The toe and the shoulder Dragon DR

[David Battistella]

I don't think anyone is wrong in this thread.

To have a V1 V2 choice is a good thing. So much so, that this is becoming part of the whole RED ecosystem in the form of an interchangeable solution (which some would find problematic but I like having the option).

So, the whole "one is shit, one is good" thing gets kinda boring. It's also passionately argued but I'm more into employing strategies for each since they'll probably be upon us soon (I don't know that, I go by what I have read here) and it would be nice to have some good reading on how people have employed both.

so I just kinda was sharing a few early impressions about some early experiences. The images are great and the lowlight thing has not troubled me as much has it has others, that is not discounting others concerns, I know they are real.

Battistella

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

To have a V1 V2 choice is a good thing.

David, I doubt that this a viable way for the vast majority of professional camera crews. You don't want to change OLPF on set. Red's Epic, the workflow, the firmware is already close to be over-engineered. Not to start an Alexa/Epic discussion, but the reproducibility, the easy approach, the possibility not to read the manual before shooting is something we all like. Now add a set of OLPFs to the mix of different ISOs vs RAW approach, DEB, RedCine, different colour sciences, endless gamma curves, debayer settings, SDKs builds, WYSIWYG, custom LUTs etc.... Things get hardcore complicated and Red finally becomes the camera system for the super-nerds.

Personally I'm very happy how thing are. If I had a wish booting time could be vastly improved.

But back to your thread: Low-light capabilities don't generate necessarily nice pictures. They only reduce production cost even further down for already under-financed low budget films. Like the Alexa, the Epic is a camera for professional camera crews and filmmakers. DR is important, resolution matters and colour is king. Real ISO 500 is good enough for the majority of us.

Interesting that there are so many de-noising threads here on the forums. Neat video seems to be a must for Red users. I never used any de-noising in any of my Red originated projects since 2008. IMHO, there is a fundamental misconception between a certain user group and for what kind of production Red cameras are meant for. But to be fair, the announcement that the Dragon sensor can be rated at ISO 2000 set the bar obviously too high. Californian optimism, haha!

Hans

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Hans.
I think you have a few good points.

Especially I think it is good to point put that you don't have to think and do very elaborate stuff to get a variety of good image-types out of the Dragon.
Arri were really smart drilling the "point-shoot-post" message on the Alexa.

I don't really think it's an "easier system" at all. They have more similarities than differences.
But perception is king.

And the more I know of the cameras, the more simplistic my approach becomes.
Maybe there is an irony in there, but to me it comes down to trust and experience.

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Feed the Dragon with light and you get superb pictures. I set the ISO to 400. 250 is super clean. 800 a tad to rough, especially when grinding on the edge.

I mostly do narrative work and have found similar conclusions. My two cents:

OLPF v2 has great, even terrific latitude, and great colors & skin tones… if your exposures are rich. For night landscapes, city streets, low-light work in general, the camera suffers a lot from the loss of light caused by this OLPF and you must be very careful with your blacks. Somehow, I find it was easier to hold the highlights with MX than shadows with Dragon. With MX I was used to set the camera to 400 ISO for night scenes and work around T/2.8 in controlled environments, and I knew that I could gain at least another full stop (800 ISO) in case that I needed more depth or luminosity, or if I was sort of power. With Dragon, I don't feel as safe, because 400 ISO is OK if you expose right, but 800 ISO is not as clean as it used to be on MX. The film grain argument is not valid for me, even though I was trained on film, love film stocks and their look. Film grain may be acceptable, and even desirable because it may have a beautiful texture; digital has noise and it's not good looking, so if you are shooting digital and are after a grainy look, it's much better to apply film grain to your footage in post, and get the cleanest images that you can get on set.

Interchangeable OLPFs may do the job, but what we really need is a OLPF that doesn't act like a ND 0.3, while holds this great dynamic range and color rendition.

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

the reproducibility, the easy approach, the possibility not to read the manual before shooting is something we all like. Now add a set of OLPFs to the mix of different ISOs vs RAW approach, DEB, RedCine, different colour sciences, endless gamma curves, debayer settings, SDKs builds, WYSIWYG, custom LUTs etc.... Things get hardcore complicated and Red finally becomes the camera system for the super-nerds.

Once again I agree 100%. Non-owners suffer a lot with cameras that need to be studied for several hours until they can rely on them. And I'm not talking just about old-school DPs with more than three decades of experience that still miss film and dream about a full celluloid comeback. I'm talking about open minded cinematographers that shoot 200 days a year and thus, want to keep things as simple as possible. That's what they choose another camera system. Epic MX had a lot of options, and wasn't easy for most people, but it still had a good balance (user customization vs. easy of use from shoot/post/final master). Now Dragon has so many patches to fix its own problems that things can get very complicated (DEB, OLPFs, you need to be a Master of Black Shading, use it at 65F, etc, etc), even for advanced users. If you do everything right, you can get stunning results, but now everything is more complicated, when technology advances should have made it an easier process.

 

[Dunkan Wolf]

Once again I agree 100%. Non-owners suffer a lot with cameras that need to be studied for several hours until they can rely on them. And I'm not talking just about old-school DPs with more than three decades of experience that still miss film and dream about a full celluloid comeback. I'm talking about open minded cinematographers that shoot 200 days a year and thus, want to keep things as simple as possible. That's what they choose another camera system. Epic MX had a lot of options, and wasn't easy for most people, but it still had a good balance (user customization vs. easy of use from shoot/post/final master). Now Dragon has so many patches to fix its own problems that things can get very complicated (DEB, OLPFs, you need to be a Master of Black Shading, use it at 65F, etc, etc), even for advanced users. If you do everything right, you can get stunning results, but now everything is more complicated, when technology advances should have made it an easier process.

Indeed. Red really needs to step up their game and get this stuff fixed ASAP.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Once again I agree 100%. Non-owners suffer a lot with cameras that need to be studied for several hours until they can rely on them. And I'm not talking just about old-school DPs with more than three decades of experience that still miss film and dream about a full celluloid comeback. I'm talking about open minded cinematographers that shoot 200 days a year and thus, want to keep things as simple as possible. That's what they choose another camera system. Epic MX had a lot of options, and wasn't easy for most people, but it still had a good balance (user customization vs. easy of use from shoot/post/final master). Now Dragon has so many patches to fix its own problems that things can get very complicated (DEB, OLPFs, you need to be a Master of Black Shading, use it at 65F, etc, etc), even for advanced users. If you do everything right, you can get stunning results, but now everything is more complicated, when technology advances should have made it an easier process.

It is interesting how this developed.

I even agree to an extent.

But even in the days of film DPs needed to know their stock, the grain characteristics, what filters to use, to overexpose to hold more detail in the blacks, lighting ratios, etc...

Unwillingness to understand a few camera systems is simply laziness. I get that we live in an age of simplicity, where everything is bite sized and we are made to understand that less and simpler is better (thanks steve jobs). The irony is that the technology is more complicated than ever, the exact opposite to simple.

I get that the camera that strikes the right balance between simplicity and beautiful imagery will win. But there is also a clear place in the world for a customisable camera that can do pretty much what you want it to do.

 

[Elsie N]

Pssssttt... RED... in the next firmware release just make the 2000 ISO reading be actually like 500 or so. Few if any will know the difference and you will be congratulated with "o.k, that's what you promised. Thanks. NOW we have a really good camera!

 

[Christof Paul]

Pssssttt... RED... in the next firmware release just make the 2000 ISO reading be actually like 500 or so. Few if any will know the difference and you will be congratulated with "o.k, that's what you promised. Thanks. NOW we have a really good camera!

Actually, that is already a reality: I shoot mostly at 320 but that really is more like 200.

 

[Christof Paul]

David, I doubt that this a viable way for the vast majority of professional camera crews. You don't want to change OLPF on set. Red's Epic, the workflow, the firmware is already close to be over-engineered. Not to start an Alexa/Epic discussion, but the reproducibility, the easy approach, the possibility not to read the manual before shooting is something we all like. Now add a set of OLPFs to the mix of different ISOs vs RAW approach, DEB, RedCine, different colour sciences, endless gamma curves, debayer settings, SDKs builds, WYSIWYG, custom LUTs etc.... Things get hardcore complicated and Red finally becomes the camera system for the super nerds.

Hans

That probably sums up the best and the worst about red? All the control at our fingertips but maybe too many dials to turn?
there is a reason F1 cars don't have a (driver operated) clutch anymore.

 

[Christof Paul]

It is interesting how this developed.

I even agree to an extent.

But even in the days of film DPs needed to know their stock, the grain characteristics, what filters to use, to overexpose to hold more detail in the blacks, lighting ratios, etc...

Unwillingness to understand a few camera systems is simply laziness. I get that we live in an age of simplicity, where everything is bite sized and we are made to understand that less and simpler is better (thanks steve jobs). The irony is that the technology is more complicated than ever, the exact opposite to simple.

I get that the camera that strikes the right balance between simplicity and beautiful imagery will win. But there is also a clear place in the world for a customisable camera that can do pretty much what you want it to do.

We all want a camera that is customizable and all red owners are or have to be tech nerds to some degree, but I agree with Ignacio that necessary patches should not be part of or considered customization.

 

[David Battistella]

Great discussion guys.

On camera software.

I think most cameras (including something like a dvx100) has all sorts of deeper levels of control, looks and things to tweak. You can dig a bit deeper into menus to change things around. On basic sony eng cameras you can get into expert or engineering level controls. With RED it's not hidden, it's all there.

Still, it's really just about goal posts and histograms and raw view when it comes to filming and deciding how much light hits the sensor.

It's true that red is a system and that it marries DPs to thinking about post maybe a bit more than normal, and nothing is baked in which makes it even harder for a dP to retain a level of control of the final images (or looking at it from the other side give the dp even more control over the look.

Red also has a polarizing effect and a vibrant group of users talking about this stuff more than ever (and maybe also taking more pictures of a camera in the history of cameras ) so the combination puts some doubt into the zeitgeist.

There could be a split in the GUI to create a set of operator controls for on set, color temp, ISO, shutter angle, electronic iris for dsmc and leave the rest in an engineering mode than enables the full menu as it is now.

Rental houses would probably love that.

Still people pled need to know it's not all WYSIWYG so a basic understanding of deb has to be there so people know there are options. The common response is, "just split the difference and make it more sensitive". In some way that could be viewed as a compromise. So instead of a compromise there's a choice.

I dont think OLPF's will be swapped out mid day, but rather between jobs or end of day. Like everyone else I'm curious to see what pans out. One thing I can tell you is this. I thin OLPF 1 as it is right now might be a waste of time. If people really want lowlight then the lowlight OLPF should be a base ISO of about 4000. That way you really extend the range of the system. As it stand now 1 and 2 are too close and 2 maybe covers off more situations as a general purpose OLPF.

Battistella

 

[Patrick Tresch]

The swapping out on the field is IMHO a myth... Have you ever put a pinhole on the cam and looked at the dust on the Olpf?

It's really crowdy!

It's fairly easy (and not so dangerous) to clean the Olpf front but the day we could Change the Olpf who will clean the sensor?
What happens with a scratched sensor? Will warranty take it?
Pat

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

But even in the days of film DPs needed to know their stock, the grain characteristics, what filters to use, to overexpose to hold more detail in the blacks, lighting ratios, etc...

Unwillingness to understand a few camera systems is simply laziness. […] I get that the camera that strikes the right balance between simplicity and beautiful imagery will win. But there is also a clear place in the world for a customisable camera that can do pretty much what you want it to do.

I agree that there's a place for a customisable camera such as Red Epic M-X, what I don't find as useful is one that gives so many options to hide its weak points.

It's true as well that in the old (happy) days of film stocks, DPs needed to learn their stocks, but that was it and wasn't the same thing. 5247 v2 came around in 1976 and wasn't discontinued by Kodak until 1994 (John Toll talked about how much he missed the old stock when he shot "Legends of the Fall" or "Braveheart"). So 5247 lasted for about 18 years in the market. It's replacement, 5248, had similar sensitivity, probably was a bit less grainy and had different characteristics in contrast and color reproduction. But nobody was forced to learn their exposure techniques again, or if someone was used to expose for the shadows and let the highlights clip (hey, it was film and it was beautiful), no new film stock (5248, or any other film stock from Kodak, Fuji or Agfa) changed that. Some film stocks handled over or underexposure better than others, some had some tricks (Agfa XT-320 was lovely, but was known because it had to be overexposed by 2/3 or a full stop to get rich images from it), but the point is that no DP had to learn again his technique for every new stock on the market, just some (slight) differences about E.I., color reproduction, contrast and blacks. And no film stock had buttons or needed a back shade for highspeed work

With Dragon, as a DOP, now I feel that I must change my exposure strategy, and going back to what I was used when shooting 35mm stills or film: overexpose as much as possible to get a rich, fat negative, while being more careful with highlights that I was with film. This means 250-400 ISO for a clean, noiseless look. With MX, one had to be careful with his highlights, but the range was OK for most situations, you had HDRx for the tricky ones, and the noise floor was really low. The truth is that I never believed either that it was a 800 ISO camera (500 real ISO at best), but it handled low-light better than Dragon currently does, at least with the OLPF v2. With Dragon, I have found a new life to 1.4 and 1.3 lenses. As I said, I mostly do narrative work, but I like to shoot nights with my key lights at 15-20 footcandles and many times I use no fill and let most of the frame go black. I just can't do that anymore and still get noiseless results, unless I double the light levels or open up the lens at the expense of depth of field and focus. Hey, that's my style, what now I'am used to do for years, looks good (I think) and makes me feel confident. What do you think guys that's easier for me? To change my style or choose a camera system that now suits it better? It's not me the one who has changed his approach, it's the camera that I own that's not as light sensitive as it used to be.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

HM.

I haven't A/B'ed v2 vs MX, but v1 was more sensitive downwards AND upwards than Epic
The way it feels (and that suits the 1.3 stop move upwards number being thrown about) Dragon should be about EQUAL to the MX in the bottom and gain 1.3 more stops in the top.

NOW I haven't tested for this, but the theory suits what it feels like.

Have anyone really tested this in a controlled manner?

Have Dragon and Epic here and have a real hard time seeing when I'd pick the Epic if the Dragon is free to use...

 

[Björn Benckert]

HM.

I haven't A/B'ed v2 vs MX, but v1 was more sensitive downwards AND upwards than Epic
The way it feels (and that suits the 1.3 stop move upwards number being thrown about) Dragon should be about EQUAL to the MX in the bottom and gain 1.3 more stops in the top.

NOW I haven't tested for this, but the theory suits what it feels like.

Have anyone really tested this in a controlled manner?

Have Dragon and Epic here and have a real hard time seeing when I'd pick the Epic if the Dragon is free to use...

I have not done any scientific tests but I agree with you.

Even though I think the new olpf actually still beats the MX on the low end as the noise looks different as it's different compression / larger sensor / more pixels, I find that lowlight dragon olpf2 reach a little deeper into the blacks then MX but not by much. I loved olpf1 when I had it. the blacks really never clipped on it. And I will for sure get one when the swap thing comes out. Personally I don't mind the blobs that much and I think it's more than possible to work around them but clients would complain and I'm happy the second olpf is out that is clean even though it eats a considerable amount of light. I think 1.3 stops is not an underestimate.

 

[David Battistella]

Looking at a lot of the same scenes I shot on MX and Dragon V2 (all very much available light, fast lenses, etc. I would take the Dragon (and I really am not saying that because I have the Dragon). In the same dimly lit spaces, pixel peeping the noise is different (fine grained on dragon and blotchy on MX) but the noise floor is about the same. I can push the Dragon R3D a bit farther (probably because of how the compression is different on Dragon) Rolloff on the Dragon is smoother and gradients going toward the highlights are nicer. Color, etc, Dragon is clearly better.

Just a side note. I watched TAKEN the other night (yes, i love a good little action flick now and again) and I was noticing just how much detail there was in some of the night scenes. I know I can blame compression and all sorts of things, but I have to say, most of the stuff in Paris at night just got graded down to black and quite crushed as well. Rightly so as well as a story choice as the focus stays on the characters and the action. I don't know what that was shot on, but it strikes me that a clean 6400 ISO might not have fit the bill. I know that there are situations that one would want that though.

Battistella

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Looking at a lot of the same scenes I shot on MX and Dragon V2 (all very much available light, fast lenses, etc. I would take the Dragon (and I really am not saying that because I have the Dragon). In the same dimly lit spaces, pixel peeping the noise is different (fine grained on dragon and blotchy on MX) but the noise floor is about the same. I can push the Dragon R3D a bit farther (probably because of how the compression is different on Dragon) Rolloff on the Dragon is smoother and gradients going toward the highlights are nicer. Color, etc, Dragon is clearly better.

I spent a few days with my Epic Dragon lately and now sit in the post. This what I find compared to MX:

1. the sensitivity is about the same

2. 5kHD is a wonderful format!

3. the DR is visibly better in the highlights

4. colour science is better and more accurate

5. Noise is a non-issue


Dragon delivers plenty of power. If someone is looking for a night vision device don't step by at Red or Arri.

Hans

 

[David Battistella]

I started this thread because I am sitting in post right now.

Seeing much of the same. Someone might ask if the upgrade is worth it? It is.

Battistella

 

[Bob Gundu]

I also feel the sensitivity on the low end are equal or slightly better than MX. Top end... Forget about it... Dragon rules.