Never mind specs for a moment, what I hope Dragon looks like

[Nick Morrison]

Settle.... ? Your reading something completely different out of my post. I'm not judging anyone here.... I'm just saying I dont have a clue what your talking about with looks... When I (and you) seriously can make any RED footage look like Alexa footage all day ever day... straight out of a laptop !. I do not need network money to do this. It's just simple grading from basic programs such as RCX, resolve even Premier!

EPIC does not have a look, (well if you only work from Red Colour 3 it has) But working from RAW directly from REDLOGFILM there is no look... you set your own look. yes you... thats right. You want to match skin tones of Alexa footage... you do that... Red does not do that.

You must me talking about Red Gamma 3 video setting you see on set ? Yes maybe that looks different to a Arri on set video feed... but seriously you must not judge camera looks from some factory genric luts set for purely onset monitoring ? ... or do you.?

Ive been shooting from for some 15+ years now, and I used to get the same miss conceptions from people saying FUJI film was better than KODAK film and vise versa... but when shot both stocks and got into a Telecine suite and created a look that I wanted...
Quite often I'd shoot mixed stock... and nobody could tell the difference

Same goes with Arri and Red. The only difference is one is HD (soft) and the other pin sharp... . I can blur my 5k footage, but I cannot sharpen 2k to look like 5k.

In other words.. Your secret sauce is created by yourself...

Favorite Toia post of all time.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The Alexa has a baked in look. You know what you're getting. With RED, it's so clean you can do whatever you want with it: throw old lenes on, and get character. Or shoot with modern glass, and make it clean. And in post...do whatever you want. Choices can either make you or break you. When you shoot RED, you get more choices. That also means that you have to understand the process BETTER. There are more choices to stay ontop of down the food chain. BUT...if you can master all the choices...you can do ANYTHING.

Some people like to play it safe. Others like to accept the responsibility (and power) that choices give them MORE freedom, and MORE potential. But...in exchange...you accept the risk of having more variables.

No risk, no reward.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Gentle rolloff and highlights are better on Alexa, that's just the reality at this point. HDRx even in +3 mode requires some time in post and while it may not be a huge deal on the feature with reasonable schedule, it's not really suit the way TV shows are being made today, Alexa records ProRes internally and Raw with a Codex box (Epic with Meizler work the other way - Raw in-camera and ProRes on a minimag). Dynamic range is my main concern about the Dragon, along with the cleaner image, improved noise floor. RC3/RG3 look nice, though I'm not sure Alexa is superior in color reproduction area currently.

 

[Mike P.]

I'd still like to see LowCon (preferably DigiCon, as apparently they work well with skin tones) before/after tests on RED (with Alexa comparison would be cool too). I mean, in theory, everything you want Dragon to have, should be possible on an MX, just to a slightly lesser degree (perhaps via a lowcon).

Conversely, maybe projects shooting Alexa tend to (more often) have the right DP/Cinematographer behind it. For example, are you a DP, cinematographer or a camera op? Maybe that's why you're not getting the same results as other projects/shows/movies (or have you used both cameras and were easily able to achieve the look you wanted on Alexa)?

 

[Terry VerHaar]

@ Arnold LOL. What .........doesn't Dragon come with an inbuilt mic ! ; ) I'm out of here..........

In case you hadn't noticed, every discussion centers around "a mic on top of the camera" for Arnold. :smiley: Maybe when he was a child, his parents missed getting his first words on the video because they didn't have a proper sound set-up. LOL

(Arnold - I kid!)

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I have never shot on Alexa - probably will never get/take the opportunity. But, a bunch of us met with Ted from RED the other night and discussed, among many other things, the issue of potential "complaints" about RED from producers and directors. I was reminded then, and very much believe, that anyone not getting exactly what they want out of an Epic/Scarlet only has themselves to blame.

Personally, I approach shooting with my Scarlet with an underlying assumption that the weak link in the chain is me. The camera is flexible enough to do anything I (or my director) can imagine. If I fall down on delivering it, it's on me. Believe me, I am not half as good as Toia and some of the others posting here but I dare say, the same thing applies to all of us. The camera can deliver, can we?

 

[Brian Boyer]

The Alexa has a baked in look. You know what you're getting. With RED, it's so clean you can do whatever you want with it: throw old lenes on, and get character. Or shoot with modern glass, and make it clean. And in post...do whatever you want. Choices can either make you or break you. When you shoot RED, you get more choices. That also means that you have to understand the process BETTER. There are more choices to stay ontop of down the food chain. BUT...if you can master all the choices...you can do ANYTHING.

Some people like to play it safe. Others like to accept the responsibility (and power) that choices give them MORE freedom, and MORE potential. But...in exchange...you accept the risk of having more variables.

No risk, no reward.

The Alexa has a baked in look when going straight to ProRes. It should be an even playing field when using ARRIRAW, no?

Like I've said before, I'm totally on board with the RED philosophy of the power to do what you want in post. As a graphic designer and tinkerer, it suits me just fine, which is why I made the investment.

I agree with most of what you and Mark have stated to a certain extent. Although, I think RED cameras do have a baseline look that exists outside the existing color sciences and within the architecture and confines of the MX sensor and color filter. I don't see how they couldn't. Is it alterable? Yes, easily enough, thanks to goodies like RAW.

So, if we're to go the "your secret sauce is created by yourself" route, maybe I should be asking a different question.

Perhaps the question should be what is it about the choices that many RED users make in post that I don't find quite as appealing? Why are they denying me the mojo? And if I'm not seeing it from them now what difference will Dragon really make in that regard, beyond the obvious benefit of wider dynamic range?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Saying that "RED doesn't have a look because it's RAW" is silly.

Even though it's RAW... it's only a RAW recording of what the sensor saw in the first place.

If the sensor clips or has too much noise, the info is lost.

If the color filters in front of the sensor are not pure, subtle color stuff is lost or muddied.

If you have a sensor with bad color, your color is going to be bad, RAW or not.

Personally, I don't think any digital sensor is as good as film in terms of color and I hope that Dragon pays more attention to this and less to however many K.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Brian Boyer]

I have never shot on Alexa - probably will never get/take the opportunity. But, a bunch of us met with Ted from RED the other night and discussed, among many other things, the issue of potential "complaints" about RED from producers and directors. I was reminded then, and very much believe, that anyone not getting exactly what they want out of an Epic/Scarlet only has themselves to blame.

Personally, I approach shooting with my Scarlet with an underlying assumption that the weak link in the chain is me. The camera is flexible enough to do anything I (or my director) can imagine. If I fall down on delivering it, it's on me. Believe me, I am not half as good as Toia and some of the others posting here but I dare say, the same thing applies to all of us. The camera can deliver, can we?

This past week, I was thinking that Scarlet's biggest problem is the users. Myself included. I'm currently working on my lighting.

After watching every Scarlet/Epic shot piece I could find I've come to the conclusion that some people have plain wasted their money on these cameras because they don't seem interested in coming anywhere close to getting what they can out of them. Why spend $10K on a brain and another $5K on accessories and not spend another $500 to $1,000 on the bare minimum of light modifiers like silks, flags, scrims and NDs? The sun isn't going to be any less bright because you're on a budget.

One doesn't absolutely have to have a light meter in order to make good looking images. But if you don't use one and you're constantly overexposing your subjects, you probably need to invest in one. I did.

There is an art to grading and not everyone is going to be good it, but Resolve Lite is free and, if you're got CS6, you've got Speedgrade. We should all be honing those skills but also recognizing when we should bring in a proper colorist.

For example, are you a DP, cinematographer or a camera op? Maybe that's why you're not getting the same results as other projects/shows/movies (or have you used both cameras and were easily able to achieve the look you wanted on Alexa)?

I've never used the Alexa. And I'm not saying I'm personally having a major issue with the things I've been mentioning in this thread.

Again, to be clear, I'm saying all digital cameras to date, all of them, at some point, under certain conditions, reveal themselves to be digital cameras via the image. Some more than others. I'm just wondering when that will no longer be the case. I hope Dragon is a step in that direction. That's the mojo I'm looking for.

 

[Mike P.]

Yeah, I know exactly what you're saying. That said, if Alexa makes it easier to avoid more "digitalness" than necessary (natural light, low-light, studio light, or otherwise) and all that's required is a lowcon filter to achieve such looks out of the box with RED, it'd be a worthwhile investment... Especially for jobs where you can use an offboard recorder.

 

[Matthew Scott]

Saying that "RED doesn't have a look because it's RAW" is silly.

Even though it's RAW... it's only a RAW recording of what the sensor saw in the first place.

If the sensor clips or has too much noise, the info is lost.

If the color filters in front of the sensor are not pure, subtle color stuff is lost or muddied.

If you have a sensor with bad color, your color is going to be bad, RAW or not.

[/url]

Yes!

 

[Mark Toia]

If you can, watch this trailer on a broadcast monitor or an HD television. Computer screens tend to be a little more generous when it comes to this look.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/2daysinnewyork

You like this look?

And this is from an EPIC or an ALEXA?.. or ?

Look... My tastes and many others are all different from one another, but that movie looks to have some very weird very average grade applied to some very average cinematography....

...And you seem to blame the camera it was shot with for the look you see in this Itunes video... ? Not the colorist that has had his hands all over it, not the cinematographer for the mixed toppy lighting... You blame the camera for the look.

Sorry Brian... You have lost me.

 

[Craig Parkes]

You like this look?

And this is from an EPIC or an ALEXA?.. or ?

Look... My tastes and many others are all different from one another, but that movie looks to have some very weird very average grade applied to some very average cinematography....

...And you seem to blame the camera it was shot with for the look you see in this Itunes video... ? Not the colorist that has had his hands all over it, not the cinematographer for the mixed toppy lighting... You blame the camera for the look.

Sorry Brian... You have lost me.

Or the Make up artists for the inconsistent make up...

 

[Mark Pugh]

You like this look?

And this is from an EPIC or an ALEXA?.. or ?

IMDB: ARRIRAW

 

[Brian Boyer]

You like this look?

And this is from an EPIC or an ALEXA?.. or ?

Look... My tastes and many others are all different from one another, but that movie looks to have some very weird very average grade applied to some very average cinematography....

...And you seem to blame the camera it was shot with for the look you see in this Itunes video... ? Not the colorist that has had his hands all over it, not the cinematographer for the mixed toppy lighting... You blame the camera for the look.

Sorry Brian... You have lost me.

Okay, I realize where I may have made a mistake.

For this whole discussion, what I've been calling a digital look, I should've been calling a video look.

I avoided using video as a descriptor partly out of respect for both Epic and Alexa, thus avoiding the ire and indignation of those who consider the comparison blasphemy, and partly because I was trying to not elicit the obligatory comparisons to the f-word - film.

But, as I thought about it, I realized the look I'm talking about predates digital cameras and tv standards and really does accurately describe the quality I'm talking about.

So, take every instance of where I previously wrote "digital" to describe the look I don't care for and replace it with "video".

When you look at the local news, sporting events, older soap operas, the Tonight Show, the Graham Norton Show, Entertainment Tonight, interior scenes of 80's era Doctor Who episodes, reruns of American Bandstand or Soul Train, Sabado Gigante, Survivor or Celebrity Apprentice, you know instantly you're looking at video.

It has a look, regardless of whether it's analog or digital. There's no question.

What I've (unsuccessfully) been trying to say is, every once in a while, all digital cameras that I've seen, under certain situations, have that look to some degree. It's rare in the higher end cinema cameras, but I still see it happening. That's the look I'd like to see eliminated completely from digital cameras moving forward.

What I was pointing out in the trailer was how much it looked like it video.

Take the same lighting, composition, makeup and grading for this movie but shoot it on film. All those problems would still be there and it wouldn't look any better from a technical or stylistic standpoint, but it also wouldn't look like video.

I was hoping you would look past the technical and stylistic issues and immediately see the videoish quality of the picture. It's exacerbated in this case by the things you point out but I thought it would make my point clearer. It did not.

 

[James T Mather]

In regards to Alexa here - many posts seem to suggest that it is gaining ground because people are misinformed or it's easier in post etc. As an owner of both systems I can give you my perspective.

The Epic wins in the following areas:

Weight (by a long shot)

Size (again by a long shot)

Resolution (Also by a long shot)

Menu access (as in the Alexa I personally find frustrating with it's presets system which take time and are limiting for colour balance etc). Also it's dumb side menu system is difficult for the operator to access so is slower whilst getting the first AC to change something.

Slow motion - (both in that the Alexa takes forty seconds to get to (and from) high speed - and in terms of speeds on offer)

Anamorphic desqueeze: On the Red this is simple - on the Alexa it is (a) a costly upgrade and (b) requires all manner of fiddling with framelines whilst switching to get it correct and also looks wrong in the eyepiece to me - too wide.

PL mount: All my PL lenses (5 sets) fit on the Epic - not all of them fit into the Alexa - the Red RPP's for example are too large to sit into and close the mount. As this is a micron based standard I don't know why this is.

Power consumption: The Alexa is a power hungry beast compared to the Epic - I've never seen 26v batteries get eaten so fast.

Where Alexa wins:

Image: The picture is more filmic.

Colour: Colour reproduction seems more full and pleasing to me. Closer to film. Skin tones especially.

DR - Seems to offer way more highlight roll off than the Epic. Flares etc seem to roll off more pleasingly.

In short - In my opinion, the Epic beats the Alexa in all areas except in one key area: Look. However for me as a DP who hands footage to a producer and has little control over it's post house journey after that, I prefer handing over rushes that don't need any post tinkering (often out of my direct control) to make work. In short, as a DP, in my opinion, the Alexa offers a chance for me to do what I do best - light and shoot then hand in finished work which I am happy with. For others, ie: shooters who 'do it all' and can afford to do their own post work this may not apply.

 

[Chuck Z]

PL mount: All my PL lenses (5 sets) fit on the Epic - not all of them fit into the Alexa - the Red RPP's for example are too large to sit into and close the mount. As this is a micron based standard I don't know why this is.

This has been explained a number of times. RED's lenses may be PL mount but they are designed for their cameras first and foremost. They don't work with many other PL mount cameras. It's not ARRI's nor any other camera manufacturer's fault that the RED Pro Primes don't fit. It's an engineering compromise that RED made to make their lenses more cheaply.

 

[Matthew Scott]

In regards to Alexa here - many posts seem to suggest that it is gaining ground because people are misinformed or it's easier in post etc. As an owner of both systems I can give you my perspective.

The Epic wins in the following areas:

Weight (by a long shot)

Size (again by a long shot)

Resolution (Also by a long shot)

Menu access (as in the Alexa I personally find frustrating with it's presets system which take time and are limiting for colour balance etc). Also it's dumb side menu system is difficult for the operator to access so is slower whilst getting the first AC to change something.

Slow motion - (both in that the Alexa takes forty seconds to get to (and from) high speed - and in terms of speeds on offer)

Anamorphic desqueeze: On the Red this is simple - on the Alexa it is (a) a costly upgrade and (b) requires all manner of fiddling with framelines whilst switching to get it correct and also looks wrong in the eyepiece to me - too wide.

PL mount: All my PL lenses (5 sets) fit on the Epic - not all of them fit into the Alexa - the Red RPP's for example are too large to sit into and close the mount. As this is a micron based standard I don't know why this is.

Power consumption: The Alexa is a power hungry beast compared to the Epic - I've never seen 26v batteries get eaten so fast.

Where Alexa wins:

Image: The picture is more filmic.

Colour: Colour reproduction seems more full and pleasing to me. Closer to film. Skin tones especially.

DR - Seems to offer way more highlight roll off than the Epic. Flares etc seem to roll off more pleasingly.

In short - In my opinion, the Epic beats the Alexa in all areas except in one key area: Look. However for me as a DP who hands footage to a producer and has little control over it's post house journey after that, I prefer handing over rushes that don't need any post tinkering (often out of my direct control) to make work. In short, as a DP, in my opinion, the Alexa offers a chance for me to do what I do best - light and shoot then hand in finished work which I am happy with. For others, ie: shooters who 'do it all' and can afford to do their own post work this may not apply.

Someone who owns and operates both....I really appreciate your input! Thanks

 

[Adrian Jebef]

I agree Epic has to be amazing, but resolution will matter soon. Let me tell you this secret:

ABC has plans to be broadcasting 4K by February! They got stuck at 720p and want to be the first to make the jump. ABC is now ordering all of their productions to shoot and finish in 4K for delivery. Why you ask? Japan will begin broadcasting 8K officially January 1 2013! ABC wants to be the first of the domestic companies to make the leap up and not lose the HD race this time around. Also, Sony is going to announce the PS4 4K this next year. 4K tv's will hit the market at more affordable prices and at a more rapid rate. Once ABC makes the jump, the others will race to follow. So 4K is here soon.

Now back to Dragon. I hope from a noise perspective which was my biggest complaint, that the noise characteristic is like we see in the sample of the Epic Monochrome. The noise was small and tight like Alexa grain. Not big and chunky like the MX noise now. It's an exciting time and hopefully RED jumps ahead again in the market with a superior product at more affordable prices than the competition. Dragon has the opportunity to be the best digital sensor in the history of film, so hopefully it lives up to it's name.

Ha! You so funny! You always have the best "secrets" around town!

BTW: What will be the first ABC show to be broadcast in glorious 4K ?

BTW: Why did ABC get "stuck" at 720 ?

BTW: We realize most "HD" broadcast is just digital SD @ 16:9, right? And it "officially" happened in 2009 ?

 

[Adrian Jebef]

I see where Brian's going with this. And I agree. It would be great to get a more "rounded" image (mainly a nicer falloff on the highlights). I feel the Sony F65 has already made the case for more resolution, sharpness, clarity. The camera looks great but it still "looks" to me like a more-perfect technical advancement and not necessarily a more "filmic" advancement. I hope Dragon is not just the next technological leap. There is definitely something to be said about the "character" of an image. And as Bruce pointed out everything has a look. Many of us here have worked with these images for years. I, for one, can usually tell the difference between cameras like the Epic and Alexa. I don't buy the argument that you can make one look like the other. Most viewers will never notice a difference but we are not "most viewers". I think even Mr. Toia would agree with me here...