Another STH v LLO Thread

[David Battistella]

Phil,

I like that you use the terms texture and energy. Others call that noise, I call it grain and it does change the characteristics of a moving image to create a different kind of emotional response.

Each job requirement is different and it is good to have both "looks" at our disposal. Given the choice I really prefer the STH in motion and the option of DEB, when needed.

Battistella

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Phil,

I like that you use the terms texture and energy. Others call that noise, I call it grain and it does change the characteristics of a moving image to create a different kind of emotional response.

Each job requirement is different and it is good to have both "looks" at our disposal. Given the choice I really prefer the STH in motion and the option of DEB, when needed.

Battistella

I feel that there's a difference between grain and noise. Noise is digital and grain is physical. If I want grain I rather shoot clean and add grain simulation in post, because it creates a smoother and more organic feel.
Although Dragon has better looking noise than the MX.

 

[Bob Gundu]

This is just me, but there is something so dishonest about adding grain in post.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil,

I like that you use the terms texture and energy. Others call that noise, I call it grain and it does change the characteristics of a moving image to create a different kind of emotional response.

Each job requirement is different and it is good to have both "looks" at our disposal. Given the choice I really prefer the STH in motion and the option of DEB, when needed.

Battistella

Yep. Grain, texture, noise. You can call it a lot of things.

When wiggling down into the stick details there is a difference between Chromatic Noise and Luminance Noise and what that is. Oddly, film is full of "colorful" noise and grain texture.

However, anybody who has shot with a Nikon/Sony and Canon DSLR can tell you the difference between Chromatic and Luminance noise as the on board noise reduction techniques are mainly different in that specific way between those manufacturers.

Interestingly enough in Red world, DEB exists. And in a slightly different way it changes the character of the noise itself.

I only care about what people see and texture is about how "energetic" it is on screen and just how the audience responds to it. A complete lack of texture feels sometimes too sterile and sometimes makes people feel uncomfortable even. Too much texture and people are distracted by the noise, unless it's used as a global aesthetic which tends to "blend" into the background during the course of a film.

I feel that there's a difference between grain and noise. Noise is digital and grain is physical. If I want grain I rather shoot clean and add grain simulation in post, because it creates a smoother and more organic feel.
Although Dragon has better looking noise than the MX.

You aren't wrong about Dragon looking better than Mysterium-X in regards to noise/texture/grain. Red clearly changed things up to make it feel a bit more organic. They might even be doing something with variance of voltage on a pixel level to create that effect. It's unknown, but it doesn't feel too digital by any means.

And that's actually the point I totally get about Dragon. It's really the least digital feeling digital cinema camera on the market when you add up all of the features.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Hey everyone, sorry to be absent from this thread - thank you very much for all the insights so far!

Just to clarify - my whole reason of doing this is to find out how much work needs to be done in post to the image (and also see why I'm getting a greenish look with the STH). As I understand it, the DragonColor2 and REDGamma4 settings in-camera are there so you don't have to really work an image much if you're looking to just go with a LUT and run with it.

It seems like I'll need to do this test again with much more consistent lighting and sensor temp just to be sure, so I'll post some other images tonight with results.

I'll be shooting at 3200K tonight with both OLPFs under an Arri kit. In my mind (and as David and others have put it) - the OLPFs should be akin to film stock, so it gives a different look, but not need a new blackshading. Mostly, I'm looking to make sure the light-green tint isn't there on the STH.

Additionally, I went ahead and added another photo to the dropbox from the STH - this time, the face is hands-free!

And yes, David - that's my son! About 3 or 4 months old when the avatar picture was taken - now he's 4 1/2!

 

[Aaron McLane]

Based on the pics it looks like the STH is giving the kid a headache much like it does for us. I think a good rule of thumb is when you want highlights in the background to look really filmic use the STH, everything else LL

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I'm a little curious about those who say that the LLO makes Dragon look like MX. Is the OLPF really THAT bad at fixing the colors? I actually work more with dark images than light images, so if I have a better handling of dark areas in an image that might be a good thing. I like to do night shots with available light, because I don't like "a lit feeling" on night scenes. Even though there are so many who say that the STH is better, I really feel that it's only showing it's best behavior when you have tons of light, shoot in daylight or studio. If you're in the dark, with practicals or you need to push the sensor a little more than you might want, it would be much better with the LLO. There's so much I can do in Resolve just with the MX so the LLO will certainly be a drastic improvement, no?

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm a little curious about those who say that the LLO makes Dragon look like MX. Is the OLPF really THAT bad at fixing the colors? I actually work more with dark images than light images, so if I have a better handling of dark areas in an image that might be a good thing. I like to do night shots with available light, because I don't like "a lit feeling" on night scenes. Even though there are so many who say that the STH is better, I really feel that it's only showing it's best behavior when you have tons of light, shoot in daylight or studio. If you're in the dark, with practicals or you need to push the sensor a little more than you might want, it would be much better with the LLO. There's so much I can do in Resolve just with the MX so the LLO will certainly be a drastic improvement, no?

The LLO OLPF makes Dragon "behave" more like Mysterium-X in the sense that potential artifacts that are rather familiar to MX shooters like the smaller aperture point source Red Dot Grid pattern that can be created. Though it can be certainly shot around.

The color itself on Dragon is better than Mysterium-X and that's where you are getting most of the good color "meat".

Between the two official OLPFS there is no one that is better, there is only the one that is better for your needs/wants/desires.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm a little curious about those who say that the LLO makes Dragon look like MX. Is the OLPF really THAT bad at fixing the colors? I actually work more with dark images than light images, so if I have a better handling of dark areas in an image that might be a good thing. I like to do night shots with available light, because I don't like "a lit feeling" on night scenes. Even though there are so many who say that the STH is better, I really feel that it's only showing it's best behavior when you have tons of light, shoot in daylight or studio. If you're in the dark, with practicals or you need to push the sensor a little more than you might want, it would be much better with the LLO. There's so much I can do in Resolve just with the MX so the LLO will certainly be a drastic improvement, no?

Christoffer, I'm sort of in your camp. We shoot A LOT of offspeed, and are always short on light. So the LLO would make much more sense for our projects. For studio/narrative Skintone makes sense though...

 

[Daniel Reed]

Good point.

I'm referring to the look more straight off the camera w/minimal tweaks.

In terms of the F65, I have no experience w/ native files off it (only graded examples like Oblivion).

So, you don't like the look of Oblivion and Lucy? F65 has the best colors of any camera in my opinion.

 

[David Battistella]

When I say the LLO is more akin to mx it is about where the stops fall and the clipping point. It's about behaviour and feel. With the sth, you really can open up a lot more because of how the stops are mapped and it feels like a different camera than I was used to after years with the MX sensor.

When I got the LLO it "felt" more like being back on mx because I was watching the highlights again and because of how the stops are mapped lower the clipping point "felt" more similar to the mx. With either OLPF the dragon is superior. While both OLPFs can be intercut and matched one clearly favours the highlights and one favours the shadows, after that it is taste thing, like film stocks and filtering.

Battistella

 

[Sean Cruser]

i'm currently shooting a feature film and i'm in the crazy minority who really digs the texture and look of the STH OLPF for lowlight/high ISO work.

here's a still shot developed at iso2000 DC2/RedLogFilm with curve and only DEB applied.

let the debate rage on!!

 

[Björn Benckert]

i'm currently shooting a feature film and i'm in the crazy minority who really digs the texture and look of the STH OLPF for lowlight/high ISO work.

here's a still shot developed at iso2000 DC2/RedLogFilm with curve and only DEB applied.

let the debate rage on!!

I dont know if 2000 iso can really be classified as high ISO?

Here is a LLOLPF 6k frame at 6800ISO, I think it has about the same texture, no?


https://www.flickr.com/photos/107237384@N04/12661366033/sizes/o/

Here is another one also LLOLPF but in tungsten an 6800ISO
https://www.flickr.com/photos/107237384@N04/12546637984/
and here is the same frame at 5600K just to show.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/107237384@N04/12546448695/

 

[Niko Pueringer]

LLO is amazing. Have been shooting on it all week. The color is still leagues better than MX, but you gain an extra stop or two in sensitivity as well.

When people discuss how the STH lets them open up more, part of me thinks they're basically complimenting the OLPF for acting like an ND filter.

If you have too much light, and want the camera to be less sensitive, get the STH. If you want the camera to be noticeably more sensitive than MX, get the LLO. The color difference is very minor, and takes a very experienced and discerning eye to notice. To me the better sensitivity is far more beneficial.

 

[David Battistella]

kit. In my mind (and as David and others have put it) - the OLPFs should be akin to film stock, so it gives a different look, but not need a new blackshading. Mostly, I'm looking to make sure the light-green tint isn't there on the STH.

Additionally, I went ahead and added another photo to the dropbox from the STH - this time, the face is hands-free
And yes, David - that's my son! About 3 or 4 months old when the avatar picture was taken - now he's 4 1/2!

Cool,

Thanks for adding the extra pic. Just i see a lot of marble here and it can cast some interesting color reflections. The LLO definitely pushes the skin tones toward the pinkish tone and you can see that in the reds of the wood.

The color brown and wood tones like skin are quite challenging to reproduce and the chairs in the LLO example ring as a bit red to me. Film has always kinda nailed that natural look of brown. The brown tones in film really set it apart. In wood, like skin, the Reds and yellow mixtures are tricky to reproduce. Sometimes to get good Browns it leans a bit toward green compared to the reds.

In in the end it's what you find pleasing or "correct" to your eye.

nice to see these comparisons. It's a good discussion.

Pretty soon your boy might be operating the camera!

 

[Björn Benckert]

Talking about LLOLPF and Skinetone OLPF... I saw Better Call Sall latest episode last night... I don't know what it was but it looked like a clear difference from previous episodes, more noise and more burnt out windows etc... To me an over all impression of less image quality then the previous episodes. I did not look at the credits, possibly a different DP or such or just a different approach then from the previus episodes. But thinking when the production was done etc I thinking maybe they swapped olpfs. Thinking it match pretty good in time when the swappable olpfs came out, no?

This is just me speculating and possibly it´s just that I saw it on a different laptop/screen.... did any one else see this?

 

[Christopher-lee dos Santo]

Talking about LLOLPF and Skinetone OLPF... I saw Better Call Sall latest episode last night... I don't know what it was but it looked like a clear difference from previous episodes, more noise and more burnt out windows etc... To me an over all impression of less image quality then the previous episodes. I did not look at the credits, possibly a different DP or such or just a different approach then from the previus episodes. But thinking when the production was done etc I thinking maybe they swapped olpfs. Thinking it match pretty good in time when the swappable olpfs came out, no?

This is just me speculating and possibly it´s just that I saw it on a different laptop/screen.... did any one else see this?

I also watched it last night. To be honest... it looked horrible. Burnt out whites, pale white/blue tinge to everything. I was thinking, what the hell happened? This looks like crap.

Glad I am not the only one who thought this.

With that being said. My director of photography and I did a recent test last week with two Dragons for a feature film shoot. It is a low light test/makeup test. The film takes place predominantly underground. We did some OLPF tests with different ISO ratings starting from 800 and grading from redlog film, lighting only with a candle and/or a LED torch from an iPhone. Camera A was LLO and Camera B was STH. We're talking major stress test for the cameras. I am thinking I should upload the comparison here for you guys to have a gander and shed your thoughts.

 

[Sergio Perez]

I also watched it last night. To be honest... it looked horrible. Burnt out whites, pale white/blue tinge to everything. I was thinking, what the hell happened? This looks like crap.

Glad I am not the only one who thought this.

With that being said. My director of photography and I did a recent test last week with two Dragons for a feature film shoot. It is a low light test/makeup test. The film takes place predominantly underground. We did some OLPF tests with different ISO ratings starting from 800 and grading from redlog film, lighting only with a candle and/or a LED torch from an iPhone. Camera A was LLO and Camera B was STH. We're talking major stress test for the cameras. I am thinking I should upload the comparison here for you guys to have a gander and shed your thoughts.

I think its a good idea. Phil did something similar, but its also great that other fellow users share here and discuss methodologies and results so that people become more informed and know how to cope with the 2 scenarios. This thread has been excellent and civil, so please do!

 

[Phil Holland]

I think its a good idea. Phil did something similar, but its also great that other fellow users share here and discuss methodologies and results so that people become more informed and know how to cope with the 2 scenarios. This thread has been excellent and civil, so please do!

It's a funny thing. Those rather exhaustive tests led to many discoveries regarding both OLPFs and how I shoot with them. I started thinking about them more like "variable film stocks" and came up with my general shooting logic as to when I would use one or the other. It was well worth doing. There's the technical answers and then there's the "me" answers and those tests really helped me lock things down.

The STH OLPF sings for me in the ISO 250-1280 range. I explore ISO 800-1280 when I really want subtle texture to be part of the image.

The LLO OLPF is the go to for any lower light shooting. Especially working in the ISO 800-2000 range. It's spooky clean at lower ISO ratings as well if that's needed.

The STH is what's on my camera more often than not for my way of shooting.

Either OLPF gives you damn good color with subtle tonality when exposed right. That thing I shot with wood turning was sort of the real hard stuff as there are many brown and near neutrals that are a pain in the butt for cameras to handle, but Dragon with the STH did that very well. It's something I know for a fact Mysterium-X doesn't do as well, especially when IRND or whatever is involved.

Also, having the dynamic range available to do things like keeping the shape of this bulb:

Is truly awesome.

 

[David Battistella]

That's what I'm talking about Phil!

i agree that this is a very civilized discussion. Let's try to keep it to how and when rather that this or that.

Constructive excellence. ill try to dig up some samples soon.