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 :)

OLD or NEW DRAGON OLPF ?... What's best.

On the fly or in post, NR is still an available tool...

On the fly or in post, NR is still an available tool...

FWIW, my approach for night exteriors, slow glass or not enough wattage with V2 is to use Neat Video or the like after picture lock.

Sure, it's convenient for the camera to kill most of the noise on board - Canon seems to have done a nice job of that in the Cxxx cams - but it is still a built in limitation.

If you have to turn around a lot of footage, in a short time frame, for longer form deliverables then I'd follow Toia's note about grabbing a different camera. Otherwise, I'd just manage exposure as well as I can and do NR in the grading/finishing suite where the hardware is beefy enough to make the time penalty manageable. I also prefer the ability to precisely control how much NR is applied on a per shot/material dependent basis. YMMV.

Cheers - #19
 
I just saw The Knick and if they shot at 1280 to have visible grain... they failed. Couldn't see any texture whatsoever.

Thought it looked great. Grain or no.
 
Timur Civan said:
What kind of artifacting does neat video create?
Click to expand...


If you look at the Blue channel after using Neat Video, you'd notice a serious loss of resolution. They basically attack the noisiest channel- Blue, while doing much less temporal NR in the other two in order to preserve the APPEARANCE of retaining the resolution. That is one of the reason why you'd never find me using Neat Video. Incidentally, even built in NR in Resolve does a better job at retaining native resolution. I find it ironic, where everyone here on RU is obsessed with resolution, only willing to sacrifice it in post NR process:)
And if you must ask, I prefer not to use either. I use DVO Clarity by Nucoda for proper NR...
 
Mark Toia said:
I
What I've come down to after shooting several months with both OLPF's... I'm going to say that newer OLPF is better over all. A lot better... I personally think RED should drop the idea of retaining the older OLPF as an option. it's just going backwards.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, you pretty much nailed it.

The new OLPF creates the best images possible... hands down. The "IQ" of the image is higher than anything available out there. Graeme and the engineers really did a terrific job with both the optical and color science combination of the new OLPF.

You take a hit with light vs the old OLPF but everything else is just better. That's why we are calling the old one the "Low Light" OLPF because it gives people "better-than-Epic" in low light....and that's about it.
 
New OLPF here... Never looking back!!

But I admitted that the idea of an interchangeable OLPF with specialty Filtration could be a big thing, attention on the word "SPECIALTY" here... I could really see this as a great new tool to have on set for those particular times were a certain look might want to be determined and backed right upon capture, even so I also have been and continue to be an advocate for RAW capture and pay in Post with it as long as you want with infinite possibilities... :)
 
Jarred Land said:
The new OLPF creates the best images possible... hands down. The "IQ" of the image is higher than anything available out there.
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

phfx_redDragon_caduceusNaga.jpg



phfx_redEpicDragon_makeupBoop.jpg



phfx_redDragon_fireTruck_0001.jpg
 
Alvaro Brasil said:
Does anyone have any test done side by side without LUT or post, the OLPF V1 and V2 in a balanced light conditions?
Click to expand...

I did not shoot them side by side but I think in such situations the difference is quite slim. Simply put the lowlight olpf had issues with olpf magenta flares, that kind of ruined a shot with light sources in frame. The new olpf handles those setups without issues and lack a bit of light sensitivity for doing so. Im guessing some antireflection coatings in the olpf/sensor stack is cutting a bit of light... So comparing them in a controlled light setup does not give you much of a difference as it's in the deep blacks and hard highlights they behave different.
 
I'm still on the V1 OLPF, and all I can say is I'm extremely happy with the results. I'd be curious to compare with the new one which is certainly better in some aspects, but there are definitely a lot of situations where I wouldn't want to lose that 1 stop. Glad Red decided to go with interchangeable OLPFs, that's the way to go !
 
Jarred Land said:
Thanks Mark, you pretty much nailed it.

The new OLPF creates the best images possible... hands down. The "IQ" of the image is higher than anything available out there. Graeme and the engineers really did a terrific job with both the optical and color science combination of the new OLPF.

You take a hit with light vs the old OLPF but everything else is just better. That's why we are calling the old one the "Low Light" OLPF because it gives people "better-than-Epic" in low light....and that's about it.
Click to expand...

We're still on OLPF V1 and for what we've been shooting, that "low light" moniker has been totally proven. However, I am super stoked at the interchangeable OLPF system since we don't always shoot low light or higher ISO situations.
 
Say Jason,

see you have a full set of Leica R. I'd like to invite you to post some stuff in the Leica R: pictures thread. We could always use more samples there.
OLPF. I'm working with what I got (highlight OLPF) looking forward to the interchangeable system and all the possibility that brings.

Battistella
 
Timur Civan said:
It's just like 35. Over expose stop and pull in post. You will have no problems. The highlights are insanse. They just won't burn.
Click to expand...
As a side tangent, I see people say this all the time. My question is - why wait till post to pull down? Why not just set the ISO to match however much you're overexposing by. Its the same as adjusting ISO/FLUT in REDCINE, and then your on-set monitoring is correct...
 
Kevin Marshall said:
As a side tangent, I see people say this all the time. My question is - why wait till post to pull down? Why not just set the ISO to match however much you're overexposing by. Its the same as adjusting ISO/FLUT in REDCINE, and then your on-set monitoring is correct...
Click to expand...

it's still post capturing :)

But you are right, I'm also confused that people talk about it as two completely different worlds, if picture looks bright on touch screen, well pull down your iso but make sure where your goal posts are and how far you got to hit your stoplights and make sure the exposure for the sensor is best possible. The rest is up to taste at that moment and can be changed downstream at any time.
 
Kevin Marshall said:
As a side tangent, I see people say this all the time. My question is - why wait till post to pull down? Why not just set the ISO to match however much you're overexposing by. Its the same as adjusting ISO/FLUT in REDCINE, and then your on-set monitoring is correct...
Click to expand...

I usually do. I shoot my V2Dragon at 400-500, lit for 800.

I almost never shoot 250, even though i did at first. I have completely come to embrace the grain. Im all about it. 250 is too clean. With DEB engaged, the grain becomes "just right" goldilocks anount. There for texture, but not over powereing. Looks fine at 800 and below. That said i created a fe B/W profiles on my looks preset, and i cant shoot them below 2000. the grain looks awesome.
 
Björn Benckert said:
it's still post capturing :)

But you are right, I'm also confused that people talk about it as two completely different worlds, if picture looks bright on touch screen, well pull down your iso but make sure where your goal posts are and how far you got to hit your stoplights and make sure the exposure for the sensor is best possible. The rest is up to taste at that moment and can be changed downstream at any time.
Click to expand...


Well thats my point. I treat it like film. Use a meter compensated for the look, set the stop, light, then process in the "lab". I dont touch ISO on set cause the LUTs dont line up right if you change ISO in camera, its better to pull it properly in post with a seperate lut. The camera sits in RLF painted live by DIT.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
I dont know what you think but I rather have a clean 2000 iso than a clean 250 iso.
Click to expand...

It's a funny thing and everybody is going to be different because their needs/wants will be different.

However I way out the pros and that's what influenced my decision.


V1 OLPF
- Sees 1.3 (approximate) stops more into the dark
- Cleaner at higher ISOs

V2 OLPF
- Superior color over the V1
- Better IR cutting
- No more "red dots" due to closed apertures and in frame highlights
- Better highlight retention, about that 1.3-ish stops
- No more reflected IR orbs around sources


Red's giving us options with the Modular OLPF thingy and that solves both sides of this and there's some new stuff on the way in the form of other OLPFs.

However, when I add up the pros between the two the scales (for me) tip towards using the V2 OLPF. I personally would be "rarely" shooting at ISO 2000, I have a night shoot coming up and I'm lighting it to ISO 500 for instance. And I understand that's not a luxury we have all of the time. Since getting my Dragon, both OLPFs, I have pretty much shot up to ISO 1280 on gigs by choice. Like Timur I'm often in the lower range. ISO 500 is rather nice.

The bigger thing for me is specifically the lack of highlight oriented artifacts and just better color on the V2 just makes it the right choice. Because I would prefer to have that "all of the time".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top