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 Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
65 mil film... Yeah. Cool... Every second FILMLAB service in LA going out of business these days.
Same in Vancouver, same in Europe, Mumbai, Malaysia, you name it.

Film is O V E R. D O N E. E N D. N E V E R H A P P E N A G A I N. P A S T.

O B S O L E T E

No matter how good is RED, ARRI, SONY or Aussie shiny box with lens - we all already in digital media only world.
Faster you accept it - faster you get your rewards :)
If RED is good enough for Scorsese - what else do we need? 8K? Soon it will be there, i'm pretty sure about it.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Ok, then I was wrong... but the rest is shit :)

Not to joke, but if you shot 120fps RAW uncompressed for a day then your DIT and post guys will start to talk about how fantastic r3d's are to work with...

I did post for a couple of commercials shot with the codex. And even if you only have like a 3 day 2 camera shoot. The amount of disc space and transfer times that demands is quite nuts.
Click to expand...


Transfer time will hopefully be solved soon. Storage space, well, hopefully this new tech can get here asap!!! :

http://tweakbytes.com/Thread-Chines...-000-GB-in-a-single-DVD-1-000-TB#.Ucz9BxxLGRs
 
Last edited:
Phil Holland said:
I'm going out on a limb here, but with the combined dynamic range and resolution with the flexibility of high frame rates in a small package as well as having access to a larger format sensor compared to S35 filmmakers like Ron are going to be very excited about Dragon.

I'm only going out on a limb as I haven't used Dragon yet to capture a single image, but on paper that's some of what's getting me excited.
Click to expand...

We all just waiting for a miracle!!!
 
Peter Majtan said:
As much as I respect Ron as a cinematographer - statements like this can be very biased. Size of the actual frame has no effect on dynamic range. It helps with sensitivity, as more light can be directed at it, but it doesn't affect the DR. For that you need a special emulsion. IMHO, given the published specs of the Dragon - the DR will exceed any film stock available for motion picture photography...

What we need is proper tests under controled conditions, such as it has been done with 35mm - these test showed that even the stocks with the widest DR did not exceed 14 stops. Most stocks were well bellow that...

:sifone: Peter
Click to expand...

Definitely that Ron Fricke is a bit biased to 65mm film but he knows well what he is talking about.

Also he knows well what is going on with the latest development at digital acquisition side.

I think only Phantom 4K was attracted him just because 65mm film can't do that slow speed about 1000 fps at 4K scan anytime soon.

Wish that Dragon will offer more latitude than 65mm film scan @ 4K and in this case we could say that the film long game is over or maybe could happen just an opposite...
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
We all just waiting for a miracle!!!
Click to expand...
mir·a·cle [mir-uh-kuhl]
noun
1.
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2.
such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3.
a wonder; marvel.
4.
a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.
5.
miracle play.


by all definitions
 
Peter Majtan said:
As much as I respect Ron as a cinematographer - statements like this can be very biased. Size of the actual frame has no effect on dynamic range. It helps with sensitivity, as more light can be directed at it, but it doesn't affect the DR. For that you need a special emulsion. IMHO, given the published specs of the Dragon - the DR will exceed any film stock available for motion picture photography...

What we need is proper tests under controled conditions, such as it has been done with 35mm - these test showed that even the stocks with the widest DR did not exceed 14 stops. Most stocks were well bellow that...

:sifone: Peter
Click to expand...

Peter,

I had the opportunity to see a comparison of 4K footage from the Canon C500 and Sony F55 [corrected from "F65"] and "Baraka" at Panasonic's theatre at Universal Studios. 65mm was a whole 'nother world. I also had the chance to speak with some of the post guys who worked on "Baraka." There was simply no comparison, in their minds, to a scan of 65mm and ALL of the current 4/5K digital images. The "Baraka" scan was clearly heads and shoulders better.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Definitely that Ron Fricke is a bit biased to 65mm film but he knows well what he is talking about.

Also he knows well what is going on with the latest development at digital acquisition side.

I think only Phantom 4K was attracted him just because 65mm film can't do that slow speed about 1000 fps at 4K scan anytime soon.

Wish that Dragon will offer more latitude than 65mm film scan @ 4K then in this case we could say that the film game is over or maybe could happen just an opposite...
Click to expand...

Peter Moretti said:
Peter,

I had the opportunity to see a comparison of 4K footage from the Canon C500 and Sony F65 and "Baraka" at Panasonic's theatre at Universal Studios. 65mm was a whole 'nother world. I also had the chance to speak with some of the post guys who worked on "Baraka." There was simply no comparison, in their minds, to a scan of 65mm and ALL of the current 4/5K digital images. The "Baraka" scan was clearly heads and shoulders better.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the large frame size has a impact on visual perception - just like medium format photography looks so much more impressive then 35mm. The wow factor comes from the optics matched to the far large sensor combined with the resolution (65mm stock should have just above 6K resolution when at its best). But I doubt that it has superior DR as when compared to 35mm. As the DR is determined (in case of analogue film) by the chemistry of the emulsion - i.e. physical properties of the celluloid - this would result in much higher DR in 35mm stock as well. This is clearly not the case. I highly doubt any film stock will exceed 15 DR, best I have seen was 14 and that too on a experimental stock. Kodak Vision 3 negative (arguably the widest DR stock /that used to be/ most commonly available) has at its best 13 DR - and that too only when exposed with perfection...

So yes - 65mm is visually stunning due to its optical path and resolution - but not due to its DR...
Dragon will exceed 65mm's DR even by the most pessimistic estimates and without HDRx...

I am open to bet against Ron on this...

:sifone: Peter
 
Peter,

the main issue with digital cine acquisition is not the resolution itself but it's a colour problem just because there is no enough RGB colours available to fulfil those of 2K, 4K, 5K, 6K, 8K,... resolution pixels.

For example imagine that you are a painter that (suddenly) has got kind of limited source of colours to paint a picture.

And of course that you as a painter can paint that picture even with a limited source of colours but actually that's exactly not what you wanted.

You want all colours available at the same time and to get inside of yours sort of COLOURS-UNLIMITED-PAINTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At the end dynamic range is directly correlated with your possible colour availability.

There is no trade off!!!

Or simply to explain if you do not have enough colours to express than you can't show how good you are with dynamic range of a picture...

That is called LATITUDE...
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Peter,

the main issue with digital cine acquisition is not the resolution itself but it's a colour problem just because there is no enough RGB colours available too fulfil those 2K or 4K. 5K, 6K, 8K resolution pixels.

For example imagine that you are a painter that (suddenly) has got kind of limited source of colours to paint a picture.

And of course that you as a painter can paint that picture even with a limited source of colours but actually that's exactly not what you wanted.

You want all colours available at the same time and to get in COLOURS-UNLIMITED-PAINTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At the end dynamic range is directly correlated with your possible colour availability.

There is no trade off!!!

Or simply to explain if you do not have enough colours to express than you can't show how good you are with dynamic range of a picture...

That is called LATITUDE...
Click to expand...

So, what's the current MX sensor limited to? 256,000?... less?

Just askin'.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Peter,

the main issue with digital cine acquisition is not the resolution itself but it's a colour problem just because there is no enough RGB colours available too fulfil those 2K or 4K. 5K, 6K, 8K resolution pixels.

For example imagine that you are a painter that (suddenly) has got kind of limited source of colours to paint a picture.

And of course that you as a painter can paint that picture even with a limited source of colours but actually that's exactly not what you wanted.

You want all colours available at the same time and to get in COLOURS-UNLIMITED-PAINTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At the end dynamic range is directly correlated with your possible colour availability.

There is no trade off!!!

Or simply to explain if you do not have enough colours to express than you can't show how good you are with dynamic range of a picture...

That is called LATITUDE...
Click to expand...

Hi Sanjin,

Why is a 12bit to 16 bit RAW file more limited in color rendition than a scan? I thought the ARRISCAN is limited to 14 bits. Or why would REDCODE not have enough color depth to compete with negative?

Just like Elsie, just asking.
 
BTW, I think the whole interview is very fair to both film and digital. Take for instance they did not make it sound like they'd want to shoot a dramatic feature with film b/c the shooting ratios are so high in comparison. The shots in "Baraka" and "Samsara" were so carefully composed before rolling and don't depend on sound, that their shooting ratios were actually quite low.

They make good points about the benefits of digital projection. I wonder if film could survive even in niche form as an acquisition only medium? I think I remember reading that Kodak made more money off of print stocks than shooting stocks.
 
Peter Moretti said:
BTW, I think the whole interview is very fair to both film and digital. Take for instance they did not make it sound like they'd want to shoot a dramatic feature with film b/c the shooting ratios are so high in comparison. Because the shots in "Baraka" and "Samsara" were so carefully composed before rolling and don't depend on sound, their shooting ratios were low.

They make good points about the benefits of digital projection. I wonder if film could survive even in niche form as an acquisition only medium? I think I remember reading that Kodak made more money off of print stocks than shooting stocks.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, other than carving things in stone, there is still no better archiving medium than emulsion, so for this moment in history, it will continue to play an important role in preserving pictures for generations to come.
 
Elsie N said:
So, what's the current MX sensor limited to? 256,000?... less?

Just askin'.
Click to expand...

Maybe that could be the main question!!!!???

If I follow your count of 250,000 pixels that we can say they are EMPTY WITH COLOUR

that we should fill them with RGB or lets count (RGB) 3x 256,000 = 768,000 colours

or 256,000 red + 256,000 green + 256,000 blue.

It's a question how many of those colour points can deliver any of the newest cine digital systems.

Unfortunately nowhere is written about it on any camera specs!!!

They are all hiding that like a snake hiding legs :smilewinkgrin:

It's a sort of simple thinking about my topic just to get an idea what is going on there with the colour(s)!!!!!!!!
 
I recently did a shootout between my Scarlet E and an Arri loaded with Kodak 5203 (shooting Zeise superspeeds at f5.6) . 5203 is the best motion picture filmstock at the moment.
Scanned the neg on a Northlight at 6K.
The Scarlet was way more detailed.
The Scarlet had more usable dynamic range.
The film was much grainier than I expected this Iso50 film to be.
Film is dead.

I will post some stills soon.
 
Last edited:
Peter and Sanjin, with all due respect to you and RF - someone being famous does not make them experts. RF is definitely a great craftsman - no doubt about it. And he knows his chosen tool quite well. But I have done extensive research on the subject when I was tasked to design, develop and actually build from scratch a brand new film restoration system for Kurosawa family here in Japan. That research that spread over few years included working closely with both ARRI and KODAK and I was personally visiting both Munich and Rochester on several occasions. Sanjin - ironically, what you try to describe as a latitude - is the exact field where even the current MX sensor exceeds the DR of even the Kodak Vision 3. There is a reason why images from analogue film appear so "flat" with extremely low contrast. Sure you can do some clever scanning and try to offset your scanning ranges to "capture" more colors - but you can do exactly the same with the RAW data from the MX - and then some...

It is ironical that we are using RF and Samsara / Baraka as an example - as I have been working now for over two years on a feature documentary about Japan shot in a similar non-narative model as Samsara / Baraka. I still have another two years ahead of me before this is completed. It is entirely shot on RED cameras - including all three models - the RED ONE (MX), Scarlet and Epic. When I started working on this - I have set myself a goal to at least match or exceed the quality of Baraka. I was at first worried how good Samsara will be. I might be the only one here - but I was greatly disappointed with Samsara and am now confident to take them both head-on. I have always been admirer of RF and his work. But I was shocked with Samsara. Visually it is a stellar performer. But that is where it stops. In terms of everything else they went backwards when compared to Baraka. The worst was the story-telling part. And - ironically - the audio. The complete lack of real location audio carefully balanced into the final sound mix made the scenes look unreal. This was what made Baraka so amazing. For example the vocal of Lisa Gerrard carefully mixed in with the sound of the donkey's hoofs scratching the road under that heavy load and screeching of the wooden wheels made that scene so powerful that it still gives me shivers just writing about it. Also the storytelling in Baraka was amazing. This is by far the hardest challenge in a feature documentary when you choose to abandon the use of any dialogue what so ever. This is where Samsara failed me the most...

No offense to RF - but Samsara IMHO is an amazing showreel for him as a DP. But it did not do justice to the bar set with Baraka (no pun intended)...

Coming back to Dragon and its comparison to 65mm in terms of DR. None of us (save few at and close to RED) had yet the opportunity to properly analyze imagery from the new sensor. But given what MX can do today and the specs published on the Dragon - I am open to any bets that Dragon will exceed the DR of any film stock - 65mm iterations included. At 6K base resolution (about 4.8K after debayer) it will not exceed the resolution of the 65mm stock, but it will trash every 35mm out there (even the best 35mm does not exceed 3.2K). But the resolution is not a fair comparison - as if you had the same size Dragon (65mm) - it would beat the film in that department as well by a very safe margin. In the same way we can not fairly compare the optical path of 35mm (Dragon) with that of 65mm...

For me MX was finally the first digital sensor that gave 35mm film run for its money (and won - anyone thinking that the game of film vs digital is still going on needs to wake up). Dragon is going to be the first digital sensor to exceed its analogue film equivalent in every single aspect...

Ironically there is a future for analogue film. Not at the acquisition end, but (as also mentioned by Brandon above) rather at the archival end. This was also part of my research for the Kurosawa project as the Head of R&D for EYEdentify Inc here in Japan. However - with the latest developments at RED (including the current MX sensor) - there has been a major update to my research. As it is today - film is a great alternative for a long-term archival, but no longer the holly grail. And it can barely cope with the image quality of the existing MX sensor. With Dragon the scales will tip even further...

Sorry about the long post...

:sifone: Peter
 
Les Dittert said:
I recently did a shootout between my Scarlet E and an Arri loaded with Kodak 5203 (shooting Zeise superspeeds at f5.6) . 5203 is the best motion picture filmstock at the moment.
Scanned the neg on a Northlight at 6K.
The Scarlet was way more detailed.
The Scarlet had more usable dynamic range.
The film was much grainier than I expected this Iso50 film to be.
Film is dead.

I will post some stills soon.
Click to expand...

FYI Les, I'm working on getting the clearance on the same test using a well cared for set of Master Primes I shot back in 2011 for you under controlled conditions. They are the property of a studio, but I should be able to wrestle away some images. I have them here in my vault, just waiting on the okay.

I'm on the side that film being dead, there is a very specific reason I am a Red owner and more or less a Red advocate, which can be read here. Why I shoot on Red and love the idea of Dragon 6K

I think between the 4K and 5K (5K in particular) that we have now we have kind of topped film in regards to resolution. And you of course are shooting with your modified camera, which will provide technically more detail anyways. Dragon will likely conquer the dynamic range ceiling we can read on the film response curve today. In many ways we have matched or bettered film. However, it's where we go from here that is the true new medium.

I'll poison the pot a bit here, for both Red and film it's sometimes also about what you can do with the images once you have them captured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top