Available Light with Dragon

[Will Keir]

No, not random bad batches, seems this is pretty general observation now.

You know Brigham Edgar, you are right. Jim or maybe it was Jarred, did say this camera was going to perform very well at higher ISOs and I agree, if the issue cannot be fixed we are going a step backward for lowlight performance unfortunately, but the script is unwritten... let's see what adjustments happen. I've been shooting everything at 250 ISO, 5:1. Guess I'm just afraid to push it, "dancing flies" on my screen makes me want to punch it!

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.

It's close in some areas and absolutely better in others and you are correct, no cigars smoked behind closed doors. I'd bet we still have people on the RED team
up working on this tonight.

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

 

[David Battistella]

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

i would not not call it an issue.


RAW NOISE LEVEL BAR
The RAW noise bar displays the amount of pixels in the image that are in noise. For example, if the bar is about 1/8 of the total height, this would indicate approximately 1/8 of the total pixels in the image are at an exposure level at risk of displaying noise when pushed at higher ISO or FLUT values in post-production.

id say it's working as advertised because it's working on pixels not percentage.

dragon is 19 megapixels
mx is 14 megapixels

point them at the same scene and a proportionate amount of noise will show up in the goal posts because the sensor surface is capturing more pixels. If it was percentage of pixels it would be the same. But it's not, it's actual pixels. So you aim it at the same scene and the dragon will "catch" more noise just by the very fact it has way more photo sites to available to catch that image data in the frame you expose.

That doesn't mean it's more noisy or that there is an issue. The tool is actually working as advertised.

from a DP perspective, it's important to understand that the dragon sensor has 5 million more photo sites to capture an image. So it's up to you to hit those photo sites with more light or leave them underexposed. Also using the exact same wide angle lens means that the outer edge of the frame, the falloff area is has more pixels, so it's important to turn on the exposure tool to see where the noise pixels are falling in the frame.

This sensor produces super clean images when you hit areas of the frame with even just the smallest amount of light. You can certainly get really clean dark moody scenes, with available light and the lightest bit of fill from alight panel or small sources.

As Jan's frames here suggest, as long as there is light and composition you will get excellent results.



Battistella

 

[David Battistella]

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

Ya. Way cool, dude!

 

[Brian Merlen]

nice shots

 

[Jan Reiff]

as David said: strategy is the right word

i add this frame:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645494516791/


it is horrible, there was NO light, only a small door far away open , at dusk

iso 800 is dark, as the eyes saw it.

so, what can RED deliver me, when i am in this situation and i have to get an emotional image out of this ?
why shouldn´t i use ADD ? it delivers - it´s a tool. a great tool.

i did a ADD frame and put a grading on it, there is noise, but the image is not bad, and it is not a real life situations to shoot this (or it should not). this is the limit, yes. but is anyone surprised here ?


You decide. this set with just 2-3 small dedolight - it would be clear and clean (if you want to keep the atmosphere of shadows of course). that´s what you do when you are professional: setting light. if you want it to high noon: take a 6KW Daylight or more. that´s the job since hundred years.

if you are documentary: you have strategy and tools, for example ADD. or you should have a small box with light, AND you should use Highspeed Lenses. This was done with 1.8 Red Prime, so there is much more you can do with the right glas (!)

if you have, for example, 10 min "low light footage" in your movie, a movie you worked weeks or month on ... you don´t have the time to give your work 2 nights of render for ADD ? i do. and i don´t understand people saying ADD is a no go.

saying this, i am very sure, the new firmware will improve even more the image for this rare conditions.
underexposed colors and sharpness are very improved to MX. Fact.

Edit: the other images before were without ADD ... if someone asks ;-)

 

[David Battistella]

Jan,

its so true!

Sometimes I find myself saying. This sensor has no business pulling out images from what I am pointing it at. Stuff I cant see with my eye and should not even register, but yet, you show an example of how having an exposure strategy (capture and post) can get you better than just usable images with their own tone and texture.

Battistella

 

[Bohdan Klos]

I do think Red knew this low end was going to be an issue and this is why ADD was released.

When ADD was first announced I was happy but also found it an odd (or at least out of the box) approach considering the universal desire for speed in dealing with R3Ds. ADD went against this ethos and if Dragon had the range as suggested ADD seemed un needed.

At the time many users questioned ever needing ADD.

But that opinion was before the low end was examined. I do think ADD may have been created, or at least if it exsted already was released at this time, because Red knew the shift to highlights generated problems in the low end that needed fixed. ADD was probably meant to be somewhat of a fix for us.

A post solution for noise(albeit slow to apply) appearing at the same time noise appears is quite coincidental. I think Red knew about the noise (I think they have said as much) but are surprised that their bandaid (ADD) is not being welcomed.

I`m saying this because it shows I think that Red was aware a fix was needed but the solution has not been taken up in the way they hoped.

 

[Medavoym]

Thanks for the new pictures, Jan.

Is it normal to see those lines (fixed pattern) in the lower right corner of the attached image? I see those grid lines very often with Dragon with pushed images/high ISOs.
Maybe not so distinct as in this picture (which was indeed pushed a lot), but it is present (more subtle) in a lot of frames I've seen with Dragon.

What do you think?

 

[Jan Reiff]

yes, we have to watch more of this, but honestly, there was no light, nothing, this is more than trash what i pushed there, for the human eye, there was complete darkness, absolutely unusable exposure, only for freaks ;-)
at the moment we all dig in the very deep dirt ;-)

so, i will shoot more there at the bikers house, will be really interesting when the new firmware is available, but actually yesterday we did rough testshootings with no light in the back, when i shoot there, i will have my light setup of course and i am sure that the images will be superb then.
I have more fun with the Dragon as with any (digital) camera before - but hope, all Dragon User will be lucky soon, exposing right is the first step ;-)