My Scarlet Dragon arrived - noisy, but otherwise great!

[Jan Reiff]

ok, as the sensor does a cleaner image as you describe, we have here exactly the reverse of what is said about the sensor: cool = clean, warm = noise at your camera.
interesting - i will do a test tomorrow with cold and warm sensor. at the moment, i wait for 64 and get nice images - i remember when getting the dragon, the very first shot with it was bit more noisy as now with black shading ...

 

[Brian Boyer]

I know I'm supposed to be appalled by the level of noise in that bookcase image but...I'm just not.

If I were to to see it in motion I might be of a different opinion. As a still (with a little help from an RCX Denoise value of 2), it looks deliciously organic in a way that I like.

In fact, I think the blooming and haziness of the lens and focus are more bothersome to me.

It seems RED can't win for losing. People (including me) complained that MX images were too clinical and sterile in many instances. From what I've seen, Dragon has done a lot to correct for this, including producing a more "textured" image.

Is it by design? I don't know, but I'm kinda digging it. It's closer to a film aesthetic. And if loving the look of film is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Some people have politely/indirectly (and not so much) accused Phil Holland of being a RED apologist when he's tried to look at Dragon from the film stock/film shooter perspective.

He was pointing out that Dragon, even in it's current state, is as good or better than film in the noise department and therefore, at the very least, usable in instances where S35 would've been.

As a refresher, I think it might be helpful to take a look at this comparison between film, Alexa and Epic MX: http://www.cinematography.net/valvula.html

Be sure to download and watch the video. Resolve 11 and Scratch Play work nicely for playback.

I think we forget just how noisy film can be and just how clean MX (which was also thought to be a noisy sensor) is by comparison. As Matt pointed out, a little bit of NR goes a long way.

As far as I know, NR has always been a part of the RED equation - in post.

Unless I'm mistaken, their position was always, "We don't add NR on-board so you can add it to taste in post, if you feel you need it." It was not, "We don't add NR on-board because there's no need due to our super-clean sensors."

I know Jim once stated ISO 2000 on Dragon was cleaner than ISO 800 on MX. That may have been true back when he said it.

However, before he said that, he said this: "Everything in life changes... including our camera specs and delivery dates..."

I don't like to brag but I'm a bit of a soothsayer. I think RED may actually be ahead of the game here in terms of the "art of noise" (my apologies to Trevor Horn).

I guarantee once every manufacturer nails wide dynamic range, exemplary color, high sensitivity and high resolution (i.e. really clean, really boring images), the thing they turn to distinguish their products from everyone else's is going to be the character of the sensor and how best to manipulate noise to give a more organically pleasing image.

Don't believe me? Take a look at current digital audio products.

 

[vincent kardasik]

I'm convinced the people saying they don't have noise must either a) have the old olpf, or b) one of the outstanding copies. Those people from the b) category should not tell those with noisy cameras that things are fine and you're just underexposing

I don't know at all about the OLPF difference as I haven't been able to test the old one but I'm sure about one thing, the Dragon sensor is hungry in terms of lighting.
As I told one of my client 10 days ago as we were on point to shoot on a black background, if you want to have clean "blacks" and "shadows", I'd rather add more light to your set-up.
It's not because it looks good when looking at it that it will look "clean" on the R3D file but this is a Digital Cinema Camera, give the Dragon more "light" and you will be amazed by the results and the latitude you have with it.

 

[Bohdan Klos]

For Red there are two type of customers giving feedback.

One customer who will take the noise as a "feature" but would also take cleaner low end.

Then there is the other customer, who needs/wants a cleaner low end (closer to what was advertised).

Fix the noise at low end and you satisfy both customers or listen to customer number one and let other customers down.

Lets face it, if the "noise as feature" camp was correct Red wouldn't be fixing something that was not broken.

 

[vincent kardasik]

Lets face it, if the "noise as feature" camp was correct Red wouldn't be fixing something that was not broken.

I think they always try to improve their products as the perfect camera still doesn't exist.
That's the policy since day one with the free firmware upgrade then with the sensor upgrade.
Now there's for sure a big difference in the way we all use our Dragons and the set-ups we can achieve "on set".
I wish every time I use my Epic I could capture Hollywood like footage but I'm far away from working with tons of lightning equipment and people to assist me in that domain.
We all have to keep in mind that the Epic or the Scarlet is a Digital Cinema camera and be careful on how we interpret the stuff we shoot.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Lets face it, if the "noise as feature" camp was correct Red wouldn't be fixing something that was not broken.

RED is fixing the red channel chroma noise. As Jarred stated, there will still be noise:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...egenta-lines&p=1381800&viewfull=1#post1381800

I don't know that I'm saying it's "noise as feature" so much as "noise as welcome by-product."

You're right. I'll take less noise, if it comes to that, but I do like the noise I see. If less noise means less overall pleasing images to me, I will be a little disappointed, which I imagine would be just fine to the people in the "other camp."

There's always a compromise at play.

If the trade off for getting 7 stops of DR above middle gray out of the current incarnation of Dragon is a bit of texture in the image, I'll choose that every day of the week because that's more important to me and RED should know I agree with the choice they made…this time around.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Funny thing is.... I will probably still use FilmConvert to add grain/noise back into the mix.

 

[Jan Reiff]

i would say i am customer #3, a "group" that you have to add. or do you see "dramatic" noise in my footage ?
saying this, i always welcome improvements in sensitivity and noise level, but i do not take noise as a feature as i have no issue with it at my work with the dragon.

 

[David Battistella]

I wish every time I use my Epic I could capture Hollywood like footage but I'm far away from working with tons of lightning equipment and people to assist me in that domain.
We all have to keep in mind that the Epic or the Scarlet is a Digital Cinema camera and be careful on how we interpret the stuff we shoot.

vincent,

you make such a good and important point here. On larger sets there are sometimes 100-150 people focused on creating an amazing image. Every department is doing everything to ensure the best possible age. There's a lot of talent, brain power and effort going in to creating that frame.

Let's not forget the post that goes into the image pipeline.

As much as people might like to think so, we are not dealing with point and shoot machines. It takes a great deal if care to craft a frame and knowledge isms testing n getting the best out of a camera system.

Plus, I have not seen a lot of Alexa footage shot on 1.4 vintage Nikon glass put online for the world to judge as a professional camera imaging system. But these are the plusses and minuses of a great vehicle like Reduser.

Battistella

 

[Jan Reiff]

what i have seen is a lot of noise in Alexa footage, too ;-)

 

[David Battistella]

To me the exchange here is all about employing strategies.

It all depends where you sit on the personal taste spectrum of noise. Red set out to replace film, not to make a video camera to broadcast the World Cup (sony is great for that). Red makes a cinema tool, (but if you want that Broadcast look just set it to 59.94 timebase.

So. If you want that grain that we all love from film you can start by rating and exposing from about 800-2000iso. It might be a creative look or a budget thing or whatever.

If you want sharp, clean noise free stuff, you rate lower250-640 and get yourself a lighting package to support that.

what is important to understand is that this is an extremely flexible system with a lot of creative room. But the camera does not make miracles. No camera really does.

Battistella

 

[Jan Reiff]

i must say, the red noise IS an issue. And it is solved and i hope the firmware will be available soon. the luminance noise looks like a filmgrain, indeed.
but actually here is some footage of user, that looks not so nice - and we will see what´s the background is of this ... i can´t confirm this issue with my dragon, but i do not want to ignore it in respect for the users - hope that everybody will have the same results soon

 

[vincent kardasik]

As much as people might like to think so, we are not dealing with point and shoot machines. It takes a great deal if care to craft a frame and knowledge isms testing n getting the best out of a camera system.

Plus, I have not seen a lot of Alexa footage shot on 1.4 vintage Nikon glass put online for the world to judge as a professional camera imaging system. But these are the plusses and minuses of a great vehicle like Reduser.
Battistella

It all depends where you sit on the personal taste spectrum of noise. Red set out to replace film, not to make a video camera to broadcast the World Cup (sony is great for that). Red makes a cinema tool, (but if you want that Broadcast look just set it to 59.94 timebase.

So. If you want that grain that we all love from film you can start by rating and exposing from about 800-2000iso. It might be a creative look or a budget thing or whatever.

If you want sharp, clean noise free stuff, you rate lower250-640 and get yourself a lighting package to support that.

what is important to understand is that this is an extremely flexible system with a lot of creative room. But the camera does not make miracles. No camera really does.

Battistella

I couldn't have said that in a better way!
I totally agree with you on all these points David.

 

[Bohdan Klos]

To me the exchange here is all about employing strategies.
Battistella

Thee strategy, is to wait for red to fix the problem.

A strategy that seems a little expensive you seemed to be suggesting in an earlier post, was to have a Hollywood crew. You said "There's a lot of talent, brain power and effort going in to creating that frame. "


That sounded similar to someone that suggested people with problems on here were PROSUMERS and not Pros. User error. I don't agree.


This problem exists folks! Red are working on it we assume. If it didn't exist why would Red be fixing it. They re fixing it for the big hollywood boys and the one man bands.

 

[Jan Reiff]

i think the main "issue" is (or may i say the main question) : IS there a difference in the cameras or how can it be that some footage is obviously "better" than from other cameras / user ...

 

[Brian Boyer]

This problem exists folks! Red are working on it we assume. If it didn't exist why would Red be fixing it. They re fixing it for the big hollywood boys and the one man bands.

Let's be clear here. You're conflating two different noise topics. As I stated in my earlier post, RED is working to fix primarily the red channel noise (and chroma noise in general). That's not the noise anyone is saying they find appealing. I don't like it either and I said I removed it with a Denoise value of 2.

What noise is left over after RED fixes that issue will still be open to debate. I happen to not mind the look of it, when it shows up. Obviously, others do.

 

[vincent kardasik]

A strategy that seems a little expensive you seemed to be suggesting in an earlier post, was to have a Hollywood crew.


That sounded similar to someone that suggested people with problems on here were PROSUMERS and not Pros. User error. I don't agree.

That wasn't the point of this post Bohdan.
What we were trying to explain here is that to create an amazing picture with a proper look sometimes requires more than just a camera and natural lightning.
David wrote it really well, Scarlet and Epic are not "point and shoot" cameras.
We're not experiencing the same issues or feelings with the same camera because we're all working with different set-ups on different projects.
Right now, some users are not enthusiastic with Dragon and some are loving it and as always Red is trying to improve its product but on my part, I wouldn't say, there's an issue with the Dragon sensor.
I admit it's not perfect but after more than a month with it I think it's a great improvement compared to the MX.
Of course it's not perfect, but a perfect camera doesn't exist... yet.

 

[vincent kardasik]

Just a quick, stupid, thought about that noise thing...
I owned and HVX-200 and I shot quite a lot with it.
Damn, there was a noise issue with that thing.
I managed to get really clean footage with Dragon but I can tell you that even with the best lightning ever, there was always noise here and there on every shot I made with that old Panny

 

[Bob Gundu]

Just a quick, stupid, thought about that noise thing...
I owned and HVX-200 and I shot quite a lot with it.
Damn, there was a noise issue with that thing.
I managed to get really clean footage with Dragon but I can tell you that even with the best lightning ever, there was always noise here and there on every shot I made with that old Panny

Ha ha Vincent. That Hvx-200... It was the best of times... It was the worst of times!

 

[vincent kardasik]

Ha ha Vincent. That Hvx-200... It was the best of times... It was the worst of times!

Exactly! I used to love that camera when shooting with it then hate it in the editing room