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

[Brian Boyer]

Before I get to Dragon...

The Alexa, in my opinion, looks better than the Epic/Scarlet in most situations. There...I said it. It’s the camera to beat. And I’m not alone in that assertion. I know this will make the heads of some of the RED faithful explode but this is what I believe to be true based on what I find most appealing about an image.

Both “Blue Bloods” and “Shameless” switched from the R1MX in their first season to Alexa in their second and I thought both shows looked markedly better. In fact, the only reason I watched “Blue Bloods” was because it was shot on RED. When season two started I saw the improvement in quality immediately and assumed it was because they switched to the Epic. It wasn’t until half-way through the season that I found out they switched to Alexa.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Epic is capable of incredible images and I don’t think the difference between the two is drastic, but it is noticeable. It’s kind of like beating the old world record by 1.5 seconds but losing the gold medal and new record by .7 of a second. Alexa edges Epic out in a way that is more refined on the high end and looks less digital overall. Keep in mind I said less.

German engineering has a much deserved reputation for being precise. This is often accompanied by a clean design aesthetic. For some, this occasionally produces cold or sterile results. But Arri seems to have realized although these attributes are still important in terms of build quality, digital image quality benefits by having some degree of mojo on it. It needs to look more organic.

Whatever the Alexa’s secret sauce, it puts more funk on the image and, as a result, also makes it seem more forgiving. I’ve seen precious few cringeworthy images from a professional Alexa production. Unfortunately, they’re too common (based on MY taste) on RED shows...except for “Criminal Minds”. That show's look is consistently top notch and it’s arguably the best looking RED show to date. They shoot 4K on Epic at 8:1 and it always looks great, as good as anything on television. “Leverage” and “Pretty Little Liars” season 3 (shot on Scarlet) are also on point 99% of the time. While I’m at it, “Mob Doctor” and “Justified” also look really good, although I think “Justified” pushes it a tad much sometimes in the highlights.

Depending on who you ask, the decision to choose Alexa over Epic is due to misinformation about workflow, some misguided sense of loyalty to Arri, a dislike of the RED culture or an overly change-averse industry. I’m sure those factors account for some of it but if you threw out half of the tv productions from the last 18 months that went Alexa you’d still have more shows than are shot on any flavor of RED camera. Alexa is even gaining ground in feature films.

Now, either almost an entire industry just doesn’t get it or the industry has given RED (and anyone else who’s paying attention) insight into what it values above all else. It would seem that what people deem to be a better looking image trumps higher resolution, smaller size, lighter weight and RAW image capture combined. Even if that turns out not to be the reason behind Alexa’s success I don’t see how it’s a bad assumption to make.

Jim has stated several times that RED welcomes a good fist fight. Maybe I’m wrong, but the way I see it the battle is over image quality. Resolution, size, weight, dynamic range, frame rates, color science, RAW, etc. are all weapons to be utilized in the battle but they’re not what the battle is about. I believe the only way RED is going to take that business back from Alexa is if their images look significantly more appealing than anything anyone else has to offer. Once that happens, people will start paying attention to and even praising the higher resolutions and frame rates, smaller size, RAW capture, etc. that RED is known for.

Which brings me to Dragon, finally. I said all of that to say this...

Very simply, Dragon is next generation sensor technology and it should be obvious by looking at it. If I have to look at a spec sheet in order to know it’s the most advanced commercially available sensor on the planet, something is wrong. The general consensus should be it’s the best looking digital cinema sensor ever produced. Relatively few people are going to care how advanced it is if it doesn't pass the Alexa look test or they believe they have to work too hard in order to get it to look awesome.

It should look and feel like a leap forward and make Alexa, Epic/Scarlet MX and F65 look like ass by comparison (okay, I’m exaggerating about the ass part). It should produce a picture that people find hard to resist - for filmmakers and viewers alike. To myself and probably many others this means a more natural, less digital looking image. Throw in better color reproduction and better looking skin tones for Bruce Allen and you've undeniably got the best motion picture camera ever made, by anyone's standards. So, in addition to all of the technological advancements Dragon has to offer my Scarlet, above everything except wider dynamic range, I hope RED saw fit to let Dragon breathe some organic looking stank on the image.

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot to mention this earlier but I think wider dynamic range (15 stops on Dragon) is a HUGE factor. I've edited the last sentence above to reflect this. Since I don't know the first thing about sensor design, my concern is that wider DR alone isn't going to fix the organic nature of the image I'm referring to. Please read my next post below.

 

[Louis Maddalena]

So I have a shoot in the morning so I can't go on for as long as I would like to in this post but I think you bring up a lot of good points.

Yes, in order to start taking market share away from Alexa a more organic look would be needed, however, it is not to say that is the only reason why people are going Alexa. I think they are going Alexa because of the ease of shooting on it and getting it to post quickly. Most of what you mentioned are TV shows that are on deadlines and must have a new episode always behind the last in order to complete their season, so their workflow is a little bit more rushed than on a feature.

That is why Alexa works great for them. The footage looks unbelievably good right out of the camera. Its already in ProRes and edit ready and its well known amongst producers for these qualities. In order for Red to be able to compete with Alexa on the television market they must deliver a sensor upgrade that rivals the look straight out of the camera and be able to incorporate the meizer modules proxy record mode to be able to record high res broadcast ready prores files for editing. With that you might see some of those shows going back to Red in order to have the advantage of e that RAW back up to go to for some looks or scenes where they want to push it, or where they want that extra resolution for some kind of creative effect or to future proof their shows for 4k (UltraHD) televisions that are about to start being released.


But for features (and other projects with longer workflows), even though Alexa is taking up some of this work, I do believe that the RED environment has the edge up here. The fact that you can use a rocket to go to prores (or using CS6 edit natively), do your edits then go back to 4 or 5k raw files for your grading and vfx work is unparalleled in the industry. Having that extra little bit of room in post is what can make your images look from the "they look great" to the "they look better than Alexa" It take a lot of time in post but I do believe with that time you are going to get a better image out of Red than out of Alexa as long as you go through the workflow the right way.

Yes there are examples on both sides of the argument which looks better. Hugo for example was a feature shot on Alexa and it looked great on the big screen, I really enjoyed the cinematography. But then again I'm sure The Hobbit will look great and so did Prometheus (even though I didn't like the film, you can't deny the look was really top notch).

But at this level I think the trade offs are more resolution on Reds side, as long as you have the time and the post workflow set up you're going to get something great and its going to have great resolution, where as on the Alexa you're missing out on some of that resolution only having the ability to shoot 2k but you're gaining so much in time. You're ready faster and with a less expensive and complex post production workflow, even though the camera is itself is more expensive.

So out of Dragon, I'd love to see an image that right out of the sensor looks more organic like film, and I'm sure well get that, but to me I rather have a bit more dynamic range, some extra resolution and some enhancements in native ISO, noise floor, and color reproduction and not have it looking organic because I'll give it that look in post. I rather have the technical as long as I can go creative in post than have an image that looks organic and nice but I don't quite have that range to do what I want in post, or to shoot in certain circumstances where I might otherwise be out of luck.

Either way, I'm very excited to get Dragons in my Scarlets and after Epics are shipping with Dragons I'll probably pick one of those up as well.

 

[Jason Honeycutt]

I've used both Alexa and REDs on shoots. Yes, as you originally said, there's some kinda 'secret sauce' that gives the Alexa's picture some weight or something really 'rich'. But honestly, it comes down to the DP. I've seen a great DP make a DVX (not HVX) look flatout like film... and I've seen some people butcher Alexa and RED footage. The main thing, to me, is always the glass in front of the camera. The nice thing about Alexa, in post, is the latitude you have. On my last music video I directed, we shot with Alexa and got way behind schedule, we were supposed to be done hours before sundown but we had no light at all for an outdoor scene... and I was able get enough information out of the shot to make, literally, a night shot look like a day shot.

Also, a big advantage to Alexa is the workflow... being able to edit with the files natively AMA-linked, no transcode needed. There's a big shoot I worked on where I was editing the files right on set so we could adjust our footage according... with RED, it's awesome that Avid can 'read' the 4K files but they're not functional while linked. You have to transcode them to DNxHD... which is fine if you're not in a hurry.

With post production... I'd love if RED could find a way to 'see' the 4K files in Avid, like, if I punch in, it doesn't get pixelated, like an enlarged 1080p file. You can link to still images that go beyond the 1080p screen sizes and zoom in without quality loss (with a picture beyond the size of the frame). I wish you could do that with the R3D files.

But keep this history in mind as well... RED started all of this... by "this", I mean, this HD revolution on a consumer level. My first "HD" shoot was years ago on a Varicam, then Cinealta... both are pushing six figures to buy... and then RED came out for more than half the price and for a better picture. Then, their MX sensor came out and blew everyone (like Fincher) away... and now everyone takes it for granted. Alexa came out and yeah, it's a beautiful picture but there's no f'ing way anyone on the street is going to own one, when it's also pushing six figures. To me, Alexa and RED's MX sensor are splitting hairs... yes, I'd currently give the edge to Alexa but not by much... and when the Dragon comes out, you can bet it's going to be a game 'reset'.

I like how RED listens to us, takes our feedback, watches these forums... Sony, Panasonic, Arri... they just put products out there, no interaction. Remember the original Scarlet? 3K for $3K with a fix lens? Then, thank God, that overpriced 7D, the C300, came out and RED adjusted the Scarlet... and now we have a cinema quality camera for 1/8th the price of an Alexa. With Alexa taking over the production market, you can be sure that RED will tweak the Dragon until it can sink the Alexa. From the rumors, the next camera to beat, however, is Panavision's camera that's coming out (next year?).

Honestly though, I'm beyond happy with my Scarlet... I can now create movies and projects that "look" like a movie should look and feel. I've been in post production for 16 years so I'm happy with how far I can push this footage.

 

[Joesef o.]

Thing about dragon that I'd really like to see is a better cleaner image. I'm used to Sony F3 and Alexa footage at 800 ISO, and its clean as can be in low light. My scarlet cant shoot anywhere near that. Clean low light footage from the scarlet is around ISO 400. They need to hit that native sweet spot of ISO 800 with a CLEAN image in low light, and then they've got a good thing going for them. Also the highlight roll off is... well not so good on the current sensor. I hate to say it, but my F3 had way better protection in the highlights and rolled off much nicer with that camera than my Scarlet.

I'd like to see an image that was just cleaner. I love adding the film grain in post, but without clean blacks, it's sort of in the old world of ISO 320 film. Maybe I just got spoiled with Alexa and F3? With S-Log my F3 was native 1600 ISO and that was clean as can be in the blacks. I shot uncompressed 10bit with the F3 in super low light with only practicals in a room and it looked beautiful. With the scarlet I have to overlight and then drop my iso to make the same image.

So my hope... a REAL native 800 ISO with another stop of real dynamic range (not HDR) say 14.5 stops DR and native 800 ISO for the imager with clean blacks would make it really a sensor to kick ass with.

 

[Matt Ryan]

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.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Hehe, no pressure RED team, no pressure at all.

 

[Mark Toia]

Yes.. I'm a Red man... that uses the ARRI from time to time...(and would jump ship in a heart beat if anyone bought out a better camera).

I'm still unsure what this "look" or "Secret sauce" you talk of.. ? I can very very easily make my RED images look exactly like Alexa images... Im in RAW, I can grade people blue if i want, but one thing I cannot do is make my Alexa images look like RED images... RED is pin sharp Alexa is soft (compared to RED) .. RED is shooting massive 75 meg per fram images, not 6.6 meg per fram.... You really notice how soft the Alexa is when viewing both on a 4k monitor or even better on a 4k projector... it's seriously like chalk and cheese. But once again, it's so easy to match colour and tone... and if you want the soft look you hit the blur tool.

But the fact still is, I can match skin colour for skin color with the ALEXA any day of the week and do so with ease.... I'm not sure if you guys judge your images from an onset monitor in stead of a proper grading suite, if your grading from DPX? or some silly lut created by some numpty on set... but for the life of me, I have know idea what your talking about. I can grade both exactly the way I want.

It's a pity that this subject keeps raising its head, as I truly think its a myth... forged by the inexperience.

Regarding Dragon... I'm just hoping for a cleaner chip at hi ISO and a bit more range. I'm quite happy all ready.

 

[Brian Boyer]

So out of Dragon, I'd love to see an image that right out of the sensor looks more organic like film, and I'm sure well get that, but to me I rather have a bit more dynamic range, some extra resolution and some enhancements in native ISO, noise floor, and color reproduction and not have it looking organic because I'll give it that look in post. I rather have the technical as long as I can go creative in post than have an image that looks organic and nice but I don't quite have that range to do what I want in post, or to shoot in certain circumstances where I might otherwise be out of luck.

I've edited my original post to contain and reflect the following: I can't believe I forgot to mention this earlier but I think wider dynamic range (15 stops on Dragon) is a HUGE factor. Since I don't know the first thing about sensor design, my concern is that wider DR alone isn't going to fix the organic nature of the image I'm referring to.

Severe or abrupt clipping in highlights is what many people equate with a digital look and wider DR certainly goes a long way towards alleviating it. However, there seems to be something about the way sensors handle artificial light falling on them that, under certain conditions, screams digital to me in areas of the frame that are nowhere near clipping. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I can't describe the digital look I'm talking about but I know it when I see it.

The digital look is virtually nonexistent when shooting in actual daylight. Even inexpensive digital still cameras and motion cameras that are capable of shooting 24p look their least video-ish when shooting under the right conditions outdoors or indoors with daylight streaming through windows and bouncing around. The one artificial light exception might be HMIs. Digital sensors seem to react to them in a similar way to how they react to daylight, but I'm not sure since it's not always easy to tell what lights were used and in what combination on set.

Perhaps the spectral makeup of the light is what determines how digital or video-ish the picture looks. Tungsten light is pretty shy on the blue end of the spectrum. Maybe in addition to eliminating noise in the blue channel, the extra blue photons make the sensor look less digital.

Because digital sensors excel and exhibit more analog looking tendencies in daylight, it doesn't seem to be merely a grain vs. no grain situation. I'm not sure how far adding grain in post goes towards achieving the organic look I'm talking about but I'll do some tests to find out.

Maybe an added benefit to a wider dynamic range is it helps spread the light out over a greater range, thereby smoothing out luminance values across the board. Perhaps what I just wrote is nonsense.

Maybe the best "fix" for what I'm seeing is to throw a diffusion filter in front of the lens and keep on pushing. I don't know.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Yes.. I'm a Red man... that uses the ARRI from time to time...(and would jump ship in a heart beat if anyone bought out a better camera).

I'm still unsure what this "look" or "Secret sauce" you talk of.. ? I can very very easily make my RED images look exactly like Alexa images... Im in RAW, I can grade people blue if i want, but one thing I cannot do is make my Alexa images look like RED images... RED is pin sharp Alexa is soft (compared to RED) .. RED is shooting massive 75 meg per fram images, not 6.6 meg per fram.... You really notice how soft the Alexa is when viewing both on a 4k monitor or even better on a 4k projector... it's seriously like chalk and cheese. But once again, it's so easy to match colour and tone... and if you want the soft look you hit the blur tool.

But the fact still is, I can match skin colour for skin color with the ALEXA any day of the week and do so with ease.... I'm not sure if you guys judge your images from an onset monitor in stead of a proper grading suite, if your grading from DPX? or some silly lut created by some numpty on set... but for the life of me, I have know idea what your talking about. I can grade both exactly the way I want.

It's a pity that this subject keeps raising its head, as I truly think its a myth... forged by the inexperience.

Regarding Dragon... I'm just hoping for a cleaner chip at hi ISO and a bit more range. I'm quite happy all ready.

Mark, thanks for your response. I respect your abilities and have studied some of the work you've done. But maybe you could ease off the, "If you don't see the Epic is better looking than Alexa and can't make it look great like I can, you must be a novice with crappy equipment." rhetoric - just a bit.

However, I fully support the, "If you're on a professional set with a network budget and you can't get your images to look as good as Criminal Minds or Pretty Little Liars Season 3, you're doing something wrong." rhetoric.

I get the, "Who are you going to believe? RED? Or your lyin' eyes?" position and maybe a lot of what people love about the Alexa's look can be chalked up to the fact that it's only 1080p and therefore, softer. But the Alexa exhibits the same digital look as any other digital camera, just to a lesser degree, in my opinion. Again, maybe due to softness. I'm hoping camera and sensor manufacturers can achieve a more organic look while giving us higher resolution in future designs.

I'm about as objective as you can get. You have no way of knowing this other than trusting me when I say it but, if you knew me, you might think differently of my opinion. And my opinion, which I clearly stated it was, is not a myth. It reflects a preference. It doesn't make me right. It's not about being right. And I said I preferred the look of Alexa in most situations, not all. It tends to produce more of the overall quality I like to see in an image more often.

I know the Epic is more flexible. There's no question. In the hands of someone who can fully exploit its capabilities and also respect its limitations, it produces an awesome picture. Maybe Dragon's wider dynamic range will be all that's needed to keep people from ruining shots they really shouldn't have blown out in the first place

I guess it could be argued that the difference in look between the Epic and Alexa is more a matter of taste than any real quality advantage.

I'm a huge fan of Kate Bush. She doesn't always hit a note perfectly in pitch but she delivers that note in a way that makes you not notice or care that it wasn't exactly in tune. Are there better technical singers? Absolutely. Are there other singers that deliver an equally emotional performance. You betcha. But, Kate is still my fave. I know many people can listen to her and not hear her the way I do. Those who don't may not be able to get past the quality of her voice or the occasional intonation issues. That doesn't mean they're lacking something I have or vice versa. It simply doesn't appeal to them in the same way.

Observing where something can be improved upon is not the same thing as complaining. Not acknowledging where RED can make improvements to both actual and perceived reality doesn't help anyone in the long run. I dig my Scarlet and will lust after the Dragon update whether it accomplishes all that I've talked about or not. If Arri had offered a camera at the Scarlet's price point with the same look as the Alexa but at 1080p, I would've thought long and hard about buying it but probably would've still bought the Scarlet because it's the best all around camera for under $25K and ready for the higher resolution future today.

 

[Arnold F.]

How many people on the Alexa board ask what kind of mic to put on top of the camera?. There's a difference right there!

 

[Mike Kushner]

Red would have a better edge if transcoding were a thing of the past. Its inconvenient, to say the least.

 

[Philipe Ratton]

Funny, I dont transcode anything till final delivery.
Nowadays, really a non issue for me.

 

[Mike Garrick]

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

 

[Evin Grant]

I work with both systems constantly and have designed the looks of major network TV shows on both systems, if you want the Alexa mojo on an Epic just add an 1/8 Low Con filter, it's pretty much just that easy. It softens the highlight transitions and pleasantly blooms sources and practicals while adding a nice optical "rolloff" to the highlights. Color wise I personally prefer the Epic skin tones, I know I'm in the minority but after watching countless hours of purple lips and orange faces when the color is even slightly mixed I prefer the more honest Redcolor 3. Both are pretty great though and both benefit immensely from a great DP and a great colorist.

The way to eat Alexas lunch is to have a native 2000 ISO sensor with 15+ stops of native DR matched with onboard Pro-res recording. Oh wait, that's all coming isn't it

 

[Mike P.]

This isn't the first time I've heard the claim that low-con OLPF is the only difference, and that you can easily throw one on your glass and get indistinguishable results with a RED, but I haven't seen any tests. Not only that, but there are others that claim the lowcons just add noise to the shadows (by "brightening them) which essentially nullifies their "increased dynamic range".

A little off topic, but does anyone have any links to RED footage with and without 1/8 or 1/4 LowCon filters?

 

[Carlos Reyes]

The funny thing about all this is that you can get a nice scarlet kit for around 17-20k, an epic for 40-50k. how much do alexas run for? Sure there might be some things that make people prefer the alexa over RED but someone experienced like Mr. Toia can put the conversation to rest. If you see his work you wouldnt be able to tell if it was Alexa or Epic, it looks amazing either way. You dont see many people running around with Alexas they own as operators. The difference between the two is nitpicking honestly, RED made this possible for whoever wants it bad enough and thats what matters to me. As an example, because of the battle tested deal I was able to pick up a professional cinema camera for 7k at 20 years old with money I made from shooting on a t3i. Thats unheard of. That's why they have my money and not Arri.

 

[Mark Toia]

Mark, thanks for your response. I respect your abilities and have studied some of the work you've done. But maybe you could ease off the, "If you don't see the Epic is better looking than Alexa and can't make it look great like I can, you must be a novice with crappy equipment." rhetoric - just a bit.

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...

 

[rick youck]

i have to make a quick comment on the perceived workflow advantages of the Alexa. Lately i've been about a 50/50 split between Alexa and Red. Both Cameras have strengths and weaknesses, both look great.

- when we shoot red (raw), we will backup the raw, and transcode prores for editorial

- when we shoot Alexa (as with all the shows mentioned above) we will always shoot prores4444 in logC, backup the 4444, and transcode to prores in 709 (or custom Lut) for editorial.

the process is the same for both cameras, and with a properly setup system, takes about the same amount of time. The direct to edit never happens, because no one ever shoots in rec709, and no one ever edits in LogC.

rick

 

[Brian Boyer]

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...

Although you can't tell it from my original post, I was really hoping this thread wouldn't be dominated by Alexa. Honestly, I knew better...but one can dream.

I wanted to focus more on Dragon using both Epic and Alexa as legitimate frames of reference. All I meant by secret sauce is the thing that draws people to Alexa's image. If it ultimately comes down to personal taste, there isn't much anyone can do about that.

I understand your point. Epic doesn't have a look of its own so it can look like anything. But, is that always a good thing? To some, that may sound (and look) like the Epic has no personality. Human beings love things to have personality, or character, or je ne sais quoi. I know you can add those things in post, but the problem with that is post is just that - after the fact. To some degree, there seems to be a shift in what role post plays these days. Some productions are moving some traditionally post processes to the production phase and leaving post for a quick spit shine before it's out the door. RED's philosophy of leaving all the power to that phase of the process may need slight adjustment to accommodate how people are starting to work. Dragon, Dragon optimized RC4/RG4 and a ProRes module, perhaps?

I like the idea of a blank slate that I can mold into what I want later. I also like the idea of a an image that has something about it that draws me to it, without necessarily knowing what it is.

If there were no Alexa, Epic would undoubtedly be king of the jungle. Because Alexa does exist and people, for whatever reason, find the images it produces slightly more pleasing in most cases, it can't be ignored, even if it's only due to a softer image.

Real or imagined, Alexa's edge has to be taken seriously and examined. It would be a mistake to dismiss or underestimate Alexa's strongest points or not be honest about Epic's weakest points in order to make Dragon a superior sensor and RED a more popular choice.

I suspect the people who argue Kodak stock looks better than Fuji or vice versa are both right. Each individual responds to the same stimuli differently. It's what we can generally think of as taste, in this context. If a certain characteristic of a film stock (or guitar tone, or fabric, or recipe, etc) stimulates a person's sensibilities in a way that makes them value that characteristic over others and subsequently causes them to zero in on its presence and miss its absence, that stock (or whatever) is very likely to be deemed better. Maybe it's contrast, grain structure or how it handles the color red.

I always say there's no such thing as bad sounding audio or musical gear. There's only gear that sounds like you want it to in a certain situation and gear that doesn't. I suppose the same is true of film and video gear.

In practice, the stocks are probably close enough in quality that telling them apart becomes very difficult. It makes total sense that you could intercut between the two and have it go unnoticed if that characteristic weren't present in both shots. If it is, for someone who's sensitive to it, the difference might be very apparent, reinforcing their choice of favorite.

Speaking of the color red and being sensitive to certain characteristics, I'm still anticipating the day when digital sensors capture brake lights at night as red and not white with a pink halo. Other people may not notice it or care, but it bugs me for some reason.

My observations about picture quality from both Alexa and Epic are based mainly on finished products, not on-set RC3/RG3 monitoring or pre-graded footage. And my issue with the image isn't always present in every shot.

I hope Dragon goes a step further in alleviating what I keep referring to as the digital look.

An extreme yet very good example of the digital quality I'm talking about comes, oddly and uncharacteristically enough, from the Alexa. The following link is to the trailer for 2 Days in New York. It has "shot digitally" written all over it. I know it has almost everything to do with the way it was lit but that's not my point. My point is that digital quality is there in abundance so you should be able to see what I'm talking about, I'm super sensitive to it, I don't care for it and I hope Dragon has much less of it.

If that means putting some stank (character, funk, mojo, hair, juju) on the image in camera, so be it...unless any of you know how to avoid the digital look this trailer has in the production process (besides the lighting issue) or eliminate it in post. I'm all ears if you do.

Is it really as simple as throw a diffusion filter over the lens? And again, why doesn't that look seem to be an issue in actual daylight?

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

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Is it really as simple as throw a diffusion filter over the lens? And again, why doesn't that look seem to be an issue in actual daylight?

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

Boy it looks like the DR on this one is crushed pretty badly.....