Better Call Saul - amazing low key Dragon images

[Jon Carr]

Arthur, I read a article that one of the deciding factors was camera size, which epic is hard to beat even though the alexa mini levels the playing field now. After shooting the first season how happy were you with the dragon in getting the image you wanted? Epic Dragon/weapon for season 2? Any time you felt like you couldn't take risks you wanted to? Would love to hear the good, and the bad if your willing to share.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

"Adorable". How condescending. Ageism is just as reprehensible as sexism and racism. Fortunately for me, it affects people at the end of their career instead of the beginning. I've been lucky, but have good and very talented friends whose phones stopped ringing the minute they got grey.

Ageism is a terrible thing as you say. I started working hard when I was young and fought it on the young end for years. It all just melted away though once I was in my late '20s or somewhere around 30. Haven't had to deal with it for a while now. Although, since I seem to be sprouting more grey hairs every day, I suppose I get to look forward to another round of that bullshit in the relatively near future. So sad.


Anyway, just thought I'd say what I think about BCS. I love this show! And it looks great! You guys should be very proud of this. Thanks for taking the time to share.

 

[Arthur Albert]

Arthur, I read a article that one of the deciding factors was camera size, which epic is hard to beat even though the alexa mini levels the playing field now. After shooting the first season how happy were you with the dragon in getting the image you wanted? Epic Dragon/weapon for season 2? Any time you felt like you couldn't take risks you wanted to? Would love to hear the good, and the bad if your willing to share.


Size WAS important. The story placed "Billy" aka "Saul" in the tiniest spaces possible, but other factors were important as well. Sony required a 4K finish and that counted against the Alexa. The producers also wanted the show to look like "nothing else on TV", which also counted against the Alexa, because the vast majority of television is shot on Alexa. I feel that shooting RAW gives you more control over the look in post than working in a Log format that bakes some of the look in. Another choice could have been the Sony F55, but I had just used it on The Blacklist and had a number of issues with the camera. I won't dwell on the specifics for obvious reasons, and some of the problems I had have been remedied by software updates, but I'm not fan of the images.
I loved working with the Dragon.Being able to shoot 300fps came in handy, but the extra latitude is a game changer and the color is wonderful. It's not the right tool for every job, (the Alexa is indeed "smoother") but Dragon is my first choice for season 2.
I'm looking forward to fully testing the low light OLPF, which should help some of the low light noise people have been complaining about, though I have to say that I often went below the recommended exposure guidelines and had few noise issues. If you haven't upgraded to Dragon, do yourself a favor. The daytime interiors of "Billy" driving were shot with NO fill light with blinding Albuquerque sun outside. In the past this situation would have required an insert car with a generator and a 4K PAR HMI blasting your actor if you wanted to hold the background. We just free drove without so much as a Panellight for fill and the interior and exterior were perfectly exposed. Amazing.
Holding exposure outside a window that previously would have required ND gels or big lights inside saves hours, and hours saved keeps you employed. All in all, I love the camera. Now if the can only make it 12,000 ISO...

 

[Nick Gardner]

I was a huge fan of Breaking Bad, and was about 4 episodes in before I learned that BCS was shot on dragon. I just assumed it was shot on film. Goes to show that all the nitpicking is bullshit. Any of the professional cameras out there can make great images. If you aren't shooting great looking stuff, it ain't the cameras fault.

Fantastic looking show Mr. Albert. Thank you for being generous with your time and answering questions here. Lovely work.

Cheers,

Nick Gardner

 

[David Battistella]

Arthur,

Thanks so much for posting into this thread and sharing your insights an experience. It's really great to have such experienced working pros letting folks know their process and workflow.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'm looking forward to fully testing the low light OLPF, which should help some of the low light noise people have been complaining about, though I have to say that I often went below the recommended exposure guidelines and had few noise issues. If you haven't upgraded to Dragon, do yourself a favor.

Arthur -

You should totally test the "low light OLPF" - but I'm damn sure you will find that the "skin tone optimized" OLPF is far superior - specifically in color - and you don't fight magenta OLPF flares in high-con situations.

There's a lot of "hype" about the "low light OLPF" - which falls in line with all the "noise" about noise.

I have yet to have one cinematographer choose the low light OLPF over the skin tone OLPF after testing - the only exception is Soderbergh's The Knick - but Steven wanted to match the look of season 1 - which was shot on pre-release Dragons that had low light OLPFs on as the Skin Tone OLPF didn't exist at the time - and Steven also likes to use the magenta flares intentionally in the show.

There was, and still is, an over-reaction to noise on these forums - which in my experience is driven by the fact that many people - specifically in the younger generations - do not have a proper EXPOSURE METHOD - and are exposing with a monitor (WYSIWYG) instead of treating it like film and understanding how to exposing RAW. When I teach Reducation - I almost always find that what MOST students think is a "base" or correct exposure is actually 1 to 2 stops under what it should be. People would have much better results if they obsessed with choosing the iris setting as much as choosing the ISO

Rant over.

Yes - test the low light OLPF - you will find it gives you a small amount more room in the shadows - BUT - IMO - the trade off are not worth it. Skin Tone Optimized OLPF for the win.

 

[Demetri Zuev]

Arthur, have you been trying to avoid CMOS smear? If so, what would be your advice to make it less prominent?

 

[Jon Carr]

Arthur, I read a article that one of the deciding factors was camera size, which epic is hard to beat even though the alexa mini levels the playing field now. After shooting the first season how happy were you with the dragon in getting the image you wanted? Epic Dragon/weapon for season 2? Any time you felt like you couldn't take risks you wanted to? Would love to hear the good, and the bad if your willing to share.


Size WAS important. The story placed "Billy" aka "Saul" in the tiniest spaces possible, but other factors were important as well. Sony required a 4K finish and that counted against the Alexa. The producers also wanted the show to look like "nothing else on TV", which also counted against the Alexa, because the vast majority of television is shot on Alexa. I feel that shooting RAW gives you more control over the look in post than working in a Log format that bakes some of the look in. Another choice could have been the Sony F55, but I had just used it on The Blacklist and had a number of issues with the camera. I won't dwell on the specifics for obvious reasons, and some of the problems I had have been remedied by software updates, but I'm not fan of the images.
I loved working with the Dragon.Being able to shoot 300fps came in handy, but the extra latitude is a game changer and the color is wonderful. It's not the right tool for every job, (the Alexa is indeed "smoother") but Dragon is my first choice for season 2.
I'm looking forward to fully testing the low light OLPF, which should help some of the low light noise people have been complaining about, though I have to say that I often went below the recommended exposure guidelines and had few noise issues. If you haven't upgraded to Dragon, do yourself a favor. The daytime interiors of "Billy" driving were shot with NO fill light with blinding Albuquerque sun outside. In the past this situation would have required an insert car with a generator and a 4K PAR HMI blasting your actor if you wanted to hold the background. We just free drove without so much as a Panellight for fill and the interior and exterior were perfectly exposed. Amazing.
Holding exposure outside a window that previously would have required ND gels or big lights inside saves hours, and hours saved keeps you employed. All in all, I love the camera. Now if the can only make it 12,000 ISO...

Thank you for your input Arther. I have to completely agree with the camera's highlight latitude. It's truly amazing what possibilities can be done with the light. I have yet to regret doing the upgrade on a job. And the MX is becoming a distant memory to me. Still a great camera but, Dragon is a beast. A follow up question, do you do any in camera LUTs on set or do you shoot gamma and let post do it later? I ask cause I'm someone who tries to get as much of the look I want in camera, with filtration, lens choice, and now with digital LUTs. Also with the indie industry, not everyone has a color correction budget. So I created 50 different LUTs based on color charts, test charts etc of different film stocks I used over the years. Some really interesting like AGFA vista, and some normal like kodak 5219. So I'm wondering how exact you like to get on set vs what you know you can pull later from post?

 

[Brian Boyer]

There's a lot of "hype" about the "low light OLPF" - which falls in line with all the "noise" about noise.

I have yet to have one cinematographer choose the low light OLPF over the skin tone OLPF after testing - the only exception is Soderbergh's The Knick - but Steven wanted to match the look of season 1 - which was shot on pre-release Dragons that had low light OLPFs on as the Skin Tone OLPF didn't exist at the time - and Steven also likes to use the magenta flares intentionally in the show.

There was, and still is, an over-reaction to noise on these forums - which in my experience is driven by the fact that many people - specifically in the younger generations - do not have a proper EXPOSURE METHOD - and are exposing with a monitor (WYSIWYG) instead of treating it like film and understanding how to exposing RAW. When I teach Reducation - I almost always find that what MOST students think is a "base" or correct exposure is actually 1 to 2 stops under what it should be. People would have much better results if they obsessed with choosing the iris setting as much as choosing the ISO

Rant over.

Word.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Not to fuel the Lowlight fires even more, but Patrick O'Sullivan just shared this:

https://vimeo.com/127112877

Shot Dragon LLO with Lomos at 1280-2000.

I think it looks pretty amazing.

For shooting at those high ISO's, LLO was not an unreasonable choice - and the results are pretty stunning.

I think Dragon's OLPF "swapping" is what makes it such a compelling platform - the options it gives filmmakers. That both OLPF's exist is surely a good thing - no matter which OLPF you ultimately prefer.

I'd personally love to see what filmmakers like Arthur do with ALL OLPF options out there: Skintone, LLO, Kipper Tie IR, Kipper Tie Lowcon, etc.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Not to fuel the Lowlight fires even more, but Patrick O'Sullivan just shared this:

https://vimeo.com/127112877

Shot Dragon LLO with Lomos at 1280-2000.

I think it looks pretty amazing.

For shooting at those high ISO's, LLO was not an unreasonable choice - and the results are pretty stunning.

I think Dragon's OLPF "swapping" is what makes it such a compelling platform - the options it gives filmmakers. That both OLPF's exist is surely a good thing - no matter which OLPF you ultimately prefer.

I'd personally love to see what filmmakers like Arthur do with ALL OLPF options out there: Skintone, LLO, Kipper Tie IR, Kipper Tie Lowcon, etc.

Nick, I get the impression that many people using the LLO OLPF are doing so more out of a fear (and/or misuse) of the STH OLPF rather than a preference for its visual characteristics, which is a shame.

And, I suspect people who aren't getting as much as they should out of STH aren't really going to get as much as they should out of LLO, or an A7s, for that matter.

Put another way, people who routinely underexpose are going to underexpose on more sensitive cameras, only with less noise. They'll rely on and credit the camera instead of improving their technique.

Yes, you can achieve a cleaner image, especially at higher ISOs, with LLO...and it does have its charms.

But, how much darker than Chuck's house, the after-hours scenes in the nail salon or Jimmy's back office does a shot have to get before people acknowledge the STH can do low light like a champ (when exposed properly)?

I mean, that's what started this thread in the first place.

I agree that the interchangeable OLPF ecosystem is shaping up nicely and some compelling work has/will come out of it.

But, between the gross overreaction to STH's noise and LLO's MX-like familiarity in performance, particularly in the exposure department, I think STH had it rougher than it should've and everyone paid the price a little as a result.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I'm a little late to the party having only recently upgraded to dragon, but my initial tests indicate that I can't imagine a scenario where the sth olpf wouldn't work for me. It looks great and is phenomenally clean. I am a little lost why anyone would dislike it.

Nick

 

[Akin A]

Nick, I get the impression that many people using the LLO OLPF are doing so more out of a fear (and/or misuse) of the STH OLPF rather than a preference for its visual characteristics, which is a shame.

I think it's a matter of budget for lighting. I use LLO and haven't tried the STH yet.
If my budget is low or 0, and I'm shooting a night scene in NYC streets at F/1.4, I appreciate the ability to push the ISO and be 1.25 stops cleaner (based on the consensus).
The cost of lighting might include the actual lights, lighting modifiers, a power source, time to setup the lights, a vehicle to transport the lights, time to find parking, parking, returning the vehicle, etc. If you have a crew, great, put them to work, but for one person, that 1.25 stops means a lot.

If I had space and budget for outdoor lighting, yeah I'd just use STH if the colors are going to be better.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think it's a matter of budget for lighting. I use LLO and haven't tried the STH yet.
If my budget is low or 0, and I'm shooting a night scene in NYC streets at F/1.4, I appreciate the ability to push the ISO and be 1.25 stops cleaner (based on the consensus).
The cost of lighting might include the actual lights, lighting modifiers, a power source, time to setup the lights, a vehicle to transport the lights, time to find parking, parking, returning the vehicle, etc. If you have a crew, great, put them to work, but for one person, that 1.25 stops means a lot.

If I had space and budget for outdoor lighting, yeah I'd just use STH if the colors are going to be better.

The hard criticism against the noise in STH is still a biased opinion from people who underexpose their shots. I've been testing with the STH and it performs well in low light as well. Yeah, you see noise, but not MX noise, not sensor noise but more similar to film grain. But not being able to shoot night exteriors is not true.

 

[Akin A]

The hard criticism against the noise in STH is still a biased opinion from people who underexpose their shots. I've been testing with the STH and it performs well in low light as well. Yeah, you see noise, but not MX noise, not sensor noise but more similar to film grain. But not being able to shoot night exteriors is not true.

Cool, I'll check it out eventually. I wasn't saying you can't shoot night ext. w/ STH. I haven't even tried. I'm just pointing out why some of us operating solo w/o a budget would want that extra room to push cleanly at night.

 

[Arthur Albert]

I was a huge fan of Breaking Bad, and was about 4 episodes in before I learned that BCS was shot on dragon. I just assumed it was shot on film. Goes to show that all the nitpicking is bullshit. Any of the professional cameras out there can make great images. If you aren't shooting great looking stuff, it ain't the cameras fault.

Fantastic looking show Mr. Albert. Thank you for being generous with your time and answering questions here. Lovely work.

Cheers,

Nick Gardner

Very kind words, Nick.
The producers of "Saul" wanted to shoot on film. It was only after learning that going that way would cost an extra million dollars over shooting digital, that Vince Gilligan asked me to shoot a test of film versus RED, Sony and Alexa cameras. I did a full day of testing, pushing the cameras any way I could think of: candlelight, sunlit exteriors against dark interiors, high contrast lighting, flat lighting and so on. We screened the results at Sony on a 4K system and everyone had to guess which was which. Even the colorist who did "Breaking Bad" for 5 years guessed wrong on what was film and what was digital. Everyone got it wrong. So much for the film beats digital argument.
Obviously on an 80' screen, other factors come in to play, but for the best monitor money can buy, the results were indistinguishable.

 

[Arthur Albert]

Thank you for your input Arther. I have to completely agree with the camera's highlight latitude. It's truly amazing what possibilities can be done with the light. I have yet to regret doing the upgrade on a job. And the MX is becoming a distant memory to me. Still a great camera but, Dragon is a beast. A follow up question, do you do any in camera LUTs on set or do you shoot gamma and let post do it later? I ask cause I'm someone who tries to get as much of the look I want in camera, with filtration, lens choice, and now with digital LUTs. Also with the indie industry, not everyone has a color correction budget. So I created 50 different LUTs based on color charts, test charts etc of different film stocks I used over the years. Some really interesting like AGFA vista, and some normal like kodak 5219. So I'm wondering how exact you like to get on set vs what you know you can pull later from post?

The shows I work on have the luxury of a full post color correction session. I created daily scene by scene LUTs with my DIT on a show only to discover that the colorist ignored them and used the camera settings as a basis for his work. Since then I haven't bothered, especially since DIT's are mostly a non starter in television.
I created some generic LUTs, for example 1 stop underexposed (mostly to stop directors from asking me to make it darker), more contrast, etc. I used about 6 LUTs and told the dailies colorist to ignore them if he wanted to. They were mostly to help me light and keep the directors happy.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Obviously on an 80' screen, other factors come in to play

Hi Arthur,

so can you share your impressions of Dragon 6K screened at that size vs. film (and/or if you can Alexa and the Sony) ?


Thanks and great work on the show !!!

- M

 

[Björn Benckert]

I'm a little late to the party having only recently upgraded to dragon, but my initial tests indicate that I can't imagine a scenario where the sth olpf wouldn't work for me. It looks great and is phenomenally clean. I am a little lost why anyone would dislike it.

Nick

Ok imagine that the camera has about 1.5 stops more in the low end, or that your lenses all of a sudden went down to 0.75f instead of 2.1f well thats the difference in the low end between lowlight olpf and skintone.

 

[Jack Allred]

Or that your lenses all the sudden went down to 1.2f instead of 2.0f... Yes? Have I been calculating stops wrong all these years?