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 :)

OFFHOLLYWOOD DRAGON R3Ds & MORE

Mark L. Pederson said:
I think the term "base sensor ISO" is not an accurate thing to say. If you think you are going to find ONE "sweet spot" to rate the Dragon for all situations and all desired results .... you are gonna chase your tail.
Click to expand...

That's why I put those words in quotations. Clearly were in a kind of new digital exposure paradigm, that frankly feels more like it was with film, you could expose within a range and plan to push, pull, when processing. That's been back with REd Raw for a while, just not so much with the range (people tend not to let the highlights blow out like they might with film) whereas I think they might let them go more with Dragon. The whole 800ISO thing with MX is really designed to protect highlights and prevent sensor clipping. That seems less important now on Dragon.

From what you are stating the good news is Dragon could represent more creative choice, iE, Toia wants clean 250iso great, Gunleik wants to push some stuff out to 1600 great, creative choice. (Not saying either are attached to a specific style)

I do like the term NO ISO penalty, but clearly each cinematographer will find and get the look they want from Dragon, just like we all found our own sweet spot with the MX sensor.

for me sweet spot might mean, wide dr, low noise,for someone else it might be more around grain and tonal range, clearly the machine can deliver both.

Battistella
 
ISO range..... this was shot at 2000iso 23.98/f8 - Nikon 60mm micro. LED lights
.

MHD_rCD5_D07x.jpg





r3d frame (Snapshot) - not the same frame...
http://www.mhd-vault.com/MHD_PICS/MHD_rCD5_Dragon_F1.zip
 
David Battistella said:
for me sweet spot might mean, wide dr, low noise,for someone else it might be more around grain and tonal range, clearly the machine can deliver both.

Battistella
Click to expand...

Yes - this is the best way to think about it IMO. It's alwasy been that way - just the range was more compressed - and regardless how much more range there is technically - it's feels like a ton.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
The thing is ... there is not a "sweet spot" ... there's a "sweet range". It really depends on what you are shooting and what you want to achive. I think the term "base sensor ISO" is not an accurate thing to say. If you think you are going to find ONE "sweet spot" to rate the Dragon for all situations and all desired results .... you are gonna chase your tail.
Click to expand...

Amen.

As little as there is my opinion "one right esthetique, there is no one sweetspot on the Dragon.

It is more like: I want it to look "this" way, expose like "this" etc.
That is certainly true to some degree for many cameras. The "issue" with the Dragon is that it looks "more" and just "better" within a hell of more concepts of shooting.

If you are talking clean, sharp, silky blacks and vibrant colors, rate at 250 and fill her up with lights... of "any" kind. (as stated a few times before... WB really works a lot better on this thing)


If you are talking gentle and softer tonality. underexpose at your hearts desire, without losing nuances in skin.

Now... You cannot "lift" the second image to look like the first.

But they are both beautiful and rich. Usually the second would lend itself more to artificial colors...
 
Here is how I've thought about MX and presuming that the logic carries forward with Dragon:

With MX if you rate higher you distribute the range more evenly between shadow and highlight. 1280 or 1600 was more of an even spread of over/under key. So rating MX at 320 gives you fewer stops above key and more below. This is great for scenes with a lot of shadow detail info (think night interiors or night exteriors). Even for dark scenes, The noise at 800 is fine as long as you don't plan on pushing the image around a great deal in post. If I have a scene mostly at key with a lot of tones a few stops over I'm likely to rate the sensor at 640, 800 or 1000. Even at 800 there is not an even distribution though.

With Dragon you have more OVERALL range. So the rating is not as critical. You can rate lower ISO, and whereas on MX it might have compromised the highlight range on Dragon you have more overall range so it's not as critical and you aren;t as likely to have a scene that pushes the limits off the overall range. Still, however, if you rate lower you will have a more uneven distribution of shadows and highlights (more favored toward shadows). So rating at 250 for day exteriors is going to give you less range in the highlights but you may only sometimes encounter a scene with contrast extreme enough for it to matter. If someone gives me a Dragon (hint Jarred) I can easily test the sensor to find the ISO that gives an even distribution of tones in shadows and highlights (under and over key), which is how a lot of us came up thinking about rating a film stock. With MX this ISO value was 1280 or 1600 and not one that most people would use frequently by choice because of the noise.
 
From from this I would say that. Dragon is just a tool that gives you more creative choices than the previous generation as those "limits" or "things you have to work around" are gone.

Battistella


Gunleik Groven said:
Amen.

As little as there is my opinion "one right esthetique, there is no one sweetspot on the Dragon.

It is more like: I want it to look "this" way, expose like "this" etc.
That is certainly true to some degree for many cameras. The "issue" with the Dragon is that it looks "more" and just "better" within a hell of more concepts of shooting.

If you are talking clean, sharp, silky blacks and vibrant colors, rate at 250 and fill her up with lights... of "any" kind. (as stated a few times before... WB really works a lot better on this thing)


If you are talking gentle and softer tonality. underexpose at your hearts desire, without losing nuances in skin.

Now... You cannot "lift" the second image to look like the first.

But they are both beautiful and rich. Usually the second would lend itself more to artificial colors...
Click to expand...
 
David Battistella said:
From from this I would say that. Dragon is just a tool that gives you more creative choices than the previous generation as those "limits" or "things you have to work around" are gone.

Battistella
Click to expand...

I would say that this sums it up pretty well.

There will come cameras after Dragon... Even from RED, I guess. I cannot see them wrapping shop and saying:

Hey guys. Did it!

But to me... Dragon looks like a cam that will maybe have a lifecycle as long as... well maybe the R1 or Alexa...

As for myself... I am kind of just happy :)
 
Clark Dunbar said:
ISO range..... this was shot at 2000iso 23.98/f8 - Nikon 60mm micro. LED lights
.

MHD_rCD5_D07x.jpg
Click to expand...

Anyway to get a full 6K image, maybe R3D snapshot? Would love to check it out.
 
Nick Morrison said:
What ISO are you working at most of the time now? Still sub 320?
Click to expand...

I shoot 250 ISO on Dragon... And please don't think this is the best ISO for you. It just suits me nicely.
I'm not big on noise , my fav film was 35mm kodak 50d because it was so smooth. , I'm not big on loading up on filtration causing IR issues. I'm really into clean smooth images , hence the low ISO.
In saying that, once I start running out of light and f-stops, I slowly creep up through the ISO range . 2000iso is about my limit, 4000 I will use only if I'm stuck in a corner. Bright lenses are more my savior in dark times. :)
 
is it possible if any dragon owner shoot color chart? Epic has some color shifting especially in "red" color. i am really wondering if dragon has it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top