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

[Brian Boyer]

The sounds are all synth based (I have the patches from TDK). I think 'organic' is just a byword for complexity. You could argue that organic things are just combinations of the four genetic letters and therefore digital, albeit super complex.

I use the word "organic" to suggest things that might exist in the physical world. "Complexity" is an acceptable word but lacks the nature connotation. You seem to be versed in the dark arts of music production so I'll make the distinction in those terms.

I think of the difference between complexity and organic like the difference between Native Instruments' Absynth and Arturia's Minimoog V (now called Mini V).

Absynth sounds are undoubtedly complex but don't conjure up images of wires, knobs, wood panels and Keith Emerson. The Mini V is the most analog and most authentic sounding plugin I know of. That level of accuracy takes a fair amount of complexity as well. Even if I didn't recognize the sound it stills sounds like something that I know existed in the real world.

Motion picture is an aesthetic.

I'm not sure what your point is but I'm going to run with this:

Absolutely...but that's where it starts, not where it ends. What we really concern ourselves with are the numerous types of that aesthetic that, individually or in combination, elicit different emotions and reactions. They're aesthetics unto themselves.

• 60i and 50i video (interlacing)

• Progressively scanned images

• 3:2 pulldown

• 24fps and 25fps images captured to film

• 24fps and 25fps images captured to a digital sensor (dependent upon the quality of the sensor)

• Images captured with slow shutter speeds

• Images captured with very fast shutter speeds

• Images captured via time-lapse photography and played back at various speeds

• Stop-motion photography

• Time ramps

• Strobe lights synced to shutter speed

• Bullet time and Glide time

• Images captured @ 120fps and played back at normal speed

• Images captured @ 1200fps and played back at normal speed

• Images captured @ 12fps and played back at normal speed.

• Images captured by hand cranking a camera. Btw, this one and the next one were how your train example were captured. They weren't in color and didn't have realistic motion and people were still amazed and freaked out.

• Images captured in B&W

• Images captured in color

• Images accompanied by dialogue

• Images accompanied by music

• Images captured at 640x480 resolution

• Images captured at 4K+ resolution

• Images captured in a 4:3 aspect ratio

• Images captured in one of several widescreen formats

• The editing of all the above mentioned

• The list goes on

 

[Brett Harrison]

I think we are essentially in agreement. I brought up history because this seems like an historic moment where a new aesthetic takes over and therefore I hope new sensors like Dragon provide a new canvas rather than being beholden to the past, which I think they have done already. Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister champion film as the superior medium without a word towards the benefit of variety.

(Check out U-He's Diva for a very nice analogue emulation. It's his Zebra Synth that Hans Zimmer used on TDK and Inception and 'Rise. Amazing effects too.)

And with that we have run the thread to ground!

 

[Brian Boyer]

And with that we have run the thread to ground!

Word!

I'll check out that softsynth. Thanks for the tip...and the sparring.

 

[Nathaniel Opgenorth]

I think allot of shows and movies even that are new to RED really really push the color grading over the top and it gives this "WE USED A RED CAMERA LOOK LOOK HOW EPIC THIS IS WE USED AN EPIC WITH HDRx!!" where Alexa is more subtle...I think Alexa looks amazing and it might only have a 3.2K sensor (can only spit out 2.8K in RAW and HD in ProRes however). It is a great camera and there is a reason people are switching from RED One MX/Epic to Alexa...and it has nothing to do with resolution...that said I think the RED team should be able to answer this easily. ProRes internal is an attractive feature for getting things done fast...not everyone wants a proprietary codec that needs a $5k card to decode...I don't see an issue with it but old/bad habits die slow Although I'm finally glad FCP X supports RED natively amongst other missing features. Dragon doesn't need to push anymore "K's" out, what it does need to do is provide higher Dynamic range as the OP stated...I can't wait to see digital dynamic range reach that of film....it seams very close yet very far at the same time but every time I see a shot that looks unsaveable get its shadows pulled from nothing to clear and noise free and especially see highlights turn into detailed blue and cloud filled sky's I feel more reassured.

Thanks Adrian. I don't think one can have a discussion about improving sensor designs and not take Alexa and Epic MX into account. However, Mark and a few others have become fixated on the Alexa portion of what I said.

My preference, or anyone else's, for Alexa's image quality is immaterial to the statements I made about Dragon. So, in order to keep things moving, let's say Mark is right and I'm imagining things about Alexa's image or I need new glasses. Who cares?

The question is, should Dragon look like a sizable leap beyond what either Alexa or Epic MX currently offer in terms of image quality? If so, in what way?

Or, should Dragon merely look like an enhanced version of what Epic already offers? This question is dependent upon whether you think Epic has a look or not. Mark and company say no. Bruce, Adrian and myself say yes.

BTW, I essentially said what Bruce said in the post right before it but it's probably not worth mentioning. In fact, forget I said anything about being first. I'm okay with letting such a profound statement go unnoticed.

Should Dragon's image have more of an organic signature look of it's own or should it be more of a blank canvas?

For the sake of argument...

Let's say RED deliberately designed or inadvertently stumbled upon a means to make Dragon capable of capturing 95% of the look that Kodak Vision3 5219 color negative film produces, as a baseline look, without the grain but with the added benefits of much improved low light sensitivity over the 5219 and, of course, RAW workflow. Let's also say that you could bump the look up to 98% if you added the appropriate grain in post. For those who are preparing to become fixated on my choice of film stocks, please use your noggin/imagination and substitute any high performing film stock of your choice.

Would this be the best thing to happen to digital sensors or a disastrous turn for the worse?

You'd still have the flexibility to change the look through grading like you can now. I know some will argue they can already make Epic look like any film stock they want through grading. But, is there a benefit to having that very popular and very pleasing organic look on hand from the get-go? The benefit I'm seeing is you'd get a more organic look no matter what you did in grading because of the architecture of the sensor.

Obviously, that represents a trade-off, but do you feel it's worth it?

I'm not suggesting RED should spend their time trying to emulate film stocks. I am asking if RED should spend their time producing a more organic looking sensor.

Take a look at Aatons new camera....it has a specific system in it that moves grain/noise around in a much more random way to try and emulate film stock...have not seen footage from the camera although it is a 7K sensor that gets debayered to 3.5K 16-bit RAW onto standard SSD's. It looks like a Silicon 2K, and an Alexa had a child!