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 :)

First Look: Interchangeable OLPF on Dragon

Phil,

Thank you for sharing the long hours, hard work science with us. Looking forward to my swappable OPLF. If it wasn't hard enough picking what socks to wear in the morning I will have to pick an OPLF as well:001_smile:
 
Hi Phil!

Thanks for your indefatigable effort! Question please, as regards #8 of the instruction procedure. Why is there a specific sequence and clockwise bolt tightening? What is the downside to cross tightening, or starting in a different sequence?

Thank you very much
Fury
 
Nick Fury said:
Hi Phil!

Thanks for your indefatigable effort! Question please, as regards #8 of the instruction procedure. Why is there a specific sequence and clockwise bolt tightening? What is the downside to cross tightening, or starting in a different sequence?
Click to expand...

No "true" downside. However, much like the DSMC Lens Mount it's useful to start at the top left (or even right) to have the Mount or OLPF secure in it's position.

For instance, if you imagine a loose bolt and starting at the bottom of the DSMC Lens Mount, the mount itself can swing out of position and down a bit (gravity), which is a clumsy way really. Starting up top is generally good practice for a large variety of rigging situations (also comes in handy for wood working and other installation procedures). Specifically with tasks like this I'm a big fan of generating a method that is consistent as it speeds up the technique and minimizes potential for human error.

Do what works for you in this particular case, but much like all of the Dragon Data Sheets I'm sharing what I feel is a good way to work.
 
Great summary, Phil!

In Jarred's original post, he said the "'Skin Tone - Highlight' is the current OLPF shipping with Dragon that offers a stop of extra highlight protection."
According to your findings, would you agree at this point?

I believe you previously referred to it as a smidge better in highlight roll-off. I haven't seen any samples that showed a stop of protection.
 
Beyond awesome Phil.

Thanks!
 
Phil, one question about a thing you may/may not have been looking for... is there ANY difference between an image from a factory installed (non-interchangeable OLPF capability) STH OLPF, and one from a changeable OLPF capability with the STH OLPF installed?
 
Elsie N said:
Phil, one question about a thing you may/may not have been looking for... is there ANY difference between an image from a factory installed (non-interchangeable OLPF capability) STH OLPF, and one from a changeable OLPF capability with the STH OLPF installed?
Click to expand...

I haven't found a difference between the original "V2" OLPF and the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF for the Interchangeable OLPF System.

The difference that can be observed is the Low Light Optimized OLPF is slightly improved over the "V1" OLPF however. The Highlight Orbs are slightly less apparent and to my eye I think the color is slightly better, very slightly that is.
 
To be honest I think a lot of this is just useless talk. The public and our clients don't care. They don't even understand. If your shot is amazingly composed and your content will capture your audience then come on! We've all seen iPhone videos get millions more hits then somethings shot on Red. The camera doesn't make the video great. If you want less noise...simple fix. Light properly. Just my opinion.
 
Dan Rizzuto said:
To be honest I think a lot of this is just useless talk. The public and our clients don't care. They don't even understand. If your shot is amazingly composed and your content will capture your audience then come on! We've all seen iPhone videos get millions more hits then somethings shot on Red. The camera doesn't make the video great. If you want less noise...simple fix. Light properly. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

For some of us, I agree and that's more or less "standard operating procedure" and nothing really new. If the client and/or the shooter desires glass clean images you know what to do. There's definitely a lot of variety when it comes to client opinion on this subject matter. Some want clean, some want you to do without "influencing" anything that way.

However, there's a million markets and shooting conditions out there and Red cameras are being used for every type of shooting these days. As they have penetrated a market where people are trying to get a lot more for a lot less I've seen many compromises and concessions made when it comes to lenses, lighting, and the general production day.

I get more concerned when I see people working with essentially "no light" and not even low light. You can't expect something very pretty or deliberate in those conditions.

The Interchangeable OLPF is a pretty cool concept overall. The Skin Tone - Highlight and Low Light Optimized OLPFs are one thing. I dig the extra "goodness" that can be found in both, which is useful. However, I'm getting very excited about the future using the IR Color and IR Black and White OLPFs for special projects. That's going to be interesting to explore.
 
Akin A said:
Great summary, Phil!

In Jarred's original post, he said the "'Skin Tone - Highlight' is the current OLPF shipping with Dragon that offers a stop of extra highlight protection."
According to your findings, would you agree at this point?

I believe you previously referred to it as a smidge better in highlight roll-off. I haven't seen any samples that showed a stop of protection.
Click to expand...
Any word on this from those who used both? Curious if anybody's findings have shown a stop of protection in highlights as it was thought to early on.
I just got my email about proceeding with the OLPF change and I want to make sure.
 
Dan Rizzuto said:
To be honest I think a lot of this is just useless talk. The public and our clients don't care. They don't even understand. If your shot is amazingly composed and your content will capture your audience then come on! We've all seen iPhone videos get millions more hits then somethings shot on Red. The camera doesn't make the video great. If you want less noise...simple fix. Light properly. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not they who don;t understand, it's you who don't understand that just because they can't articulate a preference doesn't mean they can't see it. (BTW - You can't just fix noise in post, not without quality loss.)

One time a client forced me to shoot on 5D because they were, in my opinion, idiots, and had heard that camera was "in". Many shots, that were created at thousands of dollars of expense, were not really usable due to moire. Skin texture on the actresses looked horrible, etc. It also took a lot longer to light, and ended up costing much more money per day than a $750 Epic rental.

So really, if the kind fo work you do is only content driven - typical drab Canadian documentary with lots of frumpy talking heads droning on about some depressing subject, then an uPhone is fine (no one will watch your film either way), but if your woirk is more visually based, as much work is - really do you think anyone would pay to see IronMan or a romantic comedy shot in iPhone - history proves that no, they won't. There have only been 4 films shot with unprofessional gear that ever made money, and they had plot gimmicks to justify the crappy camera (Example Blair Witch). Act of Valor lost tons of time and money on set and in post to use 5Ds- it was a ridiculous waste. Notice how no other major features were ever shot with crap cameras ever again.

A forgiving camera often means you actually get the shot, and it's usable, no matter what went wrong that day - why I prefer Red.

Comments like this are hyper annoying. If you think there is no visual aspect to filmmaking that matters, why are you on this forum? Why don;t you work in radio or write novels?

Besides, you are simply wrong as far as most audiences are concerned.

That and I would not want to hire a DP who considered a discussion about the finer points of various cameras, their caveats and strengths, and so on, to be "useless talk". If they want someone without refined knowledge to just point and shoot at action they don't need to pay you, now do they.
 
So, just got my Dragon back. I chose to have the DSMC LOW LIGHT OPTIMIZED OLPF installed. Before this, I had the SKIN TONE-HIGHLIGHT OLPF that came with the camera.

All I can say is I'm impressed and glad I went this route. I'll post some images tomorrow.
 
Marcos Montenegro said:
So, just got my Dragon back. I chose to have the DSMC LOW LIGHT OPTIMIZED OLPF installed. Before this, I had the SKIN TONE-HIGHLIGHT OLPF that came with the camera.

All I can say is I'm impressed and glad I went this route. I'll post some images tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Yep its badass, so glad I made this choice, although I have an interchangeable kit on the way
 
Phil, thank you for your amazing and extensive tests. Much appreciated!

I wanted to bring up Redgamma4 in respect to low-light or interior shooting.
I've found a lot of the confusion and misconception with Dragon and low-light (not "seeing into the blacks") stem from the (now) default RG4 as a viewing/monitor LUT.
No question that RG4 produces a pleasing image for daylight exteriors, but the curve is too aggressive IMHO for lower light interiors and monitoring on set in those situations.

So I have defaulted Dragons to Dragoncolor/Redgamma3 for most shoots, and would rather see more information in the shadows (detail, noise) on the monitor than have the image sharply falloff to black.

Curious to hear your (and other Reduser) thoughts on RG3 vs RG4 as I feel it's a significant issue worth mentioning.

Regards,

Brian Broz
 
I'm with you on using RG3/DragonColor in low light.


Brian Broz said:
Phil, thank you for your amazing and extensive tests. Much appreciated!

I wanted to bring up Redgamma4 in respect to low-light or interior shooting.
I've found a lot of the confusion and misconception with Dragon and low-light (not "seeing into the blacks") stem from the (now) default RG4 as a viewing/monitor LUT.
No question that RG4 produces a pleasing image for daylight exteriors, but the curve is too aggressive IMHO for lower light interiors and monitoring on set.

So I have defaulted Dragons to Dragoncolor/Redgamma3 for most shoots, and would rather see more information in the shadows (detail, noise) on the monitor than have the image sharply falloff to black.

Curious to hear your (and other Reduser) thoughts on RG3 vs RG4 as I feel it's a significant issue worth mentioning.

Regards,

Brian Broz
Click to expand...
 
@Kemalettin
Since this is an optical filter, DR doesn't really change, it is just shifted. Well, maybe due to nicer highlight roll-on, some might say that in practice the SHL is a bit more forgiving.
But technically I'd say they are the same in DR, SHL is just like having a mild ND on your camera. (Yes, we got both)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top