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

[Timothy Eaton]

I also shoot both. Just this week I did two projects with a director that loves to shoot Red. One shoot had controlled lighting and the other was interior available light verite.
I presented the pros and cons of both Dragon and MX for each shoot. He chose Dragon for one and MX for the other. I agreed with choice and footage looked great on both shoots.
Red seem to understand the need for this kind of flexibility. My observation about the F55 OLPF options was that clients don't seem to want to get involved in too many nuances when selecting a camera. For whatever reasons they may have.

Regards
John

I appreciate your perspective John. Your situation as a rental house is different from mine as an enduser. However, I recently upgraded (OLPF 2), and I would be hard pressed to identify pros and cons of Dragon with respect to MX. For me it's all pros. After having used Dragon for awhile, I would never go back. Further, I think a lot of what has been floating around Reduser, identified as Dragon cons, has been understood by many to be far more significant than my experience warrants. Is the camera perfect? No. Is it darn near perfect for this moment in time? I would say yes.

My encouragement for those who have been alarmed by "fill in the blank" issues with Dragon on Reduser would be twofold: 1) Consider the source. There are many viewpoints on Reduser with respect to Red cameras, but for me, not all of them carry equal weight. Anyone can post here and not everyone posting here has a wealth of experience with film, digital, motion pictures, etc. In fact, occasionally there are those willing to pontificate about Dragon without ever having used the camera. When I compare a lot of what is posted here with my own experience, it just doesn't hold up. 2) Don't sweat the small stuff. In terms of the way I work, the material I shoot (which is a pretty wide variety), most of the complaints about Dragon pale in comparison to the richness of the images and the extraordinary capabilities of the camera.

My two bits.

Tim Eaton

 

[Brian Boyer]

Suggesting ORBS are acceptable is SPIN. You crack me up.

Well then, you should find this hilarious. In art, everything is acceptable.

EVERY optical/visual and aural/sonic artifact or flaw you can think of has been deliberately incorporated into works of art for creative and artistic purposes.

There's no such thing as a bad looking lens, camera, OLPF, film stock, codec, etc. There's no such thing as a bad sounding microphone, instrument, recording medium, sample rate, etc.

There are only the things that suit your current artistic needs and the things that don't.

 

[Bohdan Klos]

Well then, you should find this hilarious. In art, everything is acceptable.

EVERY optical/visual and aural/sonic artifact or flaw you can think of has been deliberately incorporated into works of art for creative and artistic purposes.

There's no such thing as a bad looking lens, camera, OLPF, film stock, codec, etc. There's no such thing as a bad sounding microphone, instrument, recording medium, sample rate, etc.

There are only the things that suit your current artistic needs and the things that don't.

You are contorting yourself - I`m not out of whack here saying the orb problem is NOT desirable. Red list it as a problem. Everyone discusses it as a problem - Not sure if you are serious that the Orb problem is "artistic" or pulling my leg?

 

[Brian Boyer]

You are contorting yourself - I`m not out of whack here saying the orb problem is NOT desirable. Red list it as a problem. Everyone discusses it as a problem - Not sure if you are serious that the Orb problem is "artistic" or pulling my leg?

What I'm saying is they use it artistically on "The Knick." If you watched it, you know what I'm talking about.

The orbs (or any other anomaly) are a problem only up until someone deliberately incorporates them. Then, it's art.

It doesn't matter how everyone else characterizes them. It's up to the individual artist. I'm sure Sony and Philips discussed pops and crackles from vinyl records as a problem. That didn't stop countless musicians from adding them to their digitally recorded material.

I feel like in a minute I'm going to have to explain creativity to you.

 

[John Chater]

I appreciate your perspective John. Your situation as a rental house is different from mine as an enduser. However, I recently upgraded (OLPF 2), and I would be hard pressed to identify pros and cons of Dragon with respect to MX.

Thanks Tim

Id be super happy to get this resolved so I can get all my Epics upgraded to Dragon. Their is no upside for a rental house having both models unless they are being asked for.
At the same time Im not going to tell clients they don't get it. But we encourage anyone working with us to do all the comparative testing they want to do. For any camera we rent. Every freelancer in San Francisco knows this.
As an aside most freelance DPs have little or no control of the post process. Even if they love the look of a camera but don't feel the client will handle the footage properly they will do what they can to preserve the integrity of the delivered image. That discussion weighs into the MX vs Dragon OLPF2 question as well. I suspect many people here process their own footage and in that circumstance can go forward with a different level of confidence.
If the Epic MX wasn't a really good looking camera and still a level above most cameras out there, I don't think we would be having this discussion. The upgrade would be a no brainer. Maybe the problem is that the MX still looks so damn good to people they don't feel the burning need to use the Dragon unless they can guarantee a result. Im sure Red is working hard to make that happen.


John

 

[Bohdan Klos]

What I'm saying is they use it artistically on "The Knick." If you watched it, you know what I'm talking about. The orbs (or any other anomaly) are a problem only up until someone deliberately incorporates them. Then, it's art. It doesn't matter how everyone else characterizes them. It's up to the individual artist. I'm sure Sony and Philips discussed pops and crackles from vinyl records as a problem. That didn't stop countless musicians from adding them to their digitally recorded material. .

Sure I get your point on vinyl records ...But this is not grain - Red should release a special ORB series of OLPFs? Creatively they might want MORE orbs, right? Cretively they might also want magenta banding? Or gate shadow on flares. All acceptable "creative" looks for commercial television? Not for me or anyone else I read posting.

I feel like in a minute I'm going to have to explain creativity to you.

Great - insults.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Sure...and Red should release a special ORB series of OLPFs. Creatively they might want MORE orbs?
Cretively they might also want magenta banding? Or gate shadow on flares. All acceptable "creative" looks for commercial television in your world.

You really don't get it do you? How artists use whatever's at their disposal doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the manufacturer originally intended for it. RED went through the trouble of carefully designing an OLPF for Epic MX and John Marchant took his off to see what that was about.

We're not talking about RED. We're talking about how an artist, Steven Soderbergh, used a RED camera's OLPF design flaw to his advantage, something you apparently (and myopically) think is impossible because you wouldn't have done it.

Is your art governed solely by product literature or does artistic vision enter the equation at some point? You clearly have tunnel vision on this topic so I'll leave you to do what you do and I'll get back to doing what I do.

 

[Nick Morrison]

@Brian and Bohdan.

You are both right! Yes, artists have used "flaws" to their advantage forever. You work with what you have, and mistakes/flaws are often conduits to exciting, radical and challenging choices.

That said, RED clearly saw the ORBS as something that could be improved, and "removed" them w/ the NEW OLPF.

That said, there's nothing wrong with useing the ORBS creatively. Every choice is fair game, so long as it furthers your story/POV.

best.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This is a bit off-topic, but speaking of artifacts, 3-strip Technicolor had a unique halation because the panchromatic stock recording the red information had to be shot bi-packed behind the blue-sensitive stock recording the blue record, so this piece of film couldn't have an anti-halation backing plus was dyed red to act as a filter. So the halations produced on this layer had a magenta cast to them. You see this in shots where lights reflect off of metal:

In later Technicolor movies, some costume designers in musicals seemed to use this artifact as a visual effect, putting the lead actress in a silver sequined dress which sparkled with magenta halations as the actress moved around.

 

[Nick Morrison]

This is a bit off-topic, but speaking of artifacts, 3-strip Technicolor had a unique halation because the panchromatic stock recording the red information had to be shot bi-packed behind the blue-sensitive stock recording the blue record, so this piece of film couldn't have an anti-halation backing plus was dyed red to act as a filter. So the halations produced on this layer had a magenta cast to them. You see this in shots where lights reflect off of metal:

In later Technicolor movies, some costume designers in musicals seemed to use this artifact as a visual effect, putting the lead actress in a silver sequined dress which sparkled with magenta halations as the actress moved around.

Wow. Awesome. Thanks for sharing David!!

 

[Brian Boyer]

Sure I get your point on vinyl records ...But this is not grain - Red should release a special ORB series of OLPFs? Creatively they might want MORE orbs, right? Cretively they might also want magenta banding? Or gate shadow on flares. All acceptable "creative" looks for commercial television? Not for me or anyone else I read posting.

You keep conflating a point about an artist with points about a camera maker. We're not talking about what RED made or what they should make in the future. We're talking about how someone used what RED made, warts and all.

You're trying to turn a conversation about Soderbergh's artistic decisions into one about RED's business practices and product offerings.

Great - insults.

No, not an insult. It's a commentary on how you refuse to accept that some people artistically make lemonade out of what other people deem lemons.

I sound ridiculous and pompous going around "explaining" art and creativity but you almost force it because you can's seem to focus on those aspects of the discussion without injecting unrelated RED banter.

@Brian and Bohdan.

You are both right! Yes, artists have used "flaws" to their advantage forever. You work with what you have, and mistakes/flaws are often conduits to exciting, radical and challenging choices.

That said, RED clearly saw the ORBS as something that could be improved, and "removed" them w/ the NEW OLPF.

That said, there's nothing wrong with useing the ORBS creatively. Every choice is fair game, so long as it furthers your story/POV.

best.

Nick, I think I understand what you're trying to do but this isn't a case of looking at the same thing from two different perspectives. We're not doing the, "You got your peanut butter in my chocolate. No, you got your chocolate in my peanut butter." scenario.

I never said there was nothing wrong with the OLPF, only that Steven Soderbergh managed to use it artistically - as is.

To Bohdan, merely stating that it was done is the equivalent of suggesting RED should market their camera's issues as creative options. That's a leap of flawed logic.

Admit it, Nick. If you guys were having this discussion in person and he kept giving these same responses, you'd eventually look at him like he was cuckoo-bananas.

 

[David Battistella]

Hi Tim,

just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your perspective in this thread. A nice balanced and sensible approach.

Battistella

I appreciate your perspective John. Your situation as a rental house is different from mine as an enduser. However, I recently upgraded (OLPF 2), and I would be hard pressed to identify pros and cons of Dragon with respect to MX. For me it's all pros. After having used Dragon for awhile, I would never go back. Further, I think a lot of what has been floating around Reduser, identified as Dragon cons, has been understood by many to be far more significant than my experience warrants. Is the camera perfect? No. Is it darn near perfect for this moment in time? I would say yes.

My encouragement for those who have been alarmed by "fill in the blank" issues with Dragon on Reduser would be twofold: 1) Consider the source. There are many viewpoints on Reduser with respect to Red cameras, but for me, not all of them carry equal weight. Anyone can post here and not everyone posting here has a wealth of experience with film, digital, motion pictures, etc. In fact, occasionally there are those willing to pontificate about Dragon without ever having used the camera. When I compare a lot of what is posted here with my own experience, it just doesn't hold up. 2) Don't sweat the small stuff. In terms of the way I work, the material I shoot (which is a pretty wide variety), most of the complaints about Dragon pale in comparison to the richness of the images and the extraordinary capabilities of the camera.

My two bits.

Tim Eaton