Red Dragon Info and Data Sheets

[Patrick Grossien]

In typical Phil fashion. Awesome write up!

Thank you for creating another all-in-one spot of information!

 

[Kwan Khan]

Great Info

 

[Peter Majtan]

Hi Phil - great work as always!
One thought thou about the ANA modes. If the framing was just a blank sensor square, it looks OK. But overlaid over a real-world image it is a little confusing, as ANA mode would be used with ANA lenses and therefore provide much wider view. Perhaps a dotted line to show this with an asterix and an explanation bellow the image would solve this?

Just my two yen...

Peter

 

[Brian F Kobylarz]

Easy to see that the contents should become a sticky.

Nice job Phil

 

[Martin Stevens]

Thanks Phil.........love your work.

 

[Andy Roberts]

Thanks for doing this Phil... Under the "pricing" section, you may want to write "more than $6,000" or something like that so folks who really have never read about the cost at least have a ballpark. Your call.

 

[Phil Holland]

One thought thou about the ANA modes. If the framing was just a blank sensor square, it looks OK. But overlaid over a real-world image it is a little confusing, as ANA mode would be used with ANA lenses and therefore provide much wider view. Perhaps a dotted line to show this with an asterix and an explanation bellow the image would solve this?

I'll take a look at that today Peter. If it reads well from a distance I'll certainly add that.

Thanks Phil.........love your work.

Thanks Martin. I love your work as well! I have to send you a funny photo with the Glidecam once I have clearance to release it.

Thanks for doing this Phil... Under the "pricing" section, you may want to write "more than $6,000" or something like that so folks who really have never read about the cost at least have a ballpark. Your call.

Bingo. Added that. Also added the note that Jarred mentioned regarding the Scarlet trade in program.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Brother Phil, thank you, Sir!

 

[Milano Questa]

Thanks for the info phil! Very useful.
Can the mods sticky this?

 

[Daniel Soderberg]

Correct. I'll change the wording to "upgrade path". Graeme is better at explaining the whole native ISO thing and what's wrong with that concept.

There will of course be an optimal place to shoot to get a "clean" image. Jim's words:

Interesting Phil... Never saw Jim's post about the Native ISO. That's confusing, and I would argue that there has to be a native camera ISO/'Amount of Light that the Sensor sees' based on the fact that if you change in camera ISO to 320 (anything lower than 800), and expose for that, you will find your highlights have clipped and have been flattened because the camera is actually seeing brighter than the 320 ISO so the highlights clipped... (I've made this mistake and paid for it many years ago on one of my first Red shoots).
Not the most sophisticated way of explaining it, but that's kind of how I understand it.
Sounds like this might be something to talk to Graeme about though.

 

[Phil Holland]

Sounds like this might be something to talk to Graeme about though.

Here's a few "highlight" quotes from one of the many threads on the subject. Remember this content is in reference to the Mysterium X sensor. Dragon will have a different "sweet spot" and also more dynamic range.

800 is the answer.
"Native" doesn't really have a meaning.

ISO doesn't mean much in a system where the imager has a fixed, linear light response since there are many ways to build a gamma-corrected image from that data.

RED usually suggests their ISO800 setting's curve to be the best balance between highlight latitude and noise, which is usually what one wants out of a corrected image. Many people are happy with that default setting. As I understand there are also many ways to build your own look.

Noah's answer is good. Stephen, the sensor doesn't have a "native iso". If you go look up the definition of "ISO" there is no definition for a sensor as-is, and in terms of RAW recording the answer is "go ask the manufacturer what they recommend". We recommend starting at 800 and taking it from there.

Just to be clear - Dynamic Range is constant. It doesn't matter what ISO you shoot, the total DR available is the same. This would not be the case in an analogue gain situation where typically a stop of DR is lost for every stop up in ISO you go.

What does change is highlight (and because DR is constant, consequently shadow) latitude. For each stop in ISO you go up, you gain a stop of highlight latitude and loose a stop in the shadows. Another way of thinking of "loosing" the stop in the shadows is that the shadows will get more noise in them.

Similarly if you go down a stop in ISO, you loose highlight latitude and gain it in the shadows. This is fine until the point where you loose too much in the highlights and start to get clipping. That is why we only recommend you go below ISO 320 if you're very careful and watch those highlights!

 

[Jason DeSimone]

Thanks for taking the time to create these Phil, it's great info for us "less technical guys' the charts are a tremendously valuable tool when selling our system to clients.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Interesting Phil... Never saw Jim's post about the Native ISO. That's confusing, and I would argue that there has to be a native camera ISO/'Amount of Light that the Sensor sees' based on the fact that if you change in camera ISO to 320 (anything lower than 800), and expose for that, you will find your highlights have clipped and have been flattened because the camera is actually seeing brighter than the 320 ISO so the highlights clipped... (I've made this mistake and paid for it many years ago on one of my first Red shoots).
Not the most sophisticated way of explaining it, but that's kind of how I understand it.
Sounds like this might be something to talk to Graeme about though.

The camera system sees the same amount of light no matter what you set your camera's ISO setting it. The white clip point is constant and the noise floor is constant, but adjusting your ISO really just defines a midpoint between those. If you overexpose your highlights, it's not because of your camera's ISO setting, it's because you lit or exposed in such I way that you had scene elements that fell above white clip.

I kind of like what Sony did in their F65 by showing in the menu how much overexposure range you have depending on your ISO. The problem is there are a lot of different definitions of what ISO is in different cameras and that causes some confusion, especially for people moving to RED or other fixed-gain camera system from the many other systems that define ISO adjustments as a change in hardware gain that changes your noise floor and white clip. In the end, camera ISO just tells you about where your midpoint is (specifically where middle grey should fall), but that is often set somewhat arbitrarily relative to the values we really care about which are white clip and noise floor. You can change middle grey in post, but you can't change white clip or noise floor...

 

[chad vachter]

Thanks for compiling this

 

[matt whelan]

Thanks Phil!

 

[Raphael Varandas]

Hey Phil can I share this with my clients and co-workers?
i will be happy to put direct link to your posts. Thanks a million and great work.
Cheers from Brazil

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks everybody.

Hey Phil can I share this with my clients and co-workers?
i will be happy to put direct link to your posts. Thanks a million and great work.
Cheers from Brazil

That's the idea Raphael. Feel free to share the info.

Greetings from Southern California!

---

changeLog 02.04.2013

- added Red Dragon Anticipated Coverage Graphic​

Based on what we know right now these are the image circles for the 6K formats.

 

[Leland Haushalter]

Awesome stuff Phil!


--
Leland Haushalter
Red One MX
Red Epic
Red Scarlet
Arri Alexa
Sony F3
Canon C300
RPP
Cooke S4
Angenieux Zooms
Ziess Super Speeds
3D Element Technica

 

[Zeb B]

There should be a "Tip Jar" on RU for Sir Phil Holland. What a treat he is!!

 

[Shane Daly DP]

Great job Phil, thanks for this. Academy anamorphic at last!! Bring. It. On