Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Playing with the Forged Carbon Fiber Weapon and it's AWESOME!

Zeb B said:
Scanned film is a digital format. It's not film anymore
Click to expand...

Agreed.
But the behaviour of Dragon does somehow look like the behaviour of scanned film. Which has been DI "truth" of analogue film since... say... Jurrasic park.... (around 1993)
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Agreed.
But the behaviour of Dragon does somehow look like the behaviour of scanned film. Which has been DI "truth" of analogue film since... say... Jurrasic park.... (around 1993)
Click to expand...

Agreed, I also find Dragon very close to a film scanner since they are both high-end A/D converters of the analog world of vision and film ;-)
 
Zeb B said:
Agreed, I also find Dragon very close to a film scanner since they are both high-end A/D converters of the analog world of vision and film ;-)
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Dragon is "digital world interpretation of analogue world".
 
So . . . saying any RGB camera sensor is "organic and filmic", because it shares the same defects as a RGB film scanner, is wankery. Of course the look the same - they both use the same limited RGB technology we currently are smart enough to invent. In 5 years both will look like VHS . . . whereas film will still be glorious film ;-)
 
Zeb B said:
So . . . saying any RGB camera sensor is "organic and filmic", because it shares the same defects as a RGB film scanner, is wankery. Of course the look the same - they both use the same limited RGB technology we currently are smart enough to invent. In 5 years both will look like VHS . . . whereas film will still be glorious film ;-)
Click to expand...
Hm...
Not sure if you're right about that
I'd vager that a filmscan 5 years from now would be even better at capturing chroma noise from an original.

the great thing about analogue capture is its lack of uniformity.

And when that translates to digital captures, it is only good.

But let's bet a beer on that.

Gee. I'll go for a crate!
 
Until we move beyond 1974 Bayer RGB technology we will remain in the compromised Bronze Age of digital imaging
 
Zeb B said:
Until we move beyond 1974 Bayer RGB technology we will remain in the compromised Bronze Age of digital imaging
Click to expand...

yes.
we'll feel like that 8 years from now.

Not sure if that' really how I feel about the last 8 years, though.

Things have been extended since R1-One. But the basic principles (across cameras) are still the same.

That said, I think you are right and I think things will develop.

Not sure if that development means that we get more crushed blacks, though.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Which bears some resemblance to underexposed Dragon... At least to me...
Click to expand...

Gunleik Groven said:
Agreed.
But the behaviour of Dragon does somehow look like the behaviour of scanned film. Which has been DI "truth" of analogue film since... say... Jurrasic park.... (around 1993)
Click to expand...

RED is doing "something" to make the grain/noise/texture structure a bit more film-like on Dragon. Likely voltage related.


Zeb B said:
I didn't say push processed - just underexposed. What color is film deep shadows if not black? Random RGB? How does that happen?
Click to expand...

Zeb B said:
Scanned film is a digital format. It's not film anymore
Click to expand...

Correct. Scanned film is a digital format. However, you can see chromatic grain particles in the shadows and blacks on film without scanning. We used to examine it with this:
loop.jpg


Which if I recall was the 100X one and my beloved old lightbox.


Filip Orlandic said:
Screen_Shot_2015_08_17_at_6_40_51_PM.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post and example image Filip.


Zeb B said:
So . . . saying any RGB camera sensor is "organic and filmic", because it shares the same defects as a RGB film scanner, is wankery. Of course the look the same - they both use the same limited RGB technology we currently are smart enough to invent. In 5 years both will look like VHS . . . whereas film will still be glorious film ;-)
Click to expand...

"Digital Film Alternative". There's more to it than "any RGB camera sensor". It's everything thing in the image capture through processing chain to bring that image to the mag. This is one of the reasons I wrote so long ago that there is something very film-like about just how Dragon works and looks. And that's pretty much been the sentiment from some of the DPs I've worked with the last couple years. And we've noticed a few of those who are very fond of film also have kind things to say regarding the Dragon image.

There's a weird line in all of this. Some want wicked clean images at every ISO Rating. Some want a bit of texture and life to the image as well. Heavy handed internal noise reduction as of 2015 is still a "studio no no". So that's not so great. Chromatic smearing and other image processing effects to mask chroma noise is also not exactly ideal, especially for VFX related productions. Also, some of that style of processing makes you start asking questions about just how much "bit depth" you're actually getting, but that's a whole other topic.

I posted these examples of various tones compared to ASA 500 and 250 stocks a bit over a year ago that shows exactly what I'm "feeling" and seeing when I shoot Dragon:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?117820-Red-Dragon-ISO-Texture-Versus-Film-Grain&highlight=

Specifically when exposed around ISO 800-1280 I've found Dragon to having a texture I'm real fond of, though I don't shoot that way for every project. It works alarmingly like choosing a film stock/ASA Rating to me.
 
Always like going to Film School when Phil posts :-)
 
Zeb B said:
Always like going to Film School when Phil posts :-)
Click to expand...

Heh. A Film School where film scanning and laser recording were part of the curriculum, which I don't think was ever truly put into a school.

I see where everybody is coming from regarding the dirty bits especially as we attempt shoot lower and lower light. I don't know exactly what the right solution is overall. Maybe a switch to flip on noise reduction and image processing for those who need it the most. RED has been focused on "true compressed RAW" and once the image gets hit with NR that's not exactly "true" anymore.

I just shot for the last 1.5 months between ISO 250-500 on Dragon with a few higher ISO steals in there when light vanished before my eyes. This shoot was generally about keeping things super clean and I was indeed using the Low Light Optimized OLPF as well. This footage has been glass smooth and a little bit unnerving for me even. I use the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF the most for typical narrative shooting where I want to have a bit of textural character to the image.
 
Zeb B said:
Until we move beyond 1974 Bayer RGB technology we will remain in the compromised Bronze Age of digital imaging
Click to expand...

Interpolation methods of bayer patterns are WAY beyond what they were in 1974.

So ... IMO it's not really fair to say that Bayer is a "1974 technology" that is holding us "compromised".

But of course - there is new technology evolving and what we will have in just 6 or 7 years will be WAY past what we have today. And what we have today is pretty amazing.
 
These cameras are producing some of the cleanest images for cinema since the golden age of cinema. These sensors rival any film stock when you hit them with light the way folks lit movies for decades. Now, a speck of grain drives folks a bit nutty.

Glass like imagery has its place, but so does imagery with texture/grain/noise or what ever we want to label it.

What seems to be missing now is the rude awakening that comes with sitting in on a film transfer session where a couple of scenes are completely effed because the exposure homework wasn't done.

The word digital does not = free from problems, but it does mean those problems are easier to correct.

I feel we need to get back to the mentality of capturing custom negatives through exposure and lighting, rather than the expectation that digital tech should be a easy way to solve errors.

i think when you marry, the film methodology with digital technology we are seeing stunning results, but that might be more due to experience with lighting and a meter and understanding response of the particular medium than the technology itself.
 
Last edited:
Anyone know if there's Magnify while recording as well as the Magnify responsiveness? It's pretty slow on Epic/Scarlet/Dragon, wondering if the processing horsepower was put towards those items.
 
Charles Bergquist said:
Anyone know if there's Magnify while recording as well as the Magnify responsiveness? It's pretty slow on Epic/Scarlet/Dragon, wondering if the processing horsepower was put towards those items.
Click to expand...

I'd bet responsiveness is better, but we'll need to check. I'm nearly positive recording while magnified would require a major amount of programming however.
 
Phil Holland said:
I'd bet responsiveness is better, but we'll need to check. I'm nearly positive recording while magnified would require a major amount of programming however.
Click to expand...

You should be getting comped, first run, latest cameras at this point for all the work you have and do put in. If you find out about magnify, it'd be great to know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top