ACS Weapon test

[Matthew J]

The reality is if you don't test the various OLPFs and ISO Ratings you don't get a total picture. There is an answer for noise tolerance and especially when performing A to B comparisons.

Something fun to try. Grab a Weapon. Shoot ISO 400, 800, and 1600 with all 3 OLPFs. Examine sensitivity, noise, Dynamic Range, DR above and below metered/measured 18% Gray, Highlight-Roll Off, etc.

This is kinda what I was thinking when I was looking at the test. Thanks to the guys who did it, but it's comparing a camera that can only be a stock camera to a camera that is super customizable depending on your situation. When you consider the different OLPF and ISO's you can do on the Dragon depending on your situation, it's not fair to compare it stock against against any other camera. It's like comparing film against an Alexa by only testing one film stock. There are different OLPF/Film stocks for different situations.

 

[Elsie N]

Disagree. Some of the out-and-out dumbest tests I've seen have been from people whose testing criteria are so arbitrary and obtuse that of course they'd never own the camera (or, in some cases, the lenses they put on the camera). What I have appreciated about Phil Holland's tests is that he not only looks at what happens at the extremes, but he also reports details that are meaningful in the middle. I've decided to ignore results from folks that look only at extremes and don't ground those findings with equally rigorous "normal" results. Speaking platitudes about "of course this is an extreme and you'd never do this normally" doesn't cut it. A valid test should cover the entire spectrum with equal care and diligence. There should be as much effort put into how good things can look as there is into how bad things can look. (Actually, much more effort should be put into the former than the latter, because it's always easier to do something wrong than it is to do it correctly.)

Surely there are other places where these tests are being performed by people who do not own either camera. That should give one an idea of the comparison (as long as you understand any shortcomings of the testing method.)



This being REDuser, I think breaking down the differences between OLPFs and settings is an invaluable test for those of us (the majority) who do not own Alexa cameras. Those who are subject to renting an Alexa vs Weapon are going to do their own tests anyway.

Michael, I think, taking my post as a whole rather than as a part, we probably agree?

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Michael, I think, taking my post as a whole rather than as a part, we probably agree?

Maybe, but more likely you agree with me ;-)

Let me elaborate with my own story of testing. Three years ago I rented a DRAGON to compare against a BMCC. I wanted to see for myself how the cost/benefit equation stacked up and then make purchasing decisions accordingly. I did what I thought was a good test (with DSC Chroma Du Monde charts and other objective references) and formed two conclusions: (1) the BMCC seemed to perform really well, except for a Moire problem, and (2) the results I was getting were not close to the hype nor some of the images I'd been seeing on RedUser. Fortunately I had elected for a long-term rental, and over time--weeks (that became months and years), I began to understand how best to feed the DRAGON. Its images kept getting better, and better, and better. And as I trained my eyes, I also began to see more and more weaknesses with the BMCC images. After a month of testing, I took the plunge and bought the DRAGON, selling off the BMCC which, new, was less than 1/10th the cost of the DRAGON.

Since then, I've only gotten better. And since then, WEAPON DRAGON has gotten better than EPIC DRAGON. I can see the extraordinary quality of images made by members of the RED Collective and have some vague understanding of how they did it. And I can see the utter crap that people shoot with DRAGON when they have just a weekend with the camera. I'm not willing to grant that the presumed objectivity that comes with not owning a camera trumps the potential bias that may affect somebody who has owned the camera for a while. That said, it's not impossible for a non-owner to produce a valid result. If the BBC does a WEAPON DRAGON test, I'm sure it will be a good test. There might be a few others who can do a similarly good job. But my own experience with DRAGON, and my own experience looking at countless videos of people trying to understand DRAGON, tells me that without lots of experience, the results will be questionable at best. And the problem is, most people don't know what they don't know. In which case, any lack of experience with DRAGON will lead to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Daniel Soderberg]

Great test, thanks! It was a little confusing they referred to Epic Dragon as 'Dragon' though. Both cameras have the 'Dragon' sensor.

 

[Elsie N]

Maybe, but more likely you agree with me ;-)

Let me elaborate with my own story of testing. Three years ago I rented a DRAGON to compare against a BMCC. I wanted to see for myself how the cost/benefit equation stacked up and then make purchasing decisions accordingly. I did what I thought was a good test (with DSC Chroma Du Monde charts and other objective references) and formed two conclusions: (1) the BMCC seemed to perform really well, except for a Moire problem, and (2) the results I was getting were not close to the hype nor some of the images I'd been seeing on RedUser. Fortunately I had elected for a long-term rental, and over time--weeks (that became months and years), I began to understand how best to feed the DRAGON. Its images kept getting better, and better, and better. And as I trained my eyes, I also began to see more and more weaknesses with the BMCC images. After a month of testing, I took the plunge and bought the DRAGON, selling off the BMCC which, new, was less than 1/10th the cost of the DRAGON.

Since then, I've only gotten better. And since then, WEAPON DRAGON has gotten better than EPIC DRAGON. I can see the extraordinary quality of images made by members of the RED Collective and have some vague understanding of how they did it. And I can see the utter crap that people shoot with DRAGON when they have just a weekend with the camera. I'm not willing to grant that the presumed objectivity that comes with not owning a camera trumps the potential bias that may affect somebody who has owned the camera for a while. That said, it's not impossible for a non-owner to produce a valid result. If the BBC does a WEAPON DRAGON test, I'm sure it will be a good test. There might be a few others who can do a similarly good job. But my own experience with DRAGON, and my own experience looking at countless videos of people trying to understand DRAGON, tells me that without lots of experience, the results will be questionable at best. And the problem is, most people don't know what they don't know. In which case, any lack of experience with DRAGON will lead to erroneous conclusions.

O.K., I'll give you the win. '-)

 

[David Litchfield]

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect, as in, they do swap the sensor and you do not get a new one.

The move from Red One to Epic body got a brand new sensor. As someone who never did the Red One MX sensor upgrade, i'm sure I got the same trade in value as those that did. That wouldn't make sense, as that would have meant I got the upgraded sensor for free. Whereas a brand new sensor is factored in to the price. If someone from Red is reading they could answer one way or another.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

David,

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my statements. Let me quote from my own post "...but based on no hard evidence I suspect the sensor may have had some tweaks. How much the sensor is involved or the DSP in improved performance we will probably never know unless Red interjects...." Firstly no where have I said the camera has a new sensor and you should stop saying that I have. I have merely suggested it is a possibility that the Dragon Sensor may have been "tweaked" in the Weapon but have made it more than clear that this is only conjecture and I clearly state I have no hard evidence. *


Yes this is not a comprehensive test of the Weapon as the Podacst was designed to be an introduction to the Weapon for the majority of cinematographers who are not regular Redusers or even necessarily regular Red camera users. I will admit the Podacst is flawed in some details because we have had to leave out so much information to keep the length reasonable. For brevity and to avoid confusion we also chose to test only a single parameter. Add more parameters and the work load and complexity increases exponentially. We chose a more practical rather than scientific approach to our test because of Phil Hollands excellent prior testing which we did not need feel the need to repeat.

David disparaging the ACS as an organisation is totally uncalled for simply because the Podcast does not meet your expectations and frankly is not the behavior I expected from a moderator? I am merely a cinematographer not a TV presenter which should be obvious but this Podcast we have shared still cost myself and other volunteers weeks of our summer holidays . I have shot Red and Alexa's on multiple features with budgets up to 120 million and too many TVC's to count so I do know these cameras but yes I am guilty of mispronouncing OLPF.


There are so many way to skin the cat and it makes producing these tests very tough. So maybe the detractors should organise some tests themselves that you can share with the community? Why not be positive and instead of complaining about what they did not test. Do it yourself and add to the collective knowledge? The OLPF question and how it affects camera performance and dynamic range seems to be an obvious one. I hope to see this soon as I am as interested as anyone.




*In Jarred's own statement on the Weapon Sensor 14/12/15 "………….Better sensor board designs, better components and better connections between them make for a noticeable improvement in image quality, From the highlights to the noise floor, improved sensor streaking, and better control of temperature variances. We also designed a completely new sensor cover glass……" Whether these constitute a change however small to the Dragon Sensor is open to interpretation?

 

[David Battistella]

By and large my statements and opinions (which mods are allowed to have) stem from the written part of the thread and some inaccuracies. And all I basically did was state factually that a private user and fellow mod like Phil Holland has provided tests that are less comparative and (IMO)more usefull than those presented by a professional cinematography organisation. Or a test like Geoff Boyle's where all of the files are provided, for download and to see etc. It s fair if you want to take that as disparaging.

As other users in this thread have duley mentioned, there is a lot more to understand within the complete and open system that RED has provided cinematographers than a first look comparative test. The comparison has value when seeing Weapon Dragon along side EPIC Dragon from an out of the box perspective. But the focus becomes TOP stops when you throw the Alexa in there and record everything out of the box and as you see the focus of the discussion quickly turned to how the "Alexa has more in the top end" or users trying to show ways in which the DR is distributed.

As a mod i have seen plenty of "tests" and as a director DP I have done my fair share of tests, with the camera's I have owned (every RED since day one). When I have a chance to share again I will, in the meantime I will just continue to share here on Reduser like I have attempted to do since the start.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the comparison video posted, I just hold organisations to a slightly higher standard, as I think should be the case.

David

 

[Ruff]

Thank you Tom Gleeson and the ACS.

I really appreciated the video and the effort that was put in.

For me, the information was excellent and on point with what I need to know.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

Tom and FXPHD thank you for your efforts.Really liked the test.Hope to see more tests like this.Please ignore unnecessary comments.

 

[Nick Morrison]

David,

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my statements. Let me quote from my own post "...but based on no hard evidence I suspect the sensor may have had some tweaks. How much the sensor is involved or the DSP in improved performance we will probably never know unless Red interjects...." Firstly no where have I said the camera has a new sensor and you should stop saying that I have. I have merely suggested it is a possibility that the Dragon Sensor may have been "tweaked" in the Weapon but have made it more than clear that this is only conjecture and I clearly state I have no hard evidence. *


Yes this is not a comprehensive test of the Weapon as the Podacst was designed to be an introduction to the Weapon for the majority of cinematographers who are not regular Redusers or even necessarily regular Red camera users. I will admit the Podacst is flawed in some details because we have had to leave out so much information to keep the length reasonable. For brevity and to avoid confusion we also chose to test only a single parameter. Add more parameters and the work load and complexity increases exponentially. We chose a more practical rather than scientific approach to our test because of Phil Hollands excellent prior testing which we did not need feel the need to repeat.

David disparaging the ACS as an organisation is totally uncalled for simply because the Podcast does not meet your expectations and frankly is not the behavior I expected from a moderator? I am merely a cinematographer not a TV presenter which should be obvious but this Podcast we have shared still cost myself and other volunteers weeks of our summer holidays . I have shot Red and Alexa's on multiple features with budgets up to 120 million and too many TVC's to count so I do know these cameras but yes I am guilty of mispronouncing OLPF.


There are so many way to skin the cat and it makes producing these tests very tough. So maybe the detractors should organise some tests themselves that you can share with the community? Why not be positive and instead of complaining about what they did not test. Do it yourself and add to the collective knowledge? The OLPF question and how it affects camera performance and dynamic range seems to be an obvious one. I hope to see this soon as I am as interested as anyone.




*In Jarred's own statement on the Weapon Sensor 14/12/15 "………….Better sensor board designs, better components and better connections between them make for a noticeable improvement in image quality, From the highlights to the noise floor, improved sensor streaking, and better control of temperature variances. We also designed a completely new sensor cover glass……" Whether these constitute a change however small to the Dragon Sensor is open to interpretation?

Tom you don't have to defend yourself. It was an excellent test, and a great introduction to Weapon for the masses - which I think was your point/aim.

We can't be all things to all people. And thats ok. Considering more detailed "tests" are also much harder to watch (30 mins of exposures accompanied by music are only for the strong willed and deeply intereste)...I thought your on camera commentary was insightful snd engrossing.

And yes...Tests like these take time (and often money)...so for that in particular...thanks so much!!

Best

 

[Nick Morrison]

David,

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented my statements. Let me quote from my own post "...but based on no hard evidence I suspect the sensor may have had some tweaks. How much the sensor is involved or the DSP in improved performance we will probably never know unless Red interjects...." Firstly no where have I said the camera has a new sensor and you should stop saying that I have. I have merely suggested it is a possibility that the Dragon Sensor may have been "tweaked" in the Weapon but have made it more than clear that this is only conjecture and I clearly state I have no hard evidence. *


Yes this is not a comprehensive test of the Weapon as the Podacst was designed to be an introduction to the Weapon for the majority of cinematographers who are not regular Redusers or even necessarily regular Red camera users. I will admit the Podacst is flawed in some details because we have had to leave out so much information to keep the length reasonable. For brevity and to avoid confusion we also chose to test only a single parameter. Add more parameters and the work load and complexity increases exponentially. We chose a more practical rather than scientific approach to our test because of Phil Hollands excellent prior testing which we did not need feel the need to repeat.

David disparaging the ACS as an organisation is totally uncalled for simply because the Podcast does not meet your expectations and frankly is not the behavior I expected from a moderator? I am merely a cinematographer not a TV presenter which should be obvious but this Podcast we have shared still cost myself and other volunteers weeks of our summer holidays . I have shot Red and Alexa's on multiple features with budgets up to 120 million and too many TVC's to count so I do know these cameras but yes I am guilty of mispronouncing OLPF.


There are so many way to skin the cat and it makes producing these tests very tough. So maybe the detractors should organise some tests themselves that you can share with the community? Why not be positive and instead of complaining about what they did not test. Do it yourself and add to the collective knowledge? The OLPF question and how it affects camera performance and dynamic range seems to be an obvious one. I hope to see this soon as I am as interested as anyone.




*In Jarred's own statement on the Weapon Sensor 14/12/15 "………….Better sensor board designs, better components and better connections between them make for a noticeable improvement in image quality, From the highlights to the noise floor, improved sensor streaking, and better control of temperature variances. We also designed a completely new sensor cover glass……" Whether these constitute a change however small to the Dragon Sensor is open to interpretation?

Tom, IMHO you have nothing to defend. It was an excellent test, and a great introduction to Weapon for the masses - which I think was your point/aim.

We can't be all things to all people. And thats ok. What David is looking for makes sense (for exacting professionals)...but considering more detailed "tests" are also much harder to watch (30 mins of exposures accompanied by music are only for the strong willed and deeply interested)...I thought your on camera commentary was insightful and engrossing....especially for a wider audience (which again, I think was your intent).

And yes...tests like these take time (and often money)...so for that in particular...thanks so much!!

Best