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 :)

All the Epic/Dragon Vs. Alexa/Sony threads are belong to us...

I'm sure they are going to tweak this... No reason to get to alarmed, but interesting still.

battsitella
 
David Battistella said:
I'm sure they are going to tweak this... No reason to get to alarmed, but interesting still.

battsitella
Click to expand...

and certainly also be interesting to see what will ADD
 
Gunleik Groven said:
very little i can think of with dragon is alarming or unpleasant if you have actually used one...
Click to expand...


Yes, I can only agree. To me Dragon as we got it with old OLPF, current color science and all, still outruns all other cameras I tested and it does so easily with a good margin so your right not much to be alarmed of. :)
 
jake blackstone said:
ARRIRAW by definition is just that-RAW, just like R3D. The main difference being, the ARRIRAW is uncompressed, where R3D is compressed. Otherwise, they are pretty much identical in the way, that they are both recordings of RAW sensor data. I have no idea why there is a need to constantly misrepresent ARRI camera technology.
And if you are going to compare the two cameras, then compare R3D with ARRIRAW and not Prores.
Click to expand...

With the XT upgrades more people are in fact shooting ARRIRAW, but AFAIK ProRes is still used on over 90% of Alexa jobs so I used that application for my comparison. This was not intended to mis-represent either camera's underlying technology - CMOS Bayer CFA S35-ish single sensor capture. My point was that the typical pipeline for Alexa jobs starts from a 1080/2K file that has already been processed to some degree vs RED jobs where the starting point (and what your eyes are telling you the image looks like via a particular decode/monitoring path) allows more freedom to finesse a nuanced result - or destroy the image - as the case may be.

I would point out Jake, that I put a qualifier in the first line of my post noting that my comments were based on NOT using ARRIRAW. You are, of course, correct that when comparing RAW pipelines the nature of the captured data sets are very similar. Unless you window the sensor, R3Ds have more pixels and more compression vs ARRIRAW which has fewer pixels and no wavelet compression. Each strategy has pros and cons.

What I wanted to add to the discussion is that basing one's evaluations of a camera's capabilities on a particular RGB "rendering" of the RAW data set is inherently limited. In particular, DR measurements of the derived RGB code values pulled from the RAW data via algorithms/matrices required to make a viewable picture are not precise representations of sensor voltages or "native" noise signatures. Once the decode dynamics are figured in, the evolution/optimization of the RGB rendering step becomes an integral part of the signal one is measuring - whether done in camera to a baked ProRes file or off camera to DPX. I thought it worth noting that the more mature Alexa ecosystem is more adept at rendering a HDR RGB picture in early 2014 than an Epic/Dragon/new OLPF decode that's still got that new algorithm smell.

Cheers - #19
 
Hello Luigi,

With all respect, are you sure you didn't mix up old and new Olpf as we usually get more green on the new Olpf? Or is it the motion mount that cast that green with the old olpf and red with the new one?

Thanks for your tests.

Pat

luigivaltulini said:
https://copy.com/fgwGUUKsM9gE
TEST_zpsf3a36379.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Tresch said:
Hello Luigi,

With all respect, are you sure you didn't mix up old and new Olpf as we usually get more green on the new Olpf? Or is it the motion mount that cast that green with the old olpf and red with the new one?

Thanks for your tests.

Pat
Click to expand...

CIao Pat ;) "thanks for info GL optics sigma.
, in fact, not to be mistaken I left the Carbon firmware 5.1.35 as you can see from the metadata. Instead, the new has new firmware 5.1.38, so it can not go wrong. And then be marked in metadata as an EPIC-M (carbon) and one EPIC-x (upgraded from x) ..
 
Loco,
I do not want to try ... hehe hehe
first I want to understand ..
 
Björn Benckert said:
Still dragon shines at 5000ASA... alexa dont...


https://vimeo.com/87794102


So to me you have to take resolution into account when you talk range. Dragon downscaled to 2k is slick at far higher iso's than alexa files at the same iso and 2k due to the huge downsampling going from 6k to 2k. So usable range is always something that has to be discussed together with resolution as noise goes up and down with image size.

Edit one more with lower iso... low like 2500 and differnet white balance... whenever 2500 ISO that became a low I do not know...

https://vimeo.com/87804971


This camera makes the street outside my office look like a backlot in hollywood.. :)
Click to expand...







Didja post the R3Ds?
 
I didn't realize DRX clipped the highs so much... At least a discernible stop between highlight detail and blown... Not useful detail, but better than clipping a stop early.

I'm thinking it might be better to desaturate 90+IRE and then add whatever tonality back via the grade.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Keep in mind the optimization of the Dragon/new OLPF combo is just beginning. The part of the signal chain where the bayer pattern data is turned into an RGB image by the algorithm is a key determinant of signal to noise ratio in the RGB image you are measuring.

Unless you are using a custom debayer of full raster ARRIRAW, the Alexa images you are evaluating have already been down sampled and made into RGB per internal processing crafted by ARRI to create "pleasing" pictures. This likely includes highlight compression, noise reduction, colorimetry offsets, etc (all carefully engineered to mimic Kodak 5219 spectral and density response characteristics).

RED pretty much just turns sensor output into a data file and writes it to storage. How the RGB image derived from that data looks on the monitor or what code values are written into an RGB format like DPX or ProRes is yet to be determined. This RAW development phase, starting with the decoding algorithm, is what determines how many stops one can measure in the derived RGB image one is using for comparison. ARRI has certainly improved their IQ over the last 4 years by optimizing the RAW>RGB processing metrics - and that's not just my opinion, it's what most colorists report. Assuming the newer tech in the Dragon sensor has better potential DR (highly likely), I'd expect the DR in the RGB derived image to continue to improve steadily over the next couple of years.

BTW, I really believe that in motion digital imaging applications using existing tech, signal to noise ratio is the more illuminating measuring stick - not the stops of DR found downstream of a selected processing path.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...





As Jake mentioned you have a tendency to misstate not only how the ALEXA works but how all modern digital cinema cameras work. There is absolutely nothing inherently unique about the EPIC or DRAGON or any other RED camera. The ALEXA shoots raw just like the DRAGON just like the F65. Let's keep it an even playing field.


And BTW, signal to noise ratio is a technical marketing metric. The stops of DR found "downstream" are what actually make a pretty picture.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
What I wanted to add to the discussion is that basing one's evaluations of a camera's capabilities on a particular RGB "rendering" of the RAW data set is inherently limited. In particular, DR measurements of the derived RGB code values pulled from the RAW data via algorithms/matrices required to make a viewable picture are not precise representations of sensor voltages or "native" noise signatures. Once the decode dynamics are figured in, the evolution/optimization of the RGB rendering step becomes an integral part of the signal one is measuring - whether done in camera to a baked ProRes file or off camera to DPX. I thought it worth noting that the more mature Alexa ecosystem is more adept at rendering a HDR RGB picture in early 2014 than an Epic/Dragon/new OLPF decode that's still got that new algorithm smell.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...




Though technically correct raw data is meaningless until developed into an image. Therefore the quest for "precise representations of sensor voltages or native noise signatures" is also meaningless. It's a package deal. Shooting raw is only making the pie. You need to bake it before you can begin discerning it's merits.
 
ok. chill. :)


dragon is good.
no point in dissing other cameras to say dragon is good.

afaik arri has publicly stated that the lowcon idea is not correct, and actually the double readout (which is fully public) could account for the alexa rolloff.... and then... so what the f***?

the cameras perform as they do, and there are plenty of image reasons to go with dragon as it is.

and even if alexa uses a lowcon, so what? :-)

it is of little significance.
is it not?

and as to alexa is shot at what % in prores or raw, where exepeience will vary by market (i guess)...
what does it matter?

or am i missing a point here?
 
Adrian Jebef said:
As Jake mentioned you have a tendency to misstate not only how the ALEXA works but how all modern digital cinema cameras work. There is absolutely nothing inherently unique about the EPIC or DRAGON or any other RED camera. (snip)
Click to expand...

So any automobile with an internal combustion engine and 4 wheels is inherently the same as any other?

IMO the actual sensor design/performance, how the analog voltages are assigned digital values, how the Bayer pattern data is interpreted by the decoding algorithm, the densities of the dyes on the CFA, color matrices and rendering intent all create meaningful differences between Alexa and Dragon imagery. Even if both are "RAW" I consider them inherently unique representations of scene referred values.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, I specifically noted in my posts that in deference to the popular use case - Alexa to Log-C ProRes - that specific pipeline shows the user a more processed image. It is certainly not the only way to view and evaluate Alexa footage, nor does it offer the maximum IQ, but AFIAK it's what over 90% of Alexa jobs are doing so it does impact perception if nothing else.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
So any automobile with an internal combustion engine and 4 wheels is inherently the same as any other?

IMO the actual sensor design/performance, how the analog voltages are assigned digital values, how the Bayer pattern data is interpreted by the decoding algorithm, the densities of the dyes on the CFA, color matrices and rendering intent all create meaningful differences between Alexa and Dragon imagery. Even if both are "RAW" I consider them inherently unique representations of scene referred values.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, I specifically noted in my posts that in deference to the popular use case - Alexa to Log-C ProRes - that specific pipeline shows the user a more processed image. It is certainly not the only way to view and evaluate Alexa footage, nor does it offer the maximum IQ, but AFIAK it's what over 90% of Alexa jobs are doing so it does impact perception if nothing else.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I don't particularly disagree with most of your statements, but if one is to use your logic, because I often get to grade Red material as a transcoded Prores, are we to arrive to the same conclusion, that Red is inferior camera to Alexa, because Alexa's Prores out of camera is better than transcoded R3D?:-)
All I'm saying, is if we're going to compare, let's compare same things- RAW to RAW or Prores to Prores…
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
So any automobile with an internal combustion engine and 4 wheels is inherently the same as any other?

IMO the actual sensor design/performance, how the analog voltages are assigned digital values, how the Bayer pattern data is interpreted by the decoding algorithm, the densities of the dyes on the CFA, color matrices and rendering intent all create meaningful differences between Alexa and Dragon imagery. Even if both are "RAW" I consider them inherently unique representations of scene referred values.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW, I specifically noted in my posts that in deference to the popular use case - Alexa to Log-C ProRes - that specific pipeline shows the user a more processed image. It is certainly not the only way to view and evaluate Alexa footage, nor does it offer the maximum IQ, but AFIAK it's what over 90% of Alexa jobs are doing so it does impact perception if nothing else.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...




"RAW" is not reality. A raw file can be recorded by two different cameras (Dragon R3D ALEXA .ari) but that does not mean they record "scene referred values" in the same way. And yes, any car w/ a combustible engine and 4 wheels is basically the same as any other. An electric car is inherently different. A hydrogen fuel-cell car is inherently different. The DRAGON and the ALEXA and the F65 are all based on the same type of technology and image science. They are different from each other but no where near as different as most like to think.


There is a lot of misconception surrounding the term "raw". Raw is not magic. It is not perfect. It is not the golden egg. It does not contain boundless amounts of information and highlight detail. It does not make your image better. It is not a cure. It is not always preferable over HD video. It is not technically superior. It will not come to your daughter's 5th birthday party.

Raw is unprocessed sensor data. It isn't even an image.

Here's a question: What is more important, a Canon raw frame from a 5D or Adobe Photoshop?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top