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 :)

R3D from Peter Lyons Collister

The highlight roll off is stunning and it grades perfect with LOG tools.
 
Definitely a "thicker" negative to work with and the highlight rolloff is really filmlike. Pushing the exposure to 12,800 in this shot tells me all i need to know in comparison to the MX sensor. I LOVE how the Dragon deals with the highlights and overexposure.

But I do have to admit that I'm still soooo damn happy with the image coming from my Red One MX that I don't feel any need to upgrade. That's a testament to Red's strong camera lineup ;-)
 
Dragon R3D contains tons of dynamic range and have many advantages during shooting in bad conditions or in color grading.

30wwevs.jpg
 
Maybe I'm in an argumentative mood....but I don't see a huge difference here compared to MX. Maybe because it's a perfectly exposed, beautifully lit with a nice frame, full of complimentary colors, so it's hard to tell. Sure, there is some extra room in the highlights, I can instantly see that. I'm just saying, does Peter have any other grabs that might not be so perfect?
 
Matthew Scott said:
Maybe I'm in an argumentative mood....but I don't see a huge difference here compared to MX. Maybe because it's a perfectly exposed, beautifully lit with a nice frame, full of complimentary colors, so it's hard to tell. Sure, there is some extra room in the highlights, I can instantly see that. I'm just saying, does Peter have any other grabs that might not be so perfect?
Click to expand...

This seems like a somewhat odd request. If "a perfectly exposed, beautifully lit with a nice frame, full of complimentary colors" image (in other words, the general goal of cinematography) makes it hard to judge just how good the camera is performing, wouldn't an image that lacked those things also make it hard to judge the camera's capabilities for similar reasons?

Obviously, I understand that we don't always nail that goal but I think my point still stands.

When people often say a great musician (or cinematographer, as it were) can make a crappy instrument sound good, it's a little misleading. They can't make the instrument sound good beyond its limits. What they're hearing is mostly the talent and skill of the musician. That's what comes across as impressive.

We have to ascertain whether it's the instrument (or camera, or tool, etc.) that's the limiting factor or the skill of the person playing it. Or, we can simply enjoy the end result and not dwell on the minutia.

Is Dragon, or any camera, getting in the way of someone who can routinely produce a beautiful image or is it enhancing that ability…and to what extent?

Pictures are always going to bring a certain amount of subjective bias. Everything else is test charts, MTF graphs and the like.
 
Woah dude.....not dissing the artist behind this shot, the opposite in fact. And I stand by my request, and reasoning for it. What can I possibly learn from a perfect image? Nothing! If this were a "check out how beautiful this shot is taken with Dragon" I'd be like, shit yeah it's amazing! But it was posted in response to people questioning dragon image aspects like noise, etc. Now, my point again stands strong. My bet is that if Peter had an Epic next to this shot and we had a side by side, we wouldn't be able to see much difference, other than resolution, a slight tint and better highlight room. So, all I was suggesting was that maybe give us a shot that struggles (Gunleik has done that, cheers).....maybe the one at the window for example....or the one looking up at the tree tops? Or something under-exposed. You get me?

So, not an odd request at all. BTW, you're reference to a musician playing a crappy piano but producing beautiful music....that's me all over dude. I have played piano nearly my whole life, and I love the fact that mine is falling apart, and is over 100 years old. I also revel in the idea that it's not the tools, it's the artist behind them. So I think we're on the same page, other than dissecting the image for problems...which is tough to do when it's so perfect in the first place.
 
Matthew Scott said:
other than dissecting the image for problems...which is tough to do when it's so perfect in the first place.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the double-edged sword of publicly posting images in early stages or a camera release, when there are not many cameras readily available and anticipation and curiosity is at an all-time high. Some people want to see perfect images - some people want to see images breaking apart - over/under/stress-tested.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
And herein lies the double-edged sword of publicly posting images in early stages or a camera release, when there are not many cameras readily available and anticipation and curiosity is at an all-time high. Some people want to see perfect images - some people want to see images breaking apart - over/under/stress-tested.
Click to expand...

Not really, I wanna see both!
 
If I remember correctly I believe this image was also capture through nikon glass.

Re-stating what Mark just stated, great images can be made with any red product or any camera in the right hands.

Just about anyone can take all the same tools and churn out pooh.

Tools matter and tools also have masters to thank. It's the relationship between the two. Each master knows his tools. But the camera is nothing without light and without the cinematographer, the light and the camera can't interact to create the image.

Peter is good. That is what makes the r3d sing. One thing is for sure, the data rate got higher, more data is being captured, so you might not notice it on a JPEG in your ipad, but you might see it projected 60feet.

I think shrinking from 6k to 4k will be less noisy than 5k to 4k, even if the noise starts off the same, but I still want to test that.

Battistella
 
+1 agree.
David Battistella said:
If I remember correctly I believe this image was also capture through nikon glass.

Re-stating what Mark just stated, great images can be made with any red product or any camera in the right hands.

Just about anyone can take all the same tools and churn out pooh.

Tools matter and tools also have masters to thank. It's the relationship between the two. Each master knows his tools. But the camera is nothing without light and without the cinematographer, the light and the camera can't interact to create the image.

Peter is good. That is what makes the r3d sing. One thing is for sure, the data rate got higher, more data is being captured, so you might not notice it on a JPEG in your ipad, but you might see it projected 60feet.

I think shrinking from 6k to 4k will be less noisy than 5k to 4k, even if the noise starts off the same, but I still want to test that.

Battistella
Click to expand...
 
Hello,

I'm impressed how easy we can tweek this R3D. Be prepared to give to the colorist the power to change your color vision... Because this tool is the "DP GOD" killer. I hope this won't kill the lightning knowhow also and become the ultimate "do it in post" tool.

Don't missunderstand me, I love this new tool.



Pat
 
Matthew Scott said:
Woah dude.....not dissing the artist behind this shot, the opposite in fact. And I stand by my request, and reasoning for it. What can I possibly learn from a perfect image? Nothing! If this were a "check out how beautiful this shot is taken with Dragon" I'd be like, shit yeah it's amazing! But it was posted in response to people questioning dragon image aspects like noise, etc. Now, my point again stands strong. My bet is that if Peter had an Epic next to this shot and we had a side by side, we wouldn't be able to see much difference, other than resolution, a slight tint and better highlight room. So, all I was suggesting was that maybe give us a shot that struggles (Gunleik has done that, cheers).....maybe the one at the window for example....or the one looking up at the tree tops? Or something under-exposed. You get me?

So, not an odd request at all. BTW, you're reference to a musician playing a crappy piano but producing beautiful music....that's me all over dude. I have played piano nearly my whole life, and I love the fact that mine is falling apart, and is over 100 years old. I also revel in the idea that it's not the tools, it's the artist behind them. So I think we're on the same page, other than dissecting the image for problems...which is tough to do when it's so perfect in the first place.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't meant to sound as if you were dissing anyone. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion but that was not my intention.

I thought your request was odd because you were citing what amounts to good cinematography technique as the reason behind your difficulty in judging the camera as if non-complimentary colors, bad framing and unflattering lighting would somehow make it easier to judge noise or DR.

Given your response, I know now that's not what you meant by "other grabs that might not be so perfect." It was the juxtaposition of the two ideas (good technique and camera performance) that I found misleading.

I believe there's something to be gleaned from every image, good or bad, even if it's just trying to figure out what it is you do and/or don't like about it. Similarly, when people ask me who my musical influences are, my usual response is everyone I've ever heard. That doesn't mean they're all my faves, however.

Back on point, I was also trying to say a less than perfect image runs the risk of producing a negative impression of a camera just as much as a spectacular image has at producing a positive one.

Unless you instruct people to just look at noise or highlight retention or colors, it's difficult for many people to distinguish bad looking images from deficiencies with the camera.

As far as I can tell, this image was presented "as is" without any reference to what it specifically represents regarding Dragon's technical specs. Perhaps I missed where Peter stated he submitted the image as proof of one thing or another.

In any event, I'm not so sure the little girl's blond hair would have fared as well on the MX sensor.

What I've noticed is images from cameras with, say, 14+ stops of dynamic range, when pressed to the point where the image breaks in the highlights, don't tell you a lot about how much more info they're capturing on their own because they make it look like there was less light in the scene than there actually was.

Yes, some cameras roll off smoother or nicer than others but, without knowing just how much light there was to deal with or having direct comparisons to other cameras (or film stocks) in the same situation, the amount of struggle may look like any other camera's.

Hence, people's request for side-by-side comparisons. There's already three that I know of where Dragon bests MX in the highlights.

We're just not used to seeing this much latitude first-hand, which I think causes a lot of the "meh" responses.

Noise and its quality are a trickier subject. A certain amount and type of noise can lend a much welcome organic quality to digital images like it does to film, in the form of grain.

I'm already liking the noise I've seen from Dragon better than what I've seen from MX. And the R3Ds Phil Holland generously provided are clean as hell. So, I wouldn't get too worked up over noise floors just yet.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response Brian. So yeah, this great looking image, with good technique shows me how nice the colors are and highlight retention, detail, etc. I guess I was suggesting that a not-so-nice .R3D might reveal where the new sensor falls down. Are you really worried that a bad looking image will result in people judging the camera unjustly unless there is specific guidance? That would be their unfortunate loss! Maybe I found your post misleading because you started talking about the artist, the tools, the relationship between the two and that I should just enjoy the result....kinda of a strange response to my post, but maybe I still don't get it.

Anyway, I'm sure you understand that during this exciting time of Dragon's release that people like myself and others are a little antsy about what the camera can and can't do, especially when $10K+ means a personal loan and much sacrifice. Not crying poor by any means, just saying that any significant camera purchase I make is backed by some pretty solid research and questions/conversations like this one. I want the best for me, but I also want the best for you and anyone else who reads through these forums.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Not really, I wanna see both!
Click to expand...

Toia did both; make pretty images pushed to the brink of roll off and just far enough beyond to see where it cut hard. He heard some crap for pushing beyond the "breaking point" if you call it that. Did you see his thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top