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 :)

Just got our Dragon

Matt Ryan said:
I like you Matt, but you're missing my point. You can compare all you want with other images, but without physically testing them side by side, same settings, same lens, at the same time, no samples will really tell the whole tale. Thus my comment about not searching Reduser for stuff to compare it with... I don't listen to what others here on this site recommend, I test for myself. With Dragon I'll continue that trend. My beef is with everyone who see's somewhat similar shots from MX footage here and say Dragon doesn't look like a huge improvement... That's like seeing a shot of a Summilux C at a 2.8 and saying, I don't think it's any better than a Rokinon from image samples I've seen at a 2.8. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. If you still have a problem feel free to PM me but let's not derail the thread anymore.
Click to expand...

It's not a good idea to make broad judgements about incomplete tests, but it can still be useful to look at uneven comparisons for certain traits or qualities. For example if you saw different Summilux and Rokinon images at 2.8 and saw that both were quite sharp downscaled at 1080p, you could reasonably make the judgement that in terms of fine sharpness for uses where 1080p output is desired Rokinon may work acceptably well compared to a Summilux at particular apertures and conditions. Obviously there are far more image attributes one can compare and some you may be able to make judgements on and others definitely not depending on the limitations of the compared images. Either way you have to take a close look at the limitations and glean what you can and keep those in the mental bank. That's what a lot of us do every day and it can be a big part of evaluating gear. To some degree testing gear for yourself can be limited as well since you may always be time limited or budget limited or limited your subject matter or workflow, so it helps to have lots of other incomplete or imperfect tests to look at online and catalog and use to some degree. You could devise your own tests but you can never test everything, whereas online you can find lots of tests that test everything but you have to just evaluate the test and decide how all the inevitable imperfections affect your conclusions.
 
I agree with pretty much what everyone has said, but it still stands to reason that Matt Ryan's request - for an apples to apples direct comparison btw MX and Dragon (ie same setup, same lens, same everything...ala Zacuto Shootouts) - is most likely going to be the most informative way to learn about Dragon vs MX (certainly more than comparing R3D's from disparate threads).

Hopefully comprehensive tests start to materialize soon!
 
Last edited:
Matt Ryan said:
I like you Matt, but you're missing my point. You can compare all you want with other images, but without physically testing them side by side, same settings, same lens, at the same time, no samples will really tell the whole tale. Thus my comment about not searching Reduser for stuff to compare it with... I don't listen to what others here on this site recommend, I test for myself. With Dragon I'll continue that trend. My beef is with everyone who see's somewhat similar shots from MX footage here and say Dragon doesn't look like a huge improvement... That's like seeing a shot of a Summilux C at a 2.8 and saying, I don't think it's any better than a Rokinon from image samples I've seen at a 2.8. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all. If you still have a problem feel free to PM me but let's not derail the thread anymore.
Click to expand...

Matt, I am missing your point! First you're comparing dragon the c500 with shots that are very differently lit, then you're telling me that it's silly to compare the Scarlet X to dragon with a VERY similarly lit shot. To me, there's an improvement, but it's not huge. That's my point. I like you too BTW hehe
 
Nick Morrison said:
I agree with pretty much what everyone has said, but it still stands to reason that Matt Ryan's request - for an apples to apples direct comparison btw MX and Dragon (ie same setup, same lens, same everything...ala Zacuto Shootouts) - is most likely going to be the most informative way to learn about Dragon vs MX (certainly more than comparing R3D's from disparate threads).

Hopefully comprehensive tests start to materialize soon!
Click to expand...

I have published some... Has not Mark done that too?
 
Nick Morrison said:
I agree with pretty much what everyone has said, but it still stands to reason that Matt Ryan's request - for an apples to apples direct comparison btw MX and Dragon (ie same setup, same lens, same everything...ala Zacuto Shootouts) - is most likely going to be the most informative way to learn about Dragon vs MX (certainly more than comparing R3D's from disparate threads).

Hopefully comprehensive tests start to materialize soon!
Click to expand...

For sure, as boring as those tests usually are, I look forward to it too.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Matt, I am missing your point! First you're comparing dragon the c500 with shots that are very differently lit, then you're telling me that it's silly to compare the Scarlet X to dragon with a VERY similarly lit shot. To me, there's an improvement, but it's not huge. That's my point. I like you too BTW hehe
Click to expand...

I was making a hypothesis that Dragon at 2000ISO (downressed to 4K) is equal in noise to C500 RAW at 800ISO because it was stated earlier how that was everyones definition of a clean, high ISO camera. That is the only reason I even brought it up.

Gunleik Groven said:
I will soonish...
And throw in the F65, PhantomFlex and a few others...
Click to expand...

Sooner or later someone will do it, I'd just rather it be someone like you who knows their way around an Epic haha.

Gunleik Groven said:
I have published some... Has not Mark done that too?
Click to expand...

Not yet...
 
I could publish the full 16-stop "Espen" test and a similar outdoors test.

Problem is that many cannot interpret the data. And just see "noise", and thus the discussion becomes... uninformative.

The multiple cam test is thus more informative, as it will show similar behavior (and of corse the differences) in all these cameras.
 
Matt Ryan said:
Sooner or later someone will


.
Click to expand...

My guess is that many have.
But I have mixed feelings about publishing "tests".

test show only what you test for and if the methodology is wrong, you do not really learn anything.

It is hard to show how a "system" performs through a test, and the most common tests are production-specific. (They make a lot of sense, of course... For THAT production)


Tests show off specific parts of how a system works.

You can test for noise at X-Y exposure, IR, color-renderition at X-Y exposure. whether ISO is gain or floating-curve based, (thus whether ISO changes the noise profile or not) etc etc etc.

To find the answer to those questions, you need to test specifically and controlled for that, and most likely the images you need to test for specific things like these, are not necessarily beautiful...

Thus one end in a discussion where people talk about whether an image looks "good" or not, while the image is designed to show off... let us say noise... :)

It is difficult to communicate tests. And design them in a way that make them have much value for others than those who test.

Still. I will take part in a big one.
 
While it may be hard to come up with a good comprehensive test, I have yet to see a simple side by side MX/Dragon test . That I believe is what many silent users here are after. Just a simple shot of a scene that has some good darks in it, exposed on each camera to fill the histogram the same amount. Maybe just tickling the right goal post with some slight clipping on both cameras . That's it. R3d links, not 1080 lowrez stuff. Simple. Pulling up the shadows : very informative if you know what you are after.
 
Les Dittert said:
While it may be hard to come up with a good comprehensive test, I have yet to see a simple side by side MX/Dragon test . That I believe is what many silent users here are after. Just a simple shot of a scene that has some good darks in it, exposed on each camera to fill the histogram the same amount. Maybe just tickling the right goal post with some slight clipping on both cameras . That's it. R3d links, not 1080 lowrez stuff. Simple. Pulling up the shadows : very informative if you know what you are after.
Click to expand...


I have done that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top