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....

Phil,

I appreciate your work on the Dragon, when do you think you will be able to share some footage and test images?
 
Brant Hadfield said:
Will Dragon's Highlight Roll-off characteristics be a function of its dynamic range, new OLPF, or color science or curve? Will a smoother roll off than MX now be possible by adjusting curve, because Dragon has so much DR to start with?
Click to expand...

Would any resident experts care to take a crack at this?
 
Will Keir said:
I appreciate your work on the Dragon, when do you think you will be able to share some footage and test images?
Click to expand...

That's entirely up to Jarred and Red. I'm just doing a bit of testing here and there at the moment.

It's clear though that Dragon is more "out in the wild" than ever and all those folks have been shooting images.

I'd love to put together a small shoot to really test out the camera. I'm going to do that anyways once I have a production model in my hands though. Getting images to play with in the upcoming "Dragon ready" Redcine-X Pro release is more of my interest. The combination of those two things in particular will truly show what Dragon can do.
 
Jarred, give this man a camera!!!! :)

Phil Holland said:
That's entirely up to Jarred and Red. I'm just doing a bit of testing here and there at the moment.

It's clear though that Dragon is more "out in the wild" than ever and all those folks have been shooting images.

I'd love to put together a small shoot to really test out the camera. I'm going to do that anyways once I have a production model in my hands though. Getting images to play with in the upcoming "Dragon ready" Redcine-X Pro release is more of my interest. The combination of those two things in particular will truly show what Dragon can do.
Click to expand...
 
If for any reason you need to add some French flavor in the mix, I would be more than glad to test the Dragon for you Guys ;)
I'm "almost" free in August and I could test the camera with some rad action sports by day, by night in and out of the water... Just sayin'...
 
The 2.28:1 aspect ratio itself does indeed have some actual format relevance primarily to 65mm cinematography as it is indeed the aspect ratio of 65mm 5-perf film/Showscan
Click to expand...

Correction: I worked in Showscan, and while the format is, indeed 5 perf 65/70 running at 60 frames per second, we used spherical lenses, retaining the 5 perf 2:1 aspect ratio.
Other formats, such as Ultra Panavision 70 did use anamorphic lenses with a 1:1.5 squeeze ratio which increased the aspect ratio width.
 
Phil Holland said:
Additionally and as a total side not between the pixel design and format size there's a lot of talk about Dragon 6K matching or exceeding the visual quality of 65mm 5-perf, which is indeed this particular aspect ratio. It's a format that's still actually used today on larger budget productions that shoot 65mm. So in some ways a bit of a nod and seductress for folks who enjoy that format.

That's pretty much why 2.28:1 makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe we call it 6K 65mm 5-perf? Or 6k 2.28:1 65mm?
 
Randall Weatherington said:
Correction: I worked in Showscan, and while the format is, indeed 5 perf 65/70 running at 60 frames per second, we used spherical lenses, retaining the 5 perf 2:1 aspect ratio.
Other formats, such as Ultra Panavision 70 did use anamorphic lenses with a 1:1.5 squeeze ratio which increased the aspect ratio width.
Click to expand...

Correct. I've only worked with 65mm 5-perf a few times in my life, but I do know the negative is 2.066x0.906" or 52.48x23mm which is 2.28:1.

I'm basing this more as the standard format recognized by the industry for a few decades and what's been used on modern 65mm jobs.


Nick Morrison said:
Why not call it 6K 65mm 5perf?
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different format when looking at the negative and sensor size.
 
Correct. I've only worked with 65mm 5-perf a few times in my life, but I do know the negative is 2.066x0.906" or 52.48x23mm which is 2.28:1.

I'm basing this more as the standard format recognized by the industry for a few decades and what's been used on modern 65mm jobs.
Click to expand...
The discrepancy comes from the fact that they used to allow for one magnetic audio track on the inside of each row of perfs, which cut into usable image area. Now that is no longer an issue one can have a wider aspect ratio.
Trivia: the magnetic audio tracks are the reason why the print stock is 70 mm wide. Original neg and lab stocks are all 65mm. Nothing like hoisting a 1,250' load of 65mm up onto the camera. Practically need a fork lift or chain hoist or...
 
Phil's Phormat - PP for short ;-)

Phil's Phormat - PP for short ;-)

I like that Phil's 2.28:1 format offers such a compelling matrix of lens compatibility, data usage, resolution and relatively simple aspect ratio cuts.

FWIW I share the love of 2:1 aspect ratio.

Cheers - #19
 
Ok...

Lets see what this baby can do.

dragon_logo.jpg


Will start a new thread in 48 hours.

Cya..
 
Well - your London TVC shoot from a few years ago was the tipping point for me grabbing an Epic.

So... gulp... looks like Dragon maybe next ;)

Have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top