Phil Holland Weapon Test

[Phil Holland]

Agreed, not sure why there is such resistance to doing an straight up A/B test with Dragon/Weapon. I get the differences will be nuanced but it's vital to understanding the trajectory of RED sensor color science development. For me an A/B of RC at different fps is of most interest. High frame rates are what separates RED from many other cameras. What has been done with Weapon to improve on high frame rate image quality? Show me . . .

I understand it's of most interest to you, it was of similar interest to me prior to upgrading. However, prior to upgrading I did a couple of quick things. Like in May recorded lower REDCODE RAW Compression Ratios at lower frame rates, which where then used in a 24fps timeline on static targets and cropped into 100% to see the effect of the lower offered compression. That told me a few things on that front.

I'll be doing a side by side. Epic Dragon. Weapon Dragon. Two important people in my life are asking for it, one of which pays me for tests luckily. Likely next week if I don't take this music video.

Phil, I tend to agree with Jake on this one. Applying custom color grade tweaks on personal projects is one thing, but presenting it as part of a sensor/camera evaluation adds a whole other layer of confusion/obfuscation that should definitely try to be avoided in a methodical analysis of a camera.

For me, this test as a stand alone has less value than if it compared Epic Dragon and Epic MX... People want to see/evaluate where we came from and where we are moving towards in the Red image creation evolution. It certainly is more work that way, but how many of these test have been done, and then the test perameters are called out for skewed or limiting workflows favoring one camera/process over another to the detriment of one camera and the advantage of another...

Jake's call for a standardized handling/process rings true and should be looked into more in depth.

When I received my Weapon I did not have time to thoroughly test the camera... I have been shooting with them almost exclusively since May on various projects and have drawn my conclusions based on the various scenarios I've placed the cameras in on those projects, so while I welcome the efforts to do a clinical study, for the reasons I listed above about comparing generations of cameras, and Jake's concerns I think the jury is still out on a definitive scientific analysis.

Perhaps in the future some of us SoCal-based camera geeks can pull together resources and take another crack at it....

I'm okay disagreeing on this subject. Especially when it comes to numerically matching to a color chart, which is extremely standard. This isn't some random slapped on color work. Radiant Images/David Stump did a nice vanilla camera evaluation recently. This represents more or less camera tests that are rather common in my life and for productions/studios. Tests people do and will do again. I wrapped 3 small shoots since getting my Weapon in September. People wanted test footage. Important internet streaming entities mainly. Jake's agenda is clear in regards to having publicly released 3D LUTs officially released from RED. It's a drum he's been beating for a long while. I understand the desire. Don't like the way that was "evolved here", but I have a thick skin, just a sour taste in my mouth.

I'm standing by this test for many reasons (cannot believe I need to write that sentence). A vanilla comparison between "in the box" looks was made with the possible OPLFs and standard lighting conditions. People apply looks to their footage. People numerically match to charts, been doing that for studios for about 14 years now. People have spent a lot of time and money scanning in stocks to emulating film. And there's a very revealing extremely controlled ISO Texture comparison.

I'm having a fascinating and surreal experience here. These are the types of tests I used to never publish due to contractual obligations. Did 3 this year for other camera systems that can't be put online. My first Weapon test can't even be put online because it was for a client.

I'll do this A/B Epic and Weapon test to get it hammered out. Then honestly I need to get back to work.

 

[Mark Toia]

No Mark,


Most unlikely, even so I do shoot a good deal of footage on Heli, but by the looks of your work surely not even close to what you have been shooting by far...

You of course make sense, where I see you would prefer to deal with a little of extra artifacts form the very small aperture and not as ideal lens spot performance in exchange of the described possibility to follow your workflow of shooting simply NOT to miss a shot.

I am fortunate enough where all the work I do, I control extremely well, just the nature of the work, love what you do and how you do it, but I prefer Fashion and Narrative work and this does or at list has so far always afforded me to be able to take my time to set up the camera with ideal filtration...

But as I move to a Shoot Over for some future work including more extreme landscape and Aerial Action shoots, then I might be forced to consider your points further down the line...

Mark I hope the above comment was not directly aimed at me because my quoting you in my early reply, which of course was surely NOT meant to point at you in any way as for my reference in shooting with a top T stop of 11, and for this not concerned of the artifacts at T18...

It surely wouldn't be nice if it was... As I definitely don't see myself in the "so called experts" category... And have too much respect for you and your work to make a direct comment in such way, and I would expect the same respect form you...

BTW, do please note that in my original post I did wrote about special needs and situations for "aerial" shoot...

Chill.

 

[Christopher Probst]

I guess a scrappy forum is more exciting then a dead one. :ihih:

 

[Mark Toia]

I guess a scrappy forum is more exciting then a dead one. :ihih:

Lol

Lets get back on track.

Back to you Phil.

 

[Zeb B]

I'll be doing a side by side. Epic Dragon. Weapon Dragon. Two important people in my life are asking for it, one of which pays me for tests luckily.

I can only assume that I am the other "important" person in your life ;-)

 

[Joel Voelker]

Hey Phil, thanks for these tests. Especially useful seeing the OLPF comparison.

 

[Eric Santiago]

Phil, not sure if I can even begin to imagine how much time you invest to share your findings here. So thank you for your tremendous efforts, you rock!

Ulf

When you meet him and experience the burst of enthusiasm it shows that he loves this.

Very infectious.

And I only got to talk to him for less than 5 minutes

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Chill.

I have a 50 beats per minute Heart rate... So I guess I could not be any more "Chill"...

 

[Matt Ryan]

Anyone else think the Prores image looks slightly better? Looks like it contains a bit more DR on the low and high end when compared to the R3D version (a bit more flat and less contrasty). Detail looks identical to my eyes, but a full res image would be a better indicator.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Thanks for doing the tests, Phil!

I have to say, watching the video and doing A-B comparisons, SKIN TONE HIGHLIGHTS mode looks so much nicer than DRAGON STANDARD.

I think it would look even better if you added a little magenta to it to match DRAGON STANDARD / LLO.

Not so sure about my Raven order now. I really hate those RED colors and hoped that DRAGON STANDARD plus WEAPON would have been a happy medium between LLO and STH, but it doesn't look like it.

Damn it, damn it, damn it!

I wonder if there's a current filter combo that can give me a response closer to STH? 1/4 CTB... some sort of IR cut? A quantum efficiency graph / shot of a spectrum would work too. Hmmm...

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I agree. I immediately jumped on the waiting list for the Standard OLPF when it was announced, but I might just cancel my order after seeing these tests. It doesn't look like there's enough of an improvement in the red orbs to justify using it over the LL OLPF.

Phil, do you agree?

I have said it over and over and over ... STO for the win. HANDS DOWN.

The LLO should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.0"

The STO should be called "Dragon OLPF v2.0"

and the STANDARD should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.5"

There is so much FUD re: LLO - because folks think they need it to shoot low light - because of the NAME - which is very misleading IMO.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I have said it over and over and over ... STO for the win. HANDS DOWN.

The LLO should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.0"

The STO should be called "Dragon OLPF v2.0"

and the STANDARD should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.5"

There is so much FUD re: LLO - because folks think they need it to shoot low light - because of the NAME - which is very misleading IMO.

Dissagree. I'm not happy to use DEB @ 2000 iso.

Pat

 

[Bruce Allen]

I have said it over and over and over ... STO for the win. HANDS DOWN.

The LLO should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.0"

The STO should be called "Dragon OLPF v2.0"

and the STANDARD should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.5"

There is so much FUD re: LLO - because folks think they need it to shoot low light - because of the NAME - which is very misleading IMO.

Yes, yes, yes!

To me, STH turns the RED into an Alexa beater, if you have a proper lighting setup.

LLO loses the color advantage in exchange for making the camera a mediocre low-light option.

For a low light shoot, I'd rent / buy an a7s mk2.

If I want stuff to look amazing, I'd rent a WEAPON with STH.

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Dissagree. I'm not happy to use DEB @ 2000 iso.

Pat

Well .. ISO is an image processing parameter that also effects your exposure method (the monitor, the histogram, lightmeter). You can shoot ISO "whatever" and get great or shitty results.

The #1 thing I see over and over is people shooting at too high of an ISO and underexposing because they are closing down the iris more than they should. I'm not suggesting you are doing that - but it's VERY common. This is why I try to teach folks to learn on lower ISOs.

When I teach REDUCATION - I would say that at the start of the course - at least 70% of the folks are UNDEREXPOSING. Not enough to make a "unusable" image - but enough to have a "non-optimal" image. And I'd be willing to bet that a substantial amount of users on this forum would benefit by keeping their same exposure method and just lowering their ISO - to learn how to feed that sensor some more yummy light.

If you are flat out starving the sensor of light that's another thing.

But if you don't think you can shoot stunning low light at ISO 800 on STO you are very, very mistaken.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

But if you don't think you can shoot stunning low light at ISO 800 on STO you are very, very mistaken.

I agree with you that up to 800 STO is the best choice. But I shoot a lot of documentary where I need flexibility of the camera and a sequence can start at sunset and finish at night for example. Sometimes I reach a point where there aren't any more stops on the lens to be open. ;-) LLO is also nice horse to ride!

For a low light shoot, I'd rent / buy an a7s mk2.

I think you are simplifying things. LLO has significant advantages over STO depending the shooting conditions. I've not yet used the A7s MKII and it's 4k codec but I see where R3D and Dragon LLO sensor can be a winner team. The difference between max 800 STO and max 2000 LLO is a whole world of possibilities. If you really need to see in the night @ 25'000 iso, the A7s's coud then be the right choice...

Have a nice shooting.

Pat

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

LLO should stand for low light only. Also echo Mark's note about underexposure being both common, and, a key impediment to getting the best results. Moreover, with the Dragon sensor, there isn't much of a penalty for being a little overexposed as the roll off is well controlled. Open 'er up a stop and rock on.

Cheers - #19

 

[Ulf Krentz]

When you meet him and experience the burst of enthusiasm it shows that he loves this.

Very infectious.

And I only got to talk to him for less than 5 minutes

Eric, I´ll sign that. He has to be kind of obsessed
I´ve done tests myself (on strobe equipment) and there is one thing for sure. You´ll never be able to please all audience, there will always be someone to blame any of your steps. I was able to get useful information from Phil´s test and like many others here I am thankful for that.

Cheers

Ulf

 

[Les Hillis]

I'm also interested in seeing/finding out other info in regards to the Weapon (and related) developments that these particular tests don't (and weren't intended to) provide. But at the same time, I think these results show what they were meant to show, and do it well. Not seeing any misrepresentations or cause for confusion or criticism here.

Thanks again Phil.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I think you are simplifying things. LLO has significant advantages over STO depending the shooting conditions. I've not yet used the A7s MKII and it's 4k codec but I see where R3D and Dragon LLO sensor can be a winner team. The difference between max 800 STO and max 2000 LLO is a whole world of possibilities. If you really need to see in the night @ 25'000 iso, the A7s's coud then be the right choice...

Have a nice shooting.

Patrick, you're super smart and a filmmaker who knows what he is doing. Not the same as those newbies underexposing and complaining about noise on STH.

At the same time, I do think the use case for documentary filmmakers shooting 1250-2000 ISO (because if you're at 800 or less you should use STH) on Dragon is pretty darn small.

Most people I know shooting docs are picking cams like the C300 Mk2 for the magical amazing autofocus anyway. I do feel that with LLO you give up a lot of RED's picture quality advantage, so you might as well just shoot C300 Mk2 for a lot of projects for its other advantages...

Not that I'm telling you specifically how you should shoot. Just that, boy do I wish DRAGON STANDARD were more like LLO and less like STH.

EDIT: whoops. I meant more like STH and less like LLO, of course!

I'll play with my friend's WEAPON when he gets it, but if DRAGON STANDARD really is this bad (and I have no way to fix it with RAVEN), I'll probably sell my RAVEN they day I receive it. I ordered within the first few hours so I'm sure I can find someone else who needs it and can't get it.

Bruce Allen
www.twitter.com/bruce_allen

 

[Mark Toia]

I have said it over and over and over ... STO for the win. HANDS DOWN.

The LLO should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.0"

The STO should be called "Dragon OLPF v2.0"

and the STANDARD should be called "Dragon OLPF v1.5"

There is so much FUD re: LLO - because folks think they need it to shoot low light - because of the NAME - which is very misleading IMO.

Agreed.