Dragon??? So after nearly 10months what do we think? NATIVE 2000ASA no 18stops no ..

[Jan Reiff]

what i think ...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...m-with-Dragon-low-light&p=1399543#post1399543

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I'm shooting on Dragon daily at 250 ASA, I just add lights to make up the difference when needed. Just like I used to do when shooting commercials on fine grain 35mm film stock. I hated shooting on 500ASA stock and hated pushing it even more. Film grain is over rated.

Seems like a lot of people round here have expectations beyond physics! I am so tired of reading posts where people have shot footage in their kitchen at night with available light and winge about the noise. Start using real lighting units on real sets and show us the noise then.

The DRAGON is a motion picture camera of considerable pedigree. Not even my local Camera rental has theirs yet so I am suspicious of naysayers commenting too much before they have honestly come to know the Camera. This is a palatable step up from MX, it's not a slight difference at all.

I thought Phil's listed response at the top superb and very much to the point. Yet the thread trails on.........

It's nice that you work with producers who are willing to pay extra to shoot now at 250 ISO, when they got used to shooting at 800 with MX and Alexa. I don't know anyone like that, and frankly, my clients were shocked to learn that Dragon, supposedly an upgrade, not a side-grade new option, was less sensitive than the older MX and required more light budget, which means not only more light but more electricity, more crew at a certain point, more everything. If Dragon had been at least as good as MX in all ways, then there would be no problem, but I for one am not going to blow thousands per day on more lighting just to get slightly improved skintones (that I can quite easily match in the grade anyway) and a mostly useless, excessive overkill of resolution, that is much more a hard drive clogger and a card transfer bottleneck than in any real way an advantage for non-theatrical (and even then…) production.

People keep talking about film, but many things were not possible on film, like shooting a cityscape at night, and only lighting your actors, not the distant buildings in the background. Do you know how much it costs to light a skyscraper in a city, just in permits and logistics? What are we supposed to do, stop doing shots like that now, because Dragon skintones are slightly better? Because on film they weren't possible? I think not.

This is the first time that a new camera model is not only better than an old camera model, of any brand that I can remember.

It's not just that there is more noise in the darks, it's that the curve to black is too steep - that darks actually hard clip and there is very little information to get from down there. This has been shown many times. My own tests and Ryan Walters lead to the same conclusions.

That's not something noise reduction could ever fix, and now with Dragon many shots that were possible with MX no longer are, and even when they are possible, require much more time and expense to create without problems, as one must shoot at 250 ISO. 250 ISO (or even 500) means that a lot of the time, the camera just can't make the shot I want, can't do what my Epic MX does with ease. Even when money is unlimited, actor comfort is a factor, and actor eye fatigue, and some places just won't let you whip out 10Ks and shine them in people's windows, no matter how much cash you have.

I mean Ryan Walters (and I agree with him) came out and said that certain lighting ratios that were fine on MX don't look good on Dragon. So now I can't do certain styles of lighting anymore? Really? I;m supposed to just cross styles of set-ups I very much like to do to "adapt" to Dragon? Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me - a camera is supposed to get out of your way, not dictate how you shoot.

But hard-clipping blacks and noise are not the only problems, we have:

CMOS smear (magenta lines around bright lights, running all the way across the frame). Yes this occurs on all CMOS cameras, but on most it's so subtle you barely see it, or not at all. On Dragon it can seriously ruin a shot, much too often, way more often than I have ever seen on any CMOS device. It's like skew - sure all CMOS camera have it, but not all are as bad as a 5D Mark II. So some here say "Don't shoot bright lights in frame" Hmmm… That's one more type of shot a Dragon can't do, that is no problem on my Epic MX, let me get out my notebook, the list is getting long….

Flare shadow. I agree with my fellow Canadian Mr Steinberg. This is a real problem. I like in-camera flares. On MX I never worry about them. Good thing I didn't put away my notebook yet.

Oh, and I'm told that if I don't want to be restricted to super-low, much more expensive to light ISOs then I should stop complaining and just use the old OLPF, which has all kinds of flaring weirdness and can't really be trusted. Gee, what an amazing option! As yet another wonderful alternative, I can spend tons of precious set time futzing with tiny screws and switching OLPFs on set! Really!?

I for one am skipping the Dragon upgrade. Even if it were free, I've come to the conclusion that the MX is actually a better camera, all things weighed together, as it is significantly more versatile and less likely to let me down, and some producers and other DPs I talk to are, somewhat in shock, slowly because it's kind of hard to believe, coming to the same conclusion after a slew of bad experiences. Slightly better skin tones that you can equal in a good color grade anyway, and highlight retention I never clip on MX anyway (because hey, I can expose for 800ISO, where this is almost never a real-world problem…) does not outweigh all the negatives and serious issues, at least not for how we and our clients shoot. Again, this even if the upgrade cost $0.

At some level it could even be argued, by reasonable people, that a Red One MX is more versatile and can guarantee more shots being acceptable under a greater variety of circumstances than a Dragon. But its' not free, and what with all the problems circulating around the grapevine (people see the problems on set and in post, not just on these forums, so no, it's not because people have been complaining here too much) it's a very, very hard sell at this point, to producers and clients, yes, but even to myself.

There is no way I would ever amortize back that $10 000 since I would need to be renting MX Epics often just to keep getting many types of shots I like in the can, and the whole fiasco list above has meant that the Dragon rental market is not exactly hot at this stage, to say the least. Elsie may not understand this, as he does not actually work on paid sets, by his own admission, but the most important thing for a camera to be is predictable and reliable - no hidden bad surprises - that's more important, in fact, than potential performance capabilities. An Epic MX is exactly that now. A Dragon? No.

Now maybe DEB or some other advance will make this completely different. For now, saying no (I have the money set aside, it's not the issue, at all) seems by far the most sensible thing to do.

After all, some of the most beautiful films ever made were shot on Red One MX and Epic MX, and we have both fully kitted here.

If you can't make beautiful, perfect even, images on any MX camera then you just suck and should quit now.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

After all, some of the most beautiful films ever made were shot on Red One and Epic MX.

If you can't make beautiful, perfect even, images on any MX camera then you just suck and should quit now.

+1..my point exactly!
Thank you Mr. Ruffo

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

No, I distinctly remember you posting that as though you were incensed at Black Magic for suddenly dropping the price just after you had paid dearly for a seat. Your admission that you were given the app and card as a beta tester just more or less confirms my suspicions that you may have been schilling. Your posts are forever archived but I don't think it is possible to easily retrieve them here so I won't try. Someone who is adept at that sort of thing can surely resurrect them if it's important to them.

Still, my main point is that you interjected yourself into the discussion about a camera with erroneous statements. Then, when your statements were disputed by someone who is unimpeachable as a source and in the past has stepped up and admitted to everyone here if they were wrong, you tried to act as though you said nothing incorrect.

It is important to set the record straight as this is the place where a lot of people come to absorb information that they then repeat all over the Internet. Just like you did. You probably heard what you posted somewhere and repeated it.

I just think it is important that you retract your misstatements so the misinformation doesn't get another "verification."

Elsie you are starting to sound a bit nutty. I think I am going to join many others here on Reduser and block your posts, as should Jake. He may be grumpy sometimes, but I actually learn something from him often, whereas I don't really from you. I hope you have not chased him away with your, sorry to say, paranoid rants, as I very much appreciate his contributions.

 

[Bohdan Klos]

It's nice that you work with producers who are willing to pay extra to shoot now at 250 ISO, .....

As yet another wonderful alternative, I can spend tons of precious set time futzing with tiny screws and switching OLPFs on set! Really!?

I for one am skipping the Dragon upgrade. Even if it were free, ......

..... and what with all the problems circulating around the grapevine (people see the problems on set and in post, not just on these forums, so no, it's not because people have been complaining here too much) it's a very, very hard sell at this point, to producers and clients, yes, but even to myself.

Ruffo`s Notepad is on fire!

 

[Paul J Steinberg]

Very well put Robert.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Wow, just freakin' wow. I can't believe how much noise there is about the noise in Dragon footage.

I love film grain, so this noise is not much of an issue for me. Heck, I even own FilmConvert so I can add noise/grain.

When people ask my why digital camera imagery often still look like video, I say it's because the images look noise free at 1080P.

However, I still wish all camera were noise free so that I can add it back in during post to my satisfaction.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Wow, just freakin' wow. I can't believe how much noise there is about the noise in Dragon footage.

I love film grain, so this noise is not much of an issue for me. Heck, I even own FilmConvert so I can add noise/grain.

When people ask my why digital camera imagery often still look like video, I say it's because the images look noise free at 1080P.

However, I still wish all camera were noise free so that I can add it back in during post to my satisfaction.

Like I said, it's not so much the noise (which si also a problem, but..), it's the hard clip to black. That's a different, and in my opinion much more serious issue because no matter what noise reduction you throw at it, the info is simply not there.

 

[Viktor Sloth]

Wow, just freakin' wow. I can't believe how much noise there is about the noise in Dragon footage.

I love film grain, so this noise is not much of an issue for me. Heck, I even own FilmConvert so I can add noise/grain.

When people ask my why digital camera imagery often still look like video, I say it's because the images look noise free at 1080P.

However, I still wish all camera were noise free so that I can add it back in during post to my satisfaction.

I basically agree, Martin! But my noise can look like this when the sensor is a bit cold:

Or this:

The MX noise never where a gradient of magenta from left to right, and it never split a dark chair in two with one half kindda black, the other one very magenta.
I just wish it would function as the MX, so that:
I don't have to shoot in ISO 250 only
I don't have to shoot in only 25 fps 1/50 shutter, but can actually do slowmotion without noise
I don't have to wait 5 minutes for the sensor to warm up
I don't have to black shade calibrate when i'm changing exposure the slighest

At ISO 250, with a fresh black shade and you stay below shutter 200 with a warm sensor. Then it's great.
But otherwise, I feel it's a downgrade from the MX, in the way I shoot at least.

 

[Jan Reiff]

I basically agree, Martin! But my noise can look like this when the sensor is a bit cold:

Or this:

The MX noise never where a gradient of magenta from left to right, and it never split a dark chair in two with one half kindda black, the other one very magenta.
I just wish it would function as the MX, so that:
I don't have to shoot in ISO 250 only
I don't have to shoot in only 25 fps 1/50 shutter, but can actually do slowmotion without noise
I don't have to wait 5 minutes for the sensor to warm up
I don't have to black shade calibrate when i'm changing exposure the slighest

At ISO 250, with a fresh black shade and you stay below shutter 200 with a warm sensor. Then it's great.
But otherwise, I feel it's a downgrade from the MX, in the way I shoot at least.

to change the cal map you need 10 seconds ... or what you mean with changing exposure -

 

[Brian Boyer]

What I dont get is why with all the technical problems and reduced color fidelity that the old OLPF has is why it is still even being talked about as an viable option?

There really is just 1 production ready OLPF available at present.

Looking forward to alternatives and I hope there is one of them that I can leave in my camera all the time.

You're mischaracterizing OLPF 1's color performance as "reduced color fidelity." Saying the OLPF 2 has improved color fidelity is NOT the same as saying OLPF 1's fidelity is reduced.

OLPF 1 has more accurate color than MX so, by your logic, MX should really suck.

Secondly, saying OLPF 1 isn't production ready is willfully ignoring all the productions that have used it successfully.

TNT's "The Last Ship" shoots on the OLPF 1 Dragon. You can tell by the magenta flares over light sources (which actually fit the style and feel of the show).

However, the overall improvement in the look of that show over most MX shot shows is very apparent to me.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I basically agree, Martin! But my noise can look like this when the sensor is a bit cold:

Or this:

The MX noise never where a gradient of magenta from left to right, and it never split a dark chair in two with one half kindda black, the other one very magenta.
I just wish it would function as the MX, so that:
I don't have to shoot in ISO 250 only
I don't have to shoot in only 25 fps 1/50 shutter, but can actually do slowmotion without noise
I don't have to wait 5 minutes for the sensor to warm up
I don't have to black shade calibrate when i'm changing exposure the slighest

At ISO 250, with a fresh black shade and you stay below shutter 200 with a warm sensor. Then it's great.
But otherwise, I feel it's a downgrade from the MX, in the way I shoot at least.

This looks to me like the CMOS smear issue. Another, identified Dragon problem.

 

[Viktor Sloth]

to change the cal map you need 10 seconds ... or what you mean with changing exposure -

I know the beta firmware can save up to 4 calibrations, and that is nice. But that wasen't neccesary with the MX. If the black shade calibration isn't spot on with the dragon, you are being punished much more than with the MX.
I like to calibrate for the conditions I work in, but often the conditions change so much that I can't wait for a new calibration, or apply a new calibration from my presets if i'm lucky enough one fits for the conditions I shoot in.
My only point is, that the MX sensor had more flex in regard to black shading than the Dragon, which for me is weird on a new camera.

 

[David Battistella]

For stills my dragon outperforms my d700.

So now I'm basically shooting a d700, high ISO's included but as a motion stream.

I dont expect 2000iso to look as clean as 250iso, but it seems people believe that it is not only physically possible but nessesary.

for those saying, "red said X or RED promised this" get over it. Stop treating it as though one of your parents lied to you. Camera manufacturers tend to try to market their machines in the best possible light and under optimum conditions.

The steps forward in technology tend to be incremental rather than monumental.

Its ludicrous to make these kinds of assumptions.

Expectations should be managed. It seems people who are used to, and understand motion picture film are thrilled and people who are used to digital video camera technology expect much more. It seems like that's where the line is.

It's a shame more time isn't spent being more constructive here.

Battistella

 

[Martin Stevens]

HARD CLIPPING in the Blacks! What?
Are you not using REDLogFilm?

Also... Shooting with a Cold Sensor is not a good idea... period.
Well, unless you like the results.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Sensor resolution has nothing to do with highlight retention as well as recording data rate. Sensor resolution directly corresponds to the number of sensor photo sites. Confusing all these things doesn't help this conversation...

True, but it's been suggested by many that Sony's 8K "math" is unusual, and that the true resolution is perhaps not what they claim.

That said, their sensor is fantastic, and does have great DR yes. Luc Bresson is allegedly a big fan.

best

 

[Jan Reiff]

so every cam has it fans ... F65 Besson, Alexa Deakins and more , Red has Fincher and lots of more, ... so , give peace a chance

 

[Elsie N]

I know the beta firmware can save up to 4 calibrations, and that is nice. But that wasen't neccesary with the MX. If the black shade calibration isn't spot on with the dragon, you are being punished much more than with the MX.
I like to calibrate for the conditions I work in, but often the conditions change so much that I can't wait for a new calibration, or apply a new calibration from my presets if i'm lucky enough one fits for the conditions I shoot in.
My only point is, that the MX sensor had more flex in regard to black shading than the Dragon, which for me is weird on a new camera.

I've had a different experience. I tested the "Luigi Method" of black shading @ 1/200, (except I chose the 1/100 setting) while actually shooting at 180 degree shutter @ a timebase of 23.976. But after being advised to just change other settings in camera and blackshade at actual settings, I planned to go that route but forgot to do so and forgot to redo the blackshade.

The project was done with minimal lighting while hoping for some noise in the indoor, dark scenes. There was some sunlight through curtains but not nearly enough to blow out highlights. I was shooting with a slow lens at 360 degree shutter. Amazingly, when I got the footage in post there was little evidence of noise, although there was some if you really looked for it. Just about right I and the client decided. He originally wanted to go black and white in order to convey a darkish mood, but agreed with me to leave it in color because the camera captured the mood he wanted so well that there needed to be no artificial attempts to convey that mood.

I probably won't use the Luigi Method for future shoots unless I'm in a hurry and don't want to spend the time trying to get the in-camera settings suggested by John Marchant and others, just right.

But it's nice to know that the Dragon does allow for blackshading flexibility and still produces amazing images. The client was well-satisfied with what came directly out of the camera, with no tweaking in post whatsoever. I'll probably stay with the v-2 OLPF for all my shoots, unless I need a specialty one for something like IR.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Go to the Cinematography Mailing List at cinematography.net. You will find peer-reviewed discussions and tests where methodology and files are shared. No Dragon yet but there will be once there are more out in the wild.

Dragon was indeed tested in February with original OLFP, to a chorus of it's not the latest OLFP which is much better.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie you are starting to sound a bit nutty. I think I am going to join many others here on Reduser and block your posts, as should Jake. He may be grumpy sometimes, but I actually learn something from him often, whereas I don't really from you. I hope you have not chased him away with your, sorry to say, paranoid rants, as I very much appreciate his contributions.

Thanks Robert, I consider that to be a badge of honor. Not putting you on my ignore list, however, 'cause you are a great source of exercise for me as I shake my head from side to side in disbelief as I read your posts.

Good for the facial muscles too, as I smile or lol at some of your (what I consider to be) weird takes on things.