IS RED FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLE ?

[Hrvoje Simic]

I am still proposing a consideration of additional 6K 35 mm sensor with 4K S35 crop.
Vista for ultra acuity and Vista for excellent acuity with higher sensitivity and DR.

 

[egon touste]

Alexa should not be in the game? Do you mean on specs alone or on the eye test?

in terms of specs. , arri are behind . dyanmic range, colour.. technologically, arri are behind

in terms of design, arri are ahead though, and the design approach they took was to point out that resolution was the smaller part of the equation.. the polar opposite to red' philosophy..

i would say, arri sometimes make a big thing about listening to customers..and they do. one thing i'd say about them giving people "mpeg4" ..i mean "prores" as a recording options, instead of high framerate "raw" ..is this .. its slightly disengenuous: as they don't seem to have the technology to do "raw" recording efficiently..except with silly (imo) uncompressed (or mildly compressed) recording modules that cost as much as the camera itself..

red on the other hand have licensed in j2k hardware and tinkered with it. neither approach is right or wrong .. all id say is : i could explain to arri how to create an arithmetic coder , or a basic huffman coder that beats j2k ..lossy or losslessly .. so i personally expect better. the dynamic range of the arri is nowhere near dragon .. but downsampling raw reduces artifacts. the world is still HD.. so this counts..

in terms of eye, arri have cut their cloth very well .. fewer, but more sensitive photosites = win (which is what i was implying in my original post you responded to). this is the most important part of the game of course

if red offered me a $6k brain upgrade, which used my newly purchased dragon sensor..with some newer / cleaner processing..(like the red1 mx upgrade).. id take it.

but until they get their prices "somewhere close to reality"..i think id rather buy a second hand ferrari with manual drive (i hate cars.. but a better investment)

 

[Steve Sherrick]

in terms of specs. , arri are behind . dyanmic range, colour.. technologically, arri are behind

in terms of design, arri are ahead though, and the design approach they took was to point out that resolution was the smaller part of the equation.. the polar opposite to red' philosophy..

i would say, arri sometimes make a big thing about listening to customers..and they do. one thing i'd say about them giving people "mpeg4" ..i mean "prores" as a recording options, instead of high framerate "raw" ..is this .. its slightly disengenuous: as they don't seem to have the technology to do "raw" recording efficiently..except with silly (imo) uncompressed (or mildly compressed) recording modules that cost as much as the camera itself..

red on the other hand have licensed in j2k hardware and tinkered with it. neither approach is right or wrong .. all id say is : i could explain to arri how to create an arithmetic coder , or a basic huffman coder that beats j2k ..lossy or losslessly .. so i personally expect better. the dynamic range of the arri is nowhere near dragon .. but downsampling raw reduces artifacts. the world is still HD.. so this counts..

in terms of eye, arri have cut their cloth very well .. fewer, but more sensitive photosites = win (which is what i was implying in my original post you responded to). this is the most important part of the game of course

if red offered me a $6k brain upgrade, which used my newly purchased dragon sensor..with some newer / cleaner processing..(like the red1 mx upgrade).. id take it.

but until they get their prices "somewhere close to reality"..i think id rather buy a second hand ferrari with manual drive (i hate cars.. but a better investment)

Although color science is subjective, I do believe that Arri did their homework when it comes to simulating the aesthetic of film in a way that seems to appeal to a large group of DPs out there. By the way, I would not put them way behind on dynamic range. I think Epic Dragon and Alexa are in similar territories but still a bit different on that top end. I think they are both very effective tools, that have room for improvement and that's what's exciting for the future. Resolution alone is not what it's all about. It's a sum of all the parts now. And I do believe RED understands that and is working hard to push the boundaries. And I'm sure Arri is as well. But I don't believe there will ever be a camera that everyone universally declares "perfect".

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

in terms of specs. , arri are behind . dyanmic range, colour.. technologically, arri are behind

in terms of design, arri are ahead though, and the design approach they took was to point out that resolution was the smaller part of the equation.. the polar opposite to red' philosophy..

i would say, arri sometimes make a big thing about listening to customers..and they do. one thing i'd say about them giving people "mpeg4" ..i mean "prores" as a recording options, instead of high framerate "raw" ..is this .. its slightly disengenuous: as they don't seem to have the technology to do "raw" recording efficiently..except with silly (imo) uncompressed (or mildly compressed) recording modules that cost as much as the camera itself..

red on the other hand have licensed in j2k hardware and tinkered with it. neither approach is right or wrong .. all id say is : i could explain to arri how to create an arithmetic coder , or a basic huffman coder that beats j2k ..lossy or losslessly .. so i personally expect better. the dynamic range of the arri is nowhere near dragon .. but downsampling raw reduces artifacts. the world is still HD.. so this counts..

in terms of eye, arri have cut their cloth very well .. fewer, but more sensitive photosites = win (which is what i was implying in my original post you responded to). this is the most important part of the game of course

if red offered me a $6k brain upgrade, which used my newly purchased dragon sensor..with some newer / cleaner processing..(like the red1 mx upgrade).. id take it.

but until they get their prices "somewhere close to reality"..i think id rather buy a second hand ferrari with manual drive (i hate cars.. but a better investment)

The point is people shoot pictures, not specs. Arris cameras have a look that some people prefer over any other camera, many people in fact, so they are not really behind anyone. Each brand has their strengths.

 

[egon touste]

The point is people shoot pictures, not specs. Arris cameras have a look that some people prefer over any other camera, many people in fact, so they are not really behind anyone. Each brand has their strengths.

you re pushing against an open door ..

however.. arri are technologically behind .. i stand by that statement..and "looks" can be changed in the grade. arri has the advantage, since many notable DPs have been around a while. they want an analog of a film camera

but as arri have shown , having a big fpga camera with "big slow quiet fans" ..xlrs inputs..etc.. maybe more important in most cases too . in fact, in critical systems, its often better to "keep the deisgn simple"

so when i say red are technologically more advanced.. i mean in the same way early american nuclear warheads have been said to be more "advanced" than russian equivolents of the time.. but the americans later realised the primitive russian weapons were not susceptable to failure due to EMP blasts (valves instead of transistors etc, mechanical switches instead of electronic ones).. so the design decisions they had made.. made infinitly more sense (whether or not they had other technological options at their disposal or not). so to continue that analogy..arri have been doing it a long time, so its a refinement process..which is something that could describe the russian "trial and error" approach to spaceship design too.. whereas NASA do "research" and draw "conclusions" ..then act on the results.. trial and error is sometimes a better approach .. but combining both approaches strengthens both

i live behind an raf base. the other day i swear the sound of a jet flying overhead was nearly completely drowned out by the sound of my epic booting up (the fans) .. i was of course closer to the camera than the jet..none the less

i had the opportunity to compare a shot taken on a sony f55 and an alexa.. the f55 seemed to win in the highlight department.. but lost in terms of overall image quality

id like to see what arris debayering is like, ive not studied that close up.. and comparing a 1:1 raw image to a downsampled one is slightly unfair. compare downsampled epic footage and the game changes for me

 

[Kyle Dones]

With the weapon camera on the corner coming up with 8 k on vista size sensor
Is red fighting the wrong battle ?

no...

 

[James T Mather]

in terms of specs. , arri are behind . dyanmic range, colour.. technologically, arri are behind

in terms of design, arri are ahead though, and the design approach they took was to point out that resolution was the smaller part of the equation.. the polar opposite to red' philosophy..

i would say, arri sometimes make a big thing about listening to customers..and they do. one thing i'd say about them giving people "mpeg4" ..i mean "prores" as a recording options, instead of high framerate "raw" ..is this .. its slightly disengenuous: as they don't seem to have the technology to do "raw" recording efficiently..except with silly (imo) uncompressed (or mildly compressed) recording modules that cost as much as the camera itself..

red on the other hand have licensed in j2k hardware and tinkered with it. neither approach is right or wrong .. all id say is : i could explain to arri how to create an arithmetic coder , or a basic huffman coder that beats j2k ..lossy or losslessly .. so i personally expect better. the dynamic range of the arri is nowhere near dragon .. but downsampling raw reduces artifacts. the world is still HD.. so this counts..

I use both and respectfully see it very differently. To me, the Arri has much better highlight and noise floor than Dragon as far as I can see. Streets ahead. (I'm constantly amazed how the Alexa has such high dynamic range as practicals and hot skies outside windows on interiors hold where as on other systems they would have blown long ago. It's literally amazing in this regard) also it 'a the most noiseless camera I've ever seen even if you're lighting super-dark down in the very bottom of the curve : zero noise.

Dragon beats Arri on resolution but despite this apparent advantage appears notably noisy in darkly lit scenes at times. Also Dragon (and Mysterium) seem to have very crushy shadows in comparison to the Arri (despite the 16+ stops). Where the low tones seem to homogenize in terms of saturation and flatline into a kind of a grey wash. I felt this very much grading a Red shot feature and kept looking for low end detail (in dark suits) that wasn't really there (like the canera's gamma is too low for my taste). This effect can be seen (for example) in Gone Girl where Ben Affleck's T-Shirt descends into a mass of desaturated grey along with the other shadows (I feel on certain other systems differentiating these low tones would hold up better). In short, with Epic/Dragon I find I need to light with more fill light to avoid this effect.

This article may go some way towards explaining why it is this way.
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html

 

[andyshon]

These debates always seem to end up pitting one manufacturer against another. Surely we're all Red users on here so can forget what Arri or Canon are up to. The absolute SNR or DR of the current sensor isn't all that relevant either. The question posed by Lorenzo was whether increasing pixel count is more useful than increasing pixel size. In theory a 4k sensor the same size as the new 8k Dragon would have two stops better dynamic range, full frame capture at 300 fps as opposed to 75, and take a quarter of the time to process in post. Given the delivery formats most Red users are being asked for, would this be more or less useful than the increased spacial resolution?

For me 5k is the perfect pixel count, now and for the foreseeable future. It's 25% above the Nyquist frequency for 4k output, and thus just about perfect according to Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem. A camera that captured this from a FF 35mm sensor at up to 250fps would be absolutely perfect for me. I'm sure other Red users have different priorities, but how many of us actually need 8k?

 

[Phil Holland]

how many of us actually need 8k?

- Scarlet Dragon - up to 5K motion
- Epic Dragon - up to 6K motion
- Weapon 6K Dragon (CF and MG) - up to 6K motion
- Weapon 8K Dragon (CF) - up to 8K motion

Much like some productions are exploring 6K filming for various reasons, 8K will be explored both as a format (VistaVision+) and for more creative problem solving types of situations where re-framing, cropping, and stabilization are useful. Me, I want it as a format mainly and I do want 8K. For some the demand for capturing 8K content has already begun. RED is providing us that option for those who do need it. It's targeted at that specific market and that's reflected in it's price.


I've stayed out of this topic for a hot minute, but I'll just say one more thing that many are missing (though many have read these words before). Dragon as sensor technology is special. It's specific pixel pitch that represents the Film Format to Resolution Relevance, broad Dynamic Range, vastly improved Color, vastly improved IR Cutting/Blocking, and smoother Highlight Roll-Off represent something certain cinematographers have been looking for. More and more of the film folks are taking note of exactly what Dragon can do and they are using it on features, commercials, episodics, and other projects. Dragon to me is about creating the true film alternative (and perhaps replacement even for some) and that's exactly what it is really.

To the topic's title "Is RED fighting the wrong battle?" I would argue that they are fighting the real battle that needs to be fought, at least from my perspective. There's a ton of 4K cameras on the market now at various price points and quality levels. RED pushed about a decade ago through today the 4K and 4K+ workflow as it was part of this same "fight" that is still going on today. And many for so long of course had the brilliant criticism of 4K productions (similar to the words I hear from those questioning 8K's viability). 4K is now everywhere and the industry is moving towards it at an exponential rate that continues to grow. And the reality is we've known about the 4K and 8K standards for a long time. Now RED has systems capable of working in both of those important capture and finishing standards. And if you look at the rest of the digital cinema camera manufacturers you'll notice that at the moment RED is also the only one offering a concise capture through workflow solution on both of these fronts as well.

 

[andyshon]

I take your point with regards to covering the full UHD standard and that someone has to lead the way but as you say this is catering to a fairly small section of the current market. I’m not arguing that Red shouldn’t do 8k but I am saying that increased speed and tonal resolution would benefit many of us more than increased spacial resolution.

Red did lead the way on 4k but they also led on raw capture and high frame rates. I’d like to see them continue to push the envelope here too. I shoot mainly natural history though and clearly this biases my opinion towards such things.

 

[Freya]

For me 5k is the perfect pixel count, now and for the foreseeable future. It's 25% above the Nyquist frequency for 4k output, and thus just about perfect according to Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem. A camera that captured this from a FF 35mm sensor at up to 250fps would be absolutely perfect for me. I'm sure other Red users have different priorities, but how many of us actually need 8k?

I think you havn't taken into consideration the Bayer sensor in your calculations which might make 6K seem like the perfect solution for 4K output. Although in practice 4K is probably going to be UHD and not actual 4K anyway (and that's a very good thing IMO). Anyway food for thought...

Freya

 

[Mike Nagel]

In theory a 4k sensor the same size as the new 8k Dragon would have two stops better dynamic range, full frame capture at 300 fps as opposed to 75, and take a quarter of the time to process in post. Given the delivery formats most Red users are being asked for, would this be more or less useful than the increased spacial resolution?

I would love to see that as well, but in reality, that would mean a completely new sensor from the ground up and new color science along with it... RED's MO is higher resolution with a ~ 5 micron pixel pitch and then just address the pixel count with a sledge hammer (--> high-end machines) in post...

it has a few advantages and I for one like it, but one needs to figure out the workflow (on-set and in post)... considering the overall price point, u can squeeze A LOT of IQ out of RED footage... and with Dragon they're striking a nice balance between pixel count and straight out-of-the-box IQ...

But I would love to see what Graeme's magic could squeeze out of a larger pixel pitch sensor, I doubt though that is on the road map...

 

[Freya]

But I agree somewhat that the next step should be aimed at lesser noise and even higher dynamic range. But the Weapon 8K is the same Dragon sensor as in Epic Dragon, so of course this isn't "fixed", because it's NOT a new sensor which people really don't seem to get.

The same Dragon sensor or the same sensor design as used in the dragon sensor?
I assume the Dragon sensor in most peoples cameras at the moment isn't VistaVision sized?

As to the greater issue, I'm a little surprised about this thread as the current battle for RED is nothing to do with a new sensor but a complete new camera system.
I was actually wondering from peoples reactions to Weapon if Red wouldn't have been BETTER fighting the battle for an 8K sensor than a complete new cameras system.
People seem very excited by the 8K sensor and we are even discussing it in this thread rather than discussing Weapon which is the real announcement at this years NAB.
All the fuss seems to be about 8K.

Freya

 

[Martin Stevens]

This article may go some way towards explaining why it is this way.
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html

Thanks for this link....

Perchance, do you know if there is a LUT that can be applied to Dragon footage that emulates Alexa?

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Thanks for this link....

Perchance, do you know if there is a LUT that can be applied to Dragon footage that emulates Alexa?

Dragoncolor2, redgamma4, pull a little red out of the low end with the red curve, lift the shadows to taste, add a 1/8 or 1/4 of your favorite diffusion

Boom.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Perchance, do you know if there is a LUT that can be applied to Dragon footage that emulates Alexa?

No such thing. Nor can you do the reverse. Each camera has a different aesthetic, and it's up to the DP to know how to take advantage of those pros and cons and make the right choices that creates the pictures they want.

 

[Jarred Land]

This is true, and it would be truly perfect and something I would gladly pay 20K or more for, but LL OLPF has pink blob problem around bright lights in frame, and both OLPFs still have CMOS smear issue, and maybe still the gate shadow issue. I hope Weapon, or some new OLPF, fixes both these problems..

Hey Robert, Welcome back

And yes.. Weapon isn't JUST about 8k and Vista Vision. It takes everything about the Dragon and makes it better. For example.. the things that you just commented that are an issue with you, are better on Weapon.

CMOS Smear is reduced on Weapon and those little IR orbs around lightbulbs that you get in rare occasions are dramatically reduced.

I guess a picture is worth a thousand words:

 

[Phil Holland]

I guess a picture is worth a thousand words:

I'm not one to cuss online often, but holy shit that's a great improvement.

It also appears that the Weapon OLPFs are "tuned" closer together via color science improvements?

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod::yesnod::yesnod:

Almost night and day difference.

does isk= skintone highlight olpf? Wouldn't it be STH?


.......Or maybe this is the first hint at the new "goldilocks" olpf.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey Robert, Welcome back

And yes.. Weapon isn't JUST about 8k and Vista Vision. It takes everything about the Dragon and makes it better. For example.. the things that you just commented that are an issue with you, are better on Weapon.

CMOS Smear is reduced on Weapon and those little IR orbs around lightbulbs that you get in rare occasions are dramatically reduced.

I guess a picture is worth a thousand words:

Wow. This is starting to get interesting. I always assumed Weapon was much more than a new "body" - that under the hood, we'd see significant improvements on the inside, not just outside.

With reduced CMOS smear (back to MX levels?), and this gorgeous clean output...Weapon is clearly designed "to win".

WOW. I'm very, very intrigued.

Also it it just me, or do both Weapon samples look a smidge brighter/cleaner/richer? Nicer color? And the underexposure on LLO Weapon seems improved too, the histogram is clearly going green at top of the curve, instead of blue on Dragon.

Wow. Weapon is going to be very interesting...

Also - whats ISK? "IMPROVED SKIN TONE"?