Dragon Skin...

[Justin Gum]

Mike... I understand what you are saying, but consider this.

Many directors and DPs already consider EPIC MX to be a better choice than film. Some of the biggest budget movies (we have called them out way too many times) have no budget limitations for the cameras they choose and have chosen EPIC. Don Burgess (Forrest Gump) is incredibly proud of his period piece (42) shot on RED. Actually... he was a film guy yet has shot his last 6 features on RED. If you assume that the Dragon is 40% more resolution, 3+ stops of DR and 16 bit color depth... it is probably not a stretch why some anticipate Dragon to be really good.

You opinion is valid. But also accept that many believe RED footage already passed film all things considered.

Jim

Those qualities, with all due respect, don't make RED footage better than the other. Having more DR and effective resolution doesn't mean it's "better". People choose film because of its aesthetic qualities that are different on RED footage. And the same reason why people choose RED over film. I'm sure you're more than aware of this, but I'm just stating what I've always believed. I personally love the RED look (and the workflow), which is why I shoot on it. In addition, I don't remember Mike saying that he is in denial of people's positive opinions of RED. But he is trying to normalize judgment/hype so it doesn't have a negative effect on the image of this forum, which I know a lot of people have (though I doubt that you have neither the time or energy to care).

I fully acknowledge RED is your baby and it's been an awesome experience to have been able to work with the One, Epic, and Scarlet. I just don't think Mike's words has any ill intent in them.

 

[charles lim yi yong]

i hope they keep working on the color science. looks like there is still that purple tint pushing through.

 

[Yuval Shrem]

Those qualities, with all due respect, don't make RED footage better than the other. Having more DR and effective resolution doesn't mean it's "better".

Those qualities DO make RED footage better. Those qualities provide abundance of captured information in the image, which enables flexibility.
With those qualities you can make the captured images look the any way you want them to look.

If it's film-look that you're after, you certainly can downgrade the image in post to achieve an authentic film-look. That cannot be said about lower-resolution and/or smaller dynamic range and/or lesser color bit-depth. It only works because the source image captured by a Dragonized Epic (at least based on what we know so far) surpasses the film stock you would have used for the desired look by each of these aspects (resolution, Dynamic range, color depth), so that after applying the necessary effects and color-correction to achieve the desired "film-look", the image is not overly degraded. The thing is, when you start off with such a high fidelity image, it's really hard to want to go back to such "film-look" imagery. Ever since seeing the "Milk Girls" screening, it's been hard for me to tolerate film grain anymore. It took me almost a year after that test screening to not be bothered with it.

The argument about "RED look" is also related to that same issue. When you bake almost nothing into the image, and at the same time capture at very high-resolution, wide dynamic range and huge color depth, then the image can look any way you want it to look.
It is that type of flexibility that I want as a filmmaker. The ability to achieve many different looks without having to change cameras and film-stocks is a wonderful thing, and it is only possible when the captured image is blessed with those qualities mentioned.

Best,

Yuval

 

[Elsie N]

Saying this does look better then film is a bit silly at this point. Wait until someone does a side-by-side with film and see what the results are.

Maybe saying this looks better than PERFECT film is a bit silly at this point, but saying ungraded RED Dragon footage doesn't look better than AVERAGE film is also a bit silly. And of course, there are the eyes of the beholder... younger eyes will for the most part, choose the Dragon look over even perfect film... all else being equal.

 

[Elsie N]

...
It is that type of flexibility that I want as a filmmaker...
Best,

Yuval

Very well stated post but the one statement you made strikes at the heart of what this all means to me... that is, I would paraphrase your statement to read "It is that type of flexibility that enables me as a movie-maker.

 

[Yuval Shrem]

Very well stated post but the one statement you made strikes at the heart of what this all means to me... that is, I would paraphrase your statement to read "It is that type of flexibility that enables me as a movie-maker.

Nice catch

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

We are screening some of what I shot this weekend at the ASC tonight on an 84 inch Sony 4K monitor through redray.

After that I will try to get some of it up here.

Peter

 

[Evin Grant]

Evin,

Is the Dragon sensor more sensitive to low light than the MX? How many stops are we gaining in the darks?

At least 2, depending on your comfort with the noise. For me 4000 is totally usable and 6400 is an option as long as it's not being cut with lower ISO material.
For instance the elevator shot was exposed with the camera set to 4000 ISO, but I ended up developing it at 1000 ISO to hold the highlights, but the model's face is still essentially at a 4000 ISO exposure. I actually shot myself in the foot a little on this shot because I had a Vari-ND filter on, I could have gone without it and just exposed the whole scene at 1000 or 1250 ISO and gotten the same DR and even better noise performance. But honestly it's a beautiful noise pattern and doesn't distract at all IMO.

 

[mikeburton]

Are you suggesting that it would look worse if it were lit and graded as you describe? If not, I don't understand what you are getting at. The guy seems to think that without a high end treatment the thing performs. That is his assessment, early though it is. If people choose to characterize all the users here based on the remarks of a few... Then I know how much weight to give those opinions.

What I'm suggesting is that without proper testing and a "not beta" color science the majority of us don't know how good it is so comparing it to any other camera is a moot point. It's just blind optimism. I wouldn't say it's better or worse than 35mm film nor would I say the same about the MX. It's RED. It has its own look personality and feeling attached to it, and personally, although RED is a very nice image, I have also seen a lot of beautiful 35mm images. If all we are comparing is the amount of Grain in the Images and resolution then sure but there is way more to an image than just these characteristics. As for Dragon, I'm sure it will be a wonderful image but so far none of really know how wonderful it can/will be since its in such rare form and to compare it to anything yet is just hype IMO. I certainly wouldn't make blanket statements.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Fair enough. We are optimistic!

What I'm suggesting is that without proper testing and a "not beta" color science the majority of us don't know how good it is so comparing it to any other camera is a moot point. It's just blind optimism. I wouldn't say it's better or worse than 35mm film nor would I say the same about the MX. It's RED. It has its own look personality and feeling attached to it, and personally, although RED is a very nice image, I have also seen a lot of beautiful 35mm images. If all we are comparing is the amount of Grain in the Images and resolution then sure but there is way more to an image than just these characteristics. As for Dragon, I'm sure it will be a wonderful image but so far none of really know how wonderful it can/will be since its in such rare form and to compare it to anything yet is just hype IMO. I certainly wouldn't make blanket statements.

 

[mikeburton]

Mike... I understand what you are saying, but consider this.

Many directors and DPs already consider EPIC MX to be a better choice than film. Some of the biggest budget movies (we have called them out way too many times) have no budget limitations for the cameras they choose and have chosen EPIC. Don Burgess (Forrest Gump) is incredibly proud of his period piece (42) shot on RED. Actually... he was a film guy yet has shot his last 6 features on RED. If you assume that the Dragon is 40% more resolution, 3+ stops of DR and 16 bit color depth... it is probably not a stretch why some anticipate Dragon to be really good.

You opinion is valid. But also accept that many believe RED footage already passed film all things considered.

Jim

Hi Jim,

With all due respect, for every director / DP you mentioned above there are the equivelent amount and more that still choose film over RED or any other digital cinema camera on the market today. Not because RED isn't good enough or doesn't produce a beautiful image, but because it will he the best choice for there story. What I hate hearing is this format is better than that format especially when we have seen virtually nothing to base that theory on yet in the case of Dragon. What we are talking about is not resolution or how clean an image can be or the amount of dynamic range, color science etc. What is ultimately being referred to here is a matter of taste. How does that image on screen resonate with the viewer? Because at the end of the day, that's all that's left, the final image on screen, not anything else, surely not specs.
I'm sure Dragon is going to be an incredible camera for many, whether your pointing it at docs-large tent pole feature films. But the comparisons to another large fan favorite format, film, are simply unnecessary. Be proud of what you have accomplished. But, film is still a beautiful image too and like an elderly man who still has all his whits about him but body is failing, doesn't really benefit you to degrade his character or his past / present accomplishments. Is RED better than film? No, IMO RED is RED. I hope I can still be a part of this board and these discussions without having to take sides.
Respectfully.

 

[Tony Harris]

Great footage and pictures from the Dragon...I don't understand why people are still comparing Video to Film. Film is film & Video is video Both are two great elements that will fit the needs of creating a great looking movie. old school vs new school, most people don't know that film cameras use both.

 

[Andy Roberts]

AT THE VERY LEAST Mike, Red is a worthy successor to film, should one choose to go digital rather than endure all of the other difficulties and downsides of working with film (of which there are MANY including cost, size, environmental impact, time, post workflow, etc.). Yes, film has a certain aesthetic that is enduring. But digital is the new reality going forward. And comparisons to film that I read on Reduser are not about BEATING film in some competitve way, but matching and surpassing it as image aquisition turns completely digital. Without Red setting the standard very high in every area that Red excels in (resolution, DR, raw workflow, compression, color science, component modularity, cost, size, etc)., the digital future was progressing at a slow and pathetic pace, and definitely not anything worthy as a successor to film.

 

[mikeburton]

AT THE VERY LEAST Mike, Red is a worthy successor to film, should one choose to go digital rather than endure all of the other difficulties and downsides of working with film (of which there are MANY including cost, size, environmental impact, time, post workflow, etc.). Yes, film has a certain aesthetic that is enduring. But digital is the new reality going forward. And comparisons to film that I read on Reduser are not about BEATING film in some competitve way, but matching and surpassing it as image aquisition turns completely digital. Without Red setting the standard very high in every area that Red excels in (resolution, DR, raw workflow, compression, color science, component modularity, cost, size, etc)., the digital future was progressing at a slow and pathetic pace, and definitely not anything worthy as a successor to film.

I'm confident we will get to a point someday that know one will care. Its like sticking your hand in a jelly bean jar when choosing a camera. They are all good. Film will be missed when its gone, and there's no doubt that digital capture is going to take over 100% of the market. In 2006-2007 what Jim and RED did for the industry was a needed change and sparked a lot of imagination. It helped a lot of us in this industry move ahead at a faster pace than what would have been. For that, RED will always be a special company to me personally. But, I spent time defending RED from people saying it wasn't good enough, while running around with my own RED #2322 knowing it wasn't my Arri 435es i had sitting at home, but rather a RED camera, a different breed with a different image. And now here we are having to have the opposite conversations. How things change. I guess i've always just wanted options. Some don't. That's fine, but it just seems without those options we have less ability to tell stories visually. To me, its always been about the images on screen and how I respond to them emotionally and nothing else. Everything else is BS. So, there's a little insight as to why I dislike the comparisons and think we haven't seen enough of Dragon in the right environments, handled in the right way to pass judgement.

 

[Tony Harris]

RED has invented a option to using film for the consumer , they have given us the option of using a great camera that doesn't cost us the price of a 6 bedroom house. They have opened the door to our dreams of becoming great filmmaker's with an excepted format to 35mm film. It will be a long time before film is dead, in fact it may never go away because they are using it to backup and store films while continuing to make films on 35mm. When my films take off I will still use film and digital to produce my movies because they go hand in hand think about a EDL. shoot digital and transfer to film and back but you won't care about cost when you have a budget.

 

[Elsie N]

What I'm suggesting is that without proper testing and a "not beta" color science the majority of us don't know how good it is ...but so far none of really know how wonderful it can/will be since its in such rare form and to compare it to anything yet is just hype IMO. I certainly wouldn't make blanket statements.

This is just a personal note on part of your statement, but I trust Mark Toia, Tom Lowe, Evin Grant, and Peter Mark Collister's judgement. When they tell me they see things in the image they've never seen before when doing their tests, I take them at their word. They all say the Dragon is much better than the Epic. The Epic has been tested almost into oblivion (just realized the pun '-) and has not been found wanting by those capable of shaping the footage into whatever look they want.

Anyone who will only trust their own tests have every right to wait until they are able to do so. On the other hand, are they justified in throwing cool water on the tests being done so far? Not In My Opinion.

I think one should wait until they have done their own tests before taking a Contrarian View.

Full Disclosure... I've often been a contrarian throughout my life but like when Rumsfeld tried to start a Terror Risk Assessment Futures Market to crowd source future terrorism chances, I believe that when people's money is involved the herd will choose correctly. The RED Herd is growing day by day.

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm not going to comment on the esthetic comparison to film, but I will say that I shot this little test in 6 locations around Los Angeles from Hollywood to Downtown to Culver City all in one 10 hour Sunday.
I worked completely out of 2 SUVs one for camera and one for models and make-up. I shot using a mix of shoulder mounted handheld, light weight tripod (Oconnor DVS W/Gitzo CF sticks) and DSLR style (side handle, 5" LCD and AL Nikon mount). I had one professional AC helping me (Thanks Dave!). I shot 3.5 128GB cards or the equivalent of about 10,000 feet of film.
Lastly I ingested, transcoded edited and color corrected the entire thing on a Retina Macbook pro.

The only 35mm camera that could even come close to this level of mobility is an Arri 235 with 200' (2 min.) mags, and even the best current 5219 Vision stock is maxed at 1 stop pushed to EI1000, basically the lowest ISO I set on the Dragon. The 235 would also limit me to 50fps when a good 3rd of what I shot was 96fps. I won't even touch on the cost of the film, processing and transfer.

 

[Tony Harris]

You can't really compare manual works of film to the easy works of digital cine video and the resolution of 35mm film is off the charts and digital may be able to catch that one day but until then I think people should except film looks like film and video looks like video.

 

[mikeburton]

This is just a personal note on part of your statement, but I trust Mark Toia, Tom Lowe, Evin Grant, and Peter Mark Collister's judgement. When they tell me they see things in the image they've never seen before when doing their tests, I take them at their word. They all say the Dragon is much better than the Epic. The Epic has been tested almost into oblivion (just realized the pun '-) and has not been found wanting by those capable of shaping the footage into whatever look they want.

Anyone who will only trust their own tests have every right to wait until they are able to do so. On the other hand, are they justified in throwing cool water on the tests being done so far? Not In My Opinion.

I think one should wait until they have done their own tests before taking a Contrarian View.

Full Disclosure... I've often been a contrarian throughout my life but like when Rumsfeld tried to start a Terror Risk Assessment Futures Market to crowd source future terrorism chances, I believe that when people's money is involved the herd will choose correctly. The RED Herd is growing day by day.

Elsie, if you are satisfied taking someone else's word for it and seeing the limited amount of footage we have seen to make a personal assessment, then excellent. My concern is with the "this camera is better than that camera" kind of talk. It just doesn't make sense to me, and although I like this forum I feel its also partly to blame for why we need to defend RED in industry meetings, talks etc. I'm sure the images from Dragon will Most Likely be wonderful, that said i haven't shot with it yet so i can't say for certain which is why i would never make a statement such as "Dragon is WAY BETTER than film". But my point, if i haven't made it clear already, is that RED is what RED is. Its a great digital capture system capable of making nice imagery. So is film. They both have there advantages and disadvantages, IMO. Lets just leave it at that, shall we? Everything else is just opinion and personal aesthetic.

 

[Scott Crawley]

As rational as that all is, I view these threads as a kind of in house pre-release party. A PARTY is a time and place for celebration. Those who came here to be critical or worse take a shit are rude in the least.

Elsie, if you are satisfied taking someone else's word for it and seeing the limited amount of footage we have seen to make a personal assessment, then excellent. My concern is with the "this camera is better than that camera" kind of talk. It just doesn't make sense to me, and although I like this forum I feel its also partly to blame for why we need to defend RED in industry meetings, talks etc. I'm sure the images from Dragon will Most Likely be wonderful, that said i haven't shot with it yet so i can't say for certain which is why i would never make a statement such as "Dragon is WAY BETTER than film". But my point, if i haven't made it clear already, is that RED is what RED is. Its a great digital capture system capable of making nice imagery. So is film. They both have there advantages and disadvantages, IMO. Lets just leave it at that, shall we? Everything else is just opinion and personal aesthetic.