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 :)

Sweet...

Gunleik Groven said:
And finally, at 3200 ISO, where I landed it...

1265565_10151879463045126_774758397_o.jpg


this is "out of the box" stuff and before any grading...

AND with non-Dragon optimized colrscience and gamma...

Still works kinda ok...
Click to expand...


See now that's an interesting number right there.

With what I'm seeing in your frame grab I think that's entirely a usable look to the material. Maybe even 4000 ISO.
 
Phil Holland said:
See now that's an interesting number right there.

With what I'm seeing in your frame grab I think that's entirely a usable look to the material. Maybe even 4000 ISO.
Click to expand...

That is just RG3/RC3

Absolutely no other adjustments, but the mentioned ISO and WB
 
outstanding! And uncomfortable at the same time. I was expecting the blonde girl to start pulling her fingernails out :)
Love the staggered/ratcheted focus pull at 3:09.

On a tech note, amazing highlight detail in the linear snapshot. I have to watch this and read all your posts a few more times, great info here. thanks Gunelik!
 
G,

Where you able to quantify specifically how many more stops we gain in lowlight with the new sensor? I've heard ranges from two to three commonly. Could it be as little as one? Or as much as four? This is an exact, measurable number, correct?
 
What is measurable in a scientific way, with the right tools, is "if the camera sees light at lightinitensity x".

Now, I do not have such tools. And that was not the focus of what I did.

What is not measurable, is if you find those stops useable or not.

Also I did actually NOT record a side-by side, and I do not have the camera anymore. And as mentioned a couple of times;
I think the differense is significant, and I think you can get a good hunch at the difference through the last sets of breakdown images I have posted, still THAT was not what made me go into Dragon-love.
Guess it is part of it.
But it is more about the full feel of the cam.
 
Karim_Nassar said:
really beautiful how smooth the highlight roll off and tonality transitions are
Click to expand...


Yup.

I think it is a bit undercommunicated that this is not "only" a sensor-upgrade, but that most of the image-chain and boards and processes are "all new".

You basically get a whole new camera and image-chain for 9500$.
THAT is kinda hard to get when RED is talking about a sensor upgrade. Comparing this to the RED1 sensor upgrade program, is unfair to the Dragon.

In all practical image ways, it is an all new camera.
Just better.
 
Thanks.

there is actually a lot of latitude info in the shots I have posted... But I will post some more with histograms etc so you get a better idea of the immense stretchability in these files...

Time... :)
 
Hi,

Yes, there is always a lot of detail hidden in those strong .r3d files of MX. I just love there metadata. So, i could imagine what we could pull out of those Dragon footages while we Grade.
If you could post share some Histograms that would be wonferful.

Thanks.
 
OK.

Comming up.

Dragons stretchability... (That would in most peoples wordings translate to lowlight sensitivity...)

As long as there is "something" in there, even under weird lights:

1267222_10151891665785126_1507004171_o.jpg


Still using the same frame, but showing it off from 320 - 12800 with auto WB and Linear/RG3/RLF

To me, at least, this is very informative as to
Latitude
Skintones
Noise
WB capacity.

Here we go...
 
@ 320 (which still seems to be reference/zero ISO

Linear WBed

1267211_10151891669630126_1562937897_o.jpg


1277603_10151891669585126_876794115_o.jpg


RG3
1277917_10151891670165126_2071545250_o.jpg


921574_10151891670185126_1481178700_o.jpg



RLF
1237330_10151891670180126_957059760_o.jpg


1268651_10151891670295126_687540269_o.jpg


Some of the point of going through all these developments of the same frame, is to eliminate jpg-compression noise/artefacts in the examples.

Do NOT complain about noise until I have all the examples up, please... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top