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 :)

Canon 1Dx lower light than Dragon?

All things considered, and with some caveats, Yes.

The entire C line of cameras are better in low light than any of Red's offerings.*

*I have not used Dragon yet but am basing what I am saying on those who have shared here. (what they have shown and what they have said.)
 
Phil Holland has demonstrated that DRAGON can give you good footage when the light source is a single candle or a single match (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?110487-Red-Dragon-Candle-and-Match-Low-Light-Tests). But, like any other shooting scenario, it requires that one have a passing familiarity with lighting principles, composition, and appropriate post-processing tools. If you want to be stupid about how you light your scene or how you compose your image, an underexposed image is going to look like crap even when shot with the DRAGON sensor. Phil's test shows that a low-light concept can be captured and produced, but the secret to its success is being able to crush down the noise in ways that do not compromise the look or the image. He is good at his craft, and DRAGON makes him look brilliant. Which is as it should be.

The sweet spot for DRAGON's ISO is somewhere between 320 (for dark scenes) and 800 (for bright ones). It is not a low-light camera that can turn night into day.

I don't have a 1DC, so I cannot speak to its capabilities.
 
Well today cameras perform sooo good in low light that the ISO war is not worth the fight anymore. Dragon is splendid at 800-1200 asa. Usuable at 1600-2000 and you could give a try at 3200-6400 with "some tiny" NR.

Pat
 
It was mostly to know what I can get out of real life situations.. Real people not actors, real locations without studio lighting ect..
 
Michael Tiemann said:
The sweet spot for DRAGON's ISO is somewhere between 320 (for dark scenes) and 800 (for bright ones). It is not a low-light camera that can turn night into day.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse dark and bright with low contrast and high contrast.

A high contrast, but generally dark scene may require a higher ISO to give a smooth roll off to the bright parts of the scene. Conversely a low contrast scene (cloudy day for instance) you might be able to get away with a low ISO and end up with very clean shadows and still not clip any high lights.
 
i dream of a 4K sensor that captures unexposed locations grain-free.. the day will come :) Its already possible at ridiculously slow shutter speeds, and it looks amazing.. surely itll come.
 
jorge krausch said:
It was mostly to know what I can get out of real life situations.. Real people not actors, real locations without studio lighting ect..
Click to expand...

I've shot a feature like this with the M-X. It was allready lots of fun. Now with the Dragon it's pure joy. You have to learn how to use all thoses stops and choose the right Tstop. ;-)

jorge krausch said:
i dream of a 4K sensor that captures unexposed locations grain-free.. the day will come :) Its already possible at ridiculously slow shutter speeds, and it looks amazing.. surely itll come.
Click to expand...

Well we are not yet there...

Pat
 
jorge krausch said:
i dream of a 4K sensor that captures unexposed locations grain-free.. the day will come :) Its already possible at ridiculously slow shutter speeds, and it looks amazing.. surely itll come.
Click to expand...

Also, don't forget that when you change the white-balance of the DRAGON from 5600K to 3200K you are amplifying the blue channel by 2-2.5 stops. That can drive an ISO 800 rating in ISO 3200-5000 noise territory. Yet another reason why it is important to fully understand one's tools, and to be on the correct side of their cutting edges. The DRAGON is a great camera, but it is no substitute for a lighting instrument.
 
amazing patrick.. the raw look of natural light :) loved the trailer. The MX is not bad at all... which lenses did you use?
 
Ivan McCullough said:
All things considered, and with some caveats, Yes.

The entire C line of cameras are better in low light than any of Red's offerings.*

*I have not used Dragon yet but am basing what I am saying on those who have shared here. (what they have shown and what they have said.)
Click to expand...

Canon C line applies aggressive non-subtle noise reduction on which you have no control in-camera, whereas Red leaves the noise reduction to post. Add Neat Video to Red footage, and you get much better low-light performance with any MX based or Dragon based Red than any C camera.

Some DPs fail to see this, as some DPs do not really understand nor respect post, as though somehow the exact same form of digital processing were more "honorable" or "valid" if applied directly in camera rather in the grading process. That's just silly. The post variety is merely more powerful and more adjustable, and need not be simplistic enough to render in real time in a tiny camera body.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I've shot a feature like this with the M-X. It was allready lots of fun. Now with the Dragon it's pure joy. You have to learn how to use all thoses stops and choose the right Tstop. ;-)



Well we are not yet there...

Pat
Click to expand...

Dang! Nice job Mate!
 
It would be surprising if the 1Dx didn't perform better in low-light. It's got nearly 2x the surface area.

One thing to keep in mind though with candles and matches is that if you have a candle right up to someone's face you're actually pretty bright and you aren't in that ​low of a low-light situation anymore. A candle is about 12 lumens. At 9" from a person's face that's a sphere of about .3 m^2 12 lumens/ .65m^2 = 18.5 lx intensity. Compare that to a 800 lumen (60watt) lightbulb at 6.5' which has a lux of about (800 lumens/ 50 m^2) = 16 lx intensity. That's about a T1.3 Superspeed wide open at 800ISO and a 180* shutter at 24fps.

The candle is actually brighter at 9" than a 60w lightbulb at 6.5 feet. Always be wary of candle demonstrations.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
It would be surprising if the 1Dx didn't perform better in low-light. It's got nearly 2x the surface area.

One thing to keep in mind though with candles and matches is that if you have a candle right up to someone's face you're actually pretty bright and you aren't in that ​low of a low-light situation anymore. A candle is about 12 lumens. At 9" from a person's face that's a sphere of about .3 m^2 12 lumens/ .65m^2 = 18.5 lx intensity. Compare that to a 800 lumen (60watt) lightbulb at 6.5' which has a lux of about (800 lumens/ 50 m^2) = 16 lx intensity. That's about a T1.3 Superspeed wide open at 800ISO and a 180* shutter at 24fps.

The candle is actually brighter at 9" than a 60w lightbulb at 6.5 feet. Always be wary of candle demonstrations.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed that way too much :)
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
It would be surprising if the 1Dx didn't perform better in low-light. It's got nearly 2x the surface area.

One thing to keep in mind though with candles and matches is that if you have a candle right up to someone's face you're actually pretty bright and you aren't in that ​low of a low-light situation anymore. A candle is about 12 lumens. At 9" from a person's face that's a sphere of about .3 m^2 12 lumens/ .65m^2 = 18.5 lx intensity. Compare that to a 800 lumen (60watt) lightbulb at 6.5' which has a lux of about (800 lumens/ 50 m^2) = 16 lx intensity. That's about a T1.3 Superspeed wide open at 800ISO and a 180* shutter at 24fps.

The candle is actually brighter at 9" than a 60w lightbulb at 6.5 feet. Always be wary of candle demonstrations.
Click to expand...

Love dat shit!
 
great point!! its like those so called low light videos that are in funfairs or well lit buildings, or headlights, traffic lights etc... of course you see that! Youd see it on VHC-C !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top