Dragon + Lomo Annie = Vibe

[Zeb B]

EDIT:
The first set of R3D's below are underexposed and do not represent what Dragon can do in low light. For R3D's shot as clean as I know how see this link later on in this thread:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...o-Annie-Vibe&p=1343942&viewfull=1#post1343942

Quick night test shoot mostly at T4 at 48FPS 1/100th ISO 2000 with a nifty Lomo 35mm Square Front Anamorphic. A bit dark and noisy . . . yup, perfect.

Edit: This is not a low light test by any means. Actually kinda the opposite - I was testing to get a noisy/gritty slo-mo look and to get a feel for the 35mm Ana framing, flares and distortion. There's a good bit of sensor crop since you're shooting at 4K on a 6K sensor so wanted to see how 35mm feels for distance to subject. First time shooting with anamorphic so am real happy with the results.

BTW: if you want really well produced science tests and pixel level evals . . . go visit Phil Holland's threads. He knows what he's doing with formal testing / measurement and has inside access to RED engineering. I'm just a creative hack having fun with the amazing Dragon!

Here's some R3D's to play with. Toss some grades at it!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C028_03231X.0000334F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C001_0323Y3.0000376F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C007_0323FF.0000000F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C010_03237Y.0000241F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C011_0323NF.0000612F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C015_03234G.0000297F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C015_03234G.0000297F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C018_0323PN.0000000F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C021_032324.0000236F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C013_032376.0000341F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C025_0323EK.0000080F.R3D

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/117794729/Lomo/A024_C032_0323RG.0000047F.R3D

Cheers!

 

[Zeb B]

First 5

 

[Zeb B]

Next 5

 

[Zeb B]

Last 1

 

[Charlie Kelly]

just finished up a short documentary series shot on mx and wished the mx was more sensitive in low light. checking out these stills is disappointing. hoped more for the dragon.

 

[Zeb B]

just finished up a short documentary series shot on mx and wished the mx was more sensitive in low light. checking out these stills is disappointing. hoped more for the dragon.

Not meant to me a low light test Mate. Used a T4 lens shooting 48FPS most times so I left more than a couple stops on the table. Just screwing around with a cool lens. For low light doc work I recommend a Canon and T1.2 lenses. You can make daylight out of candle light and it has built in audio. The MX would not be my first choice for that task. Testing for the project helps prevent mistakes and disappointment.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

Good to know you were at 48fps. Still a lot of ugly noise IMO. I've worked with those canons and yes they're fast. Can't always test in the doc world as your often capturing things in the moment.

 

[CK Olsen]

What Zeb is posting is exactly the kind of testing I would hope most filmmakers do in their off time, when they AREN'T under pressure to capture anything critical.

These tests become invaluable when years later you suddenly find yourself in a situation you have mucked around with in the past, so you have A MUCH BETTER IDEA what you can and cannot get away with, and how to nail great shots under less than ideal circumstances.

Besides... its fun as all get out to shoot "run-and-gun, no lighting, weird lens tests" at night.



-CK

 

[Matt Ryan]

Zeb, Curious why you choose to shoot 48fps for all of your tests?

 

[Zeb B]

Zeb, Curious why you choose to shoot 48fps for all of your tests?

I have a future project sequence that will be shot @48fps at night. Also, trying to see the quality of the noise at this light level / crop and the motion blur. All past the test. Love this combo

 

[Grant H]

I have a future project sequence that will be shot @48fps at night. Also, trying to see the quality of the noise at this light level / crop and the motion blur. All past the test. Love this combo

You're really a fan of the noise in this situation? Or you're happy that you have the lens/fps latitude to maintain control over the noise? Because after downloading the R3D's and taking a look -- I'm not a fan of the noise. Or am I mistaking noise for digital gain?

 

[Matt Ryan]

You're really a fan of the noise in this situation? Or you're happy that you have the lens/fps latitude to maintain control over the noise? Because after downloading the R3D's and taking a look -- I'm not a fan of the noise. Or am I mistaking noise for digital gain?

I'm not digging the noise either and most jobs I do this would fail QC. I was curious too if he was testing for some off speed stuff, and has more leeway when shooting 24fps. Either way it's too much noise for my tastes. I do realize it's a slower lens at T4 and no additional lighting at 48fps, but I would not use this or consider it useable.

 

[Zeb B]

You're really a fan of the noise in this situation? Or you're happy that you have the lens/fps latitude to maintain control over the noise? Because after downloading the R3D's and taking a look -- I'm not a fan of the noise. Or am I mistaking noise for digital gain?

For my specific project sequence I'm not looking for a clean look. It's hard to see the great Dragon noise aesthetic from single frames. I like the quality of the noise and have no problem with the ISO2000 look for my project. Hey, I can always convert it to B&W and call the noise "grain" and it's insta-art ;-)

But then I liked "Lovelace" only because it was shot on 16mm film

 

[Grant H]

For my specific project sequence I'm not looking for a clean look. It's hard to see the great Dragon noise aesthetic from single frames. I like the quality of the noise and have no problem with the ISO2000 look for my project. Hey, I can always convert it to B&W and call the noise "grain" and it's insta-art ;-)

But then I liked "Lovelace" only because it was shot on 16mm film

Hey, that's the joy of us being creatives, right?

Glad you're happy with what you've got there, if you'd be willing to upload a couple seconds of footage so I can understand what the noise aesthetic difference is that you like vs. still -- I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[Zeb B]

Hey, that's the joy of us being creatives, right?

Glad you're happy with what you've got there, if you'd be willing to upload a couple seconds of footage so I can understand what the noise aesthetic difference is that you like vs. still -- I'd greatly appreciate it.

Better yet - I'll give you an early notice to the Kickstarter DVD deal where you can see the sequence post processed and in context ;-)

The noise works for me on this project - that's why I tested it that way. If it didn't I would use my night-vision Canon 1Dc and a 1.2 lens. I don't pixel peep since I don't give a fuck about that level of scrutiny. If your work is commercial or for cinema release I can see the need for uber low light clean. For me that is not as high a priority. The total aesthetic is the only guide for me

To me, Dragon is the inflection point between the pursuit of digital purity vs emotionally engaging visuals. Given Dragon is so pure, I am going to sell the Summicrons and pursue antique lenses that embody a defective character that cannot be done in post. Like a 1959 Fender Tele - some things are better if imperfect. That usually means "analog" and pushed beyond suggested technical specifications since we are in truth random/analog creatures that don't always understand why we emotionally connect with things.

I work as a music producer - we seek pleasing distortion all the time - what's "pleasing" depends on the audience

Cheers!

 

[Charles Bergquist]

Noise with the Dragon and new OLPF seems to be pretty rough. Anyone have the ability to do some more side by sides with say the MX and Dragon in low light, or rather just underexposed? Everything I've seen is digital noise, not grain-like on the Dragon or the MX, I'd really like to be proved wrong with some samples though.

 

[Zeb B]

Noise with the Dragon and new OLPF seems to be pretty rough. Anyone have the ability to do some more side by sides with say the MX and Dragon in low light, or rather just underexposed? Everything I've seen is digital noise, not grain-like on the Dragon or the MX, I'd really like to be proved wrong with some samples though.

Maybe Phil's department - not mine. RED cameras have always been real hungry for light . . . Dragon is no exception. Maybe will shoot some tonight with a wide open fast lens @24fps and a big ole shutter angle

 

[Grant H]

Maybe Phil's department - not mine. RED cameras have always been real hungry for light . . . Dragon is no exception. Maybe will shoot some tonight with a wide open fast lens @24fps and a big ole shutter angle

I'd actually like to see that.

 

[Zeb B]

Clean night shot tests here:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ps-and-Clips&p=1342588&viewfull=1#post1342588

 

[Les Hillis]

I know it's not the look you were going for Zeb, but for the right kind of project, I think taking a 'light it or lose it' approach and crushing the blacks in post could also work.


























...