Low Light Optimised OLPF thoughts

[David Battistella]

Just have done a couple of shoots with it since it came back from London. Will post stuff later but one was commercial jewellery and the other was doc work.

Here is how I would describe the differences to my friends.

Low-Light Optimised
-EPIC MX on steroids.
-Still have to be a bit careful with the highlights (compared to STH not so much MX)
-dig what you want out of the darks, the stops are there
-very clean to 2000 ISO (any beyond if you dare)
-with decent base exposure can be pushed a fair bit
-sharp clean high rez look

Skin Tone Highlight
-Treat like your favourite film stock
-let those highlights bloom
-don't expect to push a lot in Lower light (to 1280 if you are under)
-Rate it lower
-Really pleasant on skin and the texture you love from film (but a lot less of it than film)

Phil has already done all the charts and stuff that support this. I'm just giving first impressions and how I would describe the differences.

Cheers,

Battistella

 

[Adrian Weinbrecht]

Thanks David

So just to clarify for the LLO, is the highlight rolloff much better then MX?

Best

Adrian

 

[David Battistella]

It holds highlights much better than MX. Like, there is more information in there and that is because it is a superior sensor.

With the LLO it feels more familiar to MX, with the STH it feels more familiar to film.

With the LLO I might employ some filtration (like a 1/8th divi or locon) to give some of that highlight halation, where I would not do that with the STH.

Battistella

 

[Akin A]

Thanks for the input.
What does MX on steroids mean (I never used MX so I'm unfamiliar w/ its characteristics)?

Also, would you equate the noticeable difference in shadow improvement of LLO vs STH to the difference in noticeable highlight roll-off improvement of STH vs LLO or is the highlight difference subtle?

 

[David Battistella]

Thanks for the questions Akin.

Thanks for the input.
What does MX on steroids mean (I never used MX so I'm unfamiliar w/ its characteristics)?

More similar to shooting with MX but does everything just better (whereas STH is quite different from MX in response)

Also, would you equate the noticeable difference in shadow improvement of LLO vs STH to the difference in noticeable highlight roll-off improvement of STH vs LLO or is the highlight difference subtle?

Yes. Shadow performance improved, lives up to it's name, Low Light Optimised.

Battistella

 

[Akin A]

Yes. Shadow performance improved, lives up to it's name, Low Light Optimised.
Battistella

Maybe I asked my question backwards, I'll clarify... Is the highlight improvement as noticeable as the shadow improvement? The tests I've seen showed very noticeable noise differences in shadows but the highlight differences looked minor.

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Love the LLO (v2). Got my Dragon back (I had STH before) and wow, amazing how I missed those 2 stops! Skin is a lot better than I was expecting too.

 

[David Battistella]

Maybe I asked my question backwards, I'll clarify... Is the highlight improvement as noticeable as the shadow improvement? The tests I've seen showed very noticeable noise differences in shadows but the highlight differences looked minor.

I'd say yes, because I feel you can open up and get more image data in the shadows (with a little more texture as well) and the "blowout or clipping point" is further up the scale. If you are looking for pure DR and colour fidelity then STH is the way to go, but if you want the image favoured toward the shadows (with less texture in there) then you go LLO. In my tests when downsizing to 2K the STH gives amazing results as much of the "texture/noise" falls off, but this gets even cleaner in the bottom stops with the LLO.

Battistella

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

So basically what you're saying is that the LLO is very very close to the MX in terms of how it handles hilights?

I opted for the LLO when sending my camera in due to alot of natural and low light situations I shoot in. Thankfully we can always switch OLPF's, but I loved the thought of being able to shoot to 2000 ISO and get usable footage. My concern was during the daylight. This thread is comforting me a bit more to be able to use the LLO even during the daylight! Thanks!

 

[Björn Benckert]

So basically what you're saying is that the LLO is very very close to the MX in terms of how it handles hilights?

I opted for the LLO when sending my camera in due to alot of natural and low light situations I shoot in. Thankfully we can always switch OLPF's, but I loved the thought of being able to shoot to 2000 ISO and get usable footage. My concern was during the daylight. This thread is comforting me a bit more to be able to use the LLO even during the daylight! Thanks!

No it got more range than MX so you got better chance to keep the highlights without underexposing the blacks. So in daylight the lowlight OLPF works just as good as the skinetone, you just need to stop downor ND 1.3 more than you would do on your skintone olpf.

 

[David Battistella]

So basically what you're saying is that the LLO is very very close to the MX in terms of how it handles hilights?

Nope. Not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the LLO is a much more familiar image. It's like a natural progression and a much better version than EPIC MX sensor. More everything though, colour depth, latitude, etc.

If I wanted the LLO to look more like the STH, then I would probably add filtration to give me the halation the STH naturally does.

The LLO clips way beyond where it would with MX and with the STH you get even more in the highlights than you would with LLO (which is to be expected) since those clean low end stops do come at the expense of the highlights a bit (which I can now say because I have seen and tested them both in my shooting style.


Battistella

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Nope. Not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the LLO is a much more familiar image. It's like a natural progression and a much better version than EPIC MX sensor. More everything though, colour depth, latitude, etc.

If I wanted the LLO to look more like the STH, then I would probably add filtration to give me the halation the STH naturally does.

The LLO clips way beyond where it would with MX and with the STH you get even more in the highlights than you would with LLO (which is to be expected) since those clean low end stops do come at the expense of the highlights a bit (which I can now say because I have seen and tested them both in my shooting style.



Battistella

Gotcha! Thank you for the reply. Curious to get it back and do some tests.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

My concern was during the daylight. This thread is comforting me a bit more to be able to use the LLO even during the daylight! Thanks!

The LLO OLPF works great in daylight. I shot some stuff at ISO250 (w/ out ND) and was really pleased with the result. Very clean. With Dragon, choosing an ISO (or ISO range) is a big part of creating the look you want. For narrative film stuff I like 800 to 2000. Maybe even higher in certain circumstances.

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

The LLO OLPF works great in daylight. I shot some stuff at ISO250 (w/ out ND) and was really pleased with the result. Very clean. With Dragon, choosing an ISO (or ISO range) is a big part of creating the look you want. For narrative film stuff I like 800 to 2000. Maybe even higher in certain circumstances.

Good to hear! Thanks!

 

[Jason L]

Love the low light olpf on the dragon. It's exactly what Red was talking about a year ago. You can shoot at 2000 ISO with no problem and even bump it up much more. With the abilities of 6k, clean 2000 ISO, and a lot more, the Dragon is easily the top camera out there.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

The low light OLPF (old version) I tested was awesome except for the pink orb around in-frame light sources issue.

I have not tested the new version of the low light OLPF.

There seems to be no real stress tests of how New LL OLPF handles this pink soft orb issue.

I wish there were some clear info about this somewhere - not vague statements and very forgiving test shots with dim or very small lights.

If I had clear info I would use Dragon more often, and maybe upgrade our camera. Even if that info did not per say "sell" Dragon. You need to know limits in a dry technical manner. How many stops over before it appears?

if anyone has properly tested this with the aim of learning exact limits please post your results.

There are no New LL OLPFs that I know of in Montreal, or I would test myself.

if anyone has a new LL OLPF in Montreal please PM me.

 

[Andy White]

Agree that an 'orb' test on the new LL (V2) OLPF would be a great idea - maybe Phil has the time to do a test?

Currently awaiting a client paying up an invoice - if this happens soon, that's my upgrade to Dragon sorted... and I have to say, if the orb's are less visible now, LLO is the way I'd like to go (with the STH purchased as a second option 'just in case').

 

[Andrew Usher]

Im looking forward to being able to get my Dragon back in for the swappable option as i really want to get my paws on the LL OLPF.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Agree that an 'orb' test on the new LL (V2) OLPF would be a great idea - maybe Phil has the time to do a test?

Currently awaiting a client paying up an invoice - if this happens soon, that's my upgrade to Dragon sorted... and I have to say, if the orb's are less visible now, LLO is the way I'd like to go (with the STH purchased as a second option 'just in case').

I thought Phil did these tests? And it showed that the orb flares were much, much more controlled. It looked a lot like a "clean" version of the original Low Light OLPF.

His tests start here I believe:

Looks like RED took the time to fine tune the LOW LIGHT OLPF, which is very, very promising. Having what appears to be a new and improved 2000ISO Dragon is welcome news!

 

[David Battistella]

What kind of tests do people want?

What should the shot/lighting setup look like?

Battistella