Available Light with Dragon

[Jan Reiff]

we did some tests today for a project this summer with custombikes -
if there is a noise discussion - discuss - i am out ...

i really like what i get with the Dragon

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645498784875/

there were conditions you would never accept for a shooting with a serious background, but every frame is usable, rich and the colors are great

i had to push my 7R up to high ISO to get the image with the dog, and there is noise too.

when you expose right, the Dragon gives you great images - it is not a low light wonder, it was never built for this (Red may correct me here) - expose it right, and you get lucky

the noise is very fine, and the new firmware will reduce the chroma noise, so it will be even better when you must shoot under this conditions.

the biggest step to MX is what i saw at the image with the bike on the hydraulic lift : only the ugly tungsten light from the top, but this image is so clean and sharp ...

in the image with the "indiana jones" hat, you see noise on the right, yes. but this is very pushed. it´s in the room of the lift, with light off (!!) - in a "serious" set, you always would light this area when you want to see something

the shots with the bike (at a window of course) are so clean in the native 6K file that you think it´s CGI ...

sorry, i don´t get into this panic around me ... the improvement of the new firmware is welcome, no doubt, but then we all should start to get the best out of Dragon, i am tired of testfootage too ;-)

 

[David Battistella]

Agree. Have a strategy. All your frames employ the use of available light in a correct way (by using available light to your advantage).

Correct on ETTR or rate lower, this camera sensor can be crisper than a 50D stock or as sexy as 500stock pushed a stop. Lots of possibilities.

Composition, using it to your advantage etc. the camera is not designed to perform low light miracles and severe underexposure will get you expected results. (Just sit in on one transfer of underexposed film to understand the repercussion of severe underexposure).

I think people should manage their extreme low light expectations, (it not a sony turbo gain eng type of camera) it's a filmmaking tool and the camera can do wonders in available light as your frames demonstrate.

Its really nice in tungsten and mixed light, huge advantage over MX

Cheers.
Battistella

 

[Jon Carr]

Looks Gorgeous. The color tones and skin tones look great. Loving the bike.

 

[Phil Holland]

Very pretty.

 

[Thomas Koch]

What was the ISO setting in camera?

 

[Jan Reiff]

always in "Raw" modus, just listening to the histogram. camera was set to iso 250 and i pushed up to 1600 - some stuff was massive underexposed, goal post left was full ;-)
but i am pretty sure with the new firmware it will be even better, as the grain itself is so fine and has a "better" character as the MX had - as said, i would never shoot like this for commercial, but for a portrait of this bikers i think even the rough and bit noisy parts are fine for the story ...

 

[Jon Carr]

always in "Raw" modus, just listening to the histogram. camera was set to iso 250 and i pushed up to 1600 - some stuff was massive underexposed, goal post left was full ;-)
but i am pretty sure with the new firmware it will be even better, as the grain itself is so fine and has a "better" character as the MX had - as said, i would never shoot like this for commercial, but for a portrait of this bikers i think even the rough and bit noisy parts are fine for the story ...

I'm not really understanding the noise goal post on dragon. It seems to be way more sensitive then the MX. I was shooting the Chappelle comeback tour at radio city with some dragons and epics and I was testing the dragon and a epic MX side by side after they been black shaded to temp. And the dragon goal post was much higher in the shadows then the MX. Yet the image on the dragon was cleaner.

 

[Ryan Hamblin]

probably cleaner due to the subsampling? so the down res makes noise smaller? But wouldn't that just about equal out once its all output?

 

[David Battistella]

I have a couple of theories on this goal post.

6k is that much larger than 5k. Since the noise goal post is basing its representation on how many pixel as are noise, it makes sense that the dragon goal post is higher because there are more pixels and more image area that could be indicating noise and sending that info to the goalpost.


The goal post is telling you how much noise is in the frame. This might need to be tweaked for dragon if red are using the same scale from the MX and applying it to the dragon sensor. It might need to be tweaked for the dragon sensor to have a response that is more like what we have come to expect from the noise goal post on the MX.

Its true, dragon noise goal post is higher, but the image is cleaner (visually) so at the moment it's a bit confusing but its actually working correctly.

Battistella

 

[Will Keir]

it is not a low light wonder

No it's not. Exposed properly, the images from Dragon are wonderful.

This is something that is hard to understand without the experience. Like myself, a group of people who own the RED, wanted a camera that could see into the darkness, my friend bought the camera hoping to film outside at night with moonlight only. These are the expectations people have, their hopes. Most film work needs lighting... Lots of us, without huge budgets, are looking for another way to make creative films... essentially dreams come true without spending twenty years to get there.

Some people, like me, buy expensive high speed lenses to shoot with available light. Still, this is not the answer. The depth of field is so shallow, to get the focus perfectly, takes skill, gear and a healthy portion of luck. Professionals, get lucky too but IMO a true professional can repeat fantastic results, like a science.

Having the opportunity to shoot with the Dragon and T1.3 fast lenses I can say a couple things:

1) Dragon Sensor + T1.3 lenses is more light in camera/monitor/NLE than the naked eye.

2) I have shot with ambient light with the same lenses, sun down, 250 ISO. The image is dark but I haven't noticed the blacks "dancing with flies" like I had with the R1, especially with higher FPS.

Eventually, you pick your gear, find your cast, hire your crew and you do the best you can with what you got and the skill level you have at the time. Expectations must shift and if you do something enough, skill will come, quality too.

I sometimes wonder where I would be, what I'd be doing, if I didn't join this Rebellion and it took everything I had to "buy-in." The reality of the present is that I have everything I need to make a feature film of the highest visual standards and this is a good ballpark to be in.

So thank you RED, Jim, Jarred and everyone else that takes our feedback, works to improve an already built system, filters out the overly harsh criticism and keeps moving forward. I've learned a lot and have appreciated every opportunity and outlet provided for my creative and technical expression and thanks especially to all my friends and colleagues here on RU, going strong for something like 8 years now, you are my inspiration to keep learning, growing and striving for excellence.

 

[Jan Reiff]

did you see the sticker on the close up of the motor J006_C001_07036I (on the right black box) ? heh heh ... Dragon ...

 

[Les Hillis]

Beautiful pictures Jan. Love the one with the dog. Thanks.

 

[Tristan Houghton]

Love the colour reproduction in mixed light sources....so excited to get mine!

 

[Brigham Edgar]

Not a low light wonder...well it should be. We were told directly from the boss himself that Dragon was iso2000 or at very least 800. There's no doubt this is a great sensor for imagery and highlights but if this low light performance is all it's going to be it's a step backward, not forwards. I always keep a RED rated as low as possible as they have NEVER been what they claimed...or maybe their noise tolerance is far higher than the majority, who knows. I'm yet to complete my testing of my dragon but I am certainly concerned with this issue as it's NOT what we were lead to believe.
But these are great examples of how clean it can be...maybe it's random cameras and batches? Afterall...that's definitely a RED production trait from day one.

 

[Phil Holland]

But these are great examples of how clean it can be...maybe it's random cameras and batches? Afterall...that's definitely a RED production trait from day one.

I stand on firm ground saying that the sensors are calibrated and consistent to specification. The images produced by one Dragon with the same OLPF and Calibration with a solid black shading match.

The biggest thing people are noticing is where the Calibration has moved with the newer OLPF. The trade off is better color, internal IR reflection cut, and additional highlight retention. It's been well discussed.

 

[Bohdan Klos]

Not a low light wonder...well it should be. We were told directly from the boss himself that Dragon was iso2000 or at very least 800. There's no doubt this is a great sensor for imagery and highlights but if this low light performance is all it's going to be it's a step backward, not forwards. I always keep a RED rated as low as possible as they have NEVER been what they claimed...or maybe their noise tolerance is far higher than the majority, who knows. I'm yet to complete my testing of my dragon but I am certainly concerned with this issue as it's NOT what we were lead to believe.
But these are great examples of how clean it can be...maybe it's random cameras and batches? Afterall...that's definitely a RED production trait from day one.

While it was advertised as something else - it is close. But the cigar is not being smoked.

 

[Dr. Sassi]

I'm not really understanding the noise goal post on dragon. It seems to be way more sensitive then the MX. I was shooting the Chappelle comeback tour at radio city with some dragons and epics and I was testing the dragon and a epic MX side by side after they been black shaded to temp. And the dragon goal post was much higher in the shadows then the MX. Yet the image on the dragon was cleaner.

Gavin and Graeme had a short discussion here on RU
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...olor-Science&p=1383132&viewfull=1#post1383132
Gavin had a graph there, Graeme commented to it "That's pretty good Gavin."

If I may, I would like to adapt this to the question of the goalposts.

If the mid-gray value (iso, etc) is set on both cameras in the same way, the lower and the higher values (where the curves starts in Gavin's graph) are further apart (in the Dragon compared to the MX).

My idea of these curves is, that the goalpost represents these curve areas. As they are further apart in the Dragon, let's say for simplicity 1.5 stops in each case.

The same post-level on both cameras, e.g., for the blacks, stands for a different stop-value. The value that is presented graphically equally in the Dragon goalpost is 1.5 stops below the MX.

This is my theory so far, based on the sources above. Correct me if I'm wrong. )

 

[Martin Stevens]

So........ If there is indeed an issue with the goalposts, then I wonder if the new firmware/calibration will fix this as well.

 

[Rob Macey]

Beautiful frames. I shot all tungsten today with my Dragon; gorgeous.

 

[Ricky Guing Senen]

No it's not. Exposed properly, the images from Dragon are wonderful.

This is something that is hard to understand without the experience. Like myself, a group of people who own the RED, wanted a camera that could see into the darkness, my friend bought the camera hoping to film outside at night with moonlight only. These are the expectations people have, their hopes. Most film work needs lighting... Lots of us, without huge budgets, are looking for another way to make creative films... essentially dreams come true without spending twenty years to get there.

Some people, like me, buy expensive high speed lenses to shoot with available light. Still, this is not the answer. The depth of field is so shallow, to get the focus perfectly, takes skill, gear and a healthy portion of luck. Professionals, get lucky too but IMO a true professional can repeat fantastic results, like a science.

Having the opportunity to shoot with the Dragon and T1.3 fast lenses I can say a couple things:

1) Dragon Sensor + T1.3 lenses is more light in camera/monitor/NLE than the naked eye.

2) I have shot with ambient light with the same lenses, sun down, 250 ISO. The image is dark but I haven't noticed the blacks "dancing with flies" like I had with the R1, especially with higher FPS.

Eventually, you pick your gear, find your cast, hire your crew and you do the best you can with what you got and the skill level you have at the time. Expectations must shift and if you do something enough, skill will come, quality too.

I sometimes wonder where I would be, what I'd be doing, if I didn't join this Rebellion and it took everything I had to "buy-in." The reality of the present is that I have everything I need to make a feature film of the highest visual standards and this is a good ballpark to be in.

So thank you RED, Jim, Jarred and everyone else that takes our feedback, works to improve an already built system, filters out the overly harsh criticism and keeps moving forward. I've learned a lot and have appreciated every opportunity and outlet provided for my creative and technical expression and thanks especially to all my friends and colleagues here on RU, going strong for something like 8 years now, you are my inspiration to keep learning, growing and striving for excellence.

Keir,

I agree 100%. It's a well-thought out tool ever made. It's need our creativity to exploit its potential.