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 :)

MX and Dragon Comparison Part 2

J

Jan Reiff

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
GERMANY
still a bit time to upgrade my 2nd Epic, so here is part II of my experiences of both in comparison

no NR or ADD in this frames.

- i will not talk really about noise here ;- )

Album 1: Battery

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645700021971/

in the 50mm Shot, both cameras are very similar. can you say which one is MX?
we have not full dynamic range in this frame here, f4, so both do their job fine - you have to crop into to see, that Dragon has, of course, more detail

Album 2: Table

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645659414456/

This is one of the known huge differences: MX is clipping, even with full closed lense.
Dragon just smiling about that.
I like more the shadows of Dragon too, MX in comparison is bit muddy.
so here i would need ND actually, Dragon not.


Album 3: Light

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645710570414/

i did two situations:


first situation: lense open, same settings: MX lost the filament completely.
again, i had to go to 1/2000 or ND

second i wanted to see clearly the filament - to achieve this, i had to close the prime on both and increase shutter.
Dragon needed 1/800, MX 1/2000 to get same result.
MX produced more noise as set to 1/2000.
as both are in redlogfilm and without curve, there is noise, but as said: no curve.



I know some have other optinios and results: this was made with my cameras - can only speak "for them". i am not teaching about Dragon, i am learning.

What i see, is that MX images in comparison with Dragon seem to have something like a light veil, not so bright and brilliant like the Dragon image at same ISO, i often use, not here in this test, one step more ISO on MX to match the Dragon (for example MX at ISO800 when Dragon is okay with ISO 500) ... someone with the same experience ?

i am now waiting for the new firmware to get off the red sparkles and will test again.
 
thanks for the comparison jan....nice way to show the extra highlight range of dragon....
 
paul, i am not in office today, just have this on my laptop to show some guys today on a set

http://we.tl/YXfvZns3Ek

the table shot with 16 1/3, shows quite ALL we talk about:

the red noise in the blacks (this frame will be first i render with the new redcine), you will see it in redlogfilm, not with a LUT or curve
the dynamic in the highlights
the overall image impression

can´t deliver more right now, full loaded day ...
 
thanks for providing the raw files!
i opened them in rcx, no adjustments, no curves, just dragon color/redgamma3 and recolor3/redgamma3 applied...these are the histograms dragon first:





highlights in dragon clearly show more....but IMO MX shows much better detail in darks....the entire shaded table in dragon is like a watercolor effect....it's all mush...the shaded side of the white cup incl the bottom and table part....same thing....the bottom of the leather case is just not there with dragon, much more detail with mx...
still looking for extra detail in dragon files....tiny writing on magazine (prices?), logo and stitching on leather case....can't really see any advantage for either camera....mouse cable looks better to me in MX...mostly because of the mushiness in the tabletop with dragon?
i probably would have exposed this differently for MX and there is no way i would shoot either at 800....this situation would look so much better shot at 320 or even 250.....
the histograms show the difference in files and information available....
on epic i would have exposed this at 250 and probably a 1/2 stop closed down...that would have made all shadow a touch darker but MUCH cleaner and made the highlights closer to what we see with dragon...that way shadows can be brought out with a curve and highlights are still protected....
it looks like one has to overexpose with dragon to see into the shadows and highlights are better protected.....but i am having a hard time with the information lost in the darks...not even shadows, anything dark....
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-07-16 at 08.45.01.jpg
    Screen Shot 2014-07-16 at 08.45.01.jpg
    14.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Screen Shot 2014-07-16 at 08.44.43.jpg
    Screen Shot 2014-07-16 at 08.44.43.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 0
that´s tests are for - MX and Dragon are different ... much personal taste too, for me the ring on the lense is better with Dragon, and the leather case is once in shadow and sun, wasn´t fast enough to change camera and lense.
actually, without ND or higher shutter i were not able to avoid clipping with MX ... i just look at the redlogfilm file.
overall i prefer the Dragon much more, not to defend this camera, i will upgrade my 2nd MX too with all conviction.
 
paul schefz said:
the bottom of the leather case is just not there with dragon, much more detail with mx...
Click to expand...

Well, the bottom of the leather case (actually, the whole case) is getting significantly more light in the MX shot than in the Dragon shot, to the point where even the white cord is kicking additional light onto it and causing a reflection. That disparity shouldn't be used to count against Dragon (Jan beat me to this).

Comparing the lens, which seems to be in the same amount of light in both pics, the detail and noise level is pretty even, IMO, with Dragon being maybe a hair sharper.
 
Great test shots. One interesting thing that I think might be contributing to the huge variation is your temperature tests. Thanks especially for shooting those. When Stacey and I shot our Dynamic range tests for dragon one thing I noticed was that the red noise would change DRAMATICALLY from one second to the next (with adaptive fan even). I wonder if there isn't a slightly miscalibrated temperature sensor in one camera to the next so that some people are getting a less consistent sensor temperature than others. Also perhaps an improved fan firmware could help maintain rock steady temperature.
 
Brian Boyer said:
Well, the bottom of the leather case (actually, the whole case) is getting significantly more light in the MX shot than in the Dragon shot, to the point where even the white cord is kicking additional light onto it and causing a reflection. That disparity shouldn't be used to count against Dragon (Jan beat me to this).

Comparing the lens, which seems to be in the same amount of light in both pics, the detail and noise level is pretty even, IMO, with Dragon being maybe a hair sharper.
Click to expand...

Dragon is much sharper. Take into account that the FOV with Dragon here is much wider.

What I see in the table image is similar shadow detail and maybe two stops more in the highlights. And the color is much, much better.
 
very curious to do the next tests with the new Graeme Magic
 
Álex Montoya said:
Dragon is much sharper. Take into account that the FOV with Dragon here is much wider.

What I see in the table image is similar shadow detail and maybe two stops more in the highlights. And the color is much, much better.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the lens in the image specifically, not Dragon as a whole. Yes, the FOV on Dragon is wider so, if you were to compensate, Dragon would clearly be sharper.

But, based on the two images being compared, the perceived sharpness of the lens (in the picture, not on the cameras) ends up being about the same. I was actually making a case in favor of Dragon. It's a hair sharper in spite of the FOV difference.
 
just the info, the focus was on the magazine, but with f16 the lense (in the picture) is quite sharp , too. yes, Dragon is sharper indeed. you can see it on the battery images
 
Definitely seeing the clarity and extra bit of sharpness in the finer details of the Dragon images, and quite a bit of a green hue present in the shadows of MX. The Dragon's color is so much more natural, and it's really exciting.

I've done a lot of hobbyist audio recording in the last 10 years, and there's a concept that I feel applies here. If you record the audio the correct way the first time (right mic placement / right mic / good cables / great gear), you can spend more time making your work shine without worrying about the variables bringing it down. Dragon paves the way for a camera system that is built to provide a very analog-like, natural image out of the box - and will translate into an even greater image later.

All the little changes add up. Great tests.
 
What are those lines on the battery next to the image of the garbage? They show up white on dragon and black on the mx.
 
no, same battery, but to match the frame i moved tripod. it´s light reflection on the batterylabel, quite simple - nothing to be worried about ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top