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 :)

Alexa vs. Dragon vs. MX

Sometimes the best example is an actual production. I'm about to start a movie that is being shot anamorphic on Alexa XT and Dragon. The A camera is Alexa and the Dragon will be used for Movi which there will be a lot of for one of our locations. So it will become apparent quickly whether the cameras can be intercut. I'm not too concerned about it if that's any indication. :-)
 
Anyone else noticed that the alexa did not play nice with this guy's skin? He always looked pretty much overexposed, gray, and just plain dull no matter the exposure. The Dragon seemed to capture the skintones much better and gave a pleasant rendering of them. Of course, this is also, I would guess, without makeup. But it's really funny that the Alexa never seemed to change much on the skin. The Dragon and the MX had the skin get darker/lighter depending on the exposure, but it's like the Alexa tries (almost like a power window) to keep it at a certain level no matter the exposure. Am I crazy?
 
Sulekh Suman said:
Matt,
Grapevine has it that it would be a 4:3 sensor! Will it be game over. I think not:)
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that?! A true 2x anamorphic and still have the ability to window down to 16x9. FF is the direction RED is going as well. So that is forward thinking... You could shoot an entire anamorphic film at 12,800ISO with no additional lighting. That to me is amazing...
 
Its crazy that they are rating the MX sensor at 12 stops and dragon at 13.5. I don't have a Dragon yet but that seems a bit disappointing. Especially with all the talk of noise at 800 iso. I know they are working on fixing it. But I really expected Dragon to beat the Alexa in DR with all the talk around here of 16+ stops.
 
Joseph Coleman said:
Its crazy that they are rating the MX sensor at 12 stops and dragon at 13.5. I don't have a Dragon yet but that seems a bit disappointing. Especially with all the talk of noise at 800 iso. I know they are working on fixing it. But I really expected Dragon to beat the Alexa in DR with all the talk around here of 16+ stops.
Click to expand...

4 years old ALEV III CMOS still kicking it..
 
Matt Ryan said:
Got this in my email last week.
Click to expand...

I have been in contact with Tom and I also believe he is in contact with Red now. I have forwarded him some information. This number is more or less based on the older published Mysterium-X value.


Also, I think something is actually up with this test now that I've really looked at it. The interior Alexa ISO 800 image is nearly a stop under. There's a few other things I can pick out too. Just dropped a note on their Vimeo page.
 
Matt Ryan said:
Put it in a F5/55 body, global shutter, built in ND's, 16bit processing, RAW + xavc simultaneous recording = game over.....
Click to expand...
well the dropped the fs100 to 2500$....and they have everything in terms of tech....
i honestly think that if they wanted to they could kill anyone on price....but i guess that would be an issue with all their dslr and low and mid range cameras.....
that said: i am pretty sure this will see the light of day sooner then later.....and by then they will improve on even that sensor....4k + at 10000+ iso 14 stops dr....
 
Im skeptical of the 14stops of DR. I admire Sony greatly, but the have been known at times to bend numbers (as many corps do).

In this particular case, the test hasn't been published, and the testers seem to admit what's referred to as "usable DR" may be subjective (ie how much noise they find usable or not). One of the commentators on the thread, who owns a C300 and A7, said the following, which I appreciated. Take or leave it:

The A7s looks shadows are so noisy that you really need to crush them in post – getting you down to the C300′s usable 12 stops in practice. That said, to a layman, looking at both cameras, even staring at the images closely – you’d think they were the same. That’s how close the A7s and C300 really are.
Click to expand...

I'm not knocking the A7. It seems like a great camera, but the A7 also appears handicapped by certain important limitations: extreme rolling shutter, 8 bit, etc. It would seem Sony focused the camera to be good at some things (lowlight, DR), at the expense of others.

But kudos to Sony for investing in new sensors, and pushing the market. Curious to see how these innovations trickle into their cinema line.
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
Im skeptical of the 14stops of DR. I admire Sony greatly, but the have been known at times to bend numbers (as many corps do).

In this particular case, the test hasn't been published, and the testers seem to admit what's referred to as "usable DR" may be subjective (ie how much noise they find usable or not). One of the commentators on the thread, who owns a C300 and A7, said the following, which I appreciated. Take or leave it:



I'm not knocking the A7. It seems like a great camera, but the A7 also appears handicapped by certain important limitations: extreme rolling shutter, 8 bit, etc. It would seem Sony focused the camera to be good at some things (lowlight, DR), at the expense of others.

But kudos to Sony for investing in new sensors, and pushing the market. Curious to see how these innovations trickle into their cinema line.
Click to expand...

the A7 (and A7r) are completely different cameras....all are FF, A7 is 24mpix, A7r is 36mpix, A7s is 12mpix.....
don't know about the A7 but the A7r sensor (also used in the nikon d800, d800e and now d810) has a measurable 14+ stops DR in raw....any review of any of these cameras will tell you that...
the A7s obviously has much larger pixels and is optimized for high iso and sony has actually claimed 15+ stops dr in raw stills.....since the camera is brand new only few reports are trickling out....http://www.eoshd.com has a rolling review and people are finding some pretty interesting solutions(James Miller adds £167 hardware 4K scaler box to Sony A7S with stunning results)
i am obviously not taking the camera too seriously but the sensor (and sony's sensors in general lately) is top notch.....and they are just getting started....
i don't doubt that the footage straight out of camera is not comparable to the C300....but then again, it really should not be at all.....2000 vs 12000 (only after another price drop)....
the funny thing is that canon started this whole dslr thing and now they are getting way behind.....
 
the worst thing about this comparison is that in order to convince people to switch form the status quo they know and are happy with (alexa) you really have to blow them away....in all honesty: who looks at that and just HAS to shoot their next thing on dragon?
 
Matthew Scott said:
The cameras are so similar that if someone did a test the way you ask, you would not be able to tell the difference, or if you could, the difference could be shifted and modified either way to compensate the difference. No what I mean? I love these tests that are popping up everywhere because they truly show that even with a scarlet, you can acquire results just like the best in the biz do.
Click to expand...

Here here
 
We did a side by side analysis of Arri Raw and Dragon with the new OLPF earlier this year in LA and I have to agree with Fletcher's chart concerning the dynamic range. This test from David Stump, ASC from last Cinegear is very telling.
 
paul schefz said:
well the dropped the fs100 to 2500$....and they have everything in terms of tech....
i honestly think that if they wanted to they could kill anyone on price....but i guess that would be an issue with all their dslr and low and mid range cameras.....
that said: i am pretty sure this will see the light of day sooner then later.....and by then they will improve on even that sensor....4k + at 10000+ iso 14 stops dr....
Click to expand...

The rolling shutter on this camera is pretty horrible. I'm too used to global shutter now, although for certain uses this cam is tempting.
 
Scott Pultz said:
The rolling shutter on this camera is pretty horrible. I'm too used to global shutter now, although for certain uses this cam is tempting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but with a faster readout and with 16bit processing this thing could thrive in an F5/55 body with a global shutter as well. I'm sure this will be the next Sony camera we see...
 
Sulekh Suman said:
We did a side by side analysis of Arri Raw and Dragon with the new OLPF earlier this year in LA and I have to agree with Fletcher's chart concerning the dynamic range. This test from David Stump, ASC from last Cinegear is very telling.
Click to expand...

Wasn't this test with Epic MX?
 
Matthew Scott said:
The cameras are so similar that if someone did a test the way you ask, you would not be able to tell the difference, or if you could, the difference could be shifted and modified either way to compensate the difference. No what I mean? I love these tests that are popping up everywhere because they truly show that even with a scarlet, you can acquire results just like the best in the biz do.
Click to expand...


Then why do tests at all? We are never going to leave footage with a raw washed out look. By your reasoning you are also in some way saying that the upgrade between Epic and Dragon isn't worth it, since a final production won't be much of a difference.

But no, there will be differences. I have been able to pinpoint what was shot on Red and what was shot on Alexa when watching movies and television. There are differences.
My point is that I don't understand these tests because it's like looking at unprocessed film and judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top