RED Dragon vs. 65mm Film cont'd

[Phil Holland]

I've had a strange journey lately and it's been a little while since I had a whimsical late night post. I've been missing Jim's crazy late nighters too.

Last night while out to dinner I enjoyed a glass of beer in a lovely collector's edition Game of Thrones goblet: http://instagram.com/p/mTzN_0k0ft/

I looked up and on the television there was a movie playing that I haven't seen in some time. A masterpiece shot on 65mm. Lawrence of Arabia.

Damn that film is gorgeous. Shot back in 1961, released in 1962 it was filmed on Kodak 5250 50T with Panavision glass by Freddie Young. Now film stocks have gotten considerably better since this film was shot, but this did get me to thinking about something Jim said.

Lawrence of Arabia was remastered a few years ago. Scanned at 8K, released at 4K. Which reminded me of a post Jim made late 2012 (I have a decent memory it would seem even after a beer or two):

OK. This is the final frontier.

The RED Dragon sensor needs to be directly compared to 65mm film.

The Dragon has more resolution than 65mm film when scanned at 4K.

The Dragon has more dynamic range than film... by a lot. 65mm film has about 14.5 stops. The Dragon has an easy 16 stops... without sweating.

The EPIC Dragon will shoot nearly 100fps. 65mm film cameras... not so much.

Cost to shoot the RED Dragon vs. 65mm film... ridiculously not close.

Dragon should never be compared to 35mm film. It should only be spoken in reference to 65mm film from here on out.

So you own an EPIC? You upgrade.

Have a nice day.... Jim

There's been some intense talk on Reduser lately, however, this reminded me of what all this is truly all about and where things are and will be going.


So here's a 6K image from an 8K scan from Lawrence of Arabia:


Click here for full 6K resolution image


And here are a few 6K shots from Epic Dragon:

ISO 2000 - off the old OLPF

Click here for full 6K resolution image

ISO 400 - off the new OLPF

Click here for full 6K resolution image

ISO 250 - off the new OLPF

Click here for full 6K resolution image

ISO 400 - off the new OLPF

Click here for full 6K resolution image

ISO 320 - off the new OLPF

Click here for full 6K resolution image


Just wanted to put that out there to see exactly where we are at with Dragon. I've worked with film for a long time and the more I shoot with Dragon the more I know that we are well past films technical merits. Especially when it comes to resolution and dynamic range. What's shocked me more is how much color richness there is. Red has been listening and this is what they are delivering.

To sum that up we have the Dragon 6K sensor. Larger than Super 35mm. Smaller than VistaVision. Outperforming 65mm motion picture film scanned at 8K.

And again, film stocks have gotten better over the years, but we're still past where it is right now and heck the cameras are smaller too. Dragon is a new medium.

As we move forward in space and time together I'm betting this is more relevant than many think even right now.


Alright. Good break from editing. Now back to work I go.

 

[Zeb B]

Epic post!

 

[James Sielaff]

i really like the dragon look.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Dragon is something else...

 

[Joe Taylor]

I'd love to see a friendly side-by-side-- not a comparison so much-- but a gathering. Just for shits and giggles. There really is no comparison. You'll never have the same glass, they are two entirely different mediums. But if somebody were to offer me the green light to direct "Blood Meridian" and gave me the choice to shoot on, I'd do it on 65mm.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

The first time I saw Lawrence of Arabia was in 4:3 pan scan. Many years later when I saw it in its full glory, the way it was intend to be seen, I realized that I missed half the film the first time I saw it. It truly is a beautiful piece of cinematography. Here's hoping that Dragon in not another film alternative, but rather the first true film replacement.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Thank you for posting the frames, especially the 65mm one. I assume that was scanned from the master negative? Well, even so, a second or third generation internegative will not lose too much information, AFAIK.

The contrast is stark between the two media... however, I'd like to see a frame of 65mm 5219 and of 5207 compared as well.

Yes, the 5250 looks terrific, but the Dragon delivers wonderful images also. Perhaps if one must have the texture of film, one can always print a film intermediate.

I am not surprised at this result because, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Leica M8 (10Mpx, no OLPF) had superior clarity to Portra 160, although not by much:

http://q.yesky.com/thread-18752872-1-1.html

(That was not from Erwin Puts' site - you can find the original article on archive.org).

So based on that comparison, knowing that the Dragon has almost the exact same vertical resolution as the M8*, and knowing that 8-perf 35mm is about the same height as 5-perf 65mm, we can say that the Dragon would out-peform a stock such as 5207 in 65mm.

*Less, actually, due to the OLPF

 

[Michel Hafner]

I don't think a 6K Bayer sensor outperforms today's 65mm concerning spatial resolution, 1960s, probably, 4K at 4:4.4 is not enough for modern 65mm. Samsara showed that clearly.

 

[Casey Green]

Great post.

I think the more open minded both above and below the line crew are regarding the best tools and workflows for their projects, the better they will fare in their careers.

I believe Dragon has redefined Cinematography, and those who let go their bias or stubbornness will have the advantage in the future. RED cameras may not always be the right fit, but with Dragon, it would behoove filmmakers to learn what it is capable of, disregard rumors and rhetoric, do their own research and testing, and make the best decision from there.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I don't think a 6K Bayer sensor outperforms today's 65mm concerning spatial resolution, 1960s, probably, 4K at 4:4.4 is not enough for modern 65mm. Samsara showed that clearly.

Maybe not against todays stocks like you say, but even after de-graining this still and sharpening I don't see it matching the Dragon in resolution and maybe not even resolving true 4k... Of course in motion it will look more "detailed,' but in this sample Dragon wins. I'd actually love to see a comparison between 65mm 5207 vs. Dragon side by side. The richness in the skintone is what I like about film. I hate the grain haha.

(right click-open in new tab for full size)

 

[Matt Ryan]

Now they belong in wax museum in Vegas. Keep Lawrence of Arabia out of LightRoom.

Lightroom? You're funny... If you look at 100% theres still plenty of grain for you.

 

[Paulo Emílio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIeF1Asz3Kc
you can watch at 4k resolution
colors, colors and more colors

 

[Elsie N]

Thanks for your post Phil. Your work with film and now digital acquisition is helpful for those of us whose only experience with film is in a theater.

But what I'm more interested in is how Dragon compares to (or complements) an IMAX showing. Specifically, is there some characteristic to an IMAX showing other than screen size?

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Thanks for the information. Always appreciated.

I got my "Government Issued Projectionist License" when I was fifteen, so I allow myself here to add my point of view, even if use the ACS magazine here as support ;o)

The report in "American Cinematographer" August 2012 (starting on Page 30) showed clearly what (huge) efforts these days are required to acquire this kind of celluloid based quality.

I don't think at all that there is a long discussion after a production is green-lit, if RED-Dragon is to use or if it need to be shot on 65mm: The needed skill-level, constant technical support and budget-limits might deliver here already very fast a result.

Sorry to add this here, as your post was clearly image based. But RED has certainly delivered a work-flow, which seems simple -- compared to 65/70mm.

 

[Bruce Allen]

The Lawrence of Arabia still looks better, though

Phil, what happens if you try to get your Dragon skin tones to look more like the Lawrence of Arabia ones?

I think that with Dragon, it might be quite possible to get skin looking excellent so am cautiously optimistic.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jeremy Saville]

I think what we should be comparing here is Phil vs. Omar Sharif. Now don that turban Phil and let's get to work.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Can't wait to see Queen of the Desert, especially the images shot on Dragons they used there along the MXs.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I love shooting Dragon, the extra stops and beautiful falloff is pure joy. I don't feel the need to compare (I'm not shooting for IMAX release). Also my shoulder can't carry a 65mm film camera.

I'm a happy Dragon shooter.

Pat

 

[Les Hillis]

Thanks for the pics Phil, and for sharing more of your insights into the 65mm/Dragon similarities and differences.

Had a closer look at your JPG's, blowing both pics up by the same amount and doing a very rough adjustment of the Dragon shot via the colour controls in the freeware photo-viewer I was using.















You look blissed, Omar looks pissed, it's almost as if you both caught a glimpse of the future. :biggrin:

 

[Phil Holland]

You look blissed, Omar looks pissed, it's almost as if you both caught a glimpse of the future. :biggrin:

Heh. Thanks Les.

I should at that that's the Dragon 6K 2:1 REDCODE Raw with a color grade applied.

However, I have been tinkering with Dragon for a while and if you desire a sharper image you can get there fairly effortlessly with a very slight hit to processing time:


Click for a larger version.


Not always ideal for motion work, but this is some of what's possible. Advanced Dragon Debayer is now available and this always for further enhancements at the cost of processing time. I have been also tinkering with super resolution a bit and various ways to get there.

One interesting thing I've been toying with is shooting 2X the sampling rate (fps) to assist with the super sampling, upscale, and sharpening algorithm. The results are....... really good. However, that takes a long time to process effectively. Personally it's a little overkill in reality.

The above processing method is more or less the "most" I'd use for motion work. You can also use USM from REDCINE-X Pro or other applications. I don't really see much of a reason to go further without a natively higher resolution sensor and likely better lenses in general.