Why Dragon has MUCH less noise in shadows - and simple desc. of Dragon superiority

[Robert Ruffo New]

MX gave you two or so more stops at the low end over M.

Dragon now addresses the need for more stops at the high end.

Even though the sensitivity is not drastically better, it means that in practice your shots will be less noisy in the darks because you are free to open up the iris more, remove ND, etc. to "shoot brighter". By doing this, you will be feeding lots of light to the low end more often, as Dragon leaves you much more free of worry about clipping the high end.

This will save you time on set: Less worry about ND-ing lights, or adding ND to the lens.

Color is improved (particularly spectral response to skin) across the range and less noisy blacks also means more precise colors in the darks, not just less grain.

As an added bonus, IR contamination issues are less of a worry/issue.

So… Dragon in a nutshell, to convince your business partners and/or wife that $10K is a good investment.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

In a digital sensor I prefer to think about the signal to noise ratio rather than nominal ISO or technically measured DR. Obviously some people are much more tolerant of the digital noise signature than others. There is also a conditioning factor and some wetware processing factors.

Per Brian Guckian:
The brain integrates detail in projected film over several cumulative frames rather than from a single frame. The total resolution of motion picture film is significantly greater therefore than the resolution of a single frame. Far from being a hindrance, film grain is felt to aid in the perception of image detail, by way of the phenomenon of stochastic resonance – small amounts of image noise stimulate the human visual system and allow it to perceive more, rather than less, detail. The random distribution of grain both within each frame, and across consecutive frames, contributes greatly to the richness of picture information contained on motion picture film.

My takeaway is that when using digital sensors you need to consider how much noise suits the material/style and whether there is time/budget for noise reduction. In addition there are several tools of varying quality for adding film grain to digital assets if so desired, but AFAIK you need mucho processing power and time to do it well.

Cheers - #19

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Most of the time I like dithering effect of film grain and "cinematic noise" or grain-like noise of modern digital sensors. I really dig F65's raw noise (often after slight chroma NR pass) and Dragon's even better, from what I've seen. Some times you want clean pristine images, other times with a bit of texture it looks even tastier.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Far from being a hindrance, film grain is felt to aid in the perception of image detail, by way of the phenomenon of stochastic resonance – small amounts of image noise stimulate the human visual system and allow it to perceive more, rather than less, detail. The random distribution of grain both within each frame, and across consecutive frames, contributes greatly to the richness of picture information contained on motion picture film.

I am not a neuroscientist, but my experience from the world of audio argues that such use of "noise" can have deleterious effects as well. The auditory system tends to rate louder sounds as better, in A|B comparisons. But when sound is mixed to sound louder, Louder, LOUDER, ***LOUDER***. it seriously degrades both the instant quality of the sound and it also has the effect of burning out the very attention that one sought to achieve. Thus it is important to make the argument about the value of noise not in a super-short A|B perceptual context, but in a long-form context that measures overall satisfaction with the result. An interesting experiment would be to master the same movie two different ways, with similar scenes going one way or another, and then asking people to rate how they liked both the over all experience and to rate the best and worst parts of certain scenes. That would be more valuable that who can pick out a specific detail in a short test, which, over time, burns out one's valuable attention to everything else.

 

[Antony Newman]

I think Highly Sensitive People (HSPs) have become proficient in extracting additional meaning and emotion from both visual grain and audio distortions.


I also think that during the Fixational (rapid & small) eye moment that intersperse our move cognitive slow moves around an image (ie the Saccadic Eye Movements) - that we undergo a sense of 'relaxing softness' of the image when luma noise randomly reduces the intensity of pixels.


Audio distortion and high-frequency Stochastic Resonance in audio have, in my opinion, a markedly different effect than video.


Audio distortion is used in our determination of how loud a signal is. We can be fooled into thinking a sound is loud, but are fatigued heavily by the part of the brain that attempts to reconstruct the signal that we believe we should hearing.


HF noise, again in my opinion, helps soothe the dynamic change in audio complexity (by never letting the signals become too simple).


AJ

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Anthony, I think you may be right about HSPs.

Very interesting post. Have you read the Highly Sensitive Person? Amazing book that really helped me understand myself and some of my friends and family members quite a bit.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Per Brian Guckian:
The brain integrates detail in projected film over several cumulative frames rather than from a single frame. The total resolution of motion picture film is significantly greater therefore than the resolution of a single frame. Far from being a hindrance, film grain is felt to aid in the perception of image detail, by way of the phenomenon of stochastic resonance – small amounts of image noise stimulate the human visual system and allow it to perceive more, rather than less, detail. The random distribution of grain both within each frame, and across consecutive frames, contributes greatly to the richness of picture information contained on motion picture film.

My colleagues and I share the same findings.

What is important to add is that this information is differently experienced than information coming from same frame.

I would say that because of this film stimulates more the imaginative part of the brain while crystal clear UHD stimulates more the perceptive one, leaving less for imagination, speaking about subtle levels, of course. I would also say that Aaton vibrating sensor concept was chosen with these premises in mind.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

I would also say that Aaton vibrating sensor concept was chosen with these premises in mind.

Yeah, that was simply BRILLIANT!!!

 

[Dan Kanes]

Me "I think I've just been diagnosed with HSP"

My wife " WHAT!?!"

Me "You may have it too, but it's not as bad as it sounds."

 

[Elsie N]

Me "I think I've just been diagnosed with HSP"

My wife " WHAT!?!"

Me "You may have it too, but it's not as bad as it sounds."

I think I've recently acquired HSP. This has been a cold winter and I've been highly sensitized to the cold, to the point I'm am freezing my ass off.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Yeah, that was simply BRILLIANT!!!

Yeah, sad how we never got to make pictures with that system.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I think I've recently acquired HSP. This has been a cold winter and I've been highly sensitized to the cold, to the point I'm am freezing my ass off.

Laugh all you like, but in show business HSP have particular strength and power while being insensitive keeps you at the bottom of the food chain.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Laugh all you like, but in show business HSP have particular strength and power while being insensitive keeps you at the bottom of the food chain.

Well the notion and abbreviation is a bit silly, so Elsie's comment seems like a nice touch and most likely directed at the notion, not you. Not to be taken personally.



For anyone interested, the explanation of why is it silly (and not particulary beneficial in perceiving people) follows below.








That would be yet another needless classification, bombarding the mind of an individual, overthinking the fundamentals, over-generalizing the particulars, and spamming the knowledge base of society.

Any type of talent is based on higher sensitivity/sensibility towards a particular activity/sensation. Some sensitivites are developed sooner, some later. The more the individual perpetuates the activity the more the related sensitivity gets developed. It can manifest in positive and negative ways, depending on direction, intensity and control, positive being skills, negative being obsessions, illnesses etc.

It is common and normal and self explanatory. No need for specific clasification and putting labels on people.
A good editor has "high sensitivity" to rythm, music and moving content, similar to a good director.
A good cinematographer has "high sensitivity" to color, light and visual order, similar to a colorist or a painter or a photographer or a designer.
Colorist, cinematographer, director and editor all have "higher sensibility" to emotion and context coming from a moving imagery.
A dancer has "high sensitivity" to rythm, space, orientation, body, motion etc.
A wood sculptor has "high sensitivity" to touch and material texture, hand muscles motion and physical forces which affect shaping the wood.

Most people have "high sensitivity" to something, with proportional "low sensitivity" to something else. That is one of the many basis of diversity in a wide spectrum of human existence.

One person's higher sensitivity towards one or group of similar types of sensations does not bring nor guarantee the higher sensitivities towards many others, nor does it bring or guarantee the development of skills and character values which may use the full potential of that type of sensitivity.

As it is often the case, categorizing and perceiving people through any label is most likely to inherit the limitations of that label, which fails to capture the far greater complexity, potential and brilliance of a Human Being.

Long jump athlete is a part of ELP (Explosiveness Legged People). Not to be confused with basket ball, handball or a soccer players who are a part of ESLP (Explosiveness and Stamina Legged People). Not to confused with SELP (Strength and Explosiveness Legged People) such as rugby/american football players. Not to be confused with SSLP (Stamina and Strength Legged People) which are lumberjacks etc. or SLP (Stamina Legged People) which are marathon runners.

Next we are off to hand type categorisation.


In most cases labels are better left for things, not humans.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Just for the record, I wasn't making fun of anyone - just a little levity, and I do have it - btw.

No need to be sensitive ​about it

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Just for the record, I wasn't making fun of anyone - just a little levity, and I do have it - btw.

No need to be sensitive ​about it

Ha ha ha

 

[Antony Newman]

I know people moved to tears and laughter - by live music that merely captivates other; People whose empathetic abilities give deep insight into the suffering of people and happiness of those around them - and this modulate their own state like a proximal barometer.


But these are not sociopaths or psychopath - but people, who I believe, have this whirring part of their mind that pre-processes certain sensory data before accepting it - especially externally. Might seem to be timid or shy but are a deluge of ideas if you have their trust.


When you teaching gifted or even autistic children, understanding their 'interface' and sensory perception is key.


AJ


PS : Thankyou for the book suggestion.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I know people moved to tears and laughter - by live music that merely captivates other; People whose empathetic abilities give deep insight into the suffering of people and happiness of those around them - and this modulate their own state like a proximal barometer.


But these are not sociopaths or psychopath - but people, who I believe, have this whirring part of their mind that pre-processes certain sensory data before accepting it - especially externally. Might seem to be timid or shy but are a deluge of ideas if you have their trust.


When you teaching gifted or even autistic children, understanding their 'interface' and sensory perception is key.


AJ


PS : Thankyou for the book suggestion.

If you lived in any of the three cities we hop between I would feel compelled to ask you out for coffee and a long discussion.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would say that because of this film stimulates more the imaginative part of the brain while crystal clear UHD stimulates more the perceptive one, leaving less for imagination, speaking about subtle levels, of course. I would also say that Aaton vibrating sensor concept was chosen with these premises in mind.

I have my own theory on noise. It's similar but less about neural stimulation and more about the signal authentically being "more detailed".

If I show you noise you will say "wow that's a lot of detail!" It is a lot of detail, although it's not meaningful detail. Still if I overlay a lace pattern on an image you will say "weird there is lace on top of this image" but you'll also say "it's very sharp". Your brain subconsciously knows it's taking in a lot of detail. So it labels the image "highly detailed" even if it's a flat white wall. Maybe there is a neurological argument from increasing the 'noise floor' of our brain's signal processors but I think the explanation is far simpler: a noisy image is a sharp image. Sharp nonsense, but still sharp.

If you throw a noisy image into a edge detection algorithm it'll tell you you have a super sharp image.... and it's right!

Now when it comes to my camera... I do not want noise. Noise can be added later very easily, but it's a PITA to remove.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I have my own theory on noise. It's similar but less about neural stimulation and more about the signal authentically being "more detailed".

If I show you noise you will say "wow that's a lot of detail!" It is a lot of detail, although it's not meaningful detail. Still if I overlay a lace pattern on an image you will say "weird there is lace on top of this image" but you'll also say "it's very sharp". Your brain subconsciously knows it's taking in a lot of detail. So it labels the image "highly detailed" even if it's a flat white wall. Maybe there is a neurological argument from increasing the 'noise floor' of our brain's signal processors but I think the explanation is far simpler: a noisy image is a sharp image. Sharp nonsense, but still sharp.

If you throw a noisy image into a edge detection algorithm it'll tell you you have a super sharp image.... and it's right!

My notion was related to film's captured amount of detail in combination with differing frames. Every frame has different structure subtly varying detail, and mind combines the different, compared to UHD lower detailed images into one impression.

Show mind less, it imagines more, show it more, it imagines less. Because it doesn't have to imagine what is served on a platter. This is scientific fact and has been proven with numerous tests conducted by measuring different types of brain activities, and it's pretty logical as well. This is why in realms of fiction, where the imagination of the viewer is the key factor in viewer's participation "less" can be "more" and "more" can easily lead to "less". This notion was less related to film grain although it also has an effect.

A good friend and a cinematographer once shared with me the finding that one of the keys of good lighting was knowing what to remove, not just what to add. This has been passed on to him from an excellent tutor, a well known ASC cinematographer. I would say that the same notion can be applied in many elements of visual storytelling and that these days many filmmakers seem to be obsessed with "adding" instead of "removing", leaving little to the imagination of the viewer while bombarding his mind with redundant details. Because it is easier to polish the surface than envision and capture the essence.

Regarding your findings and conclusions I agree, and I see sufficient basis for those to be more than just a theory.
I will assume that your wording "you/yours" is just a figure of speech referring to the impressions of the viewers in general. In my case the differentiation between certain types of picture elements is occupational requirement/outcome.

I would add to your observation that the noise/grain/texture adds to the impression of "sharpness" not only due to elements of that texture but also due to defined plane of focus, making a subliminal surface/canvas for the viewer. This is where it might be useful to expand terminology in cinematic arts and sciences, where the viewer's perception and definition of the canvas is specific picture factor and another creative choice for the storyteller.

 

[Elsie N]

Just for the record, I wasn't making fun of anyone - just a little levity, and I do have it - btw.

No need to be sensitive ​about it

Same here.

Laugh all you like, but in show business HSP have particular strength and power while being insensitive keeps you at the bottom of the food chain.

Like Dan, I was just making a joke. It really has been cold here and I've really been freezing my ass off.

But I can see where you thought either of us were poking fun at you. Sorry... Old Man Winter trumps sensitivity in this case.