Dragon uncaged...

[Phil Holland]

Just remember that often there's a lot that goes into choosing a camera system for production. Some clear, some rather invisible. Unless you're there and see that side of things you wouldn't even know.

That said, for the most part, the camera system is a choice. From top to bottom you have to choose. Even still, on large budget productions it's pretty typical to use multiple camera systems for their strengths.

The desire to improve should burn bright. There's always a need to strive to do better, innovate, and create. That's what the motion picture industry is built on. Red's been rather industry leading on that front and that's why I own there cameras. I'm attracted to bleeding edge technology like a moth to light and I've got the burn marks to show for it.

On the format, file, color, crazy talk. Look guys. Professionally I've had to make all of these cameras match at one point or another and end up on screen. Some are rather easy to "push around" to get there. Some are damn near impossible. Heck nobody can detect my plates shot on the HVX200 and 5D Mark II footage from back in the day from film stock we shot on. And both of those cameras are FAR from a desirable motion picture image making tool in my book. In one particular film you'd be hard pressed to figure out what was OG Red One versus the film. That's because of the work done to the material after the fact as well. A properly sampled grain pattern, detail adjusted to match the scan, matched color, tonality, etc....

Mysterium-X and REDCODE are good things. Flexible things. Actually, crazy flexible things. Dragon's coming in with a fresh hot breath of new tech that's going to empower us more so than ever. And honestly from what I've seen first hand it's already breezing past my expectations from a year ago. That's exciting stuff for me.

Room to improve? Sure. However, just look at some of the gorgeous imagery it's created. The proof is there just what you can do with it.

Keep in mind on the Red side there are people who eat, breath, and (don't) sleep these cameras and future imaging technology. They also have a very demanding clientele that they actually communicate with and listen to. This helps them push further and harder.

Nobody else is doing this really.

Mark my words. Dragon is a legitimate game changer and history maker. If this doesn't get a Technical Academy Award at some point I'd be rather shocked.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Just remember that often there's a lot that goes into choosing a camera system for production. Some clear, some rather invisible. Unless you're there and see that side of things you wouldn't even know.

That said, for the most part, the camera system is a choice. From top to bottom you have to choose. Even still, on large budget productions it's pretty typical to use multiple camera systems for their strengths.

The desire to improve should burn bright. There's always a need to strive to do better, innovate, and create. That's what the motion picture industry is built on. Red's been rather industry leading on that front and that's why I own there cameras. I'm attracted to bleeding edge technology like a moth to light and I've got the burn marks to show for it.

On the format, file, color, crazy talk. Look guys. Professionally I've had to make all of these cameras match at one point or another and end up on screen. Some are rather easy to "push around" to get there. Some are damn near impossible. Heck nobody can detect my plates shot on the HVX200 and 5D Mark II footage from back in the day from film stock we shot on. And both of those cameras are FAR from a desirable motion picture image making tool in my book. In one particular film you'd be hard pressed to figure out what was OG Red One versus the film. That's because of the work done to the material after the fact as well. A properly sampled grain pattern, detail adjusted to match the scan, matched color, tonality, etc....

Mysterium-X and REDCODE are good things. Flexible things. Actually, crazy flexible things. Dragon's coming in with a fresh hot breath of new tech that's going to empower us more so than ever. And honestly from what I've seen first hand it's already breezing past my expectations from a year ago. That's exciting stuff for me.

Room to improve? Sure. However, just look at some of the gorgeous imagery it's created. The proof is there just what you can do with it.

Keep in mind on the Red side there are people who eat, breath, and (don't) sleep these cameras and future imaging technology. They also have a very demanding clientele that they actually communicate with and listen to. This helps them push further and harder.

Nobody else is doing this really.

Mark my words. Dragon is a legitimate game changer and history maker. If this doesn't get a Technical Academy Award at some point I'd be rather shocked.

Phil I hope you get an Emmy one day for your writing style. Love it. You break things down SO WELL.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Comparing the aesthetic of a movie is like comparing the aesthetic and look of of paintings in a museum. Most people in the art world don't look at a painting and start criticizing what paint brush the artist used. But movies ... WOW ... everyone has an opinion.

In a creative, supervised color correction - a director and a sometimes a cinematographer makes choices in the final color correct. Prior to OFFHOLLYWOOD selling our post production operations to Light Iron - we color graded and delivered dozens and dozens of features shot on RED including the Academy Award winning Beginners used as an example in this thread. I have been a part of production and post production process of dozens of films shot on the same sensor that look ENTIRELY different.

Which ones look "better" .... well ... that's totally subjective. The reality is - they each look the way the director, or cinematographer ... and even sometimes the producer wanted them to look. Whoever is directing the colorist in a DI on a film shot on RAW R3D's has a lot of room to swing - and the swings they choose may or may not be what you think is best. Guess what ... it's not your movie. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. It's just as valid as mine. And just as valid as the director of a given film. Guess who has the power to make the choice?

You can debate and compare what movie you think "looks better" all day long if you want. What is a little more relevant to this forum would be to appreciate how DIFFERENT all the movies shot on RED actually look. There's a CRAZY range.

My 2 cents.

This has been my experience, as well.

It all dissolves to creative flexibility, and the choices made in DI when speaking about the exhibited image. I have been extremely fortunate to have sat in countless DI sessions, and even direct some, for fairly large budget commercial gigs. I have seen an amazing level of detail extracted, and manipulated at Hollywood color facilities, under the hand of industry recognized and sought-after colorists.

Yet a similar level of control is also available in my bedroom now -- though it seems some people would try to have you believe otherwise. Maybe we're not going to be rendering frames as fast as a Clipster, but we're able to manage a very similar workflow without the dedicated hardware. And RED definitely had a HUGE hand in pushing that capability into existence.

The EPIC essentially allows a creative the ability to start with a "clean" record of a scene (even cleaner with Dragon, apparently), and then grants the ability to fine-tune color, and apply any grain emulation they choose (should they choose), thereafter.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Dragon is a legitimate game changer and history maker. If this doesn't get a Technical Academy Award at some point I'd be rather shocked.

You just kicked the Venice Beach hacky sack back at me? Haha.

It should definitely have a Technical Achievement, but the academy is suspect. Maybe we'll come to a point where it will be unavoidable.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Comparing the aesthetic of a movie is like comparing the aesthetic and look of of paintings in a museum. Most people in the art world don't look at a painting and start criticizing what paint brush the artist used. But movies ... WOW ... everyone is an expert

I take it you don't go to art museums with traditional artists often? When I go to a museum with my father he'll endlessly discuss the paint and the stroke technique, layering etc etc etc. If you think obsessing over the sausage making is unique to film makers spend some time around painters in a museum. In fact meticulously studying masters' work is traditionally an artist training. Study, reproduce, study, reproduce etc etc etc...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Seems like it is mostly a grading choice...

I actually think your match-grade emphasizes the difference even more. It exposes the "yellowing" of the skin-tones. My prediction is that Dragon's color science is going to be much improved. People are going to laude the amazing new Dragon image (rightfully so) and completely ignore the logical contradiction of celebrating something new and claiming the old had no room for improvement. Nobody is saying that RED is unusable. I own an Epic. I like the footage out of it. I just am hoping for certain areas to improve.

I can theoretically create a detailed 3D model by hand entering vertex positions. But a sculpting application like Zbrush makes it far easier. Just because it's theoretically possible to do something doesn't mean it's as simple as it should be. If people don't think there is any difference between RED's color rendition and film's color rendition (beyond the grade) and that people who see a difference are just imagining it they're living in denial. There is nothing magic to film. I'm not suggesting there is some spiritual soul to film that can't be reproduced, it's the fact that I know film is just a chemical LUT that drives me to push for my digital tools to be more heavily inspired by the the analog equivalents. Every sensor on earth is going to produce different looking images. Where differences exist people will have opinions.

I find it ludicrous that people are anxious to "See what dragon is capable of" but are simultaneously effectively saying that Mysterium X is perfect and therefore we shouldn't want to see any improvement in color etc.

 

[Liam Hall]

I am the first to argue for the merits of digital. Especially in that digital could be made to look exactly like film with the proper LUT. But that's not to say that there isn't a big difference in the look between film and digital.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two. I don't see why people are so vehemently opposed to striving to offer a more filmic LUT option.


I wouldn't say that takes a wine snob to tell the difference.

One looks tungsten, one looks LED.

 

[David Battistella]

I'm not sure this is a great comparison.

Romeo and Juliette was probably not a digital DI, it was probably a film process. That same film would most likely have a digital DI no which would probably mean it would look much different now, than it did then.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec


David

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Something I find funny

Something I find funny

I don't wan to throw this thread too far off base, but I find it odd that people who love Sony and ARRI cameras are not Jim Jannard's biggest fans.

Because of Jim and RED, you guys are paying at LEAST 30% less for your favorite cameras than you would if he had not come along.

Anybody remember what an F900 went for when it came out?

That said, wanna guess what features your Sony, ARRI, or anything else would have today if RED had not come out>

Hate 'em or love 'em, the effects on the industry, and the benefits to the consumers due to RED's existence are undeniable.

:001_tongue:

 

[Andy Roberts]

I find it ludicrous that people are anxious to "See what dragon is capable of" but are simultaneously effectively saying that Mysterium X is perfect and therefore we shouldn't want to see any improvement in color etc.

I guess I'm a Red "nay sayer" as the MX sensor is substandard in my view (Alexa looks better, as does BMC). I thought it nearly ruined Gatsby, and a few others. Skin tones were crap. When they try pushing it around, it shows its limitations, especially when exposed brightly. The higher end doesn't hold up from my theater seat, and since I paid good money to see these things, my opinion is as valid as anyone else's, be they labeled "nay sayer" or whatever."

There is a LARGE CHASM between saying Epic-X is PERFECT and saying it is TRASH and that any filmmaker worthy of the title should NEVER use Red. The guy who got on here and said Gatsby color was TERRIBLE really is just goading. But for the record, anxiousness to see "what Dragon is capable of" has more to do with Dynamic Range and less to do with color science in my mind. I know SOME want to see the color science improved, but I for one, have no complaints. Is it PERFECT? There is ALWAYS room for improvement. But is it trash...? Well the person who thinks so just starts looking silly, similar to walking through an art museum and critiquing a Monet or DaVinci. Yes you can discuss and analyze brush strokes and technique, but to stand in judgement of the work just shows a tremendous lack of professionalism and good sense. Epic-X has proven itself. Dragon will pick up the torch and carry it farther. But that doesn't discount the tremendous tool that Epic-X currently is. And the same is true for Alexa. Is it trash? No. But history will show soon enough that shooting a 2K Alexa when a 5K Epic was an option was, in many cases, a misstep.

 

[Sulekh Suman]

I am not sure if it helps to know that Guillermo Navarro BOUGHT 7x Epic cameras for Pacific Rim. For the record this was his first digital film. Boom.

 

[Elsie N]

I am the first to argue for the merits of digital. Especially in that digital could be made to look exactly like film with the proper LUT. But that's not to say that there isn't a big difference in the look between film and digital.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two. I don't see why people are so vehemently opposed to striving to offer a more filmic LUT option.

Another two good examples that are more apples to apples:
http://clorstudios.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/storm-copy.jpg
http://www.filmconvert.com/examples/

I wouldn't say that takes a wine snob to tell the difference.

I pick image number 2... was that the correct choice? I hope so 'cause that's the one I prefer. That other jaundiced one looks '70-ish.

 

[Andy Roberts]

I pick image number 2... was that the correct choice? I hope so 'cause that's the one I prefer. That other jaundiced one looks '70-ish.

That is the correct choice Elsie... I spent 2 minutes in photoshop trying to make Gatsby look like Romeo, but really, between the two, I like the Gatsby image much better.

Listening to the scratches and pops on a vinyl LP may bring feelings of nostalgia, but pristine music is really nice.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

The FilmConvert link which Gavin posted shows just how close a RED ONE MX can be graded to match film. A few touch-ups to some of these images and the subliminal feel is all but gone.

http://www.filmconvert.com/examples/

Jannard's stated goal has always been to create a suitable replacement to his old friend film, and I think he's done an admirable job staying true to that goal. I think these examples, shot on yesterday's technology (RED ONE MX) pretty clearly illustrate the trajectory that the company is on. Apples to apples, I think RED is on the right track in its evolution. Next stop, "better than film" - aka Dragon.

My current cameras are so good, I was considering upgrading one and leaving the other one as is. The way things are looking with this new sensor technology, I'll probably find a way to upgrade both sensors - it really is approaching the capacity for image perfection. At what point do we decide we have perfect images, now that we can enhance our cameras to see much better than the eye can see....

 

[Zack McTee]

Jim, when you post the Dragon footage and files, will you please do it in a new thread and mark this one with an R.I.P.? I don't want to have to wade through all this bullish, narcissistic, back-and-fourth, opinionated rubble again.

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

All of you have no idea how deja vu this debate is for me.
It was 1997. I spent about 70% of my awake time in recording studios.
Some of these film vs digital posts must have been lifted straight from rec.audio.pro
Word for word.

Jochen

 

[Brian Boyer]

I hope Epic's straight-out-of-camera image is nowhere near as good as Dragon's, in any respect, but particularly in terms of color (DR actually tops my list but that seems to be confirmed).

In fact, I hope Dragon's straight-out-of-camera image makes Epic's straight-out-of-camera image look like shit by comparison. I know this is hyperbole but I trust you get my point. I hope it does the same for Alexa and F65.

I hope Epic's straight-out-of-camera image takes some serious wrangling in the grading suite to match the straight-out-of-camera beauty that comes from Dragon.

I don't care how good you think the MX sensor is. What's important is Dragon should kick its ass. That's progress.

Dragon is a next-generation sensor and it should look like it. I'm not interested in matching a 5 year old sensor to brand new tech. If you can get Epic to match, it should be a little bit of a chore.

The MX, as capable as it is, has its issues. Any holdovers from its look (and YES, it DOES have a look...that you can manipulate in post) is keeping one foot in the past, in my opinion.

Seeing Dragon's imagery should make you want to consider selling a kidney to help pay for the upgrade. I hope it's that good.

I know some folks around here don't like to acknowledge it but Arri threw down the gauntlet with the Alexa and it stole some of Epic's thunder. Like it or not, it had the sensor to beat in many ways.

Dragon should respond by setting the MX on fire, just to show it means business, and then ripping off Arri's gauntlet throwing arm.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I am the first to argue for the merits of digital. Especially in that digital could be made to look exactly like film with the proper LUT. But that's not to say that there isn't a big difference in the look between film and digital.

Compare gatsby to something like Romeo and Juliet:

There is a huge difference in subliminal 'feel' between the two.

Subliminal "feel" has been chosen and latter image dismantled in post.

No "colorist replacement" LUTs or plugins. Thin online jpegs.
Close enough for the purpose.

 

[Adam Montville]

Subliminal "feel" has been chosen and latter image dismantled in post.


No "colorist replacement" LUTs or plugins. Online jpegs used.
This is close enough for the purpose.

Boom

 

[Dr. Sassi]

To state the obvious: Some productions are way over 100 million Dollars for the production alone. They do tests with a lot of cameras. I don't think that "they" work with a camera-system, if it would not fit their artistic and technological vision for that work. More is not needed to say.