Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Dragon has more DR than film?????

R

Rohan B

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My main question is do you think that dragon has more dynamic range than films like kodak vision 3 or fuji eterna vivic, is dragon truly the first digital cinema camera that beats film in terms of dr??? This question is to all the people who have been playing and testing with a dragon in their hands
Would be great to know all of your thoughts on the matter......
 
I would say yes. Although it's a tricky subject.

Film has never really read beyond about 15 stops of recorded dynamic range. Pushing film up 1-3 stops optically or digitally doesn't reveal much more info either.

Also, it's no longer really an equal comparison anymore as Dragon's cleaner at ISO 800-2000 and beyond than film. Pushing stock that far would yield more grainy results. Even lower ASAs. Add into the mix HDRx, well.... Yeah.

If you're curious about another notable merit. Dragon likely out resolves film at an equivalent image plane size.

There will be tests and that will all be seen.

One thing that should be payed close attention to when first receiving a Dragon is exposure and ISO rating choice. I think depending what's important to you in your shot rating your midtones between ISO 800-2000 would yield great results. However, this would slightly move your ceiling and your floor in terms of highlights and shadows. Similar to Mysterium-X today, but with over 3 stops more latitude of freedom.

When I get mine, the first thing I must do is a day or two of testing to get really familiar with what it can do. That's also to discover what the optimal REDCODE compression ratios will be.
 
I've been telling people that the ISO 800 'sweet spot' we're all used to has turned into a broad zone. Good images can be made anywhere from base 250 ISO (with care) through to 2000. 2000 to 4000 are a matter of taste, and 4000 to 6400 are 'good enough' if the content would otherwise be unachievable.

If you rate the camera around 1280 you have more than a stop in both directions for really consequence-free exposure adjustment.
 
thanks for the reply guys!!!!!
 
Rohan B said:
My main question is do you think that dragon has more dynamic range than films like kodak vision 3 or fuji eterna vivic, is dragon truly the first digital cinema camera that beats film in terms of dr??? This question is to all the people who have been playing and testing with a dragon in their hands
Would be great to know all of your thoughts on the matter......
Click to expand...

If your question is: Dragon has more DR than film?, the answer is definitely YES, way more, but, that doesn't mean that it has the same smooth roll off from darks to highlights that film has, wich is something completely different.

On film you don't only see clear details in the darks and midtones but also in the highlights, and this, in the same shot if it is exposed correctly.

Digital cameras on the other hand, clip the highlights faster than film, that is a fact, and the only way to fix this on digital (as far as I know), is with two images, (over-under exposed) and some kind of tone mapping or HDR, or shoot underexposed and try to recover information in the darks without too much noise.

But if it is done correctly, then, I agree, Dragon beats film big time.
 
PatrickFaith said:
The monochrome epic feels like it has more dynamic range then the black/white kodak film in the 70's, at least to me. I wounder if there's something more to the monochrome epic then just the removal of the bayer filters, and that helped on the dragon design?
Click to expand...

I can tell you for sure what helped on the Dragon design: Sensor size. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixels, so more light (Photons-electrons) coming through, means, it can "see" better in the dark. I understand that Dragon sensor is slightly bigger than the Epic M's.

And I agree, not only the bayer filter plays an important role in the latitude of the sensor, but, I think the debayering method too. Remember, there is no debayering on the monochrome.
 
Pablo Moreno said:
I can tell you for sure what helped on the Dragon design: Sensor size. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixels, so more light (Photons-electrons) coming through, means, it can "see" better in the dark. I understand that Dragon sensor is slightly bigger than the Epic M's.

And I agree, not only the bayer filter plays an important role in the latitude of the sensor, but, I think the debayering method too. Remember, there is no debayering on the monochrome.
Click to expand...
If I could extend what your saying, given an increase in sensor sites within a decrease in size per sensor, the light that hits a single site is less so the sensor site is not saturated. Yet when the sensor sites are added for the same area (of a lower site density sensor), the summed value has all the light yet has an increase in dynamic range(due to the smaller sites not being saturated). Since the monochrome is 5k sensor sites, that's kind of close to the density of sensor sites for a single color on the dragon - thus at least partially explains the dynamic range similarity.
 
Typo: I should use the word "Photosites" instead of pixels, my bad.. That is a better explanation, thanks Patrick..
 
Pablo Moreno said:
Typo: I should use the word "Photosites" instead of pixels, my bad.. That is a better explanation, thanks Patrick..
Click to expand...

Fortunately, all sensors and DAs are not the same...

AFAIK the pixel density on Dragon is higher than on the MX.
Yet the sensitivity is significantly better.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Fortunately, all sensors and DAs are not the same...

AFAIK the pixel density on Dragon is higher than on the MX.
Yet the sensitivity is significantly better.
Click to expand...

I agree brother, the pixel (photosite) density is higher since is 6K instead of 5K, but, each one of them is slightly bigger since the sensor is bigger. Cheers.
 
Pablo Moreno said:
I agree brother, the pixel (photosite) density is higher since is 6K instead of 5K, but, each one of them is bigger since the sensor is bigger. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Dragon's sensor is larger than Mysterium-X and Dragon's pixels are about .4 microns smaller. More of them fit per millimeter of physical sensor size. Hence 5K now exists in a format closer to S35 3-perf rather than Mysterium-X's 5K existing in APS-H-ish space.
 
Pablo Moreno said:
If your question is: Dragon has more DR than film?, the answer is definitely YES, way more, but, that doesn't mean that it has the same smooth roll off from darks to highlights that film has, wich is something completely different.

On film you don't only see clear details in the darks and midtones but also in the highlights, and this, in the same shot if it is exposed correctly.

Digital cameras on the other hand, clip the highlights faster than film, that is a fact, and the only way to fix this on digital (as far as I know), is with two images, (over-under exposed) and some kind of tone mapping or HDR, or shoot underexposed and try to recover information in the darks without too much noise.

But if it is done correctly, then, I agree, Dragon beats film big time.
Click to expand...

Terrific! You've run tests Pablo? Any samples/results you can share?
 
Mark K. said:
Terrific! You've run tests Pablo? Any samples/results you can share?
Click to expand...

I posted a thread here a while ago comparing the MX sensor against vision 5201 ISO 50 film. It clearly shows that the film has less resolution and in my opinion the digital has more dynamic range and that's with the old sensor.
I included direct comparison pictures from the same subject at the same time shot both digital and film. I don't think anybody else has done this test.
 
It's at least a match for film, so any reasons for continuing to use film are quickly going out the window. The resolution of Dragon likely beats 65mm 5-perf film, especially with glass like Leica Summilux C. Dragon and Arri's 4K camera will spell the end for film.
 
Mark K. said:
Terrific! You've run tests Pablo? Any samples/results you can share?
Click to expand...

Is that sarcasm??, here we go..

No test. Everybody knows that film has better rollof to the highlights than digital.

Digital clips highlights faster than film, that doesn't mean that film has more DR than digital, but film shows better the entire range (whichever it is) in the same image.

But read carefully, because I said that with proper grading Dragon beats film big time.

Now, if what you want is a test, try shooting a person inside a room with clear windows opened in the background, in a sunny day. Do both, film and digital, and see what happens..
 
Tom Lowe said:
It's at least a match for film, so any reasons for continuing to use film are quickly going out the window. The resolution of Dragon likely beats 65mm 5-perf film, especially with glass like Leica Summilux C. Dragon and Arri's 4K camera will spell the end for film.
Click to expand...

I agree Tom, film is almost buried already, I know, I am just trying to highlight the features that film has, that Digital lack of, and I know that with all the advances in technology, sooner or later digital will surpass those obstacles.

Not a film lover, just a film look lover..
 
Les Dittert said:
I posted a thread here a while ago comparing the MX sensor against vision 5201 ISO 50 film. It clearly shows that the film has less resolution and in my opinion the digital has more dynamic range and that's with the old sensor.
I included direct comparison pictures from the same subject at the same time shot both digital and film. I don't think anybody else has done this test.
Click to expand...

We've done similar tests over the years. They've been shot at PV (old building) and various studios. Pretty much right when the Red One came out as well as the MX sensor. Zacuto did a similar thing via a shoot-out concept, although that received mixed feedback.

I wish I had access to a lot of that material these days. We'll do the same when Dragon lands, although I don't exactly know if it's even relevant at this point.

Totally agree about resolving power though. On that side of things MX did it right. Even more resolution, DR, color, sensitivity, and "cleanliness" are pretty much the next horizon and that's where it would appear Dragon is targeted. That's the exciting stuff for sure.
 
actually...

i liked the epic rolloff quite a lot,
but the dragon is pleasing....

just an opinion, of course, but still a slightly qualified one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top