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 :)

Epic Dragon vs Epic MX. Odd Results

Rodrigo Prata

Rodrigo Prata

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hello,


First of All, I`m sorry to bring a somewhat old subject to discussion, but I believe that I`ve got something odd in my hands


I`m a director of Photography located in Brazil, and I Own a Epic Dragon, which I use to shot my own work, but which I also rent to other DPs.


The adoption of the Dragon sensor was somewhat slower here, and a lot of Epics owners have not upgraded to Dragon. So there are not so many Dragon cameras here and some DPs are just now starting to shoot Dragon.


A Older and more experienced DP approached me with the intention to rent out my camera for an upcoming project, and, having never shot Dragon before, he asked me to perform a simple Dragon vs MX test. He asked to install the LLO OLPF because he wanted to see how noise would compare on both cameras.


I used My own Dragon camera, and a Friend's MX Camera


So, under his instructions, I lit up a gray card and exposed so that when visualizing RAW, the gray card would be at 45% ERI (I know that this may not be the best approach, but that was his instruction)


I started with the Dragon camera and lit up the chart so that my T stop (I ued a 100mm RED Pro Prime) was exactly 5.6.


My shutter angle was 90 degrees.


I started closing down the lens in thirds of Stop Increments, I would press record, the press stop, and then change the F Stop without recording so that there would be no variation during the record. I did that until I got to T22.0 and after that I changed my shutter angle to 11 degrees, opened the lens back to T8.0 and continued until I closed the lens back to T22.0


After that, I changed my Shutter angle to 360 degrees and put my lens at T11.0 and started to open up the lens Until I got to T 2.0, and then changed my frame rate to 12 fps, closed to T2.8 and started closing until T1.8


When changing exposure times, I applied the correct black shade calibration.


I the performed the exact same test, with the same 100mm RED Pro Prime lens (The same fiscal lens) with the Epic MX.


Started at T5.6 at 90 degrees. and underexposed and then overexposed the gray card the exactly same way I di on the first time.


Both cameras were at 5K, but the Dragon was set to 5K HD and the MX was set to 5K FF (I forgot to change that) The Epic MX was a little closer to the gray card then the Dragon to compensate for different frame sizes. (but I think I may have gotten a Little closer the what I should.


now the od part, When I open the files on REDcine, the files look extremely similar to each other in terms of noise under the same debater settings (remember I was using the LLO OLPF) and even the more underexposed files don't show much difference in terms of noise.


The clipping point is also extremely close on both cameras, the Dragon MAY have 1/3 third of a stop extra in the highlights (the gray card has a white and a black reference, and I can easily see when the sensor clips, when I drop down the ISO to 100 and there is no difference between the gary area and the white area)


I know I was not using the STHO OLP, so there should be a little less room for overexposure, but I was under the impression that I should get a little more overexposure range with Dragon, even with the LLO OLPF.


I`m posting the link to download R3D files, they are already organized and labeled inside folders. The A camera is the Dragon, and the B camera, is the MX.


I would like to ask you guys what do you think about this test? the way it was performed, and the results.


I think this is a really odd result, compared to other tests I`ve seen elsewhere, and also based on my own experience with the Dragon, since I was getting better results with the Dragon, the I was used to get with my previous MX epic.


A few Notes:


at the time of shooting, Both had the same look settings in therms of ISO but not in terms of color science, gamma and contrast/ saturation


I noticed that When setting the Dragon to 5K HD, I could not choose 3:1 compression ratio, and I could on the MX (using the same RED Mag) is this normal?


Thanks very much, and sorry for the long post.


here is the link: https://www.wetransfer.com/download...c6f4bdb1f54a87d21c429c9320150710175332/ee6a70
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how comparing them both at max rez would have looked? Ie 6K Dragon vs 5K MX.

Right now, MX is max sensor (larger than S35) , and Dragon is cropped on itself (at S35). There's 17% of Dragon's pixels we're not seeing/using...

Or perhaps Dragon 5K vs MX 4K? Both at S35?
 
I know that at 6K, the Dragon would have an edge in terms of noise size. But this comparison was intended to see the difference btween the two cameras at the same pixel size. To Campare the difference in terms of noise floor. I would imagine that the Dragon would have Better noise floor at 5K, when using the LLO OLPF
 
I've not tested as stringently as you, but my own feelings after a few months of Dragon are similar. I think the amount of noise is very similar to MX when you use the LLO filter. What's a bit different is the style of noise, it feels more organic somehow so I can stand a little more of it. So I'm inclined to rate the Dragon marginally faster than MX (which I always used at 500 ISO) from time to time. Half a stop to a stop maybe.

Likewise with the dynamic range, there is a little more than MX, but the main improvement is in the highlight rolloff which vastly improves the look of highlights which are at or near clipping.
 
Dunno what you guys see.

I had a shoot where an MX came in as a B-cam the other day, and the differences in color and DR are more like night and day then subtle.

I haven't bothered re-doing all tests at all iterations of the Dragon, but what I saw then corresponded very well with what I saw when I first got the production Dragon back in November 2013
 
Hi Gunleik,

My experience shooting Dragon is similar to yours, I'm getting much better results then I would before, and didn't even bother to this test so far because of that. But It's very hard to show this test to this oldschool DP and say "I know it looks similar, but it is not, trust me!" He is not very convinced. I'm not questioning Dragon superiority (altought, it did cross my mind that my camera might have some issue). What I'm questioning is if this test has any misconception on the way I shot, and if there is something diferent I could shot Side by side with an MX camera and a Dragon LLO camera, to showcase the improvement of Dynamic Range.
 
To me the most significant difference is in he color rendering and saturation, with DR as a very strong second.

Shooting greycards doesn't really show off that (I am not questioning the methodology, though)

As you shot 5k HD on Dragon and 5kFF on the MX, you actually gave that a bit of edge, but not enough to the results you have.

I don't use the LLO OLPF, but I had the original OLPF and before that the prototype which I do suspect had its very own never released OLPF.

Here is some images from the 1st test I did when I got my 1st production Dragon. As I have understood it, the original OLPF was tuned like the LLO, but with some other artefacts. (the orbs).

http://blog.gunleik.com/2014/03/03/epic-and-dragon-comparison-part-1-overexposure/

But that is a long while ago, and now I don't even have an MX handy
 
I'm not sure what you are seeing, but when I went to the clips that are at -5 1/3 stops and boosted them both to 5000ISO the difference is very obvious. Dragon has a much tighter and cleaner noise profile than MX.

by like, a mile.
 
I have to also say that I really like tests like this. Even though they are just grey charts they do tell you a lot about what is going on under the hood. The MX is a very, very, very capable camera, but the Dragon is just that much better. I know that people did have a bit of a noise freakout at the start, but a test like this really shows what usable images can be pulled out and where you would have to hide the dirt (when you are grading for example) because the data might not be there or as crisp.

Thanks for sharing.
 
@Rodrigo
Not Surprise with your results I had done several test and always came with the same:

When MX is exposed properly Dynamic Range agains Dragon is extremely close. most of the tests are done by people wanted to show how great dragon is, but reality is other.

When aperture is the same dragon had more Dynamic Range but if you expose MX properly dynamic range is almost the same.

This is my Conclusion:
MX and Dragon had very similar Dynamic Range
Dragon Noise is a bit better than MX but not sceptional better as a lot people claim here.
Dragon had more resolution.
Dragon Handle Better the Infra Red Pollution. But honestly all is need in MX is a IRND.
White Balance is better on Dragon
Skin Tones are slightly better on Dragon but not by much, but I'm pretty sure this is done by OLPF not the sensor so if we had a similar OLPF on MX results would be the same. .After proper Color Correction the two cameras will make look humans skin the same.
 
Andy Corleone said:
@Rodrigo
Not Surprise with your results I had done several test and always came with the same:

When MX is exposed properly Dynamic Range agains Dragon is extremely close. most of the tests are done by people wanted to show how great dragon is, but reality is other.

When aperture is the same dragon had more Dynamic Range but if you expose MX properly dynamic range is almost the same.

This is my Conclusion:
MX and Dragon had very similar Dynamic Range
Dragon Noise is a bit better than MX but not sceptional better as a lot people claim here.
Dragon had more resolution.
Dragon Handle Better the Infra Red Pollution. But honestly all is need in MX is a IRND.
White Balance is better on Dragon
Skin Tones are slightly better on Dragon but not by much, but I'm pretty sure this is done by OLPF not the sensor so if we had a similar OLPF on MX results would be the same. .After proper Color Correction the two cameras will make look humans skin the same.
Click to expand...

w8ss2g.jpg
 
we're all entitled to opinion, but if you say that dr is better on Dragon @ identical settings/light (or aperture as you say) then we do actually agree... :)

you can of course expose for mx and get great results. no question on that.


color snd captured saturation is the biggie for me.
 
I have been using a dragon as the A camera and an mx as the b camera a lot lately. They cut great. A long as you are working in a comfortable place for the MX, you start to push the dragon, and the MX won't keep up, but thats a rare situation.

Nick
 
call me crazy.. but I prefer the MX sensor in terms of look.. i cant put my finger on it..but i guess maybe it feels more organic in a way...
not as glossy

personal preference.. but Dragon is great too.. especially for commercials and Music Videos..
 
Thanks for the imput people, I'll take another look and maybe shot a few more tests. As for having shot 5K FF on the MX, I believe that croping the sides on the MX footage would give the same result as having shot at 5K HD. And as for not being able to shoot at 3:1 compression ratio on the Deagon, at 5K HD. Is this normal? I can't seen to find minimun compression ratios on the DSMC operation Guide
 
Rodrigo Prata said:
And as for not being able to shoot at 3:1 compression ratio on the Deagon, at 5K HD. Is this normal? I can't seen to find minimun compression ratios on the DSMC operation Guide
Click to expand...

That information can be found in the Media Operation Guide. Starts on page 59 of the PDF, section B REDCODE OPTIONS.

You did not specify which mag your were using, 1.8" or Mini and the size of the mag. Both dictate the compression ratios you are allowed to use. 5K HD is limited to 4:1 at 24p on the 128 GB 1.8" mag and 240 GB mini mag. You can do 3:1 compression at 24p on the 512 GB and 1 TB Mini SSDs and the 512 GB 1.8" SSD.
 
You can also use the on-line tool to see compression ratios. Though it does not have the 512 GB 1.8" or the 240 GB Mini. http://www.red.com/tools/recording-time

In addition to the on-line tool, there is also an app for the iPhone. Not sure if it is available for Android or not.
 
I decided not to upgrade to Dragon after testing against my MX. I got similar results to what the OP shows. There are some definite improvements, even if they are slight. But the new artifacts and issues, namely the CMOS smearing and the gate shadow in flares, were way too easy to induce in my testing. And in researching TV shows and films shot with the Dragon, I've seen examples of the smearing all over the place. I think it's seen at some point in nearly episode of this season of House of Cards.
I also think I agree with Zakaree in terms of look. The look of Dragon has just never really done it for me personally. And I've almost always been quite happy with my MX. Barring a couple of make-up and lighting mismatch/interaction situations.
Just my opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top