Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

A Dragon assesment...

Matthew Scott

Matthew Scott

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Melbourne, Australia
There's been a lot of discussion about the new Dragon sensor and how it compares to the MX sensor and other cameras on the market. Unfortunately (but understandably) I have found it difficult to get actual clear facts and information about what the new sensor is and isn't, and I think that is because so many people are experiencing VERY different results.

Since I own the RED Scarlet and have been shooting with it and EPIC for almost three years (a RED newbie compared to some) I've been very interested in learning how RED's new sensor compares to it. After reading through pretty much every single post, watching almost all of the test shoots and downloading corresponding .R3Ds to have a look for myself, I've come up with my own assumptions and am curious as to what others think. The goal of this post is for me to learn more about the camera and compare notes with others to hopefully gain a clearer understanding of the new sensor's abilities (in it's current form), without getting into what the camera promised before it's release into the wild.

Here's what I've found so far:

> Resolution & detail
6K vs 5K is quite a jump, amazing when you think about it in comparison to a Canon 5D mark II that shoots stills the same size as Dragon shoots continuous video (20-ish megapixels), and, at 96FPS it's even more impressive.
ADD (Advanced Dragon Debayer) is amazing for Dragon footage and gives it a clear advantage over MX in terms of detail.

> Dynamic Range (new, currently shipping OLPF)
Dragon has 1 and a half stops MORE reach into the highlights than the MX, with a nicer roll-off.
Dragon has the same, if not LESS of a reach into under-exposure than MX, but with a nicer noise pattern.

> Noise
At 1:1 resolution, noise levels are about the same on MX and Dragon.
Dragon has a nicer noise pattern than MX (smaller, less chroma noise and with that new special RED Cine-X Pro post-fix DEB, it's even nicer).

> Color
Dragon renders color nicer than MX. In particular, skin tones are nicer.
Dragon responds better to tungsten lighting than the MX does.
Dragon's over exposure color and detail is nicer than MX.
Dragon has much better IR reduction as part of it's OLPF.

> OLPF
Customizable OLPFs, new ones, old ones, this area still seems to be in development. Exciting no doubt, but it does make it difficult to assess the sensor since it will change depending on which OLPF you have.

> Compression
I'm still unclear on this. I've read a few times that Dragon has a newer/different/better compression algorithm which suggests that higher compression ratios on Dragon retain as much information as lower compression ratios on the MX. From my experience, compression ratios really do make a difference, even when comparing 3:1 to 8:1. Is Dragon's compression in fact better than the MX? And if so, how much better? "Dragon at 10:1 retains the same detail as the MX does at 6:1" That's a quote that doesn't yet exist. Maybe Graeme can help us here? What I have learned is that Dragon's data rate 0.5mb more per frame than the MX.

Do you agree with my above list of findings? Have you noticed anything I haven't mentioned here?
 
Lovely write up. Very helpful. Seems pretty accurate. I don't have Dragon either, but your notes seem to line up with feedback over past 6-9 months. In particular with new OLPF.

best
 
Matthew Scott said:
> Compression
I'm still unclear on this.
Click to expand...

Basically REDCODE RAW was optimized/coded differently for Dragon to maintain better detail across the compression range. When I shoot 14:1 overcranked it can be exhibited. The 16bit-ness is also part of this from what I understand.


I've written a lot of stuff and posted various tests all around REDuser about Dragon. Two import things I can think of off the top of my head you missed:

1. IR cutting - I've tested ND 0.3-3.0 and you simply don't need any IRND or IRND/Combo Filters. A good matched set of quality regular NDs are the way to go. Practical day to day shooting this is extremely important. Additionally, for those who use them, Variable NDs don't create shifts like they did on Mysterium-X at various densities at 3 stops and up.

2. 4K Broadcast Module - One thing that will be important to some is that the upcoming 4K Broadcast Module will only work with Dragon.


Color and tonal response is overall much better as mentioned, skintones are lovely. Tungsten, Daylight, and various other temperatures are overall better. The highlight roll-off is of a more organic nature when compared to Mysterium-X, which I like. You won't be seeing magenta clipped areas or using DRX on Dragon material.

5K lands in the S35 format which is a big deal in reality. 6K is a larger and powerful format.

Due to Dragon's pixel pitch and the designs on both of the released OLPFs it's a hair sharper overall at comparative resolutions against the larger pixel Mysterium-X sensor.

From a personal perspective it's more about what Dragon set out to do and what really is at the core of Red's mission from the get go. To make a viable film alternative. I would argue that Dragon is potentially a film replacement at this point and people really do need to look at that. Per format it's out resolving film. It does have more Dynamic Range than film. The color is very accurate. At equivalent ISO ratings it's cleaner that film (both OLPFs).

We do have to remember it's a multi-format system designed to shoot and finish at 6K, 4K, 2K, whatever. If finishing 4K is your target it's pretty much the best thing out there right now from an image quality and feature set perspective, and that's extremely important to me.
 
Cheers Dan, just trying to keep it simple so as not to sway facts either way.

And Phil, thanks for re-opening the post...not sure what happened there :huh: Anyway, nice to see you're getting good results and loving the Dragon, especially since you have a lot of experience with it, the MX and Film. There's no doubt in my mind that it's one of the worlds greatest camera's to date, but I'm still curious about certain things.

As for the compression, is there a definitive word on that? I mean, it's good to know you're seeing good results at 14:1 for over-cranking, but what are the actual improvements, ratio to ratio when comparing it to the MX? Also, when you mention that the Dragon is 16-bit, it's as if you're stating that it's a new thing, but isn't the EPIC MX 16-bit also, and has always been?

I don't mean to sound like I'm challenging you or disagreeing, I'm just trying to find out as much as I can and understand the new technology as best I can.
 
Matthew Scott said:
As for the compression, is there a definitive word on that? I mean, it's good to know you're seeing good results at 14:1 for over-cranking, but what are the actual improvements, ratio to ratio when comparing it to the MX? Also, when you mention that the Dragon is 16-bit, it's as if you're stating that it's a new thing, but isn't the EPIC MX 16-bit also, and has always been?

I don't mean to sound like I'm challenging you or disagreeing, I'm just trying to find out as much as I can and understand the new technology as best I can.
Click to expand...


Part of the good color out of Dragon is due to 16 bit processing internally and externally. This is complicated, but Graeme posted a bit ago about it. MX was always 16 bit at the end of the pipe, but I believe the sensor and ADC were a lower depth. I'll let somebody from Red explain that if I'm mistaken.

The REDCODE RAW stuff has been gone over. John Marchant posted a video a while back. Personally I would still favor 5:1-8:1 for most things. It's more about small details being retain better and the "energy" of REDCODE looking different. Quantifying it as ratio to ratio is tricky because Dragon resolves more anyways. And Dragon is different from Mysterium-X in that particular way which is one of the reasons REDCODE needed to be tuned for Dragon.
 
Good write up.

All i I can add is that to squeeze the same shooting time out of dragon as I did on MX I have shoot at about 11:1 on dragon. This is about 6:1 on MX.

I don't think the image suffers from higher compression on dragon as much as it did on MX. Probably go to 8:1 for detailed scenes and I have not run any chroma key tests yet, but more pixels is going to help your keys.

Another important note is that dragon is 20megapixels over mx's 14, and that is a lot more picture information going into the r3d image container all that is what is helping with color fidelity, etc.

tungsten is a beast and the IR cut in Dragons new OLPF is wonderful (as Phil has already mentioned)

battistella
 
Phil Holland said:
Part of the good color out of Dragon is due to 16 bit processing internally and externally. This is complicated, but Graeme posted a bit ago about it. MX was always 16 bit at the end of the pipe, but I believe the sensor and ADC were a lower depth. I'll let somebody from Red explain that if I'm mistaken.

The REDCODE RAW stuff has been gone over. John Marchant posted a video a while back. Personally I would still favor 5:1-8:1 for most things. It's more about small details being retain better and the "energy" of REDCODE looking different. Quantifying it as ratio to ratio is tricky because Dragon resolves more anyways. And Dragon is different from Mysterium-X in that particular way which is one of the reasons REDCODE needed to be tuned for Dragon.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for getting back to me with your knowledge on those topics. If you refer to THIS POST I made a while back, Graeme himself stated "R3Ds for the more modern cameras are 16bit+" So you can see why I'm confused here? Again, just trying to clarify what is new about Dragon.

Also, when you say the REDCODE RAW stuff has been gone over, that doesn't really help me. I'm still searching for answers here, since the bit-depth and compression are both being claimed as superior on Dragon compared to the MX, it would be good to know exactly what the improvements are, other than describing them with nice adjectives hehe :)
 
David Battistella said:
Good write up.

All i I can add is that to squeeze the same shooting time out of dragon as I did on MX I have shoot at about 11:1 on dragon. This is about 6:1 on MX.

I don't think the image suffers from higher compression on dragon as much as it did on MX. Probably go to 8:1 for detailed scenes and I have not run any chroma key tests yet, but more pixels is going to help your keys.

Another important note is that dragon is 20megapixels over mx's 14, and that is a lot more picture information going into the r3d image container all that is what is helping with color fidelity, etc.

tungsten is a beast and the IR cut in Dragons new OLPF is wonderful (as Phil has already mentioned)

battistella
Click to expand...

Thanks David :) Are your observations on shooting times recording at 5K on the Dragon, or 6K? And I know the benefits of shooting lower compression ratios, of course! I'm just curious as to what the improvements actually are. I'm thinking that maybe there's a perceived "better" compression at higher compression rates due to the down-sampling (from 6K down rather than 5K down). I could be wrong, but it would still be nice to know since it's being described as an advancement in the upgrade. Agreed about the IR cut (I'll ad it to the list).
 
Matthew-

I'm conflicted.

I love the RED ecosystem. I've shot some amazing things with my Scarlet and Epic cameras, and I was soooo looking forward to the Dragon blowing me away.

Just a quick history, in Nov 2011, I blindly took the leap of faith and purchased a Scarlet, not knowing anything about how to work a RED, etc. I did that because I believed in the concept of "DSMC". The S in that acronym is STILLS, the world where I came from, yes that side handle red knob that still doesn't work. That concept has not come true in my experience. Sure you can grab a still all day long and its great for fashion and cildren photography, but I still carry a DSLR whenever I need to do a serious timelapse of any complexity, or I want low light anything. Still, I upgraded to an Epic when that path was offered by RED and have since loved every minute of it (I'm still in my honeymoon with the Epic btw).

When RED announced the Dragon specs I was absolutely floored and signed up for the upgrade. Who wouldn't? A "2000 ISO is the new 800 ISO" camera with 16+ DR (at one point it was higher!). Well, last Friday I got my Dragon allocation email. I have some hesitations to upgrade. Mainly because I have yet to see a Dragon footage example (other than highlights) where I didn't think I could get close to that with my Epic.

For those that say I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm afraid of change, please, I know where my cheese is (...a joke few will get). I've shot with two different Dragons in a project with the new OLPF. Did I like shooting with Dragon? Heck yes, and when lit properly it was beautiful. Was I blown away? No, I was impressed, not blown away. Is this upgrade worth almost $10K? For some its a no brainer, but for me, its not a question about what I think but what do my clients think, and to be honest I don't think they'll notice the difference, not $10K worth of difference. From a business stand point, Dragon wouldn't double the rental rate of my Epic, so cannot justify it like that. It's my images that make me money and future referrals, not what I shot them with.

I will probably be pulling the trigger on the upgrade eventually, but I want to wait and see where this is all going first.
Am I demanding? Heck no, it's my hard earned $10k after all, but I am conflicted.
 
Hey Marcos, yep sure man, I hear you loud and clear :) Problem is, this isn't the post for that...I created this one in an attempt to build a simplified list of facts that separate the two cameras, regardless of what specs were stated and regardless of what people think of the upgrade.

Would you mind starting a new one and I'll respond better there?
 
Matthew Scott said:
> Dynamic Range (new, currently shipping OLPF)
Dragon has 1 and a half stops MORE reach into the highlights than the MX, with a nicer roll-off.
Dragon has the same, if not LESS of a reach into under-exposure than MX, but with a nicer noise pattern.
Click to expand...

Whoa! I thought there was 3 stops and not 1.5 stops more highlight protection with the NEW OLPF?
I thought the 1.5 was with the original Dragon OLPF.
 
Dragon is a beautiful image with Super Speed lenses. I don't know how the sensor performs with any other combo... I don't really care about any other combo... I'm happy, this is good enough to make movies.

What I notice: Colors are rich, the image has a creamy feel, more organic. Probably helped by my lens choice. I feel skin tones are easy, and natural. The new sensor has smaller pixels than the MX. I think this makes a difference. I'm also noticing higher compression ratios 10:1 look just as good as 5:1 on some shots.

The disappointment is low light performance. I was hoping for a major advance for "seeing into the darkness" but it's small. We need more light sensitive cameras, as going with faster lenses creates focusing challenges. But this is just a dream I've had for a long time and the reality is that scenes must be lit, the camera is good enough.

There's always more I'm uncovering, more testing to be done, more to share. It's great we have a camera that's light, compact and updated frequently. It's been a good buy, if for nothing else, because of the friendships and challenges I've found and overcome.

Switching out the OLPF is going to be a nice little perk too.
 
Will Keir said:
Dragon is a beautiful image with Super Speed lenses. I don't know how the sensor performs with any other combo... I don't really care about any other combo... I'm happy, this is good enough to make movies.

What I notice: Colors are rich, the image has a creamy feel, more organic. Probably helped by my lens choice. I feel skin tones are easy, and natural. The new sensor has smaller pixels than the MX. I think this makes a difference. I'm also noticing higher compression ratios 10:1 look just as good as 5:1 on some shots.

The disappointment is low light performance. I was hoping for a major advance for "seeing into the darkness" but it's small. We need more light sensitive cameras, as going with faster lenses creates focusing challenges. But this is just a dream I've had for a long time and the reality is that scenes must be lit, the camera is good enough.

There's always more I'm uncovering, more testing to be done, more to share. It's great we have a camera that's light, compact and updated frequently. It's been a good buy, if for nothing else, because of the friendships and challenges I've found and overcome.

Switching out the OLPF is going to be a nice little perk too.
Click to expand...

For sure Will! I'm not doubting the camera and how awesome it is, not for a second. I'm just trying to create a comparative list that isn't backed up by colorful descriptive language, rather measured and comparable results or words from the mouth of RED :) This way, this thread doesn't turn into a thread like the many out there already, which seem to boil down to discussions about peoples "feeling" towards the camera and how it feels compared to MX. Not to take anything away from that, because it is an important aspect, but not very useful when it comes to spending $10K+ or more :) Glad you're happy with your purchase and I'm excited for you....jealous even.
 
Hehehe. Sorry Matthew, thought I was being helpful.

Matthew Scott said:
For sure Will! I'm not doubting the camera and how awesome it is, not for a second. I'm just trying to create a comparative list that isn't backed up by colorful descriptive language, rather measured and comparable results or words from the mouth of RED :) This way, this thread doesn't turn into a thread like the many out there already, which seem to boil down to discussions about peoples "feeling" towards the camera and how it feels compared to MX. Not to take anything away from that, because it is an important aspect, but not very useful when it comes to spending $10K+ or more :) Glad you're happy with your purchase and I'm excited for you....jealous even.
Click to expand...
 
Im talking 6k ff on dragon compared to 5k ff on MX. I'm also talking about image detail in the r3d at full. I think that the lower compression on the dragon is quite detailed whereas the higher compression tends to also hold detail very well. It's hard to see any compression in REDcode and I haven't been able to see a visual difference.

Battistella

Matthew Scott said:
Thanks David :) Are your observations on shooting times recording at 5K on the Dragon, or 6K? And I know the benefits of shooting lower compression ratios, of course! I'm just curious as to what the improvements actually are. I'm thinking that maybe there's a perceived "better" compression at higher compression rates due to the down-sampling (from 6K down rather than 5K down). I could be wrong, but it would still be nice to know since it's being described as an advancement in the upgrade. Agreed about the IR cut (I'll ad it to the list).
Click to expand...
 
Matthew Scott said:
I haven't seen 3 stops above MX anywhere! Have you?
Click to expand...

Well, I thought many on this forum have indirectly said that the new OLPF for Dragon gave it the same highlight latitude above
middle gray at ISO 800 as the ALEXA which is 7 Stops.

So, how many stops above middle gray at ISO 800 do you think the Dragon with new OLPF has?
 
Martin Stevens said:
So, how many stops above middle gray at ISO 800 do you think the Dragon with new OLPF has?
Click to expand...

Less speculation is really needed about this. How many do you see here:

phfx_redDragon_ISOExamples.jpg


Myself, Gavin, and Stacey have all posted individual measurements of various things. Xyla-21, individual measured patches, individual calibrated illuminated sources, etc......

The next question to ask is what are you looking at it? REDgamma4? REDlogFilm Flat? Curve? The next question is how are you looking at it? Color Space? Viewing Device?

Long and the short of it Red's description of 16+ is accurate. How much of that Dynamic Range at any given point in time will depend on your ISO rating and what sort of viewing Gamma/Curve you are utilizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top