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 :)

Dragon misconceptions and clarification...

Gunleik Groven said:
And the pola gives you an extra stop in the top, which I dig.

After carrying MB14-kitted R1s/Epics with ND 2.4. the motionmount seems like a dream come true.
Click to expand...

It looks like using the Motion Mount in its weakest setting will actually give you an extra 1.44 stops on top.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
This is fun...

When digital entered audio, it was thought to be "pure", and all kinds of recordingtechniques to compress dynamics were immediately ditched. WHile people were discussing that they wanted "the full" dynamics and not compress the digital signal.

That lead to some silly usages.

Digital is not "pure" (as is not analogue). It is a way of reprsenting a signal.
.
Click to expand...


This is fun, indeed. About audio signals, magnetic tape does compress the sound. Consequently, if one sends the same signal to a digital system and to an analog magnetic tape, the two recordings may sound different. This is the reason why some audio engineers prefer to record some highly dynamic instruments, such the bass drum, to magnetic tape.

Gavin, are you trying to say the lowCon filter averages the signal? That is, the "sharp peaks" become filtered out as the filter averages light among pixels nearby each other? If this is what you mean, surely averaging enables one to lift the basic level of exposure. Furthermore, indeed, the same averaging effect is indeed difficult to replicate in post, for without a filter typically one is not able to set the exposure to the same level.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Gavin,

I am very familiar with it's works, yet I maintain my strong opinion on this, as I can achieve great results in post, never the same for all, but great results nonetheless, and yet I still have my Original RAW file to do as I please.


Mind you, I used to have every filter known to man at one point for my photography, it is just the way I fill now, no filters to bake an image in camera, as far as I can avoid it.

At only exception of a Polarizer filter, which I try to use full time, as I have yet to find a situation were I would have been better off without it, and this is what makes the Red Motion Mount super attractive to me now more then ever.
Click to expand...

Ketch, so you use a polarizer no matter what? I find it can have a dulling effect on skin sometimes. Thoughts?
 
Ketch, would you rather have an inferior RAW file or a superior RAW file? That is what you have to ask yourself when it comes to the possible application of filters. If you are uncertain about a filter's value, don't use it, but if you are confident in a filter's value for a given scenario then it would be a big mistake not to employ it just for the sake of maintaining what you call a "RAW" file.
 
Although the choice to use or not use certain filters is moving sideways from Jim's original thread, I need to share some of my experience and thoughts...

I often work in industrial settings where the color temp of the existing environment falls well outside of the norm. By that, I mean that even after properly adjusting the color temp while capturing (within the range of the camera), I find that using the RED toolset, I exceed the range available when grading the image in post.
That is an extreme example - however it illustrates a point.
That experience has led me to a "best practice" of using a color temp meter in the field and adding some CC filtering during the initial capture to bring the RAW file into a workable starting point.
While others may disagree, I do not see that practice as "baking in a look" - rather, it is using the tools available to cinematographers to obtain the best image possible.

Others have pointed out that filtration can be useful for other technical reasons. Those are valid arguments and deserve consideration.
The easiest one to add to the list is IR contamination filtration. Yes, you can reduce the damage to the image in post, but why would you?

In my opinion, how we control the overall quality of the light hitting the sensor is the starting point of our job.
After that, comes the creative.

Throughout our collective history as filmmakers, we have continually explored various means of achieving a certain look to our images. How cinematographers choose or discover the means to achieve those desired results is as varied as we are individuals.
What is right is the method that you find to get there.

The discussion here on filtration is perhaps worth a thread of it's own as it applies to all of the cameras we use - not only the forthcoming Dragon equipped ones....
 
Jake Wilganowski said:
Ketch, so you use a polarizer no matter what? I find it can have a dulling effect on skin sometimes. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I find the use of Polarizer with Skin to be in fact very good, and was for long time amongst few using it, I am talking about 30 years ago... Yet today, I know many use them regularly with Portrait photography too.


Bill Anderson said:
Ketch, would you rather have an inferior RAW file or a superior RAW file? That is what you have to ask yourself when it comes to the possible application of filters. If you are uncertain about a filter's value, don't use it, but if you are confident in a filter's value for a given scenario then it would be a big mistake not to employ it just for the sake of maintaining what you call a "RAW" file.
Click to expand...

When I shoot, I always know exactly what I am shooting and why, that is the great thing about me, I don't just find myself shooting for the sake of it, I set up my shoots, and know were that particular file will be headed, and I never leave to the client, those very few I chose to have, to make that decision for me, I make those decisions, and ever since making the decision to abandon Filters, I have found my self far better served, and again I am not saying that I would never again use filters, especially some particular ones, but I am saying that to me, my RAW is best preserved as neutral as possible, no filters applied, other then the Polarizer and ND's.

The fact that the Red Epic, gives such an incredible RAW file, which is very strong and very flexible to even the harshest of Post workflows, and have a large color gamut to work with, allows for better image post manipulation then some and for hit si enjoy capturing as Neutral as possible, again, Polarizer aside.

But if I was to find my self in a situation were a Filter would need to be used, I would do so if I see that for any amount of reasons it is best used in camera instead then replicated in post, I am saying that it has not happen for what I have shot so far.
 
Lauri Kettunen said:
Gavin, are you trying to say the lowCon filter averages the signal? That is, the "sharp peaks" become filtered out as the filter averages light among pixels nearby each other? If this is what you mean, surely averaging enables one to lift the basic level of exposure. Furthermore, indeed, the same averaging effect is indeed difficult to replicate in post, for without a filter typically one is not able to set the exposure to the same level.
Click to expand...

Yep, lowCon is in the family of diffusion filters which is to say yes it is spreading out those sharp peaks. If those sharp peaks are cut-off then there is no peak to spread out across the image. It's like compression in audio like Gunleik was talking about, and like audio if your mic clips you can't apply compression after the fact. If you have a very large dynamic range on your mic or camera then you have more options in post. So while we may never represent 30 stops of dynamic range in an image in order to emulate flaring, glinting, diffusion, grad filters and many other effects in post you need an HDR source to do it properly.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Yep, lowCon is in the family of diffusion filters which is to say yes it is spreading out those sharp peaks. If those sharp peaks are cut-off then there is no peak to spread out across the image. It's like compression in audio like Gunleik was talking about, and like audio if your mic clips you can't apply compression after the fact. If you have a very large dynamic range on your mic or camera then you have more options in post. So while we may never represent 30 stops of dynamic range in an image in order to emulate flaring, glinting, diffusion, grad filters and many other effects in post you need an HDR source to do it properly.
Click to expand...

It might also explain why other cameras might appear to have a little more DR if they are using some form of highlight halation by knocking off the high peaks. being from an Audio background I completely get the compressor limited analogy.
 
Dave Blackham said:
It might also explain why other cameras might appear to have a little more DR if they are using some form of highlight halation by knocking off the high peaks. being from an Audio background I completely get the compressor limited analogy.
Click to expand...

Yes, averaging type of techniques to filter out peaks are employed widely in engineering. Since one does not want to have diffusion filters in all cases, find it a good idea not to have the filter hardwired to the camera. The approach chosen for Dragon leaving the choice of filtering to the cameraman sounds sensible. In the end of the day, filtering is about throwing some data away, and although this is justified in many cases, it is not justified in every case.
 
Charles Bergquist said:
...are we still looking at 2 weeks for Dragon shipment, has anyone shipped their Epic-M or Epic-X in yet?
Click to expand...

I think when it starts you will see lots of people posting that they received the upgrade email. :) I put my upgrade order in for my M in the first couple of minutes it was open.
 
The Arri Alexa does not have a lo-con in front of the sensor. There is a filter pack in front of the sensor with a protective
cover glass, IR filter, UV filter and an optical low pass filter.

This from Mark Shipman-Muller of Arri.
 
Thank you Jim for the best camera in the world.

Just waiting to receive my Epic Dragon.
 
Neal_Norton said:
The Arri Alexa does not have a lo-con in front of the sensor. There is a filter pack in front of the sensor with a protective
cover glass, IR filter, UV filter and an optical low pass filter.

This from Mark Shipman-Muller of Arri.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, I can find references to the ND filer stack of insertable filters but no reference to any permeant low con. Can an Alexa shooter tell us what filtration would normally be applied in camera. Im asummng the IR and UV would normaly be in the optical path.
 
Neal_Norton said:
The Arri Alexa does not have a lo-con in front of the sensor. There is a filter pack in front of the sensor with a protective
cover glass, IR filter, UV filter and an optical low pass filter.

This from Mark Shipman-Muller of Arri.
Click to expand...

There may not literally be a lowcon filter, but the EFFECT of this filter stack seems (to many) to perform SIMILARLY to a lowcon.

The blooming on Alexa is certainly well known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top