between epic and dragon," were clearly disappointed in the results and provided a link to it in your poll post.

...tons of color noise everywhere....not just a little....even in ever color on the chart....even in the light grey....
better detail/color in darks? the fuzzy black square shows maybe even more detail with mx and again so much color noise with dragon that it is just no contest......
the tough spot under the eye in the shadow side of the face? anyone really prefer the dragon? this is the area where i really thought the dragon would just win this easily....same for the neck/shirt area....

now both files can be tweaked (color, NR, sharpening) to make the other look worse or better but i deliberately chose not to do that....these are as straight as possible....
the skin tones mentioned here that give the dragon away are literally just a couple of mini tweaks with color controls....done....

i would still love to see a different outcome for a test like this....not a vimeo or youtube file....no ADD....just a wide range scene incl skin, dark detail and blown highlights, well exposed....still waiting for that....

here is the link to the complete test incl raw files....Red Epic Dragon vs Red Epic MX: Part 01: Dynamic Range & Latitude [VIDEO]

from my own experience with my epic i can also say that just by using different lenses i can achieve bigger differences in terms of color, contrast, highlight roll off (!), detail and of course sharpness... then i see in this test between the files from epic and dragon....and i am not even taking post production into consideration here.....

the real surprise though for me was how incredibly well the epic mx raw files can be interpolated/up res'd....to go from 5100x2700 to 16800x9600 and still keep an organic look is just awesome.....i have done and tried this with everything from DSLRs to leica to phase MF backs and all those files (even though most of them have higher pixel counts) just don't hold up that well....maybe it is a built in NR that most files have? either way...insane...again: the only downside is that i haven't seen any advantage in that regard by dragon files....

That sounds to me like you've made your decision but your continued criticisms against Dragon suggest you haven't quite accepted what you've decided on.

It would be different if you said, "I love the improved color and the expanded DR on the top end, I just can't deal with the noise." That would make for a tough decision.

However, your argument is, "Not only can't I deal with the noise, I don't see much improvement in color or the expanded DR on the top over MX, if any at all."

In that case, I don't understand your dilemma. You've got everything you (and everyone else who agrees with you) need with MX and you don't have to upgrade. What am I missing? What argument are you making that RED and others just aren't understanding?

My point isn't you shouldn't be disappointed in Dragon's specs. My point is you seem bothered by the fact that some people aren't disappointed and are producing images they're happy with. You even come across a little indignant and incredulous towards the people that preferred Dragon in your poll.

You're probably not going to get much value out of Dragon if you don't see much value in it. At any rate, I won't single you out on this issue again and please feel free to vent with impunity.

 

[paul schefz]

I'm not trying to silence anyone and I'm always down for a spirited debate. What I'm saying is it seems to me that you've already made up your mind and there's no discussion left to have. You've already seen "a raw comparison between epic and dragon," were clearly disappointed in the results and provided a link to it in your poll post.



That sounds to me like you've made your decision but your continued criticisms against Dragon suggest you haven't quite accepted what you've decided on.

It would be different if you said, "I love the improved color and the expanded DR on the top end, I just can't deal with the noise." That would make for a tough decision.

However, your argument is, "Not only can't I deal with the noise, I don't see much improvement in color or the expanded DR on the top over MX, if any at all."

In that case, I don't understand your dilemma. You've got everything you (and everyone else who agrees with you) need with MX and you don't have to upgrade. What am I missing? What argument are you making that RED and others just aren't understanding?

My point isn't you shouldn't be disappointed in Dragon's specs. My point is you seem bothered by the fact that some people aren't disappointed and are producing images they're happy with. You even come across a little indignant and incredulous towards the people that preferred Dragon in your poll.

You're probably not going to get much value out of Dragon if you don't see much value in it. At any rate, I won't single you out on this issue again and please feel free to vent with impunity.

frustrated, yes, venting no...you are right: if other people are happy with what they are getting, i should be happy as well....and in reality, i am....
but there is also this other reality in which critical posts are washed away by the herd of believers (i am not sure what that even is or why so many people here have to urge to rubber stamp every single thing red says or does....)
i will stop posting about this since it's not going anywhere anyway....hey even jarred pretty much said (in a post now removed) this is what it is, like it or not....
the funny thing is that because of my posts i am getting pm's with flaws and info on dragon that i did not even know about...they don't even bother posting here....
i wonder how red's return policy is on dragon upgrades?

 

[Brian Boyer]

frustrated, yes, venting no...you are right: if other people are happy with what they are getting, i should be happy as well....and in reality, i am....
but there is also this other reality in which critical posts are washed away by the herd of believers (i am not sure what that even is or why so many people here have to urge to rubber stamp every single thing red says or does....)
i will stop posting about this since it's not going anywhere anyway....hey even jarred pretty much said (in a post now removed) this is what it is, like it or not....
the funny thing is that because of my posts i am getting pm's with flaws and info on dragon that i did not even know about...they don't even bother posting here....
i wonder how red's return policy is on dragon upgrades?

To be clear, I'm not saying if other people are happy, you should be, too. What I'm saying is, if other people are happy with the camera, their happiness shouldn't make someone else upset because they don't agree with that assessment.

Just for kicks, let's say RED went in the other direction and left the highlight protection the same on Dragon as with MX but added 4.5 more stops of super clean darks beyond what MX currently offers.

For people like me wanting that expanded DR in the highlights, the mantra would be to change my exposure strategy. Underexpose by 2 or even 3 stops and be able to recover the mids and shadows because they're so clean.

I have no doubt people would be telling me how great things could be if only I'd be open to a different way of getting the most out of the camera. Sound familiar?

Alas, RED went in the other direction, for a variety of reasons. But, in doing so, that direction is in keeping with how filmmakers have been dealing with celluloid for years. Adding more light, in one way or another, has been a tried-and-true method for decades. There's nothing new to learn.

Modern digital NR also works wonders these days.

I get that those solutions aren't right for everyone and compromises have to be made. All we can do is assess the situation, effect change where we can (i.e. complain) but ultimately play the hand we're dealt and take advantage of our choices.

Try to imagine where Rock 'n' Roll would be if people let the (greatly annoying) 60 Hz hum from the Fender Stratocaster's single coil pickups keep them from producing some of the most enduring and memorable guitar parts in history.

The SOUND those guitars made more than made up for the trouble they caused engineers when trying to remove the hum. For those people it didn't suit, there was always the Les Paul.

Not all noise is created equal and some noise has gone on to become an art form unto itself. If Dragon's noise looked like MX's noise, I wouldn't be too thrilled. But, I happen to dig Dragon's "texture" and think it's going to help produce some of the most organic looking images to ever come out of a RED camera.

That's not RED talking, that's all me, baby.

 

[Jan Reiff]

Paul, you don´t like the red channel noise or that there is (fine) noise overall ? think it´s a difference, the chroma noise will be removed soon - the noise itself will stay - for me and others not an issue because if you know you can find a right setting, for others it is ...

 

[paul schefz]

Just for kicks, let's say RED went in the other direction and left the highlight protection the same on Dragon as with MX but added 4.5 more stops of super clean darks beyond what MX currently offers.

For people like me wanting that expanded DR in the highlights, the mantra would be to change my exposure strategy. Underexpose by 2 or even 3 stops and be able to recover the mids and shadows because they're so clean.

that makes no sense to me at all....maybe it's because i was trained on film and zone system and have shot digital since 95....but i am no technician or engineer....in my book film or a sensor has a certain light sensitivity (iso rating) and using that as a starting point you set your exposure...if you are lucky, the scene does not require more DR then your medium can handle....if it does, you have to either let the highlights go or the shadows....that is the choice....or you add light to the rest of the scene to protect the highlights....either way...
not sure when red can do to protect the highlights or darks? they had to add a different olpf (to fight the flares and such issues) which added ND which is why less light hits the sensor which is why noise shows up more....the olpf obviously also changes the way light and color hits the sensor and so some color (red) noise shows up now.....this is of course extremely simplified....
the sensor is still the same, it just needs more light....but from what i am hearing now, there are still plenty of flare and other issues....in addition to the red noise....

a les paul has a unique sound, just like every film stock has a unique look....but if you want something different you pick that up.....the last thing red can afford is to have the dragon be a unique look thing....it's a digital movie camera...it has to be a clean as possible to provide all the looks to be applied in post....if the uniqueness is a selling point....red is gone...

 

[paul schefz]

Paul, you don´t like the red channel noise or that there is (fine) noise overall ? think it´s a difference, the chroma noise will be removed soon - the noise itself will stay - for me and others not an issue because if you know you can find a right setting, for others it is ...

jan, zuerst war es das, dann das, dann wieder das....das rot kommt vielleicht weg (wahrscheinlich eher ein Hardware fix) aber der rest ist schlimmer als epic....ich hab gerne Struktur und Korn, aber nicht bei digital....
sorry ich schreib das auf deutsch weil ich mich schon langsam zurückhalten muss...man fliegt hier schnell raus wenn man zuviel falsches oder richtiges sagt
schau dir den test http://indiecinemaacademy.com/red-epic-dragon-vs-red-epic-mx-hype-real-part-01-video/ an....abgesehen vom rot ist einfach sogar im hellen grau überall Korn....auf alle falle mehr als bei epic....

 

[Brian Boyer]

that makes no sense to me at all....maybe it's because i was trained on film and zone system and have shot digital since 95....but i am no technician or engineer....in my book film or a sensor has a certain light sensitivity (iso rating) and using that as a starting point you set your exposure...if you are lucky, the scene does not require more DR then your medium can handle....if it does, you have to either let the highlights go or the shadows....that is the choice....or you add light to the rest of the scene to protect the highlights....either way...

The example I gave that you said you didn't understand was given with a certain type of shooter (or shot) in mind. I know there are numerous ways to control DR within a scene but when you start to mention them, someone always brings up the run 'n' gun shooter who has no control over the environment.

Setting your exposure based on base sensitivity or even a middle gray reading may not always work for a camera with limited DR in the highlights and the subject's face is in and out of shade and direct sunlight to the point where you lose all detail in the face. Or, maybe you want to keep details in clouds behind an actor. You'd have to expose for them instead of the face and may have to rely on bringing the rest of the image up in post if the mids and shadows are clean enough.

You're right, if you're lucky, the scene doesn't have more DR than your medium can handle. But, with film, there was a lot more breathing room in the highlights before they blew out over something like DV. What tends to look better, blowing out highlights at 3 stops over or 8 stops over?

Yes, you could protect your highlights on DV by adding more light to compensate but adding more light is exactly what so many people are complaining they would have to do with the new OLPF in order to avoid "noisy" images.

You seem so matter-of-fact about adding light in this last post but are concerned about the increased noise of the new OLPF, which would be alleviated by simply adding more light, would it not? I admit I'm confused now.

(And no, I din't miss your mention of the noise being only one of Dragon's issues.)

a les paul has a unique sound, just like every film stock has a unique look....but if you want something different you pick that up.....the last thing red can afford is to have the dragon be a unique look thing....it's a digital movie camera...it has to be a clean as possible to provide all the looks to be applied in post....if the uniqueness is a selling point....red is gone...

My point about the guitars was that the noise could be dealt with and what you were left with was beautiful.

I've said this before but, once every camera manufacturer has nailed wide DR, high sensitivity, exemplary color and high speed at a very low price (and they will), the only thing to distinguish one camera from another is going to be uniqueness in image, to a certain extent. RED will be dead without it.

I believe uniqueness is the future, if the audio world is any indicator. Maybe that means companies like RED will produce several sensors (or maybe just the swappable OLPFs will suffice), each possessing a different characteristic. I could be wrong but I highly doubt the images from the cleanest digital camera will end up being the most desirable to look at.

EDIT:

I look at it this way (in keeping with the guitar metaphor). If you take a pretty well known entity like a high quality Stratocaster and plug it into 10 different amplifiers on their clean settings, you're going to get 10 different tonalities.

1, 2 or maybe 3 amps may stand out to you as sounding extremely good. Even though they're all clean, some manufacturers interpretation of clean will be more pleasing to your ears than others.

One thing I'm pretty certain of is no one will pick the most generic sounding amp, lacking in character and personality, so that they can then make it sound like they want in the studio.

Instead, they'll pick the one that oozes character and personality as a starting point for what they'll do to it in the studio, if anything at all.

Yes, DPs may choose one film stock over another for certain projects but that in no way means that every movie that also chooses that stock has the same look.

They choose a stock that has the starting character they like and build from there. 5219 alone probably has dozens, if not hundreds, of achievable looks but it has a look to begin with. I don't think nondescript is the way to go.

 

[Brian Merlen]

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

f16 explains the great detail in the skin. I get so used to seeing shallow DOF, it is refreshing to see all that detail.

P.S. I think you meant "bearded" dragon and not "breaded" in your OP

 

[Alan Maxwell]

yes so easy, rate the camera at 250 ASA
Don't underexpose...
If you have run out of stops...
Add more light ....

remember lights?

 

[Daniel Stilling]

I, for one am holding back on upgrading. This whole issue has been beyond disappointing. Everyone knows that you have to be careful with MX and not underexpose, otherwise you'll have a noisy picture. Then along comes all the early claims for Dragon, that 2000 is the new 800. Since ISO is metadata, that meant that the sensor is more sensitive in the dark and has a longer threshold before it starts showing noise. And now, that turns out not to be so, and to have a clean picture you can't even expose the Dragon to the same light levels as MX? 10K to get a little better color rendition?
And please, don't use the old OLPF argument. It had defects like the flares and such, so that is not useable.

 

[Brian Merlen]

i love how this thread was about images, not ISO discussion and we completely f*cked it up somehow lol!

i think its tough on red, we all want good roll offs, we all want 800=2000 ISO clean... I'm not sure how much the dragon has evolved throughout the OLPF changes/people wanting alexa highlights... I'm not sure if the 800=2000 was replaced by "alexa like" roll offs, or if they are mutual at all....we will all eventually see what they come up with FW wise...i think all the speculation, praise, and anguish is kind of irrelevant. red will do what they can do... i think my suggestion of sharing looks (in the complaint dept) will fix EVERYTHING...

even if the sensor doesn't end up the way you/me/whoever wants if we had a community sharing looks we would have all the damn post processing presets in the world to get the images we want...why limit it to red color/gamma/dragon color/gamma and force people to learn this technical stuff? some just don't want to do it, can't do it, unwilling to do it, don't want to know about how to post process the film...

technicolor did that bs for them, they didn't need to know how to light, frame, do clean moves, shoot, AND process! sure maybe some did, but come on that is too many damn hats for a DP to wear! i think us having a community of presets would eliminate this issue...sure its not as cool as dialing in looks yourself, and applying noise reduction, or grain, what have you...but clearly some just want a camera that shoots...look at amira and all the presets! look at alexa, people just like it! well give them what they want i say, let nerds like me make lots of looks up and just give it out as presets...it will eliminate a shit ton of issues by taking all the problems off Reds plate, and letting us work on the finessing of the images...I'd upload hundreds of presets on my own even, red having a distribution system for this would be the way to go, solve so many of these post processing debates once and for all i say...

 

[luigivaltulini]

I, for one am holding back on upgrading. This whole issue has been beyond disappointing. Everyone knows that you have to be careful with MX and not underexpose, otherwise you'll have a noisy picture. Then along comes all the early claims for Dragon, that 2000 is the new 800. Since ISO is metadata, that meant that the sensor is more sensitive in the dark and has a longer threshold before it starts showing noise. And now, that turns out not to be so, and to have a clean picture you can't even expose the Dragon to the same light levels as MX? 10K to get a little better color rendition?
And please, don't use the old OLPF argument. It had defects like the flares and such, so that is not useable.

Have you already tried Dragon?
I do not understand why you have to be disappointed? I still have a rental Epic .. but strangely no one wants to use it. Cabbages, Dragon is noisy?!?! never heard anyone in 6 months someone who complains about this .. Maybe that I'm 3 centimeters in front of the monitor to count pixels maybe even in still and not moving!
They are all more than happy with 2 more stops and in some they would like even more!
The words and comments are the most beautiful in the post when the colorist and DP clap their hands because they have a spectacular image ... never seen or happened before with Epic! I do not think they are so happy for the "noise"!
I'm filming as the first ISO 500 to ISO 2000 with no problems.
That day you will have to hand the DRagon you forget to post these ...

Look at this little spot filmed in 1 day, from 800 iso to 2000 iso with the new OLPF, it seems to me to hold up well do not you think?!?! or is noisy for you?

of course it's just my thought

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRwCk_y3LUc

 

[Daniel Stilling]

That spot looks great Luigi.
So how come we have these wildly different reports on Dragon? Some can't even shoot at 800 with a clean picture. Your spot looks great. It looks like you had plenty of light. Why did you need to go to 2000?
And not that I'm defending shooting in the dark without lights. But I do love contrast and lighting as such. I love a big source, but I love saving on the fill also, and I'm concerned that the areas I like for the light to drop off will be unacceptable.

 

[Brian Boyer]

And please, don't use the old OLPF argument. It had defects like the flares and such, so that is not useable.

First of all, I wouldn't say it's not useable. Many a production successfully shot on the old OLPF. In fact, methinks TNT's "The Last Ship" looks to be shot on an old OLPF Dragon, for at least the episodes I've seen so far.

I could be wrong and there's no way to prove it now because I think the thread is gone, but I believe the offer to put the old OLPF back in came with a subtext that many people didn't pick up on.

Jarred can (and may) correct me but my take away from that was, because people were going on and on about how much better they thought the old OLPF was over the new one, he offered to put the old one back in - and here's the subtext - if it meant people would shut up about it and move on. It's a legitimate offer but it was made in an effort to stop the incessant harping, IMO.

Jarred said in no uncertain terms that he thought that was the wrong move and RED's official recommendation is for people to keep the new one. However, to this day, some people are still touting the old OLPF as better. So, the option is there for those who want it.

For all that talk, how many people have you heard of that actually took Jarred up on his offer? I suspect that number is going to be extremely low.

 

[Daniel Stilling]

I understand Brian, but as you pointed out yourself, the offer to put the old OLPF in is followed by a clear disdain for it. It does work, but it does have issues. I was extreme when I said unusable, but I still feel it's not an option, given the dislike for it from RED's side. What kind of support will it get in the future?
Bottom line is that the Dragon was supposed to be the camera to rule them all. A bunch more dynamic range, better colors and more sensitivity/cleaner images. Should we be content with 2 out of 3 and move on?