Meaning of 16.5 stops of Dynamic Range

[Andrey Blanco]

i'm seriusly getting tire of opinions and zero profs, if you are so nice comming here sharing you findings why not expend 5 minutes of your life and upload a few seconds of raw material to the masses comparing the two cameras? An let people make their own judgments.

we did a 1:1 comparison today with my Dragon and a MX Epic ...

Highlights: Dragon has much more dynamic in highlights. Much and visible smoother Roll Off without (!) softening the image in general
Shadows: Dragon is much more clear, i don´t want to say cleaner (there is noise, but its finer and more like filmgrain), but clearer, sharper, better colors, when it´s "underexposed"
Colors: Richer, brighter overall. Overexposed white stays true color with the Dragon, where MX has its colorshifts.
Skintones on Dragon are perfect out of box
Dragon has ADD - and ADD is bit "magic" ...

Sum of today:
Dragon is worth every cent to do the upgrade in comparison to the MX.

(We had bit too less sun today, not sure about the IR / ND with Dragon, testing sunday ...)

 

[Nick Morrison]

i'm seriusly getting tire of opinions and zero profs, if you are so nice comming here sharing you findings why not expend 5 minutes of your life and upload a few seconds of raw material to the masses comparing the two cameras? An let people make their own judgments.

Probably because of the level of scrutiny and scorn such a comparison would elicit. Even your response suggests a level of impatience and anger that would most likely turn off a number of would be "testers".

Posting tests has often been a thankless job for those that have dared - not surprisingly, only the few and the brave have generally volunteered.

 

[Bob Gundu]

i'm seriusly getting tire of opinions and zero profs, if you are so nice comming here sharing you findings why not expend 5 minutes of your life and upload a few seconds of raw material to the masses comparing the two cameras? An let people make their own judgments.

Because Jan isnt here to prove anything and is sharing his opinions. You can rent a dragon and conduct your own test as it's the only way you will ever be content.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Man... you dudes are TIRELESS.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I'm sure like many others, I'm not concerned whether or not Dragon is an amazing camera, or how well it compares to MX. It's more about RED stating, as fact, that Dragon has 16.5 stops of DN when from what we have seen so far, from reputable people, that just isn't true. Tireless maybe because we want to believe it, but can't see it based on what has been tested so far. Tireless because if RED state 16.5 stops, then there should be exactly that, and it should be quite obvious. The RED community that already own Dragons might take this tirelessness as some form of criticism towards the new sensor, but hell....we're just confused and curious because a camera purchase like that isn't something to glaze over and move on with, especially when things about the camera don't seem to make sense. Personally, I've never really needed more than 12 stops and I'm sure the Dragon sensor will blow me and the world away when it's in the hands of many. I really look forward to seeing the claimed specs delivered, even though in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I was thinking tireless enough to keep going round robin on this topic as if anything were going to be settled, here or anywhere.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

"I really look forward to seeing the claimed specs delivered, even though in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter."

Why would you really look forward to something that doesn't really matter?

 

[Matthew Scott]

Hey Rob, what I mean is that if it's 16.5 stops, or it's 14 stops, it doesn't REALLY matter, it's still an awesome sensor (better colour, cleaner blacks, smaller grain, higher resolution)....but if I'm going to drop a lump of cash on a camera that claims to achieve something, I would want to know FOR SURE that it does indeed achieve it, AND I, like many, would love to see it. Wouldn't you?

 

[Jan Reiff]

i'm seriusly getting tire of opinions and zero profs, if you are so nice comming here sharing you findings why not expend 5 minutes of your life and upload a few seconds of raw material to the masses comparing the two cameras? An let people make their own judgments.

write me and i will upload you some samples, of course.

if i have the time next days, i will do more ... but first i want to shoot some stuff with more sun to check some IR situations, as we have some bad weather at the moment here, not possible

 

[Zeb B]

we did a 1:1 comparison today with my Dragon and a MX Epic ...

Highlights: Dragon has much more dynamic in highlights. Much and visible smoother Roll Off without (!) softening the image in general
Shadows: Dragon is much more clear, i don´t want to say cleaner (there is noise, but its finer and more like filmgrain), but clearer, sharper, better colors, when it´s "underexposed"
Colors: Richer, brighter overall. Overexposed white stays true color with the Dragon, where MX has its colorshifts.
Skintones on Dragon are perfect out of box
Dragon has ADD - and ADD is bit "magic" ...

Sum of today:
Dragon is worth every cent to do the upgrade in comparison to the MX.

(We had bit too less sun today, not sure about the IR / ND with Dragon, testing sunday ...)

Agreed

 

[Matthew Scott]

Agreed

Also agreed, but what about RED claiming 16.5 stops when it seems there is less? That's what this thread is about isn't it?

 

[Jan Reiff]

here is something to share, maybe i should open new thread but i need time to manage all shots taken yesterday...
https://flic.kr/p/nbYrZA

here we see the difference in the highlights - both cameras overexposed, and then set to iso50 - significant, ... i will upload the native Raw when i am back in office monday ...
Dragon has a huge improvement in the colors - it´s not only me, saying, that Dragon has the nicest colors of all cameras out in the field - for me, this is the real surprise, we talked and talked about resolution and DR, and Red delivers it, but especially rich colors ... a winner upgrade

 

[Matt Ryan]

Would be nice if Phil or John M could post a shot (real world) that shows 16.5 stops of DR. It would need to be an R3D that we can play with and not a processed image that they colored and noise reduced. I think that would settle the debate. If we can see 16.5 stops then great, if not, well then we know for sure you cannot capture 16.5 stops in a standard shot from the camera. 14.8 stops according to DXOmark is great, I think we just need a solid number that either refutes that claim by bettering it or that is our solid number and end of discussion. I don't consider digging out noisy blacks a part of the total DR since it requires major post work to be usable. Same for extreme highlights that need to be dialed back. My thought is if the claim is 16.5 stops, then it should be available in a single shot without any corrections in post. That means above the noise floor and below the clipping point.

I'm shooting with Dragon next week so I'll try to shoot something to post. Obviously it's not much help since I wont have an MX to compare it to.

 

[Matt Ryan]

here is something to share, maybe i should open new thread but i need time to manage all shots taken yesterday...
https://flic.kr/p/nbYrZA

here we see the difference in the highlights - both cameras overexposed, and then set to iso50 - significant, ... i will upload the native Raw when i am back in office monday ...
Dragon has a huge improvement in the colors - it´s not only me, saying, that Dragon has the nicest colors of all cameras out in the field - for me, this is the real surprise, we talked and talked about resolution and DR, and Red delivers it, but especially rich colors ... a winner upgrade

Jan, if you use DRX on the MX footage it should look identical. I don't see much of a difference other than the magenta tint that DRX will take care of. Of course I'm only judging by the compressed jpegs you posted so I may be way off.

 

[Jan Reiff]

Yes Matt, this is right, but this is just a comparison without any adjustments of course , "out of box" - as we all know, it shows how important it is to KNOW the tools ;-) especially when using Raw -

Conclusion is, you don´t need DRX with the Dragon footage and so there is no "danger" that someone in Postproduction does not know how to develop the Raw in this pont in right way, you can´t use DRX with Dragon, it´s off .

i will upload the Raw Still tomorrow or monday ...

 

[Jan Reiff]

Matt, i will shoot tomorrow a shot out of a dark garage into outside / sun against a white wall and will put something with color in the foreground in the garage ... looking forward what you will "read" out of the raws, interested in your opinion - i will do it with Dragon and my not upgraded Epic, ... but we need sun, they say tomorrow here ;-)

 

[Brian Boyer]

I don't consider digging out noisy blacks a part of the total DR since it requires major post work to be usable. Same for extreme highlights that need to be dialed back. My thought is if the claim is 16.5 stops, then it should be available in a single shot without any corrections in post. That means above the noise floor and below the clipping point.

Going by what could very easily be limited knowledge or a misunderstanding on my part, this request seems problematic to me for a number of reasons.

1) As far as I know, there isn't a monitor capable of showing 12 stops of dynamic range, let alone 16.5, without post manipulation of the image. Even our eyes "cheat" by irising up and down as needed and can't display the entire range we're capable of seeing in one go.

2) Because of number 1, wouldn't an image showing 16.5 stops be extremely washed out, making it difficult to judge the separation between values by eye? Since you're concerned about usability, who would realistically use that image in such a state? In the end, without manipulation, you're going to end up throwing away DR in order to fit the final image inside the limitations of current display technology.

3) You know as well as anyone you can't bring back detail that wasn't already there in the highlights. Having to dial highlights back to reveal detail (often, inside a power window) is a result of what I mentioned in number 1, is it not? Not dialing it back is eliminating detail that should be counted.

4) Digging details out of shadows is similar, although I guess noise can give a sense of false detail. However, if noise reduction can effectively eliminate noise and leave actual detail the sensor captured in the darks, aren't you throwing away some of the dynamic range by not counting those values because you neglected to use NR?

My guess is most people's tolerance for noise gives up long before test equipment stops counting signal. But, if DR on the low end is left to eyeballing it alone, you'll probably never get a consensus as to where usable starts on the low end. The person who doesn't want to see any noise but also doesn't want to use noise reduction is going to seriously cripple the results.

Currently, the technique I like the most for determining highlight retention is changing the gamma to Linear and, if necessary, dialing down the ISO to 50, and seeing if there's visible clipping in the image and/or the parade.

Noise is always going to be a matter of preference.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Summary: You have to hold her to appreciate her; shoot it yourself and manipulate the footage. It is as Gunleik has been saying for weeks.

Going by what could very easily be limited knowledge or a misunderstanding on my part, this request seems problematic to me for a number of reasons.

1) As far as I know, there isn't a monitor capable of showing 12 stops of dynamic range, let alone 16.5, without post manipulation of the image. Even our eyes "cheat" by irising up and down as needed and can't display the entire range we're capable of seeing in one go.

2) Because of number 1, wouldn't an image showing 16.5 stops be extremely washed out, making it difficult to judge the separation between values by eye? Since you're concerned about usability, who would realistically use that image in such a state? In the end, without manipulation, you're going to end up throwing away DR in order to fit the final image inside the limitations of current display technology.

3) You know as well as anyone you can't bring back detail that wasn't already there in the highlights. Having to dial highlights back to reveal detail (often, inside a power window) is a result of what I mentioned in number 1, is it not? Not dialing it back is eliminating detail that should be counted.

4) Digging details out of shadows is similar, although I guess noise can give a sense of false detail. However, if noise reduction can effectively eliminate noise and leave actual detail the sensor captured in the darks, aren't you throwing away some of the dynamic range by not counting those values because you neglected to use NR?

My guess is most people's tolerance for noise gives up long before test equipment stops counting signal. But, if DR on the low end is left to eyeballing it alone, you'll probably never get a consensus as to where usable starts on the low end. The person who doesn't want to see any noise but also doesn't want to use noise reduction is going to seriously cripple the results.

Currently, the technique I like the most for determining highlight retention is changing the gamma to Linear and, if necessary, dialing down the ISO to 50, and seeing if there's visible clipping in the image and/or the parade.

Noise is always going to be a matter of preference.

 

[Brian Boyer]

here is something to share, maybe i should open new thread but i need time to manage all shots taken yesterday...
https://flic.kr/p/nbYrZA

here we see the difference in the highlights - both cameras overexposed, and then set to iso50 - significant, ... i will upload the native Raw when i am back in office monday ...
Dragon has a huge improvement in the colors - it´s not only me, saying, that Dragon has the nicest colors of all cameras out in the field - for me, this is the real surprise, we talked and talked about resolution and DR, and Red delivers it, but especially rich colors ... a winner upgrade

Where did you have to set each camera (t-stop and/or shutter angle) to get them to overexpose to the same degree?

 

[Matt Ryan]

Going by what could very easily be limited knowledge or a misunderstanding on my part, this request seems problematic to me for a number of reasons.

1) As far as I know, there isn't a monitor capable of showing 12 stops of dynamic range, let alone 16.5, without post manipulation of the image. Even our eyes "cheat" by irising up and down as needed and can't display the entire range we're capable of seeing in one go.

2) Because of number 1, wouldn't an image showing 16.5 stops be extremely washed out, making it difficult to judge the separation between values by eye? Since you're concerned about usability, who would realistically use that image in such a state? In the end, without manipulation, you're going to end up throwing away DR in order to fit the final image inside the limitations of current display technology.

3) You know as well as anyone you can't bring back detail that wasn't already there in the highlights. Having to dial highlights back to reveal detail (often, inside a power window) is a result of what I mentioned in number 1, is it not? Not dialing it back is eliminating detail that should be counted.

4) Digging details out of shadows is similar, although I guess noise can give a sense of false detail. However, if noise reduction can effectively eliminate noise and leave actual detail the sensor captured in the darks, aren't you throwing away some of the dynamic range by not counting those values because you neglected to use NR?

My guess is most people's tolerance for noise gives up long before test equipment stops counting signal. But, if DR on the low end is left to eyeballing it alone, you'll probably never get a consensus as to where usable starts on the low end. The person who doesn't want to see any noise but also doesn't want to use noise reduction is going to seriously cripple the results.

Currently, the technique I like the most for determining highlight retention is changing the gamma to Linear and, if necessary, dialing down the ISO to 50, and seeing if there's visible clipping in the image and/or the parade.

Noise is always going to be a matter of preference.

Brian I don't think you understand the difference between total DR and usable DR. Alexa has around 18 stops total DR but most of that is washed out in highlights so you typically get around 14.5 stops usable. If Dragon claims 16.5 stops, is that total or usable? The designation makes a big difference. Sure it might have a total of 16.5, but 14.5 usable. Therefore to claim 16.5 is inaccurate, otherwise Arri could claim 18.

Sure it would look washed out, but that is all usable info, therefore from that point you bring in contrast and grade rather than having to dig out info and apply noise reduction. I think what were all saying is the 16.5 stops cannot be usable DR but rather total.

I don't really care, just want an honest answer backed up by evidence. Anyone can make a claim. In the end I'm still choosing to shoot Dragon, but industry wide people scoff at RED for hype. It's one of the major reasons a lot of pros stay away from it.

Again, I'm shooting Dragon this week so I'll be able to test it in an exterior situation.