My Dragon Thoughts

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would refuse to work as DP for any production where POST is dictating what camera I should use...

:sifone: Peter

Shocking as this may be, sometimes post is doing almost all of the work on a project and the post needs will dictate what's needed. If we're working on an FX heavy plate and the DP wants to shoot on a 5D--it's going to look like crap.

That's a fantastic test John. Something that a few people haven't noticed is that there currently isn't a DRX feature in Redcine-X Pro for Dragon footage and this pretty shows why you don't need to worry about that.

They cynic in me wants to see these rendered with DRX turned on for MX. Is Dragon "naturally" handling highlights really well or did RED just hard code DRX = 1.0 in the debayer settings? These should be as Apples to Apples as possible. I actually would say that turning DRX to 1.0 by default would be a good default change to make for MX.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

They cynic in me wants to see these rendered with DRX turned on for MX. Is Dragon "naturally" handling highlights really well or did RED just hard code DRX = 1.0 in the debayer settings? These should be as Apples to Apples as possible. I actually would say that turning DRX to 1.0 by default would be a good default change to make for MX.

Understandable.
The one reason I can see for not doing that, is that it is not available (or at least was not) with the Rocket, and many use that.

I had to emulate it for a lot of stuff on a series I worked on a while back.

Epic + DRX is a pretty usefull highlight rolloff.

Epic at base WB is also a very decent highlight rolloff without DRX, under tungsten.

But still... The Dragon is nicer...

 

[Phil Holland]

They cynic in me wants to see these rendered with DRX turned on for MX. Is Dragon "naturally" handling highlights really well or did RED just hard code DRX = 1.0 in the debayer settings? These should be as Apples to Apples as possible. I actually would say that turning DRX to 1.0 by default would be a good default change to make for MX.

Red's chosen a different path with Dragon's highlight roll-off to have more of a colorful and somewhat organic feel that works "all of the time" with color information at the top end.

"The DRX slider stands for “Dynamic Range Extension,” and attempts to recover clipped highlights wherever only some of the color channels are blown. The effect is subtle though, and doesn’t restore full color information, but can be helpful with slight overexposure by fixing color shifts in the extreme highlights."

So far under daylight and tungsten situations I haven't seen a reason for something like DRX to be re-introduced to Dragon, although I get why it's there with Mysterium-X. It's just mapped differently on Dragon.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Simple and easy grades in both apps just with a click: DXO Optics Pro and Lightroom from the files shot by Christopher Probst on beta RED Dragon camera.

RED Dragon @ EI ISO 800 @ RCX Pro, REDLog Film Graded with DXO Optics Pro 9 @ Color Positive Film preset with Kodak Elite Extra Color 100 + Lightroom 5 @ Old Polar preset.

RED Dragon @ EI ISO 2000 @ RCX Pro, REDLog Film Graded with DXO Optics Pro 9 @ Color Positive Film preset with Kodak Elite Extra Color 100 + Lightroom 5 @ Old Polar preset.

 

[Randall Weatherington]

I thought that shot looked familiar. I would occasionally eat at that Taco Bell on Magnolia Blvd. when I was there in Burbank.
I know. I can find a lot better places to eat.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I thought that shot looked familiar. I would occasionally eat at that Taco Bell on Magnolia Blvd. when I was there in Burbank.
I know. I can find a lot better places to eat.

That looks like her reaction as well...

 

[paulherrin]

So you want to spend resources on VFX shots and coloring before the creative edit is locked? Im not sure how to respond.

I would refuse to work as DP for any production where POST is dictating what camera I should use...

----

It became the blurring of the line between visual effects and cinematography. There was a great cross-over and there was no firm line. He got much more involved in visual effects than cinematographers ever get. And I got much more involved in the cinematography than visual effects supervisors ever get. Because in a movie like this there is no clarity between those two. -Tim Webber, VFX Supervisor on "Gravity"

Webber himself was the main visual effects supervisor but was also heavily involved in almost every detail of the film.

One side benefit of this approach was that the actors could personally see what was meant to be their environment, rather than having to imagine it as one might on a blue screen. The actors could ‘see’ their virtual world in real time. “It didn’t just give us the correct lighting on them, but it also gave the actor a sense of what was going on around them,” notes Webber. “If Sandra is flying down the ISS, she could actually see the ISS moving around her and it would help to give her a sense of what was happening around her.” It meant that the director could ask her to look at a prop or reach for a particular handle – even if it was not going to be officially added to the shot for months. Adds Webber: “They could actually see the handle they were grabbing and quite often we would put a little dot on it to make it easier to see.”

One issue with the light box approach is that there is no way to use green screen and so the actors had to be roto’d out of each light box shot. Speaking of Bullock, Webber says “she’s basically rotoscoped out of the environment and we had to do certain things with whatever was behind her to make it work cleanly, but essentially she was rotoscoped out. There was no way we could use greenscreen because you would get the green backing. Because of the camera moves and everything moving around her and everywhere, you would get green spill all over her, and you just wouldn’t get the lighting you need at all.”

^^exactly why a depth-channel will be HUGE.
you can already simulate it with some kinects.
not to mention what's already out there in proprietary-world and being cooked up as we speak...

i hate to say it, but 2k and less dynamic range, but with a depth-channel...
i'd be all over it and i'm guessing anybody doing post would agree.
but hopefully that won't be a necessary decision.

source: http://www.fxguide.com/featured/gravity/


only signed in to say... i f'in tried to tell you so

okay, carry on

:sifone:

 

[Vladimir Druts]

Anticipation

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Different markets demand different things. As do different business models and how you market yourself. Largely the perspective you share is your own localized one. Even if a production isn't finishing in 4K, there are other advantages, such as VFX considerations.

While I understand that the "mass market" isn't 4K heavy yet, do understand that there's a portion of the market that is. And more is on it's way. Some prefer to be on the early adopter train, some seek out comfort in the tried and true bus route that they take everyday. While I'm mostly a realist, I do have high demands for the work I do in the real world and that is reflected in the footage and format choices I make. However, I come from and work in a world that was primarily Super 35mm based. So that's my own localized experience.

But remember this critical point. From the get go the 1080p standard and 2K in general were born out of compromise from where I come from which in effect trickled down to everywhere. 4K is literally doing the same thing. And the place I come from tends to contain the ones paving the road for the future of visual entertainment and who demand more from their image quality. Technological advancement and adaptation are a part of life and career. This industry is built on this concept.

OK Phil, in spirit I agree with you, although 4K at normal viewing distances offers imperceptible improvement to human eyes - so I'm much more into better color, better contrast.

At any rate, even if 4K could actually be seen by most people as significantly sharper than 1080p, my clients could care less what my philosophy is when they ask for a deliverable that meets their immediate needs, which is all they care about. "Home viewer oriented content" which is a HUGE portion of production overall, has no need whatsoever to be 4K as the number of people with 4K screens at home is basically what? 0.0001% of the audience? And will even that 0.0001% really be able to see the difference between post done on a 1080p monitor and post done using a 4K monitor, when it's very easy to do awesome post , even for 4K, on a 1080p monitor? What exactly will that 4K monitor show you that is so important and will affect your decision making about editing or color grading? That's my only point. Why waste money on a tool that does not really matter in helping one do the job? Especially when much better color fidelity is available in 1080p for far less money.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Your clients are not everybody's clients... We've delivered as many 4k jobs as HD in 2013. We're supporting a production right now that absolutely requires a 6K plus image width. Two pitches and one tech consultation this week have been for client requested, essential-to-concept, 4K delivery.

Digital signage, specialist exhibition, large screens at corporate events, and cross-purposed stills/motion work all require 4K plus, and that's what we do. Our clients are not, for the most part, entrenched in the traditional production landscape. We have the capability, so we pursue the opportunities it creates commercially, rather than complaining about how it doesn't benefit what we used to do.

Fair enough, but that is not common.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

whats the bitrate of Dragon at max. Redcode? higher data rate than F65?

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Since F65 can record uncompressed files the answer is no. The answer to the question of whether you want/need uncompressed files or not is another matter.

 

[Phil Holland]

OK Phil, in spirit I agree with you, although 4K at normal viewing distances offers imperceptible improvement to human eyes - so I'm much more into better color, better contrast.

At any rate, even if 4K could actually be seen by most people as significantly sharper than 1080p, my clients could care less what my philosophy is when they ask for a deliverable that meets their immediate needs, which is all they care about. "Home viewer oriented content" which is a HUGE portion of production overall, has no need whatsoever to be 4K as the number of people with 4K screens at home is basically what? 0.0001% of the audience? And will even that 0.0001% really be able to see the difference between post done on a 1080p monitor and post done using a 4K monitor, when it's very easy to do awesome post , even for 4K, on a 1080p monitor? What exactly will that 4K monitor show you that is so important and will affect your decision making about editing or color grading? That's my only point. Why waste money on a tool that does not really matter in helping one do the job? Especially when much better color fidelity is available in 1080p for far less money.

Heh. Okay I'll bite. From my point of view there are two things to cover. Hard data from experiments and my own personal theory.


Hard Data:
When you say "4K at normal viewing distances offers imperceptible improvement to human eyes" that's simply not what the white papers, consumer studies, and my own experiments find. That's the big gap likely between where you and I are on this matter. There's about a bit over a decade of research and white papers on this subject, but here's a link to a couple documents:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf
http://www.theodoropoulos.info/attachments/076_arri-SystemsTechnologyBrochure.pdf
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/arri4K.pdf

Actually that last one has the most relevant findings which echoes my experience with film and 4K+:

Dr. Kiening deduces that a 4K workflow in DI will be truer to the intentions of filmmakers who are working in 35mm format than a 2K workflow. He says that the 4K+ study concludes that it would take a 6K resolution scan to transfer the maximum amount of image information recorded on frames of Super 35 film with minimal aliasing and noise. He adds that a 4K digital projector will only come close to delivering image quality on a par with a 35mm film projector if the negative is scanned at 6K.

This is more or less why we went over to 6K scanners after upgrading from the 4K film scanner we were using since the mid 90's through the early 00's. Northlight if you're curious. I made a light hearted yet informative thread actually with some great images of the old scanners and other odd bits here:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?99437-Why-I-shoot-on-Red-4K-and-love-the-idea-of-Dragon-6K&highlight=

My own experiments with living breathing humans also showcase that within a theatrical setting within optimal viewing distance and a bit closer and further apart people could see the difference between a 4K and 2K image. This wasn't a simple side by side, we used different projectors and filmed out versions based of a 6K to 4K and 6K to 2K material. A significantly large percentage noticed that the 4K material looked better.

Based on my own experience with scanning film saying that 2K is "good enough" is like saying there's not too much reason to shoot on anything but S16. However, we know that not to be true and even more interesting is we are attracted to more resolution and also larger imaging planes.

Which leads me to.......


My Own Personal Theory

Here on Reduser most know me for being a "tech head", however, I assure you outside of this world I'm a visual storyteller and that's where my concern is. In regards to resolution I've written about it and spoken about it (did a nice presentation in London back in June). We have a desire to reach that "window effect" with visual technology.

What I mean by this is reaching a level of technology that completely eliminates the "dirty window" effect of older tech versus the newer tech which feels like a "freshly cleaned window" that you can barely notice is there. Essentially getting us closer to reality.

Now, with visual mediums this is tricky because then the question arises..... Why don't you just have everything in focus? Why are you only using a portion of that 4K (or whatever) real estate? Well that's the thing. We focus on the subject and as a creator we compose and guide the audience to what we want them to see. That's the artistry and craft of it. There's some lovely theory behind that as well, but I'll save that for another post perhaps. I'll say this. Level of detail is something artists in general have been exploring for centuries. Look at the chaotic brush strokes in some of the "out of focus" areas on older master paintings and yet how much more detail (or more aptly focus) there is where the artist wants you to look. It's about painting the picture you want the viewer to see and having the ability/tools at your disposal to do so.


Perhaps this is truly a battle of the aesthetic versus business?

Do you think the people who are pushing forward and desiring 4K are just doing this to do because they are bored? Or perhaps we've made a visual standard specifically with the S35 format and larger ones that many know something is lacking. The numbers show that. There is indeed something to this whole UHD movement besides the urge to sell cameras and displays.

Much of your perspective mirrors what some thought about HD versus SD when that standard came to be and started to take market share. The same will happen with UHD4K and eventually UHD8K. I ensure you that once there are more 4K displays and media players in homes a good amount of your opinion changes.

For me UHD is the territory from visual medium that filmmakers and audiences truly seem to want. My real question is going to be 10 or so years from now where to we go from here?

Now commercially speaking if producers only want to fund content in the 1080p realm that's one thing. However 4K has been an option for capture and delivery since about 2007. The early adopters have fought the hardest battles in this regard. However, next year it will be barely a battle to fight as a good chunk of things will in an exponential manner move towards UHD. The same again happened with HD.

Let's rock an analogy. Baby Steps. The question is do you want to learn to walk today or wait a year or two. Some have already been walking for some time down the 4K+ path. I'd prefer to pave the way rather than chase those who I can barely see down the path because they are so far ahead. Of course the path is being made for others to travel on, but the real excitement comes from moving forward a bit into the unknown.

And to your point, I too am for better color and better contrast. Resolution just as easily can come along with those advancements. And actually according to some research and theory resolution does indeed play a role here on both of those subjects.

In terms of what you work on and what you deliver on, which it sounds like your post was guided towards, I think you should choose the tools that best suite your needs. I've been working in 4K for years now and working on various Extended Graphics Array resolution monitors that haven't been 4K. I find it's important to review your work on the final deliverable display resolution. On what's used to get there? I don't know if I care honestly as long as the deliverable looks good. Now from a client/studio relationship you may of course want to cater a bit more towards what they may desire or what may make your business look good.

 

[paulherrin]

At any rate, even if 4K could actually be seen by most people as significantly sharper than 1080p, my clients could care less what my philosophy is when they ask for a deliverable that meets their immediate needs, which is all they care about. "Home viewer oriented content" which is a HUGE portion of production overall, has no need whatsoever to be 4K as the number of people with 4K screens at home is basically what? 0.0001% of the audience? And will even that 0.0001% really be able to see the difference between post done on a 1080p monitor and post done using a 4K monitor, when it's very easy to do awesome post , even for 4K, on a 1080p monitor? What exactly will that 4K monitor show you that is so important and will affect your decision making about editing or color grading? That's my only point. Why waste money on a tool that does not really matter in helping one do the job? Especially when much better color fidelity is available in 1080p for far less money.

rob... the only thing you're looking at here is your own work. is the average joe going to consciously appreciate extra detail? likely it will affect their experience in some impossibly difficult to quantify fashion. what you fail to realize is that, honestly, most people CAN see a difference - whether they know how to pay attention to those differences is just a matter of how closely they've looked at a moving image before. but the experience is the thing, haven't you heard what people talk about with certain films. gravity comes to mind as the most recent example. it's an experience in the theater. not everybody's in the theater business, which is your point and mine. there's probably not any disagreement between us except for the 'facts' that you need to check a little more thoroughly for yourself.

back to the future, to the present

 

[Christopher Probst]

It's OFFICIALLY GO TIME!

This showed up today! I have a series of cool jobs coming up that are going to put this baby through its paces and will really showcase the camera for all it is. Stay tuned!

Magnesium mount with black screws as well... Sleek.

 

[paulherrin]

have you weighed your rig?

 

[Samir Patel]

ugh so Jealous

 

[Phil Holland]

It's OFFICIALLY GO TIME!

Sexy. Carbon sexy.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Mind. Blown.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

WOW Chris, just showed up like that!

That is a cool thingy!