Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Enter the Dragon

Now that Sir Graeme is all warmed up as i told you,i know he'll bring you guys some kind of HDR on Steroid on the Dragon.26 Stops on 6k and 30 stops on 9K and i am loving your announcement ...
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
RED has said a few times that 3:1 is mathematically lossless. 2.5:1 is usually mathematically lossless compression of pure noise. jp2k can take some shortcuts since the real world isn't pure noise.
Click to expand...

2.5:1 lossless compression of pure noise? That doesn't sound right unless I'm missing something and there are new ways of compressing random pixel noise that I have not heard of. I've seen several sources indicate that JPEG2000 mathematically lossless compression, for example, achieves about 2.08:1 compression for natural images, and much lower for less uncompressible content. Isn't pure full range noise essentially incompressible? Doesn't that mean any mathematically lossless compression has to be capable of varying as low as 1:1 compression for extremely incompressible content?

Where have you seen RED say that the currently available 3:1 REDCODE is mathematically lossless? I have not been able to find any mention of that anywhere. I have seen RED say that "Just below 3:1 is mathematically lossless", but what does that mean in relation to REDCODE 3:1? I still think it seems like a confusing way of saying "Codecs designed to be mathematically lossless achieve just below 3:1 compression on average, so in comparison REDCODE is not designed to be mathematically lossless but REDCODE 3:1 can be considered to be near mathematically lossless.
 
Alex Frausto said:
I'd wager it's 12 bit. 12 bits are just fine considering current display technology.
Click to expand...

Hm...

You can not relate the number of stops in any display media to the number of stops needed to capture a dynamic scene without clip in either end. 10 bit is cool displaytech, 12 bit log + float will bring you a long way in processing, 16 bit lin is cool for transforms and transport, 32 bit float is cool for colorcorrection, 16+ bits for capture AD is not a bad idea, if the sensor has the ability to top a smaller container upon capture.

Bits are needed for different things for different processes and different places in the signal chain from capture to delivery....
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Hm...

You can not relate the number of stops in any display media to the number of stops needed to capture a dynamic scene without clip in either end. 10 bit is cool displaytech, 12 bit log + float will bring you a long way in processing, 16 bit lin is cool for transforms and transport, 32 bit float is cool for colorcorrection, 16+ bits for capture AD is not a bad idea, if the sensor has the ability to top a smaller container upon capture.

Bits are needed for different things for different processes and different places in the signal chain from capture to delivery....
Click to expand...

In the words of the chicken farmer in Napoleon Dymanite, "I don't understand a word you just said." Sometimes I feel like I'm keeping up with learning this industry and sometimes I feel like I have no idea what I'm doing and have no right to be in this industry at all. Gunleik's posts often trigger the latter feeling.
 
Andy Roberts said:
In the words of the chicken farmer in Napoleon Dymanite, "I don't understand a word you just said." Sometimes I feel like I'm keeping up with learning this industry and sometimes I feel like I have no idea what I'm doing and have no right to be in this industry at all. Gunleik's posts often trigger the latter feeling.
Click to expand...

Ouch sorry!

I'll just shut up and shoot my red....

That wasn't my intention
 
Jared, with RED the with the Dragon upgrade, is there a chance or plans to have the box around the sensor changed so that we can use lens with shorter flange distances?
 
charles lim yi yong said:
Jared, with RED the with the Dragon upgrade, is there a chance or plans to have the box around the sensor changed so that we can use lens with shorter flange distances?
Click to expand...

Sounds like your looking for some Leica M magic :) unfortunately if we replace the sensor, and the boards inside, if we also replace the body as well, and the internal mechanicals associated with it ( which you would need to do to get what you are asking ) then you are talking about an entirely new camera.
 
Jarred Land said:
Sounds like your looking for some Leica M magic :) unfortunately if we replace the sensor, and the boards inside, if we also replace the body as well, and the internal mechanicals associated with it ( which you would need to do to get what you are asking ) then you are talking about an entirely new camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's unreasonable. But, some lenses do not fit because of a protruding rear element only.

For example, Nikon Nikonos 20mm and 28mm have a small rear protrusion and would fit if the rectangular sensor opening in the Epic was enlarged by just a few millimeters. I would imagine that you would need to enlarge the opening and the OLPF size for the larger sensor, but maybe not. It looks like pretty thight fit inside :)

Can you clarify at this stage if the sensor opening is going to be larger and, if so, what the new dimensions may be?

you wouldn't want me to get the Dremel tool in my hands again, right? :smash:
 
Hey Pawel, just the sensor mask will be larger.. as you assumed :)
 
I'm looking into having my wider Leica lenses machined to fit my Epic mount, just need the small 'wings' removed from the lens rear. Assuming I will have some interesting internal light bouncing issues, will report back!
 
Is Dragon roughly about 6 months away ? Also this
72986_590894180940039_55509320_n.jpg
 
James Falco said:
6k is only the sensor resolution, as pixel count it outputs. From what I understand the physical size is still s35.

///
Click to expand...
It's a bit larger (as MX 5k is, too)

If I have got this about right...

MX 4k (16:9) is S35, and thus works with amongst others the Angie 24-290
Dragon 5k (16:9) is S35 (and thus works with that same lens)
 
James Falco said:
6k is only the sensor resolution, as pixel count it outputs. From what I understand the physical size is still s35.
Click to expand...

Gunleik Groven said:
It's a bit larger (as MX 5k is, too)

If I have got this about right...
Click to expand...


Here's pretty much what we can extrapolate from what's been announced:

Phil Holland said:
Red Dragon and Film Formats


Above is a quick look at how the Red Dragon sensor compares to standard motion picture film formats. Notable observations to take from this are:
- Dragon's 6K is noticeably wider than S35, but nearly exactly as tall as S35 Academy. Useful for anamorphic shooters.
- Dragon's 5K is a smidge wider than S35 Full Aperture and a smidge shorter as S35 3-perf. Likely providing enough room for all S35 designed lenses.
- Dragon's 4K is just a bit thinner than S35 Academy.
- Dragon's 3K is noticeably wider than S16, and just a bit taller.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top