Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Noise on the low end but even worse scary megenta lines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacey Spears said:
This might be the flare that Gavin was talking about. This is the Xyla-21 cranked up to ISO12800.
Click to expand...

The way to tell whether this is optical flare or sensor row/column leakage (which I doubt, but which others have raised) would be to shoot the Xyla-21 chart also at a 45 degree angle. It would make for a very unhappy waveform monitor, but the image could be rotated before sending along to the waveform monitor. If there were row/column leakage, we'd see artifacts at 45 degrees to the horizontal pattern, rather than the confusion of both optical and possibly digital smearing.

I think the chart also teaches that there are many simultaneous limits that one reaches in super-high DR situations. Getting the sensor to behave is just one of many challenges.
 
I think it is - But it seems implausible to me that it is a sensor failing somehow. I think it's a simple flare from a bright source going straight into the lens.
 
Mark Wilkinson said:
So I guess Jared was saying the Dragon is native 800 and there is no disadvantage to shooting at 250. Ok, that's fair.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he never said something like "the Dragon sensor has a native sensitivity of ISO 800". As with all cameras and film-stocks the sensitivity is directly connected with the environment the camera is shooting at. The label on the can of Kodak 5298 said ISO 500. There were many reasons so expose the stock better to ISO 320 or even ISO 250. There were also scenes where you could go away with ISO 500, even 640 and got a well exposed result.

If you look at Red's ISO 800 and take a light meter you will discover that exposing to ISO 800 will often lead to pictures with rougher texture, aka noise. Especially if the brightest part of the picture is a "correct" exposed face at ISO 800. But if you would give the sensor a stop more light which is the equivalent of ISO 400 you will get a well exposed picture with a good noise-floor. This is somewhat the case with the picture that was the reason for this thread. It's vastly underexposed. Check Mark Toias very informative post.

Now, if you take your light meter and expose the face of your talent at ISO 800 on a very contrasty environment such as a back-lit sunny park, ISO 800 will be a good choice.

Sensitivity is relative. Dragon works well from 250 - 800, dependant on the situation. With the new OLPF and colour calibration more to the lower ISO numbers.

Hans
 
CMOS sensors have almost all had this problem to some degree. You won't see it by point it at the sun because only a very few number of pixels will be clipped. You really need a blown out horizontal line of clipped pixels. Fluorescent lights are perfect as are apparently blinds. :)

The other condition this shows up in is exclusively the shadows. It just raises the noise floor ever so slightly (or lowers in the case of MX). If your whole image is flared you won't have any pixels dark enough to notice.
 
I would say in it's current state Dragon is nowhere near the 16+ stops of usuable DR. Furthermore, it was stated all along that Dragons noise at 2000 ISO would be equal to 800 on MX. I know things change, but I'm just wondering what happened with that and if Dragon will ever evolve to be a 2000 ISO camera as projected? :-/

i think the improvements in overall color/ resolution/ and the way highlights are handled make Dragon much improved over MX. But I do think the "sensitivity/ lowlight" portion needs a big upgrade. I really hope Graeme and the geniuses at RED can get the blacks cleaner. I don't want the naysaying producers and Arri elitist types to shun Red Dragon because it is an absolute beast, she just needs some more fine tuning.
 
Adam Johnson said:
I would say in it's current state Dragon is nowhere near the 16+ stops of usuable DR. Furthermore, it was stated all along that Dragons noise at 2000 ISO would be equal to 800 on MX. I know things change, but I'm just wondering what happened with that and if Dragon will ever evolve to be a 2000 ISO camera as projected? :-/

i think the improvements in overall color/ resolution/ and the way highlights are handled make Dragon much improved over MX. But I do think the "sensitivity/ lowlight" portion needs a big upgrade. I really hope Graeme and the geniuses at RED can get the blacks cleaner. I don't want the naysaying producers and Arri elitist types to shun Red Dragon because it is an absolute beast, she just needs some more fine tuning.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but please consider the fact that you can apply noise reduction in post.
 
Adam Johnson said:
I would say in it's current state Dragon is nowhere near the 16+ stops of usuable DR. Furthermore, it was stated all along that Dragons noise at 2000 ISO would be equal to 800 on MX. I know things change, but I'm just wondering what happened with that and if Dragon will ever evolve to be a 2000 ISO camera as projected? :-/

i think the improvements in overall color/ resolution/ and the way highlights are handled make Dragon much improved over MX. But I do think the "sensitivity/ lowlight" portion needs a big upgrade. I really hope Graeme and the geniuses at RED can get the blacks cleaner. I don't want the naysaying producers and Arri elitist types to shun Red Dragon because it is an absolute beast, she just needs some more fine tuning.
Click to expand...

I'd get your olpf changed to the old one. It's 2000 is cleaner than 800 on mx.

Just wait for the calibration to come out.
 
Dont have a dragon yet ;) but definitely thinking about upgrading to it everyday! Haven't made up my mind yet if I want scarlet dragon or to wait for epic x dragon. But I kinda want to see where this all goes as well as I really like what the new OLPF does for highlights. I will be anxiously watching!

Timur Civan said:
I'd get your olpf changed to the old one. It's 2000 is cleaner than 800 on mx.

Just wait for the calibration to come out.
Click to expand...
 
Just a suggestion... keep a copy of firmware 5.1.51, the current release build, in case the "fix" takes away some of the superior highlight and color performance. I would hope that not be the case, but better to plan for all contingencies.
 
Unless the next fw build could be a "no rollback" build. :)

battistella
 
Timur Civan said:
I'd get your olpf changed to the old one. It's 2000 is cleaner than 800 on mx.
Click to expand...

Hi Tim

Is the above based on educated inferences and good will conjecture or a controlled side by side? Love to see! delighted if it is in a PM?

Thank you

Michael L
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top